Best Long range speed?

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by mobucks

In heavy chop your range will decrease. If I pour on the coal in nice weather I make 20-21 kts in TMO. Same setting in the worst seas the game has gives an average of 17kts. (17-18-17-16 on and so forth) AFAIK, the engines are still burning the same amount of fuel/hour.

That's not very much. When I was last playing (in a S-boat), the difference was less. I don't think I ever lost more than 2 knots in the worst weather. And I should add, the S-class were notorious for their poor seakeeping qualities. In SHCE, top speed for the S-class boats in heavy seas was about 4 knots!

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Personally, I've always thought the fuel/range allotments in SH4 were too generous (even with the map distortion issues), mainly, because there is little hinderence due to the weather. Storms and heavy seas created problems in RL, but do not do so in game.

Of course, I have formed this opinion playing RFB. Is there much of a difference between TMO and RFB?

Huh. When I play RFB2, I won't have enough fuel to make it back from my first objective, consistantly. In TMO2.2, I always make it back from multiple objectives with reserve.

[USS Drum]

10 knots.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by USS Drum

10 knots.

Any knots. Ahead 1/3, 2/3, standard (even tried full and flank to see if it was some sort of odd glitch favoring the absurd). This is with just plain RFB2 and RFB2 with other mods claiming compatibility with RFB2. Even then, it wasn't the holes in my fuel tanks that bothered me as much as the CTDs if I tried to look at the wrong ship model (eyes, scope or recognition manual). I recognize many fellow SubSimmers as enjoying RFB over other options. CTDs being common kills it for me. No evident practical option for fuel conservation would only be a continuing challenge.

[mido]

Originally Posted by Arlo

Any knots. Ahead 1/3, 2/3, standard (even tried full and flank to see if it was some sort of odd glitch favoring the absurd). This is with just plain RFB2 and RFB2 with other mods claiming compatibility with RFB2. Even then, it wasn't the holes in my fuel tanks that bothered me as much as the CTDs if I tried to look at the wrong ship model (eyes, scope or recognition manual). I recognize many fellow SubSimmers as enjoying RFB over other options. CTDs being common kills it for me. No evident practical option for fuel conservation would only be a continuing challenge.

I don't experience any CTD's, neither with RFB nor TMO. You might have another problem with your PC.
If I set speed at just a little below 9 knots I can comfortably reach all the different areas and get back to home port, using RFB.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by mido

I don't experience any CTD's, neither with RFB nor TMO. You might have another problem with your PC.
If I set speed at just a little below 9 knots I can comfortably reach all the different areas and get back to home port, using RFB.

Regarding CTDs, I reckon the hardware is surely a factor to consider. That's why I generally keep it a personal project to figure out. Others playing who've never had my problems just proves it's most likely how my rather new Dell's wired or the combination of it and my vid card. The fuel use difference is a puzzlement, though. That's game (or mod) coding (actually settings) and it should behave the same if I haven't monkeyed with it. When I can actually dicker with the innards of the game/mod (ignorantly or not), I probably will.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Arlo

Huh. When I play RFB2, I won't have enough fuel to make it back from my first objective, consistantly. In TMO2.2, I always make it back from multiple objectives with reserve.

How are you using your fuel? I would go out in a S-18 class to my objective, at standard, find a good spot and wait. Next day, move over 20 to 40 nm and repeat. If air activity requires it, submerge during the day and run at minimum speed; no more than 2 knots. The idea is to find a shipping lane, and wait for the merchants to come to you; not try to sweep the entire Pacific Ocean. If you are cruising around morning, noon, and night, you will not have enough fuel - plain and simple.

I actually like this aspect of the game. It forces you to think a little and is realistic. Fuel/ Endurance was a significant issue, after all.

Any knots. Ahead 1/3, 2/3, standard (even tried full and flank to see if it was some sort of odd glitch favoring the absurd). This is with just plain RFB2 and RFB2 with other mods claiming compatibility with RFB2. Even then, it wasn't the holes in my fuel tanks that bothered me as much as the CTDs if I tried to look at the wrong ship model (eyes, scope or recognition manual). I recognize many fellow SubSimmers as enjoying RFB over other options. CTDs being common kills it for me. No evident practical option for fuel conservation would only be a continuing challenge.

