Masts+Lengths Adjustments

[Pisces]

Is it not possible to compare the particular values in the .dat files of Rubini/Makman's mod, with the unmodded files of GWX3, and correct the 'true' mastheight-value in the cfg files of each vessel with the difference? (of height of center of gravity, I presume)


(runs away before people start to think he himself has the time to do it )

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Rubini

Thanks makman for more this great work!

no, I am thanking you for all that you have offered till today!

Originally Posted by Pisces

Is it not possible to compare the particular values in the .dat files of Rubini/Makman's mod, with the unmodded files of GWX3, and correct the 'true' mastheight-value in the cfg files of each vessel with the difference? (of height of center of gravity, I presume)


(runs away before people start to think he himself has the time to do it )

.dat files ? what have .dat files to do here? if you are trying to say that then the masts values can be adjusted without 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod' ,i am afraid that it will need the same hard work becuase ,as Rubini had informed me,not all the ships(even if they belong to the same type) are the same effected of 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod'
and just for the last ,why not simply run first the 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod' ?
where is the big deal?

edit: and why not to give this energy in helping to finish THIS attempt ? and then ,if a formula is found,all the ships will be adjusted very soon without the 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod'.

[makman94]

i need an info from someone that is familiar with roster files.
i need a list of all the ships that belongs exlusively to GERMANY ,meaning that NO OTHER country is using them . (these ships will need no adjustments as we are never aim to them)
thank you

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by makman94

i need an info from someone that is familiar with roster files.
i need a list of all the ships that belongs exlusively to GERMANY ,meaning that NO OTHER country is using them . (these ships will need no adjustments as we are never aim to them)
thank you

Look in data\Roster\German\Sea

Edit:
Actually there seems to be some ships in there which are not exclusive to Germany, but you can find out which ones by doing a file search in data\Roster e.g. search for sloop.cfg and you'll find it in not just the German folder, so you know that one is not exclusive to Germany. Search for CAPEugen.cfg and you'll see it only exists in the German folder, so that one is exclusive to Germany.

Edit2:
I did the searches and here is the list of ships exclusive to Germany:

BBBismarck.cfg
BBGneisenau.cfg
BBScharnhorst.cfg
BBTirpitz.cfg
BCDeutschland.cfg
BCGrafSpee.cfg
CABlucher.cfg
CAHipper.cfg
CALutzow.cfg
CAPEugen.cfg
CAScheer.cfg
CLKclass.cfg
CVGrafZeppelin.cfg
DDType36A.cfg
Ftboot.cfg
GeAuxCruiser.cfg
LCMTL.cfg
MS1935.cfg
NHPB.cfg
NMSR.cfg
NMSS.cfg
TB1924.cfg
TB1937.cfg

Some of those might not even be ships, but they're all unique to Germany.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Look in data\Roster\German\Sea

Edit:
Actually there seems to be some ships in there which are not exclusive to Germany, but you can find out which ones by doing a file search in data\Roster e.g. search for sloop.cfg and you'll find it in not just the German folder, so you know that one is not exclusive to Germany. Search for CAPEugen.cfg and you'll see it only exists in the German folder, so that one is exclusive to Germany.

you were faster than me ! i was typing to you that OTMST2 (modern tanker) also is being using by British but thank you for the info ,this is solving this .

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by makman94

you were faster than me ! i was typing to you that OTMST2 (modern tanker) also is being using by British but thank you for the info ,this is solving this .

See my 2nd edit, above.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

See my 2nd edit, above.

very,very niiice !! thank you OLC

sumarry:
another fifteen ships are allready ready but are not released yet becuase are still in testing procedure.
now, if we put out the german ships you mentioned and the VERY small fishing boats(that also will be no adjusted ) ,i am huppy to tell you that have left only about 60 ships to look at

again,thanks

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by makman94

.dat files ? what have .dat files to do here? if you are trying to say that then the masts values can be adjusted without 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod' ,i am afraid that it will need the same hard work becuase ,as Rubini had informed me,not all the ships(even if they belong to the same type) are the same effected of 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod'
and just for the last ,why not simply run first the 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod' ?
where is the big deal?

edit: and why not to give this energy in helping to finish THIS attempt ? and then ,if a formula is found,all the ships will be adjusted very soon without the 'GWX_ships_Buoyance&draught_mod'.

Whoops, they (Rubini's files) are appearantly .sim files that contain the modified draught setting. My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I automatically connect that S3D program with .dat files. Don't know why as it can read and modify the whole lot.

