Translation from the Devs - no more patches

[CCIP]

As much as I don't want to pass as a "Beery fanboy", I think you're making a wrong kind of approach here altogether. I do think this is useless bickering and I do think you're going into slightly personal territory which doesn't belong in this context.

We, quite frankly, don't need you to hold our hands to get historical realism.

There you go. Get your figures, get cracking on implementing them.

The fact is, and I know this from having discussed mod ideas with Beery a lot of the time - you give a modder an argument, and he chooses his own response. They're not under obligation to follow others' ideas, if they're not convinced. And if you can do it yourself - all the power to you. But please don't start bickering senselessly and trying to undermine other people's credibility.

[User 1834]

Originally Posted by CCIP

The fact is, and I know this from having discussed mod ideas with Beery a lot of the time - you give a modder an argument, and he chooses his own response.

I could hardly agree with you more. However, historical realism is not an "opinion" or an "argument". It is a fact. A fact that can be proven. I would not care if the current XXI was correct. I would actually be quite happy, because then there would be one less thing to fix. What bothers me is his cavalier attitude towards the XXI and ITS realism. It is in this game, just like all the other boats, and it too needs to function like the real XXI. Be it an "uber" (that word is overused these days) boat or a piece of laminated cardboard that can't even leave port. You can't simply disregard realism of a boat, even if you do hate it with all your heart, when you are the sole proprietor of the largest and only realism mod in existence.

Originally Posted by User 1834

Beery, his fix simply gives the XXI infinite battery power. Which is hardly realistic. The current version is more realistic then being able to travel at flank speed on your batteries indefinitely. We need to try to find a better, more realistic, fix.

I posted 2 "Fix's" for the Type XXI. The firt 1 was a LIST of known working upgrades that didnt give us a "XXXX Destroyed" msg.

The 2nd Post was HOW u can fix the battery issue and what settings I USED not what any1 ELSE should use (but they r free to do so of course)

Pls before u comment on what I have posted - get it into context.

I stated that the Battery issue can be addressed by "FIDDLING" with the multiplyer in the Battery Upgrade settings. I also stated that " My setting wont do u any good but for the record its 1000"

I also made mention that the battery Charge/Discharge rates are a Direct proportional ratio, Not an INVERSE ratio so the bottom line is, the longer the battery will supply power, the longer it will take to recharge ( I maybe wrong on that part but thats what MY experiments show)

Also any battery of a LEAD ACID type that it Discharged below 20% PD (Potential Differance) is basicly screwed - U just killed it. So The thing is U need to Start from a FULLY charged battery and run untill no LESS that 20% charge. Then Recharge the battery to FULL again. This needs to be done at 4Knts, 5Knts, 6knts, 7knts & 8knts. The mean average recharge rate for each test run SHOULD be somewhere in between 3-5 Hours . The reason for the varible in recharge time is mainly to account for the SPEED u are at whilst recharging, and those speeds SHOULD be again at 4Knts, 5Knts, 6knts, 7knts & 8knts. Reason being is back then it was a Generator and NOT an Alternator that did the charging PLUS the subs supply of power to all electrical devices and generators are speed dependent on recharge rates. The other contributing factor's are things NOT modeled into the game, and that is Tidal & Ocean current's that will speed up or slow down a ship/boat/uboat moving along and also effect its recharging ability.

And why a FULL recharge and not a partial recharge, because any good Eng worth his salt know's that to keep dicking around with a Lead Acid battery is not a smart move.

I may not have the correct settings ATM in my Battery upgrade group, but just because I dont, doesn't mean I dont know how to or give any1 any reason NOT to do the above and change it.

[Oddball]

Wow,

I can only think of what my namesake would say about all this.

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty....Always wit da negative waves!"

LOL.....
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Facts...you want FACTS...you can't handle the FACTS! (Yet another movie quote {paraphrased quite badly}...but from a far different movie.)

Ok..here's a fact. There were 1411 Uboat Commanders during WWII. There were only 118 Type XXI's commissioned. Thus, if the game were accurate and factual like some demand it to be, then each player should only have a 8.3% chance of even commanding a Type XXI.

