Should I use battery fix with NYGM 2.0?

Rosencrantz · 06-08-06, 11:54 AM

Title tells it.

Greetings,

-RC-

Observer · 06-08-06, 04:22 PM

No. It's not realistic.

CCIP · 06-08-06, 05:07 PM

Yea, that's why it's been removed. Observer had led quite a long discussion on the submarine batteries, and it was decided that the way the fix worked was not really true to reality.

There's definitely a lot of things about batteries and their problems that aren't modeled in SHIII, but the range/recharge times are more or less correct.

Ducimus · 06-08-06, 05:26 PM

You guys went back to the default battery settings?

*shrug* my personal opinion was that the default batteries were waaay too much. You could take an ix boat, run it at 3 kts for 48 hours before running the bat down. With the bat fix inplace, thats more like 20 hours of 3kt running, or closer to 40ish hours at 2kts.

VonHelsching · 06-09-06, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Yea, that's why it's been removed. Observer had led quite a long discussion on the submarine batteries, and it was decided that the way the fix worked was not really true to reality.

There's definitely a lot of things about batteries and their problems that aren't modeled in SHIII, but the range/recharge times are more or less correct.

Since I made the original Real Battery Life Mod (AKA Advanced NASA Battery Fix), I tend to disagree. I had a long and constructive discussion with Observer 1-2 months ago, but we didn't reach a mutual understanding.

-Observer says that the battery should be considered empty when @ 10% power
-I say that the battery is empty when @ 0% (when the message "Empty Battery!" appears)

But the sub is still going some knots between 10% and 0% (and it still drifts for many hours after 0% - stock "feature").

I'm not going to go over this argument again, but consider also that we are talking about nominal amp-hours not fatigued batteries after long usage during the war (much less than nominal). IMHO this game is too easy with the batteries. The stock game ranges are un-realistic IMHO. BTW, they are wrong too. I have put all my arguments here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=90269

But NYGM is your mod. Your call. I'm just stating an opinion.

Remember AOD, guys!

CCIP · 06-09-06, 12:12 AM

Frankly, I have to acknowledge that gameplay-wise, VonHelshing's fix is a bit more interesting, in the sense that it actually makes battery power a consideration. It might, of course, be a different ball game now with the escorts chasing you longer, but so far as I can see - battery power is really not a factor under the default model. It is a factor under your model, on the other hand. I'll reserve judgement on how realistic it is, but I think Observer's points were very good on this.

Anyway, a matter of choice

Observer · 06-09-06, 01:00 AM

Just to make this perfectly clear: batteries are never "empty" unless you dump out all of the sulfuric acid, and remove the lead and lead oxide plates from every cell. Batteries carry electrical charge. They are either charging or discharging (they could be doing neither, but that's unlikely to happen given the way they are connected). Submarine batteries can even be overcharged. In fact, it's a good thing every now and then.

Semantics aside however, reducing the submerged range in SH3 is not the way to fix the battery modeling. This fix has exactly the same problem as stock in that once the technically incorrect "Battery Empty" message appears, you can still drift for hundreds of kilometers at ~1 knot. This is a basic error in the programming of the SH3 batteries. The best behavior would be to secure the electric engines when the battery only has 10% charge remaining (assuming the tactical situation permits).

There are a whole slew of technical reasons why it should be at this charge level, mostly revolving around low individual cell voltages subsequently causing the other battery cells to "charge" this cell resulting in cell overheating, the possibility of fire, hydrogen gas production, and irreparable battery damage. A short time would be fine (i.e. escaping an escort where if you don't ruin the battery it's going to the bottom of the ocean anyhow, so who cares). The point is, it's technically possible to run the battery in excess of nominal amp-hr discharge, however you run the risk of damaging the battery (as outlined above), or damaging the electric motors, provided there is even enough current to make them turn (this is always the case in SH3).

