[REL] The Game Fixes Only Mod

Originally Posted by fred8615

Just so we're both on the same page here, what I'm talking about is the crew list on the left side. You can have it display men by rank, skill, etc. When I'm in port trying to rotate crew, when I choose to list by skill, there's no leadership or guns listed at all. They all still have them, but no one has it as their main one.

Duds, I've already found it's better without GFO.

thanks for the feedback fred8615 i have the solution for you if you want to change it.

what happens is since i increased the other atributes of the crew i didnt bother increasing the leadreship aspect and the way it works is it is listed by the crew members strongest atributes first so seeing as leadership was lower than the other abilities they werent listed as leaders.

you can still see the leadership numbers for each crew member in the box to the right so they havent lost any leadership abilities its just other abilities were increased more.

to put things back to the way it showed before you just have to open the UPCData/UPCCrewData folder and delete the CrewMembers.upc file.

by doing this you will lose the increased watch crew spotting ability but if you try to increase all of the crew leadership abilities to 1 then they all show up as leaders and you will lose the inexperienced crew aspect of the game since they will all act as seasoned crew.

im glad you caught this because now i know that i need to go back and redo this mod to keep things in much better proportion so this problem gets corrected.


as far as the dud torps go, can you give me your best guestimate of about how much % you think GFO increases the chances of getting dud torpedos?

[fred8615]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

to put things back to the way it showed before you just have to open the UPCData/UPCCrewData folder and delete the CrewMembers.upc file.

Thanks. I'll try it later today.

as far as the dud torps go, can you give me your best guestimate of about how much % you think GFO increases the chances of getting dud torpedos?

I would say that including deep runners even when the depth is set to minimum, the dud rate is about 90%. I've fired every Mark 14 on a patrol, had most hit, and had only two or three out of all of them explode. The stock dud rate is only about 50%.

And yes, I know there were things like that that happened during the war. But even those were more the exception than the rule. Only having two or three explode was happening to me on every patrol. It was so bad that for a few I used Mark 10s instead. They were fine btw.

Originally Posted by fred8615

Thanks. I'll try it later today.


I would say that including deep runners even when the depth is set to minimum, the dud rate is about 90%. I've fired every Mark 14 on a patrol, had most hit, and had only two or three out of all of them explode. The stock dud rate is only about 50%.

And yes, I know there were things like that that happened during the war. But even those were more the exception than the rule. Only having two or three explode was happening to me on every patrol. It was so bad that for a few I used Mark 10s instead. They were fine btw.

very strange???

i just ran some tests in a porpoise class sub with all mark 14 torps in 0% realism and then 100% realism in single mission, single patrol, and american career modes and after 3 tests in each mode and realism setting and i found an average of one dud in single patrol and in a single mission but no duds at all in the american career mode so i cant seem to reproduce what you are experiencing.

i'll send you a PM to try and get some more details in order to figure out why your game is different from everyone elses.

[vanjast]

Webster.. GFO doesn't tweak the ship damage models does it ?
If not I wonder if I can add realistic sinking mechanics to GFO.

I caught what seemd like an invasion fleet down by Samar ( I could see very little as it was dark and misty), and had this very big ship cross my bow at ~1000yrds, so I gave it 4 torps (1st one missed the bow, next 2 hit below a turret, last one a dud) and the ship blew up like guy fawkes night - A Maya heavy cruiser I think it was.

I'll check what happens with the next convoy..

[rsvette12]

Incredible amount of work and thank you so much, I want to run this with the atlantic Pacific mod am I right just install this first then AP Mod, would there be issues running these together, thank you.

Regards, Rich

Originally Posted by rsvette12

Incredible amount of work and thank you so much, I want to run this with the atlantic Pacific mod am I right just install this first then AP Mod, would there be issues running these together, thank you.

Regards, Rich

well as the read me said, adding mods on top of GFO shouldnt be a problem as long as you keep in mind that other mods were based on the stock game files so the files changed by another mod will undo all the changes made to that file except those done by the mod your using.

as an example the ship sim files are changed in GFO to adjust the ship acceleration times so any mod you add that uses a stock ship sim file will now also revert the ship back to the stock speed settings so the mod would work but a side effect is the ship accerlereation fix would no longer be there.

with a little care taken these things can be worked out by figuring out what the mod you want to use will do to the file and you make that change yourself to the GFO file so you add the new element you want without losing other changes made to the same file.

in the case of a large mod with many files you can try it and see but it may not be compatable. if that is the case then you can add the elements from GFO that you like to the other mod and it may be easier to add things to that mod than to change so much of GFO by adding another large mod on top of it. this is why i try to make a stand alone version of every mod so that you have many options to customize the game your own way.

i would say to open both mods side by side and compare how many of the same files they share (not folders but the individual files themselves) then you may have a better idea of what you may lose in combining them together.

if you send me a PM with the list of these files i can tell you what things they mod in the game so you know what you could be losing from GFO. if you know what your doing maybe i can tell you how to change the files to merge them all together as long as you remember sometimes some mod changes just arent compatable with others.

