[tec] "bouyancy problem"

[vickers03]

where is the problem in taking over the GWX sub values to sh5?

looking at the GWX submerged displacement vs. surfaced, this is your bouyancy (type 7b):
857/753=1,138 (you can work with a factor),
mass is set slightly less than surfaced displacement;
in GWX it's 752,8.
gc_height=2,35 (might be too much in sh5)

adapt this to the other subs.

don't forget to edit the data/Cfg/sim.cfg to get rid of
the sub on rails:

[Mech]
Waves amplitude=0.60
Waves attenuation=0.03

[Ducimus]

Have you tested that?

[Kromus]

Originally Posted by vickers03

where is the problem in taking over the GWX sub values to sh5?

don't forget to edit the data/Cfg/sim.cfg to get rid of
the sub on rails:

[Mech]
Waves amplitude=0.60
Waves attenuation=0.03

Since when ";AI surface ships sensors cfg file" has to do something with "sub on rails" effect? Just curious

Edit: No joy, just tried them (taken from uboat.net actually) at full stop ordering to P depth falls down to 16 then slowly up to 14-5 to 25 it falls down to 31 then up to 28 and ordering to 100m it falls into oblivion... Like I said, it`s not that simple as someone thinks.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Kromus

Since when ";AI surface ships sensors cfg file" has to do something with "sub on rails" effect? Just curious

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physic...tionWaves.html
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physic.../waveParts.htm

[vickers03]

Have you tested that?

yea well.. up to some extent
at least i can dive around like in sh3

Since when ";AI surface ships sensors cfg file" has to do something with "sub on rails" effect? Just curious
[Mech]
Waves amplitude=0.60
Waves attenuation=0.03

this defines the wave influence on all surface vessels

[Kromus]

Originally Posted by vickers03

this defines the wave influence on all surface vessels

Ok I give it a shot

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Kromus

Ok I give it a shot

Don't be surprised if you end up with some ahh..... side effects. Tuggin on those variables will fix sub on rails for sure, but it's much akin to being a kitten tuggin on a ball of yarn. Two biggest side effects to look out for is

- AI visual sensors changing drastically one way or another.
- surface ships randomly sinking/exploding for no apparent reason. (crash depth issue with damage zones in zones.cfg if i remember correctly)

To minimize the chance of that happening, Be gentle, don't adjust it drastically. Only as needed, and very carefully, and deliberatly.

[Kromus]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Don't be surprised if you end up with some ahh..... side effects. Tuggin on those variables will fix sub on rails for sure, but it's much akin to being a kitten tuggin on a ball of yarn. Two biggest side effects to look out for is

- AI visual sensors changing drastically one way or another.
- surface ships randomly sinking/exploding for no apparent reason. (crash depth issue with damage zones in zones.cfg if i remember correctly)

To minimize the chance of that happening, Be gentle, don't adjust it drastically. Only as needed, and very carefully, and deliberatly.

Thx for warning and info

Yes I just tried changing original values (0.3->0.03 and 0.75->0.6) and sub was like "running through the waves" no pitch/roll anything. So definately this is the way so thx both for this. Problem seems to be those side effects now

[Ducimus]

>>no pitch/roll anything.

CG_Height in the sub's sim file. Default is 1. In previous games this was a little under or a little over 2. Here you have to be careful again or you'll have a sub doing 360's along its long axis, or end up upside down if rammed or something. One additional thing i noticed was that on deck, in rough weather and this adjusted to say 2.X.. i found myself catapuled onto the UZO as if i was standing on it. My "feet" being launched right off the conning tower deck. So, again, adjust carefully. Hope you like restarting the game alot. (insert DRM rant here).

With stock enviormental settings and waves, i found ehh 1.8 or 1.9 (i forget, but i think 1.8) to be the most i could set it before having the "catapult onto the UZO" feeling.

Hmmm.. i guess the camera doesn't move with the boat?

[Hitman]

I understand it that at a depth below 250m or so it is very difficult to keep the sub from going to the bottom for good. Basically flank speed to maintain that depth or sink further and crush. My question is this, is this a bug or is this the way that they worked then. it's not as simple a question as it may seem. as a scuba diver, I know that near the surface one often has to add weight just to be able to stay underwater, but as you go deeper , you have to keep adding air to a Buoyancy control device to keep control of your depth and to keep from rapidly sinking. to me this sounds like the same thing is happening to the subs, and here is the kicker, after a certain depth there is no more volume for the trim tanks to keep the sub at the ordered depth , to to maintain depth you need up force from the dive plains. just like on the surface you need negative on the plains to force the sub underwater. ( I think ya can still dive a u-boat without them, but it would take a bit longer) the depths that this sort of effect would happen may be all wrong, but just thinking before it is (fixed) make sure it needs fixing.
I welcome comments from any more in the know than I.

What I can add is that because of the huge pressure over the steel, it is bounced inwards at great depths and as such the actual volume of the UBoat is decreased even more, making it heavier when compared to the water because it displaces less of it. I can't say how much this effect causes, but I know it exists. It might be neglectable or not, but it was known and mentioned in WW2 documents/books, though I can't right now tell from memory where I readed it