[REQ] Japanese aircraft loadouts are SCREWY

Originally Posted by castorp345

i fail to see what one has to do with the other.
'last time i checked, "criticism" (when well informed) is generally considered a valuable thing and a stepping stone to improvement...

It's not what people say, it's how they say it.

[castorp345]

Originally Posted by nvdrifter

It's not what people say, it's how they say it.

i suppose that's true for sensitive egos.
personally, thanks to many years in academia, i've learned the value of having something of a thick skin and learned to look more towards substance than towards tone...

[tater]

Regarding research and games, this is my attitude: Start with accuracy, THEN tweak.

I realize it's a game, and even tot he extent it is a sim, the OUTCOMES are what is important to simulate. So start with the bombs on the planes that are right. Start out with a realistic chance of air attack, and when it happens, have a realistic number of planes. In this case 1xflying boat might be seen, but even with a single 250kg bomb, you'd not see 1 Val, but 3, 6, or 9 (IJNAF/IJAAF planes operated in chutais of 3 grouped into sentai of 3 chutai).

If that turned out lame frm a game standpoint, THEN I'd mess with it. They way it is now is about like putting 1945 torpedos on a 1941 US sub (with multiples of the real loadout).

Anyone who can grok the whole plane loadout thing is welcome to chime in, I'll happily mess with the files, I just need to know what I can change without breaking stuff (I BSOD and CTD enough with SH4 as it is).

Regarding "tone" I reserve the "this is BS" for stuff made by the DESIGNERS since getting it right in the first place is their job, IMO. I'd never be so harsh towards a mod, that's voluntary work that people can chose, or not chose, to install.

If a modder claimed that a purpose of their mod was more realism, I'd offer constructive criticism on that basis. If a mod was for fun, or gameplay at the expense of accuracy, I'd likely not comment at all (since I'm interested primarily in accuracy, at lkeast as a baseline to start from).

<S>

tater

[tater]

Hey, is there a way to open the .sim files?

notepad sees them, and I get taunting text, then control characters...

Originally Posted by castorp345

i suppose that's true for sensitive egos.
personally, thanks to many years in academia, i've learned the value of having something of a thick skin and learned to look more towards substance than towards tone...

thanks to many years in academia..

Ohhh, that explains a lot. I also worked in acadamia for a long time and had to put up with the same know-it-all, egotistical attitude such as yours for years which is institutionalized in such places.

Well, this forum isn't high school or college. You may be used to talking down to people there, but here we are equals.. ok?

[castorp345]

Originally Posted by nvdrifter

Ohhh, that explains a lot. I also worked in acadamia for a long time and had to put up with the same know-it-all, egotistical attitude such as yours for years that is institutionalized in such places.

really?...

if i may so, you seem to have some peculiar attitudes considering...

Well, this forum isn't high school or college. You may used to talking down to people there, but here we are equals.. ok?

indeed. who's been talked down to here?

(and as i've suggested to you before, pm might be a better way of adressing whatever issues you might have than cluttering up the public threads with this silliness)

[Anachronous]

In before lock.

I think many people expected more for a sequel, than some flashy graphical effects. They at least expected bugs from SH3 not to show up and I think when making a SIM, it should be a priority to get number and stats right. If we can do it, they can too.

Turning down of realism could then be done via settings or mods.

I believe that is why the attitude here is different.

[bigboywooly]

@ tater

Not got SH4 yet
Damn couriers

Anyway the platform cfg is basically the ships.cfg
In the same folder as the Eqp file

You can change any loadout you like PROVIDING the actual weapon is ingame

Use Pack3d - version 3 will be ok

http://files.filefront.com/P3dAllVer.../fileinfo.html


The Bombs.dat should be in the Library folder
Open with Pack3d and you can see the available bombs you can use





SH3 bombs.dat shows 100/250 and 500KG bombs

[tater]

VERY helpful, thank you.

If the min is 100kg, I guess I'd make a rare A6M loadout with those.

The val would get 1x250, the B6N could get 1x500, 4x100, maybe 3x250 (racks will be wrong, but so be it).

Betty also holds only 800kg of bombs, H6K 1000kg, and H8K has 2xtorpedo, 8x250, or 16x60kg bombs as well as DCs.

Will DL that can-opener and have a look. I will take a peek at the airbases (already have) and look at the amounts of planes as well, they also seem screwy.

tater

[bigboywooly]

As I said that dat is from SH3 so it may be different in 4
Hopefully by the weekend will have the game

Dont forget to back up any files you alter first
Just in case

Have fun

[tater]

OK, my first tests. I decided to start simple, and instead of trying any alternate loadouts on the Zero's cfg, I altered the loadout descriptions on the zero's .eqp file since I could do it while changing fewer names. I changed 3x500 to 2x100 (bonus for the usually unbombed zero, lol) and I changed 5x250 all to null. Cruised around on surface looking for planes, and got mostly zeros without bombs, a couple with 2 bombs.

