worst External damage ever.

[CaptainMattJ.]

How the hell am i still ALIVE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Apparently a plane did all this at TC while i was underwater. HOWS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE!?!!??!!?? It skinned half my boat. not even destroyers do that. What was this a nuclear Depth Charge? Something was messed up with the CO2 thing, cause when i got back to base (thank GOD it was in Manila), i had 95% CO2. this was seriously FUBAR

Heres The Screenshots









This is just trying to maintain periscope depth. It looks like im emergency surfacing. and this is EMERGENCY emergency surfacing. And yet, i just ordered it to go to periscope.

[TabbyHunter]

Something went wrong here, methinks.
And yet, you have 000 hull dammage.

[Armistead]

One bug that forever remains in the game is the CO2 bug. Most think it happens more if you alt/tab out alot or use TC alot dived, not sure anyone knows. The only way to fix it is to save the game and reload and your CO2 will work as it should.

Planes can do that kind of damage to your skin, almost funny, yet you have very little real damage. It's just the way the graphics render hit zones. I've had that in the rear of my sub and in the front to where my whole sub was almost a transparent frame. Really no different that when you get shot by an enemy deckgun and it leaves big holes you can see through, yet little damage. In reality one hole you would be out of business. It's hard to find and mod that perfect damage zone, just so many factors involved. Course it will vanish if you save and reload.

This happened to me a few days ago, think about 15% damage..lol,
I'll try to find the other one where it's front and back, now thats a looker.

[rein1705]

permitted to abandon ship?

[Rockin Robbins]

Naw, it's only a flesh wound. Swim it off!

[Sailor Steve]

SH4's physical representation of damage is way overblown. Shooting merchants with the deck gun leaves holes a 15" gun would make in real life. The torpedoes are better.

So you have to ignore how the damage you take looks.

[chrysanthos]

i have an other problem...i use the uss montana battleship and when it gets hits from others there is no visible black splash damage from shelling just like silent hunter 3....not even holes...is there a texture problem or it is the mod?

[Char]

Jeez thats pretty bad.Don't have a screen of it but I had one time where it looked like half my Conning Tower was missing,yet I was still able to go to the bridge and use the TBT.And there were still people on watch.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by chrysanthos

i have an other problem...i use the uss montana battleship and when it gets hits from others there is no visible black splash damage from shelling just like silent hunter 3....not even holes...is there a texture problem or it is the mod?

I've never used any of the surface ship mods. I think there might be a problem if another BB hits you with it's main batteries and you see no damage. I'm not sure you should expect much if it's hit by another BBs 6" casemates or a 5" DD shell. Battleship armor was pretty thick, depending on where the hits are occurring.

[Elektroniikka-Asentaja]

Thats pretty severe looking damage in your sub I just hate when they hit the fore.. Because then you have to reverse in case you aren't interested in crash-diving all the time without orders..

And nice find RR

[commandosolo2009]

I couldnt think of a better response, but this is one chewed off corn cob

[tater]

IMO any damage large enough to make a decent sized visible hole (decent being anything larger than small-arms fire) should sink the boat.

[Rockin Robbins]

But in the game, visible damage is just eyecandy, signifying nothing. Targets visibly damaged beyond survival steam unaffected over the horizon. Lots of targets sink with no visible damage at all!

We have a stupid hull damage meter for our submarine. More eyecandy, signifying nothing!

In the future, with different companies producing the software, eyecandy must become actually significant and reliable!

Let's take the real case of the USS Bergall. I'm going to pull from my collection of "Remember This?" by Bill Wolfe, former editor of the Polaris, official publication of the United States Submarine Veterans of World War II.

REMEMBER THIS USS BERGALL?

