Going back to GWX 2.1 (from 3.0)

[WilyPete]

Greetings everyone, this is my first post and I apologise in advance that it will be seen as controversial. But I have to get this off my chest. After having tried GWX 3.0 I have finally decided to go back to 2.1 after having thought about it, I finally found something which made me make up my mind. Fuel.

Why in the manual does it say that the IIa's fuel/range was increased by 30 per cent when I in fact I calculated it was increased over 300 per cent (3 fold). The range in stock SH3 gives it at 2415 km at 8 knots. I just asked my Nav officer the range and he answered 9624 km doing 8 knots and a 3rd of the way to the Patrol area in northern Norway. Now I understand the limitations of the game and read the manual and by the sound of it wasn't a bad idea. But then why did the range increase 3 times and not 30 per cent like what it says in the manual? This is way too much. Basically it has ruined it for me. The IIa has become a IId which can easily patrol all around the British Isles. If that is historic accuracy....

There are a few other things: The radio messages at the start of the war are eye-candy and for emmersions sake, and I apprecaite the effort. But why are the messages in broken, mispelt English? When as I understand it some of the GWX team are British??? This does the complete opposite of emmersion for me. And didn't someone test it...there are way too many messages and some are just bleh. Also, the message you get at the start of the war is on the 3rd of September at 2am. What??? Britain declared war on Germany on the afternoon of 3rd September. What's that about?

Finally, the August shake-down patrol doesn't work. You end up with 2 patrols in August...why 2? Why not just start it in mid-August?? It's very confusing and frustrating when you take your time to get to a patrol area so you can be there at the start of the war (how would I know when the war starts...I shouldn't) so if you play normally and get to the patrol area in good time, it's only the 29th August and you're heading back home when the war starts a couple days later...and if you do linger for the start at the patrol area then you end up with an unrealistic 20 day patrol...in a IIa?

Wasn't the whole point of GWX to be as historically accurate and immersive as possible?

I'm sorry if I sound ungrateful and as I said, I'm not criticising GWX as I'm going back to 2.1 which in my opinion was near enough perfect (apart from the radio messages but that can be lived with). I realise this is free etc etc. And I repeat the work put in is appreciated. But what I feel is that GWX took a step backwards and I also feel that because it is free criticism has been kept to a minimum and people have avoided criticism, hence why at the end we have these problems. Conctructive criticism is like market research...essential. I think I have criticised constructively...

It's a pity...maybe if these things came out GWX would've been perfect...as it is in my eyes it's flawed. Which is a pity considering all the work.

p.s. I know I'm not alone in this...Just read a thread where two members wrote they were using GWX 2.1 and the next member says "I thought you would've already gotten 3.0 by now"...read between the lines. Lots of other examples too. So as I repeat, the game breaker for me was making the IIa into a IId...increasing the range 3 times (300 per cent) not 30 per cent like what it says in the GWX manual.

I may not be popular but at least I'm honest.

Welcome to SubSim.


Your intitled to your opinion.
And your intitled to play the Game your way.
If 3.0 doesn't work for you?
That's A O.K.
Not everyone likes it.
Enjoy which ever version suits you.

[WilyPete]

Ok, but can I have an answer at least why in fact the range was increased 3 fold (300 per cent) when the manual says 30 per cent? And anyway, sorry I thought GWX was made for people (like me) to enjoy. Otherwise why make it? If we are to enjoy it, then we must get our feedback across. Or are people that sensitive they can't take criticism? Even a constructive one?

[Hanomag]

Welcome aboard Herr Kaluen!!

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by WilyPete

Ok, but can I have an answer at least why in fact the range was increased 3 fold (300 per cent) when the manual says 30 per cent? And anyway, sorry I thought GWX was made for people (like me) to enjoy. Otherwise why make it? If we are to enjoy it, then we must get our feedback across. Or are people that sensitive they can't take criticism? Even a constructive one?

Did you ask for a few range estimates? They can very quite a bit depending on the sea state at the time.

[WilyPete]

Originally Posted by Hanomag

Welcome aboard Herr Kaluen!!

Thanks. Anyway, I would like my money back for GWX 3. Joking apart, I think criticism is good look at when GWX put an extra torpedo on the IIa (think it was version 1.something) and then it disappeared in GWX 2. If there will be a GWX 3.something at least I got my views across and maybe they'll be taken into consideration.

But in the meantime, can someone clear up the thing about the fuel. KptLehman? Anyone?

[WilyPete]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Did you ask for a few range estimates? They can very quite a bit depending on the sea state at the time.

Yes...it is definitely slightly over 3 times (300 per cent) the stock fuel.

[WilyPete]

OK re-reading the manual, I think I worked out where the problem lie. It states the stock range is 3333 km at 12 knots. This is wrong, it should've been 3333 km at 8 knots. So in fact yes the boat range has increased 33 per cent on the wrong figure of 3333 km at 12 knots which at 8 knots (which it should've been) makes for a massive increase in range...in fact 300 per cent more.

