Hosting/Technical etc

LW/JG10_Luny · Post by **LW/JG10_Luny** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:22 am

Everything's Ok.

Thank you _5

WTE_Ikey · Post by **WTE_Ikey** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:59 pm

Just a FYI

All 6 platoons of the Fiat tanks that went missing & then were placed back lost 5.6% of fuel. Most are within radius of supply & were at 100%.

Its no big deal, they'll be back to 100% next mission & just something to be aware of if ever a next time.

cheers
Ikey

II/JG77Hawk_5 · Post by **II/JG77Hawk_5** » Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:31 pm

This next mission begins the night missions and we can test the new AF lights feature where we can request lights on at the airfields. They turn off automatically after landing or if enemy are near by.
Will be nice to see this in action.
Thanks 4Shades!

II/JG77Hawk_5 · Post by **II/JG77Hawk_5** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:39 am

Well as we found no lights were available. Mission file has no lights in it either.
A review of night rules for planners needed as Ikey mentioned on TS due to a few non night legal panes being in the air.

II/JG54_Emil · Post by **II/JG54_Emil** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:24 am

II/JG77Hawk_5 wrote:Well as we found no lights were available. Mission file has no lights in it either.
A review of night rules for planners needed as Ikey mentioned on TS due to a few non night legal panes being in the air.

Which were these illegal planes?

WTE_Ikey · Post by **WTE_Ikey** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 4:53 am

"Only multiengined bombers and Swordfish (trained for this) can be used."

Stuka

"Dedicated nightfighters (Blenheim MkIF & CR.42CN) are used.(also Fulmar) "

Bf-110's

No big drama Emil , even I forgot & hopped into a 110 & only realised it 8 hours later. But we both better not repeat it.

So it means you can only plan CR 42's (CN no longer available) for cap duty over Axis territory & bombers restricted to Ju88,SM79 & also Ju 52.

Cheers
Ikey

II/JG54_Emil · Post by **II/JG54_Emil** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:11 am

Grmpfsph!!!

I read a bit too fast and recalled the:
- multiengines
- bombers
Cr42

WTE_Ikey · Post by **WTE_Ikey** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:44 am

Arent you glad where fairly easy going here.

Attn _5 That unit thats in the drink west of Pantellaria is 1/22 Eng Bat Co 2 Plat 3
Could you pls place it back to 176350 180970

Cheers

II/JG77Hawk_5 · Post by **II/JG77Hawk_5** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:18 am

All fixed!

II/JG54_Emil · Post by **II/JG54_Emil** » Sun Sep 23, 2012 11:45 am

WTE_Ikey wrote:Arent you glad where fairly easy going here...Cheers

I´m glad

II/JG77Hawk_5 · Post by **II/JG77Hawk_5** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:44 am

Yes, if we dished out spankings people would be making planning mistakes all the time!

Post by **IV/JG7_4Shades** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:40 am

LW/JG10_Luny · Post by **LW/JG10_Luny** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:29 pm

IV/JG7_4Shades wrote:There are 2 new features inside the MP now, for testing.

1/ According to weather conditions, a "Sea Roughness" factor is calculated, dependent on wind speed, visibility and gust. As sea roughness increases, the maximum speed of shipping is reduced in percentage terms. Examine the weather forecast icon for sea roughness information.

2/ ...

Please have a look at these features and let me know what you think.

Cheers,
4S

I've seen the roughness factor working for the last mission. I haven't checked the distance the ships traveled, but the top speed was reduced in the planning tool. Despite the weather isn't bad for sea ops, the roughness factor increased up to 21% wich I believe is caused by the incoming night.
The darkness was never a major handicap for war ships, and speed was never reduced too much or even at all when there was no visibility.
Rough seas use to affect small ships speed, like destroyers, when the sea conditions are severe, like high waves. Appart of causing water flooding through air intakes to the boiler rooms, crackings were observed in the hull and structure due running at high speed in heavy seas. Tribal class destroyers crew used to ask every morning "How wide is it this morning?"
So while I believe a 21% roughness factor at heavy conditions is a good value, due night or low visibility conditions, no more than 5% factor should apply.
Submerged submarines should remain out of this reduction factor.

Thanks

II/JG54_Emil · Post by **II/JG54_Emil** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:24 am

LW/JG10_Luny wrote:
IV/JG7_4Shades wrote:There are 2 new features inside the MP now, for testing.

1/ According to weather conditions, a "Sea Roughness" factor is calculated, dependent on wind speed, visibility and gust. As sea roughness increases, the maximum speed of shipping is reduced in percentage terms. Examine the weather forecast icon for sea roughness information.

2/ ...

Please have a look at these features and let me know what you think.

Cheers,
4S
I've seen the roughness factor working for the last mission. I haven't checked the distance the ships traveled, but the top speed was reduced in the planning tool. Despite the weather isn't bad for sea ops, the roughness factor increased up to 21% wich I believe is caused by the incoming night.
The darkness was never a major handicap for war ships, and speed was never reduced too much or even at all when there was no visibility.
Rough seas use to affect small ships speed, like destroyers, when the sea conditions are severe, like high waves. Appart of causing water flooding through air intakes to the boiler rooms, crackings were observed in the hull and structure due running at high speed in heavy seas. Tribal class destroyers crew used to ask every morning "How wide is it this morning?"
So while I believe a 21% roughness factor at heavy conditions is a good value, due night or low visibility conditions, no more than 5% factor should apply.
Submerged submarines should remain out of this reduction factor.

Thanks

I find the weather-roughnes-ship-speed-modification a very good thing.

In General Quarters 3 (a tabletop game with tiny ship miniatures that are scale 1/6000, which you basically play either on a 3mx5m or larger surface) we have a table http://www.odgw.com/forums/index.php?/f ... her-chart/
it´s very simpified but plausible.
The speed restrictions there start at Force 5 (29-38km/h) for small vessels.
In some cases ships some ships turn into the wind and stop.

In real life it all is -like rocket science- a bit more complex.
A good document I found is:
http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferenc ... COS-01.pdf
or here a graph showing a performance curve prepared for an 18-knot vessel:

LW/JG10_Luny · Post by **LW/JG10_Luny** » Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:45 am

WOW, Emil.

Thanks for the links and diagram. I'm sure the diagram is much more close to what we are looking for.
The second link is too much technical and include parameters the game do not simulate and not need to. Of course, the diagram included in the link helps a lot and data can be picked up from this.
Note the simulation was done using a large bulk carrier with a top speed of 15.5 knots wich can not be surpassed due hull shape and some other factors like engine power output, propeller's design and mostly very high fuel comsumption. A war ships has much more power compared to her dead weight than a bulk carrier, power needed just for speed. Therefore external wind force, sea current and waves can be easily counterweighted by opening main steam valve to the turbines, no matter how much fuel is needed for if you really need that speed.
But structural damages may occur if the ship is exposed to severe stressing forces, like hammering high mass waves at high speed during a long time, for example.
This last one is what we are trying to simulate. Anyhow, the ship commander can force his vessel to such efforts if needed paying some crackings and floodings for, but I think is much more real to reduce the top speed as 4Shades did no matter what the Mission Planner wants.