Hi Vice
Sh5\data\application\OptionsFileEditorViewer

Or as a stand alone.
Post #6 TDW's Option File Editor Viewer Installing It Correctly

Mods need to be disabled before making changes.

Peter

Crash Dive Again
 

The berbster,
I was able to open the file editor viewer as shown in your post but don't seem to be able to bring up the editing box as shown in your post to make the time change from 20 seconds to something more realistic. can you explain?
Thanks

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...postcount=2521

Any value lower than, let's say, 15-16s will be unrealistic because than your sub will CD very fast, much faster than it actually should...:yep:

And once again guys, read goddamn FAQ and tips before posting...:)

Map contacts
 

How can i restore contacts to show on the map ?
At which option in OFEV should i look ?

Ancora niente Gap ?:O:
Maybe model without sandbags? :hmm2:

Thx
 

Its exactly what i needed.
Thank you.

sonar
 

So I have noticed when warshirps (mainly DDs) are approaching to me as fast as hell, sonar man will say "moving slow". I listen to them myself and props almost sound as rockets.

The opposite also happens, when a task force of DDs is moving so slow, sonar man will say "moving fast"..... any clue on what is it going on?:hmmm:

Also I was using time compression, suddenly I got TCx1 got a DD infront of me no more than 1,500 m (it was night, very little light fog). MY first thought was "holly.....I'm dead". I ordered to crash dive, and it did not even notice I was there. (nor by its hydrophone or active sonar) Is that that type of AI I will be dealing the my who carrier? :hmmm:

The sonarman always seems to say "moving fast" whether the ship is or not.
Does not help with the plotting as fast is determined as "13 knots and faster."
It is the same with the ranges always being "long range" unless you can see it.
And what is "constant distance" all about?

The only way to be sure it seems is to take timed sonar reports as in the 4 bearings.

Peter

Sorry for my usual delay Vecko, I suck at estimating release dates and at meeting deadlines :D

After reducing the polygonal resolution of my sandbag model, I further reduced its polygon count by removing the inner and lower faces that would have been occluded by other polygons in game. This was a time consuming process, as I know no method to do it automatically. Moreover, every time I imported the model, I discovered the stock GR2 file I had used as template had some type of unknown data format not supported by GR2 editor. I lost my work more than three times :/\\!! ...but I don't complain, because I gained a lot of experience (pity TDW is not around, I have a lot of exception reports for him).

Anyway, now all the models are game ready. I just need to set some controllers/cfg files. Wait for updates by me later today :up:

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u...ox_sandbag.png

PS: should we model any damage for bunker, sandbags and ammo boxes? I could set some new zone definitions for them, something not too complicated:

bunker - damage mesh/boxes only above the waterline (to avoid it being subject to torpedo hits), huge Armor Level/HP values (it should only be affected by some heavy airdropped bombs), not destructible (the model shouldn't disappear after its HP are zeroed), no floatability (the model shouldn't sink), fire effect triggered when nearly destroyed. Basicly the bunker should work as a "damage absorber", shielding the gun within it.

sandbags - same zone definition as the bunker (it should actually work as a shield for the gun and ammo boxes behind it).

ammo boxes - reasonably low AP/HP values, high multiplier, cargo type: ammo (I think one of the existing zone definition might be used on these).

Just kidding Gap, take your time (nut not to much though...:D)

First give me simple model so I can confirm that your GR2 bunkers will not be blocked due to coast proximity when placed on the same coordinates as my dat bunkers. I dont want to place 100 bunkers on british coast just to see later that I have to move and test every single gun once again...:yep:

Check latest patch readme and enable it...You'll see that sonarmens initial speed estimation is disabled now...

There is a high probability that ship was bugged, if you have encountered her near coast line or as a strange single warship somewhere at open seas...This is a large problem with SH5 AI and it is still unsolvable...
Form your posts I can assume that you're not quite satisfied with SH5 AI? Well , join the club, same here...:)
Chek IRAI documentation and make few posts in IRAI thread and , who knows, maybe we can even attract TDW's attention...:yep:

:up:

I will send them your way in 30 min/1 hour; just the time for the last touches and for packing/uploading the files. :)


They shouldn't, unless collision detection is handled in a different way for dat and GR2 objects: the GR2 bunker is exactly the same size as its SHIV counterpart.

The current bunker should only be used along the the German coastline. British coastal defences looked nothing like German bunkers, and we can model them as well based on the stock land coastal defences and other 3d models available on the web. Are you into putting this level of realism in TWoS? :D

And now you're telling me that?:)

I have to protect British harbors in order to counteract all the craps and limitations involved with SH5 AI and , if possible, to make harbor raids at least a bit more dangerous and demanding. Right now this is child play and British (or any other allied) harbors are totally unprotected...

Placing axix bunkers along German and France coastline would only be unnecessary stretching already overstretched game engine. This is player vs allied campaign , not vice versa...:yep: I could place one or two near player harbors just for "coolness" but that's about it...:yep:

Regarding German/British bunker topic, for me they are all the same, a bunch of concrete with barrel in the middle of it :D, but you know me...:)

Those bunkers were "GO" in GWX and OM , so why not in TWoS too?

Anyway , to have actual British bunker in game will be very nice, but let's first protect those "poor" harbors and make a hell of newcomers favorite source of cheap tonnage... :up:

:doh::O:

Sorry, I was so busy with 3d modelling that I almost forgot about my usual historical research activity :D

I understand that.

Not the whole Atlantic Wall indeed. Game stability has the highest priority; just a few bunkers/ports here and there. :up:

Because... well, you know me as well as I know you :D

Okay good plan, :up: but during your breaks don't miss reading the following articles, and the next time don't tell me I didn't warn you :):woot:

Coastal artillery (general overview with some photographs of German and British emplacements)
Atlantic Wall (Germany)
Bunker types (Germany)
Cross Channels guns in WWII (Germany and UK)
British anti-invasion preparations of WWII
British hardened field defences of WWII
Maunsell Forts (UK)

Hahahah, you're killing me Gap! :haha::up:

large address aware
 

Any idea if using "large address aware" on the Sh5.exe would conflict with TWOS ?

...at least I hope I am giving you a pleasant death :O:

Please check what I got for you:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/pu...arge_Bunker.7z

cfg, eqp and sns files included. You need to create a sim file with ship unit controller; I dint add it myself as you know how to set it. Also not that you might want to change unit type setting in cfg file. Currently the unit is set as type 20 (super battleship).

In game screenies, please! :)

:up:

I don't think so.

The usage of LAA on SH5 is a bit controversial though. I remember having read not lesser than four years ago a post by a forum member who apparently knew about computer scienece more than I do. He stated that SH5.exe out of the box is already large address aware. IIRC, he continued by saying that using LLA or any other similar application on the exacutable would actually turn the large-address flag off, thus making the game to use lesser memory rather than more memory. :hmm2: