[WIP] Flt Boat Damage Model Redux

[Observer]

Originally Posted by tater

Regarding enemy deck guns, one idea might be to make an alternate set of small open mount guns for merchants and maybe subchasers and other small craft. These guns would be far easier to destroy. Real warships would have enough crew that even if you swept their guns clear for a moment, they'd be remanned in no time. Bottom line is duking it out with a DE/DD should be insanity or suicidal desperation.

Can't wait to get my PC set up upstairs (my "man room" is a gutted mess pending remodel).

tater

I think this could be handled a couple of different ways. Perhaps the easiest is to duplicate the equipment and zone it depending on the application (warship vs. merchant). One other point is that zones can be "destructible". This means that when the zone HP=0 then the object is destroyed. Case in point is the fleet boat rudder. I've adjusted this for the Gato, but I think it may need to be applied to the DG/AA guns. I don't want the DG/AA gun to be able to shoot (by the player) after they have been reported as destroyed, though it may fix the problem by just linking the equipment to a zone.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by iricund

Whilst I recognise that submarines should not be duking it out on the surface if at all possible, there are numerous occasions whereby I'll surface to finish off a crippled vessel with my deck gun rather than waste a torpedo on it. It may not be entirely historically accurate but when we're talking about the odd merchant with maybe a lone deck gun and a couple of AA mounts I think it's valid to preserve torps for future high value targets you may run across. Avoiding the deck gun is simple enough simply by positioning yourself outside its arc of fire if there is only one of them, but the thought of losing valuable watch members to AA gun fire would still irk me some.

I'd have thought in reality that a crippled vessel would hardly be gunning for the submarine at that point, rather they'd be trying to keep afloat and/or manning the lifeboats. Equally I'd be expecting me deck crew to be sitting there with small arms/manning the fixed guns to suppress/remove any enemy sailors suicidal enough to try and fire back at that point. That's still my only qualm. In terms of the engine damage etc the work looks fantastic. It's merely the small arms fire issue which I take issue with.

EDIT: I should point out that I'm purely talking about small arms and heavy machine gun fire here. If I'm cruising about on the surface with 5" shells hitting me I'd more than expect a few crew to be meeting their maker.

In the case of small arms fire, range is your friend. You won't have to worry about it if you back off to 2 - 2.5 kyds.

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by iricund

Whilst I recognise that submarines should not be duking it out on the surface if at all possible, there are numerous occasions whereby I'll surface to finish off a crippled vessel with my deck gun rather than waste a torpedo on it. It may not be entirely historically accurate but when we're talking about the odd merchant with maybe a lone deck gun and a couple of AA mounts I think it's valid to preserve torps for future high value targets you may run across. Avoiding the deck gun is simple enough simply by positioning yourself outside its arc of fire if there is only one of them, but the thought of losing valuable watch members to AA gun fire would still irk me some.

Sounds like you want them to stay mostly invulnerable to fire then. Seriously though, you should have to weigh the risks of engaging in a surface action just to save a mechanical device. It should not be the no-brainer decision it always was in the past.

It's just too bad that the captain (you) can't be shot on the bridge and insta-end your career.

[Ducimus]

I havent followed this in detail yet (i keep glossing over it speed reading), but i do have one concern. Istrongly suspect that we're all going off into 3 different directions with the same file. RFB has their own version, ive just posted my own revision last night:
http://www.ducimus.net/sh4/preview/tm15b_preview_03.jpg
http://www.ducimus.net/sh4/preview/tm15b_preview_06.jpg

and then we have this brilliant piece of rework in progress.

Rather then come up with 3 different versions of the same file, i thought maybe at some point we should all put our heads together make "the" submarine upc files.

Another concern i have is that major revisions in this file requires a start of a new career game. I think we'll drive everyone nuts in that regard. Ironically as i was uploading the new version of TM last night, and was thinking to myself myself, "im not touching that file again for awhile!", i then saw this thread, and immediatly my hand went to my forehead (the proverbial facepalm) and thought, "We really need to work on our coordination here".

[tater]

the thought of losing valuable watch members to AA gun fire would still irk me some.

Which is why a real skipper would think twice before needlessly endangering his crew for fear of "wasting a torpedo."

Course I think in terms of a reasonable career spanning tonnage take of maybe 100,000 tons, not that much per patrol.

tater

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I havent followed this in detail yet (i keep glossing over it speed reading), but i do have one concern. Istrongly suspect that we're all going off into 3 different directions with the same file. RFB has their own version, ive just posted my own revision last night:
http://www.ducimus.net/sh4/preview/tm15b_preview_03.jpg
http://www.ducimus.net/sh4/preview/tm15b_preview_06.jpg

and then we have this brilliant piece of rework in progress.

Rather then come up with 3 different versions of the same file, i thought maybe at some point we should all put our heads together make "the" submarine upc files.

Another concern i have is that major revisions in this file requires a start of a new career game. I think we'll drive everyone nuts in that regard. Ironically as i was uploading the new version of TM last night, and was thinking to myself myself, "im not touching that file again for awhile!", i then saw this thread, and immediatly my hand went to my forehead (the proverbial facepalm) and thought, "We really need to work on our coordination here".

Concur. This is about 1 months worth of work for me. I spent a lot of time trying every possible idea and combination I could think of to get the propulsion model to work. I really didn't want to give up on that part of this damage model. In either case, this is why I've no problem sharing the information. In fact I rather dreaded doing the other boats, so the more help the better. How would you and the RFB team propose cooperating on this?

