Sh3.exe and Asdic in shallow waters

[Stiebler]

I was sufficiently interested in whether GWX substitutes a 0.0 Minimum Surface contact area by default with another value, that I checked it.

I ran single mission Convoy PA69, set in 23 Feb 1944. A quick check on the mission file showed two escorts, both of type COBathhurst. Another check in the Sea folder for COBathurst (.sns file) shows that they have asdics 147A fitted in February 1944.

Then I checked through my code intercepts while running the single mission. Sure enough, in the code-subroutine where the original stored values from AI_Sensors.dat are moved into the asdic memory area for each warship as it is spawned, I could detect the distinctive data (ie, Minimum Range all the way down to Minimum Surface) for the GWX 147A asdic, as listed in the GWX AI_sensors.dat file.

The Minimum Surface value was still 0.0 at the point of transfer. So this really must be the value used.

Does this information change the views of any GWX players for the Minimum Surface values that I intend my asdic mod to install according to sea-depth?

Stiebler.

[Stiebler]

For those interested in day/night modification of the visual sensors:

I have passed on the relevant code information to Reaper7, who wishes to explore this issue further, and also to H.sie.

In my opinion, the combination of visual sensors (U-boat/enemy) is already good in NYGM, so I have no interest in developing a new mod myself. The sensors for NYGM were created by Observer a long time ago. Observer was/is a real-life American ex-submariner.

Stiebler.

[Rubini]

Originally Posted by Stiebler

For those interested in day/night modification of the visual sensors:

I have passed on the relevant code information to Reaper7, who wishes to explore this issue further, and also to H.sie.

In my opinion, the combination of visual sensors (U-boat/enemy) is already good in NYGM, so I have no interest in developing a new mod myself. The sensors for NYGM were created by Observer a long time ago. Observer was/is a real-life American ex-submariner.

Stiebler.

Hi Stiebler,

So, you don´t have vampire night view (uboat crew) on NYGM? I know that NYGM have different visual sensors for AI ships but uses the same (stock) for uboat crew. The settings for visual uboat crew sensors are in Sensors.dat and in the Sensors.cfg as you know.

Isn´t possible to correctly adjusted the vampire night uboat crew using neither the Sensors.dat or sensors.cfg without messing with day visual sensitivity and so on. This is an old well knowing issue that never was fixed.

Probably NYGM (as it is in GWX) just have a heavy settings on the light settings but this is for sure messing with day and (even worse) evening/dusk sensibility too. This was too tested a lot some years ago and nobody found a real magic setting that solve the problem. When you raise these settings your crew continues to make visual detections at maximum range, just delayed a bit more, but as it is random, not so rarely it detects at 16km at night!!

Since the 16km mod this annoyance is much more noticiable (in 8km isn´t that bad). What the big mods did was then try a compromisse between settings on the above files, visual section, but this is far from good or realistic.

If you have the time try a second look on the matter, testing the max/usual visual detections by the uboat crew in game at day, dusk and night. You will see that at night the crew can visual detect ships at much more high distance than it will be plausive. (to not say a totally irrealistic).

Well, i´m here only trying to atract your attention and, perhaps, the desire to work on this issue , but obviously I/we can understand and I agree that we/you/anyone just want to work at first on issues (mods) that are interesting for ourselfs...sh3 is an endless work for modders, you know.

[Rubini]

Sorry to insist on the matter, hopes that for a good cause.

To make a mod for visual detection issue is probably just a matter (but I don´t have any thin idea on how to make it or the probably hard time to make it) to find the sensor visual max distance memory location (as you did for asdic) and if the enviroment is day left it as is, if is dusk cut it to 2/3, if night just cut it to a 1/2 or 1/3. Perhaps could be also need to make it to Ai visual sensors ... (but Ai visual sensors at night is already more responsible on sim.cfg/Ai_sensors.dat than the uboat crew ones).

Excuse me again to stay on this matter.

Cheers mate!

[h.sie]

@Rubini: Since Stiebler isn't interested: I already offered makman via PM some days ago, that I'll look into the vampire night sensor issue, since I already "hacked" the visual sensors for the VIIF wolfs. But for this big project, I need time and energy. If it's me to do the job, patience is needed. But I don't want to hinder others to start to play with the sensors.

[Rubini]

Originally Posted by h.sie

@Rubini: Since Stiebler isn't interested: I already offered makman via PM some days ago, that I'll look into the vampire night sensor issue, since I already "hacked" the visual sensors for the VIIF wolfs. But for this big project, I need time and energy. If it's me to do the job, patience is needed. But I don't want to hinder others to start to play with the sensors.

Hi h.sie,

Thanks to look on this.
We have all the time mate!

The truth is that we (i can for sure speak for a lot of ppl here on the followed matter) like very much and we are very thankfull on what you and Stiebler have done, you both knows that.

And we also know (because a lot of us are also modders...well at this time probably any sh3 player already made at least one tiny mod!) that any mod work is a very time consuming task and that the main and primary ingredient is ourself motivation.

