LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[Molon Labe]

Did some testing in the FFG.

Active sonar works beautifully!

Audio pings are NOT audible at maximum display range.
No audio or visual returns were present until I had a Kilo at side aspect at ~7 miles. At that point, there was a clear audio return, but I had to hunt for a visual. At the same time, there was a Kilo that was closer, at angled aspect at about 5 miles. It did not generate a return until it tured to show side aspect.

The only thing I would change would be to increase the visual returns that come along with the audio. Since audio returns are not being generated at max range, there is no need to remove them.

I see tactics starting to mean something again! Keep up the good work.

In other news:

RAM SAMs are now about 33% effective against subsonic ASMs.
AI surface units seem less aggressive in engaging other surface contacts with ASMs. This needs further evaluation before it is "solid."

The SS-N-27 appears to be working as intended. Unfortunately, the bug with the FFG not plotting a radar contact properly is still occuring; it may even be worse--a fast moving contact I bracketed resulted in an SM-2 hitting a fishing boat. I'm not sure this can be modded away...

The AI is enabling the -27 about 4 miles from the target.

The 53-56KE Wakehomer will now cripple a Harper's Ferry LSD with a single hit, two will sink it. (I think it used to take four).

The TEST torpedo is now attracted to destroyed ships, but does not detonate on them. One TEST began to persue the launching platform shortly before the sunken ship dissapeared.

[Bellman]

Luftwolf and Amizaur have made one small request in the 2.0 Readme namely:-

Please send as much feedback as you can via the dedicated thread on the www.subsim.com main forum,
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...=41581&start=0.

Mmmmm :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

AEGIS ships still aren't doing too well against the SS-N-27. They engage the booster stages first, while the terminal stage continues on unmolested!

[LuftWolf]

Thanks for hosting our mod again Bill!



Hmm... took me a minute to notice this had been moved to the mod workshop. That's fine, but I'm a little surprised. :hmm:

To the moderator who moved this thread: Yes, this is a mod, but don't you think it has generated enough "general" interest to be in the main DW forum? :hmm:

Especially since non-subsim members can't access this forum.

Can this thread be moved back or can we have an explanation beyond "It's a mod"? No problem either way, I'm just wondering.

[LuftWolf]

I am up to my ears in work for the next day or so, and then I will be able to make individual responses to everyone who has posted feedback, but for now, I just want to say thank you to everybody.

Cheers,
David

[Dr.Sid]

Is there any reference used for this or do guys just think US must be able to bend laws of physics ?

[Dr.Sid]

Yet one thing .. with all MASSIVE respect to modders .. WHY THE HELL did you include readme in that BEEP BEEP DOC format ? Even if we are all supposted to have windows, do we have to lick Bill's BEEP by using that BEEP BEEP MS Word ? Don't you guys know html or something like that ?

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I can answer Molon's first post.

Torpedo performance:
Mark 50: Acquired easily when dropped "on the head"
A shank shot from side aspect 3 miles away did not acquire when facing the target.
Mark 54: Acquired easily from 2 miles from angled aspect

Although the database is hardset with particular values for seekers, depending on sound propagation conditions, the actual seeker range for any given shot could be a little more or a little less. I don't know, but it could have something to do with the same reason why the layers have a greater effect, we turned down the volumn so to speak to the input on the torpedo seekers, so more subtle engine effects are able to come out. Or it could be a bug... I dunno but I can't imagine every mk50 torpedo ever fired acquired its target at exactly the same range so the same with our mod.

***Potential bug***
I usually don't drive P-3's, and I've been away for awhile, so can some P-3 driver please confirm this? (This is using the default loadout)
------
The Mark 54 still displays at the Mark 46 on the P-3s TACCO station. In addition, some odd behavior was observed. After assigning a weapon to a waypoint, a menu appeared on the display asking to assign another weapon. Not doing so would cause the waypoint to be deleted upon exiting the TACCO station. Even if the Mark 50 station below a Mark 54 station was empty, the Mark 54 station was (usually) not visible on this menu. When a Mark 46(54) was selected and assigned to a waypoint successfully, the torpedo was not released upon arrival at the drop point.

