Patch Suggestions (Monitored by Sonalysts)

[Adm. Ahab]

First, I would like to say to the devs. I think this is a great game. Been hooked on modern sub games since playing Red Storm Rising as a young lad, on the C64. Loved Janes 688 but lost it when stationed overseas (Army) and have been looking for a good sub game for some time (how did I miss SC?).

Any way, here are some bugs I've noticed while playing.

1) In the Campaign Russian Rebellion (Mission 1), the trigger for finding the SSBN has the text of the message to the P3 and is from 7th Fleet commander. It should be for the Akula from Commander Northern Fleet. The other 2 triggers for the same event (the 688 and P3) are fine. I fixed it myself but I thought I'd mention it, as it’s a simple fix for the devs.

2) Not sure if this is a bug as I'm no expert but when raising the Radio mast on all Russian subs, it looks like the Snorkel is raising and visa versa. As I said, I'm no expert but the mast that raises for snorkel looks way too small for air to flow through, were as the cone shaped mast looks more like a snorkel to me.

3) The USNI reference labels the Akula 1 K-154 as the Tigr and the Akula 1 Imp K157 as the Vepr? but they are reversed in the game. Not sure which one is reversed.

Feature Requests.

1) I would really like a playable Victor III. I love Russian subs and this one in particular. The Akula has been done several times but this one has never been covered. It would open the possibility for more realistic match ups for late cold war scenarios. Since the 3d model is already included most of the stations could be re-used except the weapons panel (different tube layout). If not please consider including it in any add on. The same for the Akula 1 (not improved) as a playable sub. The stations should be the same so this one should be real easy. I would also like the early 688 as well. Since this would require a redone weapons station (no VLS), this is more of a wish (pretty pretty please!) but I'd rather have a playable Victor III.

2) An adjustable volume for all hydrophones. If not, lower the volume of the button clicks for the stations on the 688; they are very loud in comparison to the Hydrophones.

I realize there are time constraints for patches and I would rather have all of the bugs fixed rather then new features added.

Thanks

[Molon Labe]

I second the volume on the hydrophone suggestion! I always have to reach for the volume knob when I want to have a listen, and even then its often too quiet to make out.

[Kapitan]

K157 is tigr and K154 is vepr also the K419 morzh is missing have we lost a sub ?

K419 morzh is an akula i improved and isnt on the list where it go take off to outer space?

[Nexus7]

Renzie and Jamie,
i browsed all your posts (around 500) looking for an answer addressing the ability of the countermeasures to detonate torpedoes.
Not one of those posts contains the string "cm" or "counter" except in one from Renzie used as "counterfire" :roll:

Maybe i still missed it but else... this is puzzling... as the CM's are for so many a problem in DW (please see the relative poll at http://subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=38539&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) - i hope this works -

On 32 votes, less than one out of then likes them as they are now.

I must assume the CM's will be the same even after patch 1.02?

Thanks for an answer :hmm:

[amrcg]

In order not to duplicate the suggestion I refer to the following thread:
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=40277

[Nydrre]

@SCS: I was wondering, is it realistic that the 50/60hz machinery line is the "loudest," and not some sort of prop noise (maybe the 125hz?)?. That way, we could get DEMON for NB contacts on the appropriate line...which would bring back manual TMA and help classification.[/quote]


Lower frequencies travel much further while higher ones die off more quickly and will appear more faint over a longer distance.

[Nexus7]

OK OK OK! That's not about the CM's anymore!!!

:damn:
:hulk:
:shifty:
:hmm:



This is not really a patch suggestion but rather a new feature i'm sometimes missing:

ever considered a feature that allows to save the MP games?
This sim requires quite much out of the player and is primarily built for MP purposes...
Now, since the most of us have a more or less intensive RL, asking to be available 3-4 hours is not always doable, in terms of mere time availability but also in terms of mental resources (for me anyway).

I used to be addicted to Sid Meier's Civilization sequele time ago: was primarily not intended for MP but then a mod allowing it was released... and with the save game feature. I think it wouldn't do any bad to DW also... if feasable at all ;)

Nexus7

[MaHuJa]

blah blah ... MP ... blah blah ... save game ... blah blah ... if feasable at all


(Just a funny way of saying 8< ---- snip ;) )

I imagine any cheaters would rejoice...

Also, for many it may be a slight problem that they don't always meet up with the same people (simple solution: don't use it...), and for nearly all of us, we'll need some time to readjust to the round once we get back in. (perhaps unless we can replay what's happened up to that point (just not in truth mode!))

[Nexus7]

I imagine any cheaters would rejoice...

Also, for many it may be a slight problem that they don't always meet up with the same people (simple solution: don't use it...), and for nearly all of us, we'll need some time to readjust to the round once we get back in. (perhaps unless we can replay what's happened up to that point (just not in truth mode!))

Here i think at the chess game between Tyrell corporation director and one of the genetical engineers in the film "Blade Runner"...

If you're not a sunday's diver, you'd recognize cheaters, else it's your problem.

[Amizaur]

SS-N-27 ASM range bug cause and possible solutions:

Well yesterday after going to bed I still though about it and couln't fall asleep until found the answer. Hint - launch simultaneously (from pause) two SS-N-27s, one set to 1nm (but don't forget to set shutdown range to max) and the other set to 100nm. Now disable the pause and observe both missiles :-).

The missile range in the game seems to be calculated differently from torpedo range. You may launch two torpedos at different speeds and both will go to max range (which is unrealistic anyway). But range of a missile seems to be calculated by flight time. Max range is divided by max speed and the result is a lifetime of a missile in the air. Which leads to a problem when you try to run a missile at less than max speed (as in case of SS-N-27). SS-N-27 fly at 500kts until enable, then speeds up to max 1933kts.

Now let's calculate. Missile max range from database is 300024m = 162nm. Missile Max Speed is 1933kts. 162/1933*3600 gives flight time of 301,7 seconds. The missile will live just so long.
Now let's check how long it will go at 500kts in this time. 500*301,7/3600 = 41,9nm... Looks familiar, isn't it ? This is range of SS-N-27 at a speed of 500kts. You can also get this number more simple - divide missile speed by it's max speed (500kts/1933kts) and the result (=0.25866) shows what part of max range will a missile fly at this speed. 0.25866 * 162nm = 41.9nm.

Same problem is also the cause of SS-N-27 max range at 1933kts to be also little smaller than 162nm - some of the precious flight time is spent at 500kts between launch and 1nm enable point.

So the method of calculating missile range by flight time in game engine is wrong. It causes the problem with SS-N-27 and many other problems potentially. Should be changed to same method as for torpedos, or like was used in SC (I don't remember problems with SS-N-27s in SC).

But this is serious change and I know it would dalay relase of 1.02 patch. So temporary solution could be different - redesign of the SS-N-27 missile to work similar like SS-N-27 ASW (launch a submunition).

Currently the SS-N-27 is ONE missile which is run at 500kts (0.258 of it's max speed) until enable, and later speed up to max 1933kts. Not very realistic. Mainly because you can activate the missile at 1nm and get fully supersonic Mach 3 SEASKIMMING flight for about 140nm !!! Crazy. There is no such missile with such capabilites, and even if was - it would burn itself from the heat of air friction.

As we all know in reality SS-N-27 is a two-stage missile. First stage similar to Tomahawk fly subsonic, close to target a second smaller supersonic stage separates and attacks the target (and the first stage continues in the direction of the target working as decoy). The supersonic stage is rocket propelled and have much smaller range.

Currently SUBROCs work very similar - first stage launches a torpedo. So let's make SS-N-27 this way. First stage will be subsonic with max speed of 500kts and range of 162nm (of course seaskimming, not ballistic like SUBROCS). At enable point it would launch second, supersonic stage with speed of 1933kts and proper range, the first stage could continue it's flight increasing number of targets for air defense to shoot at. Very realistic and working even without changing range calculating method (because we run each missile on it's max speed).

I think that making SS-N-27 to work this way would be much faster than changing range calcs in game code, and could be done in few hours to include in 1.02 patch.

For current 1.01 players - if you want your SS-N-27s to go long range, about 140nm, enable them as soon as possible (1nm) - so launch them manually, not from NAV screen. Unfortunatlely then they will fly whole 140nm at 1900kts which is TOTALLY unrealistic... but the only way to reach long range now.

Cheers!

[MaHuJa]

Been a while since I added something here, so I figured having another go might not be so bad an idea. :)

NAV: The countours of the sea bottom;
A togglable "current (keel) depth",
and a few togglable and editable, defaulted at values like: (most applicable only to subs)
Surfaced keel depth, Breach depth, periscope depth, 150', 400' (buoy depth)

Turning one of these on creates the lines on the map that follow these depths...
Discussed in
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=357904#357904

FFG "round screens":
Outlines of land visible

FFG TMA:
-I'd like max zoomout to be at least double of now, preferrably four times.
-The lines must be extendable beyond the current lengths. (Increased, but still static, number of nautical miles will be problematic, but will help as an interim solution)
-Merging contacts without drawing one onto the plot would be very helpful in maintaining a "clean plot".
-The fact that the solution will, with a perfect operator input, be some 500 yards behind the target, must be fixed.

TMA:
On all TMA screens I'd like to see the outlines of land.
On sub TMAs I'd love the ability to remove single bogus lines (think bent towed array) similarly to the FFG.

[Soulchaser]

anyone ever encountered the situation that a 65cm torpedo ignored the ceiling setting and blew up a surface vessel?

i had that yesterday. i did set it to 20m and it did vaporize a fishing boat..

[Molon Labe]

anyone ever encountered the situation that a 65cm torpedo ignored the ceiling setting and blew up a surface vessel?

i had that yesterday. i did set it to 20m and it did vaporize a fishing boat..

20m....60ft....sounds high enough that it didn't have to ignore the ceiling to explode. I have seen ADCAPS break the ceiling if they were being enabled/pre-enabled/steered a lot, though.


@SCS: Here's a suggestion: Enable UTK detonations only if the target selected at fire control is classified as Surface, and increase the damage done (as in SCX). Otherwise, the weapon should need direct contact to detonate (as in SC 1.08). This would make ceilings a lot more effective and add to realism.

[Nexus7]

Why the .... do we have a modern subwarfare simulator with WW2 torpedoes!!!?

[bishop]

I think this was mentioned already (didn't look through all 25 pages of this thread), apologies in advance if it has...

In the Seawolf, the RAPLOC function doesn't send the WAA range info to TMA like it used to in SC. Be nice to see this working again, it's one of the distinctive advantages of the SW to be able to get rapid range info on targets.

The game is great, thanks again!

[MaHuJa]

In the Seawolf, the RAPLOC function doesn't send the WAA range info to TMA like it used to in SC. Be nice to see this working again, it's one of the distinctive advantages of the SW to be able to get rapid range info on targets.

I believe I've had it put the raploc range on the lines in tma - in DW. Though not always. (Probably the timing, coinciding somewhat with the lines being sent to tma?)

[Ula Jolly]

Suggestion 1:
Silence bonus for all vessels that order "Stop engine", at least a little. Currently there's little difference between full stop and three knots ahead, for surface vessels it's worse.

Suggestion 2:
Allow the N. Korean "Hand Grenade" to travel at 100kts without flying!!! It's hilarious to watch :rotfl:

[XabbaRus]

Agree with suggestion No 2,

Don't see the point of No 1.

[Ula Jolly]

Agree with suggestion No 2,

Don't see the point of No 1.
The point of the first must simply be that even if not all machinery is brought to a sudden halt, at least there should be a KIND of bonus for putting yourself on the seabed and stopping the engine. If not complete invisibility, I at least ask of SCS to take a look at the current difference between moving and non-moving/drifting vessels. I'm not saying I know how it should be, but I suspect this might not be too realistic, thus maybe they could take a look at it.

[XabbaRus]

I don't understand what you mean by bonus...

To put it quickly being at all stop you don't make any noise practically.

If you are in a nuke then the noise emitted is the same at 0 noise as at 3 knots that is because at those speeds your noise output is determined by pump and reactor noise not prop noise.

Also just because the prop is spinning it doesn't it mean it is making noise...it is an animation in the game and as pointed out in a different thread props still turn to maintain a seal.

There are plenty of occasions I have been at all stop and been able to hide with no problems.

[Wim Libaers]

Agree with suggestion No 2,

Don't see the point of No 1.
The point of the first must simply be that even if not all machinery is brought to a sudden halt, at least there should be a KIND of bonus for putting yourself on the seabed and stopping the engine. If not complete invisibility, I at least ask of SCS to take a look at the current difference between moving and non-moving/drifting vessels. I'm not saying I know how it should be, but I suspect this might not be too realistic, thus maybe they could take a look at it.

Considering that several subs have coolant entry holes on the lower part of the hull, the likely "bonus" for putting yourself on the seabed is a reactor cooling problem. A diesel-electric could do it, but very carefully - even if they don't need reactor cooling, they could still damage something by hitting the bottom too hard or doing it on rocks. And then there is the risk you might get stuck.

[Captain Nemo]

Had DW for just over a week now and have made a couple of observations, which most probably have already been reported by the length of this thread but I'll mention them anyway.

1. Unlike in Sub Command torps don't go after dead platforms. I feel this should be addressed as it is unrealistic.

2. Whilst playing some quick missions a platform that I have killed and is shown in a greyish colour on the nav map for some reason disappears. This has happened a couple of times.

Minor issues in an otherwise fantastic sim.

Nemo

[TLAM Strike]

Has probaly been said before but:
MAPAD missile inventory in the weapons inventory screen needs to show how many are left- the inventory never counts down when a missile is fired, at least on the Kilo Imp.

[XabbaRus]

Has this one been mentioned?

It is to do with MH-60 when playing FFG-7

You send of your helo and designate bouy drop points.

He drops the bouys you selected, you see on the Helo Status display how many bouys of a type dropped and how many left.

Save game...exit game.

Reload game and look at Helo status and the number of bouys left. They are reset to maximum. So to replenish your MH-60 bous just save game, exit and then reload.

Hope I am not just seeing things.

Oh SCS any patch update news?

[Pigfish]

Hey Xabb. That ones been mentioned. Same for weapons too when saving, exiting and coming back. Unlimited buoy/weapons.

Played around once and by saving and exiting I could get 10 hellfires in the air at once. :cool: but needs a fix.

Ditto about any patch or DWX info... :lol:

[PeriscopeDepth]

It would be REALLY useful to have a stopwatch function in the sonar station or make the game clock show seconds for manual TMA purposes. Getting the degrees per minute bearing rate as it is now on the subs requires that you have a stop watch on you to do it properly. I think no matter what, the game clock should show seconds. Most other naval sims I've played have this.

[Overkill]

Ditto about any patch or DWX info...
Yeah, I remember a post here while back about DWX be'n released "soon". :hmm:

[goldorak]

Yeah, I remember a post here while back about DWX be'n released "soon". :hmm:


It will presumably be released after the S.C.S patch 1.02 .
There is no point in developing DWX only to have it modified again to suit the 1.02 patch.

[Kaptain Lord Aaron]

I would Like to see more ships.:zzz: There is only one hele and one plane. Also, How about RIG FOR RED. :yep: . A Damage Screen mabe, Just some things that were missing I hope.

[Overkill]

I apologize if this has already been adressed.

I can't seem to adjust the torpedo presets. According to the manual you left or right click on the numbers, search pattern, and search mode to change them. When I do this nothing happens.

Am I doing something wrong?

[TLAM Strike]

Overkill, have you turned off the auto crew for that station?

[Overkill]

:o :damn: :88)

Thanks TLAM. I was get'n ready to throw my laptop across the room. :lol:

[Kaptain Lord Aaron]

Hail all, thanks for your suggestions on patching and keep them comming I really enjoy this game. Even more I enjoy this topic, players have a voice. I agree with almost all of the people here as to what to patch. you guys all know whats wrong and what should be in this game. Well Dw is not perfect by far. Hopfully they will listen and make it better. Full Ahead Modders too, there are some good mods for dw too.

[XabbaRus]

Flood damage.

I know that you can get damage to your torpedo tubes but it would be great if you spring a leak and your max depth is restricted, and if it gets worse it has an effect on your trim and you might start to sink.

[Amizaur]

Yes, absolutely ! Major damage should have influence on buoyancy, for example you could become so heavy that it's impossible to keep depth and you have to make emergency blow ! Or even this could be not enaugh with very heavy damage... It would improve the game "coolness" greatly I think :-). At present IIRC you can have 98% damage and still move submerged normally, just like nothing happened... Only various systems are inoperative but buoyancy is not affected at all.

[PeriscopeDepth]

On the FFG TMA Station:

Passive LOBs should not only extend to circa 10,000 yards. That makes it pretty tough to line the ruler tick marks up on a contact beyond that distantce. Could you guys make passive LOBs extend for the length of the entire plotting board?

Thanks Sonalysts.

[Pigfish]

Hello. The ability to snapshot or put my SM-2s on auto for incomings would be a good option I think. :)

[inetd]

1) This is probably a too significant change for a patch, anyway:
What about something similar to the subs' stadimeter on the on the P-3C camera station? Especially using infrared mode, you can see the outlines of a ship quite accurately, and classifying would be much easier having a photo library next to it.

2) On the GRAMS in the Orion (probably other controllables too), the ticks for the y-axis should not reach into the positive x area, at least for me that's a little distracting when looking for active DICASS feedback.

[Amizaur]

In fact I once tried to hide under one of those GRAM "ticks" in a Kilo, when a buoy activated very close to me ;-) Positioned myself very close to buoy at it's 90 degrees :-)

[Neutrino 123]

This has probably been mentioned before, but I haven't seen it, so I'll note it here just in case.

For any sonobuoy, you can click 'mode' if it says 'out of range'. Then, you will be able to work normally with the sonobuoy, pinging it, marking contacts, and such.

[Sub Sailor]

Things I would like to see fixed;
I am mainly working with the subs at present

1. TB 23 for 688i
2. Do something with sonar, you can get new contacts all the time all over the place, yes I checked and nothing is there.
Decoys are better in DW than in real life, they almost never fail. The ADCAP is a very hard fish to trick in real life. Can they be made more realistc?
Can the voices be fixed, some of them you can barely hear.

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[Kapitan]

for some reason if i launch a SS-N-27 ASM missile from 50 meters it dont work done this 3 times at all stop yet it only happens sometimes many other times it works whats wrong ?

might be me

[stormrider_sp]

2 things that I think would be very useful for mission creators:

-Snapshot script (like engage script but the platform launches the chosen weapon towards the desired bearing)
-Active Sonar Script (for submarines)

-The addition of the TB-23 TA

[stormrider_sp]

force detection script

[DivingWind]

Make OHP FFG quieter!!! Sub hunting frigate shouldnt be so loud!

I take my words back.OHP is enough quiet to hunt subs(even akula).Sorry for the confusion.

[LuftWolf]

Option to delete saved games in game. :88)

Yeah I'm lazy or I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

[zma]

Okay, I just found a HUUUUUGE bug. Are you ready?

In the USNI database, the maximum speed of a freighter is listed as 32 knots! In the sim, freighters can do at most 16 knots.

The embarrassing thing is, I actually believed this and tried to put a 30-knot freighter in a mission. :oops: :P Didn't work.

Hey, it wouldn't actually be a bad idea to have a "fast freighter" in the sim, just for comic relief. I mean, imagine an OHP at flank speed, easily being overtaken by a rusty merchant! Priceless... :-j

[Sea Demon]

I don't know how difficult this would be, but I'd like to hear the diving alarms again on 688(I) and Seawolf platforms. Since it was in SC, It should be easy to incorporate into DW the patch, right? Maybe?

Sea Demon

[Adm. Ahab]

I thought about this quite a bit and my only serious grip with DW is the lack of a dynamic campaign and the lack of single player missions and the really weak dynamic mission generator. The first is probably outside the scope of the next patch and the second is fixable by the community. Therefore I really think the third should be seriously considered and I would really like to see an improved dynamic mission generator included in a future patch. I remember the single player choices in Red Storm Rising, and would like to see something similar in DW. There are lots of different choices you could add; SS(N) vs. SS(N). Hunting a Boomer Bastion ( 1 or 2 SSBNs with SSN escort), Hunter Killer Group (wolfpack), ASW group, Carrier battle group…I could go on and on. Although some of these are more appropriate to the cold war, they are still plausible scenarios and I still think this would greatly add to the replayabilty of DW. Anyone who played RRR will probably remember the fun of these different challenges. Also the choice of what nationality you are fighting is a must :up: and the starting distance a plus. Hope this isn’t to late to add to the list.

Thanks

[Amizaur]

Probably was mentioned, but... make AI units to properly set ceiling of their torpedos !! To prevent AI submarines and surface units from sinking friendly surface ships with weapons launched at enemy sub.
For air dropped torpedos relatively simple doctrine modification assures that, but I have no idea how to recognise if sub-launched torpedo was fired at sub or surface contact... Best would be if AI units set proper ceiling value (at least -150ft) when firing at enemy sumbarines.
To prevent human player from avoiding AI torpedos by surfacing, ceiling may be reset if TgtClass $= "SUB". But first it has to be set properly on launch...

[Sea Reaper]

I would like to see in an comming patch the following items.

1 . It would be nice to can see the submarines which are very near to the surface in the 3d window,not only would that be more realistic but it would give also even more the impression that you are commanding an submarine.

2 . In the NAV map for example I would like to have something like a small note book or something like that ,in such an book I could write than any things of interest which I may encounter during an dive.

3 .And my final wish would be,but not for the patch instead someday in the future to have an option to can play submarines like the Type 214.

I thank for your attention and keep up the good work :up:

[MaHuJa]

AI ships share information on enemy weapons (torpedoes, missiles etc) over the datalink, but the player never gets any of this info.

(Which makes your own radars the only semireliable way of detecting missiles.)

[Amizaur]

Few new bugs were noticed. First, torpedos with speeds faster than 57kts are bugged. For speeds between 58 and 62kts the true torpedo speed is higher than database value. For 63kts and higher speeds the bug is more visible - torpedo constantly speeds up and slows down, oscillate around the max speed value, reaching mementarily much higher values. This can be observed on example of Type-40 torpedo, payload of SS-N-27 ASW.
It have assigned database max speed of 65kts, but when you look at one you'll notice that it reaches even 73kts temporarily, and then slows down to 46kts and so on. Bugged are torpedo speeds between 57 and 159kts. Slower and faster torpedos (for example 200kts Shkval) are OK, but inside this range strange things happen with speed - either it's higher than should be or changes all the time. More detailed raport with test results will come.

Second - as Luftwolf have noticed, some AI subs are simply deaf to the front. AI subs use two generic passive sonars, LF Pass Son and HF Pass Son. The second emulates sphere sonar, the first, LF Pass Son, have parameters similar to towed array (low frequency) and is looking backwards too. But... some AI subs have assigned only one sensor and ONLY LF Pass Sonar, so efectively they have only "towed" sonar with no front looking "sphere" sonar. They hear only backwards, in front they are simply deaf. Those AI subs like Han or Ohio should be checked and front looking sensors should be added (in case of Han - only front looking, it has no towed array). This is the reason that some people observed AI subs deaf. Well, currently hunting a Han class submarine in DW is like hunting rabbits - you have to be exactly in front of them...

Third thing - for many sensors, for example active sonars, there is "Affected by TgtAspect" flag in database. This makes detection range from front and rear aspects lower than for side aspect, which is maximum.
The function works by distracting some value from sonar equation based on target aspect as seen from sensor. For target seen from front aspect
max value of -10 is added to sonar equation (or to target SL). For side aspect the function is zero (SL unchanged), for 45 deg it's half of max value so -5 and so on.
Fuction works OK but the -10 value for front aspect target is IMO WAY too high. 10 makes difference between Kilo and Typhoon in active sonar, so Typhoon front aspect would be same target as Kilo side aspect. In efffect, the function works too strong. Value of -5 for front aspect target would be better and differrence in det ranges between front and side would be less drastic than is now. The value of "Affected by TgtAspect" function is coded in the game engine probably, so can't be changed by database editing.
Please consider reducing this value of this function from -10 to -5.
With current -10 value (-10 correction for target at 90 or 180deg aspect) it's not possible to construct properly working active sonar. -5 value should be fine.

P.S. One example how strong it the aspect effect currently. For FFG active sonar with sensivity set to 0 vs Kilo at depth of 75m. Detection range vs Kilo from side aspect would be about 9600m (so about 5.2nm). But when the Kilo turns and shows head-on, detection range for front aspect would drop to... 350m. From 9600 to 350. Very drastic change of detection range, by 96% !!
Now if the max value of aspect function was changed to -5, then the detection range for Kilo front-aspect would drop only to 1680m. That's a reasonable value, much better than 350m.
Even lower values of aspect function could be considered (maybe -3 or -4), but change to -5 is I think the minimum change to make it working properly.

PLEASE consider making this change. It wouldn't change max detection range at all, only make the reduction of detection range from front aspect less drastic that it's currently (over 96%).

[stormrider_sp]

Better Doctrines.

I made a simple test: I gave better sensors to a han submarine.
I started this test mission 25nm away from him, same depth, but, cavitating badly, and closing in fast. At 18nm, the Han detected me, but didn´t engaged til I was 2nm from him (It´s best torpedo choice has a range of 8nm). And I could still evade its torpedo so easily... I think its way too easy. Ps. I was driving an 688i.

[Amizaur]

Well the doctrine system is the greatest strength of the game, and have HUGE improving potential ! By improving the AI doctrines it's possible to make AI behaviour smarter and more advanced, to make smart missiles and torpedos, smart AEGIS system etc. But person with good knowledge of game mechanics and programming would be required. My doctrine changes are only little samples and are not spending even 10% of doctrines potential... :-/ But only if there were no errors in doctrine language, currently some commands simply don't work sometimes, like SetPitch command or assigning a value to variable in Init phase...

[Amizaur]

One more issue noticed in active sonars. In active sonar equation target own noise seems to be always added to target's active sonar signature, in effect targets running fast are detected on active at longer ranges than stationary. It's positive effect IMO (it could be understand as simulating doppler effect in active sonar) but it it should only appear when "Target Noise" flag is active, like in case of passive sonars. It seems that it's pernamently enabled now, because for active sonars currently this flag is off, and target noise still takes part in the equation.

[DivingWind]

OHP should roll on high seas more.If you made subs to bank, please make OHP to roll ;)

[Deathblow]

hello,

my only patch request is to give us a tool that will allow us to edit the USNI Reference descriptions. Much of the community has tweeked the ranges, speed, and payloads of the various weapons and it would be nice if we could edit the descriptions to reflect their current configurations.

thanks,
db

[DivingWind]

AI subs can launch TASM's/TLAM's at flank speed and while making hard turns! Something only jetfighter would do... :lol:

[Casco]

hope no one has said this but oh well

I want to see harpoons for weapons on the P-3 :rock:

tierd of using Mavricks

[Molon Labe]

Add armed AI SSBN's, but don't include any doctrine which would allow them to fire automatically; allow SLBM firing by script only. The scripts would be fired by trigger, for example, at a designated mission time, a certain time after it detected the player SSN (use them or lose them!), after the destruction of its SSN escort, etc.

It would be cool to have to stalk the boomer properly and get into its baffles before taking the shot....or else. :rock:

[Deathblow]

Launch Transients please. "Captain! Launch transient on bearing 236!" To be able to detect missle launches from subs.

[TLAM Strike]

Add armed AI SSBN's, but don't include any doctrine which would allow them to fire automatically; allow SLBM firing by script only. The scripts would be fired by trigger, for example, at a designated mission time, a certain time after it detected the player SSN (use them or lose them!), after the destruction of its SSN escort, etc. This short of actually launching the rocket can be done now by using scripts. But come on, we don't really need to see the rockets fire.


Oh on another topic, I experienced a CTD when witnessing a torpedo hit on a enemy sub using HF Sonar. It's something to look in to...

[Molon Labe]

Add armed AI SSBN's, but don't include any doctrine which would allow them to fire automatically; allow SLBM firing by script only. The scripts would be fired by trigger, for example, at a designated mission time, a certain time after it detected the player SSN (use them or lose them!), after the destruction of its SSN escort, etc. This short of actually launching the rocket can be done now by using scripts. But come on, we don't really need to see the rockets fire.


Oh on another topic, I experienced a CTD when witnessing a torpedo hit on a enemy sub using HF Sonar. It's something to look in to...

I, and others, have had CTDs marking objects in HF sonar....

[LuftWolf]

Please add increased damage for under-keel detonations as it was in SC, as they now do *less* damage than a standard hit.

[N00be]

Hi!

What I miss from other WW2 subsime: Damagecontrol.
Maybe you can add another station, that is dedicated to damage control and maybe you can add some variations when being hit, so different compartments are damaged and not the whole sub dies immediatelly. Maybe also adding repair crew for on sea emergancy repairs.

[Kumando]

Make a rendering so that the propelers stop at full stop order plz.

[Tgio]

Don't know if it has been posted yet, but I would like to see torpedo wire break...
Something linked to sub speed and/or torpedo bearing (maybe torpedo distance too), like:
1) 15 Knots they breaks for sure,
2) 10 knots they breaks on angle more of 90 degrees...
3) a little bit of random in 1) and 2)
(Yes, Just guessing for the values)

[Captain Rebecca E Smith]

HI, my $0.02

Is it just me that this bothers, but hangovers from SC that are in DW are really ticking me off... I think it's just a lack of polish...

i.e.

On the Seawolf (only platform I play) periscope display, when it's raised the (only way I can describe this) 'overlay' of the optics - what you see - is a couple of pixels out - there is a vertical and horizontal lines of 'outside' that appear over the periscope itself. Like the outside world 'view' is full screen, but the static image of the periscope et all is overlayed on to, but the bit around the binocular section is out of sync...