The game should be modded as follows.
1) You have enough renown to get a XXI and you put in for it.
2) The game 'rolls the dice" and 92% of time you are told "NEIN, Zee boat ist not fur you!"
3) Yer Captain is put back in his Type VII or IX.
4) If yer Captain complains, he is sent to the Russian Front with a Rifle.
5) Now you have to purchase Call of Duty to see if yer Uboat commander survives the war....LOL.

Beery, I think yer doing a GREAT JOB with yer mods. Keep up the good work. In fact, this reminds me of another quote from my namesake.

"How come you ain't helpin' them fix the tank?"
"Ohhh, man.... I just drive 'em, I don't know what makes 'em run...."

Beery, I don't know what makes them mods run of yers, but keep em coming.


Oddball Out!

Woof Woof....thats my other dog imitation.

[User 1834]

Originally Posted by Cdr Gibs

I posted 2 "Fix's" for the Type XXI. The firt 1 was a LIST of known working upgrades that didnt give us a "XXXX Destroyed" msg.

The 2nd Post was HOW u can fix the battery issue and what settings I USED not what any1 ELSE should use (but they r free to do so of course)

Pls before u comment on what I have posted - get it into context.

I stated that the Battery issue can be addressed by "FIDDLING" with the multiplyer in the Battery Upgrade settings. I also stated that " My setting wont do u any good but for the record its 1000"

I also made mention that the battery Charge/Discharge rates are a Direct proportional ratio, Not an INVERSE ratio so the bottom line is, the longer the battery will supply power, the longer it will take to recharge ( I maybe wrong on that part but thats what MY experiments show)

Also any battery of a LEAD ACID type that it Discharged below 20% PD (Potential Differance) is basicly screwed - U just killed it. So The thing is U need to Start from a FULLY charged battery and run untill no LESS that 20% charge. Then Recharge the battery to FULL again. This needs to be done at 4Knts, 5Knts, 6knts, 7knts & 8knts. The mean average recharge rate for each test run SHOULD be somewhere in between 3-5 Hours . The reason for the varible in recharge time is mainly to account for the SPEED u are at whilst recharging, and those speeds SHOULD be again at 4Knts, 5Knts, 6knts, 7knts & 8knts. Reason being is back then it was a Generator and NOT an Alternator that did the charging PLUS the subs supply of power to all electrical devices and generators are speed dependent on recharge rates. The other contributing factor's are things NOT modeled into the game, and that is Tidal & Ocean current's that will speed up or slow down a ship/boat/uboat moving along and also effect its recharging ability.

And why a FULL recharge and not a partial recharge, because any good Eng worth his salt know's that to keep dicking around with a Lead Acid battery is not a smart move.

I may not have the correct settings ATM in my Battery upgrade group, but just because I dont, doesn't mean I dont know how to or give any1 any reason NOT to do the above and change it.

Hmm...... interesting. This might be exactly what we are looking for then. Although, I thought that the modifier for battery upgrades only changed the type of battery. You have found that it actually has a direct impact on battery capacity? Also, the sim file (in the NSS_Uboat21 file) contains range data. Do you, Cdr Gibs, think it might be possible to lower the available battery power in your CFG file, thus reducing the recharge time, and compensating by changing the value in the sim file?

Edit - I have looked through the cfg files some more and it seems like the IX has the same battery modifier as the XXI. Wouldn't it have the same recharge rate problem?

Also, there was someone posting that they had managed to fix the snorkel radar bug on the XXI. I don't remember their name though, if you are here can you please post in this forum. Lets fix this boat.

[mpugsley]

Originally Posted by jasonb885

Sigh.

I don't care how realistic a bug is.

If something doesn't work the way it was obviously _intended_ to work, the game is bugged.

Fair enough. That seems a reasonable usuage of the term "bug". But even so, and assuming that the game isn't working as intended, it only follows that the game is bugged. It doesn't follow that every bug (this bug in particular) is bad and needs to be fixed. I'm not saying that you were saying that the bug was bad. Your point may have just been to insist that we call a bug a bug. In which case, I completely agree. I just wanted to argue that Beery is at least this much right: we can treat the bug like a feature. If the developers have unintentionally made the game more realistic than it would have been had their intentions been realized, we should celebrate the event, not mourn it.

