o Barão
-
Posts
1,877 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
99
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by o Barão
-
-
34 minutes ago, NiKuTa said:
Is mod compatible with v1.5.0.9 Optx3 ?
I don't know, but if you can wait a little, the next major update should be ready today.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Hello Barao,
There are many hardcoded factors that cannot be tuned with a config. They simulate real ballistic factors of the shell. One of those is the increase of penetration according to terminal velocity (the velocity expected at the end of the range).
Players do not have to always read the words and specific stats but use the penetration table which shows the final calculations. There, everything is included, the maximum horizontal/vertical penetration at range and the accuracies.
In the battle, these penetrations do not apply deterministically but again take extra factors evaluating the final random shell fire arc, the angle of fall, angle of side hit, and other depended on ship characteristics.
Like in real life, you cannot predict 100% the outcome but you can expect a certain average result at range given by those penetration tables.
See how penetration is increased at short/medium ranges with a shell of high velocity etc.
I am talking about the accuracy issues related to the muzzle velocity mechanic, not about the penetration. 😒
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just to give a better example how bad it is the muzzle mechanic. Stock game, no mods. Wouldn't make any difference since I have no way to fix this.
Stock gun with 0% barrel length.
Gun with 22% barrel length increase.
What are the changes?
At low ranges, where we could expect a better hit chance due to these reasons:
- Trajectory Flattening: Higher shell velocity generally means the projectile reaches the target more quickly, resulting in a flatter trajectory.
- Reduced Wind Drift: Faster-moving projectiles are less affected by crosswinds, as they spend less time in the air and have less exposure to wind.
- Reduced Time to Target: A faster projectile reaches the target faster, which means there's less time for external factors such as wind or target movement to affect its trajectory. This can result in greater accuracy, particularly for moving targets or in dynamic shooting situations.
We get in fact the opposite. This makes any sense?
At long range ranges where we could get a worse accuracy due to these reasons:
-
Projectile Design: When fired at excessively high muzzle velocities, these shells may experience increased aerodynamic instability, leading to erratic flight paths and reduced accuracy at long ranges.
-
Barrel Wear: Firing shells at higher velocities can accelerate barrel wear in naval guns. As the barrel wears down, the consistency of muzzle velocities and the quality of the barrel's rifling can deteriorate, negatively impacting the accuracy of shots fired over long distances.
-
Projectile Dispersion: Naval artillery systems often have to contend with factors such as ship motion, sea state, and firing from a moving platform. These factors can introduce additional dispersion or variability in the trajectory of the shell, further exacerbating accuracy issues at long ranges, particularly when combined with excessively high muzzle velocities.
-
Targeting Systems: Naval gunnery relies on advanced targeting systems to accurately engage distant targets. Extremely high muzzle velocities can introduce challenges for these systems, as they may struggle to predict the trajectory of the shell accurately, leading to less precise targeting and reduced accuracy at long ranges.
We have in fact the opposite.
And this mechanic is present everywhere. Shells weight, propellants, barrel length, gun caliber, the different between all HE and AP shells. It is such an important thing to how ballistics works that I can't stress enough how much this needs to be fixed.
And this artificial modifier implemented here to fix the issue with the light shells wouldn't have a need to exist if the muzzle mechanic were working properly.
Just my two cents.
-
3
-
2
-
@Nick Thomadis I need your help.
First, I am going to quote what I supposed to be your own words about shells.
Light shells.
"Lighter shells have reduced damage and penetration properties, but they are cheaper, reload faster and are less prone to detonation. Furthermore, the lighter shells cause less gun barrel erosion, affecting the gun accuracy positively. The range of a lighter shell is, on average, shorter than a heavier shell of the same muzzle velocity. Because of the higher muzzle velocity of a light shell, its range can become larger according to other shell properties."
Heavy shells.
"Heavier shells cause more damage and can penetrate thicker armor at all ranges because of their better ballistics. However, they cost more, they are more prone to detonation and increase gun barrel erosion. Furthermore, their slower muzzle velocity increases the chance of calculation errors when firing at long range targets."
Super heavy shells.
"Shells of the maximum possible size cause immense damage and may make guns of smaller caliber almost equivalent to bigger guns in terms of firepower and ballistics. However, those shells are much heavier, riskier to become detonated and cause more gun barrel erosion, while their slower muzzle velocity increases the chance of calculation errors when firing at long range targets."
