WesWorld

As an aside: a few people have noted that SubSim is not an approved system for simming submarines, although quite a number of us now have played with it. I would like to make a motion that we accept SubSim as an officially-accepted optional alternative method for simming submarines.

My reasons for preferring SubSim are as follows:
- Simming historical submarines in Springsharp is generally very difficult, as Springsharp often doubles the weight even if you make the ship shorter or less beamy. SubSim returns far more accurate results with historical dimensions and performance.
- SubSim provides both surfaced and submerged speed based on the types of engines. SpringSharp does not do this.
- SubSim (at least with the version I've received) is capable of providing all the information necessary for sim reports.
- Several players, both current and past, have used SubSim to make submarine designs, and I'd like to legitimitize these designs.

Springsharp is just not suited to simulating submarines. SubSim isn't the greatest method, but is rather better.

I'd propose a standardised output format for SubSim and some guidelines on where certain parameters should be.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Springsharp is just not suited to simulating submarines. SubSim isn't the greatest method, but is rather better.

I'd propose a standardised output format for SubSim and some guidelines on where certain parameters should be.

I agree that Subsim, with all its limitations, is better at simming submarines than Springsharp. I also think that the suggestions made by RA for standardized formats and good guidelines for use have great merit.

Agree with everything discussed so far.

haven't played with SubSim, but by SSv2 standards, isn't 7% reserve buoyancy very small?

Quoted

Originally posted by Commodore Green
haven't played with SubSim, but by SSv2 standards, isn't 7% reserve buoyancy very small?

Compared to my own SubSim designs, yes. I prefer to see about 10-15% reserve buoyancy in my own designs, though above 20% is naturally preferred.

I'd guess the allusion in Springsharp would be making a design with 1.05 stability, 45% steadiness, or 0.80 seakeeping: it'd be a matter of personal preference how close to the edge you wish to go.

I can, if people wish, host SubSim on my website (or email it out) to ensure everyone has equal access to it. I can also see about setting up a copy for OpenOffice.

every time that I have tryed to use it, all of the equations get wiped for some reason. I have no objections to allowing its use

Ditto, if everyone has access to it I'm up for the switch.

Access is the only stumbling block.

I've played around with it in the past but not posted anything concrete.

I would like it set in stone though that all old previous SS designed subs shouldn't be re-done with subsim and remain fully legal.
Also some players, myself included, have SS subs lined up for future programmes. I guess these will need to be subsim designs now.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I would like it set in stone though that all old previous SS designed subs shouldn't be re-done with subsim and remain fully legal.
Also some players, myself included, have SS subs lined up for future programmes. I guess these will need to be subsim designs now.

I want SubSim to be accepted as an optional alternative for those players who wish it, not the *mandated* choice.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I would like it set in stone though that all old previous SS designed subs shouldn't be re-done with subsim and remain fully legal.
Also some players, myself included, have SS subs lined up for future programmes. I guess these will need to be subsim designs now.

I want SubSim to be accepted as an optional alternative for those players who wish it, not the *mandated* choice.

Hood raises a valid point, and I can agree with Subsim being an acceptable alternative.

Agreed, though I think we should have the *option* of resiming old subs with SubSim, the question is which design stats should be left as the baseline?

My fear is that re-simming would open a can o' worms over the whole issue. Displacements would alter so you might either end up having paid too little or too much and of course those re-simmed subs might be large improvements on the SS versions. Players might gain a lot for free just by switching sims.

That is why I say new subs only. Makes it a level playing field for all those who wish to use the subsim.

I think that any re-simming Springsharp-to-SubSim should meet the same general requirements as re-simming from Springstyle to Springsharp 2.0, or resimming an incorrect SS2 file. Displacement needs to remain the same, and no refunds/backsies.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Agreed, though I think we should have the *option* of resiming old subs with SubSim, the question is which design stats should be left as the baseline?

In the case of any ship being resimmed, to me, the most relevant statistic is light tonnage matching, as that is more or less the only stat that's relevant to our game mechanics (in regards to paying for them). Everything else should match as best capable, but Light Tonnage is the "Must be the same" stat, from my viewpoint.

As for introducing Subsim as a viable alterntive, I'll say what I said in the other thread regarding SS3; If there's a discussion or debate to be had on the subject, a new thread in the meeting place is the proper venue.

I had a copy of it, not sure if it made the switchover from Vista to 7. While flawed, it seems much less flawed, for subs, than SS2. I'd be in favor of allowing it.

As there were many people in favor and no objections, Subsim has been officially accepted as an optional alternative for designing submarines.

However, rules/format for its use as requested above are still missing.

Then, as I have never played with subsim nor even possessed a copy, can somebody provide me the program and a help file?

I will put a downloadable version on my website this evening, but I can email it to you if you wish.

I'd propose that this be the format for posting:

Quoted

Class Name or Designation
Date: ___
Coastal / Oceanic
Armament: ___
- Guns: ___
- Torpedoes: ___
- Mines: ___
Electric HP: ___ hp
Diesel HP: ___hp
H202 HP: ___hp (if necessary)
Crew: ___
wt fuel&batts: ___t
Light Displacement: ___t
Loaded Displacement/Kerb Weight: ___t
Full Displacement: ___t
Reserve buoyancy: ___%
Max Surf Speed: ___ knots
Max Sub Speed: ___ knots

Length: ___m
Beam: ___m
Draft: ___m
Crush depth: ___m
Tons Oil: ___t
Tons Battery: ___t
Cruise speed: ___ knots
Submerged speed: ___ knots
Surface Range: ___nm@?? knots
Submerged Range: ___nm@?? knots

Notes: ___ (include miscellaneous weight)

The blanks can be filled in using the information gained from the spreadsheet. This is pretty much the posting pattern used to date by all of us who've gotten SubSim, and all the information listed will permit anyone else replicate a Subsim without demanding guesswork.

As to rules for use, the program's pretty simple and self-explanatory. You can fill in the boxes in light blue and the spreadsheet automatically calculates everything for you. If there's a red box, then there's an error and it's not viable.

Edit: though maybe we need to make a note/rule about simming guns. For various reasons, SubSim only allows one box for guns, and only calculates one gun of that type. If you have more than two types of guns or more than one gun of the same type, it needs to be accounted for using miscellaneous weight. Similarly, like Springsharp, reload torpedoes are not accounted for in weight, and so miscellaneous weight needs to account for any reloads.

I have placed a ZIP file with the Excel and Excel 97 versions of SubSim on my website.