Realism- and gameplay-related hardcode fixes for SH3.EXE - Page 172

LGN1 · 11-04-11, 04:25 PM

@PapaKilo: Please read the document posted in the thread I linked above. There is the original number from the German Navy. It is 26% for the period I mentioned. If you have other numbers, please let us know the sources. I've read several books/sources and nowhere found a number close to 50%. Doenitz himself speaks of 40%.

@Hitman: Thanks for your comments. Concerning your number

1) From my experience the in-game probability is close to zero if you stick to some basic rules. Therefore, it does not matter if the new probability is added on top of the present probabilities. In addition, if people don't like the addition they can switch of the realistic torpedo failure option in SH3.

2) As said in 1) I would simply add the new probability. In addition, as far as I know commanders had only sometimes the opportunity to choose the pistol type (because of technical constraints and BDU orders). So, the question which pistol the commander would prefer to use is somehow difficult to answer. Anyway, please make a suggestion for the failure rate depending on the sea state. What we need are values for the probability.

Although real Kaleuns were well aware of the impact angle issue (from what date on were they aware?), the failure rate was 26%.

Cheers, LGN1

11-04-11, 04:47 PM

Found it, my luck

The documentry is named: "Kriegsmarine 1914-1945" the fact mentioned in around 38 min. out of 1:21:19
German title: "Die Geschichte der Deutschen Kriegsmarine 1914-1945 "

One of the facts:
November 1939: One u-boat attacked HMS Nelson on board which was Prime Minister W.C.
U-boat fired 3 torpedoes to HMS Nelson, all three hit the target but none of them exploaded.

What consequences it could have to British Admiralty, leaves us guessing..

reaper7 · 11-04-11, 05:21 PM

Hi H.sie, I think that 25% would be the better choice. Any higher could start taking away from the enjoyment of the sim.

h.sie · 11-04-11, 05:34 PM

@PapaKilo: Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't have this documentation.

@reaper: agree, 25% seems to be a good starting point for the early time.

11-04-11, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaper7

Hi H.sie, I think that 25% would be the better choice. Any higher could start taking away from the enjoyment of the sim.

I'm not sure wether we speak on the same frequency here. Let it be 25% or 50%, but that was a value in total torpedo count which got malfunctions. Now calculate the %, that YOUR - 1 boat will actually get from that % of total.

However, I believe there will be no accurate calculation or prediction in game to mirror this event in the game realisticly.

Moreover we already have dud torps, do you guys realy think we should try messing more with it, like there isn't more important things to try to fix in game ?

I already mentioned IMO analogical fix for sonar guy that has already been made for WO.

But all I get for answer is silence and superduper plans for other things which asks the debatable attention, which as I think is not so important.

11-04-11, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h.sie

@PapaKilo: Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't have this documentation.

Well You may ask me to send it over to you, or upload it from where you could pick it up.

However I feel we all believe in things we want to believe in first place

slipper · 11-04-11, 05:59 PM

Depth Charger and Rhodes

Thanks very much for your suggestions, i removed WB's mid patrol orders, and went back to default SH3Cmdr still no luck, the only way i can play this mod is without using SH3Cmdr at the moment. I will try and reinstall it tomorrowto see if that helps out.

Would be interested to know if it is definately Wb's orders causing this conflict and wether it can be fixed, so we may have both

Thanks again

slipper

h.sie · 11-04-11, 06:09 PM

PapaKilo wrote: Moreover we already have dud torps, do you guys realy think we should try messing more with it, like there isn't more important things to try to fix in game ? I already mentioned IMO analogical fix for sonar guy that has already been made for WO. But all I get for answer is silence and superduper plans for other things which asks the debatable attention, which as I think is not so important.

@PapaKilo: I exclusively program Mods I am interested in, that means: Mods which I personally consider as being important FOR ME. And I allow myself to announce modding plans as it suits my personal taste. Why not? Maybe you see things wrong: Although I worked hard here for more than 2 years, it's not my job and I have no duty here at all. It's voluntary, my hobby and free time. I share my work with those who like it. Those who don't like it, should not use it, or only activate the fixes they like. I also consider the opinions of others - to a certain extent. And: I also follow mod requests from others - as long as I am personally interested. If I don't follow a mod request, it's simply because I am not interested (or, it's not on top of my ToDo-List). This might be sad for some, but I want to spend my free time only with things I like. This must be possible without anyone being angry about me. Things would be completely different, if I had taken money from you for my work, or if I were UBI customer support.

Thanks for understanding!
H.Sie

Dani · 11-04-11, 06:14 PM

@PapaKilo

I don't get it?
Why are you so against implementing torpedo failures?
I'm not counting the torpedo duds from the game itself, because there not good executed in the game.
I don't remember anyone, in this thread, attacking any of h.sie's previous fixes before.

