English subs ?

[joea]

Originally Posted by Beery

Well, Oleg Maddox seems obsessed with plane models - that's why IL-2 gets updates. I wish he was as interested in the AI or damage models because those areas are atrocious across the board with the IL-2 series: the AI escape routines have never worked, the damage models are hideously porked, with aircraft that act like they're made of some kind of highly combustible paper, and things like gunfire spray and airframe vibration aren't modelled at all, making gunfire way too effective. Then there's the AA, which is more deadly than a modern laser guided missile. To cap it all off, IL-2 is all hard-coded, so modders like me can't even fix the shabby state of affairs that exists in these games.

In short, I'd rather have SH3 and SH4 with a few patches that address real problems, than a game like IL-2 where numerous patches install planes I never cared about and which solve none of the sim's real problems at all.

Shabby in your opinion, the DM is one of the best out there, problem is some AI-only planes, and some of the others have not been updated I don't know what planes you've been flying but some are tough, as they should be and others are easier to knock down. Guess what, like in real life..and ya there are some glitches...even mod packages have glitches and mistakes.


Guns DO have dispersion, and with the latest patch there IS gun shake modelled ... very well I might add (what version do you have).



As for the AA we already talked about it once that to have a realistic number of guns would bring even the latest dual cores to a halt. Anyway if you do a google search for "BA Dart" he made some videos that show how to beat AA..it really isn't that uber...they can't track vertically AND horizontally as well as just one axis.


AI? Well given that AI in SH3 and 4 are so wonderful... really it is better than it used to be, it is worlds apart from the original and really is there any better? We all get used to AI if we play a lot...and of course it's not a issue if you play online ( the reason it's locked for mods). BTW some of the better static campaigns out there make up for the AI by clever mission design...and there are enough community ones out there not to get bored.



As for planes YOU never cared about, well this was the first sim that brought Eastern Front VVS planes into the sim...and that lets you play from Burma and Manchuria to Murmansk and Normandy with the corresponding plane sets. The fantasy planes everyone gripes about are a minority among the plane set. Ki-27s, Tempests, Wildcats, Yaks, Pe-2s, Me-262s and B-25s are not fantasy.

[Beery]

One last post from me on this issue, because I don't mean to take the thread off track.

To Joea,

My problem is mostly with the AI planes, not the player's. Every time I go out on patrol my AI buddies get their arses handed to them and I'm left with half my squadron missing. I can't train my squadron to be good because they don't last long enough for me to start remembering their names. Although the average WW2 German pilot's lifespan was measured in years I'm looking at a survival rate for my buddies which is measured in days - and mine isn't much better because all gun efficiency and bullet/shell damage data in the game are overmodelled by a factor of at least ten and there is no way for me to adjust it to suit my requirements.

If the bullet and damage models were not overpowered my average lifespan as a pilot should be similar to those of real pilots. It is not. I've yet to survive the entire war even with the tweaks that are available via IL-2 Manager.

Look, we can argue back and forth about whether IL-2 is a good sim or not, but the fact is, my opinion is backed up by research, whereas the IL-2 apologists' arguments are backed up by pure love of the game. One argument is rational, the other is emotional.

A simulation should simulate. IL-2 does not. It is an arcade game masquerading as a combat simulator. Some people may love the game, but that doesn't mean it's a good simulation.

[DeerHunter UK]

Egan, I like the whole Med idea but 1 of the big problems would be modelling the interiors of the S & T Class. As far as I'm aware there are no S or T class subs left anywhere. The only solution I can see is to use 1 of the interiors already ingame, I think the US S class would be best.

[Egan]

Originally Posted by DeerHunter UK

Egan, I like the whole Med idea but 1 of the big problems would be modelling the interiors of the S & T Class. As far as I'm aware there are no S or T class subs left anywhere. The only solution I can see is to use 1 of the interiors already ingame, I think the US S class would be best.

Yeah, Interiors are likely to be a problem. In fact, I think that creating brand new playables will be breaking new ground altogether as I am not sure it has been done before.

But if new subs are going to be built then I think new interiors are possible as well. I'm sure there is material out there to allow at least a passible representation of the insides - We could always watch 'We dive at dawn' A few hundred times and pick up whateer we can.

Personally I would be willing to trade some of the detail of the interior just for the opportunity to play something like this.

The whole idea of a RN mod is problematic not because of anything being impossible to do but rather the amount of work involved. It would have to be very model based because even allowing for ships taken straight from Sh3 and converted there are so many other things that need to be in there. I would very much like some level of AI subs in there too.

In actual fact we are talking about a total conversion here rather than a mod.

Anyways, it's a long way off in the future - if ever - but it's something that I would love to try once all my current modding projects are finished.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Beery

One last post from me on this issue, because I don't mean to take the thread off track.

To Joea,

My problem is mostly with the AI planes, not the player's. Every time I go out on patrol my AI buddies get their arses handed to them and I'm left with half my squadron missing. I can't train my squadron to be good because they don't last long enough for me to start remembering their names. Although the average WW2 German pilot's lifespan was measured in years I'm looking at a survival rate for my buddies which is measured in days - and mine isn't much better because all gun efficiency and bullet/shell damage data in the game are overmodelled by a factor of at least ten and there is no way for me to adjust it to suit my requirements.

If the bullet and damage models were not overpowered my average lifespan as a pilot should be similar to those of real pilots. It is not. I've yet to survive the entire war even with the tweaks that are available via IL-2 Manager.

