![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#16 |
Seaman
![]() Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 40
Downloads: 68
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Ok, now im running tmo 2.1 but I havent done this since tmo 1.9 as ive been away for a while. Unless I had corrupt files or what not that is how I did it in TMO 1.9. Sorry if my advice was bad it wasnt meant to be that way but now im wondering if I had bad files or something because like I said when I had 1.9 I specifically remember getting home that way.
With the fuel efficiency in TMO 2.1 ive never gotten close to low fuel so im not sure. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Ocean Warrior
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,731
Downloads: 394
Uploads: 12
|
![]() Quote:
None of which matters, as the OP now mentions he's in a battleship. My advice: It's a learning experience. Learn to watch and manage your fuel.
__________________
"Never ask a World War II history buff for a 'final solution' to your problem!" |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Seaman
![]() Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 40
Downloads: 68
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Ocean Warrior
![]() Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Notify command we have entered the Grass Sea
Posts: 2,822
Downloads: 813
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 5,421
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Oh I did not know that you where in a battleship.Anyway I dont think you'll have a problem with TMO2.1 then it is pretty much impossible to run out o fuel honestly unless you take serious tank damage. Too bad there is not a way to accurately simulate the fuel/ballast mods they did to many boats they did give boost to range/allowed the boat to cruise at a higher speed to station but they did not give the massive boost that TMO 2.1 gives you.
I ran around 3250 nms once form off Okinawa to Midaway in TMO 1.9 which had more realistic fuel ranges I had 30% fuel and got to midway with 5% left and I went ahead Standard (about 10-11 kts in a GATO with TMO1.9) half of the way. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 | |
Rear Admiral
![]() |
![]() Quote:
We call that the Pacific two step... ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Rear Admiral
![]() |
![]() Quote:
I tend to agree, I liked the fuel limitations of TMO2.0, more realistic, but the way I patrol even with TMO 2.0 I could about go flank the entire time as I stay south and hunt south. Most of the action is near bases the first two years of war |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Ace of the Deep
![]() Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: LA Area, Central coast, California
Posts: 1,023
Downloads: 827
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Standard Speed is indeed the most efficient when it comes to Fuel vrs Time to destination. However, the slower you run the engines, the less fuel burned, or at least going at 1/3. I'm not sure about dead slow, that maybe worse for fuel consumption.
Good Luck Anthony! ![]()
__________________
Dogfish40 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Grey Wolf
![]() Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 850
Downloads: 130
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
If only recoil could push me in the right direction haha
I'd have those 16 inchers blazing up like a flamethrower
__________________
Sunken Mustangs Proud Ford Mustang owner "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" - Admiral David Farragut Run silent - run deep - keep the baffles clear - targets front and center. Private pilot and history buff |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 5,421
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Basically from a fuel consumption stand point alone Ahead 1/3rd would be the most fuel efficient you'd take a while to move across the map but you'd have tons of fuel to spare but would not be very combat effective.
It is like that Top Gear episode where Jeremy drove the Audi from Scotland to London, he went as slow as he safely could on a highway and turned off every electronic device that he could to conserve more fuel.Pretty sure that barely moving would lower efficiency. If your goal where to remain combat\normal patrol effective then in this case Ahead Standard is the most effective speed.Being maximally combat effective and being maximally fuel efficient are differing goals. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Rear Admiral
![]() |
![]()
For clarification where TMO is concerned:
- Ahead standard was adjust to be the best speed to fuel consumption telegraph setting. Why? (Aside from technical hashing about 3 engine speed) Because the game defaults to ahead standard whenever you plot a course or order to resume course. I got tired of having to set a new telegraph setting each time i did that. I consider this an ergonomic adjustment to reduce teeth gnashing. - Ahead standard will not yield 15 knots in all boats. Some of the prewar boats will be moving at a slower rate, but it is still the best speed to fuel consumption ratio for those boats. - "3 engine speed" or 15 knots (for most boats) was made the new ahead standard speed because thats what various reading would seem to indicate what the boats travelled at. Aside from that, 10 knots is painful, It takes forever, and a fleet boat is not a 2 engined uboat. - I am WELL aware that travelling at 2/3rds will yield a MUCH larger surface endurance then what is historically correct. I decided to not let a game flaw hamper the good things that would come out of making this adjustment. Or in otherwords, i decided not to hamper enjoyment just because the game left an exploitable bit in its fuel consumption routines. If you want to cruise the worlds oceans at 2/3rds, go for it. The range won't be correct, but that's your decision to make, not mine. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|