I agree there are many things to pay attention to, but....sonar guy?

Since the hydrophone doesn't work anyway on surface, this would be a pure cosmetic change.

And BTW there's already a fix for your problem. An easy one.
You can move him yourself.

reaper7 · 11-04-11, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PapaKilo

I'm not sure wether we speak on the same frequency here. Let it be 25% or 50%, but that was a value in total torpedo count which got malfunctions. Now calculate the %, that YOUR - 1 boat will actually get from that % of total.

However, I believe there will be no accurate calculation or prediction in game to mirror this event in the game realisticly.

Moreover we already have dud torps, do you guys realy think we should try messing more with it, like there isn't more important things to try to fix in game ?

I already mentioned IMO analogical fix for sonar guy that has already been made for WO.

But all I get for answer is silence and superduper plans for other things which asks the debatable attention, which as I think is not so important.

Yes but the figure H.sie needs in the percentage of faulty torps in the players boat not the number of torps faulty among all uboats - hence a random between 0% to 25% is a good figure.

What I would like to see is a higher percentage of duds for Firing solutions that use Fast90 and Impact only to get around the stock dud system.
Would be easy to monitor if torp is set to 90deg and gyro is set to 0deg and hence add another 10% chance that it will be a dud to encourage solutions that have a gyroangle not equal to 90deg.
After all The Impact angle of the Torp can still be 90deg for perfect shots

The sonar guy fix would also be a nice addition to the fixes, and I'm sure h.sie has added this to the list, but from coding myself - i know these things take time and what appear to be simple fixes can be nightmares to bring to fruition.

h.sie · 11-04-11, 06:48 PM

@reaper: No I haven't put it to my todo-list, because I don't know where the problem is. Seems to be a cosmetical one, right? If so, I'll put it to my list. Priority level: High!

---
Available priority levels are: 1) Extremely high, 2) Very, very, high, 3) Very high and 4) High

reaper7 · 11-04-11, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h.sie

Available priority levels are: 1) Extremely high, 2) Very, very, high, 3) Very high and 4) High

11-05-11, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h.sie

@reaper: No I haven't put it to my todo-list, because I don't know where the problem is. Seems to be a cosmetical one, right? If so, I'll put it to my list. Priority level: High!

---
Available priority levels are: 1) Extremely high, 2) Very, very, high, 3) Very high and 4) High

Was the WO auto positioning on the bridge cosmetical change too ?

11-05-11, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reaper7

What I would like to see is a higher percentage of duds for Firing solutions that use Fast90 and Impact only to get around the stock dud system.
Would be easy to monitor if torp is set to 90deg and gyro is set to 0deg and hence add another 10% chance that it will be a dud to encourage solutions that have a gyroangle not equal to 90deg.
After all The Impact angle of the Torp can still be 90deg for perfect shots

Read this part 5 times and couldn't get the logical mind flow.

90deg is 90deg if it IS a 90deg for real. It doesn't make sense how you get the angle - by fast 90 method or by calculating TDC with tools.

The fair angle of torpedo with impact pistol and detonation to the target is 80-110 deg.

At least with GWX, probability of dud torps are pretty good adjusted. In early war you can make a perfect TDC solution with briliant 90deg runto the target, and all you see is the torp bounces of the ships hull and sinks

11-05-11, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dani

@PapaKilo

I don't get it?
Why are you so against implementing torpedo failures?
I'm not counting the torpedo duds from the game itself, because there not good executed in the game.
I don't remember anyone, in this thread, attacking any of h.sie's previous fixes before.

I agree there are many things to pay attention to, but....sonar guy?

Since the hydrophone doesn't work anyway on surface, this would be a pure cosmetic change.

And BTW there's already a fix for your problem. An easy one.
You can move him yourself.

I'm against it because I find this fix to become useless FOR ME personaly. I'm satisfied with dud torpedoes as it is at the moment. It's not always the dud that screws everything, it's also a faulty TDC solution I sometimes make that makes torpedo to miss. Perhaps this fix will add more chalenge to the game for those who still uses auto-targeting feature.
So basicly after a wolfpack fix, nothing more interesting to wait for as far as I can see ATM

==================================================
Sonar guy on/off station fix, Sonar guy takes his postition on "surface cruise"
WO stands still (not moving) on bridge after nearest contact report request,
Ships do not react to premature explosions of the torps,
Destroyers are deaf to music of gramophone and echolot/sonar ping,
Ships and player u-boat Buoyancy and Agility.
==================================================

Could any of these fit into your extreemly important to-do list H.Sie ?