Well, I have two issues here. One minor and a major one. What is written in the text is misleading for different reasons, that I will explain in details below. But the biggest problem is how muzzle velocity mechanic works in game, that it is exactly the opposite to what is in the text and still wrong at the same time.
How the muzzle velocity mechanic works in UAD? In short:
- The higher the muzzle velocity, the bigger will be the penalty to accuracy.
But the big muzzle velocity is tied to the light shells, which supposedly should have a better accuracy in game, according to the text, which it has by artificial means from other modifier. But is still wrong.
But the opposite is worse. The slower muzzle velocity will give better accuracy, and the text is saying the exact opposite. Totally misleading for the players.
The issue here is the muzzle mechanic and the weight of the shell, both combined are not having a real ballistic performance in game.
It should be something like this. Two shells, same shape, same gun, same amount of propellant, all equal except one thing, the weight.
The lighter shell will be sent at a higher muzzle velocity and with this it should more accurately hit targets at close range because:
- Trajectory Flattening: Higher shell velocity generally means the projectile reaches the target more quickly, resulting in a flatter trajectory.
- Reduced Wind Drift: Faster-moving projectiles are less affected by crosswinds, as they spend less time in the air and have less exposure to wind.
- Reduced Time to Target: A faster projectile reaches the target faster, which means there's less time for external factors such as wind or target movement to affect its trajectory. This can result in greater accuracy, particularly for moving targets or in dynamic shooting situations.
The heavier shell will be sent at lower muzzle velocity but should it more accurately hit targets at long range because:
- Ballistic Coefficient: Heavier shells typically have a higher ballistic coefficient, which is a measure of how well a projectile retains its velocity and resists drag as it travels through the air. Shells with higher ballistic coefficients are generally more resistant to wind drift and other environmental factors, leading to better accuracy, especially at longer ranges.
- Trajectory Stability: Heavier shells tend to be more stable in flight, as they are less affected by minor disturbances such as air turbulence. This stability can contribute to greater accuracy, particularly in windy conditions or when shooting at distant targets.
Now I searched everywhere for a modifier about this mechanic and I can't find anywhere. I can in theory fix this by applying a negative accuracy modifier plus a positive long range modifier and vice versa, but much better would it be for this mechanic to be working well in game, also with a text description that does not lead the players to mistakes.
That is why I am asking for your help. I apologize for the long text, but this is not an easy thing to explain.
-
4
-
1
-
7 hours ago, NathanKell said:
Hi! Very sorry I missed this, I was on vacation for a week and then the last week-plus work has been extremely busy (we're shipping a big game update, well, it's slipped a few days but definitely this week!). I'll take a look at this whenever I have a sec, though it might not be for a few days.
Regarding the path, if memory serves a .resS file is just a regular assets file with the header stripped, my guess is it's used here because unlike the main resource.assets file this one is _just_ a bunch of binary data to be streamed to the GPU?
...so, uh, I took a quick look while I was waiting for a build to complete. The flags are Sprite assets, not Texture2D. If you want to do this without code changes (if it's even possible), you'll need to add sprite assets of the given paths. To do that, you'll need to hook them up to new Texture2D atlases. I'm not sure the extent to which UABEA can actually do that.
The alternate approach is the code approach, which is fairly trivial. Hook postprocess for the Players data to load your flag assets (make a bunch of textures and use standard Unity code to load them as Texture2D) and make sprites out of them. Then harmony-prefix Player.Flag() (the static version of it) and set the return value as your desired sprite if the passed PlayerData is not a major (and then return false, so the base code doesn't run). Done! Shouldn't be more than a dozen or two lines.
EDIT: And to be clear I'm happy to write that if you want to supply the textures! You should be able to compile the dll yourself so you shouldn't be dependent on me, too.
(Basically you just install MelonLoader and run the game once; that generates moddable versions of the DLLs. Then you run MSBuild (from the command line) or VSCode/Visual Studio/whatever to compile code against the game's DLLs and you can ship the resulting DLL to users. The source code shouldn't need to be altered going forward, so at worst you'd have to recompile, but my guess is you wouldn't even need to do that since the bindings aren't going to change, so the initial compiled version I can make should suffice?)