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Observer

Concur. This is about 1 months worth of work for me. I spent a lot of time trying every possible idea and combination I could think of to get the propulsion model to work. I really didn't want to give up on that part of this damage model. In either case, this is why I've no problem sharing the information. In fact I rather dreaded doing the other boats, so the more help the better. How would you and the RFB team propose cooperating on this?

Speaking for the RFB team (since I'm the one who's heavily modded the UPC files), I'm primarily interested in the parts of the files you've modded (i.e., Equipment.upc and the submarine UPC files and anything else you've modded). For me it's then a simple matter of merging your changes with the other ones I've made (things like crew rosters, upgrade pack schedules, etc.). What might be the best way to do that is to upload a set of files(s) that contain only the sections you've modded, and then like I said above I can then merge this in to my work for RFB.

And as well, you can sign up at the RFB forums ( http://forum.kickinbak.com/index.php...647a9120c08614 ), so you can discuss this in further detail over there as well.

[andycaccia]

It's a grat work.
I'd like to know more about the crew "berthing" (or what its name is) compartment. What is its funcion?

[Ducimus]

>>How would you and the RFB team propose cooperating on this?

We all probably have to get on the same page as to what we want from the sub UPC files to establish a baseline, and then go from there.

This , overall, is something i think is very crucial becuase these files directly effect what the player sees/interacts with, all the time. On top of that, these files plug into 3D nodes in both the interior and exterior, not to mention damage zones. So i would think a baseline upc file is important, and certainly worth the time to iron out.

As an aside, im really appreciative that your looking at the damage zones. Its something that needs to be done. Had i the tools, (not to mention the knowledge to use them effectively), id have been into the sub damage zones months ago, they are in dire need of work.

[tater]

I agree. This is sort of like NSM, or redwine's work, too. A huge can of worms, but one well worth sorting out as a baseline.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by andycaccia

It's a grat work.
I'd like to know more about the crew "berthing" (or what its name is) compartment. What is its funcion?

The berthing compartment is the same as a crew quarters compartment, and is intended to represent a place where the crew would rest. The way the crew management model works in SH4 makes a rest quarters compartment unnecessary, so this was just a name I applied to a compartment for moving the bridge crew out of the bridge so they would not be injured/killed in a depth charge attack. I opted to make a new compartment for this purpose rather than using the DC crew compartment. I can make the name anything it needs to be, berthing was just the first thing I thought of. I think of this as moving the bridge crew "in hull" so they are afforded the same protection as the rest of the crew.

[Observer]

I would propose listing a set of objectives for the UPC files in particular, and then defining a set of standards to meet these objectives. In other words, what are the areas that need to be fixed, and then define the standards to apply to fix the problem. At a minimum, I think this should address issues like compartment numbering and the max crew for each compartment. The actual number of crew members in each compartment can then be adjusted via the FunctionalSubsystem line in the UPC file.

I have no problem posting the files, and I've posted some of the relevant sections of the Equipment and Gato UPC files in this thread. I've also got to point out that to accomplish the scope identified in the OP, many other files are going to be affected, for example, the submarine zon files and the zones.cfg, in addition to the most of the other UPC files.

Tonight I managed to correctly zone the 20mm single AA gun and correct the issue allowing the gun to continue firing after it had been destroyed. I've identified a problem of tying the weapon slot to a specific zone that I have to work out carefully. I think this is going to end up affecting many more UPC files. I think I'm also going to have to make some adjustments to the Sub Parts DAT files in order to create clones of equipment because, for example, the fore and aft AA stations share the same equipment meaning it would share the same zone. Obviously this presents a problem because now the zone is shared in two locations causing problems on damage and repair. I think I can fix this with cloning, but it's going to require some unique adjustments to the weapons.upc to make it work. And this doesn't address the upgrade pack problem on these pieces of equipment. I now understand why the Dev's made the ExternalDamageZoneTypeID3D= -1 for this equipment because this becomes so darn complex. In either case, I think it's possible, but will just take time to carefully work through. I've got it clear in my head what needs to happen...I hope this explanation makes sense.

I can post the files if desired, but it will probably tomorrow at the earliest.

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Observer

Tonight I managed to correctly zone the 20mm single AA gun and correct the issue allowing the gun to continue firing after it had been destroyed. I've identified a problem of tying the weapon slot to a specific zone that I have to work out carefully. I think this is going to end up affecting many more UPC files. I think I'm also going to have to make some adjustments to the Sub Parts DAT files in order to create clones of equipment because, for example, the fore and aft AA stations share the same equipment meaning it would share the same zone. Obviously this presents a problem because now the zone is shared in two locations causing problems on damage and repair. I think I can fix this with cloning, but it's going to require some unique adjustments to the weapons.upc to make it work. And this doesn't address the upgrade pack problem on these pieces of equipment. I now understand why the Dev's made the ExternalDamageZoneTypeID3D= -1 for this equipment because this becomes so darn complex. In either case, I think it's possible, but will just take time to carefully work through. I've got it clear in my head what needs to happen...I hope this explanation makes sense.

I can post the files if desired, but it will probably tomorrow at the earliest.

Excellent stuff you're doing there! Take your time with posting the files; the more refined they are when you release them, the better.

[Observer]

Update: I've finished cloning the 20mm single AA gun and the method seems to work but I need to test with one other gun type and then test the upgrade function in the campaign to make sure it still works properly.

Here are some screen shots...

The aft AA mount is the first one destroyed. Notice the message.


The fore AA mount still works properly.


Damage control screen showing aft AA gun (only) destroyed


Now the fore AA gun has been destroyed. Notice the message.


Damage control screen showing both AA guns destroyed. Notice the text for each of the AA mounts.

[dean_acheson]

Looks really good, I can't wait to try it.