Graphical glitches around buttons when moving in / out i.e. seawolf buttons = I think all of these bugs are on all platforms - at least all sub platforms. I think caused by the graphics artists drawing the panels with the buttons out first, then worrying about getting the buttons in, when it's often - not always - easier to draw then in first and model the button OUT seperately.

Also, like Silent Hunter 3, how about being able to right click the mouse over the real world view in the peri. and mouse and mouse wheel movements then link to view movements...this whole clicking on the arms or just being able to drag the view in the binoc. area is totally lame. => When you just want to pop up, get a quick 360 of surface stuff and duck back down before being spotted, all the damn clicking / dragging takes too long!

How about being able to play just ONE platform thru the entire campaign? I just wanna play on the 'wolf thank you very much...

What about the ability to scale how good the autocrew are?

Also, when you tell your sonar guy to drop a track...IT STAYS DROPPED!!! Or at least drop it permanently from the map display.



I doubt I'll see any of these in the next or any patch, so disappointedly I'll go back off to SH3... :( but that's my 2 cents...

Rebecca

BTW compared to SH3, the sea / graphics are awful. I think.

In the next (if any) reincarnation of SC, I'd love to see a real 3d crew and communciate with them like SH3, much much MUCH improved graphics and general tidyness...oh, and a bridge view so that I can feel the wind in my hair (well only if I put my hair dryer on - for realism you understand) on the subs would be awesome.

Thanks

[Molon Labe]

There's a buggy AI doctrine that's getting in on my nerves.

Apparently, when an unidentified contact is detected, all AI platforms on the detecting side rush in to ID the contact. There are a lot of problems with this. First, for surface or air contacts, this should normally be the job of a single aircraft; there is no need for every sub and ship to leave their patrol areas to investigate a contact 40 miles away. Second, the subs are responding even if they aren't at radio depth, so they shouldn't be aware of the contact. Finally, subs going to flank is generally a really bad idea.... This is the big one; AI subs are giving their positions away whenever so much as an unknown surface contact is picked up on MPA radar. :damn: I would say subs should be investigating unknown sub contacts only, only if they are at radio depth to know about it, and should either proceed at no higher than 15 knots or do a reasonable sprint and drift transit, slowing to tactical speed once they are within 10nm of the unknown contact's last known position.

[Amizaur]

Don't know if it has been posted yet, but I would like to see torpedo wire break...
Something linked to sub speed and/or torpedo bearing (maybe torpedo distance too), like:
1) 15 Knots they breaks for sure,
2) 10 knots they breaks on angle more of 90 degrees...
3) a little bit of random in 1) and 2)
(Yes, Just guessing for the values)

From what few real life submariners said, wire breaking was big problem in the past but at present things improved that there is very low probability of breaking the wire even at mederately high speeds and maneuvers, only going flank or turning opposite directions would do that in practice. Probably the change was introduced with the ADCAP which beside 10nm of wire inside the torpedo has additional 10nm of wire on a spoil that stays in the tube (or maybe floats in the water?) so the sub can leave the position of launch and maneuver in 10nm radius from launch point. So I think that in the game wire maybe should:

break for sure at 25 or 20kts (or maybe if maneuvering hard at such speeds ?)
break after 180 degree turn
have chance of breaking over 15kts]
break for sure if torpedo tuns past 10nm !!!! the wire is no longer, so no possibility to steer a 20nm shot !!

maybe break if you don't change your course after launch ? The wire left in the water by torpedo would drift behind the sub and be cut by sub propeller I guess ?

but in general the wire should be breakable at high speeds and radical maneuvers (like is mentioned in the manual!) and has a finite length, it's a major game issue

and beside this all - while playing a sub the thing I miss very much is the possibility to designate target platform category as a sonobuoy. I get lots of active intercept sonobuoy tracks, and soon have their exact position because they doesn't move. But there is problem what platform category designate them as ? A weapon is confusing me (it's scaring thing to see such contacts on map ;) ) and AutoTMA tries to make TMA on them and assign them a speed, the result is that contact tends to move :(. Usually I designate them as a stationary, but would be best if there was separate platform category - sonobuoy, possible to assign. I know it's not a thing for the next patch, but an idea for future imoprovement.

[N00be]

Suggestions: Enable centering on hook in weapons coordinator screen (F8) on the FFG. That option is available at weapon control and ASTAC but somehow you forgot to add it to the weapons coordinator, and enqueueing lots of targets in the engage list can be a pain if they are close together and you cannot zoom in on em to click the correct one.

Add nightvision to the gun controls, at night there is no way to see where you aiming at (fine tuning the aim of the main gun), cause you dont see anything without some kind of NV.

[Fandango]

To be able to see the bearing of the periscope when it's still not raised...

[Fandango]

Probably this has already been mentioned but anyway...

688(I): Whenever I have contacts on the towed array and nothing on the bow array, I get identification lines in the narrowband bow array display at the same bearings I see them in the narrowband towed array display (on both sides of it)...

[MaHuJa]

I may have mentioned it already, but:

Situation:
1 Human FFG
1 Human MH-60 based on said ffg

Procedure:
MH-60 spends all his weapons, lands, reloads.
MH-60 goes to lunch (or whatever) and hands control to ffg.

Result:
FFG ASTAC says helo is out of ammo. FFG is unable to have MH-60 deploy weapons.

[Deathblow]

This isn't a patch suggestion, but a upgrade suggestion, maybe geared for a larger, more encompassing patch.

I would like to see better narrowband sonar options in both the Russian and USN submarines. The ability to sort though the frequency libraries the same way that the Stadimeter station. A drop-down list that can be organised by Country, Class (sub/ship), and type would be much more convient that the current method of clicking thru 20-30 sonar profiles linearly.

[MaHuJa]

The ability to sort though the frequency libraries the same way that the Stadimeter station. A drop-down list that can be organised by Country, Class (sub/ship), and type would be much more convient that the current method of clicking thru 20-30 sonar profiles linearly.

To me, the idea of a list like that found in the ffg is even more appealing.

[Deathblow]

Another Sonar suggestion, not related to any near-future patch, but something that one might want to keep in mind.

In the broadband sonar stations of the SW and LA, it would be nice if the top and bottom waterfall could display different sonar modes at the same time. For example, the user could chose to have the top display show the TA sonar and bottom display show the Spherical array data. (In a identical manner that TimeAveraging is now chosen.) The ability to select different TimeAveraging would remain an option.

I've seen this on other sims and its a handy option allowing the user to evaluate several frequency ranges simultaneously.

db

[Deathblow]

Another sonar suggestion:

The trackers of the circular SSAZ display (the Akula and Kilo) are horrendously diffulcult to unassign; utterly impossible in most attempts. Its pretty much a consistant headache and waste a lot of effort trying to manipulate the trackers to all the contacts that are desired. Making the tracker easier to unselect would be greatly appreciated.

ps)
might also want to consider displaying the "tracker assigned" to the Navmap Digital Dtat Indicator, perhaps under the "Age". That would convient.

[drEaPer]

Interface Imrprovement:
Buoys screen: When entering library mode the "next" and "previous" arrow buttons are rendered above the scuttle button, leaving some of the scuttle button clickable which has cost me more than one buoy.

TMA:
The game should memorize the settings (course speed range bearing / ruler position) for each individual contact. When I select another contact, the ruler is totally off, still there where I put it for a toally different solution.


Realism: We learnedthat the 688 also uses WAA, not only the SW. (Lufwolf said he cant adress this via mod :( )

[Molon Labe]

Interface Imrprovement:
Buoys screen: When entering library mode the "next" and "previous" arrow buttons are rendered above the scuttle button, leaving some of the scuttle button clickable which has cost me more than one buoy.

TMA:
The game should memorize the settings (course speed range bearing / ruler position) for each individual contact. When I select another contact, the ruler is totally off, still there where I put it for a toally different solution.


Realism: We learnedthat the 688 also uses WAA, not only the SW. (Lufwolf said he cant adress this via mod :( )

Perhaps with the buoy interface problem, the "scuttle" button should need to be clicked twice, like launching a missile from the FFG?

The TMA station issue is fixed in v1.02; check out the demo.

[sonar732]

I've seen this on other sims and its a handy option allowing the user to evaluate several frequency ranges simultaneously.
db

What sims would that be?

[sonar732]

Probably this has already been mentioned but anyway...

688(I): Whenever I have contacts on the towed array and nothing on the bow array, I get identification lines in the narrowband bow array display at the same bearings I see them in the narrowband towed array display (on both sides of it)...

Can you verify this as an example...

Towed array

True bearing 090
ambiguious bearing 270

Sphere array

True bearing 090
ambiguious bearing 270

????

or just that you get a narrowband tonal at 090? The TA picks up lower frequencies while the sphere picks up higher frequencies.

[drEaPer]

Perhaps with the buoy interface problem, the "scuttle" button should need to be clicked twice, like launching a missile from the FFG?

The TMA station issue is fixed in v1.02; check out the demo.



Clicking twice is not a good solution cause you click often and fast when you go through the library entries to get to the ship you are looking for.

[MaHuJa]

Perhaps with the buoy interface problem, the "scuttle" button should need to be clicked twice, like launching a missile from the FFG?
Clicking twice is not a good solution cause you click often and fast when you go through the library entries to get to the ship you are looking for.

Perhaps clicking it should enable a "really scuttle" button the other side of the display. Like the FFG launching missiles..

[MaHuJa]

I've noticed that the FFG TA demon is buggy in the case of an incorrect TPK. Whereas the subs correctly give a high speed with a low TPK, the FFG TA gives a low speed for a low TPK.

[Fandango]

Probably already mentioned: in the ACTIVE SONAR INTERCEPT in the 688, INTERVAL is not consistent with AGE

[Fandango]

In the broadband of 688 when centering from North to South and viceversa, the sonar displays a "skip" of baffles...well, when moving to another sonar station and back to the broadband, the baffle "skip" is not there anymore

[MaHuJa]

FFG:
Unlimited missiles can be launched regardless of FCR count.

The bug that a fcr doesn't go CWI when you reload too quickly has severe implications: You can then deassign the radar without affecting the missile homing ability, and assign it again, and use it to "guide" another missile to any (same or another) target.

This means, that until this is fixed the only limiter is how quickly the missiles are loaded and warmed.


This points to a serious lacking in how 'threepart' sensors (SARH) are implemented.
(If you're gonna do an aegis playable you'll probably need to fix that)

Also, it seems everything that uses intercepts do it wrongly - I suspect even torpedoes though it's not very visible there, but not only missiles. It would seem like the 76mm and the CIWS too, though a bit of aspect is required for it to really show with those.

[Fandango]

Probably this has already been mentioned but anyway...

688(I): Whenever I have contacts on the towed array and nothing on the bow array, I get identification lines in the narrowband bow array display at the same bearings I see them in the narrowband towed array display (on both sides of it)...

Can you verify this as an example...

Towed array

True bearing 090
ambiguious bearing 270

Sphere array

True bearing 090
ambiguious bearing 270

????

or just that you get a narrowband tonal at 090? The TA picks up lower frequencies while the sphere picks up higher frequencies.

Here's the sequence:
1) There is no contact on the broadband sphere array (not even a faint line)
2) I get no contact profile in the UPPER narrowband sphere array screen BUT I do get NARROWBAND LIBRARY PROFILES in the LOWER narrowband sphere array screen when the cursor is on both towed array bearings...

[sonar732]

Probably this has already been mentioned but anyway...

688(I): Whenever I have contacts on the towed array and nothing on the bow array, I get identification lines in the narrowband bow array display at the same bearings I see them in the narrowband towed array display (on both sides of it)...

Can you verify this as an example...

Towed array

True bearing 090
ambiguious bearing 270

Sphere array

True bearing 090
ambiguious bearing 270

????

or just that you get a narrowband tonal at 090? The TA picks up lower frequencies while the sphere picks up higher frequencies.

Here's the sequence:
1) There is no contact on the broadband sphere array (not even a faint line)
2) I get no contact profile in the UPPER narrowband sphere array screen BUT I do get NARROWBAND LIBRARY PROFILES in the LOWER narrowband sphere array screen when the cursor is on both towed array bearings...

This might be that you do have a contact with a very faint and distant lower end tonal of 50 or 60hz. One of the ppl here has a sonar screenshot to adjust your settings so that you can see that faint tonal.

[Fandango]

This might be that you do have a contact with a very faint and distant lower end tonal of 50 or 60hz. One of the ppl here has a sonar screenshot to adjust your settings so that you can see that faint tonal.

I thought about that but the point is that I have it "mirrored"... :(

[Driftwood]

Setting different parameters using waypoints doesn't work. No change in depth or speed when waypoint is reached. :huh:

[drEaPer]

Exploit: Contacts can be designated by active sonar by trying to mark every possible bearing at the range where the ping echo was heard. Even if there is no visible contact(blip) on screen.

[Amizaur]

Wouldn't be possible to exploit if there was track appearing for EVERY player's click on mark button, even if there is no contact in fact. If he clicks everywhere, he gets contacts everywhere, it would be player's task to decide which of the "blips" on the screen are REAL contacts, not that only the right one is possible to "mark"... If he's not sure which one is real contact or he didn't see anything, he could mark every suspicious thing on screen to check or just place a mark at the range of heard sonar return (and aproximate bearing in FFG single beam mode).

[Driftwood]

Is it possible to expand/improve the voice commands in DW? For expansion purposes it would be REAL nice to be able to voice command tube reloads. On the improvement side (and I know this has been mentioned before) voice commands quit/work sporadically during the game. I've never heard/seen a reply to this issue. Which is not to say that it hasn't been answered/addressed I've just not seen it. It would be nice to know whether it's a system issue (PC needs more horsepower), game issue (bug), or voice recognition issue. A little insight on this from Jamie/SCS would be greatly appreciated.

[WolfyBrandon]

Hello everyone,

I have just started playing with the MH-60a and I think I have discoverd a little bug with it. It seems to be if you create a waypoint on the navigation map and then delete it and want to hover you cant.

Here is how to re-create it.
Go into a mission as the MH-60a. On the controls go to navigate and select the waypoint option. Place a waypoint somewhere on the map and begin to fly to it. Before you reach the waypoint, click on it and hit the delete key to delete the waypoint, then hit Shift 2 to go to dipping depth, and then hit 0 to hover. You will decend to dipping depth, but you wont hover. If they waypoint is still on the map, and you hit Shift 2 and then 0 it will go to dipping depth and will hover fine.

EDIT:
I have uploaded a video of the problem here.
http://files.filefront.com/MH_60_Hover_Problemmpg/;4419014;;/fileinfo.html

Wolfy

[Molon Labe]

I think its about time we added launch altitude and speed parameters for aircraft torpedoes and sonobuoys. Some people are taking advantage of the omission of these and are lobbing torps for miles. It's time to take this cheat away.

[OneShot]

Along the way (to balance some) change the often mentioned parameters for SAMs. Like smaller Aquisition cone, time between (full) surface and when you can fire a missile, detectability of Masts on Radar if up for a prolonged time (more then 2 or 3 radar sweeps). You know all those funny things that let sub skippers play SAM launcher in wait for an airborne plattform.

