Alfa Tau 3.1

[Raptor_341]

>> Does anyone have Alfa Tau 3.1, or at least know where to get it. I would like to try the mod but seeing as i cant read Italian, its proving to be harder than i thought.

[Raptor_341]

Used google translate - got the mod. Hope it works

[Castout]

I sent you PM check your subsim inbox

[goldorak]

The mod contains an english readme.

[Raptor_341]

castout i did get your PM, thank you. It worked. Liking what i see in the mod so far ( Much larger options for mission and making them ), my only question is how it the doc and AI? Did they use LWMAI, because its been very good to me. ( AI dipping, no CM torp death, and so on )

[goldorak]

Yes the mod is based on lwami, i don't think it is the latest version of lwami because in alfa tau the frigate's cwis works against missiles launched from 688i whereas it doesn't work in the latest version of lwami.

[Pisces]

Alpha Tau? What is that?

[goldorak]

Alpha Tau? What is that?

Alfa Tau :p and its a mod for very very naughty players. :arrgh!:
Just kidding, its a mod, based on some old version of lwami and with the capability of extending the number of playable units. Its the DW version of SCU to some extent.

[Raptor_341]

anyone know where to find missions for it, or have any good ones. I think ill head back to the forums again.

[goldorak]

anyone know where to find missions for it, or have any good ones. I think ill head back to the forums again.

I think that whatever mission designed for lwami would work without problem in alfa tau. Same thing with dw 1.04 stock missions (although in this case you would have the same problems as if you were using the missions in stock lwami).
Of course if you design new missions (with the new units as playable) they won't play well with lwami, but why would you want to downgrade ?

[Raptor_341]

downgrade?

[goldorak]

downgrade?

If you design a mission with a playable u212 in alfa tau, how are going to play using for instance the lwami mod ? You can't pure and simple.

[Raptor_341]

aye. Ill be making missions for Alfa Tau. We should get more people making missions for Alfa tau, havnt found any yet

[Castout]

castout i did get your PM, thank you. It worked. Liking what i see in the mod so far ( Much larger options for mission and making them ), my only question is how it the doc and AI? Did they use LWMAI, because its been very good to me. ( AI dipping, no CM torp death, and so on )
Alfa Tau is based on LWAMI. In fact you could say Alfa Tau as LWAMI but with added playables and more new 3D models.

The Russian mod reinforce Alert however is a totally different animal than LWAMI and Alfa Tau. Just from doctrinal changes the RA imo far outdone the LWAMI mod.
For instance in RA the ADCAP actually has a steered head seeker which means it's no longer snaking. Some of the Russian torpedoes in RA are equipped with active/passive wakehoming so it's a combination of active/passive homing with a further wake homing guidance just like in actual reality. But RA has got some minor bugs which nothing that I can't live with considering what I get from it. LWAMI and Alfa Tau in the other hand is a very clean add-on in that it is well tested and as far as I know pretty much bugs free.

It's of course up to you to decide which one you prefer to play. I'll be upgrading to broadband hopefully by this week and I'm considering playing multiplayer with DW but with RA I'm totally clueless as whom I would be able to ask to play with me...and i've been using a sound mod that tinkered with the database so even with fellow RA player...ashhh guess I'm stuck with single player.

[SandyCaesar]

Sounds interesting...where might I find this Alfa Tau?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Ditto. Also interested in this "Reinforce Alert".

[Hitman]

Discussion of such mods is not allowed here, gentlemen. Please refer via private messaging to the user who you think can help you with it.

Thanks

[Raptor_341]

Dont go into the "its not allowed BS again". Its a forum, im sure we can talk about it even though its not hosted here, but should be. Alfa Tau is a work of art with along with LWMAI. However, the ADCAP head would be nice to have, maybe someone can mod that into Alfa Tau 3.2 - The link to Alfa Tau is here, you will need to use google translate to read it though if you cant read it. By the way, its has SLBMs that act as real nukes. ( going to make a mission for that )

http://www.forum.maricosom.net/

[Raptor_341]

>> That last post came off hard. I just mean to say that its a open forum, there is nothing wrong with talking about a mod, no matter what is does or SCS says. Personally, im very glad i found it, its part of what normal DW was missing. Im enjoying so far, and finally having the Canadain Navy in game, or at least our submarines.

[goldorak]

Discussion of such mods is not allowed here, gentlemen. Please refer via private messaging to the user who you think can help you with it.

Thanks

If the mod were illegal you'd think SCS or the european publisher (under order from SCS) would have sent a cease and desist letter to the modders years ago when the game still sold in stores. Its not as if they are doing this under the sand.

[MR. Wood]

i wish for more units

[Raptor_341]

Download it - it seems quite worth it, havnt run into anything in the way of bugs yet.

[XabbaRus]

Late picking up on this one.

Tricky question really. A bit like the mod for IL-2.

I suggest just so Neal doesn't have any possible problems you keep it amongst yourselves or refer to it as the mod...

[Raptor_341]

Again, we cant say Alfa Tau....? "The Mod" .

[Ramius]

This might even force me to re-install DW, just to have a look :hmm:

Can't believe someone has taken my username on that site :damn: :damn:



Ramius

[Raptor_341]

> its quite worth it.

[goldorak]

> its quite worth it.

Absolutely, and they are still working on it (maybe in the future ohio and virginia playable units ? :oops: ).

[Bill Nichols]

I just signed up for their forum, I'll be taking a look.

[Castout]

> its quite worth it.
Absolutely, and they are still working on it (maybe in the future ohio and virginia playable units ? :oops: ).

The other mod from Russia got them both as playable along with Typhoon, Delta IV and Oscar II to name a few.;)

[Raptor_341]

by all means, post the link for the russain one. If anyone is interested, including subguru, im going to try to start making missions for Alfa Tau 3.1 and posting them if others want to help, also MP if anyone wants in? There is alot more options for missions with alfa tau.

( Btw, try the SS-14 ( Russian ASROC ), it by chanced saved my life vs a kilo with such ease i almost didnt believe it, never knew how easy it was to get a submarine by dropping a rocket torp on em, better than a helo )

[goldorak]

by all means, post the link for the russain one. If anyone is interested, including subguru, im going to try to start making missions for Alfa Tau 3.1 and posting them if others want to help, also MP if anyone wants in? There is alot more options for missions with alfa tau.

( Btw, try the SS-14 ( Russian ASROC ), it by chanced saved my life vs a kilo with such ease i almost didnt believe it, never knew how easy it was to get a submarine by dropping a rocket torp on em, better than a helo )


Ah yep, the asrocs are one of the better options in alfa tau. :cool:
Nothing more cool than for a frigate junkie to launch a series of asrocs from an udaloy cruiser on top of a 688 or a seawolf. :D
It finally makes surface vessels very deadly for bubbleheads (they have to care about helos and asrocs).

[MR. Wood]

I never have found the russian mod driving a delta would be cool. The Typhoon is cool to drive on alfa tau 3.1, it's cool the rsm's are sweet wipes out a lot with big warhead. need small city model

[suBB]

I never have found the russian mod driving a delta would be cool. The Typhoon is cool to drive on alfa tau 3.1, it's cool the rsm's are sweet wipes out a lot with big warhead. need small city model
As the author and pioneer of MP in-game dynamics, I make MP scenarios, in some instances, that require you to remain covert as possible( i.e. stealth transiting) as part of the objective against live players and varying levels of defenses, where ROE is enforced, yet subject to change based on the situation.

That said, I’d love to take the delta (any sub for that matter) and try my hand …

…on a strike mission using stealth to infiltrate against live players part of ASW operations….

…monitor radio traffic for intelligence updates on target information…

…transit 'quietly' to the firing position…

…fire some missiles, (while compromising my boat), hoping the intelligence RX’ed is accurate…

…disengage….

…attempt to break contact and try to get my *** out of there alive….

Thing is I already have a scenario like this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=129357)(three map set, 1/3 released and playable.) which is currently WIP, and currently is not for Alfa Tau or the other mod.

i've more important things going on these days, but i've been trying to make time to continue with my map set

I think making mission based scenarios for these mods would lead to new ideas in design, and new MP experiences for certain…

:yep:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

> its quite worth it.
Absolutely, and they are still working on it (maybe in the future ohio and virginia playable units ? :oops: ).
The other mod from Russia got them both as playable along with Typhoon, Delta IV and Oscar II to name a few.;)

I'm trying out the Russkie. It is almost touching how much effort is put into making a plausible Shipwreck :D

[MBot]

The thing I wonder, how "new" are those new playable units realy. Or are they just reskins with new attributes?

The thing that defined the playable units most for me are the interfaces , the way they look (because I spend 99% of the time looking at them) and the way they work. Already in stock DW I feel that the subs are too much alike. Apart from the waterfall/circular sonar screen, all subs basicaly work the same way. For my taste there are too few submarine specific systems. If now these mods don't even have different looking interfaces, I would have a hard time to feel like playing a new sub.

How are new systems handled that have no counterpart in current playable units? For example SS-N-14, RBU-6000 or VDS on the Udaloy?

[goldorak]

The thing I wonder, how "new" are those new playable units realy. Or are they just reskins with new attributes?

The thing that defined the playable units most for me are the interfaces , the way they look (because I spend 99% of the time looking at them) and the way they work. Already in stock DW I feel that the subs are too much alike. Apart from the waterfall/circular sonar screen, all subs basicaly work the same way. For my taste there are too few submarine specific systems. If now these mods don't even have different looking interfaces, I would have a hard time to feel like playing a new sub.

How are new systems handled that have no counterpart in current playable units? For example SS-N-14, RBU-6000 or VDS on the Udaloy?

Its the same problem you get with Falcon 4 and its mods. You get to fly many different airplanes, but the cockpit is always that of the Falcon.
With AT 3, yes the interfaces are always those of the default 6 models, but the 3d models are gorgeous, and you can change the weapons loadout etc... so in the end its definitely worth it (at least until ComSubSim comes of age).

[MBot]

Well then I remain sceptical a bit. For the same reason I was never into "look alike" mods in flightsims.

[goldorak]

Well then I remain sceptical a bit. For the same reason I was never into "look alike" mods in flightsims.

I suppose it is your loss.
Until SCS decides to do official add-on packages (and we already know that the probability for such a thing is close to zero), the russian mod or Alfa Tau are the only things that make DW interesting (at least for those that have been playing the game for close to 4 years). The same 6 playable units can only take you so far in single and multiplayer sessions.


Ps: you really think that sub command would still be played if it were not for SCX/SCU, mostly for SCU ? ;)

[OneShot]

Well I see Eye-to-eye with MBot on this ... I could care less for the 3D Modells and having new platforms who are just different on the outside (even with a modified loadout) just doesn't cut it for me. If however there would be truly new platforms preferably with new yet not available capabilities (and to be frank I dont mean the ability to shoot of SLBMs - thats neither useful nor interesting for me) like for instance a working AEGIS platform with all new 2D Station interfaces (which is something I look 99%+ of the time at) I would be all for it. I could even live with new platforms without new capabilites (like russian counterparts to existing platforms) BUT with new interfaces!

There is always this argument about immersion this and immersion that ... quite frankly in DW for me immersion is not the 3D modell at which I look seldom to none but the interface of the stations I have to use ... might just be me but pretending to be in a different platform while pretending to be not in game but the real thing is just not for me.

Bottom line (for me) ... I would prefer a mod with the stuff already in LwAmi and SCX plus all the doctrine stuff and while we are at it the modells from RA and TA without the bogus "new" playable platforms.

