Maxstuka Ship Improvements

**Maxstuka** · May 6th, 2015, 23:50

Hi I need help with determinate a damage of big battleships

Stuart set his Rechelieu with belt 60000 and deck 55000 (I think it go better with 63000/65000 of belt and 53000 deck) but I'm not sure
VN Iowa I was setting with belt 70000 and deck 55000, it has 310mm but has better armor in angle, and compartiment tHan south Dakota.
Usio Yamato has belt 100000 and deck 50000, I think it go better with 90000 and 60000
Vn Bismark was setting similar tHan Iowa so Belt 70000 and deck 50000, It is ok, Bismark sopported a fire of 400mm cannons of the rodney and a talboy his sister.
King George V belt 70000? deck 50000?.I found me more vulnerable in spite of his great shield was lost with Bismark and sunk by japans bombardiers relatively easy.It was a Little more bigger than Northcarolina class.
Victorio Venetto belt 65000? deck 51000

Nelson, I found me more vulnerable, it has more armor than others models than they has better structure predisposition, for example Bismark, Bismark has best structure predisposition for his armor cal.

opinions?, what about the other of the list?.

Class	Belt	Deck
Yamato	410 mm (16 in)	230mm
Iowa	310 mm (12.1)	190 mm (7.5 in)
Bismark	320 mm (13 in)	120mm
Rechelieu	343 mm	170 mm
Victorio Venetto	350mm	161mm
King George V	370 mm (14.7 inches)	152 mm (6 inches )
Nelson	356mm (4 in)	171 mm (6,75")
South Dakota	310 mm (12.1)	147 - 154 mm

This page in Spanish speaking about the effectiveness of the shielding.

http://www.historialago.com/av_0425_blindaje.htm

**stuart277** · May 7th, 2015, 16:07

Hi Max
I only take a guess with regard to these numbers when doing the DP, looking at some of the ships that have been made. I do not really know how to deal with this.
The numbers are 'all over the place'.
JMK Yamato system.0=%system_name.0%,50000,-1
JMK Kongo (revised) system.0=%system_name.0%,40000, -1
VN Tennessee system.0=%system_name.0%,40000,-1
VN North Carolina (revised) system.0=%system_name.0%,30000,-1
VN Iowa (revised) system.0=%system_name.0%,73000,-1
JMK Prince of Wales system.0=%system_name.0%,20000,-1

JMK Kagero system.0=%system_name.0%,8000
Original Kagero system.0=%system_name.0%,1500,-1 (Machine guns can sink this)

Cheers
Stuart

**Blood_Hawk23** · May 7th, 2015, 16:23

I would suggest testing the stock BBs. Both US and Japan. See how much it take to sink them verse what it realy took. Use that as your basis for the rest.

Now ships that didn't sink during WWII we can give them higher values. We can also create the weak spots in the DP. There is a lot that we can do.

**Maxstuka** · May 7th, 2015, 18:39

All that I posted is bad.

Estuve el dia entero investigando sobre cada navío y en resumen hay 3 factores importantísimos en los cuales me estoy basando en configurar los barcos.

1 el belt
2 el deck
3 the size of the ship

Mas haya de los blindajes que tenga el barco, el 3 punto es muy importante a considerar.
Veamos la tabla

Country

Class

Belt

Deck

damage Belt

Damage Deck

torpedos

Bomba500kg

USA

Portland

146 mm

54-64 mm

20000

1

1,81

ING

Repulse

152mm

64mm

?

1

Estos dos barcos podrían a simple vista considerarse con similar daño (damage), pero la realidad es que el HMS Renown tenia 242 x 27.5 metros
Es decir que es incomparable con la clase Portland americana, el hecho de ser muchísimo mas grande le da más poder de sobrevivencia, esto hace que tenga que crear una categoría de tamaños para catalogar a los barcos.

No podemos ponerle ni en chiste, el mismo damage del portland a este enorme barco pese a que tengan similar blindaje.

