#1 modder...relatively speaking
 

Probably: he had a hand in everything else! http://www.paperlessarchives.com/einstein.html Even more critically

Quote:

]Mr František Navara, a high school teacher of maths and physics in Jihlava, a 50,000-people town on the Bohemian-Moravian border. In the 1930s, he was worried about the rise of Hitler and he was able to predict that the U.S. would be ultimately dragged into the war, too. He also had an idea how to significantly change the balance of power on the sea. Torpedoes used to be navigated by cables. He designed a gadget that was able to navigate a torpedo according to the sound of the propeller. In 1938, he sent a letter with the plans to Albert Einstein in Princeton. Einstein was probably getting lots of letters from crackpots but this letter was special. Einstein replied to Mr Navara, admitting that the idea is extremely sophisticated. These two men began to solve some technical subtleties of the proposal together. Einstein wrote that he was convinced that the device may be brought to reality. Einstein actually guaranteed that Mr Navara had been invited to the U.S. and he met the bosses of the U.S. Navy. In 1941, they developed the technology and in 1942, it was already tested. Mr Navara didn't want a penny for his idea; he only wanted his name to be kept in secret because at home, in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, he would be awarded a death penalty, of course. He survived the war just fine. The first practical successes occurred in 1943. Altogether, Mr Navara's torpedoes whose production was "directed" by Albert Einstein have destroyed 37 German submarines. A prominent target in May 1943 harbored a son of the Imperial Navy General in Chief Herr Karl Dönitz, Peter. Mr Navara who survived the war had worked as a mathematician in Prague and returned to the country later. Shortly before he died in 1972, he gave the letters to his son Erik. These letters managed to get to Christie's auction house in 1998 and were sold for $12,650 to an unknown collector. https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-a...ic-torpedo.PNG

On the homefront Einstein was paid $25 a day to solve the Mark XIV torpedo's miserable performance from several causes. The Bureau of Ordinance's detonation issue was solved by Einstein who realized the firing pin was deforming on impact before it could explode the warhead. Einstein recommended a space in front of the warhead to absorb the shock...a recommendation the Navy did not follow-leaving submariners to solve their own problem. The situation essentially: the producer left the users in the lurch ie

Quote:

casually game publishers(or Bureau or Ordinance) decide to stop supporting their products (even when they keep selling them)

: Nuthin' goes outta style BBY :damn:

:D:yeah:

Aktungbby: nice! thanks! :up:

After a bit more testing I still haven't find bigger reason why U-FlaK shouldn't be added to SH5 as new submarine type, the very first one in SH5? It would be much easier to add new conning tower upgrade to C or C/41, but it would be much better to have it as stand alone unit because from what I know, U-FlaK were quite handicapped in number of torpedoes, range, maneuverability ect ...:hmm2: What do you say gap?:hmm2:


Looking forward to it...:up:

Don't forget the type II U-boat that Trevally has recently re-released (yep, I know it is an option for some :-?). Moreover, IIRC a while ago Cybermat has released a japanese midget submarine imported from SHIV. :03:

I am not sure I am getting what you mean. There were only four "U-Flaks", and all of them were modified Type VII C U-boats. For usage as AI units I think the best option would be setting a new submarine unit, making its cfg file to point to the model of the VIIC (AI version), and equipping it with the flak conning tower and appropriate AA guns through eqp file. For the new unit to appear consistently in campaign, it should be scripted. Correct timeframe and locations are easyily obtained, as we only need to check the service history of four vessels.
If need be, I can clone the GR2 file of the stock VIIC, but remapping the IDs of its controllers would be a lot of work. Doable indeed but, provided that there are no special reasons for doing it, I think the first option is the best, "cheapest" way to go. I hope I answered your question. :)


:up:

:hmmm: Fascinating! but the photos i'm seeing of the four actually deployed: U-441, U-256, U-621 and U-953) appear to have quad-mounts http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/4305-bilder/u441/u441-flakboot.htm Limited eels indeed!

Quote:

was decided to convert U-441 in the same way. The third and fourth Flakvierling mounts available (20mm quadruple sets) and the first experimental 37mm automatic gun were installed on U-441. Also, a battery of 86mm line-carrying AA rockets was installed (but this idea proved unworkable).

