LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[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 ...

[darksythe]

I am definatly looking forward to that TMA Guide. Same as briefs if you need proof reading done on your english conversion(im assuming there'll be an english conversion. ) i can lend a hand.

[Amizaur]

OKO, do you mean that you can't get accurate TMA only by merging SA and Towed under 7kts ? Or maybe that you can't get very accurate TMA at all (even from Towed only) at under 7kts ? In second case I suspect TMA would be shifted a little but still accurate bacause all readings come from same source ?

[darksythe]

i have been wondering are the TA contacts reported in relation to the end of the TA it self or computed on board and in relation to ownship?

[LuftWolf]

The TA contacts seem to come from some bearing off of the sub, so I guess it's either at the end or the somewhere in the middle, probably the end since that is where the TA facing is calculated in the sonar station (why you can be going straight forever after a sharp turn and only see the TA start to come around very quickly at the end).

If it's at the end, then the longer TA lengths for the TB-23 and TB-29 (added courtesy of Periscope Depth's cable length mod in the LWAMI meta-mod v2.0 and higher) give the player an advantage in possible quick triangulation with the sphere or hull arrays for close contacts, although I wouldn't trust this result too much, just a quick heurtistic if you need it for a quick resolution or TMA solution check.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

OKO, do you mean that you can't get accurate TMA only by merging SA and Towed under 7kts ? Or maybe that you can't get very accurate TMA at all (even from Towed only) at under 7kts ? In second case I suspect TMA would be shifted a little but still accurate bacause all readings come from same source ?

hoho ... you make me think you give new length to the TA, and hope this won't affect this problem ...

TMA is not shifted.
You could tought it is, because of side effects, but I can assure you it isn't.
During beta test, I spent around 100 hours on TMA, during 3 month, diging it everyway, because the thing was totally buggy at first LOL.
dot stack was inverted and shifted, time scale was shifted etc etc etc, lots of things.
I even made ~ 6 or 7 movies to show the problems.
And Sonalysts worked hard on this problem, especially Renee.I think I gave him quite few new white hairs ... LOL
I was always unsatisfied, each time Renée changed new settings.

But they finally released a real jewel of accuracy, after long, technical but very professional work..

But, to make a good TMA, there is lots of factor to respect :
no change of depth/course/speed during LOB recording, and 7 knts or more.
If you respect this, you can have a TMA around 2% of error with only 3 LOBs -so a bit more than 4 minutes of LOBs recording in good conditions- (merged TA and SA) and ~ 5% with only one sensor, on 6 LOBs (real minimum) -so around 10 minutes of LOB recording in good conditions-.

On Hull array, there is a beam wander effect if your contact is close to the edge of the sensor, so the most accurate TMA with the hull (especially the conformal of the KILO, the main tool for TMA on this platform) is made when the target is at 270° or 90°
recording LOBs coming from your 320 or 40 or 140 or 220 will give you corrupted LOBs, leading you to a VERY difficult, and anyway corrupted TMA.
Distance to the contact will be VERY hard to find in this case, and often lead to a missevaluation that could be twice, or half, the real values on the contact range. No TMA possible in this situation.

This is the usual problems encounter to makes good TMA on DW, on both nukes and KILOs.

I will need to test what happen with your longer TA ... (I rarely play nukes on MP matches, except on sub matches, so I didn't tried it with your new values)
I scare a bit for the Akula, because 7 knts was the minimum AND the maximum speed to make a correct TMA whith conserving the best detection capabilities, when the 688i could do the same until 14 knts, and the Seawolf 15 knts.
I hope with a longer TA (I'm not sure you also lengthened the TA of the Akula ...) the Akula won't have his TA falling down, in deeper water and by the fact corrupting the TMA.
I will test tomorrow and report.

cheers !

[LuftWolf]

The length of the Pelamida has been increased from, I think, 301m to 701m.

7kts for TMA... yikes! Well at least the Gepard won't have to worry about such a narrow restriction, as the Pelamida II has max speed of 14 kts, leading to max 100% effective speed around 10kts. Not much more, but it helps!

[OKO]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The length of the Pelamida has been increased from, I think, 301m to 701m.

7kts for TMA... yikes! Well at least the Gepard won't have to worry about such a narrow restriction, as the Pelamida II has max speed of 14 kts, leading to max 100% effective speed around 10kts. Not much more, but it helps!

Anyway, once you tracked the target, you could follow it on the TA until 10 knts (even if the TA looks washed out, the data still record), but this will kill you detection capabilities during LOBs recording.
I will see tomorrow with test if there is a new problem here.
crossing fingers

[LuftWolf]

I'm not clear on the interaction between TA length and TMA error, all other conditions being equal.

Can you give me some insight as to what a potental problem might be so I can do some testing as well?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I'm not clear on the interaction between TA length and TMA error, all other conditions being equal.

Can you give me some insight as to what a potental problem might be so I can do some testing as well?

I think he means this:

If you are performing manual TMA with a contact that has been detected by both the sphere and TA, the LOB the TA generates may be warped because it has drifted so far down that the direction the sound is striking the sensor from is different.

So, if this is correct, don't stream your TA the whole way unless you need to (dipping it under a layer). I never do anywho.

[LuftWolf]

ARGH! I've been busy...

Everyone who has sent me a PM or email and my MP and fleet partners, expect to hear from me tomorrow.

Cheers,
David