GWX (Grey Wolves eXpansion Mod)

[bigboywooly]

Could just be a corrupt D\L
Happens

Check the hashs
Easiest and quickest way to find a rogue file

[Storabrun]

Originally Posted by Kpt. Lehmann

First, completely uninstall SH3 USING THE GAME DISK... then visit your Program Files/Ubisoft/SilentHunterIII directory and delete all remaining GWX material. (There should be a fair bit of it as the GWX mod is over 1 gigabyte expanded.)

Then REBOOT your system before initializing the installation process again. You must follow the directions in the "Getting Started" section of the GWX manual to the letter.

Thanks for the help, I'm trying this now. I have a suggestions though. Maybe you could update the online manual when you release 2.1? I did read those instructions but it said nothing about using the game disk, instead the windows tool to remove programs is mentioned (which by the way had no recollection of SH3 ever beeing installed to my system). Not that it matters to me, but it might just save you from answering questions like mine for the umptenth time

[Kilhmar]

Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse

Although the .50 caliber is quite powerful, yes, it probably couldn't penetrate the pressure hulls. Thing is, the light hull, ballast tanks, and fuel tanks weren't so thick. They never saw the pressure differential that the pressure hull would and did, and so weren't thick-walled at all. .50 caliber would most certainly penetrate that and, once your tanks were perforated, well . . . that might not sink you (and probably didn't) but it sure would prevent you from submerging, as you wouldn't be able to effectively blow the tanks once you'd gone down to any depth. And once you were stuck running surfaced . . .

Hi Albrecht Von Hesse, and thank you for your reply. I agree that a .50 cal should penetrate the outer hull of a U-boat and the ballast/fuel tanks given close to a 90 degree angle on the plating. A well conducted strafing run should at least result in some shots being able to penetrate.

However, the U-boats were machines of war and designed to absorb some damage and still function. I have read countless reports from U-boat crews (mostly allied prisoner interrogation reposts) where they dived with ruptured ballast tanks and used pressurized air to keep the trim right. Sometimes they had to use running air-torpedoes (!) to recharge the air tanks while diving so they wouldn’t run out due to the heavy use of air to keep the ballast tanks from flooding.

Also both the VII and IX series of boats had a “security” ballast tank that was located inside the pressure hull. Even with all other ballast tanks flooded the U-boat would be able to keep positive buoyancy, as long as there was no other flooding inside the U-boat. Of course controlling the dive would be increasingly difficult.

A type VII U-boat had 5 main ballast/fuel tanks (two being port and starboard, 7 tanks in all) (fuel tanks would be used as ballast tanks when empty or in emergency when they still had oil in them, including internal fuel tanks), in addition to a number of smaller auxiliary tanks and trim tanks: (Number indicates tank size in cubic metres. (1 cubic metre of water equals about 1 ton.))

M.B.T. No. 1 30.70

Fuel Ballast No. 2 (Stbd & Port) 22.60

M.B.T. No. 3 47.75

Fuel Ballast No. 4 (Stbd & Port) 26.60

M.B.T. No. 5 25.15

Fuel Regulating 9.45

Ballast Regulating 15.36

Quick Diving Tank 4.45

Internal F.O. Tank No. 1 37.90

Internal F.O. Tank No. 2 32.80

Lub. Oil Tank 6.50

Dirty Oil Tank .79

Lub. Oil Sump Stbd .80

Lub. Oil Measuring Tank .80

After Trim Tank 3.55

Forward Trim Tank 3.60

Torpedo Compensating Tank No. 1 2.35

Torpedo Compensating Tank No. 2 5.75

Torpedo Compensating Tank No. 3 5.75

Potable Fresh Water No. 1 2.63

Potable Fresh Water No. 2 .47

Potable Fresh Water No. 3 .79

Sanitary Tank No. 1 .76

Sanitary Tank No. 2 .49

Wash Water Tank .49


Trough an interconnecting system of pipes and valves most of these tanks could be used as ballast tanks in an emergency. A type IX boat had nine main ballast tanks port and starboard in addition to 6 fuel tanks. It would take a pretty determined and prolonged set of strafing runs with .50 cals to significantly damage a U-boats ability to dive.


After digging up the reports from my hard drive (which is increasingly messy ) I thought I’d recount some of the 133 page report on U-172, a type IXc that was sunk by a US destroyer.