As it is those (and yes, quite unrealistic) slingshooting of torps and sonobuoys is a viable mechanism to counter the thread of sub launched SAMs by simply staying out of range while still being able to detect and attack them.

Yes Bubbleheads, thats not fair - but thats life. Subs are not designated SAM Launchers. And unless it gets harder (in stock DW that is, Lw/Ami is quite different) to shoot down Airplanes and Helos from subs by using their undetecable periscope / ESM mast for detection and being able to instantly go to the Sail when the Sail has just breached the surface (even intermittenly in high seas) I definitly vote for keeping it as it is.

[Molon Labe]

Along the way (to balance some) change the often mentioned parameters for SAMs. Like smaller Aquisition cone, time between (full) surface and when you can fire a missile, detectability of Masts on Radar if up for a prolonged time (more then 2 or 3 radar sweeps). You know all those funny things that let sub skippers play SAM launcher in wait for an airborne plattform.

As it is those (and yes, quite unrealistic) slingshooting of torps and sonobuoys is a viable mechanism to counter the thread of sub launched SAMs by simply staying out of range while still being able to detect and attack them.

Yes Bubbleheads, thats not fair - but thats life. Subs are not designated SAM Launchers. And unless it gets harder (in stock DW that is, Lw/Ami is quite different) to shoot down Airplanes and Helos from subs by using their undetecable periscope / ESM mast for detection and being able to instantly go to the Sail when the Sail has just breached the surface (even intermittenly in high seas) I definitly vote for keeping it as it is.

The best thing to do to counterbalance the tactics problem is to make the tactic as unfeasible as it is in real life, not to add another realism problem on top of it, especially not a cheat as HUGE as lobbing torps for miles.

If the active sonar bug is fixed, the subs won't have to stay at PD to survive. Same for the ungodly passive detection ranges of 1.02/3Beta.

If flares actually worked, airdales would survive being shot at.

If Missiles were slaved to the IR camera, they could be fired faster

There's a right way to fix problems, and a wrong way. Letting people cheat is wrong. Period.

[drEaPer]

Suggestion: When entering sonar station, automatically mute music, when returning to another station re enable music.
SH3 does it, and its really cool. Atm I play DW witout music so I can hear the noise in sonar.

[OneShot]

@Molon Labe ... thats why I said. Fix the unrealistic things, to discourage unrealistic tactics and make it more balanced. BUT more balanced for both sides. If they only fix for one side, it takes away from balance. As it is its unrealistic but in its own way balanced if you know all the tricks. And lobbing Torps is by no means cheating ... its exploiting the possibilities of the game. Otherwise having masts up that are undetectable, being able to instant fire SAMs while the sail is more under then above water and things like that are cheating. Be careful with words ...

[Molon Labe]

It's a sliding scale, somethings are more blatant than others, and more importantly, some things can be done legitimately but simply don't have the disadvantages of doing so modeled. There is a valid reason to put a mast up; such cannot be said of throwing torps around 10,000ft in the air.

[OneShot]

It's a sliding scale, somethings are more blatant than others, and more importantly, some things can be done legitimately but simply don't have the disadvantages of doing so modeled. There is a valid reason to put a mast up; such cannot be said of throwing torps around 10,000ft in the air.

So being invisible to Radar and IR carries no disadvantages ... certainly for the sub skippers ... thats about equal realism wise then sling shooting torps around from great heights. Anyway, we are getting Off Topic here. I think we both agree, that some things need to be modelled differently and as it seems more real life like. SCS certainly has gotten the point by now from the posts. Why not call it a day for the moment ?

[Molon Labe]

CIWS:

You know, it really sucks when you want to put your CIWS on auto, but then it shoots at both incoming vampires, and SAMs coming from your own ships that are trying to shoot down the vamps... especially since if both a threat missile and a SAM are around, it always shoots at the SAM, and the vamp gets though. So, let's have a "threat axis" option for the CIWS. You assign a direction, and every incoming within say, 60-90 degress of that axis gets engaged, and incoming missiles from other directions are allowed to pass. :know:

[Furia]

There is no reason torps cannot be droped from such higer altitudes.
They have a retarding chute to stabilize them and basically they will enter the water the same speed droped from 1000 feet than from 10000.
Or you think a parachutist that drops from 10000 feet on free fall goes faster than one that does it from 5000?
Of course it is not realistic to do so, mostly because there is really no need to do so because nobody expects subs to use SAM as first defence everyday and so effectively.

[Molon Labe]

Let's model the chutes then. =)

[MaHuJa]

Let's model the chutes then. =)

They are in, they're just not displayed in 3d. Ever noticed how the torps slow their fall just before entering the water?

There is the fact that they would probably enter rather vertically though.

[MaHuJa]

I thought about that but the point is that I have it "mirrored"... :(

Fandangos "problem" is that the narrowband spherical classification is slaved to the hull/TA sonars - essentially, the identificator works based on the composite data of all three sonars. Unfortunately there's no way to get the lines from all of them on the screen at the same time. If there are TA lines, but no spherical lines, it will base the spherical ID on the mirror direction by the TA lines.

I don't remember if this was merely undocumented or if the problem is not reading the manual, though.

[goldorak]

Let's model the chutes then. =)

No, Oneshot is correct the game has to be balanced even by using non real life tactics.
Either we resolve at the same time the "cheats" of the p-3 with the "cheats" of the subs or else nothing is done.
Right now the subs have certain "advantages/cheats" so does the p-3.
They compensate one against the other.

[Molon Labe]

Let's model the chutes then. =)

They are in, they're just not displayed in 3d. Ever noticed how the torps slow their fall just before entering the water?

There is the fact that they would probably enter rather vertically though.

Yeah, they'd bleed of their forward velocity quite quickly, and the "lob" wouldn't be possible. (unless the wind carried it...)

[Molon Labe]

Let's model the chutes then. =)

No, Oneshot is correct the game has to be balanced even by using non real life tactics.
Either we resolve at the same time the "cheats" of the p-3 with the "cheats" of the subs or else nothing is done.
Right now the subs have certain "advantages/cheats" so does the p-3.
They compensate one against the other.

Playing a game where torps are lobbed with perfect accuraccy miles away is about as much fun as playing a game where you have to sit at PD all day in order to survive. Even if this cheat did create balance--and it doesn't--it wouldn't be justifed because it ruins any possibility of having a fun game. The solution is to add limitations/disincentives to SAM usage, not to add more un-realism on top of the problem! That just makes it worse!

[Fandango]

I thought about that but the point is that I have it "mirrored"... :(

Fandangos "problem" is that the narrowband spherical classification is slaved to the hull/TA sonars - essentially, the identificator works based on the composite data of all three sonars. Unfortunately there's no way to get the lines from all of them on the screen at the same time. If there are TA lines, but no spherical lines, it will base the spherical ID on the mirror direction by the TA lines.

I don't remember if this was merely undocumented or if the problem is not reading the manual, though.

Thanx for the explaination Mahuja... :up:

[Apocal]

CIWS:

You know, it really sucks when you want to put your CIWS on auto, but then it shoots at both incoming vampires, and SAMs coming from your own ships that are trying to shoot down the vamps... especially since if both a threat missile and a SAM are around, it always shoots at the SAM, and the vamp gets though. So, let's have a "threat axis" option for the CIWS. You assign a direction, and every incoming within say, 60-90 degress of that axis gets engaged, and incoming missiles from other directions are allowed to pass. :know:

I agree totally. CIWS has something of the same problem in real life and in real life the solution is the same as you proposed. Except you can control how wide the axis is, if it's relative to your position or fixed to a certain point, speed before becoming a "candidate" for CIWS etc.

[MaHuJa]

Let's model the chutes then. =)

They are in, they're just not displayed in 3d. Ever noticed how the torps slow their fall just before entering the water?

There is the fact that they would probably enter rather vertically though.

Yeah, they'd bleed of their forward velocity quite quickly, and the "lob" wouldn't be possible. (unless the wind carried it...)

If the chute deployed immediately, yes. But as long as it doesn't, it's a heavy object vs little drag against the air. It's only the last few hundred feet (of altitude) or so (when the chute is deployed) that would be vertical.


On the other hand, lobbing buoys - they don't have the chutes, so it's rather likely that they would hit the water hard - perhaps too hard.
(Those tend to fly 15nm+ and switch to the "deployed" "mushroom" midair)

[Pirate]

Would like to sugest the water sound for sam station at the subs. Like it is heard at the FFG!

[Wim Libaers]

CIWS:

You know, it really sucks when you want to put your CIWS on auto, but then it shoots at both incoming vampires, and SAMs coming from your own ships that are trying to shoot down the vamps... especially since if both a threat missile and a SAM are around, it always shoots at the SAM, and the vamp gets though. So, let's have a "threat axis" option for the CIWS. You assign a direction, and every incoming within say, 60-90 degress of that axis gets engaged, and incoming missiles from other directions are allowed to pass. :know:

I agree totally. CIWS has something of the same problem in real life and in real life the solution is the same as you proposed. Except you can control how wide the axis is, if it's relative to your position or fixed to a certain point, speed before becoming a "candidate" for CIWS etc.

Given that the radar can use doppler shift to determine if something is approaching or leaving you, it would make sense to just set it to attack only approaching targets.

[MaHuJa]

Given that the radar can use doppler shift to determine if something is approaching or leaving you, it would make sense to just set it to attack only approaching targets.

Problem is when it's approaching from the other side - as in SAMs launched by friendly ships at missiles incoming at you. (own ships != own ship)

[MuscleBob.Buffpants]

The chute on the torpedo is a retarder only. It is designed to ensure that the torpedo hits the water at the right angle - if it is too flat it will possibly damage the torpedo, too steep and the transducer suffers.

I has involved with torpedo trials, including hover drops from up to 1000' which were fine for jettison, but the torpedo would have been too badly damaged for normal use.

All in all, the airborne stores side of things isn't well modelled. There should be some way of viewing the output from the Maverick seeker. It will lock onto any heat source - this would help dissuade sub drivers from thinking they are SAM sites.

How about visual detection of subs at periscope depth? Is that modelled at all?

[Deathblow]

The development team should look at AI sub behavior in the littorals. More often than not a sub that is torp evading in waters less than 600ft deep will bottom out. None are managing their depth correctly and all will eventually become stuck to the bottom. This was happening even before the 1.03beta patch so its most likely a doctrine error than anything.

[bubblehd647]

Sonar interface improvement:

IIRC, on the real BQQ-5 passive BB displays, in addition to the stern marker that is currently modeled, there is also a ships head marker. Right now I see a marker at the top of the stern marker that I THINK is supposed to really be this indicator.

[HydroShok]

from what i can tell from experimenting with the map editor, the bottom type is extremely important in 1.03b. If its rock, you'll get those huge detection ranges, like several miles. If its mud, it cuts it in half approx. If its a sand bottom, sonobouys on active will hardly even work up to mile. Theres a thread in here that talks about sonobouys only working 500-750 yards away and it happens with a sand or mud bottom, especially if the sub is going less than 5 knots. I kinda wish you could see in game what type of bottom there is, because it affects the sonobouys so much.

I'd like to see another controllable surface ship so both teams wont have identical ships online, which can be confusing without show allies. And another type of controllable surface ship that complements the FFG.

An air to air weapon would be usefull for those rare moments online when theres nothing but air players left.

Tone down the noise on the non controllable AI subs. They are like an underwater rock concert as it is now. That and they're deaf as all. I know the lwami mod addresses this.

I kinda like launching stuff from above with p3. the ciws on the FFG will engage falling torpedoes (im pretty sure). if u do max speed and altitude, you can launch a bouy 12 miles ahead, i though it was kewl. Torp lead is not nearly as much.

i dont like the tma on paper that the ffg has. GB2 sub style please.

My joystick isn't fancy enough to work the gas correctly in the chopper. I wish i could just click digital buttons to notch the gas up and down slightly, and hold the gas in its place when im not doing anything with it. Right now it requires constant attention, when I'm looking or a "cruise control".

[Sub Sailor]

Is it possible to have the air banks at 100 % at the start of the mission?

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[RedDevilCG]

Is the Type-40 torpedo dropped from the SS-N-27 supposed to be able to sinke ships? It says its asw only...

I've had them lock onto, track, and sink merchants!

[Wim Libaers]

ASW only in this game seems to mean that it can only be targeted on contacts that are classified as subs. But once it's in the water, it can hunt anything it wants.

[Deathblow]

I'm venting a pet peeve :-? :x

Whenever AI ASW helos and P3 get a mad contact on a player sub, all they do is just circle around it repeatedly getting mads, over, and over and over again. Once they have a MAD contact they never loose it and continue to circle forever, most of the time resulting in 3-4 planes/helos all doing a goofy looking dance overhead of the sub below. And they rarely ever attack, they just circle over and over and over again for what can last for hours.

Bad AI programming? Probably. Solution? Not sure, but something to address this aberant behavior would be nice.

[MaHuJa]

Solution? Not sure, but something to address this aberant behavior would be nice.

I suspect the problem is that once they have a mad contact, they're inclined to keep it, but mad does not classify the contact. If they dropped a (passive) buoy automatically, upon getting that mad contact, it might help.

[OneShot]

That sounds like something a new or modified doctrine might easily fix ... Sort of, if MAD then drop Passive Buoy

[Amizaur]

Could changing value of PreenableCourse variable inside doctrine also update the connected Heading value displayed on sub torpedo control screen ? Please please please, I'm asking very much for this if it's possible !!! Thanks in advance :)

[MaHuJa]

Oneshot, once you have a mechanism not to drop one each frame the game proceeeds, you have only one problem left: How do you drop a buoy from the doctrines? "Fire dicass deep" ?

[LuftWolf]

There are no doctrine level commands to drop buoys that I am aware of. :cry:

That kind of behavior for air platforms is coded in the AI engine.

In general, submarine behavior is more or less completely doctrine controlled, ships are a mix of doctrine and engine, and aircraft are mostly controlled by the engine.

Of course, there may be doctrine level commands for ships and aircraft that are not currently being used, but I am not aware of this being the case in this situation.

[Deathblow]

That kind of behavior for air platforms is coded in the AI engine.

:damn: :dead: ..... :damn:

[MaHuJa]

Savegames.... Not all relevant information for a platform is saved. As one example, a dead platform that hasn't yet been removed from the game when the game is saved, will never disappear if the game is reloaded.

(Not that I think they *should* be removed, but that's another case.)

[Dr.Sid]

Wakehomers could have setting 'heading after enable' .. so one cac easily shoot them from target's front hemisphere.

[Fandango]

When in multistation on the HELO and the ORION, the one manning the ACOUSTICS cannot see the LOBs he assigns...

[Molon Labe]

Wakehomers could have setting 'heading after enable' .. so one cac easily shoot them from target's front hemisphere.

Good one!
For now, I think we can use the circle mode instead...

[Dr.Sid]

Cirlce mode wont do .. If you shoot from target's head-on, you have to get torpedo around the target into the wake, then turn it 180, then activate it. If you'd use circle mode, torpedo would activate and follow the wake in the opposite direction, which exactly you want to avoid.

