Should I use battery fix with NYGM 2.0?

Observer · 06-09-06, 01:00 AM

Just to make this perfectly clear: batteries are never "empty" unless you dump out all of the sulfuric acid, and remove the lead and lead oxide plates from every cell. Batteries carry electrical charge. They are either charging or discharging (they could be doing neither, but that's unlikely to happen given the way they are connected). Submarine batteries can even be overcharged. In fact, it's a good thing every now and then.

Semantics aside however, reducing the submerged range in SH3 is not the way to fix the battery modeling. This fix has exactly the same problem as stock in that once the technically incorrect "Battery Empty" message appears, you can still drift for hundreds of kilometers at ~1 knot. This is a basic error in the programming of the SH3 batteries. The best behavior would be to secure the electric engines when the battery only has 10% charge remaining (assuming the tactical situation permits).

There are a whole slew of technical reasons why it should be at this charge level, mostly revolving around low individual cell voltages subsequently causing the other battery cells to "charge" this cell resulting in cell overheating, the possibility of fire, hydrogen gas production, and irreparable battery damage. A short time would be fine (i.e. escaping an escort where if you don't ruin the battery it's going to the bottom of the ocean anyhow, so who cares). The point is, it's technically possible to run the battery in excess of nominal amp-hr discharge, however you run the risk of damaging the battery (as outlined above), or damaging the electric motors, provided there is even enough current to make them turn (this is always the case in SH3).

The other problem with the reduced range is the negative impact on battery charging times. By reducing the submerged range in SH3, the battery charging time is reduced by an amount proportional to the reduced range. For example, if the default underwater range is 80 nautical miles, and the "new" submerged range is 54 nautical miles, battery charging time is reduced by 33%. This results in the original battery charging times of 6 hours now only taking 4 hours.

Now if the underwater ranges are wrong, that's a separate issue that needs to be fixed. I've done a bit of modeling based on the various nominal battery capacities and electric and diesel engine horsepower ratings, but perhaps it needs to be revisited.

I'm just stating the technical reality of the situation. There is no conversion error in SH3.

CB.. · 06-09-06, 01:53 AM

before or after an battery up-grade?

Rosencrantz · 06-09-06, 07:44 AM

HUH!

It looks like I made a fire...
I just wanted to find out if there is something done with batteries in NYGM, because the issue is not mentioned in the manual.
I used the fix with RuB, so I'm familiar with advantages / disadvantages of the mod. Battery model in SHIII is what it is and you have to make your choice. Personally I see the underwater range as primary thing. Not only that you can have longer periods submerged at slow speed, but you can actually have a pretty long attack runs with at high speed and this also has a huge affect to your tactics. I still can remember my first submerged attack with stock batteries. I decided to catch a lone merchant from a distance, the attack was easy but I was surprised I still got more than 50 % power left in batteries after the situation was over.

Thank you for your replies!

-RC-

U-Bones · 06-09-06, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

HUH!

It looks like I made a fire...
I just wanted to find out if there is something done with batteries in NYGM, because the issue is not mentioned in the manual.
I used the fix with RuB, so I'm familiar with advantages / disadvantages of the mod. Battery model in SHIII is what it is and you have to make your choice. Personally I see the underwater range as primary thing. Not only that you can have longer periods submerged at slow speed, but you can actually have a pretty long attack runs with at high speed and this also has a huge affect to your tactics. I still can remember my first submerged attack with stock batteries. I decided to catch a lone merchant from a distance, the attack was easy but I was surprised I still got more than 50 % power left in batteries after the situation was over.

Thank you for your replies!

-RC-

Personally, I prefer the danger of reduced range/staying power, and am willing to accept that I get a few (2-10) knots further each night because charging takes less time than it should.

There is nothing that can currently be done about how it acts when its empty, however you define empty, so to me it is not relevant to the specific question, or to the validity of the mod, even if it is a factor in the ideal scenario. Total wash - empty either way.

So its fairly simple - if you want reduced range -and- charging times, apply the patch. Sometimes you just have to work with what you have on hand.

Rosencrantz · 06-09-06, 10:08 AM

Ubones wrote:

Quote:

Sometimes you just have to work with what you have on hand.

That's right. And I too really like more the reduced range and don't see the recharging to be so big problem. 4 - 6 hours... Well, later in the war this has also more "punch".

-RC-

Observer · 06-09-06, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by U-Bones

There is nothing that can currently be done about how it acts when its empty, however you define empty, so to me it is not relevant to the specific question, or to the validity of the mod, even if it is a factor in the ideal scenario. Total wash - empty either way.

I feel like I am beating my head against the wall. I will continue to repeat myself until it finally catches on. Batteries are NOT empty - they are in some state of charge/discharge.