Ahora bien, tengo de herramientas además de las corazas protectoras, los damages de las bombas de cfs2.

cookies	40000
S.cookies	80000
tallboy	60500	5400kg
rocket	1000
hs293	15000
2500kg	28000
2000kg	24000
1800kg	22000
1000kg	15000
torpedo	17500-20000
800kg	17500-20000
500kg	11000
250kg	5500
120kg	2250

Algunos datos:
El Yamato al 6 torpedo ya estaba lo suficientemente dañado para hundirse lentamente, los otros torpedos fueron recibidos cuando la nave ya estaba hundiéndose en angulo, por la popa ,elevándose la proa, si mal no entendí, uno de los posteriores torpedos dio debajo del casco por la inclinación que la nave ya tenía al ir hundiéndose.
También recibió 5 bombas de 500kg y la nave siguió soportando castigo, hasta que una más logro dar daño y minutos mas tarde de algún modo se incendio uno de los cuartos de municiones causando la catastrófica explosión que lo partió a la mitad
El HMS repulse recibió 2 impactos de torpedo para hundirse
El HMS prince of walles recibió 4 impactos de torpedo para hundirse
El USS Utah recibió 2 impactos para hundirse
la mayoría de los acorazados de Pearl harbor con 2 torpedos ya eran hundidos, mas haya de que recibieran multiples torpedeadas.

Por consiguiente aquí el comienzo del editar, el Yamato para soportar en el juego 6 torpedos requiere un numero mayor que 100000
y para soportar 6 bombas de 1000lbs(500kg) aprox 70000.

Country

Class

Belt

Deck

damage Belt

Damage Deck

torpedos

Bomba500kg

JAP

Yamato

410 mm (16 in)

230mm

110000

70000

6

6,363

los otros siguientes a considerar no están confirmados, pero deberían quedar así.

USA	Iowa	310 mm (12.1)	190 mm	70000	55000	4	5
GER	Bismark	320 mm (13 in)	120mm	70000	50000	4	4,545
BRI	King George V	370 mm (14.7 in)	152 mm	80000	50000	4	4,545

No tengo datos, para confirmar si el Iowa con mas de 4 torpedos podría mantenerse a flote.Pero sí es sabido que el POV clase King G.V. no soporto mas de 4, de todas formas el tamaño del Iowa es considerablemente superior al POV,pero no con la misma gruesa coraza. Por lo tanto es algo dudoso que habría que seguir investigando.

Cualquier opinión ayuda.

**Maxstuka** · May 7th, 2015, 19:22

Protection[edit]

Ship	Protection (tons)	Protection (%)	Displacement (tons)	With fuel (tons)	Fuel load
Richelieu	16,045 16,045	39.2 42.4	(normal) 40,927 (standard) 37,832	2,905 –	1/2 –
Dunkerque	11,040	35.9	(normal) 30,750	2,860	3/4
Strasbourg	11,785	37.3	(normal) 31,570	2,860	3/4
Iowa	18,700	41.6	(standard) 45,000
Bismarck	17,540 17,258	43.92 41.30	(light) 39,931 (standard) 41,781
King George V	12,500	34.8	(standard) 35,000
Littorio	13,600	36.03	(standard) 37,750

On Richelieu, the armor weight was 16,045 tonnes (15,792 long tons) and corresponded to 39.2% of the total weight, for a 40,927 tonnes (40,281 long tons) normal displacement, with 2,905 tonnes (2,859 long tons) of fuel (half of full load).^[95] The Dunkerque had 35.9%, the Strasbourg, 37.3%, with a 30,750 tonnes (30,260 long tons) or 31,570 tonnes (31,070 long tons) normal displacement, with 2,860 tonnes (2,815 long tons) of fuel (¾ of full load).^[96]
Comparison with other battleships is more intricate. The figures given for Iowa-class battleships are 18,700 tons for armor weight or 41.6% of 45,000 tons standard displacement,^[97] which corresponds for the Richelieu to more than 42% of standard displacement. For the Bismarck, the figures are 17,258 tons or 17,540 tons of armor, and from 43.92% to 41.30%, depending on whether the percentage is calculated with 39,931 tons light displacement or 41,781 tons standard displacement.^[53]^[98] All are higher than for earlier battleships (such as the Dunkerque) or those for the King George V-class battleships, 12500 tons and 34.80%^[99] or for the Littorio-class battleships with 13,600 tonnes (13,400 long tons) weight of armor and 36% of 37,750 tonnes (37,150 long tons) standard displacement.^[100]
Armor[edit]