Maybe it would be possible to do that with current engine by making wake-homers waypoint-folowing torpedo. That would do nicely.

[Nexus7]

This is out of the current topic but I want to throw it on the table anyway... It is probably also old stuff but still I'm puzzled.

Topic: Classification of contacts.

Problem1 : with several contacts on the same bearing it can become an heavy mental work to identify all contacts using the frequencies only.

Problem2 : to classify subs. When you see 1 or 2 frequency lines only there is room for a lot of possible ID's.

Question1: what else is used aboard real subs to identify contacts?
Question2: do classification constraints allow to add those if any?

Idea1: add sound to the source of the frequencies? I can imagine to see a subsim player wearing headsets.......

Idea2: when frequencies overlap why can't the computer show them with different colours (1 colour for each set of frequencies)

over and out.

[sonar732]

Nexus7,

Back in 1995, the FRAZ display looked and felt like the current NB of DW for 688's and Seawolves of course.

Question #1: The FRAZ operator would communicate with the SA or TA operators as to what he's seeing and if his guys to the right (how it was set up on my boat, Alaska 732). The only other way we knew what it was is a big red book marked "Top Secret" which showed NB frequencies for every boat and ship class in the world. By the way...I do play with headsets while in SA or TA BB. ;)

Question #2: The FRAZ display doesn't give you two different colors for easier classification.

[Dr.Sid]

With 2 contacts at one bearing, union of signatures should be displayed. All siganterues witch 'can be it' should be displayed. So for example if there is Akula nad Cargo ship on same bearing, alllines from both (so there is 8 lines on NB) I should get bot Akula and Cargo ship signatures available. Like this you get 'none' and you have to use 'no filter' settings.

[freddo]

If multiple signatures are shown on NB, wouldn't it be possible to distinguish different contacts by means of lining up the sensor on different frequency scales? (ie Placing it on the higher Frequency setting)

[MaHuJa]

>In multistation, the FFG classification 'apply' button doesn't seem to work.


I have to amend this. It seems that it doesn't work as long as you're not the host of the game. (Which you always are in a singleplayer game)


It's been mentioned before, but the mk13 doesn't recover functionality after being damaged and repaired again - possibly related to having a missile loaded when it is damaged. (Bring down the cycle time, and we have an option there...)

Also, DW tries to be smart in the case of sound failure - but if it's a one-time fault (the fixed-by-rebooting kind), it's just a hassle for the user to find out why there's no sound in DW though everything else works fine. Remove the automatic ini change and think it over three times before you put it back in, please...


Last for now, DW in a window is really ungraceful - sometimes it just drops the framerate to ~0.2 and stays there... (first time was together with the sound problems mentioned, last time was while sound was still disabled in DW... so that's not it at all.)

[TLAM Strike]

I think the MH-60R should have the option of mounting fuel tanks on the pylons like in real life. I could see this being useful... really... :hmm:

[MaHuJa]

I think the MH-60R should have the option of mounting fuel tanks on the pylons like in real life. I could see this being useful... really... :hmm:

Before then, the ASTAC needs a fuel display. And I guess full customizability of the pylons.

[Fire_Spy]

I know it has been mentioned in this thread somewhere but TLAM's really need to be looked at. (I have LwAmi 3.00 installed)

As it is they seem to have a failure rate of around 50% . that is even when aimed correctly they still fly through the target and either just vanish or hit the ground fly back up into the air and try to fly around to hit the target again.

It is even worse for the AI . Last night whilst playing the last Russian Rebellion mission again , I keep failing because the TLAM's arent detonating when they hit the target and the SSNi doesnt carry 50 TLAM's, and after failing to once again destroy the Naval base , I carried 24 TLAM,s and about half hit - I had truth on because I wanted to see why I was missing - I used a combination of waypoint targeting and just using right click 'engage with' commands.

I scrolled the map down to see what was going on down south and witnessed a Tico VLS fire a barrage of TLAM's at the southern naval base. Now these naval bases have no SAM defenses so they should of been destroyed easily. I think about 3 out of 12-15 TLAM's actually hit.

Whilst much of the time TLAM accuracy and reliability is not an issue, Imagine a mission where your in a sub with a mostly ASW loadout and your required to clear a path for a SAG to approach and launch on an enemy naval base only to see of the 40-50 TLAM;s fired only 10 hit and the target is still there. (AI firing TLAM's seems to be worse than when a Human does it).

And when I was setting up the TLAM waypoints I was putting the last waypoint a little before the target. But it was still 50/50 whether the missile hit or not.

Thanx for listening and thanx for a great game! :rock:

[OneShot]

You need to correct all the waypoints manually for the TLAMs to make them work properly ... at least thats the rumor. Guess somebody with more knowledge could pitch in and explain it further. Aside from that, yep they need to be looked at.

[LuftWolf]

For TLAMs and SLAM-ER's, you MUST manually move all of the transit waypoints yourself and, if you want, correct the final waypoint for overshoot for the missiles to function correctly most of the time.

In terms of the AI using the missiles, I have actually never noticed this to be a problem, but it would be reasonable that they would have a failure rate similar to the automatic way of targeting the missiles for a human.

[goldorak]

Please SCS, in a future patch fix the issue of the radar (on the P-3 or the MH-60R) not being able to detect extended periscopes and esm masts on the submarines.

[Barleyman]

Please do something (tm) about the horrible replay.

It's as badly broken in DW as it was in 688i H/K.. Only my box today is so much better at crunching numbers it's bit less grievous in practice. But not by much.

I did some math and if you just record position, velocity and direction once a second for every object in-game, you get fairly reasonable sized log-file.

For example, 4byte X latitude, 4byte Y latitude, 2 byte altitude(for replay purposes not really needed), 2 byte direction and 2byte speed recorded once a second for 100 in-game objects for 1 h of game-time adds up to 14 bytes * 3600 * 100 = 4922kB. No big deal for most setups and how many scenarios have 100 objects in-game to start with?

You could seek + rewind resulting datafile with impunity unlike it happens now. You can even shave recorded data if you like, only thing "direction" and "speed" is used for is to draw the speed vector, so..

[nattydread]

I played one of my first FFG single player missions, deployed my first Helo, I clicked on it in flight and to my surprise there was no wonderful beating of the blades, or whine from the turbines....Ohhhh the humanity!

[Deathblow]

Putting some bow waves in front of the contacts would be nice. They are there when truth is on, but not with truth is off. Would be nice to see them with truth is off as a bit of eye candy.

[Deathblow]

Bug report

E2-Hawkeye launches from carriers are broken. The planes physically cannot launch off the carrier, they don't have the acceleration and immediatly nose dive into the ocean for a immediate crash.

I tried to remedy this my decreasing their min speed to a unrealistic value (30kts), with allowed them to launch off the carrier, but then they immediately went into a sharp bank that, with the current physics, resulted in a altitude decline that again landed them in the ocean.

This hasn't occured with the faster jet take offs and I'm unsure to whether it will occur with other slow moving props.

Just FYI, hope to see it fixed soon. Its always been a little bit of a mystery in the gameplay why the US carriers never re-launched hawkeye's even when scripted, answer is that they can't.

thx
db

[Wildcat]

Someone asked earlier in this thread that the FFG7 roll more in the sea. The current movement is correct, the FFG7 is fitted with auto stabilization and does not roll much. The system was put in place to stabilize the ship as a weapons platform.

My request is for ship controlled altitude adjustments of the FFG7's launched helo. This would make it possible to conduct extremely long sonobuoy searches or longer over the horizon SM2 shots.

[LuftWolf]

Someone asked earlier in this thread that the FFG7 roll more in the sea. The current movement is correct, the FFG7 is fitted with auto stabilization and does not roll much. The system was put in place to stabilize the ship as a weapons platform.

My request is for ship controlled altitude adjustments of the FFG7's launched helo. This would make it possible to conduct extremely long sonobuoy searches or longer over the horizon SM2 shots.

Over the horizon SM-2 shots are out... it requires a LOS to the Fire Control Radar because it is a semi-active homing missile (the OTH capabilities of the SM-2 are disputable at this time, especially from non-AEGIS vessels).

[Wildcat]

Woops, you're right, I forgot about that. If memory serves correct the sm2 has ancestry with the Aim7 sparrow missile program.

In the case, another suggestion. Torpedos set to deep depths in the FFG torpedo room should dive to their assigned depths. At present they do not dive and as such they just sit there and cavitate near the surface.

I would still like altitude control over the helo though, as harpoon shots could still be linked planned without sending the helo some crazy distance away from the ship.

Another request: Faster weapons control screen.

Example: At the moment, if you assign an sm2 to a target then fire it, the missile will launch then the sm2 button will flash for a while. That's fine. When you reload the missile however, the new sm2 will (sometimes) not be available for launching until you deassign then reassign the target. I ask that this behavior be removed. Aditionally I ask that all inbound contacts, regardless of whether they appear as sea, air or subsurface, exceeding 400 knots, automatically be assigned to the FCR when clicked on, if the air search radar is enabled. This would allow easier hard kills in the face of a missile attack, rather than having to bungle around with a ton of buttons.

[MaHuJa]

if you assign an sm2 to a target then fire it, the missile will launch then the sm2 button will flash for a while. That's fine. When you reload the missile however, the new sm2 will (sometimes) not be available for launching until you deassign then reassign the target.
There is a bug there, but it's not what you describe. Hold off a few seconds before loading the next missile, and you'll see the FCR status switch to "CWI" - and pressing that button then will shut down the missile. The bug is that it won't switch to CWI if you're too quick about reloading.

In reality, CWI is needed for the missile to home on a target.

Then again, it's possible for the real STIR and CAS to guide multiple missiles, though only at a single target. According to some forum poster anyway.

Aditionally I ask that all inbound contacts, regardless of whether they appear as sea, air or subsurface, exceeding 400 knots, automatically be assigned to the FCR when clicked on, if the air search radar is enabled. This would allow easier hard kills in the face of a missile attack, rather than having to bungle around with a ton of buttons.

Sounds like a bad idea to me. At the very least, I want to be able to turn that off.

On the other hand, I could imagine an autocrew function for it that automatically launched weapons at (at least) airborne targets in the target queue. (excepting, of course, held ones)

[TopTorp '92]

Recommendations to improve DW performance (Seawolf):

1. Ping steal bearings & ranges should be a part of game-play. Pingsteal is a way sonar can compute target’s range based on the target’s use of active sonar. In addition, any active sonar may return a signal on any nearby target, thus providing a bearing and a range to listening platforms. This too should be included in DW gameplay. Example, you have a scenario with three units: 1 blue team surface warship actively pinging, 1 blue team submarine nearby, 1 red team submarine nearby. Based on the use of the surfaces warship’s use of active sonar, both blue and red submarines will have bearing and range to blue surface warship. Red submarine will also get a bearing and range to blue submarine from blue surface warship’s sonar. Blue submarine will get a bearing and range to red submarine from surface warship’s sonar. (This is almost like link data, but the blue team submarine need not be in communication with blue team surface warship.)

2. ADCAP post launch wire information should be included in gameplay. This includes the mode of operation (searching, homing, C/M, & weapon armed, etc.), weapon depth, course, speed.

3. Cosmetic: can we make the Seawolf periscope viewing window (eyepiece) larger?

4. Include a position keeper in the TMA module. See http://www.maritime.org/tdc.htm for background information on a position keeper. WWII style Position Keepers were modeled in Fire Control software and used to dial in very quick solutions for a variety of purposes, including snapshot scenarios. This should be very easy for the DEV Team to model in DW.

[Deathblow]

ADCAP post launch wire information should be included in gameplay. This includes the mode of operation (searching, homing, C/M, & weapon armed, etc.), weapon depth, course, speed.

Quoted for agreement

4. Include a position keeper in the TMA module. See http://www.maritime.org/tdc.htm for background information on a position keeper. WWII style Position Keepers were modeled in Fire Control software and used to dial in very quick solutions for a variety of purposes, including snapshot scenarios. This should be very easy for the DEV Team to model in DW.

I remember this option being present of the old Fast Attack by Sierra. Was pretty handy.

[TopTorp '92]

Torpedoes should not detonate on CMs. Please create a fix where torpedoes don't do this.

[LuftWolf]

The fix is already available.

Amizaur corrected the torphoming doctrine as part of the LWAMI mod package.

IF TgtClass $= weap and NOT TgtName $= "Towed Decoy" AND TgtRng <= 30 THEN Drop ENDIF

Sonalysts will not change this in the stock game because they believe it is good for sales to have torpedoes explode on CMs.

[TopTorp '92]

The fix is already available.

Amizaur corrected the torphoming doctrine as part of the LWAMI mod package.

IF TgtClass $= weap and NOT TgtName $= "Towed Decoy" AND TgtRng <= 30 THEN Drop ENDIF

Sonalysts will not change this in the stock game because they believe it is good for sales to have torpedoes explode on CMs.

LWAMI? Where? Who?

[LuftWolf]

Check the bottom of my signature for a link to the mod readme and a place you can download it, check the mod forum here, or go to www.subguru.com , the best place for DW Mods and Missions on the internet, courtesy of Bill Nichols! :up:

Cheers,
David

[Nexus7]

Now this has been posted many times already probably so I'm just adding my vote here.

The Replay Viewer.

Today i did one of those single missions witch last hours.

When i wanted to look at the final part of the replay moving the time-bar to the final moments (the rest was of no interest), the game frooze up.
I went for dinner hoping it'd unfreeze but nothing. Had to alt tab out and kill the application.

This is bad because i was really interested in seeing what happened out there.

[alfagolf]

It seems that FFG lacks a clear and direct front view (1x zoom or with binoculars), it's pretty difficult, for me, to see where the FFG is going forward and to recognize front targets

[LoBlo]

I would suggest increasing the complexity and control over Aircraft carrier behavior. Although DW is a ASW sim, CVs are the linchpin of the modern USN fleet and major operations, inlcuding ASW patrols center around their presence and firepower.

Being able to trigger more aggressive aircraft launches (right now the CV launch only 2-4 aircraft at any threat) and/or being able to script aircraft launches at the doctrine level would be a big help. Also, the aircrafted launched have a mind of their own and it would be nice to have more control/input on their behavior.

[LuftWolf]

Aircraft launches can be scripted at the doctrine level, just no doctrines currently use this function, although LWAMI will probably change that sooner or later.

[LoBlo]

Aircraft launches can be scripted at the doctrine level, just no doctrines currently use this function, although LWAMI will probably change that sooner or later.

I didn't no that.

What's the doctrine command for "launch"?

[LuftWolf]

Launch "<value>" where value is the name of the aircraft to be launched.

[Sea Demon]

This is a fix/update I'd like to see for the FFG. When using the FFG, and using "Show-truth" OFF, I would like the AI to make a better determination as to what the contact is evaluated as. For Example:

1. In the Weapons Coordinator or Weapons Control Station, I often try to evaluate a radar contact as a missile or aircraft, but the AI (operator) shows it as a neutral surface vessel coming at me at 580 knots. :down:

2. So even with Show-truth OFF, I'd like a better AI contact evaluation to make the tactical picture less confusing. I don't think there are many cargo ships capable of 500 knots, so the contact should be evaluated as either aircraft or missile. Defintely not shown as a surface ship.