Every time that i write something here I spent a lot of time reading my post to try to not be so much that type "please do this, please to that" because I know how hard is this work (and believe me, with my english limitations is yet more hard to express myself). So, like I said, excuse us if sometimes seems (just seems!) that this entire community are now over you both!

[Fish In The Water]

Originally Posted by Stiebler

I was sufficiently interested in whether GWX substitutes a 0.0 Minimum Surface contact area by default with another value, that I checked it...

The Minimum Surface value was still 0.0 at the point of transfer. So this really must be the value used.

Does this information change the views of any GWX players for the Minimum Surface values that I intend my asdic mod to install according to sea-depth?

Very interesting findings...

Before I answer your question, I feel I should provide a bit of background to set the proper context. I'm a long time GWX player who has a love/hate relationship with the mod. Yes I said 'hate,' but not in the classic sense as my criticism doesn't come from a place of malice or spite but rather from a desire to see it better.

On the one hand I think certain parts of GWX are absolutely wonderful, whereas a few others I find quite appalling. That being said, the good far outweighs the bad and so I continue to play.

All of which brings us to your question. If your findings are correct, then I would have to place this in the 'appalling' category. I say this as an individual who has long enjoyed 'realistic' sims as opposed to what I would call uber AI sims.

Speaking in general terms, if the goal is to emulate the historic conditions of the Battle of the Atlantic then I would say the player should be given about a 25% chance to survive. This strikes me as both eminently fair and realistic.

This being the case, one has to ask why the perception (as you indicated in your previous post) that hardly anyone ever makes it to '44 or '45 in GWX? (And I'm not debating whether this perception is real or not, merely that it strongly exists in many people's minds).

That being said, in my mind, a minimum surface contact area of 0.0 in no way reflects what could be termed 'realistic' in any sense of the word. As much as I enjoy (and continue to play GWX), I have to be honest and call this a regrettable instance of uber AI-ism.

I would hope your mod will more accurately reflect a reasonable surface area to be contacted as a prerequisite prior to detection.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Stiebler

For those interested in day/night modification of the visual sensors:

I have passed on the relevant code information to Reaper7, who wishes to explore this issue further, and also to H.sie.

In my opinion, the combination of visual sensors (U-boat/enemy) is already good in NYGM, so I have no interest in developing a new mod myself. The sensors for NYGM were created by Observer a long time ago. Observer was/is a real-life American ex-submariner.

Stiebler.

hello Stiebler,
i have sent you a single mission to see the 'problem' by yourself .date of mission is 10/1939 so visual sensors are on priority.run the mission many times to get an idea of the detection range that own crew is spotting the target(just start your engines and wait).there is the need to run many times the mission becuase the detection range is random(!!??)(this is ,also , a big question: why this detection is random as all the settings are always the same in this specific mission?). also, the target is setted that way so showing its less hull in a last effort to minimize the detection range but... the 'vampire nights' issue also exists in NYGM (tested on a 'clean' install of NYGM with no other mods enabled) . this is not a fault of Observer, who have made a brilliant work on sensors (as far my knowledge on sensors adjustments allows me to say), but it seems that the whole light factor for OWN crew visuals is broken (it works though for AI visuals).
as i have spent countless hours trying to 'heal' this issue via the .cfg files ...all my attempts-tweaks-combinations didn't 'work'! i am convinced that this issue can't be solved via .cfgs but i will be very 'huppy' if it is prooved ,at the end,that i am wrong and there is ,indeed, a combination at .cfgs files that is solving the problem and avoid the hardcode way !

Originally Posted by h.sie

@Rubini: Since Stiebler isn't interested: I already offered makman via PM some days ago, that I'll look into the vampire night sensor issue, since I already "hacked" the visual sensors for the VIIF wolfs. But for this big project, I need time and energy. If it's me to do the job, patience is needed. But I don't want to hinder others to start to play with the sensors.

hello H.Sie,
i have replied to this via pm and i am really thankfull to you and looking forward to start a project like this !

Originally Posted by Rubini

Hi h.sie,

Thanks to look on this.
We have all the time mate!

The truth is that we (i can for sure speak for a lot of ppl here on the followed matter) like very much and we are very thankfull on what you and Stiebler have done, you both knows that.

And we also know (because a lot of us are also modders...well at this time probably any sh3 player already made at least one tiny mod!) that any mod work is a very time consuming task and that the main and primary ingredient is ourself motivation.

Every time that i write something here I spent a lot of time reading my post to try to not be so much that type "please do this, please to that" because I know how hard is this work (and believe me, with my english limitations is yet more hard to express myself). So, like I said, excuse us if sometimes seems (just seems!) that this entire community are now over you both!

couldn't say it better !
100% agree to all these


ps: @Stiebler : i want to ask sorry for hijacking this thread with a theme for visual sensors . this is the last post i do here ,so if there is interest we can open a new thread and continue there .

[reaper7]

Hi Stiebler got your PM and thanks for the info - hope I can figure my way around OllyDebug and find the relevant info .