[Castout]

I'm trying out the Russkie. It is almost touching how much effort is put into making a plausible Shipwreck :D


For those that downloaded the Russian pack before you say bugs.....
Here's some fix solution and explanation

This will fix missing crew voices for the Chinese Klub capable Kilo

in folder INTERFACES--->Kilo----->file Voice.INI
add the arrowed line:


[DLL_USE_DEFAULT_VOICE] 1
[DLL_VOICE_PREFIX] 241 "R"
[DLL_VOICE_PREFIX] 45 "R"
[DLL_VOICE_PREFIX] 242 "C"
[DLL_VOICE_PREFIX] 72 "C"
[DLL_VOICE_PREFIX] 590 "C" <-----------------
[DLL_VOICE_LOCAL] 1

-------------
all diesel boat at 0 knots are now absolutely silent.
The increase of sound noise is transferred to Thrust. Now it's very very hard to detect a diesel submerged boat just like in RL.
Like almost impossible if they are moving slowly at less than 5 knots. Now you need to use active sonar to find them at slow speed. At full stop they are virtually silent emitting no noise so I've been told.
--------------
The towed array for the 688 flight 1 is known to hang off the hull. Fix I've been told will be provided in future update that may include a totally new sonar station for the Gepard SSN.
--------------
The ADCAP and speafish preferable launch speed is 40-50 knots the lower the bigger the chance of the seeker head to detect target as it is now rotating and no longer snaking. launching the ADCAP at 55 knots will lessen the chance of acquiring a target. I used to think the effectiveness of this weapon was miserable but after launching it properly well it's effective alright.
--------------
The launching speed of the 53-65K(KE) is a minimum 44 knots and a maximum 45 knots. This is intentionaland is not a bug.
--------------
Many of the torpedoes in RA is provided with signature(unique doctrine) so they'll behave differently from the others.
--------------
The NB display in the LADA SSK is almost useless. this is a known bug
--------------
The Alfa interface sfx is using engine.wav from the Kilo so it sounds like being in a diesel sub when manning the stations. You can easily fix this by extracting engine.wav from other SSN interfaces' sfx.agg and replace the file in the Alfa sfx.agg.
--------------
Get Hyperacoustic sound mod from www.subguru.com (http://www.subguru.com) to play with the RA it will add the immersion considerably. Use SCSoundedit and DW_Edit to use the mod properly.

[Raptor_341]

I understand what you mean OneShot, sure, i wish i had a real inside for each new ship, but Alfa Tau adds so many more options. Right now the number if MP and SP mission ideas in my head just x10 with Alfa Tau. They really did a good job with what they had to work with. So you put up with the same looking desk in your new ships, but the speed, model, senors, and weapons a new to it so it evens out in the end.

> SubBB, if you would like help on making some missions, im just starting in it, and there needs to be alot more missions for Alfa Tau around sub sim to help make it more in the open, and get people in to making them. Also, anyone interested in MP? I would like to try my hand at a few human captains

[MR. Wood]

Anyone know the address for the russian mod site ?

[Castout]

Well I have the link but I don't know whether that is the newst version. I've got a what I think as the newer version. who is here with broadband connection that is willing to send the RA files to everyone that ask?

I'll give my email and password to that man to download it but he must promise me to send it to anyone who ask for the files. Please don't upload it to somewhere. I don't think the author would be pleased it it's uploaded to a public server.

[Bill Nichols]

Uploading to my site now. I'll post links when the u/l is complete.

[MR. Wood]

Uploading to my site now. I'll post links when the u/l is complete.


Bill you rock

[SandyCaesar]

:rock::rock:Subguru!

[suBB]

Uploading to my site now. I'll post links when the u/l is complete.

pwnage!!! :arrgh!:

[Bill Nichols]

Here they are:

Reinforce Alert:

http://www.subguru.com/RA_OPFOR_PACK.rar

http://www.subguru.com/error_fix_ra-opfor-pack.rar

Alfa Tau:

http://www.subguru.com/AlfaTau3-1.exe


Mind you, I haven't tried either of the above mods, so can't say anything about how good they are or if they are/are not consistent with Sonalysts' "fair use" policy.

:|\\

[Castout]

Uploading to my site now. I'll post links when the u/l is complete.


Btw is there any difference between the files that I helped XabbaRus get and the link that you provided Bill?

My RA files are 70Mb(10 parts of 7Mb each)
The link that you provided is about 50+Mb.

[Castout]

Mind you, I haven't tried either of the above mods, so can't say anything about how good they are or if they are/are not consistent with Sonalysts' "fair use" policy.

:|\\

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil :rotfl:

[Raptor_341]

So far ive only tried Alfa Tau - and it looks from the RA readme to be the one i will be using as it has more navys and units, but RA does seem to have a few things i would like to try, maybe later this weekend. I think ill be making missions for Alfa Tau next week. Report back on both.

[SandyCaesar]

Hmm...at first glance OpFor/RA does not appear to be JSGME friendly. Can someone please confirm this?

[Castout]

Hmm...at first glance OpFor/RA does not appear to be JSGME friendly. Can someone please confirm this?
it's not using JSGME it is installed without JSGME just execute the .bat file and you are ready to go. just like in SCX I think.

[Raptor_341]

No, its not JSGME friendly. Therefore you will need to completely wipe after your done with testing it. Another reason Alfa Tau should be better to use for us here at subsim, but im going to give it a shot on my other PC this weekend to be sure.

[MR. Wood]

russian one keeps ctd ing i did s directed

[Raptor_341]

all i really wanted to try in RA was the nuke depth charge, the rest alfa tau has. Save the Ohio.

[MR. Wood]

yeah i got it to work if you have vista make sure you run the program in windows xp sp 2 got it to work great db by the way
thanks to all

[PeriscopeDepth]

Thanks for hosting Bill!

Grazi, spasiba to the respective creators!

PD

[MR. Wood]

It's wounderfull being the ohio ssbn, delta, and the db that came with just great some units have new panels like alfa fc and delta vls . I wounder if there is a way to merge alfa tau and russian mod with LWAMI that would be i'm lost for words:sunny: :rock: :up: :D

[Raptor_341]

As far as i know Alfa Tau is based on LWAMI, feels the same, just new units. Tried RA, like the new controls on some, but overall i feel Alfa Tau will work the best making future missions, that and i finally have the Canadain Navy in. Look for missions by me in the future, if subguru will be kind enough to host.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

For those that downloaded the Russian pack before you say bugs.....
Here's some fix solution and explanation

Is there an explanation for the depth control of the Oscar? I got it to periscope depth just fine, but that's the end of my luck. When I try to dive the thing (to 100m or to 300m, no difference), at about 40-50m the planes start moving funny and the sub starts bobbing around at 40-50m.

The problem does not seem to affect other platforms, but it is truly annoying.

[Castout]

Is there an explanation for the depth control of the Oscar? I got it to periscope depth just fine, but that's the end of my luck. When I try to dive the thing (to 100m or to 300m, no difference), at about 40-50m the planes start moving funny and the sub starts bobbing around at 40-50m.

The problem does not seem to affect other platforms, but it is truly annoying.
well i noticed all subs tend to bob up and down when trying to go to periscope depth and almost reaching that depth. Logically the bobbing will also happen when you try to change depth at high speed or changing minimal depth at high speed.

Perhaps using a lower speed might minimize the bobbing up and down. Personally I rather like the bobbing up and down. I think the modders changed the physical model of submerged object. The bobbing is there in LWAMI too but as far as I remember not in stock.

My suggestion is to give RA at least a week of gameplay before getting rid of it. It's advisable to try the Alfa Tau first for a month so that you exhausted all the playable paltforms and then switch to try RA.

I just saw a youtube clip of an actual Victor III class SSN. The clip even showed the interior of the Victor III. And I saw the exactly same circular BB display with GREEN signal color :rotfl: just like the color in RA. Of course the station was 3D the display was encased in a glass with black background. Oh how much I want to have 3D stations for a game like DW(modern naval/sub simulation).

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

well i noticed all subs tend to bob up and down when trying to go to periscope depth and almost reaching that depth. Logically the bobbing will also happen when you try to change depth at high speed or changing minimal depth at high speed.
I tried 5 knots. I tried flank...

Perhaps using a lower speed might minimize the bobbing up and down. Personally I rather like the bobbing up and down. I think the modders changed the physical model of submerged object. The bobbing is there in LWAMI too but as far as I remember not in stock.
It isn't so much the BOBBING I mind, if the Oscar eventually makes it through the bobbing depth. However, it shows no sign of doing so. I just shafted the turn radius from 1200 to 800. Now instead of bobbing out of control at 40-50m now it is 85-90! Either way, I can't get to the depths I've set, which still won't be too bad had DW had a way to manually set the planes and ballast tanks so I can force my Oscar through the bad depth.

I just saw a youtube clip of an actual Victor III class SSN. The clip even showed the interior of the Victor III. And I saw the exactly same circular BB display with GREEN signal color :rotfl: just like the color in RA. Of course the station was 3D the display was encased in a glass with black background. Oh how much I want to have 3D stations for a game like DW(modern naval/sub simulation).

That explains why they changed the red for green. They also did some cute stuff to some of the interfaces. But for some reason, neither the Italians or the Russians could resolve the problem of making the Perry's SSM system handle more than 4 missiles :D

[goldorak]

Is there a way to install the RA mod without compromising other mods already present such as lwami and alfa tau ?
I really don't want to create a separate install only for RA. :hmm:

[Castout]

I was going to propose separate install.....well.....

[goldorak]

I was going to propose separate install.....well.....

Don't get me wrong, its not as if I won't install the mod.
Its just that I would have preferred to have everything under one install, more tidy that way.
I was thinking, to make it compatibile with jgsme we could proceed like this : install RA on a new DW 1.04. Afterwards copy all the relevant directories in a folder named RA.
Now take this folder RA and put it inside the mods folder of your primary dw installation (the one that contains jgsme, lwami, alfa tau, etc..).
Activate the mod. Voila', join the russian side.

[Castout]

I was going to propose separate install.....well.....
Don't get me wrong, its not as if I won't install the mod.
Its just that I would have preferred to have everything under one install, more tidy that way.
I was thinking, to make it compatibile with jgsme we could proceed like this : install RA on a new DW 1.04. Afterwards copy all the relevant directories in a folder named RA.
Now take this folder RA and put it inside the mods folder of your primary dw installation (the one that contains jgsme, lwami, alfa tau, etc..).
Activate the mod. Voila', join the russian side.

A little complicated at first but probably a smart solution to have RA to be JSGME compatible.

[Castout]

double post

[goldorak]

A little complicated at first but probably a smart solution to have RA to be JSGME compatible.


Ok I did it. There was no sense in installing a second time DW, I just copied the DW installation folder into another partition and installed the RA mod over there.
Then I copied back the relevant folders into my primary dw install. It works. Kudos to the russian modders, I like how every sub has subtle changes and the missile launch panels are GREAT !!! :cool:

Now I tried very quickly all the units, and I get a crash only when I select the russian helo KA-something. Can somebody confirm this please ?

[Castout]

A little complicated at first but probably a smart solution to have RA to be JSGME compatible.

Ok I did it. There was no sense in installing a second time DW, I just copied the DW installation folder into another partition and installed the RA mod over there.
Then I copied back the relevant folders into my primary dw install. It works. Kudos to the russian modders, I like how every sub has subtle changes and the missile launch panels are GREAT !!! :cool:

Now I tried very quickly all the units, and I get a crash only when I select the russian helo KA-something. Can somebody confirm this please ?

I believe that version causes CTD when you try to play the helo and or the Tu-95 plane. It's been a long time I already forgot about it. I'm playing with newer version with working helo and Tu-95 as well as a working playable Typhoon.

[goldorak]

I believe that version causes CTD when you try to play the helo and or the Tu-95 plane. It's been a long time I already forgot about it. I'm playing with newer version with working helo and Tu-95 as well as a working playable Typhoon.


:shifty: why don't we have the updated mod on subguru ? :nope:
I downloaded two files, the mod RA and a second file that contained the fixes. Is this not sufficient ?

Ps: i get the crash only with the helo. The Tu-95 works ok.

[Raptor_341]

>> We should get the updated files. My RA from subguru seems to be working fine so far, but i havnt tested the k27. Everything else seems good,, and dare i say after a little testing, almost better than alfa tau, but its still early. They have the Halifax class FFG, but they dont know their Canadain Naval very well, the model isnt right but :up: for at least trying to get it in there, mostly. Alot of new units as with Alfa Tau, not sure which has more. But now im stuck with one to stick with and get the rest of you to make missions for :arrgh!:, and for myself. More surface options in alfa tau, also more "rounded" where as RA is highly russian. Even crew voices, which im not fully a fan off because its nice to know what they are saying, although im sure the modders thought the same thing about english.

