Jump to content


Photo

Log Creation


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 Chris Lane

Chris Lane

    Private

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 07 June 2009 - 12:59 PM

Cool thanks for that LonnieI'll see what I can do. I have bought a number of what if's from Navwar so would be keen to make some logs. As soon as they are done I'll post but it make take some time as I only have limited access to the net (Damn BT:angry: )CheersChris

#22 Lonnie Gill

Lonnie Gill

    Captain

  • GQ3 Forum Moderators
  • 260 posts

Posted 07 June 2009 - 05:07 PM

Sounds great Chris.Let me know if you get stuck. I will be glad to help if you have problems with the Ship Log formats or need a few tips. Excel isn't always the easiest thing work with, but it is the software I am most familiar with. Along the way, I've learned a few format tricks.Also glad to hear Tony has a loyal customer. NavWar has a great line and I have been pleased to work with Tony and NavWar for many years.LONNIE

#23 Roland Labelle

Roland Labelle

    Private

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 17 June 2009 - 09:48 AM

Hi,Looking for the "ship log.xls" file turns up nothing... help!

#24 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,023 posts

Posted 17 June 2009 - 02:16 PM

The file you are looking for is located in the Private Access Library > General Quarters 3 > GQ WW2 > Game Charts & Logs. Let me know if you cannot find it or go directly to it with the attached link.Cheers,Gregory

#25 Roland Labelle

Roland Labelle

    Private

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 23 June 2009 - 02:48 AM

Sorry... All I can see is the Spanish gunnery chart - no Excel files are listed for my login.Help!

#26 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,128 posts
  • LocationSterling VA

Posted 24 June 2009 - 02:03 AM

Roland, It looks like you have not registered your book yet as you have no product registrations attached to your account. I checked our online records and found that you didn't order your books(s) from us directly so you'll need to follow the instructions on the green registration page that came with your book. As soon as your registration is complete then we can setup your access to the private files. If you have any problems or questions please let us know.

#27 Roland Labelle

Roland Labelle

    Private

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 08:43 AM

Ok... just entered the registration info from my GQ3 book (green sheet).

#28 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,128 posts
  • LocationSterling VA

Posted 25 June 2009 - 01:26 AM

Hey Roland,I checked your registration and it is good to go. You should be able to see the GQ files in the Private Folders now. Give it a look and let us know if you have any problems. :)

#29 Chris Lane

Chris Lane

    Private

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 30 July 2009 - 01:27 AM

Hello gentlemen!I put my HMS Furious project on hold so instead I working on creating ship logs for the Ersatz Yorck class instead as I don't need to alter te gunnery charts!One question I have is concerning the number of hull boxes. This ship had a displacement of 33000 tons which if we look ar the hull boxes PDF would indercate the ship has 8 hull boxes.However the Mackensen class has a displacment of 31000 tones but only has 7 hull boxes.As a result Im not quite sure what to do so any help would be great.Cheers Chris

#30 Lonnie Gill

Lonnie Gill

    Captain

  • GQ3 Forum Moderators
  • 260 posts

Posted 04 August 2009 - 12:46 PM

Chris,You're right, the Ersatz Yorck would have 8 Hull boxes. My data showed the Mackensen class with a standard displacement of 30,100 tons which resulted in giving her 7 Hull boxes. I would add that I had meant to update the Hull Box pdf to show the WW I BA - BD range for 7 Hull boxes as 22 - 30,000 tons and 8 Hull boxes as 31 - 39,000 tons, which would have made this much clearer. But, looks like I had not gotten that posted - my bad! We'll post a "Rev 6" update to the Bonus Files to correct this for the future.Sorry for the confusion,LONNIE

#31 Chris Lane

Chris Lane

    Private

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 08 May 2011 - 12:30 PM

When looking navweaps at gun data I take it I need to look at range and armour penetration. But, I'm not sure what to do next so I can use it for extending some gunnery charts. I may well be being thick, this happens from time to time, but any help would be cool.


