LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[Amizaur]

OK, will test this on the same map! If there were no surface targets close you should be blasted out of the water even on surface, so maybe you found a bug thanks !

P.S.It was a bug default ceiling was set by mistake to -100ft instead of -10ft.

[Tgio]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

Take a look at P-3 in flight with binoculars, and tell me if the propellers are flying around the plane for you too, I curious

I've re-played the mission (South China sea, i think), same thing. Then I've done a test mission with a P3 flying arond me, and its prop were right. This is not a big broblem, I can live with it... In fact your P3's "swinging propellers" is worst . My notebook is a (old ) Sony Vaio PCG-FR315B, with a ATI IGP 345M. Using ATI latest drivers (modded with DHmodTool). Maybe I will restore Omegadrivers next time.

Regarding your torpedo doctrine, for me is a 2 thumbs up

. I've learned to stay away from surface two days ago, when I've seen SSMs from a Knox pointing my conning tower

Cheers

[Kapitan]

anyone cure this

i left harbour 5 days ago now was it 5 days ago ??? i cant remember some where around that time any way and as i was leaving port i have to pass through a shipping lane to get to the ice pack.

i do it submerged and not at very fast speeds about 11 knots or so anyways periodicaly i have to come to PD to use radar and esm masts to get a fix on ships in the area and how close they are i assend to 18 meters speed 4 knots and yet this time round my radar just wouldnt work the mast was fine just wouldnt show any contacts yet my periscope did pick ships up only 2 miles away and my radar was on a middle level setting

any cures guys ?

[Molon Labe]

Well, in the spirit of going after definite issues/bugs as opposed to things that need more testing to evaluate properly, let's talk AEGIS.

Performance has improved only slightly. I believe you made two modifications: First, improving the ability of the ships to detect and attack the missiles; and second, salvoing two missiles at high priority (fast and close) targets.

The second is working, the first is not. Engagement range is the familiar 10 miles (To compare, AI FFG's are engaging at closer to 15). The missiles are supersonic by this point, so there is usually only time for one salvo; the 2nd salvo can be fired but does not get down in time.

The AI SAM operators are also having trouble with their priorities. Having already decided to engage a flight of subsonic missiles at 10 miles, when those second stages fire, the operators continue their salvoes at the boosters instead of engaging the supersonic weapons first. Is there a doctrine fix for this?

All in all, Burkes and Ticos are still getting slaughtered instead of protecting the fleet. A better engagement doctrine would help a bit, so would an extended engagement range. If realistic detection range is only 10nm, would it be possible for the ship to fire using link data, and having the SM-2 use terminal active guidance instead of semi-active? If we can get E-2's linking missiles properly (In DW 1.01 they don't), then the E-2+AEGIS combination should be able to do the job right. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

The issue of why AEGIS ships only fire under 10nm is mystery that we have been trying to solve.

Amizaur has looked at the issue closely in the recent past (and in fact created the new CIWS doctrine included in the distribution) and was unable to find the reason, the AEGIS ship are detecting the missiles at range I believe but even if they were specifically instructed to fire at longer ranges in the doctrine they didn't.

We are again looking at this issue.

[LuftWolf]

I have added increased CM effectiveness to the list above, as it stands now they will be returned to 50% effectiveness up from current 40% effectiveness.

[Deathblow]

I'ld like to say that I think the documentation provided with the mod was great! Seemed all inclusive to me and loved the red comments to note any considerations that should be taken into account. What more could be added? Seemed like everything was covered great to me.

As far is requested features for new versions: Randomized search depths for AI ASW torps, to put them below the layer sometimes :|\

[Deathblow]

Sonar profiles may be too quiet now. Was testing the new sound profiles and was completely unable to detect an Akula II 1500meters off my bow with a SW.

Akula was heading 220 @ 4kts. I was in a SW 1500 meters east of him heading 220 @ 4kts with TB-29 deployed. Had truth on to test things out. Could not pick the akula up on any sensors at all. Not the TA, Hull Array, or Spherical. Broadband or Narrowband

The velocity profiles may be too quiet now for gameplay. Can anyone confirm a similar test?

db

[Neutrino 123]

I think the velocity profiles are fine, but the starting sound levels are too low in my opinion. I couldn't detect a 1-knot non-improved Kilo in a test I just did at 2.5nm with the TB-23 (sea state 3, both platforms at 150ft).

By the way, if you right-click on a platform in the editor, there is a button that allows you to get the maximum sensor range for each sensor targeting another in-game platform. Unfortunately, this feature doesn't work. I ran a test with fishing boats, one a bit outside and one a bit inside the TB-23 circle, and both of them shows the 50Hz line. If I remember correctly, both showed at least a dotted 125Hz line too...

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Neutrino 123

I think the velocity profiles are fine, but the starting sound levels are too low in my opinion. I couldn't detect a 1-knot non-improved Kilo in a test I just did at 2.5nm with the TB-23 (sea state 3, both platforms at 150ft).

By the way, if you right-click on a platform in the editor, there is a button that allows you to get the maximum sensor range for each sensor targeting another in-game platform. Unfortunately, this feature doesn't work. I ran a test with fishing boats, one a bit outside and one a bit inside the TB-23 circle, and both of them shows the 50Hz line. If I remember correctly, both showed at least a dotted 125Hz line too...

You shouldn't be able to detect an SSK at very low speed without nearly running over it; it isn't generating any noise to detect.

