Patch Suggestions (Monitored by Sonalysts) - Page 8

Furia · 12-19-2005, 12:57 PM

There is no reason torps cannot be droped from such higer altitudes.
They have a retarding chute to stabilize them and basically they will enter the water the same speed droped from 1000 feet than from 10000.
Or you think a parachutist that drops from 10000 feet on free fall goes faster than one that does it from 5000?
Of course it is not realistic to do so, mostly because there is really no need to do so because nobody expects subs to use SAM as first defence everyday and so effectively.

Molon Labe · 12-19-2005, 07:43 PM

Let's model the chutes then. =)

MaHuJa · 12-20-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Let's model the chutes then. =)

They are in, they're just not displayed in 3d. Ever noticed how the torps slow their fall just before entering the water?

There is the fact that they would probably enter rather vertically though.

MaHuJa · 12-20-2005, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fandango

I thought about that but the point is that I have it "mirrored"...

Fandangos "problem" is that the narrowband spherical classification is slaved to the hull/TA sonars - essentially, the identificator works based on the composite data of all three sonars. Unfortunately there's no way to get the lines from all of them on the screen at the same time. If there are TA lines, but no spherical lines, it will base the spherical ID on the mirror direction by the TA lines.

I don't remember if this was merely undocumented or if the problem is not reading the manual, though.

goldorak · 12-20-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Let's model the chutes then. =)

No, Oneshot is correct the game has to be balanced even by using non real life tactics.
Either we resolve at the same time the "cheats" of the p-3 with the "cheats" of the subs or else nothing is done.
Right now the subs have certain "advantages/cheats" so does the p-3.
They compensate one against the other.

Molon Labe · 12-20-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaHuJa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Let's model the chutes then. =)

They are in, they're just not displayed in 3d. Ever noticed how the torps slow their fall just before entering the water?

There is the fact that they would probably enter rather vertically though.

Yeah, they'd bleed of their forward velocity quite quickly, and the "lob" wouldn't be possible. (unless the wind carried it...)

Molon Labe · 12-20-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldorak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Let's model the chutes then. =)

No, Oneshot is correct the game has to be balanced even by using non real life tactics.
Either we resolve at the same time the "cheats" of the p-3 with the "cheats" of the subs or else nothing is done.
Right now the subs have certain "advantages/cheats" so does the p-3.
They compensate one against the other.

Playing a game where torps are lobbed with perfect accuraccy miles away is about as much fun as playing a game where you have to sit at PD all day in order to survive. Even if this cheat did create balance--and it doesn't--it wouldn't be justifed because it ruins any possibility of having a fun game. The solution is to add limitations/disincentives to SAM usage, not to add more un-realism on top of the problem! That just makes it worse!

Fandango · 12-26-2005, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaHuJa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fandango

I thought about that but the point is that I have it "mirrored"...

Fandangos "problem" is that the narrowband spherical classification is slaved to the hull/TA sonars - essentially, the identificator works based on the composite data of all three sonars. Unfortunately there's no way to get the lines from all of them on the screen at the same time. If there are TA lines, but no spherical lines, it will base the spherical ID on the mirror direction by the TA lines.

I don't remember if this was merely undocumented or if the problem is not reading the manual, though.

Thanx for the explaination Mahuja...

Apocal · 12-26-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

CIWS:

You know, it really sucks when you want to put your CIWS on auto, but then it shoots at both incoming vampires, and SAMs coming from your own ships that are trying to shoot down the vamps... especially since if both a threat missile and a SAM are around, it always shoots at the SAM, and the vamp gets though. So, let's have a "threat axis" option for the CIWS. You assign a direction, and every incoming within say, 60-90 degress of that axis gets engaged, and incoming missiles from other directions are allowed to pass.

I agree totally. CIWS has something of the same problem in real life and in real life the solution is the same as you proposed. Except you can control how wide the axis is, if it's relative to your position or fixed to a certain point, speed before becoming a "candidate" for CIWS etc.

MaHuJa · 12-27-2005, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaHuJa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Let's model the chutes then. =)

They are in, they're just not displayed in 3d. Ever noticed how the torps slow their fall just before entering the water?

There is the fact that they would probably enter rather vertically though.

Yeah, they'd bleed of their forward velocity quite quickly, and the "lob" wouldn't be possible. (unless the wind carried it...)

If the chute deployed immediately, yes. But as long as it doesn't, it's a heavy object vs little drag against the air. It's only the last few hundred feet (of altitude) or so (when the chute is deployed) that would be vertical.