Interesting note on the turm configuration and flak armament:

MODIFIED BRIDGE STRUCTURE

A. Gun Platforms: Two, second being on same level as after part of Bridge.

B. “Air Raid Shelter”: An armored shelter of plate about 15 mm. thick, 1.5 meters high was built into the inboard bridge fairing on the starboard side just forward of the main induction. It accommodated 3 men and afforded good protection from M.G. fire at angle usual from aircraft. A smaller “shelter” for the C.O. was built into the bridge fairing on the port side. (5 and 6 on Plate A.)

C. The section of the Bridge forward of the periscope mounts was lowered 10 cm. to permit the twin 20 mm. guns to fire forward. (See X on Plate A.)

The crew left by the Bow, the Conning Tower and the Galley Hatches. Reports differed as to guns manned, but seemed to agree that the Captain shot at the destroyers with an M.G. 81. He claimed to have caused a few casualties with his fire. The destroyers returned the fire and killed the only men lost by U-172. All hands had gotten out, but only 46 were saved.

The destroyers made some direct hits on the U-boat. It was claimed that the armor plated Bridge was not pierced, but the Hydrogen Bottles for inflating the R.D.B. were set afire by shell fire. She went down with her hatches open and her motors/generators going at full speed. It was repeatedly stated that U-172 was not scuttled.

DETAILS OF VARIOUS GUNS, AMMUNITION, AND STOWAGE

105 mm. – On U-172’s last patrol, 90 rounds of 105-mm. ammunition were carried, of which 36 rounds were stored in containers on upper deck. Only one kind of ammunition for this gun was carried. It was called Zonenmunition, consisting of H.E./A.A. shells. The projectiles had red marking. The fuze was not set in advance, but would have been set as the projectiles were about to be used. Ready-use locker was abaft the gun. The cover of the locker was hinged at the sides and opened in the middle. It held four rows of nine shells each in steel containers. U-172 never fired any of this new 105 mm. ammunition.


This ammunition has a pointed head. The shell is said to have a muzzle velocity of 1,200 meters per second as against 900 meters for the old type. The explosive power of the shell is said to be 8 times that of the old kind. The point of the shell is made of lead and its effect on the type of armor plate in use on Wellingtons and Liberators is said to be amazing. The prisoner who gave this information had seen tests carried out on the captured wrecks of Wellingtons and Liberators at 2,000 meters. The ammunition is distinguished by the death’s head painted on the shell. The very powerful explosive, which is a liquid glycerin derivative (he is not quite certain on its being a liquid), is a new invention of the I.G. Farben at Cheminitz.

Although the 105-mm. gun could be used as an A.A. gun, elevation was stated to be not over 65 degrees. The gun had to be depressed after each shot for loading.

On patrols other than the last, armor-piercing projectiles with time fuze and impact detonation were provided, as were also incendiary shells with impact detonation. On the third patrol this ammunition was used in the 105-mm. gun against two aircraft which were attempting to attack. (The planes were successfully driven off by combined fire from all of U-172’s deck guns.)

20-mm. twin mounts. – The twin 20-mm. guns could fire over the bridge forward at a minimum elevation of about 20 degrees. There were no armored shields for these guns.


The magazine inserts for the twin mounts were so arranged that only one man was necessary for loading the two guns. The gun on the left received the magazine from above, the other from the right side.

20-mm. quadruple mount. – The quadruple mount is “toed” in so that the fire concentrates at 2,000 meters. This cannot be regulated on board but is determined in the construction of the gun. Fire is opened at 2,000 meters. Ammunition is self-destroying at 2,500 meters.

Prisoners stated that the newest type of 20-mm. quadruple mount is a new Hanomag gun capable of being elevated and trained by one man. This type was not carried aboard U-172.

Armored shields for U-172’s 20-mm. quadruple mounts were of a thickness varying from a minimum of 8 mm. to a maximum of 16 to 18 mm.

U-172 carried 80,000 rounds of 20-mm. ammunition. Extra stowage space was provided by the omission of one of the torpedoes usually carried in the Stern Compartment. In its place 20-mm. ammunition was stored.

Clips for the 20-mm. guns could be rapidly and efficiently loaded by a “magazine filling machine”. This apparatus, which first began to be supplied to U-boats in the summer of 1943, can be used only for 20-mm. ammunition. It is a simple mechanical device. Shells are fed in the top, a lever is moved back and forth, and the magazine is filled very quickly. U-172 carried two of these. Loading sequence was one H.E. with tracer and one A.P. with tracer, alternately.


H.E. shells were blunt-nosed and had yellow marking with red stripe. A.P. shells had pointed nose, blue markings. Both types had tracer. No other 20-mm. ammunition was carried. Ready use ammunition containers on Platform I and II were all round with screw tops.

