LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[Bellman]

Tested the 53s under varying conditions and very pleased to report they perform as it 'says on the tin'

Max range depth 150m pre-enabled 25 - 30 nm (Act. 50 knts - Pass. 30 knts)
Max range depth 150m enabled at 20 nm - 26 nm. appx.
Max range depth 300m enabled at 20 nm - 24/5 nm appx.


Nice work -

Now looking very hard at the 65s

[Amizaur]

How could the range vary ??? I spend tens of hours on torpedo tests while developing my torpedo mods and range always was independant from speed and depth. Could this be measurement error ? The only possible explanation for me is the snake pattern...?
Normally in DW preenabled torps would ALWAYS run the same distance, regardles of speed and depth. Enabled torps will travel same true distance (launch two two torps at the same time, one enabled and second preenabled - eventually they will shutdown simultaneously) but the range would be smaller of course... but it's same effect for all in-game torpedos, for both UGST and ADCAP.

[Bellman]

Yes the range was shorter for the torps enabled at 20 nm compared with those that just ran to
20 nm enabled and were immediately prenabled. The snakers all ran less distance.

That seemed pretty real - but if yoiu think I experienced a 'miracle' - try the same test. ***

I got 30 nm from a passive running at 150 m depth and at 30 knts !!!

The range at different depths was so small as to be hardly worth mentioning. ( 1 nm ? - measurement .?)

PS.*** Modus. I marked Nav with launch point and range circles at 20 nm, 25 nm, 27 nm and 30 nm.
The Ak was at 8 knts and the torp launch proceedure only took a minute. The torps were all set to
enable at the same range and monitered so that, where appropriate to the test they
could be prenabled. The self shut-down points for the torps were logged and measured. The game was
accelerated during torp runs but this was a constant factor in all experiments so could not account for differentials.
I ran three separate torp launch tests each of four 53s.

I was glad to find what I did.

[mike_espo]

I have not installed this yet: but I was wondering: with Counter measures working 33% of the time, won't this make things too difficult? I mean, in reality crafty sub skippers use the layer and varying salinity conditions to out fox torpedoes and remain undetected. We have no such thing in DW.

Layer does not help at all in evading torpedoes.

So, countermeasures are the only way to stay alive when detected and attacked.

Am I missing something? :hmm:

thanks

[LuftWolf]

Mike, thanks for your interest in our mod!

You make a good point. Ultimately, any value for CM effectiveness in the absense of good data is a judgement call based on gameplay and "what feels right."

I think everyone pretty much agreed that torps explode on CMs too often (50% detonation of 50% successful torpedo attractions, so 1/4 of the times a CM was used against a torpedo it destroyed it, too often!) and that generally evading torps was too easy as a result.

Now that the effectiveness of the CM's in general has been lowered, torpedo detonation on CM's will only happen around %16.5 of the times a CM is used against a torpedo. Also, since most subs have only two CM launchers, with CM's being only 33% effective, you now have a significantly lower chance of getting lucky and evading a close shot on a detonation, but much better chances at range, a probability curve based on number of CM's launched that I personally feel much more comfortable with now. Also, the enhanced CM system from the SW is a bit more of a gameplay factor, IMHO.

[mike_espo]

Hey Luft! Thanks for the response. Hopefully next patch will correct Layer effects. 33% sounds about right..

Anyway, another thing: What freq should I use to change ohio to make more quiet? Im not sure what the values in DB editor mean...

thanks

[Amizaur]

Ehm, I think 50% torpedos was attracted by CMs and from those 100% detonated on them. So it's rather 50% * 100%

100% detonation of 50% successful torpedo attractions, so 1/2 of the times a CM was used against a torpedo it destroyed

in theory, because I did not statistic research on this phenomena , but I didn't ever see a torpedo that hit a CM and not detonated

[LuftWolf]

Amizaur,

Ah, I had a question about the CM torpedo detonation information. However, I had taken it as a relatively useful bootstrap, as I have seen plenty of torpedos sail past CM's at different depths, so just because a torp goes through the bearing of a CM doesn't mean a detonation, especially for subrocs, airdrops torps, and close shots.