Originally Posted by Ariel/User 1834

Edit - Also, it seems unlikely to me that the U-boat crews would allow their battery to discharge completly. Not only would this badly damage their battery but it would also leave them defensless for a considerable amount of time. I say again, your test is inconclusive.

This is the best argument I've seen yet for the claim that Beery's test is a good one. (At least that it sufficiently approximatese a good one to be a good one.) As I understand it, the argument in the thread (recently) has been whether it should take 3-5 hours or 13 hours (as Beery found) to fully recharge the battery. (For the moment, let's count 98% as full. It's close enough. There is still a huge difference between whether the 98% [or so] should take 3-5 hours or 13 hours.)

Beery says 13 hours is reasonable. Lots of other people are unhappy because this seems too long. Data is cited to support the claim that the entire battery should be recharged within 5 hours (i.e. 0% to either 98% or 100% in 5 hours).

What Beery's test shows is that a 5 hour recharge (from 2% to 55%) allows the XXI to run at 25m and at 5 knots for 72 hours. (I am curious if it really stayed at 5 knots the whole time or whether the battery ran out after 72 hours, in which case, the sub would be moving slower than 5 knots during the final hours.) This is consistent with the idea that the sub must recharge every 72 hours (for 5 hours) before being able to repeat the routine.

The claim that no sub crew would ever fully discharge the battery strongly supports Beery's conclusion because the 5 hour recharge would be applied well before the battery ran out. Thus, the 5 hour recharge (even if it were to a full 100%) wouldn't be a recharge of the entire battery. Thus a 13 hour recharge of the whole battery (or at least, 98% of it) is quite plausible.

What matters is this: a 5 hour recharge gives you that portion of the battery which is used during the 2-3 days of submerged travel (at 4-8 knots). That portion of the battery would be less than the entire battery since no crew would fully discharge the battery. Thus it should certainly take longer than 5 hours to recharge the entire battery. How much longer depends on how much of the battery is used in 2-3 days of travel (which is regenerated in 5 hours).

I think a more interesting version of Beery's test wouldn't have the boat operate from 0% to a percentage reached after 5 hours (which has turned out to be 55%). Rather, we should have the boat start at 98% (which is the game's max after a little use), and then go for 2-3 days. Stop there. Assume that that is where the U-boot crew would say "The battery has had enough. We could push it further, but we would damage it. It is time to recharge." Then recharge back to 98%. See if it takes 5 hours. If so, then we have a fairly reasonable model of the operational data provided to us by Uboat.net.

In other words, test the 'top' half of the battery, which is the part that would be used. The results should be about the same.

Of course even if the test verifies the data from Uboat.net, the test won't be completely conclusive. There are multiple ways of achieving the same operational results.

A)The XXI might use the top 60% of the battery in 2-3 days of submerged travel at 4-8 knots, leaving the battery at 40%. Further assume that it is important to take the battery no lower than 40%. This would explain why the crew chooses to charge the battery after 2-3 days. It isn't empty, but it's at 40%, which is the minimum safe charge (as far as not damaging the battery goes). Let us further assume that a 5 hour charge is sufficient to get the crew back to where they started, namely at 100% so that they can repeat this routine (i.e. travel submerged at 4-8 knots for 2-3 days and recharge to their original charge after 5 hours). The conclusion would be that the 5 hour charge is sufficient for charging the top 60% of the battery.

B)The XXI might use the top 70% of the battery in 2-3 days of submerged travel at 4-8 knots, leaving the battery at 30%. Further assume that it is important to take the battery no lower than 30%. This would explain why the crew chooses to charge the battery after 2-3 days. It isn't empty, but it's at 30%, which is the minimum safe charge (as far as not damaging the battery goes). Let us further assume that a 5 hour charge is sufficient to get the crew back to where they started, namely at 100% so that they can repeat this routine (i.e. travel submerged at 4-8 knots for 2-3 days and recharge to their original charge after 5 hours). The conclusion would be that the 5 hour charge is sufficient for charging the top 70% of the battery.