Finally an account of the battle from one of the German officers of U-172:

On 12 December 1943 about 10.20 (German Time) an aircraft of undetermined type was sighted to starboard while on course 1800. It was seen at a distance of about 4-5,000 meters and quite high. Inside the boat the command “Man the A.A. guns!” was given. The aircraft flew past the boat at a considerable altitude. As the aircraft neared, fire was opened from the twin mounts and M.G. 81’s. The Watch Officer now sighted a second aircraft and recognized them as single motored. When, after fire had been opened, the aircraft continued their course, the Captain gave the order to dive. The boat submerged about 10.30 (G.T.) to 80 meters. The Captain believed he had identified the aircraft as seaplanes.

About 1100 hours propeller noises were heard on the hydrophones. The Captain ordered the Engineer Officer to go to periscope depth. In spite of the good weather (about sea force 3, and medium ground swell) the boat could not be controlled and shot to the surface. The Captain, who was at the periscope, gave orders to go to 80 meters in order to regain control of the boat; he had seen nothing through the periscope. Just why the boat had shot up from periscope depth could not be discovered; since their departure it had shown peculiarities of trim and displacement. It was the assumption of the Captain that the propeller noises heard were of a convoy from the African Coast. He set course towards these noises. After a while, however, the Captain felt the search not to be safe, since the propeller noises constantly changed course. So the U-boat went to 160 meters depth at slow speed and again took up course 1800. Towards 1300 hours, the first series of depth charges detonated. These were not well placed. This first series was followed every 8 or 10 minutes, by others, which were better placed each time.

Now the situation was clear! The boat, meanwhile, had gone to 190 meters and now changed course according to the propeller noises. After several depth charge patterns, the upper deck containers burst and the boat became heavier. In spite of immediate correction of displacement, the boat continued to become heavier. The Engineer Officer presumed a loss of oil. Soon the constant increase in displacement could no longer be equalized by the bilge pump. Tank 5 had to be blown and an attempt was made to maintain the prescribed depth by partially blowing the tanks. Also both compasses were no longer operating so that it was impossible to control their course. Drinking water had also become unusable through the entrance of seawater. It was the intention of the Captain to surface by night, after the depth charging had let up, in spite of the full moon and calm weather, and to try to escape on the surface. This was the sole possibility. About midnight the boat surfaced. It had a strong list to port. On the bridge were the Captain, his Executive Officer, the Boatswain, a mate and a rating.

On first inspection of the horizon no shadow was to be seen. The boat, tried during the blowing, to make off out of the moon. After a short time, the Boatswain reported “Shadow off the port quarter”. Since the shadow was broad and did not get underway it was assumed that their U-boat had not been noticed. At first the Captain wanted to get away by using the motors/generators, but then decided to use the Diesels. One Diesel, however, was not usable on account of loss of lubricating oil, so the boat ran full speed on one Diesel in the aforementioned direction. The Executive Officer kept his eye on the shadow and soon determined that it was moving. It remained broad, however, and did not head toward the boat. Soon, however, the destroyer did turn toward the U-boat and tried to force her to the moonlit side, which maneuver was successful. It was impossible to keep any sort of exact course for the U-boat since no compass was usable. The Captain now ordered an Aphrodite (anti-radar balloon) sent out (which was useless since the boat had already been sighted). The destroyer was gaining fast since the U-boat still had only one Diesel working. It was hopeless to try to escape on the surface. The Captain ordered a T-5 to be shot and to submerge again.

It was impossible to fire a T-5 using the T.D.C., because the T.D.C. was out of order. Aim had to be taken by changing the course of the U-boat. Meanwhile the destroyer began firing with light guns. The shots fell short. After a few rounds the destroyer began to turn somewhat, or so it appeared from the U-boat. The destroyer was now about 3,000 meters distant and began shooting with high explosive shells which overshot (about 200 meters over the starboard side). Then the T-5 was discharged and the boat submerged. The miss of the T-5 was blamed on board on the failure of the listening device of the torpedo, caused by previous shock. During the short surface run the air had been brought up to 60-70 kg/cm2. There were only a few depth charge attacks until the morning (13 December). But then the regular patterns started again. It was again necessary to blow diving tank No. 5 in order to maintain trim, which required a lot of air. Therefore, the air supply had to be increased to about 80(?) kg. From an air torpedo in the Bow Compartment. Meanwhile the boat continued to get heavier and could only be held in trim at half speed. It was running at a depth of 180 – 200 meters by the depth gauge, which indicated an actual depth of about 220 – 230 meters, since the depth gauge registered less on account of the overpressure in the boat.

