[REL] Operation Monsun

[Nets15]

hmmmm. Well i got it working. I uninstalled everything and reinstalled it again. This time not in the C:Program Files but made a new folder on C and that sortof fixed it

[etheberge]

Originally Posted by looney

To be clear I have an unmodded install of SH4 and want to play Monsoon:

This is the correct (possible) mod list?
1: OpsMonsun_V705
2: OMv705_to_ V720
3: OMEGU_v210
4: OMEGU_v210_hotfix3
5: OM_Med_ENV
6: OM_PAC_env
or are the last 2 only needed when playing Mediterranean or Pacific?

Yes the last two are only needed when playing in the Mediterranean or Pacific. They change the color of the water. The default is Atlantic. You don't have to use them either, it's up to you if you like the color.

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by Nets15

hmmmm. Well i got it working. I uninstalled everything and reinstalled it again. This time not in the C:Program Files but made a new folder on C and that sortof fixed it

If you are on Vista or Win 7 then yes, installing it somewhere other then Program Files will help with alot of potential errors. You should never put games you intend to mod in PF, I never put any games there at all. I have a C:\Games\ folder for them.

[looney]

Just killed my 1st greek ship no clue if they where Neutral or not.

I GWX we had a list where it was noticed when countries where allies or enemy or neutral. In my alternate reality they where enemy..

out of 2 torps fired 1 hit no clue why the other missed.. a well 10 HE shells downed her 4k+ GRT on Werner B Herberts tally ( I liked Iron coffins a lot)


(Now only a fix for the recon manual... way to many duplicate ships in it. I noticed on uboat.net that most ships tend to look alike and the few models in SH3/4 are most likely more than enuf all around. All in all we are only interested in mast height and length. But this is only a minor annoyance.

P.s. I know it has to do with game mechanics that why I typed it between "()")

[Nets15]

Originally Posted by Highbury

If you are on Vista or Win 7 then yes, installing it somewhere other then Program Files will help with alot of potential errors. You should never put games you intend to mod in PF, I never put any games there at all. I have a C:\Games\ folder for them.

Ahso i see.
Well i have played some games already but after about 10-15mins the game still crashes to deskop.Could it have something to do with graphics?
My mods
RFB_v1.52
RSRDC_RFB_V575
OMV705
OM705 to 220
OMEGU_v210
OMEGU_v210 Hotfix3

[Akula4745]

Originally Posted by looney

Just killed my 1st greek ship no clue if they where Neutral or not.

I GWX we had a list where it was noticed when countries where allies or enemy or neutral. In my alternate reality they where enemy..

Check out this mod: Csengoi's Enemies Of Germany

Originally Posted by looney

Now only a fix for the recon manual... way to many duplicate ships in it. I noticed on uboat.net that most ships tend to look alike and the few models in SH3/4 are most likely more than enuf all around. All in all we are only interested in mast height and length. But this is only a minor annoyance.

Silhouette and RecManual Mod v1.1
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=1395

And if you'd like more...

German Map Labels:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=1372

You may also be interested in the Uboat Kaptain Office (ATO) Mod:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=1348

[lurker_hlb3]

Originally Posted by Nets15

Ahso i see.
Well i have played some games already but after about 10-15mins the game still crashes to deskop.Could it have something to do with graphics?
My mods
RFB_v1.52
RSRDC_RFB_V575
OMV705
OM705 to 220
OMEGU_v210
OMEGU_v210 Hotfix3

From the install instructions of OMEGU

============================


Install instructions:

-----------------------------------------------------------

If your are currently on patrol, you will need to be in port to install


“WARNING”

FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUTIONS WILL CAUSE OM/OMEGU NOT TO RUN CORRECTLY & SH4 TO CTD.

-----------------------------------------------------------

OMEGU should "ONLY" be installed on a “stock” SH4 v1.5 after OM v705 and OMv705 to V720.

Special Note: Users of the Stock Version of RSRDC can also use OMEGU if they wish.

-----------------------------------------------------------


Any mod that is installed “BEFORE or AFTER” OMv705, OMv705_to_v720, OMEGU, and RSRDC and JSGME generates a “conflict” with any of the above mods and you continue to install the mod and RSRDC/OM/OMEGU no longer works correctly is “NOT” my problem.


“WARNING”

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...36&postcount=1

[Alfred Keitzer]

Originally Posted by swdw

Interesting you thinks it's unreal. ComSubPac made many sub commanders go up in an aircraft to observe a submerged submarine. Why? Because most skippers did not realize that in the Pacific a boat can easily be seen on a clear day to a depth of 33 to 45 meters. So this is unrealistic how?

