Legion's Noob Guide

[TorpX]

From what I've read, most USN crews used an interval of 8 to 10 seconds.

I don't think Gryffon300 was trying for super quick launchings; but rather not having to fiddle and funble with game dials, in between torps. If you try to fire a spread of four torps, while having to change the depth and offset dials for each one, how long would this take? Maybe 35 or 40 sec., or more? Rather a long time to finish your spread. If you had the dials pre-set, you could use a 8 sec. interval, and be done in 24 sec.

[Gryffon300]

Originally Posted by TorpX

From what I've read, most USN crews used an interval of 8 to 10 seconds.

I don't think Gryffon300 was trying for super quick launchings; but rather not having to fiddle and funble with game dials, in between torps. If you try to fire a spread of four torps, while having to change the depth and offset dials for each one, how long would this take? Maybe 35 or 40 sec., or more? Rather a long time to finish your spread. If you had the dials pre-set, you could use a 8 sec. interval, and be done in 24 sec.

Precisely, my friend. I couldn't see why the controller will accept SOME individual tube pre-sets on the TDC (like speed and contact/magnetic), but not others (like depth or spread off-set).

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Gryffon300

Precisely, my friend. I couldn't see why the controller will accept SOME individual tube pre-sets on the TDC (like speed and contact/magnetic), but not others (like depth or spread off-set).

Actually in this regard our TDC works like the original and they had the same limitation. To fix it would be to make the game less realistic.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Hey RR, nice to see you here : )

[Gryffon300]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Actually in this regard our TDC works like the original and they had the same limitation. To fix it would be to make the game less realistic.

Then, enough said. Thanks for the info. (I always have these nagging doubts about whether something is working as intended.)

Of course, you know that it's lazy bastards like me that drive all invention, because we define "necessity" as anything that will make our lives less rushed or stressful, which is why our COBs sometimes refer to us as "Mothers". (This is the origin of the famous saying.) We like to find ways of doing things that gets the job done, but without mess, yelling, confusion or grease (elbow, or otherwise).

TH

Gryff

[TorpX]

I don't agree that fixing the limitation of the TDC would make it less realistic. The TDC itself may not have been able to preset torps, but I'm sure USN crews had a better system than, stess-filled, last minute fiddling, with a hard to turn, torpedo offset dial.

PT torpedoes had preset spreads, S-boats would have pre-set the torp angles, so I'm sure the more modern fleetboats, had a system at least as good.

[Gryffon300]

Originally Posted by TorpX

I don't agree that fixing the limitation of the TDC would make it less realistic. The TDC itself may not have been able to preset torps, but I'm sure USN crews had a better system than, stess-filled, last minute fiddling, with a hard to turn, torpedo offset dial.

PT torpedoes had preset spreads, S-boats would have pre-set the torp angles, so I'm sure the more modern fleetboats, had a system at least as good.

Well, my friend, certainly if WE had control of the design team it would have been sorted as one of the functional criteria in the design brief! I certainly would have expected that a modern FB would have had the capability to pre-set all the criteria for a salvo.

You've peaked my curiosity now - given some time I think it would be worth finding out the development time-line to establish when changes and enhancements were made.

TH

Gryff

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Gryffon300

Well, my friend, certainly if WE had control of the design team it would have been sorted as one of the functional criteria in the design brief!

Yeah, you got that right! It is one of those little things that annoyed me from early on. Honestly, I thought someone would have figured out a fix by now.

There were different models of TDC, and perhaps the later models had a better system in this regard. I am not 100% sure the TDC itself did the task, but I am sure they had a way to do it. Allowing last minute delays for this reason would have been unacceptable. The TDC's whole reason for existance, was to speed up the calculations for an attack. The Mk VIII angle solver, and associated math, could calculate the necessary values for an attack, but it was judged to be too slow to keep up with a rapidly changing situation.
Having a TDC, without the ability to rapidly set a gyro angle spread, would be like having a sword, forged from the finest steel, but with a blunt edge. Much of it's potential would be wasted.

[Gryffon300]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Yeah, you got that right! It is one of those little things that annoyed me from early on. Honestly, I thought someone would have figured out a fix by now.

There were different models of TDC, and perhaps the later models had a better system in this regard. I am not 100% sure the TDC itself did the task, but I am sure they had a way to do it. Allowing last minute delays for this reason would have been unacceptable. The TDC's whole reason for existance, was to speed up the calculations for an attack. The Mk VIII angle solver, and associated math, could calculate the necessary values for an attack, but it was judged to be too slow to keep up with a rapidly changing situation.
Having a TDC, without the ability to rapidly set a gyro angle spread, would be like having a sword, forged from the finest steel, but with a blunt edge. Much of it's potential would be wasted.

Hear, hear!

G

[TorpX]

I was skimming through some documents about the TDC and found both pictures and written material related to dials and cranks for inputting target length into the TDC. I thought this was the case, but wanted to check my memory. Anyway, I don't know the details of the proceedure used, but I don't see any use for target length apart from computations related to the spread angle.