> Before i or anyone sets to work on missions and such, i thing that "we" ( the subsim forums and people ) should find out which is the best overall, so that we have missions that 90 of us can use not that we start making missions for RA, Alfa tau and all all at once. That is if anyone is interested in making more and posting them as i am for Alfa Tau.

> And last but not least, which has the better doc and AI? I know Alfa Tau is based on LWAMI, so its good, but im not sure about RA. Like the rest of you, i want only the best in my simulations.

[goldorak]

Man my head is getting dizzy. The alfa tau mod has the italian units which are not present in RA. On the other hand the interfaces on the russian mod are better than those in alfa tau (take for instance the udaloy !! ).
Damn we have to combine these 2 fine mods and call it DWXXX :rotfl:

[MR. Wood]

Russian mod no crash for me with helo or other units so far. It looks like the db is from scx:up: Would like typhoon like alfa tau but like all mods so far

[goldorak]

Russian mod no crash for me with helo or other units so far. It looks like the db is from scx:up: Would like typhoon like alfa tau but like all mods so far

Did you try the russian helo ?

[Raptor_341]

I second the motion of DWXXX mod. Girls, SLBMs, and ADCAP torps, what more could you want? :arrgh!:

[MBot]

I had a look at RA. I can't comment on the doctrine and DB stuff yet, as I only looked at the new playables. The mods looks fun with some interesting adjustments to the interface. Still it often feels a little "frankensteinish". The subs are often ok as long as the plattform is similar to the one it is based on. The Udaloy is quite a strech. I can see myselfe diving for example the Victor III, but on the other hand with only minor changes and the interface of the Akula you have to wonder why not to drive the Akula in the first place.
While I applaude the work that was put into the mod, for me personally it can not replace a high-quality official addon.

I noticed there are loads of new 3d model, including all my models from SCX. It is nice to see that stuff in DW again.

[Bill Nichols]

I believe that version causes CTD when you try to play the helo and or the Tu-95 plane. It's been a long time I already forgot about it. I'm playing with newer version with working helo and Tu-95 as well as a working playable Typhoon.


:shifty: why don't we have the updated mod on subguru ? :nope:
I downloaded two files, the mod RA and a second file that contained the fixes. Is this not sufficient ?

Ps: i get the crash only with the helo. The Tu-95 works ok.


The files I uploaded are from a website Castout pointed me to. If there is a newer version, I don't have it.

[MR. Wood]

yep i checked out the helo work ok the bear turns badly at slow speed.


Putting ra mod in mod folder did that make it ok for just give me???

[goldorak]

I had a look at RA. I can't comment on the doctrine and DB stuff yet, as I only looked at the new playables. The mods looks fun with some interesting adjustments to the interface. Still it often feels a little "frankensteinish". The subs are often ok as long as the plattform is similar to the one it is based on. The Udaloy is quite a strech. I can see myselfe diving for example the Victor III, but on the other hand with only minor changes and the interface of the Akula you have to wonder why not to drive the Akula in the first place.


Lets say you're designing a "cold war scenario" where akula were simply not available.
Or trying to recreate a mission based on some book where akulas are not mentioned, etc... There are lots of reasons to play a victor-iii even if it is very similar to an akula.


While I applaude the work that was put into the mod, for me personally it can not replace a high-quality official addon.

I noticed there are loads of new 3d model, including all my models from SCX. It is nice to see that stuff in DW again.


I think that everyone agrees with you on this point.
But in the meantime (maybe those 2 mods will "push" SCS to develop an official add-on, who know ?), I'll be having a blast playing on the udaloy and giving hell time to the bubbleheads. :lol:
The greatest thing would be to adopt either mod for multiplayer games, for instance the games scheduled on CADC website could use it. Now wouldn't that be cool ? :|\\

[goldorak]

yep i checked out the helo work ok the bear turns badly at slow speed.


Putting ra mod in mod folder did that make it ok for just give me???


:o very strange, for me on the other hand every time I select the russian helo I have a ctd.
Initially I tried to put the mod directly into the JGSME mod folder and use JGSME but it didn't work so I tried the other more complex way. It works albeit with the helo problem. :damn:

[suBB]

From a mission objective design perspective:

Hands down, this mod addresses a lot of design issues I face(d) in the MP map set I’m working on.

With units that compliment the western platforms, I could have reduced testing, coding and troubleshooting by 2/3!!!!!! And would have had this map set released by now!!
A great deal of time was spent coding AI to be smart, aggressive, tactical and to be just as responsive as humans and to compensate for lack of platforms.

I guess the AT mod accomplishes the same, even though AT can also reduce my mission design by 2/3, the RA mod seems to be more stable than AT3.1 and my understanding is AT3.1 is still WIP.

I can promise you that if I started from scratch and redesign the map set I’m working on (3 maps) for RA, I could have it done 5 times faster than where I am currently for LWAMi, I’m seriously considering redesign pending test results.

The presences of boomers from both sides fall directly in line with my criteria for MP covert / stealth transiting missions, which won’t just be single missions, but part of a series of MP maps tied to the same scenario. Kapitan knows where I’ve been heading with this and the RA mod makes it possible.

I guess in RA we’ll have to get use to some things like:

-Various modes of ordinance operation. I appreciate this because as an akula driver I choose load out based on tube assignment, leaving controllable weapons and ones I desire to reload assigned to inner tubes, expendable weapons and additional salvos in outer tubes. but RA gives you more flexability in this area(i think)

-UUV modes of operation, including a TV camera!!!!. I can use that for deep sea S&R / retrieval missions, which is also part of another design in the future. I haven’t fully tested the RA uuv just yet.

-UUV performance appears to be returned to normal compared to being toned down in LWAMI. I’m on the fence about this. With the UUV sensitivity restored, I’ve heard its like having a mobile tb-29. I’m sure the SSP would also be a contributing factor to uuv effectiveness in RA. Also, the fact that UUVS don’t generate TIWS could be a problem for a scenario that includes transiting – that’s a TBD. I’m sure uuv sensitivity will be welcomed in MP.

However, the fact that launch transients aren’t detectable doesn’t seem realistic. :down: i've yet to read about anything in details were transients were detectable. I’ve yet to test this but I assume this is true for RA. If so, I’d like to see transients detectable.

Castouts’ workaround of Liquidfuses’ hyper acoustics mod sounds like a must have for the hard-core crowd, which allows you to hear the screws of various submarines on BB. Since it can be worked around for DW, I think that is definitely a must have for any mod.

Some things I need to test / conclude in RA:

1.. AI – fighting force or fodder?. lwami made them beefy, I guess AT has done the same. I’ll also need to create some test scenario where I make AI efficient and monitor the efficiency.

2.. SSP – I need to test SSP performance. So far the layers seem to work in SD. I was pretty happy with lwami. But If RA is at least that or better than that, this is good.

3.. UUV sensitivity vs SSP – just how good is good, or how bad is bad.

4.. other things I don’t know about RA

5.. demand of MP mission objective scenarios for RA - TBD

[goldorak]

Can someone tell me how to access the TV screen of the uuv :oops:
From what station do I see the images ?

[SandyCaesar]

I think my DW activity just tripled with the discovery of Alfa Tau and OpFor/RA.

Would it be possible to have, at some place (possibly SubGuru, if Mr. Bill Nichols is willing to do all that work), an integrated storage for all the updated versions of the mods? As well as instructions for making OpFor/RA JSGME friendly as per Castout/Goldorak's method, and possibly a list of changes for the versions.

Finally, long-overdue thanks to Raptor_341 and Castout for bringing our attention to these mods.:up:

Man, three different mod packs: LwAmi, AT, and RA. Bring it, DW!:rock:

[suBB]

Can someone tell me how to access the TV screen of the uuv :oops:
From what station do I see the images ?
i'm still working on it :D i came across UUV TV in the manuals. i've been so excited at RA's performance, haven't done much of anything else.

[Raptor_341]

Im also being drawn into the RA camp. It seems to do the models and systems just a touch better than AT 3.1 SubBB im looking forward to your missions, and as said before, i hope to have some of my own out as well. Please keep us posted with your results of testing, ive been doing the same over the last 24 hours as well. I really hope this will bring new life to DW, it has for me, and keep it going MP and SP until or when something better comes our way. We should be able to use RA MP correct? I would like to try it with anyone here who so wishes.

[Castout]

For those who downloaded Bill''s link to RA. . . .

I have information that in 2 or three days there will be an update to RA to be released to public.

Playable Typhoon is one of the new platform. Probably with a new gepard(Akula II improved/mod) sonar stations too which features a waterline broadband but it's a completely new interface not taken or copied from any other playable subs.
Bugs to helo Ka-27 Tu-95 or any buggy playables will be solved.

I have been playing with newer version of RA than that Bill has provided and it has got less bugs than the 50Mb RA(the one I pay It's still in beta I guess with new features still being added). The typhoon is already playables in the version I play. The final work will be released to public in a couple of days. So hang on tight. The current RA version which I play has a compressed size a little over 70Mb. And that is still not the final version which will be released in a couple of days.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I'm copying my DW folder now in preparation for an RA install. I played around with AT last night and enjoyed it. Any impressions on how RA plays compared to LWAMI?

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

For those who downloaded Bill''s link to RA. . . .

I have information that in 2 or three days there will be an update to RA to be released to public.

Playable Typhoon is one of the playables. Probably with a new gepard sonar stations too which features a waterline broadband but it's a completely new interface not taken or copied from any other playable subs.
Bugs to helo Ka-27 Tu-95 or any buggy playables will be solved.

I have been playing with newer version of RA than that Bill has provided and it has got less bugs than the 50Mb RA. The typhoon is already playables in the version I play which I think is not a public release version. The final work will be released to public in a couple of days. So hang on tight.
Thanks Castout! Please keep us updated.

PD

[goldorak]

Excellent news Castout.
Now we can officially say that DW has come back from the dead. :rotfl:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

For those who downloaded Bill''s link to RA. . . .

I have information that in 2 or three days there will be an update to RA to be released to public.

Playable Typhoon is one of the new platform. Probably with a new gepard(Akula II improved/mod) sonar stations too which features a waterline broadband but it's a completely new interface not taken or copied from any other playable subs.
Bugs to helo Ka-27 Tu-95 or any buggy playables will be solved.

I hope the playable Typhoon swims around better than my Oscar. Even after shafting the turn radius, often the only way I can get Oscar to get to my desired depths is to deliberately set depth deeper than where I want to go so it'll overshoot a bit and then I climb back up to the depth - it seems climb is simmed better than dive.

And if they can make a whole new interface, perhaps we can have Typhoons with 20 missile tubes? :D

[goldorak]

How about adding an arleigh burke pretty please ? :oops:
Now that we have a playable udaloy, the perry doesn't cut it. We need something more heavy on the us side for surface warfare.

[dyshman]

:ping: i glad to see inspiration in your post))) As i know, the new update will include some more intersting things like: limited batteries on SSK"s or playable Los Angeles FLT1 with 'Red October'(try to intercept her)))). may be DSRV will really work?:hmm:
I happy to use authentic SSN Dallas or Viktor III and Alfa in Red Storm Rising or Hunt for...))))
after some days of MP gaming under the DWX can say, that Alfa with nuclear Starfish is rules)))
Earlier we can say "box of bugs:damn: " about Stock DW, now we can play in super-real Naval Warfare Game!
best regards from Mr' TermalNuclear Captn:rotfl:
Клэнси-отстой!