Thank you, much appreciated!! For me what you are saying is still unknown territory since I have no experience in that, but sure your information shared can a make a big difference.👍
@MDHansen In uabea it is possible to download the flags sprites. The problem is to upload them and create new files. Maybe this little information can help you somehow.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, basedana said:
I mean, it still doesn't say it would be heavier, it says it would be more expensive which it is, so I don't see why not add the same -10% boiler weight to both Oil 2 and Oil 3 since boilers should be lighter due to lighter and more efficient fuel being used.
That is the point. It isn't. It can be or not, all depends on other modifiers and how you are designing your ship.
Oil I
Oil II
Oil III
-
41 minutes ago, cookiemonste94 said:
Is there any indicator when the game is finished? because we get an update every 2nd day or so and it breaks everything.
In the mod description, you will see that I always recommend blocking steam updates. I wrote the instructions in details to how to do that.
I am working on a BIG update atm and I don't know when it will be ready. Probably around Friday or maybe sooner.
-
On 4/14/2024 at 9:57 PM, TamaDasha said:
So what's the point of saying "Lowered weight penalty for non prioritized researches" if using the priority still gets you screwed? I only did it for a couple of techs, never more than 1 at once.
If you are comparing with vanilla, you will notice a big difference. There is still a penalty, but is much smaller. This change helps players to interact more with the tech tree if they wish, without the feeling they are being penalized too much.
On 4/14/2024 at 9:57 PM, TamaDasha said:Also - why is almost every other country "Behind" if it's my fault? That's almost never the case in vanilla. Britain unlocked dreadnought hulls in 1897, everybody else still using toy boats - the issue is the disparity, if it was a difficulty issue or a player error, other AIs would be benefiting too.
Because of your comment, I went on to take a look at a AIPersonalities file to see if there were any changes by the devs, and there are. So what you're experiencing is an old vanilla gameplay. I will update in the next version. Thanks 👍
-
9 hours ago, basedana said:
why is Oil 1 lighter than Oil 2?
Oil 2
Oil 1
.thumb.png.ab81a6f6972652785b2cb17a3bb75231.png)
"Improved methods to use oil as fuel for ship engines with boilers or not. The fuel consumption is further decreased and it pays off for the higher cost of the new system."
-
23 hours ago, TamaDasha said:
The other issue I'm noticing is the AI doesn't understand how to deal with the new armor weight. Battleships with 9in main belt and 0.1in everywhere else are extremely common, the armor is too heavy for the AI to fit anything else in, so they just use no armor at all.
The problem is not the armor weight. It is the lack of priorities or rules to force the AI to use a minimum armor value in the different ship sections.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, cookiemonste94 said:
We had the same gun grade and rangefinders and he even had less armour than me.
We had the same amout of guns, secondary and primary but he kept hitting me with salvo after salvo. We also had the same crew training.Armour does have no influence in the hit rate, so we can ignore that. But now let's list some of the most possible factors that you are ignoring, or you are still not aware how important they are.
- Gun grade is the same, ok, but what guns, what was the range, caliber length, and what shell was being used by both?
- What was the weather? What are your hull stats in that weather? And what were the AI hull stats in that weather?
- What are your hull stats? What is the enemy ship hull stats?
- What are your cruiser tower stats? What is the enemy tower stats?
- Were you sailing in a straight line at cruise speed for the most part and using most guns? The AI was doing the same or was maneuvering for the most part?
- Were you shooting trough smoke?
- You had the sun in your back?
- Pitch roll status from your ship and the AI?
I could list other things, but you probably already got the idea what I am trying to tell you.
This game is too complex, and many things about how they work are never simple. But I can assure you that the AI does not have any unfair advantage in the battlefield. However, for someone that comes from vanilla to NAR, the first impression can be a shock.😁
-
39 minutes ago, cookiemonste94 said:
This is my first time playing with this mod so excuse my ignorance, the AI is abslutely dunking on every single ship of mine. Even though we have roughly the same equipment and tech grade. Both crews are trained. I am playing on normal difficulty. The AI just does drivebys in 1905 while my ships cant hit anything.
"...dunking on every single ship of mine."
English it is not my native language and I failed to understand what "dunking" means here. Google translate is also not helping me.
What I did understand it's that you are having difficulty against the AI in battles. Well that's good news for me. 😉
-
1 hour ago, TamaDasha said:
The problem might be that both starting GDP and GDP growth is incredibly stunted for everybody who isn't Britain compared to vanilla.
No. That it is for two reasons only:
A:) you are not playing at normal difficulty or...