Thanks for reading.

[LuftWolf]

You can prevent this, I believe, by turning off your surface search radar when there is a vampire incoming.

Although it would be nice if the air search radar automatically overrode the surface search radar.

PS For LWAMI4, I may edit the detection altitudes of the Surface and Air search radars to prevent so many false classifications. Surface skimmers would definately still be suseptible to this, but I don't so much mind that better missiles are harder to shoot down.

[Lupuscanis]

OK, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before but can we please get the heading indicator on the waterfall set correctly? This would be the solid line superimposed on the waterfall. What I'm seeing when looking at the Sphere's array is the line through the baffles. This is 180deg out of position. Same with the towed array, the line is in the middle of the waterfall indicating toward the stern of the sub, not the bow. I've seen this in the Seawolf sim put out by sonalyst, and thought they'd catch it.

[SKeeM]

Why dont you use the big thick black line that repreasents your true course in the TA window and 180 from true in sphere window like the rest of us? I dont even think twice about were I am going.

[Lupuscanis]

Because I'm used to using it the correct way from the real thing, and when I play this I get all turned round backwards lol! I like to see that I'm either heading towards a contact or away from it. Besides is it something really that hard to change?

[Titigel]

hi everybody...Good to be back
I have to add a little comment here. The SA N 8 behaviour is more realistic than the stinger's. You'll see it is somewhat harder to hit with the SA N 8 than with the stinger.

[Titigel]

Two points I think require some attention.
First, in some cases weapon stats have been underated or overated. For example, most of the times (arguably all of the times) you can avoid a type-40 torp with a 688i class sub simply by running away from it. Also, the 65cm torpedo should have (as in reality it does) a greater range. The range of the ADCAP varies with speed, as well as the 65 cm torpedo.

Second, the maximum speed of the 688 subs is 30-32 Knots. You'll never see them going 34 or 35, their test depth is 300m and collapse depth 450 meters.

A very good introductory text on naval weapons engineering can be found at:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/syllabus.htm

[LoBlo]

Can we have more access to the "AttackBest" and "FireBest" logic?

Its such a intergral part of the doctrine and being able to understand it would allow some better modding efforts. Especially in the since of trying to improve aircraft behavior.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=93941

thx
lb

ps) Its unprecedented, but if some of the game programmers would stop by from time to time in the mod workshop to drop tips and hints in our efforts it would be nice. Perhaps create a login that doesn't reveal your a SCS DW programmer if you want to remain anonymous.

[LuftWolf]

LoBlo... the logic is set entirely by the parameters in the database. You have total control from there.

Also, you can use the command Attack "<WeaponName>" instead of AttackBest and FireBest, but you have to create a unique doctrine for every platform you want to use that command.

Yes, I wish Jamie would stop over again at some point.

[shift-E]

How about some kind of video return ("blips") on the radar consoles (ASTAC/Weapons) for contacts, sea state, weather, and geography? This could help corroborate Link/ES tracks without such an unrealistic dependence upon TMA for doing the same thing.

Likewise, range rings on those displays would also be nice.

[kage]

How about some kind of video return ("blips") on the radar consoles (ASTAC/Weapons) for contacts, sea state, weather, and geography? This could help corroborate Link/ES tracks without such an unrealistic dependence upon TMA for doing the same thing.


At least for landmasses, I use markers (point on the map, press enter) along the shorelines. The markers show up in those displays.

[shift-E]

thanks, Kage.

Actually, after I posted, I noticed that the Astac radar console does, in fact, provide video return for land masses. Seems to me it'd be easy enough to patch that over to Weapons, at least when Surface radar is activated.

... and I contend that both weapons consoles ought to provide some sort of radar return for surface/air contacts, much in the way that this is supported with active sonar. I realize that this is primarily an ASW game (produced by Sonalysts, not Radalysts), but let's give some of the above-the-waterline sensors the same realism.

If nothing else, it could help spot sails/periscopes during lookout low-visibility.

One other suggestion re: modelling. The CIWS mount model has no ammunition drum (under the gun/between the "legs" of the mount; and since the CIWS is capable of being assigned and engaging surface targets, it should be modeled on CIWS Block 1-B, which has a camera/FLIR affixed to the side of the radome, and a barrel stabilizer extending from the barbette to about halfway down the barrels. All three can be seen here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Phalanx_CIWS.jpg/185px-Phalanx_CIWS.jpg

I might be being a stickler here, but with the degree of detail the modelers already went to (including the RADHAZ and yellow warning stickers on the legs -- NICE TOUCH!!), I figured they'd model the essential parts of the mount correctly.

Perhaps the camera/FLIR could be added to the Camera views as well.

[LuftWolf]

... and I contend that both weapons consoles ought to provide some sort of radar return for surface/air contacts, much in the way that this is supported with active sonar. I realize that this is primarily an ASW game (produced by Sonalysts, not Radalysts), but let's give some of the above-the-waterline sensors the same realism.

The overhead from the acoustics engine already accounts for a significant percentage of the code and processor load (not to mention interface and programming time).

Adding advanced RADAR and ESM functions is not going to happen in a SCS series, probably ever, because they are called SONAlysts, not RADAlysts. ;)

Seriously, if the military asks them for an advanced radar model, then we will get some version of it, but as long as the government pays them for a NavalSimEngine with only advanced acoustics, that's what we are going to get.

[LoBlo]

... and I contend that both weapons consoles ought to provide some sort of radar return for surface/air contacts, much in the way that this is supported with active sonar. I realize that this is primarily an ASW game (produced by Sonalysts, not Radalysts), but let's give some of the above-the-waterline sensors the same realism.

The overhead from the acoustics engine already accounts for a significant percentage of the code and processor load (not to mention interface and programming time).

Adding advanced RADAR and ESM functions is not going to happen in a SCS series, probably ever, because they are called SONAlysts, not RADAlysts. ;)

Seriously, if the military asks them for an advanced radar model, then we will get some version of it, but as long as the government pays them for a NavalSimEngine with only advanced acoustics, that's what we are going to get.

If you shoot for the stars you might at least hit the moon. Setting such low expectations will garantee that something will never reach its full potential.

What purpose of shooting down people wishlists?

[LuftWolf]

To reduce the amount of drek that Jamie has to read, because he only gets a few minutes every week to read this thread.

[LoBlo]

To reduce the amount of drek that Jamie has to read, because he only gets a few minutes every week to read this thread.

One man's drek is another man's gold. :yep:

[Captain Norman]

I need an improvement on frame rates, and a few changes to problems with UUVs and such. Also, a new controllable platform like an Arleigh Burke would be cool.

[Nexus7]

Could you insert the typical alarm songs? At least when diving and when surfacing? They'd add to the atmosphere...

[micky1up]

torpedos ,modern systems witch run with torpedos can tell you when the torpedos homing when its fuse gets armed when it thinks its tracking a decoy and so on also sonar the auto crews and the manual side there should be more opions to clasify the contacts available to both the auto and manual side of the sonar also i would suggest putting in a sytem so you can manually input the tatregts solution even when the auto crews are working . the game is good but as a submariner i find it a tadge unrealistic

[LuftWolf]

torpedos ,modern systems witch run with torpedos can tell you when the torpedos homing when its fuse gets armed when it thinks its tracking a decoy and so on

Sonalysts is always going to keep things simple relative to the ability of the commercial sim because of accessibility issues with non-specialist audiences, etc., which is a good idea on their part. The general audience will balk at the game if the learning curve is too steep, which is what happens if you start putting advanced features in the game.

As an example of what is possible with the DW engine when that's not an issue (and personal time is a like water... :-? ), check out this thread about the latest LWAMI mod, with the things that have actually been implimented being on the last two pages.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=94688


also sonar the auto crews and the manual side there should be more opions to clasify the contacts available to both the auto and manual side of the sonar also i would suggest putting in a sytem so you can manually input the tatregts solution even when the auto crews are working . the game is good but as a submariner i find it a tadge unrealistic

The autocrews aren't really meant to be realistic in anyway, they are meant to help the player.

If you are concerned with "full realism", then the generally accepted configuration is to play with all autocrews off except for EW (when available), Radar, and Active Intercept.

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

Hi Sonalyst. I'm enjoying your game.

I'ld like to see some more sophisticated game logic available in the mission editor. An "avoid" tatic but one that isn't regulated to avoiding a single platform, but an entire side would be great. For example SetTatic: Avoid, Target Platform: Side X would be nice. This would to produce more logical avoidance behavior from the AIs in each scenario.

Also, allowing airplanes to join surface "formations" would offer increased options to air escort behavior. Currently ships can be assigned to formations in order to provide a sense of "escort" bahavior (for example CVBG), but aircraft and planes aren't able to participate in those formations. It would be beneficial to see a mission editor option to add an aircraft (or aircraft groups) to a formation. This would allow, for example, giving a E2-Hawkeye a part in a battlegroup and then aligning it to the aft (20mile) from the center ship would produce a nice EAW vehicle behavior. Doing the same to fighters would allow combat patrol aircraft behavior nicely. This is especially important in FFG scenarios when a player is part of a SAG or CVBG, and aircraft support is important to a scenario. Of course the aircraft could not mimick the formation speeds (it would fall out of the sky) but would circle above in a general formation.

As long as we are talking about aircraft behavior. I've notice that some of the ASW behavior in the AI P-3 and helos are not optimal. Some of the ASW aircraft do not employ sonabuoys as they should (the best example of this is SubGuru's "The Killing Ground" scenario (the last mission of the RSR campaign) although some of the AI aircraft are designated to Sonabuoy searches, they aren't dropping sonabuoys. Other times they perform the assigned searches as desired. Its hard to predict when and why AI ASW aircraft don't perform the sonadrops as assigned in the mission editor and there are temporary solutions that a mission designer can compromise to try to compensate, but it would be advantageous to have more robust ASW airplane behavior.

One more thing. I also agree with some of mick1up's suggestions above. If we were to allow a torps control GUI to persist in the weapons control panel after the torp is launched, and could continue to put inputs into the torp, such as depth and speed, etc, it would be a nice additon.

[micky1up]

can we have more interaction on the tma page the ability with or without the auto tma to input a solution as a tactical serving member of the royal navy submarines i can do better than the auto but i want to be able to have the auto team and input my own solution also fire control more information from the weapon and more control over the weapon modern weapons are alot smarter than the simulation gives them credit for modern weapons can tell you the targets solution and if it thinks its tracking a decoy the term guided weapons gives it away more interaction



just my humble opinion after 19 years acctually doing it

[LoBlo]

Hi Sonalyst

One more thing that I'ld love to see in future additions to DW is an advancement in the ship noise modeling. It would be great to see shipnoise taken to the next level by allowing non-linear sound vs speed effects. Like the one shown below.

http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf_02.gif

From the looks of the current model it would be a relatively simple addition to the coding, probably just requiring some offest to the addition thrust noise. i.e.

If engine speed < x then enginenoise = 0
If engine speed > x then enginenoise = engoinenoise_at_max*percent engine speed
Totalshipnoise = baselinenoise + enginenoise

or something along those lines would allow a more stepwise approach to ship noise speed such as the one shown in the graph above. It would be a great addition to the sonar model. And one I think a lot of the game community would appreciate.

Thanks,
lb

[DIRTY DEALER]

How about being able to center on your sub with a keystroke while in map view ?

I can't tell you how much of a pain in the butt it is when I'm ploting a course on the other side of England and I hear " Aircraft spotted ! ", I have to try to zoom in and center my sub at the same time ....

[OneShot]

How about being able to center on your sub with a keystroke while in map view ?

I can't tell you how much of a pain in the butt it is when I'm ploting a course on the other side of England and I hear " Aircraft spotted ! ", I have to try to zoom in and center my sub at the same time ....

This sounds like you are talking about SH3 and not Dangerous Waters in which I was never warned by an "Aircraft spotted" sound. If thats right then I suggest you repost that suggestion in the apropriate forum/thread.

[Capt Dave J. Harper]

u also gotta fix the kilo bug i was in a game and with in 5 seconds it seemed like the kilo launched a million torps and missles at invisable targets but sum how they hit my sub

[LoBlo]

Here's a thought. Frequency alerts on the sub and FFG sonars just like they are on the Sonabuoy displays. Would be a nice bit of convience to serching those crowded waterways.

[wetwarev7]

Without having read all 10 pages, I hope I'm not repeating what someone else has allready suggested -

1. "refresh loadout" working for all controllable platforms in mission editor.

2. Some way for the engine to reposition ships/subs when they are dynamically placed on land, so dynamic mission creation around islands is a little easier.

3. ***Option to reverse the vertical mouse axis*** PLEASEpleasepleaseplease

4. Add a "random time and weather at mission start" option in the mission editor.

5. add a script command to change the time of day/weather in the mission editor.

6. option to respawn controlled platforms in multiplayer.

[hyperion2206]

Could someone fix the model of the Seawolf for example? It's too long in DW and the Gearing class looks even worse!

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

If you shoot for the stars you might at least hit the moon.

Others times you fall short and hit London

[wetwarev7]

A couple more:

1. Fix the subs going tail up when changing depth

2. add some kind of holding pattern to the P3 Orion, maybe a way for the autopilot to easily circle around a certain point so I can stop flying into mountains when trying to ID a contact. :P

[Shadowmind]

For a future patch it would be really nice to know the depth of OS towed array (subs). If there is a layer and I am trying to detect contacts above the layer (surface ships), it would be nice to know when I am shallow enough to have my TA above the layer.

Could this be done in a script and just printed in the info dialog area?

[Dr.Sid]

I second array depth indication. Could be easy.

I bump 32 bit color depth. It's year 2006. Come on !

[gmuno]

Getting the missions free of bugs would be nice.

[Eagle1_Division]

Havn't read all 11 pages but have read the last 3. Somebody suggested that we add the alreigh burke. It'd be preatty nice to have an Aegis cruiser, or mabye a Ticonderoga VLS? I find it odd this game is purely centered on ASW action. A full range of Anti-sub missions, Anti-Air missions(probolly not) and Anti-Surf missions would provide a large range of different expierences. Subs are preatty neat to control but a full range would be a grand game. Its already started into the path of surface ships. A frigate is a good start, but an Aegis or Missle cruiser would be neat, those being the kings of the seas.

Ive created a mission that is Anti-Air actually. Your in a frigate and have to determine which 747 is packed with terrorists ready to crash into a nearby city.

EDIT: Ive read that making new platforms playable is largely opposed. Why is that? I find new platforms extremely exciting. It would draw many people into the game knowing that it can be greatly expanded. I don't see any reason to oppose it. What's the point of making a brick wall that has to be passed in order to expand the game?

Iv'e wondered before how to "mark" with the binoculars like the parascope. I hear its a preatty old request but how and why would a submarine, underwater, be better at looking at things than a ship thats on the surface? It shouldn't be too hard to add would it?