It's very possible it was a typeing mistake.
Those figures are in several files.
With all the files GWX Modders went over?
A wrong entry could well have passed us by.
We are not perfect.
(As much as we wish we could be)
But your the first that I recall pointing this out.
And it's been 6 months!

I'll look into it.

[GoldenRivet]

i believe this was done for one very specific purpose.

and that purpose is...

the SH3 world is a "Mercator projection" - meaning that the round earth is being projected on a flat surface.

this results in a great deal of distortion in the distances between objects.

for example.

on the round earth it is a voyage of some 3,300 miles (give or take) from Brest France to New York harbor...

in the "mercator world" of SH3, that distance is distorted to a whopping 5,300 miles...

not quite TWICE the actual distance.

a type VII sub would have no problem travelling at an economic cruise speed from Brest to New York and back acting conservatively.

but in SH3 you would run out of fuel about half way into your return voyage.

because the SH3 modders could not change the SH3 world from Flat.. to spherical, they had to adjust the in game range of the U-boat by increasing it nearly 3 fold.

this way... even though the reported range of the u-boat would be reported as a rediculously high number - it would in fact be more historically accurate as the u-boat could now reach the far away (and histroically accurate) hunting grounds of the mercator world.

it is for this reason that the next installment of the Silent Hunter Series should account for the following..

1. all distances measured in NAUTICAL MILES

2. all speed measured in "KNOTS"

3. instead of a flat earth, use the round earth similar to that found in the microsoft flight simulator series.

[WilyPete]

Thanks, very kind of you. If there's a way to fix it I would appreciate it, which would save me 4 hours+ of re-installing the game. Apologise again if I sounded unappreciative...I'm just frustrated at the thought of going through the re-installing. GWX is a very good...in fact I played SH4 recently and thought it looked like it was made a few years before SH3 with GWX. What's up with SH4 and the clanky feel??

O.K.
Stock range for the IIA Surfaced.
This is from the sim file which controlles everything.
Range = 1050
Knots = 12

GWX 3.0 settings
Range = 2895
Knots = 12

That's not 300%
But pretty darned close.

Maybe the 12 Knots should have been reduced to 8 knots.

[WilyPete]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

i believe this was done for one very specific purpose.

and that purpose is...

the SH3 world is a "Mercator projection" - meaning that the round earth is being projected on a flat surface.

this results in a great deal of distortion in the distances between objects.

for example.

on the round earth it is a voyage of some 3,300 miles (give or take) from Brest France to New York harbor...

in the "mercator world" of SH3, that distance is distorted to a whopping 5,300 miles...

not quite TWICE the actual distance.

a type VII sub would have no problem travelling at an economic cruise speed from Brest to New York and back acting conservatively.

but in SH3 you would run out of fuel about half way into your return voyage.

because the SH3 modders could not change the SH3 world from Flat.. to spherical, they had to adjust the in game range of the U-boat by increasing it nearly 3 fold.

this way... even though the reported range of the u-boat would be reported as a rediculously high number - it would in fact be more historically accurate as the u-boat could now reach the far away (and histroically accurate) hunting grounds of the mercator world.

Yes but the problem is in the manual it does not say the range was increased 3 fold. It says 20 per cent for the Atlantic boats and 33 per cent for the coastal. That is where the problem lies. Yes, the Earth is a sphere thus at the top and bottom it is a shorter distance to go side-ways than at the equator, but not 3 times less... Also, I was currently in U-3, reading up on the patrol where it sunk a couple of ships off Norway it says it was at the limit of it's range...Norway. With the U-3 in game as it is I can reach the Atlantic.

[Hanomag]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

i believe this was done for one very specific purpose.

and that purpose is...

the SH3 world is a "Mercator projection" - meaning that the round earth is being projected on a flat surface.

this results in a great deal of distortion in the distances between objects.

for example.

on the round earth it is a voyage of some 3,300 miles (give or take) from Brest France to New York harbor...

in the "mercator world" of SH3, that distance is distorted to a whopping 5,300 miles...

not quite TWICE the actual distance.

a type VII sub would have no problem travelling at an economic cruise speed from Brest to New York and back acting conservatively.

but in SH3 you would run out of fuel about half way into your return voyage.

because the SH3 modders could not change the SH3 world from Flat.. to spherical, they had to adjust the in game range of the U-boat by increasing it nearly 3 fold.

this way... even though the reported range of the u-boat would be reported as a rediculously high number - it would in fact be more historically accurate as the u-boat could now reach the far away (and histroically accurate) hunting grounds of the mercator world.

it is for this reason that the next installment of the Silent Hunter Series should account for the following..

1. all distances measured in NAUTICAL MILES

2. all speed measured in "KNOTS"

3. instead of a flat earth, use the round earth similar to that found in the microsoft flight simulator series.

Damn GR.. I don't think Hawkings coulda spit out an answer like that. Well done!

Good thing they never put in the Flying Sub for me, you would'nt have been able to explain that one.

DANG IT!
Type slower guys!
I'm a Pick and Poke!!