Why do people think the reduced range is correct? Because it makes it harder? Because it's similar to what you saw in another game? What makes you think the other game was right? Where is the technical justification for the correctness of the reduced range suggested in this "patch that's not a patch"? I have offered technical reasons why the reduced range is not correct. I can offer more technical reasons. I would like to see the technical reasons justifying the reduced range as it has been implemented in this "patch", how it is correct and how does it correctly simulate battery discharge and electric engine operation, as well as the charging on the diesel.

If you want a harder game with reduced ranges, don't upgrade your battery. Simple.

I think the real problem is the overly generous build up rate of C02. I just haven't figured out how to solve that problem yet.

Ducimus · 06-09-06, 06:00 PM

Ive always felt theres a point where historical and technical detail accuracy must give way for what acutally works. In terms of game design, the question i feel one should be asking, is not are these batteries historicially accurate, the question really is:

Is battery capacity at an approrpiate level of concern to the player? Is it an issue which effects the players decisions? Should it be a factor that effects decision making?

Observer · 06-09-06, 06:23 PM

I won't deny that it's an important aspect to make sure the battery works right within the framework of the overall experience. The thing that bothers me about this is that it is based on some arbitrary text message with no basis in reality. Even in the best simulations, there comes a point where the game can't do everything for the player, and the player must follow a set of rules to ensure the correct experience is achieved if historical reproduction is the goal.

Is the battery a concern? For those who choose to use TW 2.0 it may be now due to the way escorts behave. I submit we may not really know because most people haven't used it long enough to find out. I also submit the real problem is CO2 buildup rate. Should submerged range be used (via battery life) as a proxy to create the appropriate level of concern with the player? Only if the other problems are unsolvable. At this point there's little that has proven to be completely unsolvable in SH3. With that said, I just had an idea (2 actually) on a possible way to address the battery and CO2 issue.

VonHelsching · 06-10-06, 01:57 AM

This is the last time, I'm ever talking batteries

Quote:

Batteries are NOT empty - they are in some state of charge/discharge.

We can change the message, from "Battery Empty!" to "Batteries are almost discharged! We cannot use them safely anymore, Kptn!"

Quote:

Why do people think the reduced range is correct?

Because they are now getting the nominal underwater ranges, not the nominal ranges plus the offset conversion factor between kilometers and nautical miles

As a matter of fact, these ranges could be reduced further in a random way (through SH3Cmdr randomization function) to simulate old batteries, bad maintenance etc.

Quote:

Where is the technical justification for the correctness of the reduced range suggested in this "patch that's not a patch"?

It's not "reduced ranges". It's the correct ranges. The stock game had inflated ranges. The technical justicifation is that the players are now getting the nominal ranges when the game says they are empty, ahem in a state of discharged where they cannot be safely used anymore. (and for the part ""patch that's not a patch", I'm ignoring that)

Quote:

I have offered technical reasons why the reduced range is not correct. I can offer more technical reasons. I would like to see the technical reasons justifying the reduced range as it has been implemented in this "patch", how it is correct and how does it correctly simulate battery discharge and electric engine operation, as well as the charging on the diesel.

I am talking about Silent Hunter 3 and you're talking about reality. The Devs constructed a simple linear model and we'll have to work on that. I respect your technical knowlege on batteries, but the stock virtual batteries of the SH3 game was not providingthe players the correct ranges.

Quote:

If you want a harder game with reduced ranges, don't upgrade your battery. Simple.

You just gave me an idea with the battery upgrades. If the nominal underwater ranges are the average of the ranges of the stock batteries and the upgraded batteries, then the stock ones should be reduced further.

Quote:

I think the real problem is the overly generous build up rate of C02. I just haven't figured out how to solve that problem yet.

This is indeed an additional problem, that has not been addressd by anyone.

Kpt. Lehmann · 06-10-06, 04:01 AM

VonHelsching

NO ONE in this forum has a monopoly on the term "realism" or its application to the SH3 files.

One can either talk an issue to death in an effort to impress you with their "intellect" and "technical expertise" ... or they can do as VonHelsching has, mod the file to be more historically accurate, test it, adjust it,... and accept whatever limitations of the code-set that may exist. This yields as valid an outcome AS ANY given those limitations.

There is ALWAYS more than one approach to get the same job done.

