If a sim is hard, it is realistic? NO. I hate the sensor programming.

Catfish · 05-19-08, 10:04 AM

Hello,
just have to vent a bit. After i said a thousand times the game is much too hard i made another similar experience again.

I have GWX2.0, with 2.1, and OLCE2, with the 1.2.5 Gui installed.

Yes i know the sensors in SH3 are screwed up, bad programming, one interacts with another etc. etc. So no we can not change the sensors for good, much too complicated, i do not know what i ask for. It seems we can only make them harder and more difficult. Ahaa.

Here goes:
It is still late 1939, black night and i would not see a mole in coal without Gamma set up to 2.5 with aTuner on my screen. Sure they must have had that in WW2. I just got the message that U-47 sank the Ark Royal and the Repulse. Nice. Next moment my lookout spots a convoy at roughly 11.5 kilometers. This could have happened, dark silhouettes against a horizon that is not quite as black as the sea, ok.

I overtake it at a distance of more than 10 km, the two escorts does not seem to see me. Since i know they and all merchants will see my 3 meter conning tower in a pitch black night and a distance of 8 km in SH3 (realistic eh) i go in submerged, silent running, slow.

I am at roughly 600 meters away from a freighter (submerged!), and since i want to get a bit closer i lower the 'scope and set the speed to "3". Instantly all hell breaks lose, not only are starshells going up, as well all the freighters turn on searchlights and someone is firing at me, hitting my conning tower and damaging the Flak. Next destroyer is 2000 m away as far as i can see. Back to slow alright.

Those freighters must have really advanced hydroscopes. Remember it is pitch black night, my periscope is lowered and i am submerged at 12-13 meters.

If this is realistic all books i ever read about the tactics and victories of U-boats are complete crap: U-boats ran into convoys surfaced, at night, between escorts and close to them whithout ever being seen. Now can't we somehow tweak this sim to be a bit more realistic without making it ridiculously hard ?

Grrr. I hate it. I am feeling better now. Thanks.

Greetings,
Catfish

GoldenRivet · 05-19-08, 10:33 AM

good luck out there.

you just have to remember that it is a PC sim which is limited to programming capabilities.

In real life you had to work with men and equipment... in SH3 there is only "code" to interface with to make events happen within the sim.

you made the mistake of increasing speed to 3... thats the threshold above which you are detectable. when you do that the enemy INSTANTLY knows exactly where you are. if it was as dark as you say... why didnt you approach on the surface??? then speed plays a lesser role in your detectablity.

sorry... but the use of real life tactics in SH3 is limited to what the game code allows. and there are little things like speed to account for.

yes its frustrating

yes its difficult

no... it cant be changed (much) and therfore complaining about the difficulty of SH3 is like complaining about sand at the beach.

sorry you had the experience... but all i can say is better luck next time.

AVGWarhawk · 05-19-08, 11:25 AM

When I was playing GWX I thought the sensors were not bad at all. Just my experience with it. I recall one night attack I was no less then 100 yards off the portside of a corvette. I was not detected. But, I guess sometimes it is frustrating if you are detected all the time. No doubt, GWX makes the game much more challenging. Stock SH3 was off my hard drive after 3 months playing until GWX made it more challenging all be just too hard sometimes.

onelifecrisis · 05-19-08, 11:31 AM

Edit: taken to PM.

Catfish · 05-19-08, 11:40 AM

Hello GoldenRivet,
yeah, already cooled down. You are certainly right, but it IS just so frustrating

.
Imagine running even as fast at 5 knots submerged - there is no way anyone would have heard you in a 600 m radius of a lumbering merchant in mid-convoy - well, in reality, that is.
Escorts were faar away. And there was no sonar for sure.

Only a question, i did exercise some surface attacks at night before, but i would never come as near as to 600 m without being seen. Indeed they would spot me at some 4000 meters in pitch-black night in 1939 - so it seems it is not possible to make a typical early years-surface attack ?
Oh well, i wrote i like the challenge, seems i have to live up to that.

Greetings,
Catfish

Hartmann · 05-19-08, 02:54 PM

in my actual patrol i had my first frustating experience.

in 1943 with a ix-c boat, after an attack to a convoy protected by 6-7 scorts and sunk two tankers with 20.000 tons in total (i fired to a scort carrier but i missed and the two torps hit one tanker ) i tried to scape and i was near to this when one scort catch me in his sonar and start the depht charge attack.

doesn´t matter what i do, 250 meters, launch decoys, evasive actions ... the scort always see me like it has x-Ray active sonar, after some time it run out of charges, but another scort arrived and continue the attack. i had to go up to periscope depth and finish one scort with two torpedoes and dive again until the second scort run out of charges . then the same history, go up to periscope depth and destroy the second destroyer with three torpedoes.

by this time some mosquito planes were carpet bombing the surface trying to catch my boat.

seems that sometimes is impossible to scape, and if you don´t have more fishes to launch or you fail the shot ....