Last of all I second Sid, we should have 24-bitmaps instead of 256 color. If its for the FPS it should be a on-off feature.

[ASWnut101]

we need nukes!:cool:

[Narcosis]

How about having oil slicks and other debris floating around surface ships when they are sinking and after they have been sunk ?

Ships are sinking way to fast, any chance prolonging their sinking ?

How about life rafts entering waters when ship is sunk ?

[kage]

For a future patch it would be really nice to know the depth of OS towed array (subs). If there is a layer and I am trying to detect contacts above the layer (surface ships), it would be nice to know when I am shallow enough to have my TA above the layer.

Could this be done in a script and just printed in the info dialog area?
If anyone figures out the formula a table can be made for you, so that you know that at n knots, the full length TA (one table for each TA) is m feet below your keel.

[Molon Labe]

How about having oil slicks and other debris floating around surface ships when they are sinking and after they have been sunk ?

Ships are sinking way to fast, any chance prolonging their sinking ?

How about life rafts entering waters when ship is sunk ?

Hmmm. They already do wakes--an oil slick shouldn't be too much harder. Modifying the editor to allow for the spawning of platforms (like life rafts) at positions relative to platforms (instead of just at a specific point on the map) would be great too!

[WargamerScott]

Now that I have owned DW for about a year, I can say that I still consider it one of the finest naval sims *EVER*. The only area I would like to see improvement is with the quick mission generator. It is neat that you can use all the tools the devs used to create a mission, but I think a lot of players, such as myself, would rather be able to specify some basic parameters and have the program come up with fresh and challenging missions on its own. Unfortunately, DW's quick mission generator rarely hits the mark in this regard. It does put together some mildly interesting helo/P-3 versus sub hunts (where you are the air platform), but seems to utterly fail when you want to be the sub. I cannot recall how many times I set up a barrier patrol, with me as the sub, only to find my opponent to be a solitary enemy carrier (usually Invincible for some reason). Point is, the QM generator needs to be enhanced so that it can generate a wide range of challenging and realisitic missions (i.e., instead of a sole enemy carrier, how about an enemy carrier task force?)

In a year of play, that is my only real complaint about DW.

[I am Back]

Add the Virginia Class!!

[TLAM Strike]

Give the P-3 JDAM bombs. I know you put the graphics for it in the weapon loadout interface files!! You can't hide anything from TLAM!!! :cool: I even know you planed a Helo Stores screen for the FFG weapons loadout!! And don't get me started on all the buttons you cut out of the Weapons Corodantor!!

Oh and give the SLAM-ER folding wings when stored on the rail. and the Weap Coord miss classes mines and Stationary I think... :D

[kage]

EDIT: Ive read that making new platforms playable is largely opposed. Why is that? I find new platforms extremely exciting. It would draw many people into the game knowing that it can be greatly expanded. I don't see any reason to oppose it. What's the point of making a brick wall that has to be passed in order to expand the game?

You're misunderstanding. SCS has reserved the rights to create new playable platforms. We wish for more, but they have to be provided by SCS.

The opposition is against people going against the license and creating their own user-made playables.

Last of all I second Sid, we should have 24-bitmaps instead of 256 color. If its for the FPS it should be a on-off feature.
24 bit or preferrably 32-bit graphics is an old wishlist item, but the current is 16-bit, or 65536-color, not 256-color. It's not a framerate thing as much as (I'm guessing here though) an inherent limitation in the graphics engine they are using, that it supposedly inherited from fleet command. (The Fleet command 3d engine was a choice made by EA because they had support people on it already, not because it was necessarily the best suited.)


----------------------

I think the very approach of using a database for the various platforms is an obsolete way of thought though.

[udadni]

I think the biggest gameplay improvement would be the addition of time compression in multiplayer. The game Defcon does this very well, with each player selecting the level they would like, and the game sets the time compression at the slowest level requested. Other than that - thanks for the great game!

[Dr.Sid]

I think the biggest gameplay improvement would be the addition of time compression in multiplayer. The game Defcon does this very well, with each player selecting the level they would like, and the game sets the time compression at the slowest level requested. Other than that - thanks for the great game!

I second that .. or some other solution. Good mission design can help a lot, but MP games just takes too much time.
Or what about joining during the game ? That would help too .. I mean occupying already existing AI platform.

[Eagle1_Division]

Probolly been mentioned in the monsterous 8 pages, but could it be made so that active sonor detects large underwater rock formations and mountains/cliffs(there are plenty in real life), and mabye make it so if a submarine purposely runs aground will be very hard to detect by active pings?-and i didn't know about the collant thing, so shouldn't something happen when a nuclear sub runs aground?

and btw- i laid about 5 active and 1 passive CM's, and the computer(chinese frigate) completely ignored them and started firing deck gun at me:doh:.

and last, the active pings are way to accurate, that same chinese frigate got me from 6 nmi away, heading at 15 kts, it was a recreation of the "chinese survailance" on SC, shouldn't it act the same?

[LoBlo]

Is there a way that the mast wake graphic from SC can be reimplemented into DW? It was such a nice touch that it gave periscope depth a whole new feel.

[LoBlo]

Hi Sonalyst. Lets revert the physics behavior back to the original please.

I played three single player missions today. The first was a sub exiting port mission, but I lost because the sub did a funky 30 degree seasaw and smashed itself on the ground even *with* waveriding turned off. The 2nd was a 688 mission, but I lost both towed arrays when coming up to PD because the sub decided to do a funky 45 degree ballet show when rising and actually went into reverse severing the arrays. The 3rd was a Akula SAG attack, but I lost the Pelamida before the attack because of the same bizzare ballet stunt...:dead:

Of course a player can just not use the patch but the fact that there were also alot of bug fixes would be unfortunate to loose. For all its worth, it doesn't seem like the "physics upgrade" really added anything to the game except more bugs and more frustration, without any real benefit. How about giving us a quick 1.03c patch that will include all the bug fixes to date, but also revert the physics back to the original.

[Molon Labe]

Have we forgotten about the drunken planesman so quickly?

[LoBlo]

Have we forgotten about the drunken planesman so quickly?

drunken planeman?

As I remember... though its has been awhile... but as I remember the impetus of wanting new physics behavior was to keep ships from turning at full speed without loosing any speed (deemed by some a unrealistic) and to make subs feel a snaproll effect and speed loss with high speed turning.

at least that's what I remember about it... to be honest with you, I'm not sure what 1.02 and 1.03 were originally "fixing" actually. But look at all the trouble its caused. :-? EDIT: Now I remember. It was a sonar model upgrade wasn't it...

EDIT: NM since 1.04 is so close.

[LoBlo]

Hi SCS, 1.04 is great. Really a nice piece of work. Great job. :up:

[LoBlo]

Is it too early for patch 1.05 suggestions....:hmm:

How about audio course feedback for the OHP just like the subs
"Come left to course 090 helm aye"
when reach course
"Steady on course 090" <--- currently included in the sub's audio but not the OHP

Similarly how about audio feedback whenever a ordered depth is reached as well
"Make my depth 600 feet dive aya"
when reach depth
"My depth is 600 feet"

:)

[LoBlo]

Another suggestion for 1.05. Consider adding the aft prop wake to a surfaced submarine just like a surfaced ship. Currently their's a bow wake, but not a aft wake.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2007/subs10tj4.gif

An identical effect to that of surface ships seems like it would be a nice addition and gives a nice feel to those port transit missions.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Is it too early for patch 1.05 suggestions....:hmm:

How about audio course feedback for the OHP just like the subs
"Come left to course 090 helm aye"
when reach course
"Steady on course 090" <--- currently included in the sub's audio but not the OHP

Similarly how about audio feedback whenever a ordered depth is reached as well
"Make my depth 600 feet dive aya"
when reach depth
"My depth is 600 feet"

:)

EXCELLENT suggestion. Provide feedback that you commands have been recieved and acted upon. Even nicer when you give verbal commands like I do.

[Linton]

Please can we have a realistic looking Trafalgar with pump jet?

[LoBlo]

Please can we have a realistic looking Trafalgar with pump jet?

That's very simple to install from SCX. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=102969

[Eagle1_Division]

What about the ability to place missles/torpedoes and their tactic in the editor?

[Captain Sub]

What has happened to the game actually?

There are several good aswell as bad fixes.

Now as we all know what great fixes the 104 brought i'd like to mention the reasons why i and my fleet will not use the current 104 patch:

- countermeasure CHEAT:
you never have a proof of what the host has set them to, could be 0% or 100% he could be lying about it or simply set it for EASY KILLS you never know.

-game balance in multiplayer
now that you made the ADCAP Torpedo ranges down to 19-20 instead of 27+ the seawolf has finally lost it's sense.
Now basically an AKULA is able to stay 15 nmi away, aim at the seawolf fire it's stallion and asw rockettorps and then RUN, now at this hilarious distance the seawolf will never hit the akula unless it's staying at the same place like screaming "KILL ME!".
Most people say "seawolf player, change your tactics!" which is simply wrong.
Test it out yourself as i did you will notice the seawolf did a great downcount in efficiency.


So we got two subs left in multiplayer, that are simply BETTER than others, the KILO and the AKULA, the KILO can't be tracked by the akula but once it launched some torps the akula got it's position ( often ) and fires it's whole loadout on the kilo, while the kilo has a very limited amount of weapons as we know,which is the last little piece of balance left in 104.
And mostly the games will end up with both players dead.
So looks like the smart guys of you will be using KILO or AKULA in mp matches.

It's really taking me down most of the guys in these forums, even the new developers do NOT care about actual multiplayer fairplay.

As i do i will be using 103 continously.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I wouldnt mind not having to change to 16 bit colour depth when I want to run in a window :up:


And maybe prolonging death a little. I've rarely needed to use damage control in a sub. At least give us a chance to try :arrgh!:

[Fish]

Setting different parameters using waypoints doesn't work. No change in depth or speed when waypoint is reached. :huh:

Hi DW, are you sure, it worked in 1.03.
I'll do some tests.
===============================================

Done, changing course, speed and depth at waypoints works like a charm here.

[Molon Labe]

What has happened to the game actually?

There are several good aswell as bad fixes.

Now as we all know what great fixes the 104 brought i'd like to mention the reasons why i and my fleet will not use the current 104 patch:

- countermeasure CHEAT:
you never have a proof of what the host has set them to, could be 0% or 100% he could be lying about it or simply set it for EASY KILLS you never know. I definitely agree with you that it's a big problem that the settings aren't visible to the client players. I hope we can get some response from SCS about whether or not this will be addressed. A lack of information is not a "CHEAT," though, it's just a lack of information.


-game balance in multiplayer
now that you made the ADCAP Torpedo ranges down to 19-20 instead of 27+ the seawolf has finally lost it's sense.
Now basically an AKULA is able to stay 15 nmi away, aim at the seawolf fire it's stallion and asw rockettorps and then RUN, now at this hilarious distance the seawolf will never hit the akula unless it's staying at the same place like screaming "KILL ME!".
Most people say "seawolf player, change your tactics!" which is simply wrong.
Test it out yourself as i did you will notice the seawolf did a great downcount in efficiency.
Many of the changes will have an impact on the balance of the game. The maximum range of the ADCAP is still 27nm (actually, 26.4). The change that was made was to make the range of the torpedo variable with respect to the preset speed. The ADCAP, for example, will reach its maximum range of 27nm when set to 45 knots. This change effects ALL torpedoes, not just the ADCAP.

Let's look at the numbers so we can see exactly what has changed. No-escape range for an ADCAP in 1.03 was 9.82nm. [ADCAP runtime=27nm/(55nm/60min)= 29.45 minutes. Akula running distance in 29.45 minutes=(29.45min*35nm/60min)=17.18nm. No Escape range = Maximum Range - Running Distance = 27nm-17.18= 9.82nm.]

No Escape Range for an ADCAP in 1.04 @ 55 knots is 7.74nm. (Parameters: Runtime = 23.24 min; Running Distance = 13.56nm; Maximum Range = 21.3nm) [Note: Best NE-range is at 55kts)

So the difference we're talking about in no escape range going from 1.03 to 1.04 is just 2.08nm. This means that the only time that the Akula gets a benefit from this change is when the Seawolf can get within 9.82mn without being detected, but not within 7.74nm. In most cases, the SW will be able to do neither, in which case the balance is the same as it was in 1.03--it's just that most players didn't realize no-escape range was so short when they played 1.03, but they're figuring it out now that attention has been brought to it.

I still do see this as a problem, of course, but that's what LW/Ami is for. (Akulas have realisticly louder NL's and a less sensitive TA). One thing to keep in mind is that US subs stopped using SUBROCs for a reason...ownship sensors would not be able to detect contacts at long enough range for them to be useful. Russians keep them because unlike the US, they deploy their subs in combination with other forces, while US subs tend to operate alone. Russian SUBROCs were meant for use with targeting data from other platforms. That should tell you something about where the problem in stock DW is...it's definitely not in the new torpedo ranges.

[Captain Sub]

What has happened to the game actually?

There are several good aswell as bad fixes.

Now as we all know what great fixes the 104 brought i'd like to mention the reasons why i and my fleet will not use the current 104 patch:

- countermeasure CHEAT:
you never have a proof of what the host has set them to, could be 0% or 100% he could be lying about it or simply set it for EASY KILLS you never know. I definitely agree with you that it's a big problem that the settings aren't visible to the client players. I hope we can get some response from SCS about whether or not this will be addressed. A lack of information is not a "CHEAT," though, it's just a lack of information.


-game balance in multiplayer
now that you made the ADCAP Torpedo ranges down to 19-20 instead of 27+ the seawolf has finally lost it's sense.
Now basically an AKULA is able to stay 15 nmi away, aim at the seawolf fire it's stallion and asw rockettorps and then RUN, now at this hilarious distance the seawolf will never hit the akula unless it's staying at the same place like screaming "KILL ME!".
Most people say "seawolf player, change your tactics!" which is simply wrong.
Test it out yourself as i did you will notice the seawolf did a great downcount in efficiency.
Many of the changes will have an impact on the balance of the game. The maximum range of the ADCAP is still 27nm (actually, 26.4). The change that was made was to make the range of the torpedo variable with respect to the preset speed. The ADCAP, for example, will reach its maximum range of 27nm when set to 45 knots. This change effects ALL torpedoes, not just the ADCAP.

Let's look at the numbers so we can see exactly what has changed. No-escape range for an ADCAP in 1.03 was 9.82nm. [ADCAP runtime=27nm/(55nm/60min)= 29.45 minutes. Akula running distance in 29.45 minutes=(29.45min*35nm/60min)=17.18nm. No Escape range = Maximum Range - Running Distance = 27nm-17.18= 9.82nm.]

No Escape Range for an ADCAP in 1.04 @ 55 knots is 7.74nm. (Parameters: Runtime = 23.24 min; Running Distance = 13.56nm; Maximum Range = 21.3nm) [Note: Best NE-range is at 55kts)

So the difference we're talking about in no escape range going from 1.03 to 1.04 is just 2.08nm. This means that the only time that the Akula gets a benefit from this change is when the Seawolf can get within 9.82mn without being detected, but not within 7.74nm. In most cases, the SW will be able to do neither, in which case the balance is the same as it was in 1.03--it's just that most players didn't realize no-escape range was so short when they played 1.03, but they're figuring it out now that attention has been brought to it.

