Minefields and RUb1.44 - Page 2

10-25-05, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beery

I'm just curious - shouldn't all minefields have more than one waypoint? The very last one in the file has only one.

I'll send you some of my work regarding the minefields. As no interest was shown for it I did not proceed that far.

I'm interested. I'd like for them to be there, but also to be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiebler

Probably minefield#8 should still have its mine density reduced to 1 instead of 100, since Sailor Steve has stated that this was what was intended.

Did I say '1' was the correct number? I think it should be more than that. I'm posting from the library so I can't just look. Check some of the other ones and see what they are. Of course '100' means a mine every meter or so.

I'm currently using the same setup, and I've had no crashes related to ship sightings or mines. Could it be something else?

Beery · 10-25-05, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Of course '100' means a mine every meter or so.

If that's the case, shouldn't it be adjusted for all minefields? There are a lot of minefields in the game set at 100. I don't think any real minefields had mines that close together. The chances of them setting each other off would be too high. I think 20m apart should be about the closest they should be.

10-25-05, 11:56 AM

No, I don't think any of them should be '100'. I'll look again when I get home and share my thoughts tomorrow. I'm getting really curious now.

Stiebler · 10-25-05, 12:40 PM

Oh dear. Several (game) days after my last post, yet another CTD despite the modified minefield#8 reloaded in port. And, once again, the immediate cause was a surface sighting of a warship, followed by a crash after pressing 'U' for the UZO.

All my CTDs appear to have occurred after sighting an enemy warship (detected by crew on the surface with the usual attack-dive-continue options, or previously by hydrophones). I don't know which warship, because the crash occurs before I see it. However, class C destroyers generally do not cause the crash (unless one of them is, for some reason, a rogue).

After looking in the Mission Editor, though, the only warships that cross my test patrol line 100 km off-shore between Hull and Hartlepool are, in fact, class C destroyers.

Since the problem of this CTD is still up in the air, I can only suggest again that the original modders who created the warship routes and the minefields should separately give their creations extensive testing (without any other mods present) by patrols as stated above over a protracted period - and examining with UZO every warship reported in sight.

And definitely minefield#8 should have its density set well below 100!

Last moment addition - sorry, Beery, I've only just seen your suggestion of saving every few minutes. But I've found it very difficult to repeat a CTD even when re-running a fixed patrol plot. The crashes don't recur at the same point of the plot.

10-25-05, 06:28 PM

Okay, I had a chance to look at it, and Stiebler's right. British Minefield #8 is indeed set to Density: 100, and it should have been 1. There are some smaller fields with higher densities, the highest I found being 22. I did this because some of them are so small that if they're set lower they won't have any mines at all.

Also, some of the small ones do indeed only have one waypoint. This is because I tried having no waypoints, but the mines only show up at the waypoints, not the starting point. Having only one waypoint nicely represents the small groups of 6 or 8 mines dropped of U.S. ports by U-boats.

As to crashing, I couldn't duplicate that particular problem. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think it's the mines.

Beery · 10-25-05, 11:08 PM

I'll change the density to 1 for the next RUb mod.

Beery · 10-25-05, 11:10 PM

Did anyone notice that there are two British Minefield#8s? They are Ordnance unit 37 and 148. Could this be an issue?

10-26-05, 12:07 PM

I think as long as the Ordnance numbers are different they should be okay. I wish Nico was still around-he seemed to know this stuff; he's also the one who helped me do the minefields ('helped' as in pointing out where I was an idiot, not as in he did anything that can be criticized). I've played several patrols and have yet to have anything bad happen. On the other hand, I'm still in the spring of 1940, and the minefields haven't been laid yet.

Kpt. Lehmann · 10-26-05, 12:38 PM

Are CTD's (in the case of dense minefields) more prone to happen at higher TC's.