Quote:

It is sometimes indicated that two additional single 20mm guns were also carried. The fuel capacity was limited to Bay of Biscay operations only. Only 5 torpedoes were carried - in the tubes - for self-defence (room was needed for additional gunners taken aboard). Though they had some early successes, it was soon realized that the operational concept of the Flak U-boat was flawed and they were of no value in the North Atlantic. A number of problems were encountered with the Flak U-boats. First, the bridge structure had to be enlarged so that multiple anti-aircraft emplacements could be mounted. The enlarged structure added considerably to the top weight, causing stability problems, especially in rough sea conditions. Further, it added to the hydrodynamic resistance, increasing diving time and reducing underwater speed. More men on the top deck also meant that more time was needed to clear the deck during a dive. The additional anti-aircraft armament took up considerable space, so that only five torpedoes could be carried, while their reduced fuel bunkers meant that they could not operate in more distant waters. Finally, the final proof that Flak U-boats were conceptually flawed came when allied pilots developed new tactics to overcome these defenses. Appreciating that the AA defenses had been strengthened, allied pilots would circle just out of range of the flak guns while staying close enough bomb it effectively if it tried to dive. Rest assured that if the standoff continues long enough, other aircraft or surface ships will appear. As a result, the design was scrapped and all existing Flak U-boats were converted back to their original VIIC designs.

http://uboat.net/technical/flak.htm http://image.slidesharecdn.com/warsh...?cb=1442563732 EDIT: a small consideration Of Von Clausewitz rule: "whenever possible increase firepower":

Quote:

The 20 mm weapons had always had weak development perspectives, improving just enough to keep them useful. It was something of a surprise when Rheinmetall was able to "pull a fast one" again, introducing the 2 cm Flakvierling 38, which improved the weapon just enough to make it competitive once again. The term vierling means literally "quadruplet" and refers to a mounting carrying four guns. The Flakvierling weapon consisted of quad-mounted 2 cm Flak 38 AA guns with collapsing seats, folding handles, and ammunition racks. The mount had a triangular base with a jack at each leg for leveling the gun. The tracker traversed and elevated the mount manually using two handwheels. The gun was fired by a set of two pedals — each of which fired two diametrically opposite Flak 38s — and could be operated either automatically or semi-automatically. Each of the four mounted guns had a separate magazine that held only 20 rounds. This meant that a maximum combined rate of fire of 1,400 rounds per minute was reduced practically to 800 rounds per minute for combat use – which would still require that a magazine be replaced every six seconds, on each of the four guns. The guns could be fired in pairs (diagonally opposite) or simultaneously, in either semi-automatic or fully automatic mode. The effective vertical range was 2200 meters. It was also used just as effectively against ground targets as it was against low-flying aircraft.

Clearly a less than optimal concept for an idea to increase firepower as per the German war machine's holy bible: Von C's On WAR :k_confused:

I think that one of the most annoying things in TWOS is now alarm clock sound. Its very useful thing, but its soooo loud.
You can fix it very easily - its AlarmClock.wav file in Data/audio.

If you want to, you can do it in few seconds by http://www.audacityteam.org/.
Its free and very great SW, i used to use wavelab from Steinberg before, but this is even better and FREE!

Just open it there (drag + drop), mark all track (ctrl+A) and use context menu: Effect / normalize -> -20db.
You can undo by ctrl+Z and do it again to any level as you want.
Then File/export to the same file.

I even removed click sounds from map geometry tools and everywhere because i like to use hydrophone at very high levels in headphones.

Maybe ill learn how to make mod and release it in one package :)

I'm talking about new playable submarine type, not about AI graphical eye candies...

Would it really be necessary to remap all IDs if , for example, I wish to use VII C gr2 body/hull + U-FlaK conning tower in order to add one more playable submarine to the game?

Do you think that in that case appearance of new u-boat and type VIIC in the same area would crash the game because of duplicated IDs?

Do you actually know any fast scenario to artificially reproduce CTD caused by duplicated IDs?

Sry because of many questions but , right now, only you can help me..:yep:

@ Aktungbby and vdr1981

Talking in general about U-flak's limitations, I think we can mimic them without need to tweak any sim file:

range: the new unit can be scripted so that it will spawn exclusively in Biscay Bay within the correct time frame. I doubt wolfpacks triggered by TDW's call fo reinforcement patch would spawn them since, IIRC, u-boat classes which can be triggered by the patch are hardcoded in the patch itself. There is still a chance that some U-flaks will be triggered where a mission layer calls for a generic German submarine, but this is something can be addressed in a second moment.

maneuverability: in SH5 both conning towers and guns have their own drag values which add to the drag of the unit fitted with them. Stock game makes little use of those additional drag settings, but we can put them into use.

number of torpedoes carried: I am afraid there is not much we can do here without cloning a VIIC for usage as U-Flak and giving the boat its own sim file with appropriate torpedo settings. Nonetheless, I think torpedoes are the least problem: AI submarines do a bad use of them anyway, and I doubt a player would ever notice a U-Flak firing more torpedoes than it should.


I am curious to know if the U-Flak conning tower can be made available to the player as an (exceptionally expensive) upgrade. Have you tried Vecko?