Armor thicknesses were:^[101]

The armored belt, with a slope of 15°24’, was 327 mm (12.9 in) thick between frame 51.50 and frame 182.95 and from 3.38 meters (11.1 ft) above the waterline to 2.50 meters (8.2 ft) under the water line. The forward bulkhead, at frame 182.95, and the after bulkhead, at frame 51.50, extended from the main deck to the 30 mm (1.2 in) thick floor of the artillery magazines, and were 233 mm (9.2 in) thick. The forward bulkhead thickness increased to 355 mm (14.0 in) between the first and second platform decks.
The upper armored deck at main deck level was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick above the machinery plant and was increasing to 170 mm (6.7 in) above the main artillery magazines. The lower armored deck was 40 mm (1.6 in) thick and extended to frame 233, improving the protection of the forward part of the ship, left unprotected on the Dunkerque. Abaft the after transverse bulkhead, (at the first platform deck level) was a 100 mm (3.9 in) armored deck with angled sides in the form of a carapace above the shafts, increasing to 150 mm (5.9 in) above the steering gear.
On the conning tower, the armor was 340 mm (13 in) thick on the front and sides, 280 mm (11 in) on the rear' and 170 mm (6.7 in) on the roof.
The main turrets were protected with 405 mm (15.9 in) thick armor on the barbette, above the upper armored deck, 430 mm (17 in) armor on the faces, inclined to 30°, from 170 mm (6.7 in) to 195 mm (7.7 in) on the roof, 270 mm (11 in) on the turret I rear wall and 260 mm (10 in) on the turret II rear wall. This thickness on the rear walls, less than the Dunkerque or Strasbourg's approximately 345 mm (13.6 in) thickness, was due to the use of a cemented steel on the Richelieu.
The 152 mm (6.0 in) gun turrets were less armored than the Dunkerque quadruple 130 mm (5.1 in) turrets, with a 100 mm (3.9 in) thickness on barbettes, 130 mm (5.1 in) on the faces angled at 45°, 70 mm (2.8 in) on sides and roof, and 60 mm (2.4 in) on the rear.

The British King George V-class battleships and HMS Vanguard had a thicker armored belt than the Richelieu (356 mm (14.0 in)), but their turrets were less protected (330 mm (13 in)), and the horizontal armor (152 mm (6.0 in)) was equivalent,^[102] but their command spaces were only protected against shrapnel.^[103]
The U.S. Navy battleships had an equivalent armored belt (about 335 mm (13.2 in)) to the Richelieu, on the North Carolina and South Dakota classes, and a little less thick (310 mm (12 in)) on the Iowa class. The main artillery turret protection was less thick (406 mm (16.0 in)) on the North Carolina class, thicker (500 mm (20 in)) on the Iowa class, and thicker (457 mm (18.0 in)) on the South Dakota class. The horizontal armor was a little less thick (104 mm (4.1 in)) on the North Carolina class and equivalent (127 mm (5.0 in) to 165 mm (6.5 in)) on the South Dakota and Iowa classes. The conning tower was better protected, with 406 mm (16.0 in) on the North Carolina and South Dakota classes and with 445 mm (17.5 in) on the Iowa class.^[104]
The Italian Littorio had a thicker armored belt (350 mm (14 in)) than the Richelieu, but otherwise they were less protected, with 350 mm (14 in) on the main artillery turrets, 260 mm (10 in) on the conning tower, 50 mm (2.0 in) on the upper armored deck and 100 mm (3.9 in) on the main deck.^[105] The German Bismarck-class battleships had a thinner armor than the Richelieu on the main artillery turrets (356 mm (14.0 in)), but thicker on the conning tower (356 mm (14.0 in)), and equivalent for the armored belt (320 mm (13 in)) and horizontal armor (80 mm (3.1 in) to 115 mm (4.5 in)).^[51]

**Maxstuka** · May 8th, 2015, 01:10

Escribe texto o la dirección de un sitio web, o bien, traduce un documento.
Cancelar

Traducir del: Inglés
Ayuda a mejorar el Traductor de Google.
I finished deducting damages of 40 boats of all sizes

I made Exel tables that will be uploaded when you finish the new pack 2. This will help to shape and guide other ships.

