SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
09-02-15, 01:45 AM | #181 | |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
Quote:
No, not a dumb question. |
|
09-02-15, 05:09 AM | #182 |
Watch
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sussex Coast, U.K.
Posts: 21
Downloads: 65
Uploads: 0
|
Thanks for the reply TorpX and again for the great mod
|
09-13-15, 09:33 PM | #183 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
Spoiler Alert
A warning to those SH4 players, who still like to think of the game as a reasonably faithful submarine simulation. The following information may damage their enjoyment of the game. (It did mine.) |
10-30-15, 11:31 PM | #185 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
I've been fiddling around with the torpedo files, in the course of releasing AutoTarg. I found I can add 2 modes of failure to a torpedo: |
11-08-15, 10:33 PM | #186 | |
Grey Wolf
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 921
Downloads: 75
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Now onto some stuff you've written about. Dud rate early in the war is historically accurate. I did a bunch of research on this before spending almost a month to get the torps tweaked in to match patrol reports. If no one tweaked the files after I quit working on it, then if you look closer at the files, you'll see you're dud rate is less at 45 degrees or greater, which is also historically accurate. You'll also see the dud rate lessen if you shoot them at slow speed. Also historically accurate. If they got tweaked after my mods, I can't answer for that. Going back to an older post on the sub physics. The acceleration, turning radius, and other parameters were pretty close to accurate. We could not make them dead on due to the fact some of the settings also affected the dive rate too much. (drag being one of them) Same thing with surface ships. One thing to keep in mind. The physics engine does not take into account different propeller profiles. Besides the number of blades, the surface area and twist also affect the thrust. Not modeled accurately in the game. SO you often have to go with unrealistic numbers for HP and other parameters in order to get more realistic performance. I exchanged a number of e-mails with the developers and learned what the limits of the engine were. Then I had to work around them. I didn't make it through all of the surface ships at the time. By the end of it I probably had a better understanding of the physics engine when it came to ship performance than the developers. As for the height of the subs in the water. Prior to the U-boat mission release the subs sat WAY too high on the surface. If you can find my original post, as this was one of the first mods I did, then you can see the difference. When you start fussing with the height in the water, it can also affect dive rate, acceleration and turning radius. Requires a lot of testing to get right. When ubisoft released the U-boat mission add on, my understanding is they used the RFB values to get the subs to ride correctly. SO you know, when we were setting how the boats rode on the surface, we had 4 ex diesel boat sailors on the team as testers. We came up with a good all around height. The real boats ride lower with a full fuel load and then ride higher as they burn through fuel. There are other things including a full stores load that affect this. So we got feedback from the ex diesel boat testers and came up with a good compromise height.
__________________
"There are only two types of ships- submarines...... and targets" Unknown "you wouldn't catch me on a ship that deliberately sinks itself"- comment to me from a surface sailor. System: AMD 6300 3.5 GHz | 32GB DDR3 | SATA 300 320GB HD, SATA III 1TB HD, SATA III 1.TB HD | ASUS Sonar DS sound card NVIDIA 1660 Super OC | Windows 10 Last edited by swdw; 11-08-15 at 10:39 PM. |
|
11-09-15, 10:11 PM | #187 | ||||
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
Quote:
Welcome back. Quote:
Well, I don't mean to be critical, I know you and the others in the RFB team had a huge task before you, but I had to do a lot of work on these things - acceleration and turning. Turning radii were ok, but the turning speeds were way too low. Acceleration was too fast. I was able to fix some of these things. Quote:
That's the problem. You, I, and anyone who has worked on the physics probably had a better understanding than the developers. I've come to the conclusion that they really weren't interested in the matter. There are too many problems for me to think otherwise. Quote:
I understand that there was an effort to make them historically accurate, but afaik, there are no tests that state at A angle you get X% duds, and at B angle you get Y% duds, etc., etc. First off, a 100% chance seems high by any standard. Second, the next period shows no improvement, when there should be one. Maybe the 100% chance of a dud is justified by Lockwood's drop tests(?), but ships were being sunk in this period, and later in the war, the sinkings improved, but not that dramatically. |
||||
11-10-15, 12:48 AM | #188 | |
Grey Wolf
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 921