So far I didn't get strafed. Need to check and see if the strafing behavior is tied to having bombs... anyone know? Will "pure" fighters strafe a sub in game, or is there another tweak.

I have to admit it was interesting, the radar sees planes, and you might dive to find they were just fighters, OTOH, as soon as I saw the first one, more kept coming even though the 1st was unarmed bomb wise. My next test will involve altering the H8K I think. With real loads that would be scary perhaps, big bombs, medium bombs, and DCs...

I think this has promise---remember also that 3x500kg bombs is easily enough to shatter a large fleet DD. The IJN lost a CV with ONE 500kg (1000lb, actually, so less than 500kg) bomb at Midway. I'm hoping to do more tonight, I just bcked up the entire Air folder, so i might go ahead and change all of them to the closest RL fit with the weak bomb selection (100, 250, 500, DC).

tater

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by nvdrifter

thanks to many years in academia..

Ohhh, that explains a lot. I also worked in acadamia for a long time and had to put up with the same know-it-all, egotistical attitude such as yours for years which is institutionalized in such places.

Well, this forum isn't high school or college. You may be used to talking down to people there, but here we are equals.. ok?

Huh? Forming your opinion of people based on their tone or style and ignoring those that don't meet your standards is egoism at its worst. He's saying to not worry so much about perceived criticism and simply take what is useful from it and don't let the tone and style bother you. It is only a *****ly ego that prevents someone from seeing past tone and understanding actual content.

Anyways, if Tater is who I think he is, and if he tells you that your claim to realism is contradicted by a source he has at hand, then you should probably listen to the facts contained within and ignore how they are delivered. Tater knows his stuff.

And Tater, thanks for the effort on this important issue. The Japanese may not have been experts on ASW, but they had air cover over a huge portion of the theatre, which should be a constant concern and problem to deal with in the game. Personally, I don't want to face challenges that are implemented with a degree of absurdity, such as they currently stand.

[tater]

Thanks AKD. I think there are more than a few Il-2 guys around here

The aircraft are limited, and the loadouts are also very limited. I think for air stuff (assuming no new bombs, etc), the trick is a balance that makes air appropriately dangerous, with out being either overly lethal, or just annoying.

BTW, all this talk about tone... I know many people who I talked to for ages on the net before I ever met them in person. In general, written communication—particularly the quickly authored internet forum post—isn't the best way to decide if you'd like someone in person. I imagine the vast majority of folks that are interested enough in a given subject/game/etc would have a great time talking and throwing back a few beers with each other.

<S>

tater

[LukeFF]

Another Il-2 guy here from SimHQ. Hey tater and akdavis.

I would go with 1x250kg for the Zero. Not saying that Il-2 is the best reference to go by, (those in the know realize many planes there have loadout "issues") but it shows no loadouts for 2x100kg for any Zeke variant. Unless, perhaps, there's evidence 2x100 was used?

-B5N Kate: loadouts should be 3 x 100 kg bombs, 1 x 250 kg bomb, 1 x 500 kg bomb, and of course 1 x torpedo.

-Q1W1: http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/q1w.htm says it could carry 2 x 250 kg bombs or depth charges. Do we even have depth charges in SH4?

-The "US Fighter" (a Buffalo) shouldn't even have bomb loadouts, right?

-F1M Pete: way overdone in SH4. Apparently all it could carry was 2 x 60 kg bombs.

-G4M Betty: way off again. Too many correct loadouts to list, other than to say it should carry a torpedo.

-H6K: not sure on this one

-H8K: way, way off. Corrected loadouts should include depth charges and torpedoes.

[tater]

No, 2x100 instead of 2x60kg. The 250kg bomb was for kamikaze zeros, it was not used operationally as a fighter bomber with 250s.

Yeah, there are air-dropped DCs, but they are listed under their description as 450kg bombs. IN RL the air-dropped DCs were 250kg.

You are right on the F2A, no bomb shackles. If it did it would likely have been like the F4F, 2x100lb.

Yeah, the Pete is fubar, too. By a lot.

Yeah, betty has 5 bomb points in game, 4 wing, m1 center, like a fighter. It can only hold one torp, or 800kg bombs. 3x250, 1x500, 5x100, etc.

H6K holds 1000kg in RL.

H8K holds 2000kg or so. Best IJN bomber of the war, lol. Yeah, on the DCs and 2xtorpedo.


tater