Could you upload to someplace that dosn't require logging in.

Sub Chaser Error
 

I noticed one error - the Minesweeper is listed as a type 13 instead of the Sub Chaser. There is a type 13 subchaser (which is clearly the one included in SHIV), although there was also a type W13 Japanese Minesweeper in RL. However, the one in the game looks generic to me. (Both ships are given generic names in SHIV, but the Sub Chaser is definitely an actual type 13).

Minesweeper No.13 is correct in the manual (v3 Imperial), it is exactly the same ship that's in the developers printed manual (included in the collector's edition). Here's her data (she looks clearly different that the actual submarine chaser):

Class: No.13 Class
Type: Minesweeper
Tonnage: 511 tons
Speed: 20 knots
Length: 72.1m
Width: 7.6m
Height: 25.5m
Draft: 1.85

Type 13
 

I think the dev team must have made a mistake then - the Minesweeper in the game does not look like the RL Type W13, and the Sub Chaser in the game is the RL Type CH13. Here are drawings of both Type 13 Sub Chasers and Minesweepers:

* Just to point out, in case someone hasn't noticed this; in RL there was both a Type 13 Sub Chaser and Type 13 Minesweeper. The in-game Sub Chaser is not given a name (although it appears to be a Type 13), and the in-game Minesweeper is indicated to be a Type 13 (although it does not really look like one to me).

Type 13 Sub Chaser:

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/sp/img/rys-ch13.jpg

Type 13 Minesweeper:

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/mnl/img/rys-w13.gif

These are the names from Names.cfg

MSNO13=Minesweeper
SCSubchaser=Subchaser

Type 13 as was

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/3070/type13rc7.jpg

Can you post an ingame shot of the MSN013 AG ?

Type 13s?
 

@ Down and Out - No, my laptop won't run the game so I can't play it until I finally go home next week.:cry: But it looks like that is indeed a Type 13 - it must be a different variant than the one I posted. Or the picture I posted might be inaccurate.

I should note that the in-game Sub Chaser does appear to be a Type 13 (in its own category) though, despite the absence of any class name provided therein.

Anyway, here is the ID Image for the Minesweeper:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/7...no13silfe5.png

Not feeling to good about the draft of the large composite freighter. Just shot a torp and a depth of 26 feet and it went right under amidships. Sea state was like glass.

Scoochy, are you using Krupp's JP Ship Dimension Fix?

I can't seem to find any Jap Sub Chaser that fits the data given for the generic Medium Sub Chaser in the game. It seems to be longer, wider and heavier than any of th CH types I have been able to find data on. It is not a CH-13 - the RL boat was shorter and didn't have the extra superstructure ahead of the bridge.

Is this the developer's fantasy composite?

Roads88, as far as I know, Speedy Share does not require a login for files up to 24 MB in size. My manual is 1.12 MB so it shouldn't require a login to download.

Thought I was. Forgot to enable that one from JSGME. Lemme go try that aga in....:oops:

The draught values are still off, even they are correct ones for each ship. "It's in the game".

The Ship Dimension mod- the goal was to fix all values- doesen't manage to make use of the corrected draught values implemented in it. If I remember correctly, I had to use a depth of 9.5 meters ( 31.2 feet) to get a mag under her. Even with her correct draught value of 8.3 meters (27.2 feet), she doesen't swim in that depth. Basically, all the dimension are correct, ships just swim at different depths than the manual say. I haven't found a way to fix this. On the other side, ships rarely swim all the time in the same exact depth. Freighters especially. But I think this is not any intentionally added feature, because the values are constant. They seem to be plain wrong. The fact, that when we get the right distance to target (= right ship height), we don't have correct draughts. There is right amount of ship showing above the surface, but wrong below it.

I have abandoned the use of magnetics, and use contact exploders only. I call it "Forced simulation" :p US mags weren't that reliable anyway. Dimension mod gives you the correct ranges to targets, so using contacts give you better results that using mag's. Plus there is always a possibility, that the torp runs deeper than you set.

Ranges look much better post mod, I will agree with that. But this whole draft issue is really starting to bug me. 6 times now I have fired a mag at this Large Composite, and each time it slips right under the keel by 3-4 feet.

I think I am also going to have to go to contact only. Sad really. In a sim where numbers and info mean so much, and to mess it up so bad is beyond me. This forum will hopefully be the saving grace.

Well, to be honest, if the magnetic exploders worked like they suppose to, they would've been explode in those cases. So that is not an draught issue, but something else.

Well, it led me to look into something.

Assuming that the mast heights are correct, we can use them as a scale of sorts for measuring other parts of the ship.

For Example:

I took 2 snapshots of a large composite freighter, one above the waterline, and one below. Same distance and marginal point of view difference.

Cutting the below the waterline part of the ship, and pasting it onto the above waterline shot gave me a total view of the ship, from the top of the mast, to the bottom of the keel.

Now, using the amst height as a ruler, I cut the picture into a strip from the top of the mast, to the bottom of the keel and reseized constraining proportions. The mast is approx. 120 feet tall, so I resized the image to 120cm in height.

Now I have a full ship image where 1cm = 1 foot. Using this, I can measure how many cm of the hull is below the waterline. In this case it cam to 21cm equaling a 21 foot draft.


Quite interesting I must say. So I ran to the same convoy I have been plaguing with my save game and set the torp to 21 feet and what do you know, popped it right on the bottom of the hull.