Quote:
Originally Posted by makman94
.dat files ? what have .dat files to do here? if you are trying to say that then the masts values can be adjusted without 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod' ,i am afraid that it will need the same hard work becuase ,as Rubini had informed me,not all the ships(even if they belong to the same type) are the same effected of 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod'
and just for the last ,why not simply run first the 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod' ?
where is the big deal?
edit: and why not to give this energy in helping to finish THIS attempt ? and then ,if a formula is found,all the ships will be adjusted very soon without the 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod'.
|
Whoops, they (Rubini's files) are appearantly .sim files that contain the modified draught setting. My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I automatically connect that S3D program with .dat files. Don't know why as it can read and modify the whole lot.
I am tempted to try the buoyancy and draught modifications, because in GWX3 (which I installed for the 1st time yesterday) ships do seem to bob around like rubber ducks in a bathtub. It is probably an improvement to install the mod, but with all the diversity of mods one must be carefull they don't conflict with others. Therefore people are hesitant to try new stuf every time. Also, sometimes the side-effect are a deal-breaker. And that is often a personal opinion. I am not saying this mod (with your adjustments) are the same. But you asked why not. That's my answer. People are creatures of habbit and often want to keep the things they have. I definately do.
Your solution of measuring each ship in a mission is probably the right way to do it. If it is a cumbersome way. And it makes this a sensible value since it is a valid height as measured by the attackscope. Not some abstract number because a formula says it is. However basing these values on a derivative of GWX (as Rubini's mod is) and then converting them back to 'normal' GWX mastheights is really the wrong way around. As it can also add up the inaccuracies of measurement and corrections made. But if you insist on completing your measurements with the bouyancy and draught modifications enabled, then that's the way it is. And not wanting to redo the same work I started thinking of ways to simplify the modification back to stock, even if there are chances of inaccuracies. If in the original GWX3 file is a value that tells how deep the keel is (or some sort of center-of-gravity), and in Rubini's file there is a different value there, then the difference should tell how much your mast value should be 'corrected back'. This searching through the .val files (or wherever it is stored) may have to be done for each file Rubini modified, but I suspect it takes less time than your 'mission measurement' approach.
I hope that clear it up as I have to go.