In any case, I think the basic principle is the same, just disregard the exact percentages.

Thanks for the correction.

[LuftWolf]

Mike,

The DB value effects how loud or quiet an object is at given speeds is the Passive Sonar/Sound Level, or Passive SL.

It is listed 2/3 of the way down the list of object parameters on the right side of the screen.

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Amizaur,

Ah, I had a question about the CM torpedo detonation information. However, I had taken it as a relatively useful bootstrap, as I have seen plenty of torpedos sail past CM's at different depths, so just because a torp goes through the bearing of a CM doesn't mean a detonation, especially for subrocs, airdrops torps, and close shots.

and I guess they would not detonate on submarine target if they run past it at different depth so I don't count such event as hit personally

[LuftWolf]

I don't either... I guess the 50% detonation value that has been reported is a misinterpretation of the 50% spoofing chance. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

*Sounds of a chair hitting the floor*

ARE YOU KIDDING???

There are two types of AI sub passive sonar in the game HF passive and LF passive.

A sub will only have one of these two types.

Ok, are you ready? Unless I am reading this wrong, each array only has a 150 degree detection cone, mean ALL AI SUBS ARE BLIND for 210 degrees!?

In addition to that, both sensors are essentially useless anyway.

This is very problematic, even for me.

I think this counts as a high priority fix.

Can someone please tell me I'm wrong about this?

Edit: In looking at this more closely, it seems each array has the same geometry as the Sphere arrays on human controlled subs, that is to say, with a detection arc of 210 degrees and a dead zone of 150 degrees.

I think the best fix would be to give AI subs with towed arrays both a forward and rear facing sensor and ones without just a forward facing sensor, but I'm not sure if the AI could handle two sonars, plus the AI couldn't be made to make course changes required to actively employ the arrays. The most straightforward fix is to give AI subs with TA's a 360 degree sensor with more or less TA like properties, slightly reduced, assuming that this takes into account proper AI array behavior, and to give AI subs without towed arrays a sphere-like array that works for something as opposed to now where they are very very deaf.

This last fix has the advantage from a modeling standpoint of being minimally invasive, I would just make the HF passive sonar more effective by increasing its range, so it's more or less like the Kilo array (as these are typically on older subs anyway) and to change the LF passive sonar to more or less Pelamda TA properties, minus the restriction on cone. This may give the AI subs an advantage, but then again, we want that.

[LuftWolf]

Yes, I am feeling very good about a quick fix for this. It involves changing simple values for those of you who want to fix it now, and not wait for the full modelling treatment that I am now determined to give it for our next version.

I am going to change the "good" AI sonar to have geometry identical to the FFG towed array (the only other passive array modelled without a deadzone, I am using this model to avoid the potential bugs that could come from doing it another way) with sensitivity similiar to Pelamda and max speed near the TB-23 (I have to play with this to see what seems right, since this also effects ships for the time being).

As for the "bad" sonar, for subs without a TA, the geometry will stay the same, but I will make it essentially equal in sensitivity to the Kilo cylindrical array.

I will post the exact values and a instructions on how to make the changes via Ludgar's editor soon.

[LuftWolf]

I think I should mention that in testing the mod, we have found out that for some unknown reason, the ADCAPs run at 63kts.

If you look in the DB, the max speed is set to 60 as is the max on the fire control panel There is no good reason why this should be happening from a database or modding standpoint. The possible explanation available to us is that the physics engine is miscalcuating a thrust value due to the particular parameters (weight, drag, etc) of the ADCAP.

I don't mind, as its said to be able to go even faster for short distances, but I thought I'd let you guys know, as it's now a "known issue" with v1.03.

[Amizaur]

I think that AI subs should have second generic hull sonar added, they should use it without problems, just like AI Akulas or Kilos. Also some subs (like Trafalgar) could get generic towed array. I only don't know if AI subs actually deploy and use towed arrays :hmm:

For 63kts ADCAP - the issue is older than mod, because all faster than 55kts torpedos do some strange things, for example Type-40 torpedo reaches 72-73kts sometimes... their database speed is 65kts.
Have to see what will Japanese Type-89 do, have to provoke a Harusio to fire at me