***UncleTgt*** · May 8th, 2015, 01:19

Max,

This is a hugely complex subject, & not easy to model effectively given CFS 2's limitations. There are wide variations in how easily ships even of the same class sank, with similar variances in total damage absorbed prio to sinking. This illustrates a need for both very complex dp modelling & more complex hit point modelling of weapons. In many cases, a single critical hit was the root cause for the loss of a vessel. This is something that the CFS2 damage model does not do well.

Some examples to illustrate:

HMS Prince of Wales: Actually withstood repeated bomb & torpedo hits, but the critical hit took out the power supply to the 5.25" HAA guns. It was this lack of area AA defence that allowed successive waves to line up accurate attacks unmolested. I don't think this can be modelled in CFS 2.

KMK Bismark: Her fate was sealed by having the rudder jammed by torpedo attack, allowing her to be pounded into submission, unable to escape. Again, not something that can be modelled by CFS 2.

It's even more obvious with the smaller vessels - cruisers that are relatively well protected against horizontal gunfire, but poorly protected against plunging shell & bomb hits. This seems easy to model (strong hull boxes, weak deck boxes), until you add a vulnerability to underwater torpedo damage.

One of the best approaches to ship dp files IMHO was the work carried out by Blue Devil. He created a reasonably sophisticated approach to damage modelling that even included underwater shockwave damage from near-misses. Transferring this across to other ships is time-consuming, but not impossible. I strongly recommend you look at some of his work & see if you can't transfer his approach across to the battleship dp files.

**Maxstuka** · May 9th, 2015, 20:50

Hi, I do not have the cfs 1 and I do not remember if the cfs2 stock destroyer does in cfs1.

my question is, if it is based in a German destroyer, or a british.

The U-boat for example is a German U-boat Type IXD, I need help with the identificación, because I search and i do not see similar apariance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_..._II_destroyers

**Maxstuka** · May 9th, 2015, 20:51

**Allen** · May 9th, 2015, 22:36

In CFS1 none of the ships are named and it object name is SHDEST (wake model) or SHDEST_NW (no wake model).

**Maxstuka** · May 10th, 2015, 14:05

Originally Posted by Allen

In CFS1 none of the ships are named and it object name is SHDEST (wake model) or SHDEST_NW (no wake model).

Thanks for the info.

Another question important for my next ship pack, You resize some models, Brooklyn and ST lois, of the pack 1 ,and Nevada,Utah,Indianapolis and Kumano, I think that they are not a lod models, If it is truth, can you add the LOD to the ships.Models not LOD tourned heavy in varius numbers.

**Maxstuka** · May 10th, 2015, 14:54

another thing I forgot is that some like Utah, the brooklyn and ST lois have been high, compared to water, especially Utah that he looks almost all the hull.

**Allen** · May 10th, 2015, 22:46

I'm still waist to chest deep in my Euro install work. Alot of the VN models used quite basic LOD that were the same across many ship classes. You will have to send me all of the models again. I will see if I can find some time to get to them. The high out of the water ships sould be a quick fix but those that need LOD may not be a quick fix.

**Maxstuka** · May 19th, 2015, 01:37

Hi people!.

months working on it, insanely.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...ovements_part2

If any can set the fight deck of Langley, please upload in this thread, and I upgrade it in the next part 3.It was the only that I can do not.

**Maxstuka** · May 19th, 2015, 04:26

A new entry has been added to Add-Ons Library, category CFS 2 Ships Add-Ons

Description: Maxstuka SHIP IMPROVEMENTS

It is the attempt to add improvements and arrangements in some ships to get more functionality in cfs2.
there is a difference between exact values and gameplay as the theory vs the practice.