I would try RFB without so many mods (RSRDC is ok). It sounds like you have some conflicts here. I've had very few CTD's with RFB. The main thing was the museum, which is a known issue with most of the mega-mods that add ships, if I'm not mistaken.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by TorpX

How are you using your fuel? I would go out in a S-18 class to my objective, at standard, find a good spot and wait. Next day, move over 20 to 40 nm and repeat. If air activity requires it, submerge during the day and run at minimum speed; no more than 2 knots. The idea is to find a shipping lane, and wait for the merchants to come to you; not try to sweep the entire Pacific Ocean. If you are cruising around morning, noon, and night, you will not have enough fuel - plain and simple.

I actually like this aspect of the game. It forces you to think a little and is realistic. Fuel/ Endurance was a significant issue, after all.

I would try RFB without so many mods (RSRDC is ok). It sounds like you have some conflicts here. I've had very few CTD's with RFB. The main thing was the museum, which is a known issue with most of the mega-mods that add ships, if I'm not mistaken.

With a 1942 start in a Tambor, based in Brisbane, I get an objective to patrol the Luzon Straights. I plot the straightest course I can to get there and travel ahead standard. I will be at less than half fuel capacity by the time I get on station. Retrying it at 2/3 or 1/3 yields the same result. This is running RFB2 alone or RFB with scope mods and such (no other mega in conjunction). The museum CTD is avoidable by .... well ... not using it. That I have no problem with. The other CTDs appear to be related to various ship models in the ONI ship recognition manual, bridge visual or periscope visual. I couldn't tell you if it's a ship model that my unique pc/vid card cannot render while it renders others just fine or if it's something my pc can't rectify in other ways.

The only reason I don't run RFB is because TMO doesn't cause the CTDs it does. What I've seen between the CTDs was most appealing (other than the odd fuel rate, which, like I said, I would have doggedly addressed).

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Arlo

With a 1942 start in a Tambor, based in Brisbane, I get an objective to patrol the Luzon Straights. I plot the straightest course I can to get there and travel ahead standard. I will be at less than half fuel capacity by the time I get on station. Retrying it at 2/3 or 1/3 yields the same result. This is running RFB2 alone or RFB with scope mods and such (no other mega in conjunction). The museum CTD is avoidable by .... well ... not using it. That I have no problem with. The other CTDs appear to be related to various ship models in the ONI ship recognition manual, bridge visual or periscope visual. I couldn't tell you if it's a ship model that my unique pc/vid card cannot render while it renders others just fine or if it's something my pc can't rectify in other ways.

To be honest, I really don't have any experience with the fleetboats, as I have often started/restarted careers in '41. But, this sure doesn't sound right. Also, I don't recall ever having rec. manual issues. Maybe someone can verify that the route you describe is doable. If you are not doing a lot of battery charging and are traveling at standard speed, you should have the spec cruising range; about 11,000 nm I would guess.


If would consider uninstalling all mods and reinstalling a new copy of RFB and RSRDC and trying again (without anything else to see where the problem is). When I first started with SH4 mods, I was using RFB and found I could not execute a normal dive in less than 5 or 6 minutes. Needless to say, this was not much fun. I couldn't understand why on earth, they would make any sub dive that slow. Finally, after suffering for weeks with this curse, I downloaded a fresh copy and started over. Problem solved. Files do get corrupted sometimes.


The rec manual thing sounds like the game maybe referencing a ship file that is missing, or is corrupted. That is just a guess.

Anyway, I can see why you're not thrilled with that kind of performance. Someone with better computer skills might have some ideas for you.

[TorpX]

Arlo

OK, I looked up the Tambor class and see they are supposed to have a 11,000 nm range. I calculate the distance from Brisbane to Truk to Takao. This is probably somewhat greater than the route you would be taking, but is a reasonable approximation. The distance came out to 4,140 nm. So unless I've made some mistake, you should be able to get to and from your patrol zone and have over 2,000 nm endurance for maveuvering. This would be 50 days worth if you limited your cruising to 40 nm/ day.

If you like RFB otherwise, I would try to re-install or figure out what is "busted" in you mod set-up.

