[TEC] SH5.exe patches to fix bugs and add functionality - Page 52

TheDarkWraith · 08-11-12, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse

Btw, this probably happens because the game doesn't know any better, it probably thinks that you have dived already and that it doesnt need to consider the risk of crashing into you

That would be happening because of IRAI. IIRC I let a unit try to ram another unit if it's weight is greater than some value.

SilentOtto · 08-11-12, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse

gap,

point 1: Most ramming were done by battleships, battleships have much much stronger hulls than a light and simple destroyer.

point 2: There were extremely few ramming incidents with destroyers. And those who did, had their destroyer badly damaged. Quote "Borie was too badly damaged by the ramming to be salvaged", and btw, the u-boat that the destroyer rammed into, were not critically damaged he-he.

point 3: Only a tiny fraction of all the 1200 uboats during the course of the war was attacked by ramming, insignificant numbers, and most done by heavy ships or scared/suicide merchants.

point 4: What I am talking about are destroyers doing this in 100% of the cases in the game, there is a big, big, BIG difference here..

Ramming is an absolutely last resort attack, and preferably on wooden vessels. You don't attack uboats by ramming and as a primary type of weapon, its silly.

You are so wrong in part of your statement that I had to just drop some quoting on it. This comes from 3 min googling wikipedia and a bit u-boat.net:

Quote:

In World War II, naval ships often rammed other vessels, though this was often due to circumstances, as considerable damage could be caused to the attacking ship. The damage that lightly constructed destroyers took from the tactic led to it being officially discouraged by the Royal Navy from early 1943, after the HMS Hesperus was dry-docked for three months following sinking U-357 in December 1942 and HMS Harvester was torpedoed and sunk following damaging her propellers during the ramming of U-444 in March 1943. USS Buckley (DE-51) rammed U-66; and HMS Easton rammed U-458.

Other submarines sunk by ramming included the U-100, U-224, U-655,[16] the Italian submarines Tembien[17] and Cobalto,[18] and the Royal Navy submarine HMS Cachalot.

During anti-submarine action, ramming was an alternative if the destroyer was too close to the surfaced submarine for her main guns to fire into the water. The tactic was used by the famous British anti-submarine specialist, Captain Frederic John Walker from December 1941 to the end of the war.

His first chance to test his innovative methods against the U-boat menace came in December when his group escorted Convoy HG 76 (32 ships). During the journey five U-boats were sunk, four by Walker's group, including U-574 which was depth-charged and rammed by Walker's own ship on 19 December.

In June 1943 Walker's own ship Starling was responsible for the sinking of two U-boats. The first, U-202, was destroyed on 2 June by depth charges and gunfire, and the other, U-119, on 24 June by depth charges and ramming.

The destroyer could not use its gun on the forecastle due to weather damage and the 4in gun on starboard jammed when firing a star shell, so they tried to ram U-432 which turned inside her turning radius and tried to escape at full speed on the surface but soon crash dived.

If given the opportunity, escorts will even ram a U-boat, whether it is on the surface or at periscope depth. The resulting damage will put the escort out of action for many months, but if that could sink a U-boat, then the price was considered well worth it.

Kosmos II tried to ram the surfaced U-123 off Oregon Inlet. The U-boat was in shallow water, without any torpedoes left and one of the diesel engines out of order. The Germans managed to get the engine running when the ship was only 75 metres away and slowly out-distanced her at full speed.

While the corvette headed at full speed towards it the fog lifted a bit and U-569 was sighted directly ahead. The commander intended to ram the U-boat but the gunners of the 4in gun opened fire without orders and gave the surprise away.

HNoMS Potentilla obtained a radar contact approaching her in this vulnerable situation. Hurrying up the rescue work, the corvette turned towards the contact and engaged the U-boat with all weapons from a distance of less than 300 meters at 05.21 hours. One of the five rounds from the 4in gun was observed to hit the base of the conning tower and several hits from the AA guns were seen. She had completely surprised U-174 but missed to ram by a few meters, turning astern of the boat and coming up along her port side, dropping five depth charges so close that the charge from the starboard thrower was fired over the crash-diving U-boat and detonated on her starboard side while the others detonated on port.

David Balme, like Hannifin, was an excellent source of first hand information. Balme was in fact the officer who captured the first enigma machine from a German U-boat. On May 9, 1941 he was engaged in a naval action in which his destroyer forced U-110 to the surface. The standard procedure was to ram the U-boat so that the crew could not get up on deck and start firing their guns.

Ok so I stop because it's quite late and I think the point is clear. There are LOTS of accounts of escorts (corvettes, DEs and destroyers) ramming or trying to ram U-Boats. This was made, primarily, in order to force them under, locate with ASDIC and work them with DCs.

As you can read in the first quote I pasted, starting in 1943 the RN discouraged the escort captains from ramming since it was, as you said, very dangerous for their smallish ships, too. But that doesn't mean it ended, you can check that the famous Walker kept using that attack till the very end.