06-09-06, 01:53 AM	#2
CB.. Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 1,278 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	before or after an battery up-grade? __________________ the world's tinyiest sh3 supermod- and other SH3/SH2 stuff http://www.ebort2.co.uk/ The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. W.B.Yeats

06-09-06, 06:00 PM	#7
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Ive always felt theres a point where historical and technical detail accuracy must give way for what acutally works. In terms of game design, the question i feel one should be asking, is not are these batteries historicially accurate, the question really is: Is battery capacity at an approrpiate level of concern to the player? Is it an issue which effects the players decisions? Should it be a factor that effects decision making? Last edited by Ducimus; 06-09-06 at 06:03 PM.

06-10-06, 04:01 AM	#10
Kpt. Lehmann GWX Project Director Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The Republic of Texas Posts: 6,994 Downloads: 124 Uploads: 0	VonHelsching NO ONE in this forum has a monopoly on the term "realism" or its application to the SH3 files. One can either talk an issue to death in an effort to impress you with their "intellect" and "technical expertise" ... or they can do as VonHelsching has, mod the file to be more historically accurate, test it, adjust it,... and accept whatever limitations of the code-set that may exist. This yields as valid an outcome AS ANY given those limitations. There is ALWAYS more than one approach to get the same job done. __________________ www.thegreywolves.com All you need is good men. - Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock

06-09-06, 01:00 AM	#1
Observer Commander Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 477 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Just to make this perfectly clear: batteries are never "empty" unless you dump out all of the sulfuric acid, and remove the lead and lead oxide plates from every cell. Batteries carry electrical charge. They are either charging or discharging (they could be doing neither, but that's unlikely to happen given the way they are connected). Submarine batteries can even be overcharged. In fact, it's a good thing every now and then. Semantics aside however, reducing the submerged range in SH3 is not the way to fix the battery modeling. This fix has exactly the same problem as stock in that once the technically incorrect "Battery Empty" message appears, you can still drift for hundreds of kilometers at ~1 knot. This is a basic error in the programming of the SH3 batteries. The best behavior would be to secure the electric engines when the battery only has 10% charge remaining (assuming the tactical situation permits). There are a whole slew of technical reasons why it should be at this charge level, mostly revolving around low individual cell voltages subsequently causing the other battery cells to "charge" this cell resulting in cell overheating, the possibility of fire, hydrogen gas production, and irreparable battery damage. A short time would be fine (i.e. escaping an escort where if you don't ruin the battery it's going to the bottom of the ocean anyhow, so who cares). The point is, it's technically possible to run the battery in excess of nominal amp-hr discharge, however you run the risk of damaging the battery (as outlined above), or damaging the electric motors, provided there is even enough current to make them turn (this is always the case in SH3). The other problem with the reduced range is the negative impact on battery charging times. By reducing the submerged range in SH3, the battery charging time is reduced by an amount proportional to the reduced range. For example, if the default underwater range is 80 nautical miles, and the "new" submerged range is 54 nautical miles, battery charging time is reduced by 33%. This results in the original battery charging times of 6 hours now only taking 4 hours. Now if the underwater ranges are wrong, that's a separate issue that needs to be fixed. I've done a bit of modeling based on the various nominal battery capacities and electric and diesel engine horsepower ratings, but perhaps it needs to be revisited. I'm just stating the technical reality of the situation. There is no conversion error in SH3.

06-09-06, 07:44 AM	#3
Rosencrantz Grey Wolf Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 758 Downloads: 78 Uploads: 0	HUH! It looks like I made a fire... I just wanted to find out if there is something done with batteries in NYGM, because the issue is not mentioned in the manual. I used the fix with RuB, so I'm familiar with advantages / disadvantages of the mod. Battery model in SHIII is what it is and you have to make your choice. Personally I see the underwater range as primary thing. Not only that you can have longer periods submerged at slow speed, but you can actually have a pretty long attack runs with at high speed and this also has a huge affect to your tactics. I still can remember my first submerged attack with stock batteries. I decided to catch a lone merchant from a distance, the attack was easy but I was surprised I still got more than 50 % power left in batteries after the situation was over. Thank you for your replies! -RC-

06-09-06, 06:23 PM	#8
Observer Commander Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 477 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I won't deny that it's an important aspect to make sure the battery works right within the framework of the overall experience. The thing that bothers me about this is that it is based on some arbitrary text message with no basis in reality. Even in the best simulations, there comes a point where the game can't do everything for the player, and the player must follow a set of rules to ensure the correct experience is achieved if historical reproduction is the goal. Is the battery a concern? For those who choose to use TW 2.0 it may be now due to the way escorts behave. I submit we may not really know because most people haven't used it long enough to find out. I also submit the real problem is CO2 buildup rate. Should submerged range be used (via battery life) as a proxy to create the appropriate level of concern with the player? Only if the other problems are unsolvable. At this point there's little that has proven to be completely unsolvable in SH3. With that said, I just had an idea (2 actually) on a possible way to address the battery and CO2 issue.