[Hylander_1314]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

And herein lays a problem with SH3, 4 and 5. Fuel usage doesn't scale so well. TMO was designed so you could go to your patrol areas at speeds the subs most accurately traveled in real life. In TMO ahead standard is the fastest economical speed for the fuel used. Yes you can putt putt around at 2/3rds, but you'd be taking advantage of a flaw in the game, and having two to three times the range you should have.

Personally, im starting to wish i didn't adjust speeds to be realistic at ahead standard. Regardless of what I had intended, everyones going to go around at 2/3rds and exploit the flaw in design. So, what the hell, "all ahead harbor speed at 2/3rds for teh win!"

No,no, no! Thankyou for adjusting that! I like to get in and out of Empire waters as expeditiously as possible! Dealing with planes and all when one has plenty of ammo is one thing. When low or out of ammo is the tough part.

And travelling halfway 'round the world at harbor speed was agonnizing at best. Even with TC. Much nicer at 15 kts than 9 or 10 kts.

And it works great for those of us who don't have all the time in the world to devote to playing at a snail's pace.

[Ducimus]

I think ill be splitting the difference. I'm a master of extrapolation.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by TorpX

Arlo

OK, I looked up the Tambor class and see they are supposed to have a 11,000 nm range. I calculate the distance from Brisbane to Truk to Takao. This is probably somewhat greater than the route you would be taking, but is a reasonable approximation. The distance came out to 4,140 nm. So unless I've made some mistake, you should be able to get to and from your patrol zone and have over 2,000 nm endurance for maveuvering. This would be 50 days worth if you limited your cruising to 40 nm/ day.

If you like RFB otherwise, I would try to re-install or figure out what is "busted" in you mod set-up.

Thanks for the additional info. I'll experiment from scratch.

[Ducimus]

Ill post new info in a bit.

[Ducimus]

Ok, not sure where to post this, but this thread seems as good a spot as any since my brain has just turned to mush.


-------------------------------------
Regarding Point A to point B distances:
-------------------------------------

Real World Navigation
From the mouth of Pearl Harbor, to the mouth of Tokyo bay, the distance, in the real spherical world is 3,346 NM.

Game World Navigation
From the mouth of Pearl Harbor, to the mouth of Tokyo bay, the distance, in the virtual flat world is 4,129 NM.

The difference from Real to Game:
If you multiply the real world point A to point B distance of 3346 by 23% (0.234 to be exact), you get the result of 4128.964, which very closely match's the distance measured from the exact same two points in game.

Therefore, the game world is 23% larger then in real life.


-----------------
Regarding Fuel:
-----------------

Using the Gato class as a benchmark, the following is my best extrapolation based on all resources available to me. (meaning a whole lot of web and forum searching)

Standard Fuel Capacity:
Reputable sources agree that the original design for the Gato Class Submarine carried 94,400 gallons of fuel oil in it's oil tanks. The oft cited and accepted statistic for the resulting range of said 94,400 gallons of fuel oil is 11,000 NM @ 10 knots.

Extended Fuel Capacity:
Later on at a date i was unable to find, the original design of the Gato class was modified. Several ballast tanks were modified so they could be used to carry fuel, further extending the fuel capacity of the Submarine. Sources agree to total fuel capacity being 116,000 gallons with fuel ballast tanks. (Henceforth referred to as "FBT")

Reiteration of Fuel capacity:
Nominal fuel carried: 94,400 gallons
Maximum fuel carried via FBT: 116,000 gallons

Total fuel extension over original design: 21,600 gallons.

Extrapolation:

- Of standard fuel capacity
If

commonly accepted figure of 11,000 NM @ 10 knots is accurate

Then

94,400 gallons divided by 11,000 NM = 8.58 gallons of fuel used per mile.

- Of Extended fuel capacity
Then if

8.58 Gallons of fuel is used per mile

8.58 divided by 21,600 gallon contained in the FBT = 2,541 NM

- Therefore:

11,000 NM + 2,541 NM = 13,541 NM. Or in other words, our Gato, could, in a real spherical world, travel a distance of 13,541 NM @ 10 knots

New Translation of Real world into Game world:

Increasing endurance, within scale of the game world.

If

Real world endurance 13,541 NM, multiplied by 23% map sized increase for flat map projection in game.