11-04-11, 04:47 PM	#2567
PapaKilo Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Found it, my luck The documentry is named: "Kriegsmarine 1914-1945" the fact mentioned in around 38 min. out of 1:21:19 German title: "Die Geschichte der Deutschen Kriegsmarine 1914-1945 " One of the facts: November 1939: One u-boat attacked HMS Nelson on board which was Prime Minister W.C. U-boat fired 3 torpedoes to HMS Nelson, all three hit the target but none of them exploaded. What consequences it could have to British Admiralty, leaves us guessing.. Last edited by PapaKilo; 11-04-11 at 05:04 PM.

11-04-11, 05:34 PM	#2569
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	@PapaKilo: Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't have this documentation. @reaper: agree, 25% seems to be a good starting point for the early time. __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie

11-04-11, 06:09 PM	#2573
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	PapaKilo wrote: Moreover we already have dud torps, do you guys realy think we should try messing more with it, like there isn't more important things to try to fix in game ? I already mentioned IMO analogical fix for sonar guy that has already been made for WO. But all I get for answer is silence and superduper plans for other things which asks the debatable attention, which as I think is not so important. @PapaKilo: I exclusively program Mods I am interested in, that means: Mods which I personally consider as being important FOR ME. And I allow myself to announce modding plans as it suits my personal taste. Why not? Maybe you see things wrong: Although I worked hard here for more than 2 years, it's not my job and I have no duty here at all. It's voluntary, my hobby and free time. I share my work with those who like it. Those who don't like it, should not use it, or only activate the fixes they like. I also consider the opinions of others - to a certain extent. And: I also follow mod requests from others - as long as I am personally interested. If I don't follow a mod request, it's simply because I am not interested (or, it's not on top of my ToDo-List). This might be sad for some, but I want to spend my free time only with things I like. This must be possible without anyone being angry about me. Things would be completely different, if I had taken money from you for my work, or if I were UBI customer support. Thanks for understanding! H.Sie __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie Last edited by h.sie; 11-04-11 at 06:41 PM.

11-04-11, 06:48 PM	#2576
h.sie Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,192 Downloads: 131 Uploads: 0	@reaper: No I haven't put it to my todo-list, because I don't know where the problem is. Seems to be a cosmetical one, right? If so, I'll put it to my list. Priority level: High! --- Available priority levels are: 1) Extremely high, 2) Very, very, high, 3) Very high and 4) High __________________ My Mediafire page: http://www.mediafire.com/hsie

11-04-11, 04:25 PM	#2566
LGN1 Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,138 Downloads: 147 Uploads: 12	@PapaKilo: Please read the document posted in the thread I linked above. There is the original number from the German Navy. It is 26% for the period I mentioned. If you have other numbers, please let us know the sources. I've read several books/sources and nowhere found a number close to 50%. Doenitz himself speaks of 40%. @Hitman: Thanks for your comments. Concerning your number 1) From my experience the in-game probability is close to zero if you stick to some basic rules. Therefore, it does not matter if the new probability is added on top of the present probabilities. In addition, if people don't like the addition they can switch of the realistic torpedo failure option in SH3. 2) As said in 1) I would simply add the new probability. In addition, as far as I know commanders had only sometimes the opportunity to choose the pistol type (because of technical constraints and BDU orders). So, the question which pistol the commander would prefer to use is somehow difficult to answer. Anyway, please make a suggestion for the failure rate depending on the sea state. What we need are values for the probability. Although real Kaleuns were well aware of the impact angle issue (from what date on were they aware?), the failure rate was 26%. Cheers, LGN1

11-04-11, 05:21 PM	#2568
reaper7 sim2reality Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: AM 82 Posts: 2,280 Downloads: 258 Uploads: 30	Hi H.sie, I think that 25% would be the better choice. Any higher could start taking away from the enjoyment of the sim.

11-04-11, 05:59 PM	#2572
slipper Navy Dude Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 174 Downloads: 385 Uploads: 0	Depth Charger and Rhodes Thanks very much for your suggestions, i removed WB's mid patrol orders, and went back to default SH3Cmdr still no luck, the only way i can play this mod is without using SH3Cmdr at the moment. I will try and reinstall it tomorrowto see if that helps out. Would be interested to know if it is definately Wb's orders causing this conflict and wether it can be fixed, so we may have both Thanks again slipper

11-04-11, 06:14 PM	#2574
Dani Helmsman Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 103 Downloads: 349 Uploads: 0	@PapaKilo I don't get it? Why are you so against implementing torpedo failures? I'm not counting the torpedo duds from the game itself, because there not good executed in the game. I don't remember anyone, in this thread, attacking any of h.sie's previous fixes before. I agree there are many things to pay attention to, but....sonar guy? Since the hydrophone doesn't work anyway on surface, this would be a pure cosmetic change. And BTW there's already a fix for your problem. An easy one. You can move him yourself.