[REQ] Spotting of submerged subs by aircraft - any mods deal with this?

tater · 11-26-07, 11:25 AM

Yeah, sailor steve, they carried a mix of air dropped DCs with 2 depth settings. 25m, and 45m. I actually have these modded in now.

Think ducimus used them. I've been out of the loop for a while. First ~10 days of horrid preschool plague passed around the family a couple times, then everyone got beter in time for thanksgiving, and we've been dealing with family since last week. Finally back to normal around here.

I'll get my act together and start messing with this soon. I'm looking forward to the new S3D release.

tater

Ducimus · 11-26-07, 12:08 PM

I was testing your Air DC/Bomb changes but got sidetracted by something else. I do that alot.

DrBeast · 11-27-07, 09:29 AM

Speaking of that nifty little mod of yours, Ducimus, I'll have to download TMaru to see what changes you've made to sim.cfg. In my home-brewed settings, and having halved the AirS_Visual sensor's range, I get spotted even at 160m of depth!

I began gradually "increasing" the Surface area, went as far as -4.3 (from your -4.35 I think?) before a particularly nasty bomb dropped on me and landed me on my bed at 0300 hours! :rotfl:

ETA: 100 posts in a month...damn, I don't seem to shut up, do I!

Ducimus · 11-27-07, 11:48 AM

I have found two things when playing with that.

a.) increasing the maximum visual range of a sensor doesnt seem to do very much in terms of WHEN your detected. For example, i could set the max range at 10,000, or 20,000 and id still get detected at approximately the same distance.

b.) maximum range seems to effect other variables in wierd ways. heres a thought i had, as right, or as wrong, as it maybe:
http://www.ducimus.net/sh4/min_height_problem.jpg

Sailor Steve · 11-27-07, 06:22 PM

Interesting that John Campbell, after decades of research for Naval Weapons of World War Two, would get that wrong.

The ones with those settings are also listed as "probably" not in use by 1941. Of course they may have been using the type 95, the same as the ships used, in which case the settings would be 30 and 60 meters.

tater · 11-27-07, 06:28 PM

The quote I posted was from the US Strategic Bombing Survey interviews directly after the war with japanese officers.

It was not a type 95, it was a modified GP bomb.

tater

Sailor Steve · 11-27-07, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

US Strategic Bombing Survey

Well, that puts a whole different slant on things. I'm familiar with that work as it strongly affects an airwar miniatures game that a friend of mine developed years ago. If they said it, it's almost certainly true.

You win.:rotfl:

DrBeast · 11-28-07, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I have found two things when playing with that.

a.) increasing the maximum visual range of a sensor doesnt seem to do very much in terms of WHEN your detected. For example, i could set the max range at 10,000, or 20,000 and id still get detected at approximately the same distance.

b.) maximum range seems to effect other variables in wierd ways. heres a thought i had, as right, or as wrong, as it maybe:
http://www.ducimus.net/sh4/min_height_problem.jpg

Cheers. I might cave and reset the max range to your settings. I should also revisit that thread and recall your progress, might give me some further insight. Hey wait...there's a new patch out. Gotta try and transmongrify my menu_1024.ini file first, to make 1.4 compatible. Bleh...

tater · 11-28-07, 09:37 AM

NP, man. It is certainly a time sink

11-27-07, 09:29 AM	#3
DrBeast The Old Man Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Somewhere Out In Space Posts: 1,408 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	Speaking of that nifty little mod of yours, Ducimus, I'll have to download TMaru to see what changes you've made to sim.cfg. In my home-brewed settings, and having halved the AirS_Visual sensor's range, I get spotted even at 160m of depth! I began gradually "increasing" the Surface area, went as far as -4.3 (from your -4.35 I think?) before a particularly nasty bomb dropped on me and landed me on my bed at 0300 hours! :rotfl: ETA: 100 posts in a month...damn, I don't seem to shut up, do I! __________________ Let the Beast inside you free!

11-27-07, 06:22 PM	#5
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	Interesting that John Campbell, after decades of research for Naval Weapons of World War Two, would get that wrong. The ones with those settings are also listed as "probably" not in use by 1941. Of course they may have been using the type 95, the same as the ships used, in which case the settings would be 30 and 60 meters. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

11-26-07, 11:25 AM	#1
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Yeah, sailor steve, they carried a mix of air dropped DCs with 2 depth settings. 25m, and 45m. I actually have these modded in now. Think ducimus used them. I've been out of the loop for a while. First ~10 days of horrid preschool plague passed around the family a couple times, then everyone got beter in time for thanksgiving, and we've been dealing with family since last week. Finally back to normal around here. I'll get my act together and start messing with this soon. I'm looking forward to the new S3D release. tater

11-26-07, 12:08 PM	#2
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	I was testing your Air DC/Bomb changes but got sidetracted by something else. I do that alot.

11-27-07, 11:48 AM	#4
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	I have found two things when playing with that. a.) increasing the maximum visual range of a sensor doesnt seem to do very much in terms of WHEN your detected. For example, i could set the max range at 10,000, or 20,000 and id still get detected at approximately the same distance. b.) maximum range seems to effect other variables in wierd ways. heres a thought i had, as right, or as wrong, as it maybe: http://www.ducimus.net/sh4/min_height_problem.jpg

11-27-07, 06:28 PM	#6
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	The quote I posted was from the US Strategic Bombing Survey interviews directly after the war with japanese officers. It was not a type 95, it was a modified GP bomb. tater

11-28-07, 09:37 AM	#9
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	NP, man. It is certainly a time sink