In either case, the 5 hour charge is *not* of the whole battery, precisely for the reason stated by Ariel, namely that no U-boot crew would *try* to charge the whole battery. The crew would never entirely discharge the entire battery. The 5 hours is sufficient for completely recharging the operational portion of the battery. So in a sense, the 5 hour recharge is complete, but it is only the complete recharge of that portion of the battery which is safe to use (without damaging the battery).

The point of my examples A and B is to show that we don't yet know exactly how much of the battery would be used by the XXI in 2-3 days of sumberged travel at 4-8 knots.

Conclusions:
If we put our faith in this one line from Uboat.net, then we can be confidant that the XXI is (roughly of course) operationally realistic. We cannot be sure that the battery needle accurately represents what the battery would be like after x hours of travel/recharge. We don't know how far it is to go down after 2-3 days of submerged travel at 4-8 knots, and so, we don't know how much it's supposed to go up after 5 hours of recharge. All we know is that it goes down to some degree (presumably not all the way down), and then, after 5 hours of recharge, it goes all the way back up.

How much does this further worry about accuracy matter? So long as we're in the territory of 'reasonable' numbers and the operational results are (roughly) accurate, then shouldn't we be happy? I'd say so, although I concede that representational accuracy does matter some.

Our situation is like the man in Plato's dialogue "The Theatetus". (I think it was "The Theatetus". I'm too lazy to look it up.) Anyways, there's a man who wants to go to the city of Larissa. He believes (falsely) that Larissa is the north. It isn't. It's to the south. But he's also confused about which way is north. He thinks north is south and south, north. So he ends up travelling south, thinking that (a) he's headed north and (b) Larissa is to the north. He ends up actually getting to Larissa with these two false beliefs. His beliefs are false. And it would be 'better' if he had true beliefs. But he did, after all, get to Larissa. So is it really such a big deal that he had false beliefs?

Similarly, it would be nice to have our battery work perfectly--max charge should decrease with not only the first recharge, but presumably every recharge (and in a realistic way), and recharge and discharge rates should be perfectly accurate (which would include variable rates, depending on the current state of charge). Our battery surely isn't perfect. (Hopefully it's closer to being correct than the beliefs of the man who was going to Larissa.) But it does (at least it seems to me) get the operational data correct. It's not at all clear to me that we need more than that (or better, it's not clear to me that it's worth much work to get the 'perfectly accurate' battery representation which successfully models the operational data, when the present model (although not perfectly accurate) seems to do a fairly good job of successfully modelling the operational data.

To compare this issue with others and perhaps bring a bit of acceptance to the 'bug', 'feature', whatever: Why are we so content with the other Uboots? Even if they are operationally reasonable, they may be completely wrong. They might 'work' only because the discharge and recharge rates are *both* wrong (like the beliefs of the man travelling to Larissa). Additionally, we're allowed to go near 0% without damaging our batteries. Isn't that extremely unrealistic? I haven't seen lots of angst about those issues, but worry seems to be equally well warranted about them (if not more warranted).

[Syxx_Killer]

Wow. I guess I have been a bit ignorant of the facts regarding the battery issue. If I said anything wrong in this thread I apologize. Now, let's get to the more pressing matters at hand, shall we? Like the self-destructing radar and sonar for the XXI, IXD2 and whatever other boats are affected.

[User 1834]

An interesting post, to be sure. Sadly though, I don't really have time to respond at the moment, but I will later after some in game tests.

Oh, by the way, thanks for calling me "Ariel". Its much better than "User 1834" Hey, I was running out of options!

[TteFAboB]

@Oddball, we're talking about a game, or a simulator if you prefer, it is not a matter of being 100% realistic parallel universe or a complete fantasy dream. Your suggestions on the XXI availability are honest but think of "Flight Simulator", there are very, very few Boeing 747-XXX Pilots out there if compared to the massive masses of civil and smaller planes pilots, should Microsoft or modders work less hard to present a realistic 747-XXX only because it is a rare plane and if you wish to be a 747 pilot in real life your chances are very slim?

