Should I use battery fix with NYGM 2.0?

[VonHelsching]

This is the last time, I'm ever talking batteries

Batteries are NOT empty - they are in some state of charge/discharge.

We can change the message, from "Battery Empty!" to "Batteries are almost discharged! We cannot use them safely anymore, Kptn!"

Why do people think the reduced range is correct?

Because they are now getting the nominal underwater ranges, not the nominal ranges plus the offset conversion factor between kilometers and nautical miles

As a matter of fact, these ranges could be reduced further in a random way (through SH3Cmdr randomization function) to simulate old batteries, bad maintenance etc.

Where is the technical justification for the correctness of the reduced range suggested in this "patch that's not a patch"?

It's not "reduced ranges". It's the correct ranges. The stock game had inflated ranges. The technical justicifation is that the players are now getting the nominal ranges when the game says they are empty, ahem in a state of discharged where they cannot be safely used anymore. (and for the part ""patch that's not a patch", I'm ignoring that)

I have offered technical reasons why the reduced range is not correct. I can offer more technical reasons. I would like to see the technical reasons justifying the reduced range as it has been implemented in this "patch", how it is correct and how does it correctly simulate battery discharge and electric engine operation, as well as the charging on the diesel.

I am talking about Silent Hunter 3 and you're talking about reality. The Devs constructed a simple linear model and we'll have to work on that. I respect your technical knowlege on batteries, but the stock virtual batteries of the SH3 game was not providingthe players the correct ranges.

If you want a harder game with reduced ranges, don't upgrade your battery. Simple.

You just gave me an idea with the battery upgrades. If the nominal underwater ranges are the average of the ranges of the stock batteries and the upgraded batteries, then the stock ones should be reduced further.

I think the real problem is the overly generous build up rate of C02. I just haven't figured out how to solve that problem yet.

This is indeed an additional problem, that has not been addressd by anyone.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

VonHelsching

NO ONE in this forum has a monopoly on the term "realism" or its application to the SH3 files.

One can either talk an issue to death in an effort to impress you with their "intellect" and "technical expertise" ... or they can do as VonHelsching has, mod the file to be more historically accurate, test it, adjust it,... and accept whatever limitations of the code-set that may exist. This yields as valid an outcome AS ANY given those limitations.

There is ALWAYS more than one approach to get the same job done.

[CB..]

just make the dang battery upgrades more expensive in the shop---

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Originally Posted by CB..

just make the dang battery upgrades more expensive in the shop---

... and that would be a third approach! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[irish1958]

I find the CO2 much more of a problem when I am trying the evade that damn destroyer.
irish1958