Jimbuna · 05-19-08, 02:59 PM

I think I understand your frustration and your honesty here in the way you vent said frustration, but it is also pleasing to see you accept the challenge that the mod poses you.

I have also had many a similar experience, often more frustrating than satisfying, dependant on what mood I'm in.

Overall I consider it a challenge and liken it to the unknown variables or fog of war that Kaleuns must have faced in RL situations.

I'd hope you'd join me in recognising the limitations imposed on the team by a game code that is over 3 years old now.

I'll probably get spotted now (6000 metres and closing) by the escorts of the convoy I'm shadowing.

Good Hunting Kaleun

AVGWarhawk · 05-19-08, 03:12 PM

This reminds me of my "2nd Patrol Your Dead Club". Yes, yours truly is the founder. My challenge was to get to a 3rd patrol. It never materialized

But, it made the game that much more challenging when using GWX. Personally, I like the challenge GWX imposed with the sensors. Somedays I would win some and others not.

_Seth_ · 05-19-08, 03:13 PM

Just a reminder to keep the discussion on periscope depth, mateys!

johan_d · 05-19-08, 04:23 PM

I understand fully what he said.. this bring me to those questions:

1. are the DD sensorsfile the same as the uboat ones? or are they seperate files?
in that case it could be tamed done a bit.

2. is the 2 knot speed hardcoded ot can it be altered?

3. is the detection somewhat random? since sometimes one succeed in closing up
very close, but most cant.

I do look sometimes from the target point of view to my sub, but when the distance is great, like 5 or more km, and with knowing where to look I cant see it. How can the enemy see it then?

He has a point, besides the great fun with GWX, it can be really frustrating, and then we dont even bring in 1943 and beyond!.

onelifecrisis · 05-19-08, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johan_d

I do look sometimes from the target point of view to my sub, but when the distance is great, like 5 or more km, and with knowing where to look I cant see it. How can the enemy see it then?

Maybe because they're not looking through a tiny, pixelated window? :hmm:

VIICDriver · 05-19-08, 06:47 PM

LMAO, I myself am a full-fledged member of the "second patrol and your dead" club! LOLChuck

Phaedrus · 05-19-08, 09:02 PM

I don't know how deep you were cruising submerged, but it sounds an awful lot like a conning tower broach to me.

I actually don't find the sensors too unrealistic, with the exception of the close range ASDIC.

It would have been nice if they lost track of you within the 200 yard range as in real life, rather than following the boat on a rail until directly over top... but c'est la vie.

But, heres to the frustration we have all felt from spoiled attacks and depth charging.
Any game (simulation) that requires the effort and time that SH3-GWX does is bound to evoke anger and frustration when things don't go smoothly.

I would say we would all do well to recall that in the end, it is just a game, and maddening though it may be; it certainly does not compare to the hardships of those on both sides of the periscope from 1939-1945.

Regards,

Phaedrus

GoldenRivet · 05-20-08, 12:34 AM

phaedrus...

An excellent point which I never considered - conning tower broach

GWX does a wonderful job simulating such an event, and it has been a tactical blunder that has caught me with my pants down on only a few occasions.

If that conning tower broaches it is without a doubt easy to spot with all the waves froth and wake produced... Sure to draw fire - I'm confident phaedrus has given us a probable cause for catfish' frustration

Cohaagen · 05-20-08, 12:45 AM

If you're using OLCE2, then the best approach is a surfaced night attack. The difference is perceptible - unless you're really foolish, a surface attack in the wee hours is usually devastating.

I agree that people here far too often confuse hard with realistic. My biggest problem was always with air attacks - I know that things were rough later on in the war, but is it really likely that in 1941 my boat can be attacked from Malta 16, 17 times a day, or regularly every half hour? As I recall, the RAF were so desperate around this time they were sending Blenheims up against the Luftwaffe and Italian bombing raids. That's not realistic - that's a pain in the arse.

