LWAMI vs. 1.04 ini files CMs

[Dr.Sid]

How does LWAMI combine with new 1.04 ini options concerning torpedoes exploding on CM ?

[Molon Labe]

The .ini controls.

[Bellman]

Well before testing torp search, acquisition and terminal behaviour in LWAMI 3.06 I wish to see whether, if at all, spoofing is implemented. I am hoping to find that this feature remains unchanged from earlier LWAMI versions as my preference will be for a 'Nil' setting for torp explosions on CMs.

[Molon Labe]

The spoofing isn't changed from stock 1.04. If the .ini is set to 0, then it also isn't changed from earlier lw/ami versions + 1.03.

[Bellman]

Thanks ML. :ping::cool:

[Bellman]

Tested and confirmed spoofing @ nil exploding. Torps very aggressively prosecute new search after burning through CM/s. So perhaps an element of 'exploding' in ini. is required - play experience will indicate.

Observed a 53cm UGST loop verticaly to kill despite defensive extreme manouvres. Maybe a 3D glitch(?) but she scored. :o

[Molon Labe]

The torps too seem to love to go vertical after going through a decoy in 1.04. They ususally straighten themselves out.

[LuftWolf]

Well before testing torp search, acquisition and terminal behaviour in LWAMI 3.06 I wish to see whether, if at all, spoofing is implemented. I am hoping to find that this feature remains unchanged from earlier LWAMI versions as my preference will be for a 'Nil' setting for torp explosions on CMs.

I took out the checks so players could deside for themselves, since I figured that would be appreciated. Also working on the idea that if this had been the condition with DW in the first place, those checks wouldn't have been implimented, so it seems to make engineering sense.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I'm going to have to put the checks back in, and then I'll recommend players use the 100% .ini setting, since the setting affects the NIXIE whereas the mod leaves it alone.

So, I've got to put the checks in to make the NIXIE useful again.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

I'm going to have to put the checks back in, and then I'll recommend players use the 100% .ini setting, since the setting affects the NIXIE whereas the mod leaves it alone.

So, I've got to put the checks in to make the NIXIE useful again.

Cheers,
David


Luftwolf,

Does this mean that from version 3.06 onwards the torpedos will 100% NOT explode on the CM ?
Irrespective of what is set in the .ini file ?
I think that having 100% not exploding torpedos is a little too much, how about leaving 25-30% probability of explosion on cm. ?
:hmm:

[Molon Labe]

I'm going to have to put the checks back in, and then I'll recommend players use the 100% .ini setting, since the setting affects the NIXIE whereas the mod leaves it alone.

So, I've got to put the checks in to make the NIXIE useful again.

Cheers,
David

Luftwolf,

Does this mean that from version 3.06 onwards the torpedos will 100% NOT explode on the CM ?
Irrespective of what is set in the .ini file ?
I think that having 100% not exploding torpedos is a little too much, how about leaving 25-30% probability of explosion on cm. ?
:hmm:

The ini unforutnately controls both the Nixie and expendible CMs equally. The problem is that they probably shouldn't. expendable CMs in all likelihood do not have enough magnetic sigature or whatever else it takes to detonate a torp, while the Nixie could concievably have the ship's power plant available to run an electromagnetic system.

We know one possible solution is to put the "checks" back in the doctrine that take the expendable CM's out of the control of the .ini. Perhaps it is also possible to do the same thing with the Nixie (LW? is it?)

Either way, there's a tradeoff.
Assuming both are an option, I would cut out the CM's while allowing the .ini to control the Nixie.

[goldorak]

Ok, I understand its not so much an issue of realism as it is of problem with the game engine.
Are we really sure that modern subs (seawolf, akula etc..) don't carry sophisticated CM that can detonate a torpedo ?
Would it be possibile to mod different CM for the different submarines ?
So that Kilo for instance would have basic CM but 3rd generation subs would have more sophisticated CM, with a little probability (20%-25%) of detonating a torpedo ?

[Molon Labe]

Ok, I understand its not so much an issue of realism as it is of problem with the game engine.
Are we really sure that modern subs (seawolf, akula etc..) don't carry sophisticated CM that can detonate a torpedo ?
Would it be possibile to mod different CM for the different submarines ?
So that Kilo for instance would have basic CM but 3rd generation subs would have more sophisticated CM, with a little probability (20%-25%) of detonating a torpedo ?
We aren't [sure that expendable CM's can't detonate torps]. But that is the concern underlying this.
That's what's so great about the ini control. It lets us chose for ourselves since there is no winning this argument. But, SCS did not consider the Nixie problem, so that puts LW in a tough spot.

There is no way that the CMs will be FIXED at 20-25%. If it is removed from .ini control, it will be 0. That's why I'm asking LW if the Nixie could be removed from .ini control instead (doing the fix backwards). If that's possible, then you can still get .ini control over expendable CMs. (although I would "vote" the other way)

[goldorak]

Thanks for clearing up the issue ML.

[Molon Labe]

Thanks for clearing up the issue ML.

You're welcome.