In the first years of the war ramming and trying to ram was VERY common, even for small escorts:

1) Don't forget that u-boats main attack mode at the time was surfaced at night, when they were almost invisible.
2) They were much easier to attack when they were submerged, since shooting was not easy on such small target as a u-boat presented, unless sea conditions were optimum.
3) Even if they were not rammed or located by ASDIC, if they were forced under that was considered a minor victory for the escort, since it would be quite long till they dared surfacing again, and convoys, merchants or whatever the escort was protecting would be far gone.

Later in the war, after radar was commonplace, it was not so usual for u-boats to attack on the surface so this situation changed. But even in some cases, mainly if/when after chasing they were so near guns couldn't be pointed down, and also commonly when u-boats emerged after being pretty shaken with DC attacks, they were still rammed.

There are quite a lot of stories about escorts coming back to port with huge damage due to this ramming, I recall some even sinking on the way back to port because of this, though I'm talking out of my... memory here

So, you see some of your points might be valid, and I wouldn't have answered which such a "thick" post if you hadn't insisted so much as to make it look like ramming was an "odd" thing. When a destroyer or a corvette found an enemy sub, the first thing to do was steaming to get as close to it as possible, and many times that was very literal!

No escort would just shoot subs from a distance, they would always get real close! Hell, even famous ace Joachim Schepke in U100 was literally crushed in the bridge of his sub when he thought the (old) enemy V Class Destroyer HMS Vanoc would miss and pass astern!

tl;dr: Ramming by escort ships, or "menacing" with it, was very common, in order to finish damaged u-boats, and in order to force them under so as to be able to attack them with DCs.

PS: Naval artillery in WWII, in North Atlantic weather, AND in small ships as destroyers vs u-boats, didn't work AT ALL like it's modeled in these sims. Many many times it was totally useless trying to hit a small u-boat from a really unstable platform as such smaller escorts were. As you said, trust me!

DelphiUniverse · 08-11-12, 08:56 PM

The points are that the amount of ramming incidents are very low, most uboats were sunk by other means. If there are 4 destroyers within fire range, they would probably rely in putting shellts onto it, but if you encounter 4 destroyers in sh5, they will all ram into you immediately, ramming is a last resort, its not a primary weapon. I hope that you see the point I am making here. Even if they have 8 destroyers in a pack in sh5 and they could easily and quickly shell the sub, they will all ram it. Keep in mind that ramming is a sacrifice, if odds are overwhelming that they can shell the sub with certainty, they would not ram the uboat, they do that in sh5. There are no doubts that this works very differently in sh5 than it did during the war.

During the war they would not risk running towards a uboat forcing their own guns not being able to shoot it, they would stay in that perticular range and fire as close as possible. In Sh5 they will cross the gunfire range so they cant fire anymore, and try to catch the uboat no matter what. It just simply didn't work that way during the war. Statistics supports my claims, uboats have to come up some time, they cant stay below forever, and destroyers simply just shelled it, they didn't pick ramming as a primary weapon of choice. Statistics is inaccurate sure, but it doesn't lie, we have pretty good data on this.

SilentOtto · 08-11-12, 09:21 PM

You are still wrong in assuming an escort wouldn't close an U-Boat, first thing. Shelling from a distance is a battleship-cruiser style fight.

Every escort would, first thing, close the U-Boat as much as they could. What the situation developed later depended on if the sub submerged or not. If it didn't submerge, they would try to ram. It was indeed common, and even more in the first years of the war.

And anyway, if you have an enemy DD coming to you at more than 30 knots, it wouldn't make much difference if he really wants to ram you, or just force you under, the effect would be the same!

PS I forgot to add that I think neither guns or ramming were the main weapons against u-boats. DCs were the main weapon used against them, and which sank more u-boats.

And if we go on much further, we'll be kidnapping this thread - though with an interesting discussion!

TheBeast · 08-11-12, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volodya61

Feedback about Decks Awash patch

When I'm staying on the bridge:
But I can't watch with binoculars

- why? it's not good

The water transition level or MinHeight value for Binocular would have to be adjust (lowered)

Has anyone had success enabling the Snorkel Co2 patch?

When I enable the Snorkel Co2 patch, my boat does not accumulate Co2 when Submerge.
Although, when I come up to Snorkel Depth and raise the Snorkel, Compressed Air reserves are replenished.

Regards!
TheBeast

volodya61 · 08-11-12, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBeast

The water transition level or MinHeight value for Binocular would have to be adjust (lowered)
...
Regards!
TheBeast

Which file contains these settings?

EDIT: cameras.cam? or UBoot_Sensors.sim?

volodya61 · 08-11-12, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBeast

..
Has anyone had success enabling the Snorkel Co2 patch?

When I enable the Snorkel Co2 patch, my boat does not accumulate Co2 when Submerge.
Although, when I come up to Snorkel Depth and raise the Snorkel, Compressed Air reserves are replenished.

Regards!
TheBeast

I have enabled the CO2 patches (both, for .exe and for sim.act) and everything works fine for me..
Accumulate CO2 when submerged..
And I don't use snorkel yet..