05-19-08, 10:04 AM	#1
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,766 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	If a sim is hard, it is realistic? NO. I hate the sensor programming. Hello, just have to vent a bit. After i said a thousand times the game is much too hard i made another similar experience again. I have GWX2.0, with 2.1, and OLCE2, with the 1.2.5 Gui installed. Yes i know the sensors in SH3 are screwed up, bad programming, one interacts with another etc. etc. So no we can not change the sensors for good, much too complicated, i do not know what i ask for. It seems we can only make them harder and more difficult. Ahaa. Here goes: It is still late 1939, black night and i would not see a mole in coal without Gamma set up to 2.5 with aTuner on my screen. Sure they must have had that in WW2. I just got the message that U-47 sank the Ark Royal and the Repulse. Nice. Next moment my lookout spots a convoy at roughly 11.5 kilometers. This could have happened, dark silhouettes against a horizon that is not quite as black as the sea, ok. I overtake it at a distance of more than 10 km, the two escorts does not seem to see me. Since i know they and all merchants will see my 3 meter conning tower in a pitch black night and a distance of 8 km in SH3 (realistic eh) i go in submerged, silent running, slow. I am at roughly 600 meters away from a freighter (submerged!), and since i want to get a bit closer i lower the 'scope and set the speed to "3". Instantly all hell breaks lose, not only are starshells going up, as well all the freighters turn on searchlights and someone is firing at me, hitting my conning tower and damaging the Flak. Next destroyer is 2000 m away as far as i can see. Back to slow alright. Those freighters must have really advanced hydroscopes. Remember it is pitch black night, my periscope is lowered and i am submerged at 12-13 meters. If this is realistic all books i ever read about the tactics and victories of U-boats are complete crap: U-boats ran into convoys surfaced, at night, between escorts and close to them whithout ever being seen. Now can't we somehow tweak this sim to be a bit more realistic without making it ridiculously hard ? Grrr. I hate it. I am feeling better now. Thanks. Greetings, Catfish

05-19-08, 10:33 AM	#2
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	good luck out there. you just have to remember that it is a PC sim which is limited to programming capabilities. In real life you had to work with men and equipment... in SH3 there is only "code" to interface with to make events happen within the sim. you made the mistake of increasing speed to 3... thats the threshold above which you are detectable. when you do that the enemy INSTANTLY knows exactly where you are. if it was as dark as you say... why didnt you approach on the surface??? then speed plays a lesser role in your detectablity. sorry... but the use of real life tactics in SH3 is limited to what the game code allows. and there are little things like speed to account for. yes its frustrating yes its difficult no... it cant be changed (much) and therfore complaining about the difficulty of SH3 is like complaining about sand at the beach. sorry you had the experience... but all i can say is better luck next time. __________________

05-19-08, 11:25 AM	#3
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,253 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	When I was playing GWX I thought the sensors were not bad at all. Just my experience with it. I recall one night attack I was no less then 100 yards off the portside of a corvette. I was not detected. But, I guess sometimes it is frustrating if you are detected all the time. No doubt, GWX makes the game much more challenging. Stock SH3 was off my hard drive after 3 months playing until GWX made it more challenging all be just too hard sometimes. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

05-19-08, 11:31 AM	#4
onelifecrisis Maverick Modder Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: England Posts: 3,895 Downloads: 65 Uploads: 3	Edit: taken to PM. __________________ Freedom of speech - priceless. For everything else there's Mastercard. Last edited by onelifecrisis; 05-19-08 at 03:19 PM.

05-19-08, 02:54 PM	#6
Hartmann Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Grid CH 26, Spain ,Barcelona Posts: 1,857 Downloads: 204 Uploads: 0	in my actual patrol i had my first frustating experience. in 1943 with a ix-c boat, after an attack to a convoy protected by 6-7 scorts and sunk two tankers with 20.000 tons in total (i fired to a scort carrier but i missed and the two torps hit one tanker ) i tried to scape and i was near to this when one scort catch me in his sonar and start the depht charge attack. doesn´t matter what i do, 250 meters, launch decoys, evasive actions ... the scort always see me like it has x-Ray active sonar, after some time it run out of charges, but another scort arrived and continue the attack. i had to go up to periscope depth and finish one scort with two torpedoes and dive again until the second scort run out of charges . then the same history, go up to periscope depth and destroy the second destroyer with three torpedoes. by this time some mosquito planes were carpet bombing the surface trying to catch my boat. seems that sometimes is impossible to scape, and if you don´t have more fishes to launch or you fail the shot .... __________________ But this ship can't sink!... She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. and she will. It is a mathematical certainty. Strength and honor