Then there are war patrol records where boats on the surface, in the daytime with excellent visibility, with relatively calm water were seen by escorts beyond the distance you gave. What was the wind speed and sea state in the situation you mentioned?

There are differences between the Atlantic and Pacific that require a skipper understanding that he has to change the way he operates.

Sorry, but the AI mod is very realistic for the Pacific

In response to the above reply regarding air attacks on U-Boats at 80 meters ... Sorry guys, but I'm going to have to raise the BS flag on this one.

Since when do US Navy personnel speak in terms of meters? They speak in terms of feet. I'd need to see some first-hand reference material to even begin to believe this.

Now I might believe 33 to 45 FEET on a clear calm day. I might even believe 80 FEET (25 meters) in shallow water, but I think even that is a real stretch.

But no way are you going to see a WWII submarine (or smaller U-Boat) at 80 meters (over 250 feet) from the air I don't care what ocean you're in!

[AVGWarhawk]

Sail is what, 25-30 feet? Perhaps more? I see a submarine hull at this depth from the air. So did the aircraft and at upwards (or downwards) of 150 feet if conditions were right. BTW, who said 80 meters anyway? I see you have but no one else. I would agree that 250 feet would be a stretch at seeing a submerged boat.

[Alfred Keitzer]

Yes, I've seen this picture. She's right at the surface, you can see the wake of her periscope mast. Sail is maybe 15 to 18 feet, so you're seeing the top of the hull at maybe 25-30 feet underwater. I'll give you 25-30 feet on the sail if that's a big old boomer.

Put that boat another 25 feet underwater and I'll bet you would have a hard time seeing her even in this clear calm sea. Most light is absorbed at 33 feet. Only blue light makes it down to 330 feet. To see a reflection of blue light off a grey (much less a black hull), means the light would have to travel down, reflect and come back -- that's 150 feet (50 meters) max, and that's not going to happen quite frankly.

I've flown over wreck sites in the Pacific on clear clam days like this where I knew there was a merchant wreck (five times the tonnage of a U-Boat) sitting in 90 feet (30 meters) of water (clear sandy bottom) and you can not see it or make it out from the air -- not even close!

The issue came up when I recently tested out the XXIII in Monsun going from Norway to the English coast. I was repeatedly attacked (day and night) by aircraft while I was anywhere from 40 to 90 meters underwater, which brought me here to another complaint by someone else about being attacked out of the blue at 80 meters by an aircraft.

I doubt you're going to find any pilots who are going to say they saw a submarine 50 feet (15 meters) or more underwater. And I know of no case where a U-Boat was initially sighted underwater below 15 meters and engaged. All airborne kills that I know of started with a radar detection, a surface sighting, or at least a periscope sighting. Don't know of any kills that started with, "Hey, I see a U-Boat under the water out there!"

This MOD to the AI_Visual_Sensors.dat file makes the whole game pretty unrealistic and useless.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Alfred Keitzer

Yes, I've seen this picture. She's right at the surface, you can see the wake of her periscope. Sail is maybe 15 to 18 feet, so you're seeing the hull at maybe 25 feet underwater.

Put that boat another 25 feet underwater and I'll bet you would have a hard time seeing her even in this clear calm sea. Most light is absorbed at 33 feet. Only blue light makes it down to 330 feet. To see a reflection of blue light off a grey (much less a black hull), means the light would have to travel down, reflect and come back -- that's 150 feet (50 meters) max, and that's not going to happen quite frankly.

I've flown over wreck sites in the Pacific on clear clam days like this where I knew there was a merchant wreck (five times the tonnage of a U-Boat) sitting in 90 feet (30 meters) of water (clear sandy bottom) and you can not see it or make it out from the air -- not even close!

The issue came up when I recently tested out the XXIII in Monsun going from Norway to the English coast. I was repeatedly attacked (day and night) by aircraft while I was anywhere from 40 to 90 meters underwater, which brought me here to another complaint by someone else about being attacked out of the blue at 80 meters by an aircraft.

I doubt you're going to find any pilots who are going to say they saw a submarine 50 feet (15 meters) or more underwater. And I know of no case where a U-Boat was initially sighted underwater below 15 meters and engaged. All airborne kills that I know of started with a radar detection, a surface sighting, or at least a periscope sighting. Don't know of any kills that started with, "Hey, I see a U-Boat under the water out there!"

This MOD to the AI_Visual_Sensors.dat file makes the whole game pretty unrealistic and useless.

So that is were the 80 meters comes from. I can understand what you're saying now but you an odd way of explaining what is possibly a problem with the mod So yeah, 80 meters might be a bit much! I'm not sure how Lurker handles that aspect of the game. Allow him to ask a few questions or possibly provide the answer to why this is happening as designed if it was designed like this.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is the best I could come with for now.

Submarine visual camouflage became an issue again before the outbreak of the Second World War. This time the question was not only one of concealing a surfaced submarine, but also of hiding a submerged submarine from aerial observation. Once again, a series of trials was conducted to test various ideas. Tests between 1934 and 1936 were inconclusive. A new series was ordered and took place off Pearl Harbor in mid 1937. Four boats of the old "S" class were used. S-28 (SS-133) was painted entirely black, S-35 (SS-140) was dark blue-gray overall. S-21 (SS-126) was given a coat of dark purple. In a second series, disruptive patterns were used. S-21 carried black and green. S-35 was painted in black, blue and green. For a third, and final, test S-22 (SS-127) was given a pattern of dark blue and black. The conclusion reached from these experiments was that dark blue offered the best concealment in deep, clear, tropical waters. As a result, Commander SubRon 4 ordered boats of SubDiv 8 to be repainted in blue as paint became available. Paint for all navy ships was under the provence of the Bureau of Construction and Repair in the Navy Department and appropriate instructions were covered in the booklet issued by that Bureau known as C&R-4.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08492.htm

Judging by this paragraph submerged detection by aerial observation was something known and a concern. As noted dark blue was best for concealment in DEEP, CLEAR, tropical waters. The green dark Atlantic I would not suspect seeing a submerged uboat but maybe at PS depth. After reading this I can reasonably conclude that submarines could be seen at depths lower than 50 feet. Why would they spend so much time on a shade of paint if it was not a concern for aerial detection while submerged?

[Alfred Keitzer]

Yea, I’ve been rummaging through these articles trying to get a definitive answer as well. Unfortunately, they don’t mention of depths they were testing at. However, if I had to venture a educated guess, I would say the concern arose from sightings when the submarine was in the attack phase near the surface since that is where they are of any threat to the enemy. In very shallow water against a sandy bottom in the Pacific, I might agree that you could make out the shape of a submarine at more than 25 feet, but not sure you can conclude that you could see a submarine at 50 feet or more from the reference given above; and at that we are at the 15-16 meter mark.

I still say that giving aircraft the ability to detect underwater anything below 15 meters just isn’t that realistic and does not appear to be collaborated by combat records. And at night without a visual is just out of the question.

Aside from the mere detection issue is one of identification. Even if you could see a submarine shape at 50 feet under the water, is it American, British, Dutch, German, Italian, Japanese, or a whale? Except for "kill-free" zones, not sure aviators are going to start dropping DCs or homing torpedoes on everything they see. In my case of an XXIII crossing the North Sea underwater, everyone knows that British submarines were working the North Sea right up to the end of the war.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Alfred Keitzer

Yea, I’ve been rummaging through these articles trying to get a definitive answer as well. Unfortunately, they don’t mention of depths they were testing at. However, if I had to venture a educated guess, I would say the concern arose from sightings when the submarine was in the attack phase near the surface since that is where they are of any threat to the enemy. In very shallow water against a sandy bottom in the Pacific, I might agree that you could make out the shape of a submarine at more than 25 feet, but not sure you can conclude that you could see a submarine at 50 feet or more from the reference given above; and at that we are at the 15-16 meter mark.

I still say that giving aircraft the ability to detect underwater anything below 15 meters just isn’t that realistic and does not appear to be collaborated by combat records. And at night without a visual is just out of the question.

Aside from the mere detection issue is one of identification. Even if you could see a submarine shape at 50 feet under the water, is it American, British, Dutch, German, Italian, Japanese, or a whale? Except for "kill-free" zones, not sure aviators are going to start dropping DCs or homing torpedoes on everything they see. In my case of an XXIII crossing the North Sea underwater, everyone knows that British submarines were working the North Sea right up to the end of the war.

USS Torsk:


The original attack perscope is up. Note the size of the people compared to the sail and scope. I would say that is about 50 feet. Detectable at periscope depth in the clear Pacific close to white inland shores were they eventually hunted the Japanese vessels because this was the only protection Japan could offer, yes I sure do believe these beastie could be seen. At 150 feet? That might be a stretch. Seen in the Atlantic? Probably very hard to see a uboat at 50 feet in the murky waters of the Atlantic hence you coming here to express your concern.

We need to give Lurker his thread back. Please start your own thread in the general SH4 forums for others to join in and hopefully provide more insight. Lurker will be around and read this. Let Lurker provide an answer before his .dat file is consider useless.

[Alfred Keitzer]

Yea, okay! Only posted here because the issue was originally raised in post #241 and I wasn't agreeing with the answer given. I will part in saying that I think identification at depth is as much an issue here as detection. I turn it back to Lurker.

P.S.> I'm using OMv705_715A