Volodya

Will-Rommel · 08-11-12, 11:29 PM

If i use TDW generic patcher application, do i still need to do manual hex editing to apply the patches or i just have to "Enable" the red lines of my choice in the s5p files?

volodya61 · 08-11-12, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will-Rommel

If i use TDW generic patcher application, do i still need to do manual hex editing to apply the patches or i just have to "Enable" the red lines of my choice in the s5p files?

No more manual edit..
Just use Generic patcher.. all patches included..

TheDarkWraith · 08-12-12, 12:17 AM

just finished up the mega patch for AI crew damage control. Wow, that was a lot of code. More than I thought it would take

There are some memory variables that can be adjusted (and will need to be tweaked through more testing) in order for this to be working 100% correct. The end user will be able to adjust these memory variables (have to add this functionality to generic patcher yet).

Here's how it's working:

Zone (Box) damage:

every frame update a function is called to check/update zone(box) damage:
- check to see if allowed to repair damage on this zone (box)
- if not allowed then return
- if allowed:
- if zone (box) damage is 0 then it returns
- if zone (box) has damage then:
- get current damage %
- compare current damage % to memory variable (max % damage crew allowed to repair damage - currently set to 0.7)
- if current damage greater then return
- if current damage not greater then:
- get a random number (0-1.0)
- compare random number to memory variable (% chance crew repairs some damage - currently 0.6)
- if random number is greater then return
- if random number less:
- get flooding level %
- compare flooding level % to memory variable (max % flood level in order to make repairs - currently 0.65)
- if flooding level % greater then return
- if flooding level % not greater then:
- get a random number (0-1.0)
- multiply random number by memory variable (max % damage repaired per hour - 10% currently)
- multiply result by conversion factor ( 1/ 3600 ) to get % damage repair / second
- multiply result by frame render time
- save new damage value to memory

Zone (Box) flooding:

if zone (box) has a floatability value then every frame update call a function to check/update flooding amount to add to zone (box):
- check to see if allowed to remove flood water from this zone (box)
- if not allowed then return
- if allowed:
- get a random number (0-1.0)
- compare random number to memory variable (% chance crew removes some flood water - currently 0.7)
- if random number greater then return
- if random number not greater then:
- get a random number (0-1.0)
- multiply random number by memory variable (max % decrease in flood water / hour - currently 0.1)
- multiply result by memory variable (conversion factor - 1 / 3600 - converts to max % decrease in flood water per second)
- multiply result by memory variable (second conversion factor - 250 - used to tweak the flood water removal)
- multiply result by frame render time
- save result to memory

All these memory variables are defined in the patch file and can be adjusted by user.

We will need to tweak these values. Lots of testing needs to be done with this

The end result is amazing though...watching a listing ship correct it's list due to removing flood water.

There are certain zones that are allowed to repair/remove flood water. These zones are defined in the patch file also. We can add/remove from the list as needed.

The following zone numbers are defined:
5-7
9-11
38-40
45-48
69-71
83-88
105-112
114-115
136
148
150
154-160
162-168
170-171
174-177
181
183-191

You can find these numbers in \data\Zones.cfg

By defining these zones it prevents items from being repaired that shouldn't be repaired (i.e. keel, airplane zones, etc.)

I should have this available tomorrow

There is one thing I haven't been able to do yet: remove the effects from a zone when it's damage is less than the effects setpoint. I just haven't been able to find how these effects are generated yet.

Sartoris · 08-12-12, 03:23 AM

I'm in awe as always, TDW!

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't this latest patch something that's never been done before in SH? I can't remember seeing such a thing in SH4, for example.

Sepp von Ch. · 08-12-12, 03:40 AM

Gute Männer muss man haben...

gap · 08-12-12, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkWraith

just finished up the mega patch for AI crew damage control. Wow, that was a lot of code. More than I thought it would take

Brilliant!

Here are a few suggestions you might want to take into account:

setting a new memory variable: maximum % of the original damage that can be repaired (once damaged, equipment and compartments can't be fully restored to their original state, and the worst the damage, the lesser damaged zones are reparable). An example:

HPs of a given compartment get reduced to 80% of their original total. Damage is 100-80=20%. If the maximum reparable damage is set to 75%, then the new maximum HP that can be attained after full reparairs is:

80 + 20 * .75 = 95%

for a 50% damage, we would have:

50 + 50 * .75 = 87.5%

These maximums should be calculated again for any new impact.
if the former function seems to you too complex, a possible alternative could be setting a minimum damage % below which the compartment won't be repaired (as above, once damaged equipment and compartments can't be fully restored to their original state, but in this case the maximum recoverable HPs wouldn't be affected by the amount of damage suffered).
memory variables affected adversely by number of compartments damaged and being managed at the same time.
memory variables affected positevely by number of crew complement (as stored in unit's cfg file), and by crew rating.
adding a chance that a % of crew complement (as stored in unit's cfg file) is permanently injured/killed after each impact, hence affecting irreversibly damage/flooding management efficiency.
locating the compartment(s) where batteries powering bilge pumps are placed. If this (these) compartment(s) get(s) damaged/flooded beyond a set level, flooding management is reduced/stopped.

DelphiUniverse · 08-12-12, 11:40 AM

Quote: