And still is. When I worked at IMF in Bangor, WA, I worked in the TA shop, and there is still (best of my knowledge) a collection of shark teeth that have been pulled from TB-16 arrays over the years. They sometimes still come home with arrays that have been torn to shreds.

This makes sense to me... or barring that, set up the scenarios to ensure adequate depth for the TA droop (assuming that they are modeling that) to keep it off the bottom of any problem you may be in.

My experience with the 'clip-on' array was fairly limited... for obvious reasons, we didn't like to put that thing out. The risk in both deployment and retrieval was not insignificant. By the time I hit my second OHIO, they were all but already gone and replaced by inboard TB-23 deployment systems, so I can't really speak to how well those systems handled high speed ops, just the ones in use for the '16 and '23.

And yes. Shark bites are, were, and will likely always be a problem with Towed Arrays.

The towed array already stops working if you're less than 200ft off the bottom, the assumption being it is being dragged. Now you can abstract that as it being retrieved if you want to, since it does not actually render (still haven't figured out a way to do so that doesn't have huge issues). Disallowing the array because shallow waters, I don't particularily feel like penalizing the player just because combat takes place in the shallows.

People are already having trouble understanding why running into enemy groups at flank speed starts them off in a disadvantageous position in combat.

Yeah I completely get where you're coming from, and understand why you wouldn't want something like that wasn't really what I had in mind to completely disallow it, just give the player some control over its state heading into combat, much like you can pick your engagement range or go over your torpedo load-out / tube configuration.

I hate to always keep looking back to it (since it is a different game) but, I was just figuring that the TA would be done somewhere along the same lines as Sub Command / DW where you could stream it or reel it in as needed.

I may be in the minority here as well but, while I'd like to see the TA, not being able to really doesn't bother me too much because I think even if we could visualize it, it may not be easy for it to look "natural" (as in all kinds of abrupt angles vs. something that is floating with slack in it)

All kinds of abrupt angles is what I remember the TA looking like in DW...

Oh, one suggestion. I don't know if it's been changed lately, but it'd be nice if campaign missions began with a weak, possibly faded contact in the bearing the engagement screen showed. Distance could be completely off, but I'd like but a direction.

Can't remember how many times I've started a mission in a hurry, forgetting to check the contact's bearing on the aforementioned screen and then having no clue where to look once in-mission. May not be much of an issue aboard a Los Angeles, but it's a completely different scenario driving a Skipjack in '68. Particularly against enemy subs.

It's an issue with the '88s as well. I've done that same thing a number of times as well. A reviewable message log might address that problem as well.

Wasn't the original mod of the NT-37 completed by 1967? Basically just a Mk37 with Otto fuel engine... effective range of 15,000y at 36knt. If that thing was available I wouldn't even consider the Mk45. In a "SHTF" cold war gone hot scenario such a weapon (or field mods) would likely be fast-tracked if it was deemed that current weapons were behind the curve.

Website with some decent info on post-ww2 US torps:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php

EDIT: Scratch that, just found documentation stating that the Mk37 was being tested with the otto fuel engine in 1968... so at the start of the in-game 1968 campaign it wouldn't have even come close to deployment even with rising tensions pushing development.

Well there are a few things here. You are correct the 37C was under testing until 1973, but from what I've read it wasn't really favored by the Navy because full-scale procurement probably would have jeopardized the Mk 48 program which was vastly more capable (and probably quite a bit more expensive).

The other thing is, the 37C was designed as a kit, to be shipped out as parts and installed on existing Mk 37 torpedoes either pier-side or probably even aboard tenders (vs sending whole weapons back to the manufacturer). On top of this a lot of the parts it used (namely the engine of the Mk 46) was stuff that was already in inventory. Not to say that they could have had it done in a weekend but I think that they could have had it out before 73 had they felt they needed to.

There was also a guidance update that came along with the otto engine and while this was probably a good improvement over the Mk 37, I think if that had been omitted it probably would have reduced the development time as well.

Check this update info about 1.07! Greats news!

Quote:

Version 1.07

:up:

And this:
Towed array displayed in 3D, ability to extend and withdraw.:yeah:

Version 1.07b is now available on the beta branch. See this thread for more info:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210...7632740192385/

Yes! AMAZING WORK! Look and listen incredible! Thanks! :up::up::up::up::up::up:

Auto-steering has arrived. Since it has arrived, I decided I might as well try it. It's nice to see that at least there are still real advantages to steering the thing by yourself, since the automatic control is not very aggressive (even for large depth changes it only goes up to about 10 degree planes or so) so you probably aren't going to dodge torps that way. I also like the fact the auto-recovery functionality is not very good, so you can't expect it to save you from your own aggressive maneuvers with any efficiency.

But since we are having a set course tooltip that doubles as a bearing counter anyway, perhaps it can also have range to the selected point?

Great changes!

absolutely love the changes so far, after just one quick mission, thanks!