Incidently, the german KM also had provision for input of target length.

[BigWalleye]

Unfortunately, game (and mod) designers, since they can not simulate the stress of combat with a computer game, like to substitute a high workload. So the game-playing "skipper" playing at the highest "realism" setting has to do fiddling tasks R/L skippers did not do, make decisions that R/L skippers left to their crews, and basically do busy work to provide enough distraction. This is supposed to make the game "more realistic." YMMV.

To my knowledge, the Approach Officer never touched the TDC, although he might look at the solution. "Range mark. Bearing mark. AoB port 60." SH3's notepad more closely approximates the Approach Officer's tasks than hand-cranking data into the TDC. Of course, using a voice command system like SH4speech lets the skipper focus on looking through the scope, where the Approach Officer belongs.

[Rockin Robbins]

It gets worse. They could do many things we can't because we're all alone on these pretend submarines made of electrons and photons emitted by flat screen displays. You can't achieve realism by modeling a sub with a crew of one. You also can't achieve realism by changing the mechanics of the TDC. Heads we lose, tails nobody wins.

[Gryffon300]

Originally Posted by BigWalleye

Unfortunately, game (and mod) designers, since they can not simulate the stress of combat with a computer game, like to substitute a high workload. So the game-playing "skipper" playing at the highest "realism" setting has to do fiddling tasks R/L skippers did not do, make decisions that R/L skippers left to their crews, and basically do busy work to provide enough distraction. This is supposed to make the game "more realistic." YMMV.

To my knowledge, the Approach Officer never touched the TDC, although he might look at the solution. "Range mark. Bearing mark. AoB port 60." SH3's notepad more closely approximates the Approach Officer's tasks than hand-cranking data into the TDC. Of course, using a voice command system like SH4speech lets the skipper focus on looking through the scope, where the Approach Officer belongs.

Now there is a thought... I've been a bit reluctant to use voice command though, as I use ear buds so as not to annoy the neighbours, I've been thinking that letting them see and hear me yelling at my computer screen would only confirm their suspicions about me.... But, what the Hell, no harm in confirming what they already 'know' - I might just give it a try.

Gryff

[Gryffon300]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

It gets worse. They could do many things we can't because we're all alone on these pretend submarines made of electrons and photons emitted by flat screen displays. You can't achieve realism by modeling a sub with a crew of one. You also can't achieve realism by changing the mechanics of the TDC. Heads we lose, tails nobody wins.

It's OK RR, I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but some things look like unintentional game or mod 'misses' or bugs, but others could be intentional design: and I'm trying to spot the difference.

For example, in MY set-up (I allow for the possibility of a buggy install) on the TDC, the 'w' key cycles the torp tubes, but for the FORWARD tubes only, so you can open the forward doors by alternate 'q', then 'w' keystrokes, but for the rear tubes, you have to alternate between mouse and 'q' keys. Then, it gets even worse. To set all fish to high speed, you can leave the mouse pointer on the speed selector, then just 'q' and left-click to cycle through and set all fish to 'fast' for the forward tubes, but, for the rear tubes, you have to run the mouse pointer from the tube selector on the far right bottom of screen across to the speed selector at the top left for each tube in turn. Pain in the butt, but is it just my install, or native to the game, or a mod-induced 'bug'? Does my head in.

It got even better tonight. A new 'bug' (or a modder with a seriously twisted sense of humour) got me big time with the most anti-immersive 'tick' yet. I loaded the highly praised 'Longer Sinking Times for TMO v2'. I caught an FC with 4 trailing escorts, saved, then waited while he came to me at the perfect spot at 700 yds and put three into the wee beastie. The mod DID slow down the sinking (by a couple of minutes) BUT, the effect was ruined by the dozen life rafts that were trying to imitate Mexican jumping beans! They were jumping and spinning on the waves higher than the length of the carrier (going off the screen at the top of their trajectory). It went from the sublime to the ridiculous with a few of them still bouncing away about 2 miles away 10 minutes later. Now tell me that THAT isn't weird!

Always interesting..

And another thing! I keep upgrading the deck-gun (I've now got the short barrel 25 cal on a new Balao - it seemed to be an improvement - on paper) AND I've now upgraded to an Ace Deck-gun crew (including a 'Tin can Crossover' gunnery specialist). BUT, nothing I have ever done on successive boats since day one has EVER improved the gunnery competence of my crew - if they ever get better than 1 in 4 shots on target at 4,000 yds, I've yet to see it (even in calm seas, with us stationary and the target at 4 knots!). (I get over 80% manually - and it would be even better if there was a practical way of getting range updates!) What's the point of spending all that Renown if it doesn't improve performance? Or is the game/mod misbehaving? I'm not obsessing about all this, but I do wonder....

Gryff

[in_vino_vomitus]

I've seen the bouncing liferaft, it's amusing, but as you say, a little too surreal.

If you're using TMO then the "E" key cycles the rear tubes, I seem to recall swearing a bit before I found that out