Or rather... with good RAM specs and 1x TC can I worry about this less?

deckard · 10-26-05, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

Stiebler,

I don't agree that a neon sign should be put up in the manner of a graphic of where they are. Why? Because the enemy only ever had a general idea at best and that is all the player should have.

what i did in my own campaing that im working on was to add entrys in the messages_en.txt radio log so that BDU sends out warnings about minefields, this only gives a vague idea about where the minefields really are.
maybe this could be something that RUB would be intressted in adapting?

oRGy · 10-26-05, 03:09 PM

Well, I'd certainly be interested, if that's of any help.

deckard · 10-27-05, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oRGy

Well, I'd certainly be interested, if that's of any help.

sure, i can make it IUB compatible if you want orgy,

10-25-05, 11:08 PM	#6
Beery Admiral Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA (but still a Yorkshireman at heart - tha can allus tell a Yorkshireman...) Posts: 2,497 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I'll change the density to 1 for the next RUb mod. __________________ "More mysterious. Yeah. I'll just try to think, 'Where the hell's the whiskey?'" - Bob Harris, Lost in Translation. "Anyrooad up, ah'll si thi" - Missen.

10-25-05, 11:10 PM	#7
Beery Admiral Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA (but still a Yorkshireman at heart - tha can allus tell a Yorkshireman...) Posts: 2,497 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Did anyone notice that there are two British Minefield#8s? They are Ordnance unit 37 and 148. Could this be an issue? __________________ "More mysterious. Yeah. I'll just try to think, 'Where the hell's the whiskey?'" - Bob Harris, Lost in Translation. "Anyrooad up, ah'll si thi" - Missen.

10-26-05, 12:38 PM	#9
Kpt. Lehmann GWX Project Director Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The Republic of Texas Posts: 6,993 Downloads: 124 Uploads: 0	Are CTD's (in the case of dense minefields) more prone to happen at higher TC's. Or rather... with good RAM specs and 1x TC can I worry about this less? __________________ www.thegreywolves.com All you need is good men. - Heinrich Lehmann-Willenbrock

10-26-05, 03:09 PM	#11
oRGy Crusty Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 648 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Well, I'd certainly be interested, if that's of any help. __________________

10-25-05, 11:56 AM	#3
Sailor Steve Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	No, I don't think any of them should be '100'. I'll look again when I get home and share my thoughts tomorrow. I'm getting really curious now.

10-25-05, 12:40 PM	#4
Stiebler Fuel Supplier Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,237 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 4	Oh dear. Several (game) days after my last post, yet another CTD despite the modified minefield#8 reloaded in port. And, once again, the immediate cause was a surface sighting of a warship, followed by a crash after pressing 'U' for the UZO. All my CTDs appear to have occurred after sighting an enemy warship (detected by crew on the surface with the usual attack-dive-continue options, or previously by hydrophones). I don't know which warship, because the crash occurs before I see it. However, class C destroyers generally do not cause the crash (unless one of them is, for some reason, a rogue). After looking in the Mission Editor, though, the only warships that cross my test patrol line 100 km off-shore between Hull and Hartlepool are, in fact, class C destroyers. Since the problem of this CTD is still up in the air, I can only suggest again that the original modders who created the warship routes and the minefields should separately give their creations extensive testing (without any other mods present) by patrols as stated above over a protracted period - and examining with UZO every warship reported in sight. And definitely minefield#8 should have its density set well below 100! Last moment addition - sorry, Beery, I've only just seen your suggestion of saving every few minutes. But I've found it very difficult to repeat a CTD even when re-running a fixed patrol plot. The crashes don't recur at the same point of the plot.

10-25-05, 06:28 PM	#5
Sailor Steve Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Okay, I had a chance to look at it, and Stiebler's right. British Minefield #8 is indeed set to Density: 100, and it should have been 1. There are some smaller fields with higher densities, the highest I found being 22. I did this because some of them are so small that if they're set lower they won't have any mines at all. Also, some of the small ones do indeed only have one waypoint. This is because I tried having no waypoints, but the mines only show up at the waypoints, not the starting point. Having only one waypoint nicely represents the small groups of 6 or 8 mines dropped of U.S. ports by U-boats. As to crashing, I couldn't duplicate that particular problem. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't think it's the mines.

10-26-05, 12:07 PM	#8
Sailor Steve Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I think as long as the Ordnance numbers are different they should be okay. I wish Nico was still around-he seemed to know this stuff; he's also the one who helped me do the minefields ('helped' as in pointing out where I was an idiot, not as in he did anything that can be criticized). I've played several patrols and have yet to have anything bad happen. On the other hand, I'm still in the spring of 1940, and the minefields haven't been laid yet.