Many times the real values put in CFS2 not work as expected. I have tested many times starting and leave the game
to insane levels to calibrate this, winning playability, this is the key to extend the emotion and simulation.

First I renamed all this models with the best way to evade the mdlnames file, and following the form of microsoft names each object.

So when you add this ships are managed perfect.

It makes no sense to put ships with the same model file and only different skin, I put 1 for class,if you like another skin, re-paste it in the folder of the ship.

Maxstuka_ship_improvements_part 2 contains:

1 KMS Admiral Hipper class
2 KMS Bismarck class
3 KMS Scharnhorst class
4 KMS U-boat Type IXD
5 HMS Leander class (Aquilles/Ajax)
6 HMS Southampton class
7 HMS Nelson class
8 HMS Hermes
9 USS Langley AV-3
10 USS Iowa class
11 USS Neworleans
12 USS Neosho class
13 USS Neosho Suppliying fuel
14 RMS Littorio class
15 FNS Richelieu
16 Merchantman boat, I make a picture for the stock microsoft model ShMrchmn
17 Trawler boat,I make a picture for the stock microsoft model ShTraw
18 Destroyer, I make a picture for the stock microsoft model SHDEST

See the readme file for credits and more.

To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit Maxstuka_ship_improvements_part 2.zip
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.

***Rami*** · May 19th, 2015, 04:33

Maxstuka,

This is outstanding work, and badly needed. Thanks!

**Shadow Wolf 07** · May 19th, 2015, 06:27

Not the ones I had hoped for but great work nonetheless. Thank you Maxstuka!

**Maxstuka** · May 19th, 2015, 14:47

If any can set the fight deck of Langley AV-3, please upload in this thread, and I upgrade it in the next part 3.It was the only that I can do not and It is funny trying to land with the model trimmed langley of WWII.

**Maxstuka** · May 21st, 2015, 10:02

I fix a Little mistake in New Orleans name, I was put Neworleands ,So I re uploaded the pack with this Little fixed.

Redownload and delette the USS Neworleands class Cruiser folder and the respective image in foto folder

**Maxstuka** · May 21st, 2015, 10:03

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...19692&catid=42

**Maxstuka** · May 22nd, 2015, 08:35

I reupload the Maxstuka ship improvements - part 1, upgrade about designation names. So now It is ok to convined with part 2.

Download now, and see the different.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...ovements_part1

**Shadow Wolf 07** · May 22nd, 2015, 12:13

Thank you sir!

**Maxstuka** · May 22nd, 2015, 15:19

Originally Posted by Shadow Wolf 07

Thank you sir!

I am repainting a hms illustrious of the part 3, shadow can you help to configutarion of the langley fly deck ?.It need cut the actual flydeck because it was the early versión with long flydeck.I do not know nothing about flydeck values.

**Shadow Wolf 07** · May 23rd, 2015, 04:59

If you are asking if I know how to change the size of the flight deck, the answer is no, I don't. That takes a whole other ship design. Keep up the good work. When do you expect to release the Atlanta class and the Baltimore class cruisers?

***UncleTgt*** · May 23rd, 2015, 07:26

Max,

This might help.

I changed the CV-1 ship.cfg platform data to match the published data for the full length flight deck, & made it a simple rectangular platform (as per the visual model).

I then tested it by taxiing up the deck & watching for when I fell off. Time consuming trial & error.

It doesn't match the visual model for width, the visual model's flight deck is far too wide. If you want to alter it you just have to tweak the first number for each vertex.

I also changed the deck entries for length & width to the published values, the ones used by VN were way longer & wider than any other cfs2 carrier. I'm not sure what this affects (if anything). Using a simple take off mission I didn't see any problems.

I also chopped the number of cables to 4, which all that's recognised by CFS 2.

I then copied these changes into the AV-3 ship.cfg & adjusted the forward coordinates of the shorter flight deck to match the visual model.

To be honest, I think this shorter deck was never intended to be used as a flight deck, & I'm not even sure the cables were retained, but you can have fun trying to land on, or take off from...

PS. I see you mentioned you are repainting Illustrious. Don't forget I did a number of repaints for VN Illustrious to represent all the "I" class carriers at various points in the war.