No, and especially because it is a rare, and more importantly, UNIQUE, aircraft it must be special and as realistic as possible to fly one in the simulator.

The same goes for the XXI, it is rare and special, "Silent Hunter III" is not only a realistic captain career simulator, it is open and flexible and allows you to play through your career as you wish, you can play as historically as possible and as unhistorically as possible or anywhere in between the two, you can choose historical boats but operate in unhistorical grids or rebase to unhistorical bases and so on, all with the same level of realism.

You find it negative to ask for a realistic XXI? Fiddling with the XXI could lead to new discoveries of the game mechanics which could lead to realism improvements on the other boats aswell, no modding is ever negative, if the in-game battery recharge operation on the XXI is "different" from the other boats it is an issue valid for investigation too.

Originally Posted by User 1834

Hmm...... interesting. This might be exactly what we are looking for then. Although, I thought that the modifier for battery upgrades only changed the type of battery. You have found that it actually has a direct impact on battery capacity? Also, the sim file (in the NSS_Uboat21 file) contains range data. Do you, Cdr Gibs, think it might be possible to lower the available battery power in your CFG file, thus reducing the recharge time, and compensating by changing the value in the sim file?

Edit - I have looked through the cfg files some more and it seems like the IX has the same battery modifier as the XXI. Wouldn't it have the same recharge rate problem?

Also, there was someone posting that they had managed to fix the snorkel radar bug on the XXI. I don't remember their name though, if you are here can you please post in this forum. Lets fix this boat.

Ok to get a few things straight, the battery Upgrade Group looks like this

NameIdx6=1269
Year6=1939
Month6=1
NbSub6=2
Sub60=2
Sub61=3
Renown6=0
Name6=AFA44MAL740
Energy6=1000

The Upgrades are sorted by an ID in this case its NameIdx6=1269.
Its energy multiplyer is Energy6=1000 (as in my case). However, this is a Multiplyer applied to the ELECTRICAL recharge rate of the sub that the battery is put into, in this instance the Type XXI. The Type XXI Recharges via its EL Propultion HP rating and RPM of 1 of its Generator/Electric motor's when driven by its coupled Diesel Engine. The Diesel is Governed by the Speed(Knts) at which the Type XXI is currently at since the Diesel Engines are operated in Parrallel. There for Its just a case of changing the Energy6=XXXX to a different value. YES it will impact upon any other Boat that the Battery is placed into (NameIdx6=1269).

On the other hand u can play around with the EL Propultion settings for the sub and make the sub more EFFICIENT (less drain on the battery) I also have done this to all the subs in the SS Mod.(except mine are more along the lines of grunt !) and also reset ranges and speeds. If I was to make the sub more efficient I would lower the HP rating and the RPMS and extend the range. But if u go to far then it will take even longer to recharge the battery. This is why I said its a direct ratio on Charge/Discharge.

What the correct settings would be I have no idea as I dont mod the same way say like Berry. I'm at the other end of the scale u might say. But still I do know its not a simple issue to fix to be 100% Anal

[Catfish]

Hello,
don't want to be a wisea**, but because i have been on the U-2540 and also have a book (Eckard Wetzel: "U 2540", ISBN 3-86070-556-3) about it, i only add some facts - do with it what you want .

The U-2540, later named "Wilhelm Bauer" after being raised in 1957 is a type XXI boat that was thoroughly tested by the german Navy from 1960 to 1982. It is now moored at the port of Bremen (Bremerhaven) as a museum. The batteries have recently been removed, so it does not have its original waterline:
http://www.dsm.de/3ubor.htm

Ok, to the facts as listed in the book:

Surfaced drive with Diesel propulsion (2 propshafts)
Range at cruise speed:
17000 seamiles at 8 knots
15000 sm at 9 knots
14000 sm at 10 knots
11000 sm at 12 knots
Range at high speed:
5000 sm at 15,6 knots

Submerged drive with electric propulsion (2 propshafts)
Range at slow speed:
480 seamiles at 3 knots
420 sm at 4 knots
330 sm at 5 knots
250 sm at 6 knots
Range at high speed:
130 sm at 8 knots
90 sm at 10 knots
30 sm at 15 knots
(top speed submerged 18 knots, no range tested. Some boats only able to run at 16,2 knots due to production and fitting problems)

Submerged drive with snorkel (2 propshafts)
15500 seamiles at 6 knots
11000 sm at 8 knots

An increase of range at slow speed (~6 knots) was possible with Diesel-electric drive, meaning one Diesel charging, and propulsion by both electrical "creep" engines.
All other combinations were certainly possible like in the other "conventional" U-boats.

