[REL] TMT v2 (Tribute to Manual Targeting-version 2)

[onelifecrisis]

I'm sure that fixing the sim files will not be difficult, they are not very big, only a handful of values IIRC. Maybe start by opening them in S3D and doing a visual comparison of GWX vs STz vs B&D? The solution might be as simple as merging the differences. (Edit: mind you, we don't want them unsinkable! )

Originally Posted by makman94

first the most important.

disable TMT and inside it open the data/sea/NCA_Averof/ and then open the NCA_Averof.cfg . change the length=185 to length=183. (it was made a stupid mistake to calculations,sorry about that).enable again the TMT and thats it!

Ah! A perfectionist I see!

Done, thanks!

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Graf Paper

Honestly, I would rather have accurate targeting data than worrying myself over losing 3,000 (or less) BRT because some small merchant succumbed to the angry sea.

I think (well, for me at least) it's more a matter of immersion than lost tonnage. Sure, maybe one or two ships did sink in bad weather IRL, but not whole convoys (as sometimes happens in GWX, if the assortment of ships is right... or "wrong" perhaps is a better word). In any case I agree I would rather have makman's mod given the choice.

BTW, makman, one ship that STz didn't fix is the Tramp Steamer. They sink all the bloody time. I was just thinking, maybe while you're at it...

[rs77]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

I'm sure that fixing the sim files will not be difficult, they are not very big, only a handful of values IIRC. Maybe start by opening them in S3D and doing a visual comparison of GWX vs STz vs B&D?

I just did it for NKSQ_ in the post above yours

thing that should also be corrected as I stated earlier is draft in .cfg files

Rubini put ships deeper by increasing draught in .sim files, so now .cfg and .log files are little wrong in this matter, which can cause problems when using magnetic torps supposed to go under the keel

what's on my mind lately is to merge TMT with Thomsen's ships , but not original Thomsen's ships only the new version which doesn't include messing around with gc_height (well it doesn't exist yet) only acceleration and turning abilities + enhanced funnel smoke now that would be brand new ships behavior ha

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by rs77

I just did it for NKSQ_ in the post above yours

Right you are! I guess we cross-posted.

[rs77]

that's no problem OLC

in fact I expected some discussion on my post because I'm not sure if my statements about buoyancy are right

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Graf Paper

EDIT:
Got it uploaded here at Subsim for you, makman! I hope it helps you.

Download: STZ Sinking Ships Fix v2.1

many thanks Graf Paper !

sure it helped!

[makman94]

Originally Posted by rs77

as I understand all those mods:
- GWX 3.0 - positive buoyancy (surfaced displacement > mass)
- Rubini's B&D - neutral buoyancy (mass = 0, so mass = displacement) + put them deeper into water by increasing surfaced draught
- StzSinkingFix - more positive buoyancy than in GWX 3.0 for some ships

example NKSQ_:

1. in stock GWX 3.0 it has little positive buoyancy, mass = 1958,5; displacement = 1960,0

2. Rubini's B&D, mass = 0, displacement = 1960, according do S3D in this case game treats it as mass = displacement, so buoyancy is neutral

3. StzSinkingFix, mass = 1664, displacement = 1960, so we have more positive buoyancy than in original GWX 3.0 and much more than in B&D mod

so ships which have problems with sinking in heavy sea in GWX 3.0 will have much more problem with B&D mod

cheers

as i have no idea about all these ( positive buoyancy.... ....etc) and how to be altered, i am afraid that i have no opinion at all.
are you saying here that if we put the StzSinkingFix's mass and displacement values to b+d mod and leave all the others values untouched will do the trick? and the height will be unchanged ???

about the draft values ,i have already told you that the problem is that we don't know for sure if the original values are acurate (and i can't think a better way to check this exept of starting firing infinite torpedoes ....which is a little bit .... let's say...impossible).
BUT do this if you have the time and the will to do it.open the original .sims (not b+d's .sims) FOR EACH SHIP and check if the draft value is the same with the value at original .cfgs. do this for each ship and report back.if so ,then we will write on TMT's cfg the b+d's draft values.of course ,that means that if the original values are not accurate ...the same will go to the new draft values but for sure it will be better than nothing

bye

[makman94]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Ah! A perfectionist I see!

Done, thanks!

when i told you that, if anything is done right ,you will see an accuracy of +-1 degree at AOB.....i wasn't joking! (thats why i like this 'game' so much)

[makman94]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

BTW, makman, one ship that STz didn't fix is the Tramp Steamer. They sink all the bloody time. I was just thinking, maybe while you're at it...

Not any more OLC ! Tramp Steamer is going just fine with b+d mod.

saw the post #27# ??

i checked them all and only the NLPL (ocean liner) and the NLST (landing ship tank ) have problem.just these two ships.

now i tested the .sims for these ships from StzSinkingFix and they didn't sink (although especially the landing ship tank is very...funny at 15 m/sec).so,if at last don't find a way to merge the .sims then i will use StzSinkingFix's sims for these two ships and readjust them
bye

[rs77]

Originally Posted by makman94

as i have no idea about all these ( positive buoyancy.... ....etc) and how to be altered, i am afraid that i have no opinion at all.
are you saying here that if we put the StzSinkingFix's mass and displacement values to b+d mod and leave all the others values untouched will do the trick? and the height will be unchanged ???

Rubini's called his mod 'neutral buoyance and draught', I can see (comparing B&D and original .sim files) that he achieved this 'neutral' buoyancy by removing mass values in .sim for each ship, well in fact sometimes displacement is removed, but according to S3D the result is the same, game uses mass == displacement.