The other problem with the reduced range is the negative impact on battery charging times. By reducing the submerged range in SH3, the battery charging time is reduced by an amount proportional to the reduced range. For example, if the default underwater range is 80 nautical miles, and the "new" submerged range is 54 nautical miles, battery charging time is reduced by 33%. This results in the original battery charging times of 6 hours now only taking 4 hours.

Now if the underwater ranges are wrong, that's a separate issue that needs to be fixed. I've done a bit of modeling based on the various nominal battery capacities and electric and diesel engine horsepower ratings, but perhaps it needs to be revisited.

I'm just stating the technical reality of the situation. There is no conversion error in SH3.

06-08-06, 11:54 AM	#1
Rosencrantz Grey Wolf Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 758 Downloads: 78 Uploads: 0	Should I use battery fix with NYGM 2.0? Title tells it. Greetings, -RC-

06-08-06, 05:07 PM	#3
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Yea, that's why it's been removed. Observer had led quite a long discussion on the submarine batteries, and it was decided that the way the fix worked was not really true to reality. There's definitely a lot of things about batteries and their problems that aren't modeled in SHIII, but the range/recharge times are more or less correct. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

06-09-06, 12:12 AM	#6
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Frankly, I have to acknowledge that gameplay-wise, VonHelshing's fix is a bit more interesting, in the sense that it actually makes battery power a consideration. It might, of course, be a different ball game now with the escorts chasing you longer, but so far as I can see - battery power is really not a factor under the default model. It is a factor under your model, on the other hand. I'll reserve judgement on how realistic it is, but I think Observer's points were very good on this. Anyway, a matter of choice __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

06-08-06, 04:22 PM	#2
Observer Commander Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 477 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	No. It's not realistic.

06-08-06, 05:26 PM	#4
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	You guys went back to the default battery settings? shrug my personal opinion was that the default batteries were waaay too much. You could take an ix boat, run it at 3 kts for 48 hours before running the bat down. With the bat fix inplace, thats more like 20 hours of 3kt running, or closer to 40ish hours at 2kts.

06-09-06, 01:00 AM	#7
Observer Commander Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 477 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Just to make this perfectly clear: batteries are never "empty" unless you dump out all of the sulfuric acid, and remove the lead and lead oxide plates from every cell. Batteries carry electrical charge. They are either charging or discharging (they could be doing neither, but that's unlikely to happen given the way they are connected). Submarine batteries can even be overcharged. In fact, it's a good thing every now and then. Semantics aside however, reducing the submerged range in SH3 is not the way to fix the battery modeling. This fix has exactly the same problem as stock in that once the technically incorrect "Battery Empty" message appears, you can still drift for hundreds of kilometers at ~1 knot. This is a basic error in the programming of the SH3 batteries. The best behavior would be to secure the electric engines when the battery only has 10% charge remaining (assuming the tactical situation permits). There are a whole slew of technical reasons why it should be at this charge level, mostly revolving around low individual cell voltages subsequently causing the other battery cells to "charge" this cell resulting in cell overheating, the possibility of fire, hydrogen gas production, and irreparable battery damage. A short time would be fine (i.e. escaping an escort where if you don't ruin the battery it's going to the bottom of the ocean anyhow, so who cares). The point is, it's technically possible to run the battery in excess of nominal amp-hr discharge, however you run the risk of damaging the battery (as outlined above), or damaging the electric motors, provided there is even enough current to make them turn (this is always the case in SH3). The other problem with the reduced range is the negative impact on battery charging times. By reducing the submerged range in SH3, the battery charging time is reduced by an amount proportional to the reduced range. For example, if the default underwater range is 80 nautical miles, and the "new" submerged range is 54 nautical miles, battery charging time is reduced by 33%. This results in the original battery charging times of 6 hours now only taking 4 hours. Now if the underwater ranges are wrong, that's a separate issue that needs to be fixed. I've done a bit of modeling based on the various nominal battery capacities and electric and diesel engine horsepower ratings, but perhaps it needs to be revisited. I'm just stating the technical reality of the situation. There is no conversion error in SH3.