[WIP]Playable Battleship Yamato

[The Fishlord]

Originally Posted by Rene

Yes its true the Yamato is going to be build.


http://files.filefront.com/Yamato+Spielbarrar/;101
or
http://rapidshare.com/files/113412510/Yamato_Spielbar.rar.html
here the link

a great thanks to xantro who made the yamato possible^^

Rene you'll probably want to make a new thread. While a lot of people will look at a WIP if they're interested it'll probably attract more if you add the REL in front.

Xantro I don't see why you never answer me. I completely agree with Hamm there's nothing more I'd like to say, except to focus on this.

You said you are done with the Iowa, tested it, and said it was boring. Well I think it might be fun. I won't know till I've tried it will I? Nope. So just release it. There's going to be no harm in doing it. You've already made it so truly truly, DO consider it a waste of time, unless you release it.

[jdkbph]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

As for battleships, while Yamato was not involved in any battles...

She was actually. Leyte Gulf. Yamato was part of Kurita's northern pincer movement through the San Bernadino Strait which engaged units of the 7th Fleet (Taffy 3) off Samar.

JD

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by jdkbph

She was actually. Leyte Gulf. Yamato was part of Kurita's northern pincer movement through the San Bernadino Strait which engaged units of the 7th Fleet (Taffy 3) off Samar.

JD

This is only partially correct, She was retreating from Torpedoes most of the fight and only managed to engage a couple of CVEs, Which was when they discovered that the 18.1" Armor-Piercing Shells passed right through the unarmored flight deck and just holed the ship without exploding

[capt_frank]

I'm Lovin' It!

Thanks!!

[The Fishlord]

2 problems so far:

1. Systems chart shows no damage even when I'm so hurt my bow is trying to become a submarine.

2. Guns do not engage targets of their own free will at anything over about 5km, W4lther made a fix for the PBS I think, can you do it for this one?

Otherwise, great mod. I love having a giant ship

[horsa]

1. Systems chart shows no damage even when I'm so hurt my bow is trying to become a submarine.

All of these conversions are only partial. I believe that's missing in all of them.

2. Guns do not engage targets of their own free will at anything over about 5km, W4lther made a fix for the PBS I think, can you do it for this one?

post#26 above

[lancerr]

Great work. But after having played the pocket bb for a week and as a huge fan of surface sims, i think the BB's will quickly become boring if we can't do the damage models.

I tried to start doing that with Mikhayl's help and my head started spinning with all the files, and references that I needed to keep track off.

Anyone also want to tackle that problem? If we can get a working damage model, then, we are talking about not just a fun but potentially amazing sim.

[W4lt3r]

Fix done, although some issues might come, since this ship lacks a radar and watchcrew cant see further then 12km in light fog, while AI ships can see.

Ranges fixed on AI ships, own Gunners, own AA gunners, AI Gunners and maximum spot range altered.

http://www.megaupload.com/fi/?d=528ZM8RD

Install After the Yamato Mod with JSGME

If, xantro has the time. He could use the same # of crew as in the Pocket BB. Or maybe usage of the same file values, making it easier to increase the crew amount.

Also does someone have an schematic like picture of the yamato from the side? it's bit annoying to see an Type IXD/C/B/whatever submarine instead of the big battleship when adjusting crew.

[John W. Hamm]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

John, you're quoting me out of context. I didn't pop up in the thread saying "it's boring". Someone mentionned my name saying that maybe I could do it. Which I just answered giving MY reason not to do it. Now everyone is free to do whatever they want, it's none of my business. About the other quote, tell me it doesn't reflect the reality ?
Anyway, how do you think Xantro did his Deutschland ? How do you think I did my other ships ? We have the exact same tools, I gave tons of infos on both thread about how to fix this and that, so you can't say I'm making fun of people doing stuff. I'm just a wee bit tired of people asking other peoples to do things that they can bloody do themselves if only they bother reading 3 or 4 pages of info. I don't know how many times I wrote that, but with S3D & the sub/ship structure in SH4, turning an AI ship into a playable one is just a matter of copy/pasting text blocks, files and chunks with S3D.
The first lengthy tutorial I made gives anyone who bothers reading it 50% of a (rough) playable unit. If you read my other tuto for the flags (which is not only about flags, it also helps getting familiar with S3D), plus what I posted in the PocketBB thread, and pick a look at my mods you have an extra 49%. That leaves about 1% to figure out, it's not that difficult.
But if you (generally speaking) don't even give it a try, it's not gonna happen.
Again, with the tools available, the "I know nothing about modding" thing is NOT an issue. The first ship may take a few days to work, the second will take you half that time, and then it'll be a matter of a long evening.

Now, that's not intended to be a "flame" either, just a quick explanation (I could go on and on and on ), I just insist on the fact that anyone can do it (knowing that a playable unit is just the tip of the iceberg of a "real" surface mod).

