LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[LuftWolf]

Yeah, I accidently left the rudder at hard left while I went back to firecontrol to snapshot... I thought we did fire on the first torpedo?... I was WAY too busy flipping switches, entering values, and repeating back order calls to have a clear memory of the events. It's a good thing the Captain had a clear head and remembers.

Thanks Mike, for the fantastic dives as well!

Cheers,
David

[darksythe]

Hehe clear head..... right??? Um thats my job isnt it. Lol j/k i think we all did a excellent job especially considering the time we started the mission and the time we ended. gulp... 0300-0830 est.

[LuftWolf]

Not to mention 11:00pm-2:30am for the sinking of the Nimitz.

[darksythe]

Shhh... thats supposed to be a secret untill you do the AAr lol j/k stay tuned for that AAr to folks its just as good maybe even better. :|\

[Bellman]

Ok guys - looks as if you have me triangulated.

There is no substitute for MP experience and I am aware of the severe limitations on my SP testing without a dual PC setup. :P

I sha'nt waste any more time 'tilting at windmills' - probably displacement activity from head banging 'triggers'

I will sort out my router for MP access one day.

[darksythe]

Hope you get it sorted out soon wed love to see you in game with us. If you need any help im willing to give it a try. I hve some networking experience especillay with stubborn routers

[Bellman]

Thanks that would be great

I nearly got into a game with Luftwolf testing the mod last week.
HL was fine but multi players was'nt on (my end) so LW and I atttempted a 1 v 1 start.
No luck - he could see me 'ready' at launch point (I think) but that was it. We didnt persist as others were waiting patiently to join.

[Bellman]

Dont suppose you are available for HL now ?

[LuftWolf]

Bellman, since you were able to connect to my lobby, but not to the lobby of the game with multiple people, your configuration may be rejecting connections to multiple computers. However, that night, things were rather confused in terms of what was working and what wasn't working with everyones' systems, so it may not have even been you.

Let us know when you are available to play, darksythe's system is very friendly for multiplaying, so I think trying to connect to his lobby would be a good test of your system.

I apologize for that night, things were rather confusing all around, I think.

[darksythe]

I wish i was available to play right now but im at work tomorrow i will be on HL advertising games all day though (I host str8 ip i dont like HL myself) so i hope to see you there!

[Bellman]

That is encouraging LW.

NP the other night I was keen not to log-jam the game start for others.

I can fit in with you guys anytime. I am GMT + 1.

Would appreciate any help to get under way as SP isnt doing it for me.

[Bellman]

OK fine Darksythe I will look out for you.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Tgio

I've seen a collision between a Tico and an Arleight Burke escorting the carrier in the last campaign mission . Is possible to make they avoid each other using the doctrine language?

Originally Posted by Amizaur

I would say that it's possible.... but this would require HUGE doctrine that would track position and courses of all ships in proximity and checked all the time if there is collision danger and then ordered emergency maneuvers... which could lead to another collision ect. :/. Any idea for simple algoritm that would check if there is collision danger ?....

Amizaur, there is a script instruction =>
collision avoidance.
It works quite fine
On each mission I make, I always use an initialization trigger calling a script where I used collision avoidance and pathfinding for all plateform susceptible of needing this (sometimes on more than 20 plateforms !).
I could say it works 95% of the time.

On one recent MP mission, a WASP was on a collision road with a freigther, I was in the OHP and my human helo (Darksythe maybe ? I couldn't remember exactly who he was, sorry ...) told me : "there is going be a collision problem !"
I told him : it is supposed to be managed with the script (and I crossed fingers)
And the Helo said : you right, I can see the WASP manoeuvering well to avoid the collision.
So it REALLY looks like it works quite well.

I saw more collision problem inside a formation than with independant ship vs indepedant ship I must admit.
Sometimes, when a formation is engaged, some ships could collide with ships of their group.
But it's really not that often if you use collision avoidance script.

[darksythe]

I was in the mission but i was the sub.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by compressioncut

The depth of the array definitely appears to be taken into account in the acoustic model, and that is borne out in the fact that ownship signature can move down the array the deeper you place it. Also, I have a couple of simple CZ detection missions where array depth will affect POD.

Yes, that's a fact, and that's why, for example, a nuke sub need to go above 7 knts to make a TMA merged on TA and SA.
If the sub go slower when recording LOBs, the depth difference beetween TA (falling deep) and SA (above the level of TA) will conduct to a quite difficult and inaccurate TMA.
If you go 7 knts and over, your TMA could be VERY accurate, but under 7knts, TMA will be corrupted and sometimes totally innacurate.
Same if you stay just above a layer => if you let your TA falling in the other layer, TMA will be totally innacurate.

This let me remember I started a TMA tutorial 1 month ago, and need to complete it ...