[MR. Wood]

Great News:up:
I'am so happy to see DW come back to life. I haven't ran across any bugs except it crashed when I was playing around with mission editor but that was only one got to love the new mods. All yeah side note I was driving the delta 4 around launched bunch of missiles at some targets got detected had a p-3 come out to find me, I would have to say that the delta 4 has to be pretty quiet at around 3to 4 knots he couldn't find me and I was only at about 200 meters or around 600 feet. And no layer, he droped at lest 6 or 7 bouys around me but I sliped a way. Now we just need a new SSN-21 model and mabe a Jimmy Carter with asdv. Any one Check out the Ohio class boomers :ping:

[PeriscopeDepth]

I've been playing around with RA. It is very, very cool! I only have about an hour logged with AT and RA, but I'm thinking I like RA more so far. It's very well done, and could make for some excellent Cold War scenarios.

PD

[Castout]

The files I uploaded are from a website Castout pointed me to. If there is a newer version, I don't have it.
yea Bill that's the link that actually Theta Sigma found quite some time ago.

Updated Ra will be released to public in a few days so I've been informed. Even I don't have the upcoming final release version, only like the beta of the coming final release.

I'll try to provide the link to the updated RA when it's released.

[MR. Wood]

Dose anyone Know if and where the russian dw site is? Do they have one like subsim?

[Bill Nichols]

The files I uploaded are from a website Castout pointed me to. If there is a newer version, I don't have it.
yea Bill that's the link that actually Theta Sigma found quite some time ago.

Updated Ra will be released to public in a few days so I've been informed. Even I don't have the upcoming final release version, only like the beta of the coming final release.

I'll try to provide the link to the updated RA when it's released.

Graci :up:

[suBB]

Hey,

Just finished testing SSP in RA vs SSP in LWAMI over speed and various bottom types. And I must say the results are quite interesting.

Here are the test conditions:
Platform A – akula 2, detects platform B – 688
Test maps were created in RA, then copied into LWAMI
SSP: surface duct tested with bottom types rock, bottom, sand
Both platforms on the same side of the layer / above and below
Cross Layer detection has not been tested, really doesn’t matter for this test
Platform A speed remains constant, platform B speed changes from tactical cruise of 12kts to 5 kts
Monitor platform A NB and record the range of platform B at time of detection / bottom type / side of layer Results:

One would expect that chance of detection is proportional to the speed of the platform; the slower you travel, less noise emission, faster you travel, more noise emissions, blah, blah, blah… ok we got that part.

Well lwami lives up to detection proportional to speed. If you want cold war scenarios, anything like lwami will become standard mod for such scenarios, allowing for player skill set to really become an integral part and a deciding factor of the scenario, especially when remaining covert and stealth transiting come into play.

But when it comes to RA, no matter how fast you travel, you are always detected at the same range, regardless of the bottom type. Isn’t that what is known as a hard cap?

Each layer has a base detection factor, where below the layer the detection is reduced, yet and still regardless the side of the layer of both platforms and speed of platform B, detection occurs at the same range in RA

That said, I think RA brings new life into dw, I mean hey, look at the amount of interest just in this thread. But I think the hard cap needs to be removed if you are serious about using this mod for quality scenarios.

This may not be a problem for your typical DM scenario where the ability to detect (not be detected) doesn’t matter and you just want something to shoot at. But the hardcap(if I can call it that) is a problem for mission based scenarios based on being covert and relying on stealth as part of your mission statement.

I’d like to say that the lwami mod has accomplished that already, if somehow the performance of lwami can be coupled into RA, then problem solved.

If not, assuming that Alfa Tau is the same as LWAMI, then as a designer, I’ll have to stick with AT because it still addresses my issues of needed platforms and sonar model performance. I’m going to verify AT vs lwami momentarily.

I’d like someone to use the same test conditions and see if what I’m seeing is repeatable, but you will need all 3 mods installed to pull it off.

:ping:

[suBB]

Just tested LWAMI vs AT3.1 and you roughly get the same results with AT3.1 that you get with RA.

LWAMI appears to be (at the moment) the most consistent / functional of the three where detection of ownship is proportional to speed on ownship.

The only other SSP I’m interested in is CZ, have to check that one later on…


:ping: ya later..

[Raptor_341]

Not what i wanted to hear. Well, i guess we wait for the next RA to come out ( a few days? ) and if you can SubBB run the test again. If they havnt fixed it, is there a way we at subsim can run RA but input the sonar data from LWAMI 3.08 into RA?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Not what i wanted to hear. Well, i guess we wait for the next RA to come out ( a few days? ) and if you can SubBB run the test again. If have havnt fixed it, is there a way we at subsim can run RA but input the sonar data from LWAMI 3.08 into RA?
I suspect it has something to do with the sound v speed curves. I don't know where those are located or how to edit them.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Just tested LWAMI vs AT3.1 and you roughly get the same results with AT3.1 that you get with RA.
Interesting. AT includes an excel file that details the different Sound levels for playable submerged platforms at different speeds, so you would think they would show up differently at various speeds.

PD

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Hey,

Just finished testing SSP in RA vs SSP in LWAMI over speed and various bottom types. And I must say the results are quite interesting.


Platform A speed remains constant, platform B speed changes from tactical cruise of 12kts to 5 ktsHave you tried a more extreme speed change, say from 30kts to 5kts and back to 30? That might tell us a bit more about whether it is a hard cap or just a "not steep enough" curve.

Since according to Castor RA speed matters a lot more to a RA SSK than a LWAMI SSK, so they are inputting speed/noise curves in there somewhere.

[suBB]

Hey,

Just finished testing SSP in RA vs SSP in LWAMI over speed and various bottom types. And I must say the results are quite interesting.
Platform A speed remains constant, platform B speed changes from tactical cruise of 12kts to 5 ktsHave you tried a more extreme speed change, say from 30kts to 5kts and back to 30? That might tell us a bit more about whether it is a hard cap or just a "not steep enough" curve.

Since according to Castor RA speed matters a lot more to a RA SSK than a LWAMI SSK, so they are inputting speed/noise curves in there somewhere.

no i haven't tried that; I don't see what difference that will make.

Before pondering any other possibilities, i would like someone else at least duplicate the test conditions i used to see if there is repeatability.

as for hard caps(lack of better phrase), let's leave that for the creators of the mod.

going out on a limb:

somehow i think LWAMI made it as such to where detection is based on SL generated by the actual speed of the platform, therefore detected range is variable, but proportional to actual speed of the platform.

A scenario with a hard cap could be using base SL values (which are fixed and have a finite range associated with them) and if so, the actual speed of the platform doesn't matter; you are detected at a fixed range regardless.

i dunno, just trying to take a common sense approach to better understand whats going on here.

[PeriscopeDepth]

suBB,

I just got done running a handful of tests in RA (11 test runs altogether). I didn't duplicate your exact conditions and they were by no means scientific. I set up an Alfa and a Seawolf heading on reciprocal courses ~20 nm away in the mid Atlantic. I was driving the Alfa, the AI was driving the Seawolf at two knots(set to barrier patrol). Both subs at ~250 feet/75 meters. I tried driving the Alfa towards the Seawolf at both 2 knots and made other runs at 20 knots (not cavitating). Speed made a significant difference in detection range in my tests. During the 20 knot runs the Alfa was picked up ~13.5 miles away by the AI Seawolf. The 2 knot runs reduced the detection distance by ~5 nm.

somehow i think LWAMI made it as such to where detection is based on SL generated by the actual speed of the platform, therefore detected range is variable, but proportional to actual speed of the platform. To my knowledge, you can fiddle with the exact Sound/speed curve of a platform, but all surface/subsurface platforms have them. Sound vs speed factoring in to detection is hard coded in all DW 1.03 hotfix+ versions. A platform not having a curve isn't possible. You can mess with the exact speeds of the curve, though, but they are not optional. I'm going out on a limb here too. :)

PD

Another edit: my tests were done in a surface duct SSP

[Raptor_341]

I believe after a few light tests detection range in RA and AT is fully related to screw speed and level of noise being emited. More to follow. Looking good so far. Castout any comments on RA sound and the upcomming RA final?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

no i haven't tried that; I don't see what difference that will make

Before pondering any other possibilities, i would like someone else at least duplicate the test conditions i used to see if there is repeatability.

Well, I tried this test:

Seawolf (me).
LAIII Albany (test target), about 8700 yards away.

Test begins, Seawolf and Albany both tool along at 5 knots, depth 600 parallel course. Seawolf just catches Albany on broadband (SNR0-1).

Albany goes to 30 knots as ordered ... SNR ... no change.

But that's really funny, because they do have the engine stuff written in the Database (RA used 57 Base Passive SL+16 Thrust SL for the 688I), so the noise level should have changed. But it didn't.

Wierd.

[Castout]

I seem not to have problem detecting enemy sub at high speed and there is a significant difference between moving at 5 knots or 25 knots. Then again I'm playign with a different version that the one you guys use. . . I'll try running some tests

I can't say the technical stuffs about RA. GrayOwl is one of the modder involved in RA. I'm sure he has the capacity to inform you guys.

[Castout]

well I did a simple test.

I played as the 688i with a Victor 3 at 5nm to my 90 degree doing 5 knots and another Victor III to my 270 degree at 5nm doing 25 knots.

I couldn't detect the Victor 3 which was doing 5 knots but I could detect the Victor III which was doing 25 knots though the signal was not very strong but even in STA it showed as a thin line.

So my suggestion to you is that Ra has probably reduced the detection ranges of at least all the submarines pretty substantially. Long range direct contact detection ranges are only possible with the civilian ships.

If you want to compare the noise being radiated with respect to speed make sure both platforms must be detected in the first place.

For example put a Victor 3 which is doing 10 knots at 3nm and put another Victor which is doing 26 knots at 3nm. So make sure that both are detected in the first place to be compared.

Remember that RA is not LWAMI. So LWAMI mindset must go in judging RA. It has got its own estimates with regard to passive detection ranges. I know it's hard not to expect things the way like they were made in LWAMI because we all are used to playing with LWAMI.

Read my post on whining about passive detection range. According to the article which I quoted, a REAL life Victor 3 at flanking speed can only be detected at 1000 yards(0.5nm) in shallow waters of the med. In the quiet norwegian sea direct contact could be establish at several miles if the sub was traveling at 12 knots speed. Several miles everybody that is still pretty short for a direct contact detection range. And it may not be detected on the STA but may very well be in the ITA or even LTA.

Detecting diesel boats passively in RL? You can forget about it. unless you literally bump into it in the ocean you will never be able to detect a submerged diesel boat running on her battery provided that the diesel is well handled(moving at slow speeds/silent speeds).

[suBB]

well I did a simple test.

I played as the 688i with a Victor 3 at 5nm to my 90 degree doing 5 knots and another Victor III to my 270 degree at 5nm doing 25 knots.

I couldn't detect the Victor 3 which was doing 5 knots but I could detect the Victor III which was doing 25 knots though the signal was not very strong but even in STA it showed as a thin line.

So my suggestion to you is that Ra has probably reduced the detection ranges of at least all the submarines pretty substantially. Long range direct contact detection ranges are only possible with the civilian ships.

If you want to compare the noise being radiated with respect to speed make sure both platforms must be detected in the first place.

For example put a Victor 3 which is doing 10 knots at 3nm and put another Victor which is doing 26 knots at 3nm. So make sure that both are detected in the first place to be compared.

Remember that RA is not LWAMI. So LWAMI mindset must go in judging RA. It has got its own estimates with regard to passive detection ranges. I know it's hard not to expect things the way like they were made in LWAMI because we all are used to playing with LWAMI.

Read my post on whining about passive detection range. According to the article which I quoted, a REAL life Victor 3 at flanking speed can only be detected at 1000 yards(0.5nm) in shallow waters of the med. In the quiet norwegian sea direct contact could be establish at several miles if the sub was traveling at 12 knots speed. Several miles everybody that is still pretty short for a direct contact detection range. And it may not be detected on the STA but may very well be in the ITA or even LTA.

Detecting diesel boats passively in RL? You can forget about it. unless you literally bump into it in the ocean you will never be able to detect a submerged diesel boat running on her battery provided that the diesel is well handled(moving at slow speeds/silent speeds).
Couple of things…

1… IIRC you are not using the same version of RA that the rest of got from subguru? If so then its inconclusive and we are comparing and older version (what the rest of us have) to a newer version(what you have).