Look, we can argue back and forth about whether IL-2 is a good sim or not, but the fact is, my opinion is backed up by research, whereas the IL-2 apologists' arguments are backed up by pure love of the game. One argument is rational, the other is emotional.

A simulation should simulate. IL-2 does not. It is an arcade game masquerading as a combat simulator. Some people may love the game, but that doesn't mean it's a good simulation.

Well if the player's planes are ok, that shows that it really is geared more for online play. Tell me what pilots flew the entire war??? Very few...even the German aces were probably in combat less than some virtual players. An arcade game it is not...unless you think CFS3 was a real sim.

Tell me what SH3 or 4 AI is better how? All the tweaks have to do mostly with sensors and changing the crew ratings percentages...which you can do in IL2 as well.

What research are you talking about are you an aeronautical engineer? It's up to the players to create the proper environment. You have not provided any proof or testing that the weapons are overpowered to compare to your "so-called" research. Many users have tested things like gun dispersion to give feedback to the dev back in the day.

You want to see what real pilots think of the sim look here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...3/m/3881098535

(Real pilots BTW, especially TX-EcoDragon)

This will sound rude, but since you did not provide any detailed research and after your comments on other SH mods like GWX (and let me note I used RuB before GWX came out) your statements have zero credibility with me, thank goodness there is some choice in modding right now.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by KING111

And I am wandering why no one as made or asked
For English subs

I agree with the idea, but would like to point out that people here have been asking for British (and Dutch) subs for at least a year.

[Egan]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I agree with the idea, but would like to point out that people here have been asking for British (and Dutch) subs for at least a year.

Yeah. me mostly I think, Lol.

I remember CB.. made an S class model about a year ago complette with crewmen.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by joea

Well if the player's planes are ok, that shows that it really is geared more for online play.

That's like saying that the sim is fine because it's fine for online play. What about all those people who bought the sim who don't play online? I guess they're up a creek without a paddle, 'cos their game is porked and the devs made darned sure that modders can't do a thing about it.

[AntEater]

With a sh....load of 3d editing and such, I think RN subs would be possible.
However, I am not sure wether one could implement the fire control procedures of the RN.
They did not have an american style TDC and the ranging system was different as well.
I think external unreloadable tubes would even be possible game wise.

Problem is, the RN made more sense for SH3 or a potential atlantic conversion of SH4.
The pacific was a side show for RN submarines. Ok, they sank the Ashigara and a few other major vessels but large by large the US submarines had left them without work by the time the RN subs were there in force.

Actually, dutch submarines would be better.
The dutch build dutch submarines were quite similar to U-Boats technically. No suprise as dutch sub building was started by germans to circumvent the Versailles treaty.
When spares (and german torpedoes) ran out, the dutch used british subs.

[Egan]

If I do try to start a mod, I doubt very much whether I would do any PTO operations at all. I would prefer to focus on the Med and Europe. There are a couple of reason why I think Sh4 is better for this than the first one and it is mainly to do with the way the campaign is set up. The fact that the Sh3 campaign was grid based and SH4 is objective based is the big difference. I've already knocked up brief Med Missions just using what is available in the stock game and it's perfect for the sort of patrols one could realisticaly expect. Plenty of deck gun action too!

Aside from that, there is half a world map full of ports that is virtually unused and there are many possibilities.

For TDC, well. I haven't given any thought to it but I would probably keep it there regardless of whether it is realistic or not. But that is a discussion for the future. I seem to remember someone saying that external tubes ought to be possible.

[AntEater]

Every weapon, regardless of gun or torpedo tube, has an "ammo bunker" entry in the .eqp file.
So if you leave that blank, you basically have a non reloadable torpedo tube

Every time one of those italian convoys passed me in the med in SH3 GWX, I wished I had a british sub instead of a VII

As I said, I have no idea about british subs other than basic technical data and the usual "greatest heroics" stuff.
I sofar have not found a serious operation british sub history, like some kind of british equivalent to "silent victory"

[Egan]

Information is certainly a lot patchier than for either the US or Germany. I think after the war several skippers released memoirs but I would imagine that they would all be well out of print now. The only first hand account I have right here is 'Crash Dive,' about HMS Safari. It's a great book that nicely illustrates the fact that the type of Sub warfare here seems to have been slightly different to the others. The Skipper of the Safari was a Gun specialist and he trained the crew to get from peri depth to first round loaded in twenty seconds...

Other than that, 'We come Unseen' by Jim Ring has a couple of chapters about WW2 subs although it is mostly about the cold war. There is more out there but these are the two I have read most recently.

[Sailor Steve]

Peter Padfield's War Beneath The Sea is not overly detailed, but does give a good accounting of British and Japanese submarine operations during the war; Britain's Norwegian and Malta operations especially. As for torpedo fire control, Padfield alleges that they had no TDC at all, and had to go by 'whiz wheel' and pencil and paper calculations alone.

Anyway, I highly recommend the book.

[Egan]

Come to think of it, I'm sure I bought a big book a cople of years ago about RN subs during the war. It was some sort of 'Military Classic' publication..I wonder where it went too? :hmm:

[AntEater]

Paper and Is-was sounds a bit obsolete, as that is WW1 "technology".
On the other hand, the brits tended to fire more torps at individual targets than the germans or even the americans, with notable exceptions of "aces" like Wanklyn of the Upholder. A spread of six was commonplace for most larger targets, and their boats where certainly build for firing a lot of torpedoes at once.
With early T-class boats you could fire a spread of 10!

I always noted that british subs tended to be "ambush" weapons of some sort, lurking at choke points and waiting for targets to pass by. Some boats did agressive hunting, but normally they were more or less static.