Uboot Marschwege / Sub routes

[Paco]

My first attemp to change the delimiter from ',' to anything other has crashed.

I have to go to deep into TDW's work to change and to be compatible with others work. But I found another way to allow the using of a comma in the navigation-files.

Changing the input-routines in TDW's Mod -> heavy work
Make a little change to his Journal-routine -> easy work

For our comments, we write them as we want with the comma. By creating the shn-file, the script replaces all positions of a comma with "_#$#_".

Now, I added a line to the "Page Default Hud.py" from TDW to get back the comma by replacing the _#$#_ in the output-function.

The advantages are
- we get less problems with the complex process how the automations are working
- less code to change (one line only)
- Less side effects, we aren't crashing the UI-Mod, because we are only in an output-routine (I think, nobody uses a term like _#$#_ in his comments )
- The change allows Trevally, AvM, and others to use a so hided comma in ther shn files. They only need is the code update in the "Page Default Hud.py".


Paco

[gap]

Originally Posted by Paco

My first attemp to change the delimiter from ',' to anything other has crashed.

I have to go to deep into TDW's work to change and to be compatible with others work. But I found another way to allow the using of a comma in the navigation-files.

Changing the input-routines in TDW's Mod -> heavy work
Make a little change to his Journal-routine -> easy work

For our comments, we write them as we want with the comma. By creating the shn-file, the script replaces all positions of a comma with "_#$#_".

Now, I added a line to the "Page Default Hud.py" from TDW to get back the comma by replacing the _#$#_ in the output-function.

The advantages are
- we get less problems with the complex process how the automations are working
- less code to change (one line only)
- Less side effects, we aren't crashing the UI-Mod, because we are only in an output-routine (I think, nobody uses a term like _#$#_ in his comments )
- The change allows Trevally, AvM, and others to use a so hided comma in ther shn files. They only need is the code update in the "Page Default Hud.py".


Paco

Brilliant!

[Paco]

Hi gap,

I got Your remarks into the script:

the entry ['FOR'] should be translated with the italian preposition "a" ....

Your workaround is good. I do it for some german translations, too.

code uses straight apostrophes as string markers.

Changed it into double quote and added Your straight apostrophes into the strings.

Are the strings ['TO_SNORKEL_DEPTH'], ['TO_PERISCOPE_DEPTH'] and ['TO_DECKSAWASH_DEPTH'] used likewise the remaining ['TO_*'] entries. I didn't translate them yet, because I couldn't find any mention to them among your examples

Yes

As far as depth commands are concerned, could you put the ['GO_TO'] string to before these phrases:

Done. I divided it into 'GO_TO_DEPTH' for a depthchanging in metres and 'GO_TO_FIXED_DEPTH' for a change to a preset, like Snorkel, or Periscopedepth. For the german translation I leave the second one empty, because we don't need that 'GO_TO_FIXED_DEPTH'.

can you insert a ['DEPTH'] string between ['GO_TO'] / ['GOING_TO']

Yes I can. -> Done. Added the new string into the TEXT-dictionary.

Greets,
Paco.

[LemonA]

I am asking, for whom is the mod intended? ONly for the lazy guy who is not able to draw 5 course lines back to Wilhelmshaafn?

Must the script be monitored in any way to avoid u-boat loss? If "no" how does the script deal with enemy attacks?

[Paco]

Originally Posted by LemonA

I am asking, for whom is the mod intended? ONly for the lazy guy who is not able to draw 5 course lines back to Wilhelmshaafn?

For me, I'm a lazy guy. I like the idea, to have a "taxi-service" in the game like the "harbour pilot scripts" from Trevally.

Perhaps, some other players, who are using the Real-Navigation-Mod could have a need for such a Mod...

Originally Posted by LemonA

Must the script be monitored in any way to avoid u-boat loss? If "no" how does the script deal with enemy attacks?

You do not need the script. It is only to generate automation-files, which have to be imported via JSGME into the game.

Ingame the behaviour is the same as You plot a course and Your crew sights an enemy ship. TC drops and You have to decide what to do.