2.. what ssp type did you use for your test? If surface duct, what side of the layer did you conduct your test?

3.. I think for these tests, we all need to be using the same version of RA, and at least run the same test with the exact same platforms. Once we have a better understanding of what’s going on, I think that will bring us closer to an accurate conclusion.

In so many words, basically what I saw in my test results is the sonar model in the version I have of RA is performing like stock DW.

I know I can’t honestly compare multiple mods, but what is common to all mods is detection, and what should be accurate about detection is it should be directly proportional to speed of ownship, and not based on approaching within some finite distance of another platform.

Some other details about my testing:

Platform A position is stationary(2kts), platform B approached from a perpendicular from 14nm away

RA results: when platform B = 12kts or 5kts, platform A NB detection occurred at 14nm always

LWAMI result 1: when platform B = 12kts, platform A NB detection occurred at 14nm

LWAMI result 2: when platform B = 5 kts(reduced speed), platform A NB detection occurred at 8nm, allowing platform B to transit 6nm before detection occurred.

Going to try using two standard platforms common to RA and LWAMI and see what I get, I understand the akula 2 in RA is still WIP, so using two standard platforms will rule that out.

:ping:

[suBB]

suBB,

I just got done running a handful of tests in RA (11 test runs altogether). I didn't duplicate your exact conditions and they were by no means scientific. I set up an Alfa and a Seawolf heading on reciprocal courses ~20 nm away in the mid Atlantic. I was driving the Alfa, the AI was driving the Seawolf at two knots(set to barrier patrol). Both subs at ~250 feet/75 meters. I tried driving the Alfa towards the Seawolf at both 2 knots and made other runs at 20 knots (not cavitating). Speed made a significant difference in detection range in my tests. During the 20 knot runs the Alfa was picked up ~13.5 miles away by the AI Seawolf. The 2 knot runs reduced the detection distance by ~5 nm.

somehow i think LWAMI made it as such to where detection is based on SL generated by the actual speed of the platform, therefore detected range is variable, but proportional to actual speed of the platform. To my knowledge, you can fiddle with the exact Sound/speed curve of a platform, but all surface/subsurface platforms have them. Sound vs speed factoring in to detection is hard coded in all DW 1.03 hotfix+ versions. A platform not having a curve isn't possible. You can mess with the exact speeds of the curve, though, but they are not optional. I'm going out on a limb here too. :)

PD

Another edit: my tests were done in a surface duct SSP
how did you know you were detected by the seawolf, were you using doctrine for the AI to inform you of detection. ?

so, lemme get this straight:

in one test, from 20nm, you approached at 20kts and were detected at 13.5nm

in another test, from 20nm, you approached at 2kts, but were detected at 8.5nm?

I'd like to think you could get closer than 8.5nm at 2kts against the tb-29 :p

q: which version of RA are you running? I have the one that subguru uploaded this weekend. if we are running the same version, I'll try to duplicate your results.

[PeriscopeDepth]

how did you know you were detected by the seawolf, were you using doctrine for the AI to inform you of detection. ? Detection was followed by a change in course and then a TIW from the Seawolf shortly after. The point I was using for detection is when the SW changed course from its set barrier patrol.

in one test, from 20nm, you approached at 20kts and were detected at 13.5nm

in another test, from 20nm, you approached at 2kts, but were detected at 8.5nm?

I'd like to think you could get closer than 8.5nm at 2kts against the tb-29 :p An Alfa is one of the noisiest subs in the game going up against one of the best sensors in the game. Doesn't sound terribly off to me.

q: which version of RA are you running? I have the one that subguru uploaded this weekend. if we are running the same version, I'll try to duplicate your results. I'm running the version of RA that Bill uploaded along with the fix. If you PM me your email addy I'd be happy to email you the simple little scenario I'm using.

I know it's probably a silly question, but you are using a fully updated DW with your RA install?

PD

[suBB]

how did you know you were detected by the seawolf, were you using doctrine for the AI to inform you of detection. ? Detection was followed by a change in course and then a TIW from the Seawolf shortly after. The point I was using for detection is when the SW changed course from its set barrier patrol.

in one test, from 20nm, you approached at 20kts and were detected at 13.5nm

in another test, from 20nm, you approached at 2kts, but were detected at 8.5nm?

I'd like to think you could get closer than 8.5nm at 2kts against the tb-29 :p An Alfa is one of the noisiest subs in the game going up against one of the best sensors in the game. Doesn't sound terribly off to me.

q: which version of RA are you running? I have the one that subguru uploaded this weekend. if we are running the same version, I'll try to duplicate your results. I'm running the version of RA that Bill uploaded along with the fix. If you PM me your email addy I'd be happy to email you the simple little scenario I'm using.

I know it's probably a silly question, but you are using a fully updated DW with your RA install?

PD
the 2kt afla vs tb-29 is just a wish for something could never happen. :D

i'm using the same version you have, and a clean install of DW @ 1.04

[PeriscopeDepth]

Okay, I edited my scenario so the drivable Alfa is an Akula I Improved. Also, the fast runs are done @17 knots now to prevent cavitation. Speed seems to be a major factor in SL and detection still. I only did four test runs (two slow (2knots still), two fast). The fast detection runs had the AI Seawolf picking me up at 10-10.5 nm. The slow runs had me being picked up at 6-6.5 nm.

PD

[Molon Labe]

You guys are spinning your wheels. If you're concerned about a sensor possibly being hardcapped, then you're not going to confirm or disprove that theory by testing sensors other than the one suspected to be hardcapped and at ranges that are inside the radius of the suspected hardcap.

The only tests you should be running to confirm/disprove SuBB's test are to see whether the pelamida (Akula II was the original "problem" boat) can detect a contact beyond the apparent hardcap of 14nm.

[Castout]

Couple of things…

1… IIRC you are not using the same version of RA that the rest of got from subguru? If so then its inconclusive and we are comparing and older version (what the rest of us have) to a newer version(what you have).

2.. what ssp type did you use for your test? If surface duct, what side of the layer did you conduct your test?

3.. I think for these tests, we all need to be using the same version of RA, and at least run the same test with the exact same platforms. Once we have a better understanding of what’s going on, I think that will bring us closer to an accurate conclusion.

In so many words, basically what I saw in my test results is the sonar model in the version I have of RA is performing like stock DW.

I know I can’t honestly compare multiple mods, but what is common to all mods is detection, and what should be accurate about detection is it should be directly proportional to speed of ownship, and not based on approaching within some finite distance of another platform.

Some other details about my testing:

Platform A position is stationary(2kts), platform B approached from a perpendicular from 14nm away

RA results: when platform B = 12kts or 5kts, platform A NB detection occurred at 14nm always

LWAMI result 1: when platform B = 12kts, platform A NB detection occurred at 14nm

LWAMI result 2: when platform B = 5 kts(reduced speed), platform A NB detection occurred at 8nm, allowing platform B to transit 6nm before detection occurred.

Going to try using two standard platforms common to RA and LWAMI and see what I get, I understand the akula 2 in RA is still WIP, so using two standard platforms will rule that out.

:ping:
Subb I'm using the version which I share to you via my email. If you are playing with that version rather than the one from the link that Bill has provided then you are testing a different version of RA than the rest of people. Subb do you have playable typhoon? If yes then it's the 'beta' version of the upcoming release.

[Castout]

..............

The only tests you should be running to confirm/disprove SuBB's test are to see whether the pelamida (Akula II was the original "problem" boat) can detect a contact beyond the apparent hardcap of 14nm.

Preferably with a noisy supertanker or cargo ship at relatively medium or high speed....
Just to make sure....

[Castout]

The only tests you should be running to confirm/disprove SuBB's test are to see whether the pelamida (Akula II was the original "problem" boat) can detect a contact beyond the apparent hardcap of 14nm.

I did what you suggested. I placed a supertanker at 16nm range with a speed of 25 knots which is its maximum speed so that I made sure that I took no chances.
and
with convergence zone SSP I could right from the beginning detect the supertanker with the Akula II towed array. Not only in NB but also in BB. The signal spike was there in BB. . .

[suBB]

Couple of things…

1… IIRC you are not using the same version of RA that the rest of got from subguru? If so then its inconclusive and we are comparing and older version (what the rest of us have) to a newer version(what you have).

2.. what ssp type did you use for your test? If surface duct, what side of the layer did you conduct your test?

3.. I think for these tests, we all need to be using the same version of RA, and at least run the same test with the exact same platforms. Once we have a better understanding of what’s going on, I think that will bring us closer to an accurate conclusion.

In so many words, basically what I saw in my test results is the sonar model in the version I have of RA is performing like stock DW.

I know I can’t honestly compare multiple mods, but what is common to all mods is detection, and what should be accurate about detection is it should be directly proportional to speed of ownship, and not based on approaching within some finite distance of another platform.

Some other details about my testing:

Platform A position is stationary(2kts), platform B approached from a perpendicular from 14nm away

RA results: when platform B = 12kts or 5kts, platform A NB detection occurred at 14nm always

LWAMI result 1: when platform B = 12kts, platform A NB detection occurred at 14nm

LWAMI result 2: when platform B = 5 kts(reduced speed), platform A NB detection occurred at 8nm, allowing platform B to transit 6nm before detection occurred.

Going to try using two standard platforms common to RA and LWAMI and see what I get, I understand the akula 2 in RA is still WIP, so using two standard platforms will rule that out.

:ping:
Subb I'm using the version which I share to you via my email. If you are playing with that version rather than the one from the link that Bill has provided then you are testing a different version of RA than the rest of people. Subb do you have playable typhoon? If yes then it's the 'beta' version of the upcoming release.
that's a negative :oops: yes i have files, but haven't installed 'yet' and no phoon.. lazy :D

I haven't installed it yet due to the fact i may have to reinstall DW to ensure its clean for RA beta.

soon as i get off my ***, i'll do it and retest

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So my suggestion to you is that Ra has probably reduced the detection ranges of at least all the submarines pretty substantially. Long range direct contact detection ranges are only possible with the civilian ships.

According to DWEdit:

The sensitivities are about the same as LWAMI. For example towed arrays are -8 to -12, no great changes there.

The range of submarine noise levels is HORRIBLY compressed. A Seawolf is 55 Passive SL base. A Victor I is like 62 or 63. In LWAMI a Seawolf is 56 (+/-1 don't remember), and a Victor III is 68. Theoretical noise rise with speed is similar to LWAMI (+15-+25 at full speed), but darn if I saw that effect last night.

[suBB]

So my suggestion to you is that Ra has probably reduced the detection ranges of at least all the submarines pretty substantially. Long range direct contact detection ranges are only possible with the civilian ships.
According to DWEdit:

The sensitivities are about the same as LWAMI. For example towed arrays are -8 to -12, no great changes there.

The range of submarine noise levels is HORRIBLY compressed. A Seawolf is 55 Passive SL base. A Victor I is like 62 or 63. In LWAMI a Seawolf is 56 (+/-1 don't remember), and a Victor III is 68. Theoretical noise rise with speed is similar to LWAMI (+15-+25 at full speed), but darn if I saw that effect last night.
ok, i think i'm on the same page now along with everyone else.

just finished upgrading to beta and I'm going to resume testing now...

this time I'm going to test just outside passive detection range, and have the target platform approach from a perpendicular from std, 1/3 and even 1 kts

what i'm expecting to see is there should be three detection ranges for each speed.

I'm testing worst case surface duct, which is above the layer.

edit:

range to target < 33nm, vs 15kts, 5kts, 1kts (in time compression :P)

[suBB]

So my suggestion to you is that Ra has probably reduced the detection ranges of at least all the submarines pretty substantially. Long range direct contact detection ranges are only possible with the civilian ships.
According to DWEdit:

The sensitivities are about the same as LWAMI. For example towed arrays are -8 to -12, no great changes there.

