Should I use battery fix with NYGM 2.0?
 

Title tells it.



Greetings,

-RC-

No. It's not realistic.

Yea, that's why it's been removed. Observer had led quite a long discussion on the submarine batteries, and it was decided that the way the fix worked was not really true to reality.

There's definitely a lot of things about batteries and their problems that aren't modeled in SHIII, but the range/recharge times are more or less correct.

You guys went back to the default battery settings?

*shrug* my personal opinion was that the default batteries were waaay too much. You could take an ix boat, run it at 3 kts for 48 hours before running the bat down. With the bat fix inplace, thats more like 20 hours of 3kt running, or closer to 40ish hours at 2kts.

Since I made the original Real Battery Life Mod (AKA Advanced NASA Battery Fix), I tend to disagree. I had a long and constructive discussion with Observer 1-2 months ago, but we didn't reach a mutual understanding.

-Observer says that the battery should be considered empty when @ 10% power
-I say that the battery is empty when @ 0% (when the message "Empty Battery!" appears)

But the sub is still going some knots between 10% and 0% (and it still drifts for many hours after 0% - stock "feature").

I'm not going to go over this argument again, but consider also that we are talking about nominal amp-hours not fatigued batteries after long usage during the war (much less than nominal). IMHO this game is too easy with the batteries. The stock game ranges are un-realistic IMHO. BTW, they are wrong too. I have put all my arguments here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=90269

But NYGM is your mod. Your call. I'm just stating an opinion.

Remember AOD, guys!

Frankly, I have to acknowledge that gameplay-wise, VonHelshing's fix is a bit more interesting, in the sense that it actually makes battery power a consideration. It might, of course, be a different ball game now with the escorts chasing you longer, but so far as I can see - battery power is really not a factor under the default model. It is a factor under your model, on the other hand. I'll reserve judgement on how realistic it is, but I think Observer's points were very good on this.

Anyway, a matter of choice :)

Just to make this perfectly clear: batteries are never "empty" unless you dump out all of the sulfuric acid, and remove the lead and lead oxide plates from every cell. Batteries carry electrical charge. They are either charging or discharging (they could be doing neither, but that's unlikely to happen given the way they are connected). Submarine batteries can even be overcharged. In fact, it's a good thing every now and then.

Semantics aside however, reducing the submerged range in SH3 is not the way to fix the battery modeling. This fix has exactly the same problem as stock in that once the technically incorrect "Battery Empty" message appears, you can still drift for hundreds of kilometers at ~1 knot. This is a basic error in the programming of the SH3 batteries. The best behavior would be to secure the electric engines when the battery only has 10% charge remaining (assuming the tactical situation permits).

There are a whole slew of technical reasons why it should be at this charge level, mostly revolving around low individual cell voltages subsequently causing the other battery cells to "charge" this cell resulting in cell overheating, the possibility of fire, hydrogen gas production, and irreparable battery damage. A short time would be fine (i.e. escaping an escort where if you don't ruin the battery it's going to the bottom of the ocean anyhow, so who cares). The point is, it's technically possible to run the battery in excess of nominal amp-hr discharge, however you run the risk of damaging the battery (as outlined above), or damaging the electric motors, provided there is even enough current to make them turn (this is always the case in SH3).

The other problem with the reduced range is the negative impact on battery charging times. By reducing the submerged range in SH3, the battery charging time is reduced by an amount proportional to the reduced range. For example, if the default underwater range is 80 nautical miles, and the "new" submerged range is 54 nautical miles, battery charging time is reduced by 33%. This results in the original battery charging times of 6 hours now only taking 4 hours.

Now if the underwater ranges are wrong, that's a separate issue that needs to be fixed. I've done a bit of modeling based on the various nominal battery capacities and electric and diesel engine horsepower ratings, but perhaps it needs to be revisited.

I'm just stating the technical reality of the situation. There is no conversion error in SH3.

before or after an battery up-grade?

HUH! :o
It looks like I made a fire...
I just wanted to find out if there is something done with batteries in NYGM, because the issue is not mentioned in the manual.
I used the fix with RuB, so I'm familiar with advantages / disadvantages of the mod. Battery model in SHIII is what it is and you have to make your choice. Personally I see the underwater range as primary thing. Not only that you can have longer periods submerged at slow speed, but you can actually have a pretty long attack runs with at high speed and this also has a huge affect to your tactics. I still can remember my first submerged attack with stock batteries. I decided to catch a lone merchant from a distance, the attack was easy but I was surprised I still got more than 50 % power left in batteries after the situation was over.

Thank you for your replies!


-RC-

Personally, I prefer the danger of reduced range/staying power, and am willing to accept that I get a few (2-10) knots further each night because charging takes less time than it should.

There is nothing that can currently be done about how it acts when its empty, however you define empty, so to me it is not relevant to the specific question, or to the validity of the mod, even if it is a factor in the ideal scenario. Total wash - empty either way.

So its fairly simple - if you want reduced range -and- charging times, apply the patch. Sometimes you just have to work with what you have on hand.

Ubones wrote:
That's right. And I too really like more the reduced range and don't see the recharging to be so big problem. 4 - 6 hours... Well, later in the war this has also more "punch".

-RC-

I feel like I am beating my head against the wall. I will continue to repeat myself until it finally catches on. Batteries are NOT empty - they are in some state of charge/discharge.:damn:

Why do people think the reduced range is correct? Because it makes it harder? Because it's similar to what you saw in another game? What makes you think the other game was right? Where is the technical justification for the correctness of the reduced range suggested in this "patch that's not a patch"? I have offered technical reasons why the reduced range is not correct. I can offer more technical reasons. I would like to see the technical reasons justifying the reduced range as it has been implemented in this "patch", how it is correct and how does it correctly simulate battery discharge and electric engine operation, as well as the charging on the diesel.

If you want a harder game with reduced ranges, don't upgrade your battery. Simple.

I think the real problem is the overly generous build up rate of C02. I just haven't figured out how to solve that problem yet.

Ive always felt theres a point where historical and technical detail accuracy must give way for what acutally works. In terms of game design, the question i feel one should be asking, is not are these batteries historicially accurate, the question really is:

Is battery capacity at an approrpiate level of concern to the player? Is it an issue which effects the players decisions? Should it be a factor that effects decision making?

I won't deny that it's an important aspect to make sure the battery works right within the framework of the overall experience. The thing that bothers me about this is that it is based on some arbitrary text message with no basis in reality. Even in the best simulations, there comes a point where the game can't do everything for the player, and the player must follow a set of rules to ensure the correct experience is achieved if historical reproduction is the goal.

Is the battery a concern? For those who choose to use TW 2.0 it may be now due to the way escorts behave. I submit we may not really know because most people haven't used it long enough to find out. I also submit the real problem is CO2 buildup rate. Should submerged range be used (via battery life) as a proxy to create the appropriate level of concern with the player? Only if the other problems are unsolvable. At this point there's little that has proven to be completely unsolvable in SH3. With that said, I just had an idea (2 actually) on a possible way to address the battery and CO2 issue.

1. Everyone hates imposed rules.

2. The correct experience is totally subjective.

3. Historical reproduction is an exercise in self-deception. It can never totally avoid being contemporary spin on historical events. The old saw about observing something changing it comes to mind...

So fooey on that whole statement. What I really want to say is...

Please try to accept the things (and people) you can not change.

And Thanks for all you do. :D