Weapons Capacity

[Deathblow]

Anyone know how to increase the weapons capacity of any of the playable subs?

[LuftWolf]

They are hardcoded in the interface or executable. :dead:

So, unless you hack the executable, you can't. Sorry.

[Deathblow]

Oh why oh why must everthing about the GUI be hardcoded into the engine..... :dead: :damn:

[LuftWolf]

To help prevent us from creating new playables. ;)

[MaHuJa]

I suspect it may be as simple a matter as finding the correct offset, opening the correct file (probably the loadout dll) in a hex editor, and changing it. The "finding the correct offset" being the hard part of it.

This would, of course, show up as different interface files in multiplayer sessions.


At least for how big torpedo stores you have in 688i/seawolf/akula/kilo. What weapons one can carry (and/or what the interface calls them) may be editable as well, but the number of tubes and similar is worse.


Be advised: Distributing hacked interface files isn't so unlikely to raise the wages of the lawyers...
(Though I wouldn't be surprised if they would be forgiving of p3/mh60 calling mk46 mk54 as part of files included with the lwami mod, I'd want to clear it with them first anyway.)

[LuftWolf]

We were told not to modify the USNI... :cry:

[Amizaur]

Although I still hope that not modifing USNI data, but adding additional gameplay notes (after gameplay notes from SCS) or separate Table Of Contents entry about mod changes, maybe could be allowed as it wouldn't change any of USNI (or even SCS) data at all... :hmm:

[MaHuJa]

I suspect much of the problem in editing the references lies in that it could appear that the changed data came from USNI when that is in fact not the case.

Maybe an added section...

LWAMI n.nn gameplay notes:

...to various places might be acceptable, not replacing or changing the "stock" text. That would also reduce the need for switching the usni ref back and forth with the database.

[XabbaRus]

There is nothing to stop you adding your own stuff to USNI. Thomas did the it with SCX. You'll see new entries for all the new units that SCX brought along.

I think MaHuJa is right as the data in the USNI is from the USNI so in effect they have paid USNI for the right to reproduce the material.

But add your own errata or notes. Easy to do and I think would be helpful.

Call it Luft/Ami Mod notes.

[Amizaur]

You are both right, we are not to modify USNI data because it's licenced by USNI. But really I never intended to change USNI data itself, only to add additional gameplay notes just like SCS did. Or if not, at least a separate table of contents entry with mod documentation. So USNI (or even SCS) text would be not touched at all. Maybe wrong words used while asking...

P.S. The only USNI data I would LOVE to change is the 50nm Maverick range :arrgh!: Come on, this missile woudln't reach 50nm even unguided in supersonic lofted ballistic launch :P , I doubt if it reached 25nm this way. If lofted at Mach 1.5 from 50k feets and used optimal trajectory then MAYBE it would reach (or rather glide) to 30-33nm... ;) 50nm ??? NO WAY :P

[Deathblow]

So I'm guessing that it will be a pain if I try to give the LA and SW a Squall type torpedo huh?

[LuftWolf]

You can do it for non-playable submarines only. So you can add it to the launcher list for the 688i and SW, but only the AI versions of those submarines will be able to use them. You won't be able to select that weapon for yourself at the weapons loadout.

[XabbaRus]

Now if I remember rightly in the main menu of the USNI in SCX Thomas added an extra menu item.

I think that is allowed, just not touching the USNI unit data.

Fire up SCX and take a look if he did at it....

[LuftWolf]

I believe he did that, as well as adding some other entries.

However, based on Jamie's last email to us, he made us think that touching any aspect of the USNI Ref. would cause both us and SCS some problems.

We have put in another request with a specific plan to only add a new section to the menu with our data, but we have yet to get a response, which isn't surprising since he's been dealing with the RC.

[Deathblow]

You can do it for non-playable submarines only. So you can add it to the launcher list for the 688i and SW, but only the AI versions of those submarines will be able to use them. You won't be able to select that weapon for yourself at the weapons loadout.

Guess I'll have to hold off on giving the LA and SW a HSUW ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/hsuw.htm ).

Might try giving the Chinese subs a Squall though, since they are rumored to have bought some from the Ruskies.

*sigh*

[JoGary(sco)]

Is there anything stopping some one adding their own info to the USNI as long as they did not publish it ?
If so then couldnt you just add a word pad document with all the changes and helpfull info and if someone added it to the USNI then it woulodnt be your fault or SCS :|\
Also you could format it so as to make it easier to add yourself. As long as you dont tell them how to or suggest it ;)

[Molon Labe]

Solution:

Bring back the "wardroom" station from 688I. Go to the computer. On the computer, you'll find such things as "USNI reference", "Operating proceedures," and "[name of your section here]." Add whatever you want to your section, USNI shouldn't care!

[JoGary(sco)]

can u explain it more Malon Labe. Never played 688 so u have lost me here.

[Molon Labe]

It's just something that changed from 688I to SC. The reference and game status were accessible from a "station" that was basically the captian's quarters with a computer and a safe in it. The safe was for saving/loading ect. The computer showed the mission status, damage to the ship, and also had a Jane's reference section very much like the USNI reference we have now.

I think we should bring back this "station" and allow modders to put their reference items inside this "computer" but under a tab separate from the offical reference to prevent legal issues.

[Kapitan]

skhval has been bought by the chinease but they rarely deploy them on any submarine due to the lack of electronic systems capible of handeling such advanced weapons

[Deathblow]

So I've decided to return to this issue to see if I can modify the torpedo selection of the SW and 688i to add another torpedo type. Probably a Supercavitcator and a Half-Length Torpedo.

I suspect it may be as simple a matter as finding the correct offset, opening the correct file (probably the loadout dll) in a hex editor, and changing it. The "finding the correct offset" being the hard part of it.

This would, of course, show up as different interface files in multiplayer sessions.

At least for how big torpedo stores you have in 688i/seawolf/akula/kilo. What weapons one can carry (and/or what the interface calls them) may be editable as well, but the number of tubes and similar is worse.


Be advised: Distributing hacked interface files isn't so unlikely to raise the wages of the lawyers...
(Though I wouldn't be surprised if they would be forgiving of p3/mh60 calling mk46 mk54 as part of files included with the lwami mod, I'd want to clear it with them first anyway.)

Anyone have any clue on how to find the correct offset in a hex editor? Looks like a needle in a haystack to me. :( Help would be appreciated. I'm still determined to change weapons capacity and torp types.

On a related note. Anyone got any good info on the USN Half-length torpedo other developement?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

You can do it for non-playable submarines only. So you can add it to the launcher list for the 688i and SW, but only the AI versions of those submarines will be able to use them. You won't be able to select that weapon for yourself at the weapons loadout.

Well, if he's really desperate, can't he just carefully edit the TASM entry - since supposedly they don't even HAVE TASMs anymore, so this is just realism.

He'd just have to remember he can't load his Squalls into the VLS tubes, and since the TASM may be heavily referenced, he may be spending a lot of time changing things about in the database, but in theory it should be possible, no?

A problem with hacking the 688 and Seawolf is that they have so few weapon slots.

skhval has been bought by the chinease but they rarely deploy them on any submarine due to the lack of electronic systems capible of handeling such advanced weapons

What electronic handling is required, may I ask. The Shkval is a straight runner, not wire guided. What does it need other than initial course, initial depth, and a torpedo tube strong enough it would take extra strain it produces.

[Kapitan]

skhval has a special firing sequence as its motor cannot be ignited inside the tube other wise it would blow to bits because of extreme pressure.

Skhval uses two types of electornic systems to fire and ignite one launches out the tube the other to ignite, the skhval has to be a fair distance from the front of the sub before it can start or it would melt the rubber tiles.

electronic systems of all kinds are classified but have you ever seen a picture where an akula has like these three prongs sticking up from the front of its hull?

thats one system to help the skhval and also helps the other sonar too. hull mounted sonar system external.

i have been on an akula well three actualy but never been on an akula 2

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

i have been on an akula well three actualy but never been on an akula 2

You have been on ... three Akulas? Lucky you. Do they actually use the SSAZ sonar display rather than the waterfall or did you never get to see that part ... or that small detail is classified?

[Kapitan]

my stepfather moved from st petersburg to murmansk earlier this year hence why i cant go this year again :damn: :damn:

the sonar screens are almost true copies (even down to the cream colour) and they do use the SSAZ version of display however they are trying out waterful displays (have been for about 8 years now) but only gepard has it so im told.

i got to see weapons bay sonar radio conn everything forward of the reactor. on the oscar class should see how big they are on TV they look tichy but hell no ! stood next to one and **** they were big

[Deathblow]

Back to modifying the weapons capacity

Well, if he's really desperate, can't he just carefully edit the TASM entry - since supposedly they don't even HAVE TASMs anymore, so this is just realism.