The range of submarine noise levels is HORRIBLY compressed. A Seawolf is 55 Passive SL base. A Victor I is like 62 or 63. In LWAMI a Seawolf is 56 (+/-1 don't remember), and a Victor III is 68. Theoretical noise rise with speed is similar to LWAMI (+15-+25 at full speed), but darn if I saw that effect last night.
ok, i think i'm on the same page now along with everyone else.

just finished upgrading to beta and I'm going to resume testing now...

this time I'm going to test just outside passive detection range, and have the target platform approach from a perpendicular from std, 1/3 and even 1 kts

what i'm expecting to see is there should be three detection ranges for each speed.

I'm testing worst case surface duct, which is above the layer.

edit:

range to target < 33nm, vs 15kts, 5kts, 1kts (in time compression :P)

just upgraded to beta and tested two flt 1's (thx for this hull) in the upper layer of a surface duct.

manually scan NB sonar as I always do and record range of target as soon as NB detection is made, target inbound from < 33nm...

..and all i really have to say is....

rig for ultra quiet... :D

The passive sonar performance in beta exceeds my expectations and based on my results in beta, the performance is definately proportional to speed as well as platform.

I think I've found the answer i was looking for, thanks everybody for participating.

the problem was definately on my end by not having the most recent version, and by upgrading to beta, i think i now see the light :sunny:

now that I have a better feel for passive sonar performance, I need to test CZ, and possibly BL, then see which SSP is suitable for my needs.

:ping:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Excuse me for being an impatient bugger, but would it be possible to make this Beta available to more than just a few people?

PD

[goldorak]

Excuse me for being an impatient bugger, but would it be possible to make this Beta available to more than just a few people?

PD

Just wait like the rest of us. :)

[PeriscopeDepth]

Excuse me for being an impatient bugger, but would it be possible to make this Beta available to more than just a few people?

PD
Just wait like the rest of us. :)
You must have missed the impatient bugger part. :p

PD

[MBot]

With RA, I have been killed by a AI sub for the first time since long. I was driving a Akula II and came across a 688(i). I was transiting at 10 knots when the first thing I noticed was a pair of torps inbound. I made an early evasion and gained contact on him. While I was plotting my own attack he launched a second salvo. I again initiated a relaxed evasion at about 14 knots that seemed to work well when suddently I was hit. Apperantly he shot a active AND a passive ADCAP. That completely caught me by surprise :)

[Raptor_341]

Well, it looks like i will be using RA now. Castout, any word on final release date? SubBB, looking forward to those missions. Anyone up for MP this weekend?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

ok, i think i'm on the same page now along with everyone else.

just finished upgrading to beta and I'm going to resume testing now...

this time I'm going to test just outside passive detection range, and have the target platform approach from a perpendicular from std, 1/3 and even 1 kts

what i'm expecting to see is there should be three detection ranges for each speed.

I'm testing worst case surface duct, which is above the layer.

edit:

range to target < 33nm, vs 15kts, 5kts, 1kts (in time compression :P)

I didn't get the beta, but I retested using an Akula II as ownship. It works this time. The SNR climbed from 1 to 3 when the LA accelerated.

[suBB]

ok, i think i'm on the same page now along with everyone else.

just finished upgrading to beta and I'm going to resume testing now...

this time I'm going to test just outside passive detection range, and have the target platform approach from a perpendicular from std, 1/3 and even 1 kts

what i'm expecting to see is there should be three detection ranges for each speed.

I'm testing worst case surface duct, which is above the layer.

edit:

range to target < 33nm, vs 15kts, 5kts, 1kts (in time compression :P)
I didn't get the beta, but I retested using an Akula II as ownship. It works this time. The SNR climbed from 1 to 3 when the LA accelerated.
i thought that...

you guys were leading in most recent version... and i was lagging and needed to catch up?

in other words, you all had versions that included the 'phoon, i had a version that didn't and i was conducting testing with the wrong version. So my reference to 'beta' is the version that includes the 'phoon.

[suBB]

Well, it looks like i will be using RA now. Castout, any word on final release date? SubBB, looking forward to those missions. Anyone up for MP this weekend?
you don't have to look very far, here is a 3-MP mission objective map optimized for in-game dynamics. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=129357) for lwami 3.08 please read the site for additional details about the mission / requirements.

If cunning and stealth are more up your ally, go blue. If being the aggressor suites you, go red. for the utmost experience, eventually you should try both sides.

Just prepare yourself for the unexpected; anything can happen at anytime each time this map is played.

Molon, To Be, Fragmaster, Blee Annoying, Mahuja and others helped me test and optimize the map to functional status.

MP scenarios for RA are going to take time; there's lots O' testing i need to do before i consider a design.

hope you enjoy the map and the experience

:up:

[Raptor_341]

who has the link or files for the beta? I wouldnt mind trying it as i wait for the "final" of RA. I need to reload it anyways, deleted DW after a mishap by mistake.

[goldorak]

Has anyone figured out how to use and visualize the tv mode of the uuv ? :cry:
I've read the documentation, it states what the mode does :doh: , but it doesn't tell you from where to access the tv screen.

[suBB]

Has anyone figured out how to use and visualize the tv mode of the uuv ? :cry:
I've read the documentation, it states what the mode does :doh: , but it doesn't tell you from where to access the tv screen.
yeah, tell me about it...

now that i'm current (version with typhoon) I'm going try some more SSP, environ and active TX tests, but after that, i'm going to try the UUV TV thing again. :yep:

i figure a good test would be to have a stationary sub that is 3nm from ownship, then fire the UUV in TV mode and see what you can see...

i'm thinking that in order to visually see what the UUV sees, and you don't have a gun camera like the FFG, the TV screen could be the HF station itself.. i dunno.. :hmm:

Plus i'm starting to see little details here and there that really make this mod great :D

[Castout]

According to DWEdit:

The sensitivities are about the same as LWAMI. For example towed arrays are -8 to -12, no great changes there.

The range of submarine noise levels is HORRIBLY compressed. A Seawolf is 55 Passive SL base. A Victor I is like 62 or 63. In LWAMI a Seawolf is 56 (+/-1 don't remember), and a Victor III is 68. Theoretical noise rise with speed is similar to LWAMI (+15-+25 at full speed), but darn if I saw that effect last night.
The Seawolf passive SL is 55 in the latest LWAMI. Believe me I modded it once to 50 and 53.

If you didn't notice signal difference between slow moving and fast moving target you were probably too far out so you were only detecting a long(long/far is relative and it's substantially lower for RA than LWAMI) fast moving noisy target and wasn't able to detect the slow moving one at all. To compare both target must be duly detected. The difference may not be noticeable in STA but most probably be visible either in ITA or LTA mode. Like wise many detection will occur solely in ITA or LTA first before becoming visible at all in STA. It's a different game with different rules and estimates.

[Castout]

Well, it looks like i will be using RA now. Castout, any word on final release date? SubBB, looking forward to those missions. Anyone up for MP this weekend?

I've been told a couple of days. One of RA modder GrayOwl is in contact with me on regular basis. Just be patient. You don't want a buggy game do you.
As for MP i would very much like that however I'm on the beta version and using the Hyperacoustic sound mod which made a database incompatibility with even fellow beta RA player......I guess I'll wait for the upcoming RA release and then make 2 databases available with JSGME. One for hyperacoustic sound mod and the other just RA without Hyperacoustic sound mod. I've brought the hyperaocutic sound mod to light to GrayOwl but I don't know whether it will be incorporated into the next RA package.


As for Periscope depth and Raptor who want to try the beta version you could try asking Subb for help ;). My upload speed is slow (88kbps on average) and the files are more than 70Mb compressed. if Subb is not available PM me and I'll see what I can do.

And to wet your appetite of the upcoming release of updated RA here are two screenies of the new look of the Gepard sonar stations both BB and NB I received from GrayOwl about a week ago. I hope this makes it into the upcoming release version,

Gepard new broadband station
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/Gepard_BB_Final.jpg


Gepard new narrowband station
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/Gepard_NB.jpg

[Molon Labe]

RAPLOC on an Akula? That's a bit unexpected...

[suBB]

Well, it looks like i will be using RA now. Castout, any word on final release date? SubBB, looking forward to those missions. Anyone up for MP this weekend?

I've been told a couple of days. One of RA modder GrayOwl is in contact with me on regular basis. Just be patient. You don't want a buggy game do you.
As for MP i would very much like that however I'm on the beta version and using the Hyperacoustic sound mod which made a database incompatibility with even fellow beta RA player......I guess I'll wait for the upcoming RA release and then make 2 databases available with JSGME. One for hyperacoustic sound mod and the other just RA without Hyperacoustic sound mod. I've brought the light of hyperaocutic sound mod to GrayOwl but I don't know whether it will be incorporated into the next RA package.


As for Periscope depth who wants to try the beta version you could try asking subb for help ;). My upload speed is slow (88kbps on average) and the files are more than 70Mb compressed. if Subb is not available PM me and I'll see what I can do.

And to wet your appetite of the upcoming release of updated RA here are two screenies of the new look of the Gepard sonar stations both BB and NB I received from GrayOwl about a week ago. I hope this makes it into the upcoming release version,

Gepard new broadband station
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/Gepard_BB_Final.jpg


Gepard new narrowband station
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/Gepard_NB.jpg
WAA on an akula2!!! that is veeerrry dangerous :arrgh!:

WOW:o

and lemme guess, will the older model akulas / subs prior to the akula2 still use the analog sonar gear??

man, this mod gets better by the minute!!!

[FERdeBOER]

A couple of days?

I've been waiting 3 years for something like this, I suppose I can wait two more days... :hmm:


No, I can't, I want it now! :rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

Anybody know if these mods respect the Licensing agreements set forth by Sonalysts?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Anybody know if these mods respect the Licensing agreements set forth by Sonalysts?
I would think that's a question for ML or someone else that has/almost has a JD.

Did SCXII with the SCU utility respect Sonalysts licensing agreement for that matter?

PD

[Molon Labe]

Anybody know if these mods respect the Licensing agreements set forth by Sonalysts? I would think that's a question for ML or someone else that has/almost has a JD.

Did SCXII with the SCU utility respect Sonalysts licensing agreement for that matter?

PD
Adding new playable platforms violates the EULA, plain and simple. (It's not surprising that the mods are coming from Italy (http://www.buyusa.gov/italy/en/ipritaly.pdf) and Russia (http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2006/April/Report_Notes_Continued_Progress_on_Intellectual_Pr operty_Rights,_Identifies_Significant_Improvements _Still_Needed_in_China_R.html), where IP protections are lagging the rest of the Core.)

SCU was a grey area, because back then SCS wasn't all that clear about what parts of the software they considered proprietary. Those lines were clearly drawn before the SCX team could make a PCU for DW.

[Sea Demon]

Anybody know if these mods respect the Licensing agreements set forth by Sonalysts? I would think that's a question for ML or someone else that has/almost has a JD.

Did SCXII with the SCU utility respect Sonalysts licensing agreement for that matter?

PD Well, that's why I asked. Hopefully someone with knowledge on the issue will respond and give us the low-down. These licensing agreements should be respected. And Sonalysts intellectual property in their software should also be respected. As far as SCX/SCU, I think the case was that the mod was released without Sonalysts approval. The people who did that mod didn't know they were doing something Sonalysts would have a problem with. Sonalysts did address this and said that adding new playables was verboten, but turned a blind eye to SCU as they were developing the newer DW. SCX is totally legal as the files changed were database, doctine, and adding new non-playable units. Sonalysts has never had any problems with an SCX project for their games, and from what I remember they did encourage those modding efforts. They did also say that they are the only ones with the exclusive rights to add new playables to their games. Some have said that as long as DLL's and such are not touched, things could be done. But I'm not sure if that's skirting the issue. That's why I want to know if this stuff here is OK. Hate to be the wet blanket, but I'm not so sure myself.

[PeriscopeDepth]

That's why I want to know if this stuff here is OK. Hate to be the wet blanket, but I'm not so sure myself. There's nothing wrong with respecting a company's property. And it certainly seems to be outright illegal according to ML, who I don't doubt is correct.

But I have to admit, as someone who bought the original Battlefront release I would absolutely love for DW to be picked up by outlaw programmers like Falcon 4 was. A for profit company that has any sense will never again be able to make a serious modern naval combat simulation without charging upwards of $100. Which I would gladly pay, but I seriously doubt that's happening anytime soon.