Was at work today and had a thought that may be of Interest to you to add to your Asdic code.
It would be possible to make the sub harder to spot by ASDIC's when stopped and on the bottom by making MS = 80 or some relevant amount.

This would be great to add to the Defensive tactics when trying to escape destroyers when the sea floor is above crush depth.
Just bottom out and hide.
I already have the Variable for subspeed and could find the variable for depth under keel. So if both variable = 0 then MS = 80 .

So to add to your Original Figures
Depth > 150m: MS = 100 (m2, metres squared).
Depth >100m: MS = 150
Depth >50m: MS = 200
Depth < 50m: MS = 300.
DepthUnderKeel=0 Speed=0 MS=80

If your Interested in adding this to the code I'll send you the OllyDebug Code and memory locations.
Sorry for making more suggestions, just excited by your discovery

[LGN1]

Hi,

just two comments:

1. I know I repeat myself, but I would never judge a sensor's performance by a single parameter value without knowing the whole equation for the sensor's performance. Maybe a parameter has no influence if other parameters have certain values (e.g., you can create a fatigue model based purely on morale or stamina and in this case the stamina/morale (respectively) coefficients have no influence). And since so many paramters enter a sensor's performance equation, I'm sure there are quite a few paramter sets to obtain a certain result.

I'm convinced that modding sensors is one of the hardest things you can do because of all the parameters involved and the dependencies. Therefore, I regard it as absolutely necessary to test thoroughly. And I'm quite convinced that GWX has been tested well.

2. Concerning the influence of the sea floor: From my knowledge the influence of the sea floor on the detection probability varied a lot depending on the nature of it. At the moment it seems that you would always gain from the sea floor Any plans to make this random so that sometimes you benefit from the sea floor and sometimes you don't?

Regards, LGN1

[reaper7]

Originally Posted by LGN1

Concerning the influence of the sea floor: From my knowledge the influence of the sea floor on the detection probability varied a lot depending on the nature of it. At the moment it seems that you would always gain from the sea floor Any plans to make this random so that sometimes you benefit from the sea floor and sometimes you don't?

Regards, LGN1

Agreed if this was possible to do then the variable would have to be random applied so as not to be always a sure thing.
Just wish this was within my expertise to figure out, but I got nowhere today trying to figure out OllyDebug, having no experience with Assembly doesn't help.

[U-Falke]

This mod will be a great adition! I play the period 1944-45, believe me, it's the most interesting time to play the war.
Also, on IRON COFFINS the thermal layers are constantly said to hide the sub.
I sugest you skilled modders consider implement this also !!!!

[Hitman]

2. Concerning the influence of the sea floor: From my knowledge the influence of the sea floor on the detection probability varied a lot depending on the nature of it. At the moment it seems that you would always gain from the sea floor Any plans to make this random so that sometimes you benefit from the sea floor and sometimes you don't?

That's correct, I know it well from playing Dangerous Waters! Mud bottom absorbs the pings and returns no echo, rock reflects a lot. The uboat hull reflects the ping, so the rock bottom actually hides it better because it gives a lot of false return, while mud outlines the hull echo return in the sonar against a echoless background.

Also, on IRON COFFINS the thermal layers are constantly said to hide the sub.
I sugest you skilled modders consider implement this also !!!!

Thermal layers are already in the game, and SH3 commander has a feature to put one at random at mission start. However, it will stay fixed all the time, so it could be nice if though code one could add changing thermal layers

[Fish In The Water]

Originally Posted by LGN1

Maybe a parameter has no influence if other parameters have certain values... And since so many paramters enter a sensor's performance equation, I'm sure there are quite a few paramter sets to obtain a certain result.

Perhaps, but you seem to be arguing from the unknown to the known. On the one hand, we have actual empirical evidence (as presented by Stiebler), while on the other we have what appears to be unsupported suppositions.

If we start from the unknown, we are hardly in a position to disqualify that which is known.

Stiebler presented a set of findings and then posited a question based on those findings. In my view, the time and effort involved in arriving at the data merited an honest answer rather than an attempt to disqualify the premise.

I'm convinced that modding sensors is one of the hardest things you can do because of all the parameters involved and the dependencies. Therefore, I regard it as absolutely necessary to test thoroughly. And I'm quite convinced that GWX has been tested well.

You may well be right. Furthermore I concede you may well be in a better position than I to judge the testing quality of GWX. While this may all be true, it still amounts to indirect knowledge.

The only knowledge we have that is direct is a surface contact variable of zero and the generally held assertion that hardly anyone makes it past '44.

While I readily admit this may only be a part of the picture, for the time being it's the only part we have to go on. Hence I can either speak from that which we do know or I can let the question go unanswered for lack of a complete picture.

In this case I chose to do the former, mainly out of deference for the effort Stiebler put in to investigate.

[LGN1]

Hi Fish In The Water,

I didn't want to say anything bad about Stiebler's work. I also don't doubt that the value is zero. The only thing I wanted to say is that one should be really careful with drawing conclusions from a single value (see, e.g., the effect of the negative surface value in SH4).

Regards, LGN1