My mods compilation

[gap]

Originally Posted by volodya61

As I can see, you don't change anything in my order ratios settings (based on your data) in the .cfg files.. and all the order ratios are the same for all the subs btw.. you just slightly changed max speed values in the .sim files and set eng_rpm as was in stock..

Oh man, this is a clear case of ID-10T error...
I was sure I had updated those values with the ones at post #314

@ Fifi

Forgive me for my blunder; if you are not tired to test over and over the same stuff, I can send you a fixed version of the VIIC patch

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by gap

@ Fifi

Forgive me for my blunder; if you are not tired to test over and over the same stuff, I can send you a fixed version of the VIIC patch

Go ahead, will test tomorrow now

Almost said same thing as Volodya with files, but thought: no, it's Gap...can't be

[gap]

Originally Posted by Fifi

Go ahead, will test tomorrow now

Originally Posted by Fifi

Almost said same thing as Volodya with files, but thought: no, it's Gap...can't be

You should have said: I am all but infallible

[volodya61]

Originally Posted by gap

..a clear case of ID-10T error..

Well, I study ordinary English now.. but a little bit of computer slang also doesn't hurt.. we have Google for this type of words/abbreviations..

[gap]

Originally Posted by volodya61

Well, I study ordinary English now.. but a little bit of computer slang also doesn't hurt.. we have Google for this type of words/abbreviations..

Yeah sure, the old ID-10T error. It is the 1337 way to say PEBKAC

[Fifi]

No more tests? ...guess you're busy with other stuff...

[gap]

Originally Posted by Fifi

No more tests? ...guess you're busy with other stuff...

Sorry Fifi, yes, I am a bit busy with adding the new ship zones required by the upcoming "destructible radio equipment patch".

Here is the fixed VIIC/VIIC41 patch, with bell ratios updated according to the reference tables I had posted the day before yesterday:

[EngineProperties]
AllStop=0.00
AheadSlow=0.38
AheadOneThird=0.57
AheadStandard=0.71
AheadFull=0.91
AheadFlank=0.98
BackSlow=-0.38
BackStandard=-0.44
BackFull=-0.52
BackEmergency=-0.83

[ElectricEngineProperties]
AllStop=0.00
AheadSlow=0.18
AheadOneThird=0.37
AheadStandard=0.53
AheadFull=0.83
AheadFlank=0.95
BackSlow=-0.18
BackStandard=-0.37
BackFull=-0.53
BackEmergency=-0.83

I have double checked, this time. Sorry gain for the inconvenience!

Report results at your earliest convenience. I don't expect them to be very dissimilar from the ones of yesterday, but this test is required anyway for finetuning our settings.

[Fifi]

Thanks for your work
Will test tomorrow now

[gap]

Originally Posted by Fifi

Thanks for your work
Will test tomorrow now

Quand tu veux

[Fifi]

Have redone the first post after a bad manip wich deleted all my post
Lists are up to date, and added one for CSP Magui.
Started to add comments and observations using both UIs on my machine.

Now have to start testing Gap files

[Fifi]

So, Gap V2 test:

DIESEL

Forward:
- Slow 6.8 Knot 2000 RPM
- One third 10 Knot 2900 RPM
- Standard 12.3 Knot 3550 RPM
- Full 16 Knot 4500 RPM
- Flank 17.1 Knot 4850 RPM

Backward:
- Back Slow 7.2 Knot 2050 RPM
- Back Standard 8.4 Knot 2400 RPM
- Back Full 10 Knot 2800 RPM
- Back emergency 13 Knot 4200 RPM

ELECTRIC

Forward:
- Slow 1.2 Knot 700 RPM
- One third 2.9 Knot 1200 RPM
- Standard 4.2 Knot 1700 RPM
- Full 6.8 Knot 2600 RPM
- Flank 7.8 Knot 2900 RPM

Backward:
- Back Slow 1.7 Knot 800 RPM
- Back Standard 3.2 Knot 1300 RPM
- Back Full 4.9 Knot 1800 RPM
- Back emergency 6 Knot 2700 RPM

As reminder previous version GapV1:

DIESEL

Forward:
- Slow 6 Knot 1800 RPM
- One third 9.8 Knot 2800 RPM
- Standard 11.9 Knot 3400 RPM
- Full 16.2 Knot 4600 RPM
- Flank 17.3 Knot 4900 RPM