Originally Posted by vanjast

Webster.. GFO doesn't tweak the ship damage models does it ?
If not I wonder if I can add realistic sinking mechanics to GFO.

nothing was done for sinking mechanics because just as many people are into faster action and are happy with the quick results as those who want to see more real sinking times from ships.

as i explained in the post above, the files you change by adding mods may remove some elements from GFO and you need to watch for that.

i would guess any sinking mechanics mod would have to be manually merged with my ship speeds mod to keep both elements but i think that might be the only mod conflict there.

[vanjast]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

i would guess any sinking mechanics mod would have to be manually merged with my ship speeds mod to keep both elements but i think that might be the only mod conflict there.

Yes, this what I was thinking.. I'll look into this
Thanks

[vanjast]

A quick report on this...
After playing a bit, I've found that if one raise the Stock 'Hitpoints' on a ship in the range of 15-20x, one gets a good compromise.

I've played with a few ships, targeting different areas.
For example on a Small ship:

Contact torps:
-------------
-------------

Situation 1
----------
- A bow shot sinks the bow
- add a stern shot and the ship sinks low and level, but does not go under.
- add a torp under the funnel and she's gone in about 30 seconds

Situation 2
----------
- a single shot under the funnel and she's gone with secondary explosions, in about 60 seconds. This is looking good.


Influence torps:
--------------
--------------

Situation 1
----------
- a torp under the first mast takes about 30 seconds to register she's sunk, and another 15-30 seconds to sink

Situation 2
----------
- a torp under the funnel kills the ship in seconds and she goes under within 30 seconds.

I'll play with the bigger ships later, but it looks about right for a small ship.
It's all about placing the torps... I'll test a condtion with a single badly placed torp and try finish it with the deck gun, as I think the Hit Points might be a problem here.

well ships with missing or incomplete damage zones will throw your results off quite a bit so some ships will probably need a lot of work while others will get good results from just minor tweaks so the more you test the more variations you will find.

it just needs someone who is dedicated and properly motivated to spend the time on it and it sounds like you are so we are all hoping you get good results.

[Hans Schultz]

Thanks for all the hard work on a great mod!!! I've really been enjoying GFO!!!

[rocco]

About the ship centered accuracy fix in GFO...

The recognition manual in GFO doesn't have the red marks to show where the stadimeter should go. I see you say it doesn't matter where the stadimeter is placed, funnel, mast, it's up to us...but that is not what the SCAF says. For some ships it should be a mast, others a funnel, and others a flight deck. So, what I need to know is where to put the stadimeter. In the original SCAF the recognition manual showed where to put it on each ship by a red line. That red line is not in the GFO recognition manual.

Thanks for any help, I like this GFO a lot, but I need those red lines...

[rocco]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

you can use what you want, they both work. use mast height or funnel height or any point of reference you want to use like a cariers flight deck.

SCAF will just help you hit the right spot more accurately because you have more accurate ship data but its still up to you to do the math correctly.

Specifically, this is what I don't get. According to the author of SCAF, this is completely false. Each ship has a set point that needs to be targeted with the stadimeter. There is no math involved on the players part.

Originally Posted by rocco

Specifically, this is what I don't get. According to the author of SCAF, this is completely false. Each ship has a set point that needs to be targeted with the stadimeter. There is no math involved on the players part.

i got confused about about the Manual Range & Mast Height Dial Fix in GFO that allows you to pick your own point at which you want to use as a range measure point.

this is from the mods read me:

Now, I can input any range to the TDC and also adjust the mast height by doing this:

- Drag index marker (outer dial) full left.
- Rotate inner dial counter-clockwise to desired range.
- Send range to the TDC.

Enabling “RelativeDrag” makes it possible to manipulate the two dials accurately. Also, the stadimeter still works ... and I feel like I’m using it as intended: measuring mast height.


Munchausen

as for the SCAF red lines not being there, since he adapted a SCAF version for use with my GFO and ship manuvering mods and maybe he left something out or maybe something i did caused that not to work i will have to ask him about that .

[rocco]

I didn't know there was another mod at work in this.

I noticed in the torpedo training mission that the stadimeter was only measuring accurately at the top of the mast in the middle, not the funnel as in the SCAF by Capnscurvy, so I knew something was different.

I ended up, last night, installing the SCAF for 1.5 after GFO, and the recognition manual now has the red lines and in the torpedo training mission the top of the funnel now gives the accurate reading. I did not crash to desktop, so I was wondering if this will ever cause any problems later down the line?

Hopefully the way I have it set up now will work just fine. The only mod I ever had before GFO was the SCAF. I like the other changes in GFO, so hopefully this setup will work out for me.

Thanks for GFO, I have been hoping for something like it to come along.