I ceratainly see your point and I have dealt with the same issues, I think I conveyed that in my post. As far as the issue on the "not doing something simply because it's "boring", I think I was clear that it was Xantro that I was primarily irritated for doing so. If not I'll correct that mistake here.

I can ceratinly point out key threads of his in which the statement was made "Yeah I made that ship, I even used it in the game, but I won't release it.", the reason given: "it's boring".

I fully believe any one, at any time, has the right do or not do something...without question. And I can't fault any one for not wanting to release something. However It's one thing to say "I don't have the time" or "It's more work than I care to do", hey I will support those reasons every time!!. But if you say "I did it, I got it, I know you want it, but you can't have it. simply because you think it's boring... well you might as well be flipping me the finger.


As a matter of fact here is the post: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...020#post856020 you may have to read over 3 pages there, but you will get the full converstaion about it.

As far as taking you out of context... maybe so I will go back and re-read some of those threads, for the 10th time.

And as far as people asking for changes in mods... I can't deny it your right, but I also said that was a fact in my post already.

It was the responses that I read, in re-tort to people making those request's I felt were very inapropriate. I think that we as Modders (Maybe not so much just as Modders but as people of this SH community) have always shown alot more respect than people do in most other forums.

Never before in this community have I seen someone even hint at a negative sarcasm (maybe I have missed most of them) to another member, So to see you and Xantro banter back and forth about peoples request's and minimizing them really peaved me! thats just not something that I am accumstomed to seeing here.

But just take a look at this...

[QUOTEC=Xantrokoles] I could make it but it would be uninterresting in the campaign...[/quote]

Originally Posted by Xantrokoles

Driveable BBs are anyway boring

Originally Posted by Xantrokoles

I made a Iowa and I tested it -> result: too boring and it ruins the fun of the game

Originally Posted by Xantrokoles

Ahhhhh now I see it!!
But I won't give it out
NOT because it is so ugly made!

It is because when I do it, I will be abused as a Nazi or similar

Originally Posted by Xantrokoles

Hope you will not make a diveable BB out of our fleet boats...,
cause driving a BB is boring

Originally Posted by Xantrokoles

Originally Posted by Mikhayl
Fully agreed Xantro, IMO all surface ships are boring, I made mine because I was bored, but I better like to run silent and being the "weak" & tracked one
For the torpedoes I didn't really bother because I made it more like some "sail simulator" ship than a warship. But I was thinking, if you attach the torpedo tubes to a mobile launcher (like a gun turret), I wonder if the torpedo would still spawn with 0° angle from your sub or 0° angle from its parent launcher object Z axis :hmm:
And keep on, I don't plan any other ships myself !
PS : Seine Franzose ist klasse, and when the tank is done please make me a playable x-wing

:rotfl:
Ok I though about the torpedo launcher as a gun barrel...no problem until here
Then I need the torpedoes as ammo for the 'guns'
This might be a bigger problem

BTW
maybe we could make some...'harbour-enter-missions' with a yamato

Originally Posted by Xantrokoles

Mihayl, I wouldn't recommend you to make a BB, cause it is very boring...more boring to drive than your german split:rotfl:

Originally Posted by Xantrokoles

When you got a DD, CA,CL,BB campaign you all want a hovercraft, nuke sub, Aircraft campaign and then a tank game .....:rotfl:
Pease belive me that BB's are boring without AI torpedoes

And I think my initial title "Yea we get it" that made the point but if not... here it is spelled out "We get that there exists the possibility that BB's and other surface ships are boring!!", it has been made abundantly clear, over and over and over and over in thread after thread.

But I guess possibly what has really been missed by Xantro is "You must be the the only one that feels that way" (possibly a few others)

My point in pointing all this out is simply: Hey man if you think it's so boring STOP MAKING THEM!!! and quit putting people down because they like them. Its that simple.

Now as far as the guides and walk throughs go, Like I said at the end of my last post thank you for your help. Now I hope maybe I made myself a little more clear exactly who and what I was pointing at and pointing out.

it's just about respect.

[Ishigami]

Amazing ship, thanks.
I just raped Midway with it :rotfl:

[John W. Hamm]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

John, you quote my post and then you talk about someone else, what do you expect ? That's getting seriously irritating.

Sorry man... thats why I spelled it out this time... Oh yeah and welcome to the world of frustration.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by John W. Hamm

I read that thread fully and the above quote is out of context. It refers only to releasing a version of the PocketBB skin/model that has a swastika on it. I can understand why someone in Germany may not want to release models with swastikas on them.

Now, reading on from the rest of the thread, I believe what Xantrokoles is saying is that at the moment, the larger battleships, with their immense armour and firepower do not play well, as there are no AI torpedoes to be afraid of. If someone can get AI units to fire torpedoes, then perhaps he will get the motivation to complete the Iowa.