The Mark 54 could still be dropped manually using the Fire button at TACCO.

I'm pretty certain that nothing we've done has anything to do with interface issues, as the change of the mk46 to mk54 involved nothing but specifications, the essential game object is the same. In fact, we CAN'T change it any other way, the game is hardcoded for user platform weapons and database changes such as swapping out objects for user platforms doesn't work. However, we can change the specifications. It's the same process used for the 53cm/USGT and the Two Stage SS-N-27. That is also why we can't change the names in game (that's in the interface I believe).

For best results with the P-3 Loadout, I think its best to load individual racks (top and bottom of a single rack) with the same weapons. I think my basic ASW torpedo loadout for P-3 now in anything but deep deep hunting or very shallow hunting is two Mk50's and six Mk54's, if I can count right.

[LuftWolf]

I sense some hostility Dr. Sid.

Engineering is making the laws of physics work for you.

The game is an abstraction and so everything is relative, although I don't really know what you are talking about, just guessing.

In terms of the readme, that's why we posted it here as well. I'm glad we have a place like Subsim.

[XabbaRus]

I would advise against using feedback on the ADCAPS.

Thomas tried it with SCX and it caused more problems than it solved, eg merging contacts with Auto TMA.

How big is this mod as I am back on crappy dialup until I get my ADSL back

[LuftWolf]

The 53-56KE Wakehomer will now cripple a Harper's Ferry LSD with a single hit, two will sink it. (I think it used to take four).

Molon, are you sure?

Unless the modification to doctrine causes the damage to be modelled differently which is unlikely (I was thinking perhaps that a delayed torpedo detonation on a ship may be somehow modelled as the missing "under keel detonation" but that's farfetched I think), the number of torpedos needed should be the same, as both the warhead of the torpedo and the survivability of the Harper's Ferry have been left unaltered. It should take three 53-56k(e) to sink the HF LSD.

[LuftWolf]

How big is this mod as I am back on crappy dialup until I get my ADSL back

342kb.

I would especially appreciate your feedback.

I think perhaps you have a point about the ADCAP's, however, it's value may be worth it. We especially want feedback about this feature.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Yet one thing .. with all MASSIVE respect to modders .. WHY THE HELL did you include readme in that BEEP BEEP DOC format ? Even if we are all supposted to have windows, do we have to lick Bill's BEEP by using that BEEP BEEP MS Word ? Don't you guys know html or something like that ?

No, you don't
www.openoffice.org

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Molon, are you sure?

Unless the modification to doctrine causes the damage to be modelled differently which is unlikely (I was thinking perhaps that a delayed torpedo detonation on a ship may be somehow modelled as the missing "under keel detonation" but that's farfetched I think), the number of torpedos needed should be the same, as both the warhead of the torpedo and the survivability of the Harper's Ferry have been left unaltered. It should take three 53-56k(e) to sink the HF LSD.

It is possible that there were two torpedoes fired simultaneously and appeared as one object. If you haven't changed anything, than I'm probably wrong. (In fact, I think the ship sent three damage report messages)

About the seekers on the torps from your prior response....I didn't observe any problems. Acquiring from 2 miles was a bit further than I expected, though but that's consistent with the unmodded game.

[LuftWolf]

2nm is well beyond the specification range of the seeker modelled for the mk50/54, whose stated range is 2300m or around 1.25nm, however that can very for conditions and target type/aspect.

I was just playing around with one of my test scenarios and the Mk50/54 pick up the Gepard around 1.25nm from an angled aspect, perhaps if you were shooting at a large ship from the side, that range could be increased? :hmm: Are you sure of the measurements?

In any case, I think I agree with you and don't feel it's a problem.