On the other hand, lobbing buoys - they don't have the chutes, so it's rather likely that they would hit the water hard - perhaps too hard.
(Those tend to fly 15nm+ and switch to the "deployed" "mushroom" midair)

Pirate · 12-28-2005, 09:31 AM

Would like to sugest the water sound for sam station at the subs. Like it is heard at the FFG!

Wim Libaers · 12-28-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

CIWS:

You know, it really sucks when you want to put your CIWS on auto, but then it shoots at both incoming vampires, and SAMs coming from your own ships that are trying to shoot down the vamps... especially since if both a threat missile and a SAM are around, it always shoots at the SAM, and the vamp gets though. So, let's have a "threat axis" option for the CIWS. You assign a direction, and every incoming within say, 60-90 degress of that axis gets engaged, and incoming missiles from other directions are allowed to pass.

I agree totally. CIWS has something of the same problem in real life and in real life the solution is the same as you proposed. Except you can control how wide the axis is, if it's relative to your position or fixed to a certain point, speed before becoming a "candidate" for CIWS etc.

Given that the radar can use doppler shift to determine if something is approaching or leaving you, it would make sense to just set it to attack only approaching targets.

MaHuJa · 12-29-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wim Libaers

Given that the radar can use doppler shift to determine if something is approaching or leaving you, it would make sense to just set it to attack only approaching targets.

Problem is when it's approaching from the other side - as in SAMs launched by friendly ships at missiles incoming at you. (own ships != own ship)

MuscleBob.Buffpants · 01-01-2006, 09:20 PM

The chute on the torpedo is a retarder only. It is designed to ensure that the torpedo hits the water at the right angle - if it is too flat it will possibly damage the torpedo, too steep and the transducer suffers.

I has involved with torpedo trials, including hover drops from up to 1000' which were fine for jettison, but the torpedo would have been too badly damaged for normal use.

All in all, the airborne stores side of things isn't well modelled. There should be some way of viewing the output from the Maverick seeker. It will lock onto any heat source - this would help dissuade sub drivers from thinking they are SAM sites.

How about visual detection of subs at periscope depth? Is that modelled at all?

Deathblow · 01-03-2006, 09:23 PM

The development team should look at AI sub behavior in the littorals. More often than not a sub that is torp evading in waters less than 600ft deep will bottom out. None are managing their depth correctly and all will eventually become stuck to the bottom. This was happening even before the 1.03beta patch so its most likely a doctrine error than anything.

12-28-2005, 09:31 AM	#116
Pirate Commander Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 475 Downloads: 21 Uploads: 0	Would like to sugest the water sound for sam station at the subs. Like it is heard at the FFG! __________________ If Pirates had Subs, back in the old days... Geoblog Portal Webvortix

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-19-2005, 12:57 PM	#106
Furia Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Spain Posts: 659 Downloads: 50 Uploads: 0	There is no reason torps cannot be droped from such higer altitudes. They have a retarding chute to stabilize them and basically they will enter the water the same speed droped from 1000 feet than from 10000. Or you think a parachutist that drops from 10000 feet on free fall goes faster than one that does it from 5000? Of course it is not realistic to do so, mostly because there is really no need to do so because nobody expects subs to use SAM as first defence everyday and so effectively.

12-19-2005, 07:43 PM	#107
Molon Labe Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,461 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Let's model the chutes then. =)

01-01-2006, 09:20 PM	#119
MuscleBob.Buffpants Seaman Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 40 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The chute on the torpedo is a retarder only. It is designed to ensure that the torpedo hits the water at the right angle - if it is too flat it will possibly damage the torpedo, too steep and the transducer suffers. I has involved with torpedo trials, including hover drops from up to 1000' which were fine for jettison, but the torpedo would have been too badly damaged for normal use. All in all, the airborne stores side of things isn't well modelled. There should be some way of viewing the output from the Maverick seeker. It will lock onto any heat source - this would help dissuade sub drivers from thinking they are SAM sites. How about visual detection of subs at periscope depth? Is that modelled at all?

01-03-2006, 09:23 PM	#120
Deathblow Captain Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 521 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The development team should look at AI sub behavior in the littorals. More often than not a sub that is torp evading in waters less than 600ft deep will bottom out. None are managing their depth correctly and all will eventually become stuck to the bottom. This was happening even before the 1.03beta patch so its most likely a doctrine error than anything.