PD

[goldorak]

This mod even if it is illegal does no harm to the game.
It may even revive the game at retail, new players will see this and decide to buy the game. As far as SCS is concerned, I think and I'm not the only one that more than 3 years have passed and we have not heard from them a single time saying they were considering doing an add-on.
For all intents and purposes DW is a dead end for them.
Why should we suffer for their mistakes ? (Its a selfish view but at this point I don't care). The moment they release an official add-on I'll be there with the €'s but until then I'll gladly play this mod.

[Molon Labe]

Commercial products like DW are a very small part of SCS's business, but the NavalSimEngine is part of both the commercial product and their defense products. The problem is that government agencies or defense contractors might start using "free" PCUs or add-ons to model new platforms instead of going back to SCS for those services.

[goldorak]

Commercial products like DW are a very small part of SCS's business, but the NavalSimEngine is part of both the commercial product and their defense products. The problem is that government agencies or defense contractors might start using "free" PCUs or add-ons to model new platforms instead of going back to SCS for those services.

The mod doesn't modify as far as we know the navalsimengine.
I'm I correct ? ;) It only modifies the database (and us government sureley uses a more precise databse anyways) and the interface files.
You know what happens to any corporations that use unlicensed software ?
Ask the BSA (Business Software Alliance). You pay hell (in any civilised country, in the usa and in italy for instance).
So no I don't think that a US firm would use this mod in any official capacity, because then they would be sued brought in court and make to pay very dearly their mistake. For example the BSA goes against those that use non licensed Fonts, and you think they would let somebody use a cracked/moded/non licensed version of a government contrated software ? Be realistic ML.
SCS doesn't want modding not because of the use of said mod in official circles, it doesn't modding because it doesn't want modding pure and simple. There is simply no justification. The only one would be if the released an official add-on but we all know the truth, its never going to happen. Almost 4 years have passed and nothing happened. Those 2 mods were developped not because people wanted to go over SCS back (hell the mods waited 3 years !!! to come to light) but because SCS considers not cost efficient to do an official add-on for us poor simmers. So I ask again, ethics aside where is the harm being done to DW ?

[Molon Labe]

Commercial products like DW are a very small part of SCS's business, but the NavalSimEngine is part of both the commercial product and their defense products. The problem is that government agencies or defense contractors might start using "free" PCUs or add-ons to model new platforms instead of going back to SCS for those services.
The mod doesn't modify as far as we know the navalsimengine.
I'm I correct ? ;) It only modifies the database (and us government sureley uses a more precise databse anyways) and the interface files.
I don't know if the NSE itself is modded. I do know that the .dll's and interfaces that the NSE utilizes were declared verbotten, and that new playables can't be added without altering those.


You know what happens to any corporations that use unlicensed software ?
Ask the BSA (Business Software Alliance). You pay hell (in any civilised country, in the usa and in italy for instance).
So no I don't think that a US firm would use this mod in any official capacity, because then they would be sued brought in court and make to pay very dearly their mistake.
US firms aren't the problem.


For example the BSA goes against those that use non licensed Fonts, and you think they would let somebody use a cracked/moded/non licensed version of a government contrated software ? Be realistic ML.
SCS doesn't want modding not because of the use of said mod in official circles, it doesn't modding because it doesn't want modding pure and simple. There is simply no justification.
Of course. How silly of me. SCS just wanted to hurt their commercial product to spite us. They hate us so much they were willing to make less money. That makes sense!


The only one would be if the released an official add-on but we all know the truth, its never going to happen. Almost 4 years have passed and nothing happened. Those 2 mods were developped not because people wanted to go over SCS back (hell the mods waited 3 years !!! to come to light) but because SCS considers not cost efficient to do an official add-on for us poor simmers. So I ask again, ethics aside where is the harm being done to DW ?
You can choose not to believe it, but SCS has already explained that the harm they seek to prevent is in their government contracts. So you can stop asking.

[Sea Demon]

That's why I want to know if this stuff here is OK. Hate to be the wet blanket, but I'm not so sure myself. There's nothing wrong with respecting a company's property. And it certainly seems to be outright illegal according to ML, who I don't doubt is correct.

But I have to admit, as someone who bought the original Battlefront release I would absolutely love for DW to be picked up by outlaw programmers like Falcon 4 was. A for profit company that has any sense will never again be able to make a serious modern naval combat simulation without charging upwards of $100. Which I would gladly pay, but I seriously doubt that's happening anytime soon.

PD OK. So it is illegal. I would defer to Molon Labe's judgement. I believe he is in the legal profession, if I'm not mistaken. On your second paragraph, you do make good points. But I still have concerns that SCS could view this as a reason to definitely not ever consider developing products using their sim engine. If they don't believe that consumers will respect their licensing, it's not hard to see the incentive being tapped out of it. And they are the only company that realistically has developed modern naval sims for us. Think about that.

[goldorak]

ML : I have already told you that SCS has nothing to fear from US firms or the US Navy (since they are one of their clients no ? ) because it is ILLEGAL to use unlicensed software. Pure and simple. You pay enormous fines and can go to jail by using unlicesed/pirated software. So all this talking about how the US Navy or other firms would use this (pirate) mod is simply and uterly ridiculous.
The problem are not the corporations, the problem is that they don't want us simmers to mod the game. Just accept it for what it is.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Gepard new broadband station
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/Gepard_BB_Final.jpg

Oooo. FINALLY! The Russians go smart!

I must say. I really don't understand their choice to retain the SSAZ, if that's what they really did before the Gepard. You lose so much sensitivity and SA with that design. It is an understandable design for an analog sonar (no memory capability and direct analogue conversion only), but the Akula's sonar should be digital and by some sources digital was even earlier than that. Even funnier is that the DEMON is a waterfall (thus a digital unit...)

It would have been even more fun had they used the Perry's sonar as a base. But probably the software doesn't quite support that.

Gepard new narrowband station
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/Gepard_NB.jpg

Nothing much special here. Just the Western system grafted on.

[goldorak]

Are all the Akulas (I and II variants) using digital waterfall displays ?
No more SSAZ then ? I'm :cry:
Nothing gives you a better tactical awareness than SSAZ when you're in the middle of a fight.

[Castout]

RAPLOC on an Akula? That's a bit unexpected...

I heard(read somewhere) RAPLOC is nothing new many subs have them. I even suspect 688i to have them. But then again I'm no expert.

[PeriscopeDepth]

But I still have concerns that SCS could view this as a reason to definitely not ever consider developing products using their sim engine. If they don't believe that consumers will respect their licensing, it's not hard to see the incentive being tapped out of it. And they are the only company that realistically has developed modern naval sims for us. Think about that. I have.

Perhaps it's a selfish, childish thing to say but I have paid full price (and then some, having sold and repurchased ttwo SCS titles) for a rehashed NSE four times now (688I was the first NSE title, right?). The engine has inherent constraints (the physics/radar engine especially) that are very big obstacles to making a naval combat simulation.

Not to mention, SCS is part of a DoD contractor. They probably aren't ever going to be allowed to make it too "realistic" (a subjective term in modern naval combat sims, I know) without having a visit from the men in black. I'll certainly buy anything they put out, but I don't have any reason to believe it won't be another rehashed version of the same database that Fleet Command used. They are in it to make money, and I don't believe developing a new NSE equivalent could ever be financially justified in today's PC game market.

There IS the odd chance that the Navy will throw a contract their way that justifies a new/HEAVILY updated NSE that they will then be able to spin off as a sim for us types, but please understand that I remain very pessimistic about that ever happening.

PD

[Castout]

imo modding a game and making the mod public don't rip anything from its original developer which is Sonalysts. In fact it may be beneficial to Sonalysts for the circulation of these mods. It extends the life of the game and may prompted a few to actually buy the software.

Furthermore the communities who made the mods do not profit from it. These mods are fan based. And Sonalysts doesn't lose anything from these mods, not even a cent and it may even profit from it.

[Raptor_341]

>> I fully agree with Castout on this. SCS doesnt lose ANYTHING. In fact, they will gain if anything from a few more people who could want it now. As said before, I wouldnt even use DW if it wasnt for the mods like LWAMI, and now RA has shown us a whole new level of what this can be. Something SCS never was willing to expand on. HOw many sims would have been dead already if it wasnt for addons and extra realism programs. Even IL-2 its good to have all aircraft unlocked. Modding is the life blood simulations, making something good just a bit, or alot, ( in the case of RA ) better. SCS is just anti-modding from what i feel, and so be it, it will not stop us nor should it. There is good work done here, and i think they know that, if they even look at DW at all with bigger things to do.

[Raptor_341]

Moving on past the "illegal" stuff, its doesnt matter at all, im looking forward to the upcomming RA, just keep us posted on the release Castout, ill be waiting.

[Castout]

Here Rapid localization array locations on 688.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/WAA_688.jpg

It's probably safe to assume that they have been widely used in many modern SSKs as well

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Here Rapid localization array locations on 688.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/roh_kudus/WAA_688.jpg

It's probably safe to assume that they have been widely used in many modern SSKs as well

Hmm, source?

That looks like a Flight I (or II) 688 (planes on sail). Are you sure this isn't a picture of USS Memphis or one of those other experimental jobs?

As for the whole issue of legality, IMO the fact this thread even lasted so long is a sign of the zeitgeist shift as people gradually lose faith in SCS and begin looking for alternatives. 2-3 years ago, we'll frown at anything more than modding the databse. Even 1 year ago a thread like this won't have many takers. Now it is the hottest thing on this board.

[MR. Wood]

When I frist saw the thread I thought it was going to be deleted but when I seen Bill AKA subguru post on here I knew it was going to be a winner.:up: thanks to all and for alfa tau and ra.:|\\

[Castout]

Commercial products like DW are a very small part of SCS's business, but the NavalSimEngine is part of both the commercial product and their defense products. The problem is that government agencies or defense contractors might start using "free" PCUs or add-ons to model new platforms instead of going back to SCS for those services.
Oh I see. I kinda suspected that. i missed reading this post before.

But to be honest . . . I'm sure that there are more that SCS is offering to their defense contractors than any community modders could ever hope to offer. Community mods may be interesting and sufficiently appealing to naval enthusiasts but I very much doubt that it would have the same value or appeal to defense contractors.

I mean Steel Beast Pro which is used by many armed forces as a training aid software are being sold to the general public without compromising Esim its developer to lose its existing government military agencies all over the world to the much cheaper public released version of it which is the SB Pro PE(Personal Edition).

I'm hoping we could get our hands on the software that SCS has been developing for its defense contractors.....just like Esim did with SB Pro.:hmm:. But then again the world of submarines is a world of its own. . . . . .

[Castout]

Hmm, source?

You kidding me? and risk losing a well developed and well hidden spy ring in General dynamics' electric boat division?

No......


Okay it was Bill......




Of course I'm not taking any lie detector test. :rotfl:

[MBot]

Unless I am completly mistaken, the principle of RAPLOC is not that new. They already had that in the 60s with the PUFFS system.


As for the legal thing. While legaly it might be clear, for me that has become a moral question that everyone has to answer for himselfe. I completely understand why SCS wanted to ban mods that could compromise payable addons. Some people would not buy something they can get for free from a mod. So SCS rightfully reserved the right to make money from their investment (the development of the initial game) by selling new plattforms.
Now that SCS obviously wont sell any new plattforms, I see no harm done in modding them in. I see it as a tribute that people still care so much for a game that many years after its release and still try to improve it. While it might be legaly wrong, I hope that SCS sees that this process is driven by a positive force, not a desire to harm.


I can't see the argument that mods will harm military contracts. Considering how willing the gouverments are to pay overprice (consider the price difference of VBS2 and ArmA for essentialy the same game), I have a hard time to imagine that any military would download a (imperfect) mod.

