Improvements?

[shipkiller1]

I have played over 300 hours now. At least one scenario a day...

I am up to date with all the pushed updates.

A couple of things that 'may' still need to be addressed.

1. Large surface combatants should slow after taking a torpedo. There is no conceivable way for the Kiev, Moskva or Kirov to be able to do 30kts after one torpedo hit. Even if the propulsion system is unaffected by the direct explosion (not very likely), the very large hole in side of the ship will cause it to be at least 15-20 knots slower just due to drag. In fact, going faster than 10kts will cause more damage.... Same for the Typhoon.... they need to slow way down or go DIW. Also, the radiated flow noise levels should go way up due to the damage, unless they are DIW, then the radiated noise levels should go down.
I am not sure how the damage algorithm works so I do not know if it is possible to modify it this late into development.

2. 637's and 688's can and do launch torpedoes at flank. There is no detrimental effects to the launcher or the weapon... but of course, you will loose the wire. I stopped complaining about the wires and just fixed that issue myself...


3. Not enough counter-fire from the Soviet side. At a minimum, 50% of the time, counter-fire down the bearing of the incoming torpedo.

4. Airborne sonar buoy's are just a little too good at detection vs. real world performance. Game play, in many cases has a six inch hydrophone having better performance than a three meter array on a submerged platform... and with the airborne asset having to do the processing itself.... that dog wont hunt...

5. The TMA algorithm still is extremely bad when regaining a contact after a short interval (less than 5 min), especially when taking a contact through the baffles. It changes the solution way too much. I would prefer that when sonar looses a contact the solution stays the same, does not ghost out the contact and just generates out until contact is regained. Then a good TMA operator/algorithm will use that at a base line and go from there.

I personally dropped the MK-48 acoustic performance back a bit from the default values.. the detection ranges were a bit too long, except in a perfect isovelocity sonar environment.

[-Pv-]

1 = total agreement

3 = Note sure ASW helos lack processing power to compete with towed array performance.

5 = Agree degraded solutions should project along last known course and speed. However, Ghosting is needed to inform the player the contact is not currently 100% reliable in addition to the percentage readout.
I get the impression based on comments in the past, several players do not like the contact jumping around to unreasonably random solutions when it is lost after near 100%. A contact which never got above 80% then lost could have a reasonable ghosting error due to not very good contact to begin with.
-Pv-

[ETR3(SS)]

5= CEP. I think that would work well, for a 95-100% contact for sure.

[shipkiller1]

Originally Posted by -Pv-

1 = total agreement

3 = Note sure ASW helos lack processing power to compete with towed array performance.

5 = Agree degraded solutions should project along last known course and speed. However, Ghosting is needed to inform the player the contact is not currently 100% reliable in addition to the percentage readout.
I get the impression based on comments in the past, several players do not like the contact jumping around to unreasonably random solutions when it is lost after near 100%. A contact which never got above 80% then lost could have a reasonable ghosting error due to not very good contact to begin with.
-Pv-

Back in the time frame of the game, Helos or fixwing aircraft were very limited in the processing they could do. Weight was the biggest factor. Some systems even had to transmit the raw data back to a surface ship to be processed.
The Soviets were only just experimenting with towed arrays back then and not in wide spread use like the US Navy. The Soviets do make very good plainer arrays, it was just the processing power to use those arrays properly was, shall we say, lacking...

Back in the 80's as a mid-grade Fire Control Tech, the primary computer for the FCS and BQQ-5 was the UYK-7 that I worked on. Of course Q5 had a lot of dedicated specific processors for a variety of functions. Then the good old UYK-7 was replaced with a UYK-43, then we got into COTS (commercial off the shelf) equipment. The latest iteration of BYG-1 Fire Control System has 43 dual/quad Intel CPU (XEON's) servers with HUGE amounts of memory. ARCI Sonar has over 75+. No, they do not run Windows...

I am currently in the process of installing the latest/greatest BYG-1 systems on a boat in one of the shipyards.. With the way technology is advancing, we completely remove and replace the entire Combat System on a boat every three to four years...

[Julhelm]

These are all good suggestions. I would be interested in knowing how much you dropped the Mk48 performance.