I still do see this as a problem, of course, but that's what LW/Ami is for. (Akulas have realisticly louder NL's and a less sensitive TA). One thing to keep in mind is that US subs stopped using SUBROCs for a reason...ownship sensors would not be able to detect contacts at long enough range for them to be useful. Russians keep them because unlike the US, they deploy their subs in combination with other forces, while US subs tend to operate alone. Russian SUBROCs were meant for use with targeting data from other platforms. That should tell you something about where the problem in stock DW is...it's definitely not in the new torpedo ranges.

Thank you very much for this post, as i see there are still some in here that actually care about balance.

Well as they now go the same range with 10kts less this is a great disadvantage for the seawolf players, as stallion/ASW have the same abilities still.
Also one big point being is that the seawolf doesn't really fit anymore to the mapsizes of let's say 50 nmi operating zone, i mean akula can shoot almost all along the map then.

[goldorak]

Thank you very much for this post, as i see there are still some in here that actually care about balance.

Well as they now go the same range with 10kts less this is a great disadvantage for the seawolf players, as stallion/ASW have the same abilities still.
Also one big point being is that the seawolf doesn't really fit anymore to the mapsizes of let's say 50 nmi operating zone, i mean akula can shoot almost all along the map then.


It seems like you play with auto tma on, so of course with the new patch the ufo-like effectiviness of the seawolf is reduced.
The fact that the akula can shoot all over the map (is that a realistic match ? ) doesn't mean it will find the enemy.
You know, first of all you have to detect the enemy, and a seawolf in 1.04 is still by large the most silent nuclear sub in the game with the most sensitive sensors and the highest tactical speed.
So I ask you again, who is at a disadvantage here ?
Try playing as the game (oops I meant simulation) was meant to be played that is with everything on manual and see just how difficult it is to sink the seawolf. :roll:

[Fish]

A lack of information is not a "CHEAT," though, it's just a lack of information.


And of trust of course. :)
-

[Molon Labe]

A lack of information is not a "CHEAT," though, it's just a lack of information.

And of trust of course. :)
-

It could even be an accident. I'm definitely not in the habit of checking the .ini every time I play. If there was at least an indicator on one of the setup pages that would help enormously. A slider to set them with would be even better.

[Captain Sub]

Thank you very much for this post, as i see there are still some in here that actually care about balance.

Well as they now go the same range with 10kts less this is a great disadvantage for the seawolf players, as stallion/ASW have the same abilities still.
Also one big point being is that the seawolf doesn't really fit anymore to the mapsizes of let's say 50 nmi operating zone, i mean akula can shoot almost all along the map then.

It seems like you play with auto tma on, so of course with the new patch the ufo-like effectiviness of the seawolf is reduced.
The fact that the akula can shoot all over the map (is that a realistic match ? ) doesn't mean it will find the enemy.
You know, first of all you have to detect the enemy, and a seawolf in 1.04 is still by large the most silent nuclear sub in the game with the most sensitive sensors and the highest tactical speed.
So I ask you again, who is at a disadvantage here ?
Try playing as the game (oops I meant simulation) was meant to be played that is with everything on manual and see just how difficult it is to sink the seawolf. :roll:
simply wrong, the seawolf has no better sonar.

also i recently tracked a seawolf 37nmi away from my position in my akula so WHAT?

I still feel people in here going for the akula only and trying to find even any pointless fact to make sense of the seawolf downgrade in 104.
It is simply bs telling the seawolf players to change their tactics also and to me it wasn't hard realizing even before testing it out the seawolf basically worse now than the akula

[Molon Labe]

simply wrong, the seawolf has no better sonar.
TB-29 Nrd: -14
Pelamida Nrd: -10
Also relevant is the fact that the SW has a smaller NL than the akula. The two advantages combined form a substantial detection range advantage.

also i recently tracked a seawolf 37nmi away from my position in my akula so WHAT?

I still feel people in here going for the akula only and trying to find even any pointless fact to make sense of the seawolf downgrade in 104.
It is simply bs telling the seawolf players to change their tactics also and to me it wasn't hard realizing even before testing it out the seawolf basically worse now than the akula I don't think there's too many akula-biased players around here. I also think you're making this out to be an earth-shattering change, but it isn't. Keep in mind that the turning-and-running evasion tactic worked in 1.03 too, but it worked at 9.82nm instead of 7.74nm. No question that the change helps the Akula, but will it be decisive in all cases? When you consider that the SW has the detection edge, it means he should get to shoot first...so the Akula doesn't know the range he was engaged from. If he wants to shoot back, he'll need to do TMA on the incoming torps first to determine where they came from...and that means he can't exceed 7 knots (10 in LW/Ami). (And in any case, wants he starts to run, he's completely defensive and the SW is in no danger.) No-escape range keeps getting bigger the longer he's doing TMA--and, thanks to the layer, he can't be sure he detected the torps when they were fired anyways. So, there's always uncertainty as to whether the torps were fired from inside no-escape range, or if the Akula's time spent w/o detecting the torps, tracking, and/or counterattacking has increased no-escape range to the point that it's too late to run. If you're not sure about whether or not you can escape the torp, then conventional evasion is safer. And the SW has the edge in that sort of fight because of its higher tactical speed and faster torps. (The main difference is that in 1.04, running is a safer bet than it was in 1.03)

This is where the Goldorak is right... if you use aTMA, then the Akula might have a better shot in this because aTMA might generate a spot-on solution that makes a good SUBROC shot possible. But without aTMA, getting a solution that good is quite a feat of skill, and if the Akula player was able to get it (or, if the SW player let him) then the outcome is well-deserved. LW/Ami also makes a difference here by adding significant missile launch transients, which gives the US sub player time to change course and escape the acquisition range of the SUBROC torpedo before it splashes down, and by removing the super-capable seeker present on the stock SUBROC torpedoes.

The Akula definitely got a boost (as did any other vessel that might be attacked by a torpedo)...but it's not the end of the world. I actually see this leading to more really long games and draws than I do Akula wins, since the change will cause an increase in running at the expense of the familiar evade-and-counterattack defense.

[Captain Sub]

simply wrong, the seawolf has no better sonar.
TB-29 Nrd: -14
Pelamida Nrd: -10
Also relevant is the fact that the SW has a smaller NL than the akula. The two advantages combined form a substantial detection range advantage.

also i recently tracked a seawolf 37nmi away from my position in my akula so WHAT?

I still feel people in here going for the akula only and trying to find even any pointless fact to make sense of the seawolf downgrade in 104.
It is simply bs telling the seawolf players to change their tactics also and to me it wasn't hard realizing even before testing it out the seawolf basically worse now than the akula I don't think there's too many akula-biased players around here. I also think you're making this out to be an earth-shattering change, but it isn't. Keep in mind that the turning-and-running evasion tactic worked in 1.03 too, but it worked at 9.82nm instead of 7.74nm. No question that the change helps the Akula, but will it be decisive in all cases? When you consider that the SW has the detection edge, it means he should get to shoot first...so the Akula doesn't know the range he was engaged from. If he wants to shoot back, he'll need to do TMA on the incoming torps first to determine where they came from...and that means he can't exceed 7 knots (10 in LW/Ami). (And in any case, wants he starts to run, he's completely defensive and the SW is in no danger.) No-escape range keeps getting bigger the longer he's doing TMA--and, thanks to the layer, he can't be sure he detected the torps when they were fired anyways. So, there's always uncertainty as to whether the torps were fired from inside no-escape range, or if the Akula's time spent w/o detecting the torps, tracking, and/or counterattacking has increased no-escape range to the point that it's too late to run. If you're not sure about whether or not you can escape the torp, then conventional evasion is safer. And the SW has the edge in that sort of fight because of its higher tactical speed and faster torps. (The main difference is that in 1.04, running is a safer bet than it was in 1.03)

This is where the Goldorak is right... if you use aTMA, then the Akula might have a better shot in this because aTMA might generate a spot-on solution that makes a good SUBROC shot possible. But without aTMA, getting a solution that good is quite a feat of skill, and if the Akula player was able to get it (or, if the SW player let him) then the outcome is well-deserved. LW/Ami also makes a difference here by adding significant missile launch transients, which gives the US sub player time to change course and escape the acquisition range of the SUBROC torpedo before it splashes down, and by removing the super-capable seeker present on the stock SUBROC torpedoes.

The Akula definitely got a boost (as did any other vessel that might be attacked by a torpedo)...but it's not the end of the world. I actually see this leading to more really long games and draws than I do Akula wins, since the change will cause an increase in running at the expense of the familiar evade-and-counterattack defense.

it is indeed the end of fairness for the seawolf.

Also don't underestimate the cut of 1/4 of the torpedo ranges, damn what the hell is the point of reducing torpedo ranges and keeping the aswrockets at a dominant distance?
It makes the seawolf useless aswell as the akula's torpedos.

[Molon Labe]

It was a step towards realism without making simultaneous changes to address the balance shift.

[Fish]

A lack of information is not a "CHEAT," though, it's just a lack of information.

And of trust of course. :)
-

It could even be an accident. I'm definitely not in the habit of checking the .ini every time I play. If there was at least an indicator on one of the setup pages that would help enormously. A slider to set them with would be even better.

Yeah, well you know we asked for.

[Fish]

It was a step towards realism without making simultaneous changes to address the balance shift.
I'll stick to my SeaWolf. :up:

[sonar732]

it is indeed the end of fairness for the seawolf.

Also don't underestimate the cut of 1/4 of the torpedo ranges, damn what the hell is the point of reducing torpedo ranges and keeping the aswrockets at a dominant distance?
It makes the seawolf useless aswell as the akula's torpedos.
For the reason that was given earlier...the Russian's used a tactic of flooding the sea with their submarines, which worked in tantum with each other. The U.S. prefers a go-it-alone approach.

Bottom line is this game is to simulate as much as possible with the utmost realism.

EDIT: Yet, to keep the DoD off their backs for revealing classified information.

I'm tired of seeing people wine about their views on what is suppose to be true and real when most of them haven't "been there, done that" and wouldn't pull that information out of us anyway!

[Fearless]

How about the Sonar being able to distinguish multiple signatures especially when they are close together.

[Dr.Sid]

Yeah .. that would be nice. But how should it work ? Imagine you have 6 lines on your NB display. In DW it means more than 1 contact. But what should be listed in library then ?

1) Best would be you would be able to manually select multiple lines. You can have a clue which lines go together, based intensity variations, history and so on. Then only corresponding platforms should be listed. But that would add a lot to user interface.

2) Or you could select one line (which you already can do now) and only platforms having that line would be listed. Sure, if you select 50Hz line, that would be a lot of platforms .. but if you select some more specific one, it should be easier.

3) Or you could be able to narrow 'no filter' library listing .. let's say to 'Russian sub' .. because most of the time you know what you are looking for. 'Russian sub' filter would give you few library options to check, and it would combine nicely with option 2. But then again .. this would add a lot to user interface (it means, it will not happen).

[robdw]

Yeah .. that would be nice. But how should it work ? Imagine you have 6 lines on your NB display. In DW it means more than 1 contact. But what should be listed in library then ?

1) Best would be you would be able to manually select multiple lines. You can have a clue which lines go together, based intensity variations, history and so on. Then only corresponding platforms should be listed. But that would add a lot to user interface.

2) Or you could select one line (which you already can do now) and only platforms having that line would be listed. Sure, if you select 50Hz line, that would be a lot of platforms .. but if you select some more specific one, it should be easier.

3) Or you could be able to narrow 'no filter' library listing .. let's say to 'Russian sub' .. because most of the time you know what you are looking for. 'Russian sub' filter would give you few library options to check, and it would combine nicely with option 2. But then again .. this would add a lot to user interface (it means, it will not happen).
I'll third this one. And I think I'd go with option 3 above. That would be a nice feature to have all the time. It is ridiculous to have to go thru randomly organized ships to find what you're looking for.
Option 2 has possibilities as well, but not as universally useful.

Robert

[ASWnut101]

Option Three would also be a good thing for the 688i standimeter, too!

[LoBlo]

Hi Sonalyst. Here's a suggestion that I think most players will find useful...

... how about adding a line to the .ini file that allows us to control the Broadband Sonar volume. Perhaps something like this:

Broadband Sonar Volume (0-100) 55

That way a player can increase the volume of the simulated engine sounds that are heard through broadband. At the moment the sounds are very faint and not appreciable, and increasing the game volume is hampered by an increase in all the other sound effects as well (pings, torp launches, explosions).

Currently, we've been trying to bring out the BB sound effects a little more over in the Mod Workshop forums, but still really can't get the effects desired. Please consider.

thanks,
lb

[sonar732]

Hi Sonalyst. Here's a suggestion that I think most players will find useful...

... how about adding a line to the .ini file that allows us to control the Broadband Sonar volume. Perhaps something like this:

Broadband Sonar Volume (0-100) 55

That way a player can increase the volume of the simulated engine sounds that are heard through broadband. At the moment the sounds are very faint and not appreciable, and increasing the game volume is hampered by an increase in all the other sound effects as well (pings, torp launches, explosions).

Currently, we've been trying to bring out the BB sound effects a little more over in the Mod Workshop forums, but still really can't get the effects desired. Please consider.

thanks,
lb

For some odd reason...I see an arguement on this request as the 'host' could make it hard for other players to hear things.

[Castout]

While i appreciate the effort on creating control for probability that dead platform is ignored by torpedoes in .ini file, now it looks pretty useless as the torpedoes don't detonate on dead platform anymore(But the deadplatform still attract incoming torpedoes??) so the value of less than 100% results in topedoes circling dead platform and that is a major nuisance.

My suggestion if it's posssible to make dead platforms still able to detonate topedoes(ala Sub Command). If it's hardcoded maybe the damage percentage can be set up to 150% (100% means it's totally destroyed/sunk) while 150% means it won't detonate AND ATTRACT incoming torpedoes at all(The displayed value in map view could still be set to show a maximum of 100%). Or something like that. Just my two cents.

Thx for 1.04 btw?:up:

[Molon Labe]

It's been said before, but now that a new patch is out it's worth repeating:


GET RID OF WEAPON-TRUTH!!!

[Looney11]

I'd like to request AA shells for the 76mm gun. Presently, you can engage air-targets with the gun but it's useless, you can't hit the broadside of a flying barn if it was doing a flyby.

The shell-selection should be done automatically, based on the type of target you're trying to engage. If I'm not mistaken, the loading computer in RL takes this into account too. The AA shells should only be used to attack airborne targets and if possible, should be fitted with a proximity or timed fuze which is also set by the loading computer based on target-speed, ballistics and time of flight of the grenade.

Thanks in advance,

Leon

[LuftWolf]

I think Molon wants you to get rid of weapon truth.

Cheers,
David