After further depth charging the bilge pumps went out of order, but there was a possibility of fixing them. From the constant shocks the torpedoes in forward tubes II and IV began to run. In order to adjust this situation it would have been necessary to go to 80 meters and send out the torpedoes. But this too was impossible because of the increasing accuracy of the depth charges. At about 1700 (German Time) the boat had become so heavy that depth could only be maintained by going at “3/4 speed”. Added to that the negative buoyancy tanks flooded. This added 10 tons of weight. The air had dropped to 47 kg/cm2 and the possibility of further pumping was gone, since the pumps could not be repaired. These were only the most important items of damage and the chief reasons which compelled the Captain to consider giving up the boat. After conferring with the Engineer Officer, the other officers and the Division Warrant Officer, it was agreed that under the overwhelming circumstances the boat would have to be abandoned. Above all, the depth charges were constantly hitting closer, and the patterns became more and more frequent. The Captain gave the order to don life jackets and the diving lungs. The boat was taken to 50 meters from which depth the tanks were blown and they shot to the surface. Just before the Captain opened the hatch he gave the order “All hands out of the boat!” The time was about 1820 (German Time).

These were tough boats.

[Kilhmar]

Originally Posted by privateer

… If you can do better?
Please do so and teach me!!
I'd love that!!

I have been contemplating on making a more realistic (IMHO) mod to GWX, with special emphasis on anti-air capabilities and damage adjustments to small calibre guns. I will have to see if I can find the time…

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by donw

Steve...It's important that you select the "route out" of the canal as soon as your game opens...if your boat moves at ALL...from wave action or whatever, it can throw you off just a tiny bit, which sounds like what may of happened. I'm up to Mar 41, anticipating a move to brest in June, and have used it everytime, and not had a problem.

However, I do recall pulling out of the slip once, forgetting about that, took the boat back into the slip and trying to set those waypoints again...and it was all botched up...so set it as soon as you can.

Hi!

There is another way to work this: if you've left the dock before you remember to ask the navigator to plot a "Kiel Outbound" path, just set a navigation point back in your starting dock, and then ask the navigator to add the "Kiel Outbound" path starting from that point. Once the Kiel outbound path is laid in, just delete the navigation point in the dock (unless you fancy turning around inside the dock) and just proceed to the first point of the outbound path plotted by your navigator.

Pablo

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I finally was able to look at my computer again, and loaded up GWX2. Kiel is lovely, what with surrounding cities and docks and Graf Zeppelin sitting there in all her glory (not to mention only one lighthouse ).

Great to hear that you are back on deck Steve!

[wunderlich]

Have you guys been able to fix the battery recharge bug that the stock SH3 had?
I was playing GWX 2.0 and my diesel engines were destroyed. I tried to take advantage of this bug and get back to base submerged, but the batteries no longer recharged when the boat was surfaced. So I assumed that you had found a way to fix that bug. Is this correct or was there something else wrong with my boat that I didn't notice?
If you really have fixed it... wow! You have done amazing job again!

This leads to another question. In SH3 it is not possible to hide from the enemy's sonar by diving to the bottom of the sea. I suppose Ubisoft didn't design that kind of feature. I'm not that familiar with sonars and how they work, but wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if the boat is lying in the bottom it would be slightly harder for the enemy to detect it?
I really don't know anything about modding and how difficult it is, but it seems to me that you guys can do almost anything. So would it be possible to fix this "bug"? I think it would add a little bit of realism to the game (which already is incredibly realistic, thanks to the GWX team ).

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by wunderlich

This leads to another question. In SH3 it is not possible to hide from the enemy's sonar by diving to the bottom of the sea. I suppose Ubisoft didn't design that kind of feature. I'm not that familiar with sonars and how they work, but wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if the boat is lying in the bottom it would be slightly harder for the enemy to detect it?
I really don't know anything about modding and how difficult it is, but it seems to me that you guys can do almost anything. So would it be possible to fix this "bug"? I think it would add a little bit of realism to the game (which already is incredibly realistic, thanks to the GWX team ).

Hi!

The Silent Hunter III game engine does not factor in the sea bottom when determining whether you will be detected by passive hydrophones or active sonar. U-boats could be (and were) detected while resting on the bottom - they're usually much larger than the underwater terrain, and that conning tower plus the hull stands out like a sore thumb above a soft, sandy seabed.