[Delgard]

I am not sure if I miss it, but knowing how old the last bearing to the target is would help me in my decision-making to fire a weapon. Often, I determine the general direction of movement for the vessels I am encountering so I offset my torpedo bearing several degrees to have a better chance with the torpedo detecting the target when it arrives in the target area.

This would come under my checking with the sonar guys as to the last time detected. In the game, that could just be another item in the contact report when I select that target.

[shipkiller1]

Originally Posted by Delgard

I am not sure if I miss it, but knowing how old the last bearing to the target is would help me in my decision-making to fire a weapon. Often, I determine the general direction of movement for the vessels I am encountering so I offset my torpedo bearing several degrees to have a better chance with the torpedo detecting the target when it arrives in the target area.

This would come under my checking with the sonar guys as to the last time detected. In the game, that could just be another item in the contact report when I select that target.

As with all my suggestions, I do worry about 'feature creep'. Adding too much into the game as to take away from the 'play-ability'.....
While I do not think your suggestion would do this, we as a community need to watch for this...

On a real FCS, all of this information is available, although having the time of the last bearing is of limited use.

How this works in real life:

Sonar stops active track (faded or into baffles). The FCS will generate the contact using the last solution set by the operator. It also start growing the Area of Uncertainty (AOU) and can display this AOU if the operator wishes it. The AOU grows over time.

Now, if you take your contact through the baffles you lose contact for maybe one or two minutes. During this loss, the contact does not warp in or out 10k yards.. and the FCS will not update the system solution without operator intervention. It is up the operator to determine if the displayed or 'trial solution' is good enough to promote to the 'system solution'.

Now this is were this 'feature creep' comes into play... I do not want to have to do TMA (like in DW). I am perfectly content to let the game do you.

Something else, one of the updates had the target solution now being updated by own ships torpedo (provided that the unit was active and the wire was good), but if the torpedo loses track, or goes off after another contact, the game seems to lose or forgets all this data... no way this would happen in real life.. Torpedo data is TRUTH....

I did not want to get into the weeds here but having a Typhoon or Oscar launch a SS-N-16 at me was too much..

The SS-N-16 is a 650mm weapon and can only be launched from those tubes. Not all Soviet submarines have 650mm tubes... Serria's have four 650mm tubes, Victors have 650mm two tubes.... etc. etc..

This is another dumb thing.

You launch a torpedo in passive mode (you really would not do this in real life, exceptions of course) and the contact detects the incoming weapon. (OK so far, but I had to adjust this also. Targets were detecting the weapon WAY too far out....) Now as predicted your target does his torpedo evasion and speeds up.. so, you have a submarine doing flank and can still track an incoming passive weapon?????? an active weapon sure but not a passive weapon.

[-Pv-]

"...so, you have a submarine doing flank and can still track an incoming passive weapon?????? an active weapon sure but not a passive weapon..."

I agree tracking a passive weapon while at flank seems suspicious.

I keep coming back to the existing game mechanic in other posts in that what the AI can/cannot do should also have some reflection on the player ability. Consider your own ability to evade an incoming passive you cannot "see".
If the AI cannot track them, can you?

In order to allow this kind of tracking, have the torps been given super powers to compensate?
-Pv-

[THEBERBSTER]

A Warm Welcome To The Subsim Community > shipkiller1
Subsim <> How To Donate <> See The Benefits <> Support The Community

[Delgard]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

As with all my suggestions, I do worry about 'feature creep'. Adding too much into the game as to take away from the 'play-ability'.....
While I do not think your suggestion would do this, we as a community need to watch for this...

On a real FCS, all of this information is available, although having the time of the last bearing is of limited use.

How this works in real life:

Sonar stops active track (faded or into baffles). The FCS will generate the contact using the last solution set by the operator. It also start growing the Area of Uncertainty (AOU) and can display this AOU if the operator wishes it. The AOU grows over time.

Now, if you take your contact through the baffles you lose contact for maybe one or two minutes. During this loss, the contact does not warp in or out 10k yards.. and the FCS will not update the system solution without operator intervention. It is up the operator to determine if the displayed or 'trial solution' is good enough to promote to the 'system solution'.

Now this is were this 'feature creep' comes into play... I do not want to have to do TMA (like in DW). I am perfectly content to let the game do you.