It's one thing to have tested something with a proof of concept model and a completely different one to have a model anywhere near to a state ready for release. It does matter to people what state they release their mods in, as it is a reflection of their standards of work. Proof of concept models are often a bit iffy at best, it would probably create far more problems than it would solve, with people asking 'can you just fix this, it's only adding some extra AA guns' or 'how about just adding some crew in' or whatever and could become quite distracting.

Xantrokoles also says that the Iowa was based on the same model as that the Pocket BB is based on, so it would be a large amount of work to make it so it could be used at the same time as the PocketBB, which other people were indicating a desire for (in a surface fleet).

As you can see, it's a substantial amount of work and not just a matter of putting it up on filefront. Working on something you don't believe in is no fun.

This discussion has sprawled across a few threads and runs the risk of hijacking the threads they are in. Could we stick to discussing this in one thread in one forum and let the original content of the threads be discussed? I think that would be best for all if we got back to discussing the Yamato in this thread .

[John W. Hamm]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Well, in my books, frustrating and irritating are two different matters. Anyway, how much time did it take you to write your numerous posts & threads about the same subject ? And how much time did it take to Miner and Horsa to have some almost done ships starting from scratch ?

....In total about 15 minutes maybe 20 on for my post's, as far as how long did it take Miner and horsa to do their ships...?

I'm afraid I'll have to answer your question with a question here...Why are you asking me how long it took them to do something? wouldn't it be better to ask them?

Look man You are an excellent Modder the breadth of the task that you have undertaken and your accomplishments alone command alot of respect, and you certainly have mine.

I couldn't have done what you did, I tried, I only had about 10 hours though that I could devote to it. And clearly it would take more initially.

As far as the quotes go..., I didn't write them I just quoted them. Take them for what they are worth.

If you are upset by them then I think there are 2 prevailing schools of thought here, either you are misunderstanding them, or you understand them, and after seeing how other people perceived them, your not happy with what you stated.

Originally Posted by Mikahyl

Fully agreed Xantro, IMO all surface ships are boring, I made mine because I was bored, but I better like to run silent and being the "weak" & tracked one
For the torpedoes I didn't really bother because I made it more like some "sail simulator" ship than a warship. But I was thinking, if you attach the torpedo tubes to a mobile launcher (like a gun turret), I wonder if the torpedo would still spawn with 0° angle from your sub or 0° angle from its parent launcher object Z axis :hmm:
And keep on, I don't plan any other ships myself !
PS : Seine Franzose ist klasse, and when the tank is done please make me a playable x-wing

All I was saying is that I didn't think it appropriate to minimize or be sarcastic to other people about their request's, after all I believe that is part (I stress part) of the intention of a Modding forum.

In either case if it was not your intention or I have simply misunderstood the above statement or I have taken it out of context then my sincere appology's

Originally Posted by NISGEIS

I read that thread fully and the above quote is out of context. It refers only to releasing a version of the PocketBB skin/model that has a swastika on it. I can understand why someone in Germany may not want to release models with swastikas on them.

Yup you are right thats my bad, but there are plenty of others, oh and i did set up a thread specific to this it is here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=136451 I will copy these last few to it.

[The_Pharoah]

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

I read that thread fully and the above quote is out of context. It refers only to releasing a version of the PocketBB skin/model that has a swastika on it. I can understand why someone in Germany may not want to release models with swastikas on them.

Now, reading on from the rest of the thread, I believe what Xantrokoles is saying is that at the moment, the larger battleships, with their immense armour and firepower do not play well, as there are no AI torpedoes to be afraid of. If someone can get AI units to fire torpedoes, then perhaps he will get the motivation to complete the Iowa.

It's one thing to have tested something with a proof of concept model and a completely different one to have a model anywhere near to a state ready for release. It does matter to people what state they release their mods in, as it is a reflection of their standards of work. Proof of concept models are often a bit iffy at best, it would probably create far more problems than it would solve, with people asking 'can you just fix this, it's only adding some extra AA guns' or 'how about just adding some crew in' or whatever and could become quite distracting.

Xantrokoles also says that the Iowa was based on the same model as that the Pocket BB is based on, so it would be a large amount of work to make it so it could be used at the same time as the PocketBB, which other people were indicating a desire for (in a surface fleet).

As you can see, it's a substantial amount of work and not just a matter of putting it up on filefront. Working on something you don't believe in is no fun.

This discussion has sprawled across a few threads and runs the risk of hijacking the threads they are in. Could we stick to discussing this in one thread in one forum and let the original content of the threads be discussed? I think that would be best for all if we got back to discussing the Yamato in this thread .

guys please read the above post and follow it - lets get back to gaming.

[horsa]

@John and Mikhayl

Of course, if you both get up from the table now it stops this becoming too much of a flame thread.

It’s a shame to see two guys, who clearly respect each other getting deeper into the finer points of their differences.

John clearly wants to encourage a ground swell of expertise and enthusiasm towards developing the surface sim potential of SH4, and Mikhayl is willing to provide technical help in this respect.

There really shouldn’t be any obstacle to moving forward.


PS my sig underneath .....