Paco

[gap]

For me in makes sense inasmuch I don't like having a laser guided sub, but at the same time I don't see it realistic that after enabling real navigation we are no longer able to plot a course, letting navigator and xo to follow it. Using this mod makes them again able to do what they are meant to

Talking about it, it would be cool if Paco's script could feature some limitations:

injured navigator and XO: script disabled
stormy weather: more randomness

Another cool feature would be making the Navigator to mark on map his extimated position at start/end of the script and when main waypoints are reached. Something similar to automatic dead reckoning/celestial fixes script

[LemonA]

For real navigation this would be more realistic:
to proceed from one relative position to another on a specified course, a specified speed for a specified time.
And not proceed from point A in the world to point B in the world. That is cheating!

Expl: u-boat is on course 205° true. The helmsman is ordered to steer course 182° using a speed of 12 knots en route, for 3 hrs 20 minutes. Then he is ordered to steer a course of 205, speed 11 knots for 4 hrs 11 minutes etc. etc.

[gap]

Originally Posted by LemonA

For real navigation this would be more realistic:
to proceed from one relative position to another on a specified course, a specified speed for a specified time.
And not proceed from point A in the world to point B in the world. That is cheating!

Expl: u-boat is on course 205° true. The helmsman is ordered to steer course 182° using a speed of 12 knots en route, for 3 hrs 20 minutes. Then he is ordered to steer a course of 205, speed 11 knots for 4 hrs 11 minutes etc. etc.

I think I see what you mean, and it is a good idea, but I guess there are some limitations to what Paco can do, due to the fact that our crew is unable to spot land.

By applying your idea, deviations from the theoretical route would be cumulative and we would risk to run aground, not to mention the fact that in RL the route would be adjusted as mutch as possible by means of frequent celestial fixes, but not in game (unless Paco finds a way to bring position fixes in his scripts).

You should also take into account that Paco is already planning to add some randomness to his mod in measure of +/- 2000 m for main waypoints, and +/- 1000 for calculated waypoints (it is: wayponts between main waypoints). Provided that there is a way to set different random factors for different waypoints, maybe he could increase general randomness, increasing it even more if weather is overcast, and decreasing it for waypoints delimiting route legs running very close to land (Kattegat, Gibraltar, etc.). In this way, he would minimize the risk to hit land

Last, if possible, the method you are suggesting would be okay for another type of script, where we plot the course and set an array of headings/speeds/times that our crew will follow. For it to be possible, the script should allow for manual inputs and an apposite UI, but I am not sure whether the script system implemented by TDW supports them.

[raymond6751]

What you are proposing is interesting, from a scripting point of view. But, why is it different from the original waypoint system of the stock game?

If I have real navigation active, it is because I don't want to use the waypoint system. If I use the waypoint system, I don't need real navigation.

What would be better, and needed, is an auto wpt creation system where you click a point on the map and the system creates waypoints to that point avoiding land. You could specify or be told choices such as speed, eta, depth mins or max, and estimates of time and fuel use.

That is one click, lots of info provided, shortest route calculated, land avoided, and allows more flexibility in choosing position intended.

Just my thoughts.

[Paco]

Originally Posted by LemonA

For real navigation this would be more realistic:
to proceed from one relative position to another on a specified course, a specified speed for a specified time.
And not proceed from point A in the world to point B in the world. That is cheating!

Expl: u-boat is on course 205° true. The helmsman is ordered to steer course 182° using a speed of 12 knots en route, for 3 hrs 20 minutes. Then he is ordered to steer a course of 205, speed 11 knots for 4 hrs 11 minutes etc. etc.

Technically, TDW's Automation is used in that way. I need point A and B and draw a straight line between them. Add some waypoint like pearls, to keep that way. At point B, I changes the course to point C, etc.

The fallout of this method is used for the comments. I calculate the angle and the distance. I get the speed from config and calculate the gametime and the realtime with the given timecompression.