The ability of ASW vessels to detect ships or submarines resting on the bottom is indicated by the number of wrecks ("accidental but permanent submarines") depth charged during the war because they were detected by active sonar.

Pablo

[Storabrun]

Originally Posted by wunderlich

So would it be possible to fix this "bug"?

Actually I don't think that can be regarded as a bug, and maybe not even a missing feature in this game. If I recall correctly the main reason the sonar ping is reflected by the sub is not the hull itself but rather the air inside it. The bottom is not made of air so it wont cloak the sub much.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by Kilhmar

I have been contemplating on making a more realistic (IMHO) mod to GWX, with special emphasis on anti-air capabilities and damage adjustments to small calibre guns. I will have to see if I can find the time…

With regards to your complaints about machine guns versus U-boats:

Hull integrity loss to "smaller caliber weapons" is not unique to GWX. Infact GWX mitigates it rather well IMHO... without turning the U-boat into a "Tiger Tank."

SH3 does not distinguish between the pressure hull, and vital components mounted/stored/attached to points outside the pressure hull.

As a result, some hull integrity is lost in any attack damages vulnerable components, like the deck guns, flak guns, periscopes, snorkel components, GHG or KDB hydrophone pickups, air intake trunking for the diesels, spare torpedoes, ballast tanks, fuel oil saddle tanks, the UZO/scope heads, etc. Therefore, there is no way to protect the hull integrity of the U-boat from machine gun fire without also making these historically vulnerable items immune as well.

It's the result of a hard-coded design decision, and we've chosen not to mess with it given that fixing the vulnerability issue that has existed since stock Silent Hunter III would cause new invulnerability issues.

These are our justifications for not fiddling with vulnerability to MG fire in GWX in part, and explains why we did not worry about how much armor is penetrated by 0.50-caliber MG fire at various ranges, distances, and impact angles.

A .50 caliber round does not need to fully penetrate the pressure hull or component thereof, to cause a loss of structural integrity, or other serious problems relating to the optimal functionality of a U-boat.

A U-boat's function is not to remain on the surface in an effort to duke it out with aircraft or any surface unit that may cause harm to said U-boat. Whether or not you feel that any given element as modded in GWX is "unrealistic" or not is in actuality irrelevant. Arguably, GWX functions to illicit an appropriate response in the player causing him/her to think more like an actual U-boat commander... "I may win any individual engagement... but aircraft are extremely dangerous and I must dive."

It is after all, a U-boat simulator... not a flight sim.

Aircraft gunnery as presented in GWX causes the desireable effect of suppressing flak crews, to assist aircraft as they run in to drop bombs, aerial DC's (which were largely non-functional in stock SH3), fire rockets, and/or 57mm cannon shells that serve to cause the "REAL" damage to your boat in GWX. Whatever 'hull integrity damage' you suffer from strafing is quite negligeable in the face of follow-on attacks by other ordnance.

In testing, the aircraft damage models were generally designed to withstand only 1.5 attack runs against a a player U-boat mounting only 2x Flakzwillings sitting in a flat sea (an UNUSUALLY stable firing platform/condition) ... with just a smidge of additional durability for multi-engined aircraft... and any additional armor plate they might have carried. (Which was comparatively minimal indeed given the need for reduced weight in favor of range endurance of patrol aircraft.) Aircraft usually DID survive an attack run in the face of AA fire... probably owing to the fact that the U-boat is not a very stable firing platform... at least in comparison to an aircraft.

Momentarily disregarding 'historical facts' and discounting as to whether or not one source or another should be deemed valid OR 'definitive' as you appear to present with your postings... a game does not/cannot work much at all like real life. If we were to fully take into account real life matters, we'd need mainframe computers to run the simulation... to include such things as mettalurgical reactions to temperature, corrosive effects of seawater, etc etc etc.

Personally, I see the U-boat damage model as being quite forgiving as it is in GWX.

Given the limitations of a game system, you will find it a necessity to make small compromises in light of farther reaching effects. It would appear that you are not aware that the smallest caliber weapon in SH3, and subsequently GWX, is the 20mm. It is this same 20mm that is used universally in SH3/GWX for everything that may employ a 20mm weapon.

Additionally, what you fail to recognize is a massive and complete revision of the air coverage in SH3/GWX (for the sake of historical accuracy) and the composition of air attacks against player U-boats. Did you play stock SH3 for any length of time? If you have, then you can recall attacks from 12 Wellingtons at a time... 6 Catalinas...etc etc. Air coverage/attack composition certainly plays into the same equation as weapon damage values and damage modelling.