13,541 * 0.234 = 3,158.59

Or in other words, our gato's endurance with extended fuel should be 3,158.59 NM more to account for the flat map.

Then

Real world range with FBT ( 13,541 NM ) plus the 23% increase of distances (3,158.59), equals 16699.59.
or simply put, in game, a Gato should have 16,700 NM @ 10 knots.

-----------------------------------------------------
Problems with the game Engine and Historical accuracy
-----------------------------------------------------


Problem with Game Engine

Problem No1:
Diesel engine fuel efficiency is not modeled correctly, nor is it possible to alter it.

Problem No 2:
The game is hardcoded on how it handles fuel usage. Regardless of what you enter speed and range. It is, at it's heart, a Uboat sim. Certain aspects continue to reflect this. As fuel usage goes, this means:

a.) Going slower then 9 to 10 knots is always fuel inefficient.

b.)Going 9 to 10 knots is always, (approximately) 2.12 times more fuel efficient regardless of what specify, if above 10 knots.


Historical Problems when applied to the game engine:

- The game does not provide a method of putting X number of engines on battery recharge or propulsion.

- Fleet type submarines, were originally designed to run with the surface fleet. They were capable of cruising at speeds greater then 10 knots when surfaced. Various patrol reports and non fictional books and/or first hand accounts would collaborate this. Most patrol reports will cite entries such as "two engine speed" or "three engine speed".


A little known fact as it pertains to battery charging in game:

Battery recharge times will vary according to your surface speed. While the game provides no direct method of putting X number engines on the battery charge, it is implied.

Assuming the telegraph settings are modified as thus:
* Ahead 1/3rd is 25% of your engines
* Ahead 2/3rds is 50% of your engines
* Ahead standard is 75%
* Ahead Full is 90%
* Ahead Flank is 100%

For the purposes of fuel expenditure, surface cruising, and battery recharging, this means:

- at 1/3, you have 3 engines on the charge, and 1 on propulsion. This could be called, "one engine speed". Assuming a top speed of 20 knots, one engine speed is 5 knots.

- At 2/3rd, you have 2 engines on the charge, and 2 on propulsion. This could be called, "two engine speed". Assuming a top speed of 20 knots, two engine speed is 10 knots.

- at Standard, you have 1 engine on the charge, and 3 on propulsion. This could be called, "three engine speed". Assuming a top speed of 20 knots, three engine speed is 15 knots.

In the game, you will notice a direct correlation between, how long the battery takes to charge, and how fast your going on the surface.


-------------------------------------------
TMO Specific: New fuel settings in TMO 2.5:
------------------------------------------


Long story short, A picture is worth a 1000 words:


The above picture, i feel is the best balance between how the game engine behaves, and historical concerns.

Explanation using Gato as an example.
Gato at 75% throttle (ahead standard) is 15 knots. For a Gato, this is 3 engine speed.

In the submarines .sim file, I will have specified 8700 NM @ 15 knots. If you examine that figure, that means you have 4,000 NM range. (round trip 8,000) If you leave pearl harbor at ahead standard, you'll get about as far as Lots wife and back, with a remaining 700 NM @ 15 knots for patrolling.

- If while on patrol, you reduce your speed to two engine speed, (2/3rds or 10 knots), that 700 NM distance becomes 1470 NM that you can allot to patrolling your general area. Now assuming you were to travel in a straight line, that distance is enough to get you from Lots wife, to the NW corner of Luzon.

OR,

- if your insistent on doing 2/3rds the whole way (Would you think outside the Uboat box already! ), you'll be getting about 18,400 NM range, which is a fudging of 1700 NM. Far from perfect, but far closer to the more realistic 16,700 NM then the current 29,000 NM your getting now im TMO 2.2


In TMO 2.2 I had adjusted the speed on the assumption of a standard cruising speed of 15 knots. Since actual cruising speeds varied, while cruising at 15 knots is realistic, cruising at 15 knots ALL THE TIME, is not realistic. Furthermore, expecting the player to cruise at Ahead standard all the time, knowing full well they can exploit the games hardcoded design, is also quite unrealistc. Those of you who are playing TMO 2.2 and cruising at two engine speed are quite familiar with the range boost I discussed earlier.