In my experience, 688I's and Akulas are detecting each other at about 7-8 miles at low speeds. Akulas are detecting Seawolves at 5 miles at 35 knots. SW is definitely too quiet, both at low and high speed. 7-8 mile detection for SSNs seems reasonable though.

I bet those range circles represent "hard limits" of the sensors, which have been removed in this mod. Detection ranges are much more dependent on acoustics and contact speed than fixed parameters here...

[Neutrino 123]

Well, a Kilo Improved would have the same amount of noise at 7 knots and an Akula-i at four. Realistically, a stationary Kilo probably shouldn't be detected at that range, but due to limitations in the program, it generates the same amount of noise as a bit less then slow running.

I think used a bad example at first. The question is, should an Akula-i at four knots or a Kilo-i at seven be detectable at ultra-close range with TB-23? I would think so. I would also hazard a guess that with the current values, a stationary Seawolf and maybe a Kilo-i cannot be detected at any range with any passive sensor, making HF active more useful against it...

Exactly where is the noise to DW noise level conversion? Maybe it was posted before, but I must have missed it (sorry if this is so).

Edit: I did another test, and couldn't detect a Kilo-i moving seven knots at ~370 yards with the TB-23. Acousitc conditions were the same as above (subs at 150 feet, bottom limited, total depth a bit less then 300 feet).

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Neutrino 123

Well, a Kilo Improved would have the same amount of noise at 7 knots and an Akula-i at four. Realistically, a stationary Kilo probably shouldn't be detected at that range, but due to limitations in the program, it generates the same amount of noise as a bit less then slow running.

I think used a bad example at first. The question is, should an Akula-i at four knots or a Kilo-i at seven be detectable at ultra-close range with TB-23? I would think so. I would also hazard a guess that with the current values, a stationary Seawolf and maybe a Kilo-i cannot be detected at any range with any passive sensor, making HF active more useful against it...

Exactly where is the noise to DW noise level conversion? Maybe it was posted before, but I must have missed it (sorry if this is so).

Edit: I did another test, and couldn't detect a Kilo-i moving seven knots at ~370 yards with the TB-23. Acousitc conditions were the same as above (subs at 150 feet, bottom limited, total depth a bit less then 300 feet).

At 7 knots, I would think it should be detectable from a rather short distance, but in your first post you said 1 knot.

I'd try it in open water. Bottom limited environments, especially in shallow water, should make sonar performance very crappy. Although I think 370 yards with no detection is a little too crappy. It's weird though, I've detected Kilo-I's with the mod at similar speeds with a VLAD at 2nm.....time for some testing.

EDIT: Just tested it. Drove a 688I vs a 7-knot Kilo-I. Bottom limited, 300ft, rock bottom, sea state 3, both boats at 150ft.

I started them out 5 nm apart, I detected the Kilo imediately upon turning the TA to bear on target. 2 LINES! I ran off, the 2nd line dissapeared at 7.0nm, and the first line faded out at 11.4nm.

This Kilo plodding along at 7 knots is in crappy water is more detectable than a Seawolf at 35 knots in good conditions! I'd say tweaking is in order, but not in your direction!

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Just tested it. Drove a 688I vs a 7-knot Kilo-I. Bottom limited, 300ft, rock bottom, sea state 3, both boats at 150ft.

I started them out 5 nm apart, I detected the Kilo imediately upon turning the TA to bear on target. 2 LINES! I ran off, the 2nd line dissapeared at 7.0nm, and the first line faded out at 11.4nm.

This Kilo plodding along at 7 knots is in crappy water is more detectable than a Seawolf at 35 knots in good conditions! I'd say tweaking is in order, but not in your direction!

Strange the inconsistent results we are all getting. Perhaps try a muddy bottom?

[Neutrino 123]

Whoops, my initial tests were flawed. I placed the Kilos relative to the ship, which meant they were out of the TA arc. I redid the test, and the Kilo-i at seven knots was easily detectable at 1.5nm. This didn't seem to be consistant with my results from the campaign I'm playing, so I did another test to be sure. A Pelmidia TA detected the second line of a 3-knot LA at 1.5nm.

Well, now I am not sure about the detection ranges, but do have one suggestion. As far as I know, the Kilo and Kilo-i are very similar, with the main differance being a new propellor and better quieting equipment for the Kilo-i. At low speeds, wouldn't these differences tend toward zero? Perhaps they should have much closer starting sound levels, but give the regular Kilo a much steeper sound-speed profile (rough example: change the Kilo to start at 56 and increase sound level by one for every knot).

I think I'll just learn the calculations for detection. Now where did Jamie post that formula?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Neutrino 123

Whoops, my initial tests were flawed. I placed the Kilos relative to the ship, which meant they were out of the TA arc. I redid the test, and the Kilo-i at seven knots was easily detectable at 1.5nm. This didn't seem to be consistant with my results from the campaign I'm playing, so I did another test to be sure. A Pelmidia TA detected the second line of a 3-knot LA at 1.5nm.

Well, now I am not sure about the detection ranges, but do have one suggestion. As far as I know, the Kilo and Kilo-i are very similar, with the main differance being a new propellor and better quieting equipment for the Kilo-i. At low speeds, wouldn't these differences tend toward zero? Perhaps they should have much closer starting sound levels, but give the regular Kilo a much steeper sound-speed profile (rough example: change the Kilo to start at 56 and increase sound level by one for every knot).

I think I'll just learn the calculations for detection. Now where did Jamie post that formula?

That sounds reasonable to me.

So, Amizaur, if you're listening, how bout a real low starting NL for both Kilos, but the Kilo-I's curve is a bit flatter than the regular Kilo?