B:) you are using the priority function to unlock prefer techs sooner...
If you are playing at normal difficulty with the research slider always maximum without choosing any tech to be unlocked first, in theory should be impossible for the AI to get an advantage on you.
-
1 hour ago, KhanAnon said:
Hey - sorry to bug you, but it seems the Austro-Hungarian turret models are back to the old models again instead of the changed ones. Many thanks for your work so far regardless, though.
I just checked and it is working fine here.
-
10 minutes ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:
How do I change the weight of a certain tower/funnel? Some of the DD funnels are way too heavy for funnel capacity so I'll be modding that on my own.
In the "parts" file you will see the components weight to edit.
-
1
-
-
BETA v9.2 - "Silent hunter" update - N.A.R. changelog:
- Updated to UAD 1.5.0.9
- Some modern Japanese cruisers hulls size reworked. (Can cause some issues in your current campaigns)
- Doubled the damage from torpedo ammo detonation.
- Ship types cap speed limit changed to allow a little more freedom.
VERY IMPORTANT:
I don't know when I am going to update the mod again, so to avoid any issues, block the auto updates from steam:
- Set game to update when start game. Do this in game setting(properties)-> update.
- Don't start game by steam or steam shortcut. Make a shortcut on desktop form a main game .exe like "x:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.exe"
- Start a game from this shortcut. Game will run without update.
-
4
-
6 hours ago, NiKuTa said:
I know, I write that tip, to play without auto update
Is anyone know, how "ports" and "shipbuilding capacity" are increasing? It's still confusing. it's auto, by GPD, or by increase max shipyard size
From "params" file:
shipyard_start_increase,100,increase of shipyard per year after minimal year
shipyard_max_modifier,3,shipyard size development bonus according to year (LERP max. at 1940),,,,,,,
shipyard_build_amount_max_modifier,7,shipyard tonnage built time speed according to year (LERP max. at 1940),,,,,,,port_capacity_growth_modifier,1,Affects growth of port capacity,,,,,,
port_capacity_max_modifier,5.5,Port max. scale according to campaign initial year (1890-1940)
4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:Ah, those max speed setting are in 'ship types' too, I didn't notice that you had adjusted those in any patch notes, I've just been re-aplying my own verson of that to each update for a wile now with the old max speeds from the stock game. Sorry about that confusion.
I am almost sure that you are also not using my battle AI and design AI improvements from that file.
-
5 minutes ago, NiKuTa said:
Update v1.5.0.8 Optx2 is mod compatible ?
I don't know. I didn't update the mod yet. Maybe.
I always recommend the players to block auto updates from steam and wait the mod for being updated first. You can see the instructions in the mod description.
-
4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:
Getting maxed out speed on this hull, and a TON of other hulls in the stock game and this mod, is as simple as reducing the beam slider, no editing of any files has been done by me, you overestimate my ability to tinker!
No it's not! It's IMPOSSIBLE.
I placed a hard cap on all ship types in game to prevent the AI from designing fantasy ships so that it could have more displacement to be used in other more important stuff, like armor or to have engines with a reasonable efficiency.
No matter what you do inside NAR, your CAs are limited to 36 knots!
So please, with all due respect, never again do that. It is for me already very time-consuming to come here and answer to all the questions related to all the things I did inside the mod. To explain the fantasy decisions made by other players or what bullshit designs wows is doing atm is too much, and I really don't care. I always tried to help everybody, telling them what files you need to go to edit this or that. I really think if anyone is interested, it should go and change the game to fit their playstyle, but NAR is focus in making the game the more realistic as possible inside the game engine limitations.
And turbo electric drives have an insane acceleration, because of the instant torque from the electric engines. Simple as that. You could argue that should be 143% or maybe 267%, who knows? That value is only there to represent the properties from an electric engine compared to the others used on ships.
-
2
-
1
-
-
54 minutes ago, flaviohc16 said:
We unlocked 100k tons ships in 1929, when there is no chance in hell that a 100k ton ship was going to get built before 1941-42 IRL, Treaties or not.
Tillman designs are from 1916. If it was practical to build them is another question, but Tillman, fed up with all the requests from the navy, was asking what was the bigger ship the American shipyards could build at that time.
About 7500 tons DDs at 1936, that is also not unrealistic since there was plans already at the time for large destroyers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spähkreuzer_1938
Note: I added this ship to the German tech tree in NAR.