On the evening of Dec. 13, 1944 as Bergall (Hyde) was preparing to plant mines off Indo-China, she picked up a distant radar contact. Closing to 26,000 yards, the contact was tentatively identified as 2 cruisers, later determined to be a cruiser and destroyer escort. After attaining a firing position 3300 yards away from the overlapping targets, six bow tubes were fired. Moments later a tremendous explosion occurred, seemingly, breaking the Imperial Japanese heavy Myoku in two. Hauling clear to reload when the escort seemed reluctant to attack, Bergalll charged in for a second attack when, at 9000 yards, the escorting destroyer opened fire, one shell landing in Bergall's wake, another directly into her forward torpedo loading hatch, opening a large hole in her pressure hull. Retreating at full speed. Bergall hauled clear only to find that the damage was beyond repair at the scene, 2000 miles from the nearest friendly port, Exmouth Gulf, Australia. When reporting the problem to Admiral Christie Cdr. Hyde was ordered to rendezvous with Angler, Bashaw and Paddle, remove the crew and destroy Bergall. After carefully reviewing the situation, Cdr. Hyde decided to disobey this order and try to take Bergall home through Karimata, the Java Sea and Lombok on the surface. He removed one officer and 54 men to the Angler, destroyed all confidential gear, set demolition charges by her torpedoes and mines and got underway for Exmouth Gulf, Angler following closely, standing by to remove personnel from Bergall if danger threatened. Five days later, they arrived at Exmouth Bay on 20 December 1944.

First notice that the destroyer escort, identified at the time as a cruiser (!!!), tossed two shells out there from 9,000 yards. One landed in Bergall's wake but the other scored a critical hit. Think about that next time you complain about Japanese ships being too accurate in SH4. Ain't so! So what does "a large hole in the pressure hull" "beyond repair at the scene" and requiring Bergall to travel on the surface for 2,000 miles to get home really look like?

As luck would have it a man stood on the dock with a camera upon Bergall's arrival at Exmouth Gulf. You can see the "major damage" from a Japanese 8" shell (much larger than anything a submarine could fire!) had to be delineated by drawing an explanatory line on the photo! Without it, I doubt you could have found the major damage that kept that sub from submerging, even to periscope depth!

Sometimes eyecandy lies. Sometimes eyecandy sucks. For all its good qualities, we're playing an arcade game with ludicrously exaggerated graphics. Much of the time the eyecandy is just irrelevant, inappropriate and ridiculous. Other than that I have no opinion.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

But in the game, visible damage is just eyecandy, signifying nothing. Targets visibly damaged beyond survival steam unaffected over the horizon. Lots of targets sink with no visible damage at all!

We have a stupid hull damage meter for our submarine. More eyecandy, signifying nothing!

In the future, with different companies producing the software, eyecandy must become actually significant and reliable!

Let's take the real case of the USS Bergall. I'm going to pull from my collection of "Remember This?" by Bill Wolfe, former editor of the Polaris, official publication of the United States Submarine Veterans of World War II.

First notice that the destroyer escort, identified at the time as a cruiser (!!!), tossed two shells out there from 9,000 yards. One landed in Bergall's wake but the other scored a critical hit. Think about that next time you complain about Japanese ships being too accurate in SH4. Ain't so! So what does "a large hole in the pressure hull" "beyond repair at the scene" and requiring Bergall to travel on the surface for 2,000 miles to get home really look like?

As luck would have it a man stood on the dock with a camera upon Bergall's arrival at Exmouth Gulf. You can see the "major damage" from a Japanese 8" shell (much larger than anything a submarine could fire!) had to be delineated by drawing an explanatory line on the photo! Without it, I doubt you could have found the major damage that kept that sub from submerging, even to periscope depth!

Sometimes eyecandy lies. Sometimes eyecandy sucks. For all its good qualities, we're playing an arcade game with ludicrously exaggerated graphics. Much of the time the eyecandy is just irrelevant, inappropriate and ridiculous. Other than that I have no opinion.

Impressive marksmanship if I may say so, though not unexpected of the IJN at all. What's most impressive about it is that it appears to have been an AP shell, slicing right through the sub. Not like proximity damage from an HE, but a direct hit. Somebody must've had some real confidence in their gunners. Realized after only 2 shots!

[rein1705]

They were lucky they didnt get nailed right through the conning tower. An HE round would have been tragic even more so.