I am tempted to try the buoyancy and draught modifications, because in GWX3 (which I installed for the 1st time yesterday) ships do seem to bob around like rubber ducks in a bathtub. It is probably an improvement to install the mod, but with all the diversity of mods one must be carefull they don't conflict with others. Therefore people are hesitant to try new stuf every time. Also, sometimes the side-effect are a deal-breaker. And that is often a personal opinion. I am not saying this mod (with your adjustments) are the same. But you asked why not. That's my answer. People are creatures of habbit and often want to keep the things they have. I definately do.

Your solution of measuring each ship in a mission is probably the right way to do it. If it is a cumbersome way. And it makes this a sensible value since it is a valid height as measured by the attackscope. Not some abstract number because a formula says it is. However basing these values on a derivative of GWX (as Rubini's mod is) and then converting them back to 'normal' GWX mastheights is really the wrong way around. As it can also add up the inaccuracies of measurement and corrections made. But if you insist on completing your measurements with the bouyancy and draught modifications enabled, then that's the way it is. And not wanting to redo the same work I started thinking of ways to simplify the modification back to stock, even if there are chances of inaccuracies. If in the original GWX3 file is a value that tells how deep the keel is (or some sort of center-of-gravity), and in Rubini's file there is a different value there, then the difference should tell how much your mast value should be 'corrected back'. This searching through the .val files (or wherever it is stored) may have to be done for each file Rubini modified, but I suspect it takes less time than your 'mission measurement' approach.

I hope that clear it up as I have to go.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Pisces

Whoops, they (Rubini's files) are appearantly .sim files that contain the modified draught setting. My apologies for jumping to conclusions. I automatically connect that S3D program with .dat files. Don't know why as it can read and modify the whole lot.

I am tempted to try the buoyancy and draught modifications, because in GWX3 (which I installed for the 1st time yesterday) ships do seem to bob around like rubber ducks in a bathtub. It is probably an improvement to install the mod, but with all the diversity of mods one must be carefull they don't conflict with others. Therefore people are hesitant to try new stuf every time. Also, sometimes the side-effect are a deal-breaker. And that is often a personal opinion. I am not saying this mod (with your adjustments) are the same. But you asked why not---well, i respect the fact that you had become the first to express your 'fears' about the b+d mod but i really think that there is nothing to worry about-Rubini is around here to inform us. That's my answer. People are creatures of habbit and often want to keep the things they have. I definately do.---changing habbits is not always something ...bad (with every new girlfriend ...most oftenly someone is changing habbits.... )

Your solution of measuring each ship in a mission is probably the right way to do it. If it is a cumbersome way. And it makes this a sensible value since it is a valid height as measured by the attackscope. Not some abstract number because a formula says it is--true. However basing these values on a derivative of GWX (as Rubini's mod is) and then converting them back to 'normal' GWX mastheights is really the wrong way around---i don't know yet about this.needs investigation.... As it can also add up the inaccuracies of measurement and corrections made. But if you insist on completing your measurements with the bouyancy and draught modifications enabled, then that's the way it is. And not wanting to redo the same work I started thinking of ways to simplify the modification back to stock, even if there are chances of inaccuracies. If in the original GWX3 file is a value that tells how deep the keel is (or some sort of center-of-gravity), and in Rubini's file there is a different value there, then the difference should tell how much your mast value should be 'corrected back'---if ,indeed,there are these values(i am not familiar with these type of files) it will be just...lovely.but i will say it for last time:there is no need ,try the b+d mod. This searching through the .val files (or wherever it is stored) may have to be done for each file Rubini modified, but I suspect it takes less time than your 'mission measurement' approach.---many mast values needed adjustments,even with,even without b+d mod

I hope that clear it up as I have to go.

yes,you were 'clear'
bye

[makman94]

at my ff page you will find the 'ships 4-gwx3' which containes the adjustments (masts and lengths) at another fifteen ships of gwx3

bye

[onelifecrisis]

Hi makman,

Any recent progress to report? I'm looking forward to trying this when it's done.

[karamazovnew]

Same here

[Rubini]

Originally Posted by Pisces

... because in GWX3 (which I installed for the 1st time yesterday) ships do seem to bob around like rubber ducks in a bathtub. It is probably an improvement to install the mod, but with all the diversity of mods one must be carefull they don't conflict with others. Therefore people are hesitant to try new stuf every time. Also, sometimes the side-effect are a deal-breaker. And that is often a personal opinion. I am not saying this mod (with your adjustments) are the same. But you asked why not. That's my answer. People are creatures of habbit and often want to keep the things they have. I definately do...

Yes. That "bob around like rubber ducks" is exactly what this b+d mod try to fix or at least made it a little better at RL behaviour side. We probably will also have some "taste type of things" here; some will like it, others not.

And you are right too, we have a lot of mods that modifies different things on the same files, this makes the life of modders a real hell. But this is the price that we pay to have the game as we like it.