Battery charging:
Problem is the boat had six engines: Two Diesels, two main electric engines and two "creep" engines which were "rafted" and coupled to the propshafts via belt gears, so vibrations would not be transferred to the hull. The latter used very few energy, thus the long endurance at slow speeds.
The charging times differed depending on how much discharged the batteries were, and if there were the Diesel-driven Junkers compressor or the other electric compressors switched to "load" the pressure tanks, or better compress air. If the boat was at full stop submerged, the Askania automatic hovering device that held the boat at an exact depth would also use some electricity as did other minor engines and devices. If the boat ran submerged with snorkel, using only it's creep engines for propulsion, and one Diesel charging (the other at full stop) it would take appx. 5 hours to recharge.
As well voltage, acid density of the batteries and temperature had an impact on the recharging times.

Normal charge (quick charge did not really change the recharging times):
(previous de-charging/emptying with 2750 A = 8250 Ah)

Full charge:
9488 Ah = 115 % 6 hours 45 minutes
9075 Ah = 110 % 6 hours
8890 Ah = 100,5 % 4 hours 30 minutes

So for what i see, a recharge time of 3 hours would be impossible, even under best conditions.

Greetings,
Catfish

[mpugsley]

Originally Posted by Catfish

If the boat ran submerged with snorkel, using only it's creep engines for propulsion, and one Diesel charging (the other at full stop) it would take appx. 5 hours to recharge.

Can you clarify if this is from roughly 0% charge to roughly 100% (i.e. the whole of the battery, not just some portion that was safe to use)?

Did the crews use the whole battery or only a portion? It seems that with many rechargeable batteries, if you push them too low, you can't recharge them. I don't know if this applies to the Uboot batteries or not.

[User 1834]

Catfish, thank you for that information. That was EXACTLY what I was looking for. Although, I am not sure what you mean about the recharge times. Are those recharge times from completely discharged batteries? If so, then those are some bloody fast charging batteries. Even faster than I thought, in fact. Does your source happen to have the maximum capacity of the XXI batteries so I can confirm the numbers I found? Also, would you mind please stating the source of this information so we can avoid any childish arguments about the validity of the information? Thanks.

Using this new information I am going to put the XXI in the game through a battery of 60 endurance and charge time tests. I will post the results of the tests as soon as I have them. Then we can compare those numbers to the real XXI and see if the XXI in SH3 is a hit or a miss. Again, Catfish, I can not thank you enough for those numbers.

Cdr Gibs, you have the most information on the electrical system in SH3 and how to mod it. I might need your help if I find that the current XXI is wrong. Also, do you have any idea what might be causing the battery to only charge to about 98-99% and how we can fix this fantastic, realistic, "feature" ? Thanks for all the help Cdr Gibs.

Also, I still haven't heard from the person who proposed a snorkel radar fix. If you are reading this thread, please post. I want to set up one mod to completely correct the bugs of the XXI and possibly the IX-D2.



Ariel (AKA User 1834 )

Edit - Also, if any of you think that you can help us make the XXI more realistic, should we find it is not currently, feel free to post and let me know. We can use all the help we can get.

[Syxx_Killer]

User 1834, Jungman was working on a mod in this thread:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...40248&start=50

The mod itself is on page 3 (which is what the link starts at).

[User 1834]

Update - I am about 65% finished with my testing and have about 26 tests left to go. I must say though, I am getting some interesting numbers, and a bad headache. I have been doing these monotonous tests for about 5 hours so far. It appears that the current SH3 charge times are very far from the mark if I am interpreting Catfish's data correctly. I should have the tests finished in 1 to 2 hours. After I finish the tests and take some Advil I will post the results up here in both chart and table format.