05-19-08, 11:40 AM	#5
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,766 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Hello GoldenRivet, yeah, already cooled down. You are certainly right, but it IS just so frustrating . Imagine running even as fast at 5 knots submerged - there is no way anyone would have heard you in a 600 m radius of a lumbering merchant in mid-convoy - well, in reality, that is. Escorts were faar away. And there was no sonar for sure. Only a question, i did exercise some surface attacks at night before, but i would never come as near as to 600 m without being seen. Indeed they would spot me at some 4000 meters in pitch-black night in 1939 - so it seems it is not possible to make a typical early years-surface attack ? Oh well, i wrote i like the challenge, seems i have to live up to that. Greetings, Catfish

05-19-08, 02:59 PM	#7
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,481 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	I think I understand your frustration and your honesty here in the way you vent said frustration, but it is also pleasing to see you accept the challenge that the mod poses you. I have also had many a similar experience, often more frustrating than satisfying, dependant on what mood I'm in. Overall I consider it a challenge and liken it to the unknown variables or fog of war that Kaleuns must have faced in RL situations. I'd hope you'd join me in recognising the limitations imposed on the team by a game code that is over 3 years old now. I'll probably get spotted now (6000 metres and closing) by the escorts of the convoy I'm shadowing. Good Hunting Kaleun __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

05-19-08, 03:12 PM	#8
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,253 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	This reminds me of my "2nd Patrol Your Dead Club". Yes, yours truly is the founder. My challenge was to get to a 3rd patrol. It never materialized But, it made the game that much more challenging when using GWX. Personally, I like the challenge GWX imposed with the sensors. Somedays I would win some and others not. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

05-19-08, 03:13 PM	#9
_Seth_ Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: In Tromsoe, @Tirpitz' final resting place.. Posts: 3,277 Downloads: 94 Uploads: 0	Just a reminder to keep the discussion on periscope depth, mateys! __________________

05-19-08, 04:23 PM	#10
johan_d Samurai Navy Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 556 Downloads: 113 Uploads: 1	I understand fully what he said.. this bring me to those questions: 1. are the DD sensorsfile the same as the uboat ones? or are they seperate files? in that case it could be tamed done a bit. 2. is the 2 knot speed hardcoded ot can it be altered? 3. is the detection somewhat random? since sometimes one succeed in closing up very close, but most cant. I do look sometimes from the target point of view to my sub, but when the distance is great, like 5 or more km, and with knowing where to look I cant see it. How can the enemy see it then? He has a point, besides the great fun with GWX, it can be really frustrating, and then we dont even bring in 1943 and beyond!.

05-19-08, 06:47 PM	#12
VIICDriver Engineer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Lynchburg, VA Posts: 203 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	LMAO, I myself am a full-fledged member of the "second patrol and your dead" club! LOLChuck

05-19-08, 09:02 PM	#13
Phaedrus A-ganger Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 79 Downloads: 45 Uploads: 0	I don't know how deep you were cruising submerged, but it sounds an awful lot like a conning tower broach to me. I actually don't find the sensors too unrealistic, with the exception of the close range ASDIC. It would have been nice if they lost track of you within the 200 yard range as in real life, rather than following the boat on a rail until directly over top... but c'est la vie. But, heres to the frustration we have all felt from spoiled attacks and depth charging. Any game (simulation) that requires the effort and time that SH3-GWX does is bound to evoke anger and frustration when things don't go smoothly. I would say we would all do well to recall that in the end, it is just a game, and maddening though it may be; it certainly does not compare to the hardships of those on both sides of the periscope from 1939-1945. Regards, Phaedrus Last edited by Phaedrus; 05-20-08 at 07:31 AM.

05-20-08, 12:34 AM	#14
GoldenRivet Subsim Aviator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 8,726 Downloads: 146 Uploads: 0	phaedrus... An excellent point which I never considered - conning tower broach GWX does a wonderful job simulating such an event, and it has been a tactical blunder that has caught me with my pants down on only a few occasions. If that conning tower broaches it is without a doubt easy to spot with all the waves froth and wake produced... Sure to draw fire - I'm confident phaedrus has given us a probable cause for catfish' frustration __________________

05-20-08, 12:45 AM	#15
Cohaagen Frogman Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UK Posts: 296 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	If you're using OLCE2, then the best approach is a surfaced night attack. The difference is perceptible - unless you're really foolish, a surface attack in the wee hours is usually devastating. I agree that people here far too often confuse hard with realistic. My biggest problem was always with air attacks - I know that things were rough later on in the war, but is it really likely that in 1941 my boat can be attacked from Malta 16, 17 times a day, or regularly every half hour? As I recall, the RAF were so desperate around this time they were sending Blenheims up against the Luftwaffe and Italian bombing raids. That's not realistic - that's a pain in the arse.