Stz wanted some of the ships not to sink, and his mod introduces mass < displacement. And it actually works

The question is how it is modeled by the game mass + displacement + draught

It looks like mass and displacement don't have the influence on draught, well it's just a game, not a real physics. So I believe that if we set draught to x meters in .sim file, than the ship will be put exactly x meters deep into the water. The difference is how it behaves on the waves I suppose, don't forget that Rubini was trying to minimize 'rubber duck in bathtub' effect.

Correct me if I'm wrong - the .cfg files are used only for recog manual right ?

about the draft values ,i have already told you that the problem is that we don't know for sure if the original values are acurate (and i can't think a better way to check this exept of starting firing infinite torpedoes ....which is a little bit .... let's say...impossible).
BUT do this if you have the time and the will to do it.open the original .sims (not b+d's .sims) FOR EACH SHIP and check if the draft value is the same with the value at original .cfgs. do this for each ship and report back.if so ,then we will write on TMT's cfg the b+d's draft values.of course ,that means that if the original values are not accurate ...the same will go to the new draft values but for sure it will be better than nothing

bye

I'll do this expect the results by the end of this week, maybe I'll be even able to prepare corrected .cfg files by then.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by rs77

Rubini's called his mod 'neutral buoyance and draught', I can see (comparing B&D and original .sim files) that he achieved this 'neutral' buoyancy by removing mass values in .sim for each ship, well in fact sometimes displacement is removed, but according to S3D the result is the same, game uses mass == displacement.

Stz wanted some of the ships not to sink, and his mod introduces mass < displacement. And it actually works

The question is how it is modeled by the game mass + displacement + draught -----here is the need of testing

It looks like mass and displacement don't have the influence on draught, well it's just a game, not a real physics. So I believe that if we set draught to x meters in .sim file, than the ship will be put exactly x meters deep into the water.----well ,i suspect that it will not put EXACTLY at x meters.sh3 has the tense always to....messing ! (like the 'bad' girl...nobody wants it as girlfriend BUT everybody wants it to....) . one of the reasons that i made the mast adjustments in-game.The difference is how it behaves on the waves I suppose, don't forget that Rubini was trying to minimize 'rubber duck in bathtub' effect.

Correct me if I'm wrong - the .cfg files are used only for recog manual right ?-----yes.exept of the mast value ,which is being taken from cfg and it is a data for the stadimeter.(i am talking only for mast,length ,draft,speed values)



I'll do this expect the results by the end of this week, maybe I'll be even able to prepare corrected .cfg files by then. ----

above with green

[onelifecrisis]

(like the 'bad' girl...nobody wants it as girlfriend BUT everybody wants it to....)

:rotfl: that was completely unexpected!

P.S.
That's great news regarding the tramp steamer

[rs77]

hi,

makman please take a look at this:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/tmjm42cnzfl/GWX.xls

this file contains comparison of drafts and displacements in .cfg, .sim for stock GWX3.0

generally speaking the answer is yes, before B&D mod draughts in .sim and .cfg where the same, although there are exceptions

1. some .sim files have draught = 0 , after S3D: 'The object's draught[m]. If 0, then it is taken from the object's global position.', as I can see Rubini left those as is, and we can't really do much about them unless we figure out their global position from 3D models

2. if both draught values (.sim and .cfg) are present then the are 17 differences, which I think are just bugs

the real fun starts when you look at displacements

1. generally both values are given in .sim file, mass and displacement, and generally mass < displacement and difference is 1,5T

2. some .sim have displacement = 0

3. there are a LOT which just look messed up

[makman94]

Originally Posted by rs77

hi,

makman please take a look at this:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/tmjm42cnzfl/GWX.xls----i will look at it right now!

this file contains comparison of drafts and displacements in .cfg, .sim for stock GWX3.0

generally speaking the answer is yes, before B&D mod draughts in .sim and .cfg where the same, although there are exceptions ----ok,some exceptions....are....expected

1. some .sim files have draught = 0 , after S3D: 'The object's draught[m]. If 0, then it is taken from the object's global position.', as I can see Rubini left those as is, and we can't really do much about them unless we figure out their global position from 3D models ----hands up by me! i will send a pm to Rubini to inform us about it .i am sure that he can help here with that

2. if both draught values (.sim and .cfg) are present then the are 17 differences, which I think are just bugs----i also believe that are just...bugs

the real fun starts when you look at displacements

1. generally both values are given in .sim file, mass and displacement, and generally mass < displacement and difference is 1,5T

2. some .sim have displacement = 0

3. there are a LOT which just look messed up ----it seems that mass and displacement are combined like this:if you set 0 to one then the value from the other is considered (according to s3d).i will tell about it also to Rubini

good job Rs77 !


edit: just looking your .xls file(<----very nice) and i think that we can start copying the b+d draft values to TMT's .cfgs.we will see what will be done with those that have draft=0

[rs77]

I won't continue further, in fact I have set of unified .sim, .cfg files for all ships based on TMT mod but I'm afraid I created more mess doing this

I'd like to point out a few more things:
- cumberland, devonshire, norfolk - looks like they have wrong mass/displacements in .sim, I checked wiki on this and 13300 for their displacement in .cfg looks much more real

- one of the fishing boats - boat_4 - has displacement of 885 tons in .cfg, it doesn't look right, fishing boat of destroyer size ?

- pbtrawler, again .cfg says 480 tons compared to 110 in .sim, a little to big

we need complete clean solution for all ships, that would be great