[Molon Labe]

When I frist saw the thread I thought it was going to be deleted but when I seen Bill AKA subguru post on here I knew it was going to be a winner.:up: thanks to all and for alfa tau and ra.:|\\

Yeah, me too. It wasn't that long ago that threads like this were locked and screenshots of RA beta were passed around only quietly in emails and PMs. Bill posting these is definitely a sign that times are a-changin'.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I have a hard time to imagine that any military would download a (imperfect) mod.
Not to mention that if the military wanted to violate their contracts and create their own platforms, I'm quite sure they could do that without any help from modders.

PD

[goldorak]

I have a hard time to imagine that any military would download a (imperfect) mod.
Not to mention that if the military wanted to violate their contracts and create their own platforms, I'm quite sure they could do that without any help from modders.

PD

If the license of the software they are using forbids modding you can bet they won't do it.
I don't understand why people don't get it. Modding for personal use while (sometimes) illegal doesn't have the same kind of implications that arise in a business environment.
You don't hear the Us Navy using cracked/pirated/illegal modded software do you ?

[Raptor_341]

>> lets just put an ADCAP in this one and let it lie. We are all here to use and talk about RA anyways.

[goldorak]

>> lets just put an ADCAP in this one and let it lie. We are all here to use and talk about RA anyways.

Myself I'd prefer a couple of stallions. Rapid and deadly right on target. :lol:
Back to topic : when is the definitive version of RA coming out ? :ping:

[MBot]

The waterfall display for the Gepard looks spectacular. I think this will boost my desire to play it tenfold. I always hated the SSAZ broadband display, this thing only displays cargo ships anyway. With the waterfall you can pick up contacts in the history very soon after you get them on NB. Situation awareness is so much better.

A shame that it is only for the Gepard and not also the othe Akulas. But from what people say this is correct. Strange that the soviets didn't go for waterfall displays earlier, as far as I know already the Skat sonar of the Victor III was digital. But perhaps they didn't have the processing power.

[suBB]

>> lets just put an ADCAP in this one and let it lie. We are all here to use and talk about RA anyways.
conn, sonar: explosion on Master 1.... lost the wire... tube 1... :arrgh!:

[Castout]

>> lets just put an ADCAP in this one and let it lie. We are all here to use and talk about RA anyways.

Not forgetting Alfa Tau too of course the thread's title is Alfa Tau 3.1. I'm afraid it's been veering off topic but I guess this is a DWX mods thread for both Alfa Tau and RA. I hope those who like Alfa Tau don' mind sharing this thread with its Russian counterpart ;).

Perhaps a new thread could be started after the upcoming release of the updated RA.
Until then let's use the existing thread.

[goldorak]

The only thing that is missing from RA are diesel electric subs.
Type 209 and Type 212. In this respect Alfa Tau is still superior.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Unless I am completly mistaken, the principle of RAPLOC is not that new. They already had that in the 60s with the PUFFS system.
mod.[/quote]

Checks the net version of Norman Friedman's Naval Weapons System ...

You are right, but PUFFs was only so successful they installed it onto a single test sub according to Friedman - no operational attack sub ever got it. The upgraded "MicroPUFF" only went onto the Upholders.

[Hitman]

The waterfall display for the Gepard looks spectacular. I think this will boost my desire to play it tenfold. I always hated the SSAZ broadband display, this thing only displays cargo ships anyway. With the waterfall you can pick up contacts in the history very soon after you get them on NB. Situation awareness is so much better.

A shame that it is only for the Gepard and not also the othe Akulas. But from what people say this is correct. Strange that the soviets didn't go for waterfall displays earlier, as far as I know already the Skat sonar of the Victor III was digital. But perhaps they didn't have the processing power.


All interfaces are interchangeable except: 1) Main nav station from diesel to nuke and viceversa, 2) Weapon stations, due to differences in tubes.

I did long ago an Akula with waterfall displays simply by copying over the proper files from the Seawolf or 688i over to the Akula folder and overwriting the Akula ones. You can also do the same for the Kilo, change colours of numbers manually editing a text file, and also change readout from feet to metres and back. No hexediting or messing around with dlls needed :)

I also gave the Kilo the Akula scope, with LLTV camera with no problem.

The only thing you can't do is give the Kilo (Or any other diesel) a towed array, as there is no button in the diesel main nav & control interface to stream it.

[MBot]

Thats strange, I remember having seen pics of a couple of subs that had PUFFS fins (at least one of the old diesels and the Tulibee SSN). It is also mentioned here (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08593a.htm) to be installed on the Permit, now without fins. The way I remeber it, it was continuously developed and ended up as WAA on the Virginia. But to be honest, I can't find any good history on PUFFS at the moment and don't remember where I have that from.

[XabbaRus]

OK about the legality thig.

It was something I threw up a couple of years ago with aaken and GrayOwl.

This is the SCS stance.

1. You can add new non playable units, new 3d models and alter the texture maps.
2. You can alter the database to adjust parameters. You have to do that for 1 anyway.
3. You CANNOT add new playable platforms that require the hacking of the exe and dlls so that the new playable units are UNIQUELY playable, ie it is an addition to the stock playable units. The only way to add a new playable is to hack the exe and dlls, as evidently has been done. There is a way to have a new playbel but it is at the expense of an existing playable. This can be done as it is a dbase hack.

I'm locking this thread for the time being till I find out from Neal what the subsim policy is on this. Any new threads will be locked.

Sorry for being a PITA, I just don't want SCS to bust subsim.com

[Onkel Neal]

I'll make a request to Sonalysts to see if they will allow this. It sounds pretty good, and could inject new life into Dangerous Waters, especially with the sim no longer being actively upgraded. I will let you know what I learn.

Neal
Subsim

[Onkel Neal]

Thread cleared, thanks for your understanding. If anything changes, I'll let you know. Enjoy!

Neal
Subsim

[Molon Labe]

Does "thread cleared" mean they're allowing distribution?

[goldorak]

Does "thread cleared" mean they're allowing distribution?

It means we are allowed to discuss about RA and AT3.
Nothing more nothing less.

At least I understand it that way.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Does "thread cleared" mean they're allowing distribution?
Bill uploaded and linked to the mods in question in this thread. And this thread was reopened after consideration.

PD

[BobbyZero]

I agree with goldorak, I believe that they allowed the mod discussion, not linking to mods or modding or mod distribution. However, maybe I'm wrong (and I sooooo hope that I am).

To leave out any doubts, Mr. Stevens, could you please be more specific regarding "thread clearance"?

[Bill Nichols]

My understanding of what they told Neal is that they (SCS) won't take any action on this topic.

[goldorak]

Well since we all agree, lets get back to topic.
Does anybody know if the trafalgar class carries uuv (in real life) ?
In the RA it is one of a few subs that doesn't carry it.
Is this correct or is it an oversight ? :-?

[MBot]

I don't know if it was the intention, but to me it sounds a bit like "do what you want, we don't know about anything".

[goldorak]

I don't know if it was the intention, but to me it sounds a bit like "do what you want, we don't know about anything".

Does it really matter what the intention was/is ?
C'mon they said they are OK with this thread. Thats all that matters.
Lets stop debating about the angels sex and lets talk instead about RA. :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

I agree with goldorak, I believe that they allowed the mod discussion, not linking to mods or modding or mod distribution. However, maybe I'm wrong (and I sooooo hope that I am).

To leave out any doubts, Mr. Stevens, could you please be more specific regarding "thread clearance"?

I believe that they allowed the mod discussion, AND linking to mods or modding or mod distribution. Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague, you are correct, sir. Linking is ok, discussion is ok, for this particular mod in this case.

Again, thanks to all for taking the time to let me clear this with SCS. It is good that we show the developer respect. I think this mod will help DW and hopefully spur more interest in a future SCS game release.

thx
Neal

[BobbyZero]

I believe that they allowed the mod discussion, AND linking to mods or modding or mod distribution. Sorry, I didn't mean to be vague, you are correct, sir. Linking is ok, discussion is ok, for this particular mod in this case.

Again, thanks to all for taking the time to let me clear this with SCS. It is good that we show the developer respect. I think this mod will help DW and hopefully spur more interest in a future SCS game release.

thx
Neal
:rock::rock::rock::ping::ping::ping:

Man, I never thought we'd see the day :D

Big thnx Mr. Stevens for the time and trouble! Oh, not to forget, extrabig THNX SCS!! :up:

[Raptor_341]

Well ill be dammed, its open.

[Eugene]

I must be using the wrong search terms. Can't find the link to fabled Alfa Tau 3.1. (If I read this correctly, it is permitted to link to it). Looked at SubGuru and don't see it mentioned. But I might be having a very overloaded work day and it's plain as day. Help!

[Bill Nichols]

See post #48, above.

What I have may not be the latest version, if anyone has a newer one give me a yell.

[goldorak]

See post #48, above.

What I have may not be the latest version, if anyone has a newer one give me a yell.

Actually for the Alfa Tau 3.1 mod there exists a patch that updates the database and doctrine files.
Its 781KB compressed with 7z. Around 3.MB uncompressed.

[Eugene]

See post #48, above.

What I have may not be the latest version, if anyone has a newer one give me a yell.

Thanks, Bill! I looked in the first page or so, and the last couple pages. Should have kept going. I appreciate the link.

[dd149]

If somebody has the link to the latest patch and/ or file, please post it here or let me know by pm.

Cheers to the community who keeps our old games alive while the industry foregets about them after 6 months.

[SandyCaesar]

See post #48, above.

What I have may not be the latest version, if anyone has a newer one give me a yell.
Actually for the Alfa Tau 3.1 mod there exists a patch that updates the database and doctrine files.
Its 781KB compressed with 7z. Around 3.MB uncompressed.

Can you point us to the fix?

[MR. Wood]

Anyone know about how the next version is coming? And can someone please from either mod give us a new seawolf model and change the screens to red instead of orange,:know: like on the real sub http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/USS_Seawolf_(SSN_21)_Control_Room_HighRes.jpg

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Uh, what an ugly red. I think I'll stick to orange.

Besides, if you make the display red, you might run into the same problem I do on the Akula - an inability to see a visible blip on active sonar where it is possible to see it on Orange and Green sonars.

[MR. Wood]

I didn't mean all screens I should have said which on i was talking like the conn screen but not the sonar I seen a pic of seawolfs sonar on a panel and it was green.

[Bill Nichols]

Here are the latest files I've received (includes a patch for AT-3.1):


Alfa Tau:

http://www.subguru.com/AlfaTau3-1.exe

http://www.subguru.com/Mod_Alfa_Tau_3-1_Patch.7z


Reinforce Alert:

http://www.subguru.com/RA_OPFOR_PACK.rar

http://www.subguru.com/error_fix_ra-opfor-pack.rar

:know:

[MR. Wood]

thanks Bill:rock:
The tigerfish sucks in RA mod they fail right after launch had to ram small ssk to kill

[:FI:Rabitski]

The latest Beta version of RA addresses this issue. We just have to figure out where to get it:-?

[Delareon]

Hey folks, RA sounds intresting to me but it seems to be a problem that i have a german version of dw as readme describes. So is there some way to get the mod working in an german version of dw?

[goldorak]

Does anybody know how to change the color of the sonar station on the trafalgar ? Right now it uses the same default color as that of the seawolf (orange).
I would like to use the color blue, the same used on the sonar station of the virginia. Is there a way to do this in a simple way (so no tinkering with dll files, or editing them) ? :hmm:

Obviously I'm talking of the RA mod.

[LoBlo]

What would be most useful is a "how to" on modding these types of things. Or even a more advance "mod tool/editor"

[MR. Wood]

Has anyone heard anything from any of the developers?:hmm:

[:FI:Rabitski]

It may be an idea if a separate topic was started in which we could discuss Alfa Tau in one and RA on another. It would be good also if the links( the latest for each) were available under each topic. At the moment we seem to have two different conversations going on @ once about two different Mods.

[XabbaRus]

I'll do that and sticky it.

[XabbaRus]

OK I have created two new stickied threads in the Dangerous Waters Mod Workshop forum.

One is for Alfa Tau, the other for RA.

Please discuss in the relevant threads. If someone sends me the links to the mods I'll edit my first post in each to place the links.