Downloads: 75
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
As for dud rate, here you go, from several sources. 1. Tests were carried out by COMSUBPAC's gunnery and torpedo officer, Art Taylor. Taylor, "Swede" Momsen, and others fired warshots into the cliffs of Kahoolawe, beginning 31 August. Additional trials, supervised by Taylor, dropped dummy warheads filled with sand from a cherry picker raised to a height of 90 feet (27 m), producing a 70% failure rate. A quick fix was to encourage "glancing" shots (which cut the number of duds in half),until a permanent solution could be found. 2. The torpedo controversy came to a head in July 1943 when the USS Tinosa received intelligence that a large Japanese tanker would pass through her patrol area the next morning. They fired four torpedoes from 1,000 yards. The sound man could hear them hit, but no explosion resulted. The skipper was about to cry and the XO and I said ‘Captain, this ship was tracking right on course with the speed and course we got it exactly right.’ He said ‘We will fire two more torpedoes at its stern and I will angle my periscope.’ We fired at it at 4,000 yards which is two miles with one miss and one that hit its stern and blew its stern up and it could not move again. Well, he sat there. We fired, over the next three to four hours, 12 more—one at a time. We fired one side; we would go round to the other side. Consternation and frustration was extreme. None of the 12 torpedoes exploded. The Americans were finally chased away by Japanese ships sent to help the beleaguered tanker. The Tinosa's Captain, Dan Daspit, saved his last torpedo as conclusive evidence that something was very wrong. Early reports of torpedo action included some dud hits, heard as a dull clang. In a few instances, Mark 14s would strike a Japanese ship and lodge in its hull without exploding. The contact pistol appeared to be malfunctioning, though the conclusion was anything but clear until running depth and magnetic exploder problems were solved. Daspit's experience was exactly the sort of live-fire trial BuOrd had been prevented from doing in peacetime. It was now clear to all at Pearl Harbor the contact pistol was also defective. Ironically, a direct hit on the target at a 90 degree angle, as recommended in training, would result in a failure to detonate; the exploder only functioned when the torpedo impacted the target at an oblique angle. 3. Lockwood's men replaced the TNT in several warheads with cinder concrete and attached the normal contact mechanism. Test torpedoes were then dropped 90 feet along a wire suspended from a crane into an empty drydock where they landed squarely on steel plates. A direct, 90-degree hit produced a dud seven out of 10 times -- a 70 percent failure rate almost two years into the war. By adjusting the target plates to a 45-degree angle, the failure rate was cut in half. At a still greater angle, the exploders worked without fail. Lockwood immediately directed his boats at sea to launch their torpedoes from large, obtuse angles. They were ordered to improvise, to use anything but the textbook 90-degree track. So yes there are actual numbers. 70% for a perfect shot and 35% at about 45 degrees. so you can take it from there but my understanding was that it was not a perfectly linear drop off and there was only a small change in the dud rate between 90 and 70 degrees. BTW, there were some VERY pissed off people when it came to the dud rate when I released earlier versions of RFB. Maybe that's why it was changed for RFB 2 ?? As for the boats, wish I could compare the sub files I had compared to what was in the final release of RFB 2, but I no longer have them. There were complaints that I made the boats accelerate too slow, so maybe that was changed. Also, when you talk about turning speed and radius of the boats, are you testing them both on the surface and underwater? I did find a limiting factor when playing with the capital ships. If I got the acceleration, deceleration and coasting too realistic, the AI had collisions all the time. Because of this I wanted to go through and make an initial adjustment on all of them for consistency and then go back and make further adjustments. I think I only made it through about half the Japanese cruisers and battleships. The plan was not to include the changes until all the BB's and cruisers were completed. So the changes probably aren't in RFB Never got a chance to do much with the destroyers. This was a frustrating issue as they act like a speedboat at times
__________________
"There are only two types of ships- submarines...... and targets" Unknown "you wouldn't catch me on a ship that deliberately sinks itself"- comment to me from a surface sailor. System: AMD 6300 3.5 GHz | 32GB DDR3 | SATA 300 320GB HD, SATA III 1TB HD, SATA III 1.TB HD | ASUS Sonar DS sound card NVIDIA 1660 Super OC | Windows 10 Last edited by swdw; 11-10-15 at 01:11 AM. |
|
11-10-15, 10:05 PM | #189 | |||||
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
Quote:
I guess there have been so many revisions of RFB, it would be hard to know the where and why of all this. I played some with the earlier versions, but I didn't do any modding, and just accepted things 'as is' in those days. Quote:
This is new to me, as I didn't know they tabulated specific percentages. This is very helpful. It does stand to reason there would not be a large difference from 90 to 70 deg., as the impact forces would not be much different. Quote:
Yes. Certainly! Quote:
I haven't noticed a problem there. It might have been a stock issue. From what I've seen, whether one uses a physics mod or not, convoys will be jumbled to some extent when they are spooked, or attempt to evade, but I think they are ok, if they have adequate spacing to start with. I used 1000 yds. between columns, and 500 yds. between rows, and they did ok. If they were too tight, I could see how there might be problems. Maybe earlier versions of game didn't work as well? Quote:
Fixed that. |
|||||
11-12-15, 12:45 AM | #190 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
I am constructing a torpedo.sim file based on the 70% max. dud rate discussed below. I'm also using the two additional modes of failure I tested before. |
11-21-15, 09:37 PM | #191 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
I'm trying to finish the next version of ISP. I, perhaps foolishly, decided to take a look at the aircraft. |
11-23-15, 05:31 PM | #192 | ||
Admiral
|
Quote:
RSRDC introduces the Air_Torpedo_JP weapon to the game. It's not a stock weapon, neither does RFB add it. I wouldn't want to say for sure what the problem is with the weapon, but unless you want to re engineer Lurkers mod I'd count it out from any tests with aircraft. As a matter of fact I'd stay away from RFB too, and do any tests strictly with the stock game aircraft. Work with what you know works, before looking for trouble with someones else's modifications. Something I've run into before with RSRDC planes is they aren't cracked up to work as expected. While using your two mods you've activated, go to the Museum and find the American Avenger plane introduced by RSRDC. Watch it for more than a couple of minutes. It flies fine at first but, slowly the nose will rise, then straight into the sea! You'll never see this plane in-game, because as soon as its spawned it will soon nose dive into the sea. Some of the other planes won't have sound. That's easy to fix, but why bother....their someone else's mod. While in the Museum, scroll through the various nationality units as well. If you don't get a CTD with at least one of them, you'll be lucky. The Museum is a great way of checking whether a unit will create a problem in-game or not.....no CTD in the Museum, it shouldn't CTD in-game. Well, at least maybe it won't!! Anyway, the issue with the Air_Torpedo_JP is something from RSRDC. As well as some of the other issues you've pointed out. I'd leave dead dogs lay unless you really want to fix someone else's mod (I've done it before, but no one ever notices ).
__________________
The HMS Shannon vs. USS Chesapeake outside Boston Harbor June 1, 1813 USS Chesapeake Captain James Lawrence lay mortally wounded... Quote:
Last edited by CapnScurvy; 11-23-15 at 05:40 PM. |
||
11-24-15, 12:55 AM | #193 | ||
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
Quote:
I'm guessing Lurker wanted to add it. I've pretty much given up on the air torpedoes. Even if I got them to work, with the AI pilots aiming for impact hits, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Oh well. They seem to get a fair number of hits, if they go in low. Quote:
I did as you suggested, and I think I can shed some light on this. |
||
11-24-15, 08:51 AM | #194 | ||
Admiral
|
Quote:
That wobble you've seen...... I've seen it too after a few minutes of watching the Museum planes. Since the camera is directly attached to the units, it's hard to get a bearing on which way the plane is flying. With the camera having the Free Movement capability, you can see the sunlight is on the right side of the plane when you first view it. After the wobble, the plane seems to be flying back in the direction it just came because the plane is now "lighter" on the left side. The wobble seems to be when the plane makes a turn in flight. It's hard to see the turn since there's nothing to get a bearing on when the camera is flying right along with the plane and there's nothing to get a direction of (the sea is no help), except for the direction of the sun light. I'll admit the turning radius of the planes are unrealistic.......too sharp, but I don't know if changing the .sim file will create a different outcome, or start some other unforeseen issue? All planes travel the same scripted path for the Museum. The way I know this is that when my Avenger crashes into the sea the smoke from the crash site is visible when the next plane flies over the area! I'll try to see if v575 has something different than v550.
__________________
The HMS Shannon vs. USS Chesapeake outside Boston Harbor June 1, 1813 USS Chesapeake Captain James Lawrence lay mortally wounded... Quote:
Last edited by CapnScurvy; 11-24-15 at 09:00 AM. |
||
11-24-15, 10:24 PM | #195 |
Silent Hunter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,975
Downloads: 153
Uploads: 11
|
That could explain it. |
|
|