Also big destroyers, or simple small light cruisers, the difference between them is so small anyway.
-
32 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:
In 1919, I can build this lol. Not sure how mk1 eyeballs looking though coincidence 3 at most is gunna come up with firing solution against this thing streeking across the horizon at 48 knots 😎
I didn't think this was a part of the mod, but wanted to make sure befor I got told to gtfo moder! in the 1.5 thread lol
Do we have the London naval treaty? No.
Do we have the Washington naval treaty? No.
Are heavy cruisers limited to 10000 tons? No.
Are heavy cruisers limited to 8" guns? No.
No, no, no, no. So what is the issue here?
By the way, maybe you didn't notice. But your 48 knots cruiser have only 11% E.E. 🤔
And other thing. I have no idea how it is possible for you to get 48 knots from a hull in NAR since I limited the maximum speed for all ships to more realistic values, unless you are doing your editing the files.
-
1 minute ago, NiKuTa said:
I have a question and I dont know how it works.
If I discover a technology which add me a gun base accuracy, do I have to refit a ship to get this bonus on ship which I have?
I don't think so, but you should ask that to the devs to be sure.
-
24 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:
Just unlocked a modern heavy cruiser 2 in my Japanese campaign, with the research '16500 ton CA' assigned to the year 1922. No way that's right, probably should be 1932. Not sure if this is NAR specific or stock.
I should scrap all my other ships and build 50 of these lmao
I am failing to understand what is your issue, but if you don't like it, write a letter to the devs. 😉
-
Just now, NiKuTa said:
I like the lower accuracy on guns, but there is something wrong.
here is no pin have a ship with long range guns when you can't use it and soot.
My CL have about 10km+ gun but open fire about 4km from tgt. I have MK3 guns 5-4 inch, crew veteran and dot won to fire, I need to set to agressive mode.
That is related to the target size, speed, light conditions, weather, sea waves and if it is turning.
Just because you have long guns, that doesn't mean if it is worth it using them against that TB speeding at maximum range. The hit rate will be so low that the gunners will prefer to save the ammo. If you try against a slow BB, most likely they will be used.
(Basically you just install MelonLoader and run the game once; that generates moddable versions of the DLLs. Then you run MSBuild (from the command line) or VSCode/Visual Studio/whatever to compile code against the game's DLLs and you can ship the resulting DLL to users. The source code shouldn't need to be altered going forward, so at worst you'd have to recompile, but my guess is you wouldn't even need to do that since the bindings aren't going to change, so the initial compiled version I can make should suffice?)
.png.bfba596e68f88a10c9e78f4d849b4b68.png)
"Naval Arms Race" mod overhaul. BETA v10 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - for UAD v1.5.0.9 Optx3
in Unofficial Mods
Posted · Edited by o Barão
BETA v10 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog:
Link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ac6FZM6KTnY3Rhm5GRsEO6Zs6V8Jfasf?usp=drive_link
Note: The english file needs to be updated.
----- Major update -----
----- Ballistics rework -----
All shells have unique properties at different ranges. This offers new tactical options for the Admiral to consider when designing the ships and what will be their role.
Note:
----- Min angle and max angle -----
APC shells have a unique cap design that favors penetration at low angles, but is very poor at steep angles.
With the invention of the ballistic cap, new cap designs are now possible to increase the biting angle. The players should notice a better performance from the APCBC variants and SAPBC because of this.
The values used in NAR as reference for the shell modifiers, are:
Min angle is where the ricochet starts to have an effect and the Max angle where it gets the full effect.
There is also a 70% ricochet chance for hitting the main turret.
Note: Only the max angle value is different from vanilla game. I changed to help the player in reading the gun stats.
Typical APCBC shell.
Note the changes to the armor-piercing cap to better improve the chance of penetration at steep angles.
----- Realistic accuracy -----
American 16"/50 mk7 performance on trials.
Around 9km.
Around 27km.
Changes to the accuracy formula to improve the closer you are to the target give me what is now IMO a very realistic feel. Because of this, the mod two options are now: Realistic accuracy and the Arcade accuracy (3x times the chance of hit)
VERY IMPORTANT:
I don't know when I am going to update the mod again, so to avoid any issues, block the auto updates from steam:
Do not report any bug to the devs if you are using this mod. They are not responsible for the changes I made to the game.