Cheers

#32 Coastal

Coastal

    Lt Colonel

  • GQ3 Forum Moderators
  • 667 posts

Posted 12 May 2011 - 03:09 AM

When looking navweaps at gun data I take it I need to look at range and armour penetration. But, I'm not sure what to do next so I can use it for extending some gunnery charts. I may well be being thick, this happens from time to time, but any help would be cool.


Cheers


Sorry about the late reply (bad case of work overlaod!).

Actually, you're not being thick at all. Creating ship logs is relatively easy (when the data is available), creating Gunnery CRTs is another matter altogether. While Navweaps is a very good site, it doesn't necessarily have enough detail to adequately create a CRT for a particular gun. To create the penetration values requires extensive penetration data (deck and belt) over range. You'll also need to know the type of shell in use (new, better designed shells, such as the RN's 'Green Boys' gave better performance). For the 'to hit' numbers, you need to know the fire control system in use as well as the raw ballistics of the gun in question. So, as you can see, it's can be pretty daunting to come up with a gunnery chart for a new gun.

Now, all that being said, you can generate a 'good enough' chart for a new gun if that gun has performance similar to an already existing gun. The best method is to check data for the gun you wish to add against similar guns already on the charts (interestingly enough, many guns of the same caliber and length have similar performance). The penetration data of a similar gun can be used. For the 'to hit' numbers, I'd use the same numbers for similar guns of the navy for the new gun (ie, for a large caliber gun, use the large gun values already in place for that navy since they already model the fire control system and doctrine).

BTW, which gun are looking to add? I might be able to lend a hand.

#33 Chris Lane

Chris Lane

    Private

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 13 May 2011 - 10:28 AM

I was looking at a couple

Firstly the 406 mm/50 Pattern 1937 and the 305 mm/55 B-50 Pattern 1940 for the USSR

and also the 18"/45 Mark II for the royal navy.

Cheers for the help as well. The USSR pack inspired to tinka with some what ifs

#34 Coastal

Coastal

    Lt Colonel

  • GQ3 Forum Moderators
  • 667 posts

Posted 15 May 2011 - 06:16 PM

I was looking at a couple

Firstly the 406 mm/50 Pattern 1937 and the 305 mm/55 B-50 Pattern 1940 for the USSR

and also the 18"/45 Mark II for the royal navy.

Cheers for the help as well. The USSR pack inspired to tinka with some what ifs


Ouch! Those are not an easy trio. First, only one of these three were actually built (the Russian 406mm/50 B-37) and none were ever ship mounted. So the data, at best, is theoretical and, therefore, very limited. In almost all cases with gun performance, actually in use performance never lived up to proving ground performance (much less, proposed performance). Additionally, much of the Russian data (what little there is) can only be considered highly suspect. For example, when developing the CRT for the Russian supplement, many sources had to consulted, and in some cases, it still came down to a 'best guess' situation based on the information at hand (and that was with in service weapons). So for the two Russian guns, I'd have to say that we just don't have enough good information to make a reasonable CRT.

For the RN 18"/45 Mark II the situation is not much better. First, there is no firm data on the adopted AP round. The proposed 2916 lbs. light weight round was based on what would turn out to be a flawed theory (which was also used for the 16"/45 Mark I to it's detriment) and would've resulted in considerably less penetration performance. Since no penetration data exists for this shell (even theoretical, and given the flawed design, suspect), determining penetration values would be impossible. Second, in the immediate post WWI period, the RN thoroughly revamped their fire control systems and doctrine, based on the lessons learned in combat. While the 'to hit' numbers can be reasonably determined, it would require considerable research (at this point, all that can be said is that they'd fall somewhere between the WWI numbers and the WWII numbers, exactly where is the question).

Determing CRT values can be a difficult job, even with well known weapons with large volumes of data. When you move into the realm of the 'proposed but never builts' where the data is scant or non-existent, it becomes nigh impossible.

#35 Chris Lane

Chris Lane

    Private

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 16 May 2011 - 03:32 PM

Damn it!!!!

I might just have to settle for a best fit situation which isn't great but as Navwar are making these fine ships and I want to use them for my 'what if the Washington treaty sunk' campaign/project, it might have to be the case. Thanks coastal though for your help!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users