Backward:
- Back Slow 7 Knot 2000 RPM
- Back Standard 8.2 Knot 2300 RPM
- Back Full 10 Knot 2800 RPM
- Back emergency 13 Knot 4200 RPM

ELECTRIC

Forward:
- Slow 1.5 Knot 750 RPM
- One third 3 Knot 1250 RPM
- Standard 4.2 Knot 1700 RPM
- Full 6.5 Knot 2500 RPM
- Flank 7.8 Knot 2900 RPM

Backward:
- Back Slow 1.7 Knot 800 RPM
- Back Standard 3.2 Knot 1300 RPM
- Back Full 4.9 Knot 1800 RPM
- Back emergency 6 Knot 2700 RPM

Make sens?
With the same 0.18 value for slow forward and slow backward, sub is still faster backward underwater...
Could it be the deck gun drag? lol

[gap]

Thank you Fifi, my first remarks:

DIESEL

Forward:

• Slow: speed 2% faster than espected, rpm 10% faster than espected
• One third, Standard, Full, Flank: speed as espected or 1% lower, rpm 3 to 6% faster than espected

Backward:

• Back Slow, Back Standard, Back Full: speed 8 to 10% faster than espected, rpm 12 to 14% faster than espected
• Back emergency: speed 11% slower than espected, rpm 5% faster than espected

ELECTRIC

Forward:

• Slow: speed 18% slower than espected, rpm 30% faster than espected
• One third, Standard: speed 3 to 4% slower than espected, rpm 7 to 8% faster than espected
• Full, Flank: speed 1% faster than espected, rpm 2 to 4% faster than espected

Backward:

• Back Slow: speed 16% faster than espected, rpm 48% faster than espected
• Back Standard: speed 6% faster than espected, rpm 17% faster than espected
• Back Full: speed 14% faster than espected, rpm 13% faster than espected
• Back emergency: speed 11% slower than espected, rpm 8% faster than espected

The main problem is not the discrepancy between espected and observed outputs, but the fact that rpm/speed deviations are dishomogeneous, i.e. apparently SH5 U-boat speed is not growing linearly with engine rpm, whereas data from our sources suggest a linear relation among them.

In other words, unless TDW manages to find the culprit in game code, we can either match speeds or rpm to historical values. It might seem a secondary problem, but if (as it was in RL) engine noise is related with rpm, we risk being hydro-detected at speeds that should be classified as "silent". On this subject, it is useful noting again that the most efficient silent speed was at 90 rpm.

I hope that plotting your data on a chart and comparing the resuting graph with the espected lines, will cast some light on the issue. I will post the chart as soon as possible

[Fifi]

Originally Posted by gap

apparently SH5 U-boat speed is not growing linearly with engine rpm, whereas data from our sources suggest a linear relation among them.

Yes, quite strange and not very mechanical logical...

Originally Posted by gap

In other words, unless TDW manages to find the culprit in game code, we can either match speeds or rpm to historical values

Is it possible to match historical RPM for electric ahead slow and backward slow (very needed for beeing silent - leaving aside the speed) while matching historical speeds for others knukles (leaving aside RPM this time - less important)?
Could be a soluce in the waiting of code braker

[gap]

Originally Posted by Fifi

Yes, quite strange and not very mechanical logical...

Here is the graph that I was talking about yesterday:



Except for the fastest bell forward (flank speed) and, even more evident, for the fastest bell astern (back emergancy), the observed diesel curve is almost linear, though with a slightly steper gradient than espected. Not so for the electric curve, especially the backward part of it, which is much more irregular. We could blame its "bumpiness" to rpm measurement mistakes by you, but why only for the electric curve and not for the diesel one? Nah, there must be something else

In general, it looks like the game is trying to match the espected speeds as closely as possible, pulling rpm/speed coordinates from a second hardcoded curve...

Originally Posted by Fifi

Is it possible to match historical RPM for electric ahead slow and backward slow (very needed for beeing silent - leaving aside the speed) while matching historical speeds for others knukles (leaving aside RPM this time - less important)?
Could be a soluce in the waiting of code braker

It could be an idea, though I am not even sure how te game calculates hydrophone detection chances

At this stage, I would carry some more tests with different rpm, speed and ratio settings, and see if/how output curves are affected. What do you think?

[Fifi]

I think it's still no perfect. We can try others values of course. I'm at your disposition