I dont think that you have understand me right gap. I 'm not considering AI U-Flak submarine at all...:) Only ONE playable flak trap.

I dont see why it couldn't be possible, but that's not the point.
I dont salute the idea to have Type VIIC upgraded with U-flak tower IF we have any chance to simulate new submarine correctly with all of it's advantages and disadvantages...

Sorry man, I felt I had not got your idea correctly...

No, as long as you use the same granny file with unchanged bone names, there is no need to remap controller IDs. There are still some unsolved problems though:

1 - Most of the times, the name of the main model (within an unit's gr2 file), the name of the gr2 file, and the name of the folder containing the gr2 file, are matched. This is not always true for AI-controlled units, but it is for playable U-boats. If we change model name, we need to remap controller Id's. If we don't, there will be a mismatch between model name and gr2 and/or folder name. Honestly I don't know if such a mismatch can cause any problem, but this is something we should factor in.

2 - Even supposing that the above wasn't an issue, we would have two U-boats sharing the same bone IDs. It would be impossible for the two of them to appear in the same time and location, as they both would be playable U-boats, and the player can only command one U-boat at any given time. Nonetheless, we should consider that controllers are loaded in memory based on their parent IDs. Name and folder location of the binary files where the controllers are stored might play a role as well, but I am not too sure about this last statement. If the above was true, duplicating two units which share the same ID's shouldn't cause any issue until they both spawn in player's area (which, as stated above, is impossible for two playable units), but if on the contrary file name and location are unrelevant, the game would crash as soon as one of the two units is loaded in memory (because of the two sets of controllers clashing with each other). Testing this scenario on AI controlled units is easy: pick an unit, move one of its essential binary files in any folder and rename it to a random name. Set a test mission with the picked unit and run it. If the game crashes it means it couldnt locate the essential controllers, i.e. file name and location are relevant. If not, only IDs matter, and your idea is not viable. Another possible test: duplicate an unit copying its files to a new folder, and change the cfg file of the duplicated unit so that the game will recognize them as two different units. To be sure to put yourself into the worst possible circumstance, change a bit controller settings of the duplicated unit; set a test mission with either of the two units and load it. If the game crashes, then the two sets of controllers are loaded because the have the same parent Ids, no matter their name or folder.

3 - More importantly: how do you "tell" the game that there is a new playable unit that the player can get assigned to? As far as I know, at least in SH5, playable units are hardcoded. :hmmm:

This reminds me, a while ago I tried importing AI subs from GWX into the game. I'm pretty sure that I got the milk cow working, and perhaps the Russian Schuka class (except for the guns) but of course I have to ask someone from the GWX team before I can release them.

I got the same problem, someone got maybe a solution?


:subsim:

Ah yes, here we are.

Type XIV
http://i.imgur.com/jAlyUsi.jpg

Type XXIII (Which doesn't work, except perhaps as a zombie ship)
http://i.imgur.com/eukhsSo.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ikn2cK5.jpg

S-Class (no guns yet)
http://i.imgur.com/GKrniHT.jpg

T-Class
http://i.imgur.com/JgTPCsr.jpg

Schuka Class (no guns yet)
http://i.imgur.com/NKmIaAZ.jpg

Adua Class (no guns yet)
http://i.imgur.com/Vl5HhON.jpg

I'm having some issues, I don't know if it's a bug or something to do with this mod.

First, I can't find "confirm target" checkbox anymore, it used to be in the handbook. Is this something new introduced by a mod included in the WOS? How am I supposed to send ship data to tdc? :hmmm:

Second, Bdu calls my uboat u-27 in the Captain's log, and U-28 in the Radio messages? Which am I? :hmmm:

Furthermore, I receive different messages in captain's log and radio messages. Bdu answers to my reports "Good job, blablabla" in captain's log and "you suck, be more aggressive" in radio reports.... so... which one is the right one?

All your questions are answered in post 1 and in the Guides from webster (SH5 section - Tutorials / Faq)

to open the recognition manual press E key and u will see the recognition manual on the left side of the screen

to see exactly which u-boat are u take a look at the ship journal in the right side of the screen....... the default captain name is Cpt.Stahl Wolfand nr is U-28

open the radio message box and read from there all the messages not from the captains logs the radio message box is located on the right side of the screen and when u have a new message will flicker

Auto target recognition is available in TWOS only if you enabled "Wind and Smoke" mod which is part of it.

the send data to TDC is on recognition manual the confirm target is also in recognition manual i don't see anythink in that quote about auto recognition or targeting.... so no need wind and smoke patch..... wind and smoke patch is need it only if u wanna the auto ship identification option to be available again in TWoS ....no need for sending data to TDC or manual ship recognition

agree, i just wasn't sure what he's asking about, so just to make sure :)