I think the most important thing that one can attempt to achieve, is to cause an historical behavior and and attempt to reproduce historically plausible/logical survival probabilities, disregarding what settings (historically accurate or not) you need to adjust to obtain those end-effects. Generally speaking, the GWX development team and testing crew share this view.

Furthermore, the Silent Hunter devs (to their credit) left us an adjustable skeleton that modders can manipulate. As 'simulator players' can, and often do become their own worst enemies by 'rivet counting'... if you feel you can do better, by all means do so.

We often help other modders and/or non-modders reach their aims. Though quite often we do so in private these days... as that is our way following the cumulative fatigue of 2 1/2 years of 'debating' different aspects of 'realism' as we have modded/researched/implimented it in GWX.

(If you feel our sources aren't viable... read the bibliography section of the GWX manual.)

At one time or another, virtually every aspect of GWX has come under fire as being 'unrealistic' for 'this reason' or 'that reason.' Still, individuals come to this particular thread with a sense of entitlement and a disrespectful attitude... to demand that we fix it for them or give them specific information on how to mod a given element when there is an entire forum here in which to deliberate such matters. Though we are often quite happy to assist players to fully enjoy their installation... it is not our responsibility to do so. Neither is it unreasonable for us to first explain our methodology when it comes to why we did one thing or another. Often understanding a thing, is better than further file modifications that will likely generate undesireable side-effects in unexpected places elsewhere in the game.

We've given the best of ourselves in an effort to model the entire U-boat war... not just The Battle of the Atlantic. Without a doubt, each and every GWX user will find one element or another that they aren't happy with... reasonably or unreasonably. We've addressed each important aspect logically and have struck a balance with platform limitations that we must accept.

Before continuing onwards to discuss such matters as the manufacturing disparities of various ammunition, I invite you to start your own thread... and to discontinue hijacking this one.

You have stated your opinions and carried out your arguments... and we have modelled matters in-game to meet our equally valid interpretation of available data resources... in light of game limitations that you have not accounted for.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Storabrun

Actually I don't think that can be regarded as a bug, and maybe not even a missing feature in this game. If I recall correctly the main reason the sonar ping is reflected by the sub is not the hull itself but rather the air inside it. The bottom is not made of air so it wont cloak the sub much.

Actually there are several accounts of submarines using the bottom to very good effect, most notably the US S-36, which lay on the bottom on three separate ocassions, all three times baffling the enemy's active sonar.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Actually there are several accounts of submarines using the bottom to very good effect, most notably the US S-36, which lay on the bottom on three separate ocassions, all three times baffling the enemy's active sonar.

Absolutely correct, in RL terms, however.......As said on so many occasions previously......the parameters imposed upon us ingame do not model or reflect this.
The limitations placed upon us by the game engine dictate.....we have what we have.

[Dreamer]

OK, now I've got a whole new issue that is either due to GWX or OLC GUI but not one I've seen reported before. When approaching an enemy harbour I start to get glitches on programs and system files running in the background. It'll start with some kind of sound dll error and then another system dll error and then font and text size will change in firefox. While this is happening, in game the sounds slowly fade. They come and go and finally disappear entirely.

Finally, if I'm not out of the game quick enough (say, within the next 15 minutes) I get more and more errors with my startup-programs monitor telling me that all kinds of basic system functions are asking to start up with each boot which they are supposed to do anyway. When I exit SH3, most of it goes back to normal. I get no more errors and the fonts are back to the way they should be. I then have to reboot to resume normal computer operations.

This is a new, clean installation of SH3 1.4b with GWX2 and OLC GUI installed but no other mods. Absolutely nothing has changed with my system physically or system-wise since running SH3 with GWX 1.03 this past summer with no errors.

Help again!

Thanks

Martin

[deadparrot]

Originally Posted by donw

Use the hash program to compare whats shown on the GWX download website...and what you have...

That will allow you to narrow down to which is corrupted..(if any or all)

Thx 4 t info.

You were right. 4 out of 7 didn't come trough. verdammt nogmahl!

I'll try 2 find a torrent somewhere. That'll be a first. A legal torrent download

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by deadparrot

Thx 4 t info.

You were right. 4 out of 7 didn't come trough. verdammt nogmahl!

I'll try 2 find a torrent somewhere. That'll be a first. A legal torrent download

THE 'OFFICIAL' ONE

http://files.filefront.com/GWX2+torr.../fileinfo.html