Something else, one of the updates had the target solution now being updated by own ships torpedo (provided that the unit was active and the wire was good), but if the torpedo loses track, or goes off after another contact, the game seems to lose or forgets all this data... no way this would happen in real life.. Torpedo data is TRUTH....

I did not want to get into the weeds here but having a Typhoon or Oscar launch a SS-N-16 at me was too much..

The SS-N-16 is a 650mm weapon and can only be launched from those tubes. Not all Soviet submarines have 650mm tubes... Serria's have four 650mm tubes, Victors have 650mm two tubes.... etc. etc..

This is another dumb thing.

You launch a torpedo in passive mode (you really would not do this in real life, exceptions of course) and the contact detects the incoming weapon. (OK so far, but I had to adjust this also. Targets were detecting the weapon WAY too far out....) Now as predicted your target does his torpedo evasion and speeds up.. so, you have a submarine doing flank and can still track an incoming passive weapon?????? an active weapon sure but not a passive weapon.

I launch everything in passive mode out to its self-listening (passive) point. The reason I do this is so that I can drive the torpedo in another direction and then turn it towards the target. If the target detects it, it is coming from a direction that I am not at. Hopefully, a helo will follow the track backwards and look for me in the wrong place.

But, the torpedo is now coming from a new direction and I do my own analysis as to when I turn it active. Usually, I am 3-4k and the torpedo sniffs it and heads it in the targets direction. Then I let it go active if my wire is still connected. Throughout the late process the torpedo is sending info back for updating the picture.

Again, I am still amazed that Russian CAPTs don't fire down the torpedo's approach bearing. Usually they are all just running away at the slightest detection of a torpedo or my boat.

I have no respect for those CAPTs. I think I should. Combat commanders don't run. They over come.

[The Bandit]

Originally Posted by Delgard

I launch everything in passive mode out to its self-listening (passive) point. The reason I do this is so that I can drive the torpedo in another direction and then turn it towards the target. If the target detects it, it is coming from a direction that I am not at. Hopefully, a helo will follow the track backwards and look for me in the wrong place.

But, the torpedo is now coming from a new direction and I do my own analysis as to when I turn it active. Usually, I am 3-4k and the torpedo sniffs it and heads it in the targets direction. Then I let it go active if my wire is still connected. Throughout the late process the torpedo is sending info back for updating the picture.

Again, I am still amazed that Russian CAPTs don't fire down the torpedo's approach bearing. Usually they are all just running away at the slightest detection of a torpedo or my boat.

I have no respect for those CAPTs. I think I should. Combat commanders don't run. They over come.

Well there's a good chance I may be mistaken on this but I was always under the impression (maybe its only for the ADCAPs?) that the Mk 48 functioned primarily as a passive/active torpedo, which is to say you would fire it, it would transit to its enable position, turn on and begin searching for a contact passively and then speed up and go active once its target was acquired and use that for the terminal homing phase.

[Bungo_Pete]

there is nothing wrong with feature creep in fact I think that is what will keep this game relevant.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

The SS-N-16 is a 650mm weapon and can only be launched from those tubes. Not all Soviet submarines have 650mm tubes... Serria's have four 650mm tubes, Victors have 650mm two tubes.... etc. etc..

There is actually a 533mm version and a 650mm version (RPK-6 Vodopad and RPK-7 Veter) but both are given the NATO designation SS-N-16 Stallion.

[shipkiller1]

Originally Posted by The Bandit

Well there's a good chance I may be mistaken on this but I was always under the impression (maybe its only for the ADCAPs?) that the Mk 48 functioned primarily as a passive/active torpedo, which is to say you would fire it, it would transit to its enable position, turn on and begin searching for a contact passively and then speed up and go active once its target was acquired and use that for the terminal homing phase.

You are mistaken.

[shipkiller1]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

There is actually a 533mm version and a 650mm version (RPK-6 Vodopad and RPK-7 Veter) but both are given the NATO designation SS-N-16 Stallion.

OK, got it.

A question.
I have no data on this, but it feels wrong that this missile/torpedo combination can be shot at a target 10k (or less) away. 20 or 30k feel as a more realistic minimum standoff distance. Just from the flight profile, 10k or less would not really work.