For players, who want to use the Mod, I'm writing a briefcase with pictures and information-tables for the implemented routes. I could enhance this briefcase with more details for each route:

- angle,
- speed-chart
- timeinfo

So, if someone want it, he could use this briefcase, select a route, steer to one of the waypoints and set the angle and speed to join the route by hand (not the automation). Using the stopclock and wait the time. Than, use the next line from the details.

For the guys who use the automatic-script, it is not so easy as You ment. They have to be carefull. It is not like travelling with the course-marker. If they are impatient, they will loose the next waypoint and have to find the next one by hand.

Randomness:

The script adds randomness to the masterwaypoints and to the calculated waypoints. Both types have their own value for that. If we want different randomness to different routes, I have to move them into the mwp-files. Here we would be able to get more variations into them. For Example we set the value for the mwp's to 2000 mtrs. In the mwp-files we add a value to increase/decrease the given 2000 mtrs by %:
-> without value, the script takes the default.
-> Values < 100 decreases the default
-> Values > 100 increases the default.


UI:

At the moment, I do not know exactly how the game processes TDWs work. I think, all paramters and scripts ar loaded during gamestart. To change a navigation- or automation-script while ingame is ignored until You restart the game.
Perhaps I could attach my script to TDWs work, so it generates new randomized routes each time You start the game.

Originally Posted by raymond6751

But, why is it different from the original waypoint system of the stock game?

In stock game, the navigator is brilliant. He follows Your given route like a train his track. You are able to go to what place ever You want by clicking a course.

This way is a little bit different:
- You only have the routes from the automation-menu.
- You are not able to use it for shadowing a convoy, or for Your attack
- There is a good chance to loose Your track.
- Its possible to diversify speed and depth for parts of the route. (For example crossing the Biscaya submerged and surface after leaving it behind.

Originally Posted by raymond6751

If I have real navigation active, it is because I don't want to use the waypoint system. If I use the waypoint system, I don't need real navigation.

I have it active too. But I have begun the campaign over 10 times. It is boring always to sail back to Wilhelmshafen and calculating all needs by hand.

My script isn't a route planner - I'm not Mr Garming It is only for travelling the main routes via an automation, no more.

Originally Posted by raymond6751

What would be better, and needed, is an auto wpt creation ...

BTW, does someone know, how the game calculates fuel und battery consumption?

Greets,
Paco.

[raymond6751]

Thanks for the responses. I understand your ideas better now. I still think it would be more realistic if you could click a point on the map and your "navigator" plots a set of waypoints to that point. It could include some percentage of error (maybe depending on weather and time submerged.)

I am assuming too that the campaigns include enemy hunter-killer groups that you run into. It would be horrible if your planned routes 'always' put a sub in danger by passing one of those every time.

To answer your question about battery use, I have tested on a type VII and found that running submerged at slow speed depleted battery by 50% in 14.5 hours. Recharging that took 22 hours on the surface.

Regards
Raymond6751

[Targor Avelany]

Originally Posted by raymond6751

Thanks for the responses. I understand your ideas better now. I still think it would be more realistic if you could click a point on the map and your "navigator" plots a set of waypoints to that point. It could include some percentage of error (maybe depending on weather and time submerged.)

I am assuming too that the campaigns include enemy hunter-killer groups that you run into. It would be horrible if your planned routes 'always' put a sub in danger by passing one of those every time.

To answer your question about battery use, I have tested on a type VII and found that running submerged at slow speed depleted battery by 50% in 14.5 hours. Recharging that took 22 hours on the surface.

Regards
Raymond6751

Problem is - based on what parameters can the Navigator plot this course?
Let's say you start at Whilm and you going to Atlantic (on the west coast of Britain). Does Navigator plot the course base on shortest route? Safest? How do we place those parameters in?

I think in this case it is better to place waypoints yourself. You can't really interract with the Navigator; he can't really "understand" what current situation requires. He can't "read" the map - I would prefer not to come too close to the shore, on which an air base is located for example - to figure out the safest or faster route... etc..

So, putting waypoints imo is better.