I've thought of this with the Harpoon, modifying it to be a new torp, but for some reason, was a weapon has been assigned a entity type (torp, missile, sub, etc) it doesn't seems like its able to be reassigned a new entity type. Givining the Harpoon a torp doctrine, stats, and 3d mesh doesn't seem to work, does makes the missile act funny. :-? Not to mention that the interface is totally incorrect..... :damn:

btw, if they aren't using TASM then what are they using?

[Kapitan]

crappy harpoons TASM's are a good missile more so than the shipwreck and sunburn but it too lacks range speed and warhead to do major damage to a carrier or cruiser or even destroyer.
id rather go to sea with a gun than a pee shooter and thats what a harpoon is pee shooter

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

the sonar screens are almost true copies (even down to the cream colour) and they do use the SSAZ version of display however they are trying out waterful displays (have been for about 8 years now) but only gepard has it so im told.

Interesting. One has to wonder why ... the FRAZ narrowband presentation is very good (makes one rely on the narrowband more than otherwise), but the SSAZ broadband is not as good for showing the effects of long integration, which degrades the usable sensitivity of the array (it can hear it, barely, but you can't see it).

And why is a Tomahawk a better weapon than the Shipwreck. Weight for weight it is superior (you can have 3-4 Tomahawks for the weight of a Shipwreck IIRC), but the Shipwreck flies faster and has a bigger warhead, and supposedly even has a jammer - a drone rather than a missile in a sense.

[Kapitan]

when i ment on TASM i was meaning its more accurate its CEP is less than a shipwrech

true is the russian ASM missiles 10 years ahead of any other western achivement to date and true again is the fact they they are a bigger threat than america says

[Deathblow]

Will you guys stop hijacking my thread :shifty:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Will you guys stop hijacking my thread :shifty:

Sorry 'bout that. Got a little carried away as soon as I heard that the guy had been on a real Russian submarine - just don't meet this kind every day, you know. Sorry. ;)

[Kapitan]

PM or email me if you want

[TLAM Strike]

crappy harpoons TASM's are a good missile more so than the shipwreck and sunburn but it too lacks range speed and warhead to do major damage to a carrier or cruiser or even destroyer.
id rather go to sea with a gun than a pee shooter and thats what a harpoon is pee shooterSilly Kapitain...
Example from yesterday, I was fighting a PLAN taskforce of 1 Sovermenny DDG and four other warships (one had SAMs) plus 6 LSTs. Out of 12 TASMs 2 got past their air defenses sinking two LSTs. I then fired four Harpoons, all four made it through sinking a Sovermenny and an LST. Compared to the TASM the Harpoon is much stealthier, warhead doesn’t matter if the missile gets shot down. ;)

[LuftWolf]

If you edit weapons you have to remember that:

1) you can't change the object referenced by the interface

2) you can't change the type of the object: torpedoes have to stay torpedoes, missiles have to stay missiles, etc.

3) if you change the weapons for playables, it effects all platforms to which that weapon is assigned. In order to change a playable weapon without changing the non-playable weapon, you can make a copy of the object and entity and give it all the same parameters of the original and then assign it manually to the launchers of the individual platforms that you want to use the original weapon.

[LuftWolf]

If you edit weapons you have to remember that:

1) you can't change the object referenced by the interface

2) you can't change the type of the object: torpedoes have to stay torpedoes, missiles have to stay missiles, etc.

3) if you change the weapons for playables, it effects all platforms to which that weapon is assigned. In order to change a playable weapon without changing the non-playable weapon, you can make a copy of the object and entity and give it all the same parameters of the original and then assign it manually to the launchers of the individual platforms that you want to use the original weapon.

[Deathblow]

:damn:

If anyone *does* figure out which lines of the dll. are the ones we need to modify to adjust weapons capacity and weapon selection, please feel free to PM me... as I would be very interested in modding the weaponloadout of the playables for my own use.:yep:

... as the game itself is growing quite tiresome and its pretty much the potential to modify the games as seen fit that keeps me interested...

On a side note:

I've recently read that US Subs no longer carry either the Harpoon *or* the TASM..... and if that's the case.... what are they carrying? :hmm:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssn-688.htm

[TLAM Strike]

On a side note:

I've recently read that US Subs no longer carry either the Harpoon *or* the TASM..... and if that's the case.... what are they carrying? :hmm:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssn-688.htm MK 48s, TLAMs and Mines.