Index of Stickied topics + RA Mod Discussion here

[Blacklight]

Yeah. The sub AI needs to be a lot more aggressive. They don't like to attack at all in my games even with that doctrine file. I love the new playables and new models !

Another oddness I noticed with this mod was in the mission editor for some reason. When I would insert say a surface vessel onto the map, select the country and they type of vessel it is, if I decided I want to change it into another type of surface vessel, it won't do it. It automaticly resets the ship to the original. The only way I can change the ship is to litterally delete it and insert a brand new ship on the map. I uninstalled and reinstalled DW and the mod a few times and I've verified that it does not do this to me in stock, 1.04, or with LWAMI. It only does it when the RA mod is in there.
I can't imagine how this mod could possibly affect the mission editor. :hmmm:

[suBB]

Some observations made on RA_DWX_1.00

A. Sturgeon(short) & LA flt 1 hulls:

Either HF sonar not working, or has been disabled for these hulls.

B. Collins, 212A, Trenchant, Lada, Virginia, Seawolf, akula 2, akula 2 improved hulls:

I assume this is the photonic mast that has the same periscope icon, but assigned to the F10 key. There appears to be a typo in the mouse over on this icon. When you move the mouse over it, it says ‘ship control F10’

C. Collins, Harushio, 212, 212A, Trenchant, Virginia, Trafalgar hulls:

Rig bow planes command doesn’t work. If it should then it’s a bug. If not then it should be removed from visible sight(if possible). Since 212 & 212A don’t have bowplanes, I think the icon should be removed from visible sight.

D. CTD:

Selecting typhoon U hull in mission(not just quick mission) causes CTD


:salute:

[kpv1974]

Not sure I understand what you mean here. I apologize for that. But from what I get, are you saying this cannot be adjusted in the doctrine files to work appropriately? Or is it just an adjustment of 'time' in the doctrine files to set it closer to the point at which you fired on the AI submarine? Still confused.

Time of return fire (6-8min) is hardcoded in engine! It can not be accelerated in doctrine.

[kpv1974]

Place the files from this archive into the folder "...\Dangerous Waters\Doctrine

http://www.redrodgers.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8095&d=1253097519

[OneShot]

Hotfix file updated at the cadc as well.

[:FI:Rabitski]

On the new SSK's both my Broadband and norrow band display's for the TA, are freezing after about 30-60min game play, despite carrying out the changes advised by Goldorak( lowering the time settings, Thank's for the help by the way) also I'm unable to load any weapons on the Lada. Not sure if it's an install issue on my end, or are they bug's? .

[pjb1]

On the new SSK's both my Broadband and norrow band display's for the TA, are freezing after about 30-60min game play, despite carrying out the changes advised by Goldorak( lowering the time settings, Thank's for the help by the way) also I'm unable to load any weapons on the Lada. Not sure if it's an install issue on my end, or are they bug's? .
Lada works fine for me. How did you install the new mod?

[goldorak]

On the new SSK's both my Broadband and norrow band display's for the TA, are freezing after about 30-60min game play, despite carrying out the changes advised by Goldorak( lowering the time settings, Thank's for the help by the way) also I'm unable to load any weapons on the Lada. Not sure if it's an install issue on my end, or are they bug's? .


What kind of graphics card are you using ?

[:FI:Rabitski]

Nvidia 8800's. As to how I installed it, knowing me the answer would be the wrong way.

[-GrayOwl-]

Yeah. The sub AI needs to be a lot more aggressive. They don't like to attack at all in my games even with that doctrine file. I love the new playables and new models !

Another oddness I noticed with this mod was in the mission editor for some reason. When I would insert say a surface vessel onto the map, select the country and they type of vessel it is, if I decided I want to change it into another type of surface vessel, it won't do it. It automaticly resets the ship to the original. The only way I can change the ship is to litterally delete it and insert a brand new ship on the map. I uninstalled and reinstalled DW and the mod a few times and I've verified that it does not do this to me in stock, 1.04, or with LWAMI. It only does it when the RA mod is in there.
I can't imagine how this mod could possibly affect the mission editor. :hmmm:

What you mean speaking about aggressions?
Time of answer-back fire or quantity of torpedoes per salvo?

[Theta Sigma]

Place the files from this archive into the folder "...\Dangerous Waters\Doctrine

http://www.redrodgers.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8095&d=1253097519

If using JSGME, I assume you mean Dangerous Waters\MODS\RA_mod\Doctrine, yes?

[goldorak]

If using JSGME, I assume you mean Dangerous Waters\MODS\RA_mod\Doctrine, yes?

Yes

[pjb1]

Nvidia 8800's. As to how I installed it, knowing me the answer would be the wrong way.
I assume you are using JSGME if so go to entry #83 Goldorak has a great description how to install. If you have RA already installed, then you must delete the RA folder in MODS before you put in the new one DO NOT overwrite.

[pjb1]

When enemy pings i can see it on active intercept but cant hear it. All audio is on. Hear pinging in Lwami but not RA, did i forget to do something. Same with incoming torps.

[goldorak]

When enemy pings i can see it on active intercept but cant hear it. All audio is on. Hear pinging in Lwami but not RA, did i forget to do something. Same with incoming torps.

You see the signal on active intercept but can't hear the sound ? :hmmm:
Thats really strange, I don't know what to tell you. If a see a signal on active intercept (either active ping by surface ship or torpedos) I can hear them as well.

[pjb1]

You see the signal on active intercept but can't hear the sound ? :hmmm:
Thats really strange, I don't know what to tell you. If a see a signal on active intercept (either active ping by surface ship or torpedos) I can hear them as well.
Did more testing launched a stallion and an asw-27 from akula stallion at 000 deg rng 5nm and asw-27 90 deg rng 5nm and neither one showed up on actuve intercept or audio. Played a quick multi player against a friend and he has the same problem cant here incoming torps i launched a stallion at him it landed within 3 nm and he never heard it he recieved a TIW and could see it on active intercept but no audio. He also tested and said he could hear low freq pinging 3300, but no high freq 14000. Can you check this goldorak and see if you get the same it was a helo he couldnt hear. I tested with a ship and i could hear and see pinging at 3300 freq but couldnt hear helo pinging.

[goldorak]

Did more testing launched a stallion and an asw-27 from akula stallion at 000 deg rng 5nm and asw-27 90 deg rng 5nm and neither one showed up on actuve intercept or audio.


Ok I'll test this. Today I did a test scenario with a Virginia launching 4 subrocs at bearings 0, 10,15,20 at 10 nm and I can see and hear the pings of the subrocs in the active intercept. I wonder whats different with the Akula ? :hmmm:


Played a quick multi player against a friend and he has the same problem cant here incoming torps i launched a stallion at him it landed within 3 nm and he never heard it he recieved a TIW and could see it on active intercept but no audio. He also tested and said he could hear low freq pinging 3300, but no high freq 14000. Can you check this goldorak and see if you get the same it was a helo he couldnt hear. I tested with a ship and i could hear and see pinging at 3300 freq but couldnt hear helo pinging.

He can' t hear the active dipping sonar ?

[Snakeeyes]

Even with the new doctrine AI subs are blind and stupid. I pinged away at them and they act like targets.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Even with the new doctrine AI subs are blind and stupid. I pinged away at them and they act like targets.
Concur. I can run through around a flock of enemy SSNs cavitating and they won't shoot even though I was detected.

[Snakeeyes]

Concur. I can run through around a flock of enemy SSNs cavitating and they won't shoot even though I was detected.


Grrr!!!! Like right at 6 minutes into the engagement they fire away. Do you mean that AI subs are held back from firing for 6 minutes even if they detect me?! Is this ALL THE TIME in "quick mission"?!

[pjb1]

Ok I'll test this. Today I did a test scenario with a Virginia launching 4 subrocs at bearings 0, 10,15,20 at 10 nm and I can see and hear the pings of the subrocs in the active intercept. I wonder whats different with the Akula ? :hmmm:



He can' t hear the active dipping sonar ?
ok heres a real strange thing. I played myself over LAN same audio problems. After about 2 mins of pinging myself everything started to work fine. Talked to friend he also has multi PCs he played himself over LAN same thing he said it started to work after about 3 pings. We played each other were pinging away and heard everything. Really starnge.

[goldorak]

Concur. I can run through around a flock of enemy SSNs cavitating and they won't shoot even though I was detected.

Didn't the modders say that the AI response was hard coded by the engine at 6 minutes ? Does Lwami exibit this behaviour ?

[goldorak]

Did more testing launched a stallion and an asw-27 from akula stallion at 000 deg rng 5nm and asw-27 90 deg rng 5nm and neither one showed up on actuve intercept or audio. P

Ok I tested and no problem. I can hear pings and see the signal on the active intercept for stallions and SSN-27 launched between 270 and 90 at 5 nm.
If you launch beyond those values, you won't hear anything as there is a baffle in the active intercept. Quite a big baffle actually (I don't remember the baffle being so big in the beta).

[Theta Sigma]

Yes

Thanks, but.....

For JSGME compatibility, should \AUDIO and \SCENARIO be placed into MODS\RA_mod, or the new files be added to those folders in \Dangerous Waters?

I'd like to know that too.

[Castout]

German(DE) Type 212 towed array sonar display would freeze after a few minutes.

The modders have done great job on this but they probably have done too much :).

[Sea Demon]

Grrr!!!! Like right at 6 minutes into the engagement they fire away. Do you mean that AI subs are held back from firing for 6 minutes even if they detect me?! Is this ALL THE TIME in "quick mission"?!

Yep. This is definitely a negative. They should fire at least within a couple of minutes if not sooner. I would give a couple of minutes for them to sort the target if they detect me first. But I think in many circumstances, they should counterfire down my line of bearing immediately after they detect my torpedo coming their way. 6 minutes is not good for gameplay.

[goldorak]

German(DE) Type 212 towed array sonar display would freeze after a few minutes.

The modders have done great job on this but they probably have done too much :).

Castout what is your exact pc configuration ?
I played over 1 hour of simulated time (alternating real and 8x acceleration) in the Type 212 DE and I couldn't get the sonar display to freeze, either in broadband or narrowband.

[Castout]

Castout what is your exact pc configuration ?
I played over 1 hour of simulated time (alternating real and 8x acceleration) in the Type 212 DE and I couldn't get the sonar display to freeze, either in broadband or narrowband.

My PC is
Intel Dual core 2.8GHz
8 Gb DD2 RAM
Nvidia 980GTX+ 512Mb GPU

On Vista x64

I never had problem with DW before.
I did install after installing LWAMI 3.09. However LWAMI was only installed with JSGME and I made sure to uninstall LWAMI 3.09 through JSGME and then deleted the whole MODS folder and the JSGME exe.

[goldorak]

My PC is
Intel Dual core 2.8GHz
8 Gb DD2 RAM
Nvidia 980GTX+ 512Mb GPU

On Vista x64

I never had problem with DW before.
I did install after installing LWAMI 3.09. However LWAMI was only installed with JSGME and I made sure to uninstall LWAMI 3.09 through JSGME and then deleted the whole MODS folder and the JSGME exe.


:hmmm: well we have almost the same hardware, same graphics card, I have an Intel quadcore and 2GB on windows xp.
I fail to see how Vista 64 could be the problem.

Does the freeze happen every time you play ? Are you sure its not sound related ? Try disabling sound and see if the freeze occurs.

[Castout]

:hmmm: well we have almost the same hardware, same graphics card, I have an Intel quadcore and 2GB on windows xp.
I fail to see how Vista 64 could be the problem.

Does the freeze happen every time you play ? Are you sure its not sound related ? Try disabling sound and see if the freeze occurs.

Thanks for the advice. The freeze happened twice. Just now I tried playing the DE Type 212 and the towed broadband sonar waterfall display didn't freeze. Maybe it takes longer I don't know.

Some funny things in DWX.
For example the towed sonar wouldn't activate if you reel out the towed array in some of the more advanced diesel subs which are equipped with towed array but when I tried it the second time they all worked fine.
It seems that things need to be triggered at least once for them to work properly. Like they need time before kicking in just like a bad car engine lol. Great mod though. Phenomenal work I can understand if somethigns may not work properly. The mod is massive. I don't know how many people got together to develop it but I think not that many though.

[goldorak]

Thanks for the advice. The freeze happened twice. Just now I tried playing the DE Type 212 and the towed broadband sonar waterfall display didn't freeze. Maybe it takes longer I don't know.


Maybe you're affected by this specific bug ? :


There is a problem with "freezing" BB and NB sonars on 212, 212A, Collins and Harushio.
This occurs if you go to the "Options" or "USNI_Reference" menu and return back to the game.
This is due to the difficulty of docking interfaces. (Thanks to Sonalysts)

[Castout]

Maybe you're affected by this specific bug ? :

That could be it! Thanks for bringing that to light:sunny:

[caymanlee]

RA 1.0 is wonderful:yeah::rotfl2:

one question though: old version DWEdit couldn't work anymore:damn:, anyone know how to access the new database?

[dyshman]

you can't open database! because developers passworded it to prevent any "unofficial":) modification.

[caymanlee]

you can't open database! because developers passworded it to prevent any "unofficial":) modification.

thank you for the first answer.

password protected? sound bad news though. they should mention that in that "readme", bummer:damn:

[Castout]

Oh No....everytime I open the USNI reference to find the TPK value of a vessel detected on my sonar in the Collins class SSK the sonar display would freeze. It seems that the sonar display would freeze even when opening the USNI reference and not merely by opening the option.


How do we suppose to play without being able to open the USNI reference to check the TPK value of vessels?

This problem as far as I know didn't exist in the BETA version of RA. This is SERIOUS.

[XabbaRus]

you can't open database! because developers passworded it to prevent any "unofficial":) modification.


Hmm I wonder how they did that? Even SCS didn't password protect the database.

So did they alter the coding.

I think that stinks that they have locked it. Never have any mod team locked the database not SCX with subcommand or LWAMI....

What database editor was used?

[FERdeBOER]

It's bad news if it's true we can't mess with the database... I mean, all this time blaming SCS because it's policy and now... :nope:
i.e.: the Astute damaged model doesn't exists; I damaged one and the model simply dissapeared... I know how to change that with dwedit but if I can't... :damn:

I thanks a lot RA team for their work, but they should let us to make our own mods...
Maybe they have their reasons.

As for the doctrines and IA behaviour... I directly copied the sub ones from LwAmi 3.09 as is, without changing anything, just overwritting the RA ones and it works. I didn't do many tests, but I got fired and IA subs evaded my torps quite well.
Maybe some "doctrine expert" could tell us if there's much difference between both of them or if there are things on RA doctrine that must to be there for the mods correct functioning.

As for surface units, I didn't test them yet.

[-GrayOwl-]

Hmm I wonder how they did that? Even SCS didn't password protect the database.

So did they alter the coding.

I think that stinks that they have locked it. Never have any mod team locked the database not SCX with subcommand or LWAMI....

What database editor was used?

Xabba, You must live with DW version 1.0 or 1.03 or 1.04 --- forever.

[MR. Wood]

This is all very strange. Someone tell me if they have same problems I have all the glitchs and bugs no icbms for russian and american boomers alrosa has no weapons same with the alfa oscar II has no shipwreck missils no sub rocks on older us ssn's anyone

else have this problem ?

[XabbaRus]

Xabba, You must live with DW version 1.0 or 1.03 or 1.04 --- forever.

Gray Owl, considering I sent you numerous private messages earlier this year since I had a copy of RA mod for some time and it contained SCX 3d models and yet you never requested permission I think your response is a bit contrite.

It is also hypocritical of your team to lock down the database when you openly criticise SCS of not allowing people to modify the game.

I think you should rethink this as it could backfire.

Also having added the platforms you have technically the EULA has been broken, just SCS can't be bothered to chase you.

[Castout]

Gray Owl, considering I sent you numerous private messages earlier this year since I had a copy of RA mod for some time and it contained SCX 3d models and yet you never requested permission I think your response is a bit contrite.

It is also hypocritical of your team to lock down the database when you openly criticise SCS of not allowing people to modify the game.

I think you should rethink this as it could backfire.

Also having added the platforms you have technically the EULA has been broken, just SCS can't be bothered to chase you.

I thought they gave us the green light concerning RA? It was clear from the beginning that RA was going to have more playables. Sonalysts is not losing money over this. Alfa Tau also adds considerable number of playables.

[goldorak]

Also having added the platforms you have technically the EULA has been broken, just SCS can't be bothered to chase you.

Xabbarus, I thought this was settled months ago.
SCS doesn't give a damn about DW anymore and I'm not talking about new playables, but patches that fixe CTD, a replay viewer that had been promised years ago ano nowhere to be seen.

[XabbaRus]

Maybe but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I just don't think the database should be locked down.

I don't think it is fair. What if I want to replace a model with one of my own?

Alfa Tau don't lock down the dbase.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Maybe but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I just don't think the database should be locked down.

I don't think it is fair. What if I want to replace a model with one of my own?

Alfa Tau don't lock down the dbase.
RA is not Alfa Tau. Entirely up to the developers as far as I'm concerned. I don't like it, but can understand why they do it.

PD

[goldorak]

I don't think it is fair. What if I want to replace a model with one of my own?
Alfa Tau don't lock down the dbase.


You're right its not fair I agree with you, but I also understand their not wanting god knows how many derived mods based on RA floating all over the web.

The betasom group of players has been developing new 3d models of several of the Italian Navy vessels (the ones already present in the database are so so).
We can't put our models either in the database. :(
But I hope that if we ask the RA modders they would be happy to oblige to include our new 3d models in the mod for all to enjoy.

[caymanlee]

god knows how many derived mods based on RA floating all over the web.

funny thing is: Not so many people give a damn about that anymore, look around the forum, we are the very few people in the whole planet who still play this old game. and most of these group, are no teenagers, we have little time for this fun time. so, no matter who contribute, it will be great. but cut territory, set bar in this tiny little world, not cool.

Anyhow, as a hexer myself, I understand this mod take tremendous efforts, very neat indeed, especially those animated tubes, very detail oriented

[caymanlee]

Thanks to this RA mod, I start to notice something in DWEdit, interesting stuff I never think it can be contained in this kind of extra-program, here is some of DWEdit code part about that concern, look:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/dwedit_password_part.jpg

and this is the same part sum up in another program
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/dwedit_password_form2.jpg


Interesting, I wonder what Ludger Styra(ID:serpent46 our DWEdit inventor )might say about that

[caymanlee]

Of course, there is always solution for anything. Since RA team make their "not-welcome addition mod" statement clear, as long as I enjoy that mod, I respect their statement------------password change nothing, nobody can stole the RA's thunder, nor anyone can benefit from it. How far can it go, we should wait and see

[XabbaRus]

WEll I seriously doubt there will be any RA derived mods.

There were none SCX derived mods for SubCommand and noone took LWAMI's work either and stole that.

You seem to forget that I make my own models and some I consider better than some I have seen in the mod. So would like to have my own in.

If people are serious about MP play then they will not mess around with the dbase....

Any interesting that they must have hacked the DWedit program in order to introduce a password.

[Castout]

WEll I seriously doubt there will be any RA derived mods.

There were none SCX derived mods for SubCommand and noone took LWAMI's work either and stole that.



Hmm Alfa Tau is derived from LWAMI.
RA uses some of the things from SCX I you said so yourself.
Just give the modders some slack. From the players point of view we are just glad there's a new supermod to play with.
Or am I sensing personal dispute here?

[NFunky]

Anyone else having trouble using the "Great Prophet" torpedoes on the Iranian Kilo? I can't seem to get them to work at all. About two seconds after it leaves the tube it disappears. There is no explosion and moments after it disappears the sonar crew reports the unit is running normally.

Any ideas?

[Castout]

You're right I can't seem able to make it work either. SET-65 can't be assigned too at least can't be assigned to a surface target :hmmm:

[XabbaRus]

Hmm Alfa Tau is derived from LWAMI.
RA uses some of the things from SCX I you said so yourself.
Just give the modders some slack. From the players point of view we are just glad there's a new supermod to play with.
Or am I sensing personal dispute here?


There is no personal dispute, well apart from the bit with the models.

OK I forgot AlfaTau used LWAMI as a base, but all I am saying is that LWAMI didn't lock the database.

[goldorak]

You're right I can't seem able to make it work either. SET-65 can't be assigned too at least can't be assigned to a surface target :hmmm:

Maybe its because its an ASW torpedo.
READ THE DOCUMENTATION, page 15. :timeout:

[Castout]

Maybe its because its an ASW torpedo.
READ THE DOCUMENTATION, page 15. :timeout:

Oh really pardon me for my ignorance :D

[Castout]

There is no personal dispute, well apart from the bit with the models.

OK I forgot AlfaTau used LWAMI as a base, but all I am saying is that LWAMI didn't lock the database.

Yea should have asked politely for the rights to use your models but it's a complement nonetheless Xabba :D though unspoken :03:

[Snakeeyes]

Anyone made any missions yet for DWX? I love how the Typhoon stalking mission randomizes the enemy sub positions. Way cool.

Subguru? You designing any missions?

[Theta Sigma]

There is no personal dispute, well apart from the bit with the models.

Not asking you is bad, but I thought they at least credited you for using your work in their mod. :o

[-GrayOwl-]

Not asking you is bad, but I thought they at least credited you for using your work in their mod. :o

Give us the list of Xabba made models - we them we shall remove from a add-on.
For us it not a problem.

[pjb1]

Give us the list of Xabba made models - we them we shall remove from a add-on.
For us it not a problem.
I am also on the NWP team(the guys that mod Fleetcommand), and the RA modders used some of the models made by NWP. Not one person has complained, why because they dont copyright them. They do this because if you make a model and no one can use it then why bother. Maybe if some one on the RA mod would thank Xabba then he would be happy and life can go on. A note to Xabba if you dont want your stuff used then copyright it. That costs money, your money, and then if someone uses your material you can pay a laywer to have it removed. Sounds like it would cost a bunch of money. Dont want to put you down Xabba you do great work but in this day and age with the technology the way it is what other options do you have.

[Kapitan]

Thanks for a excellent mod guys i have a few queries though:

I just installed the mod but have a few problems the alfa has no sound no crew voices, and i sometimes get BITMAP failed to load and also no picture displays on the controlable submarine icon box when you select the mission, now im putting this don to i may not have installed it correctly i will re install after dinner to see whats what and let you know.

One other issue 450 meters for an al'fa ? despite theres known evedence they have dived to 750meters documented by the USN i do believe, if you require the evedence give me a few days i shall send it to you :D

The type 212 is a lovely boat i really love the periscope it looks the nuts !

So far so good ive only been on it for a few hours testing afew boats out but so far it looks great.

Thanks guys.

[dd149]

Guys, isnt it time to put the bad thoughts behind you and try to work together, at the end of the day, everybody here and on other sub games forums very much appreciates what you have done, whether its models or the new mod package. Without your hard work nothing would happen and we would be stuck with the original game , which was not even close to what you have put together. Again thanks to all who have participated and time to bury the hatchet dont you think so?

[XabbaRus]

Give us the list of Xabba made models - we them we shall remove from a add-on.
For us it not a problem.

GrawyOwl it was never a question of them being removed just one of being asked.

They're in now, why remove them, it is a hassle.

My main point is that I think you guys should rethink locking up the database.

[pjb1]

GrawyOwl it was never a question of them being removed just one of being asked.

They're in now, why remove them, it is a hassle.

My main point is that I think you guys should rethink locking up the database.
I agree with Xabba you guys should unlock the DB it can only help to make the Mod better. At NWP we leave ours open so anybody can do what they want to it but warn them first if your game stops doing everything dont say we didnt warn you. For the most part people dont play around with it. A few have even made suggestions to make it better. The problem with Fleet Command is if you dont know what everything in the editor does you can really screw everything up, because the DB editor flags dont actually do what they say.

[suBB]

how'd this happen.. error post..

[suBB]

I agree with Xabba you guys should unlock the DB it can only help to make the Mod better. At NWP we leave ours open so anybody can do what they want to it but warn them first if your game stops doing everything dont say we didnt warn you. For the most part people dont play around with it. A few have even made suggestions to make it better. The problem with Fleet Command is if you dont know what everything in the editor does you can really screw everything up, because the DB editor flags dont actually do what they say.

ehhm..

I think the decision to unlock the DB (or not) as well as consideration of changes to the DB that would (or wouldn't) improve the mod are ultimately theirs(RA mod team)

:ping:

[pjb1]

how do you put an oil rig in a scenario. I tried and kept getting an error msg when i tried to save scenario. "Error oil rig not on land".

[goldorak]

how do you put an oil rig in a scenario. I tried and kept getting an error msg when i tried to save scenario. "Error oil rig not on land".

Ignore the error message and save the mission.
It will work ok.

[pjb1]

Ignore the error message and save the mission.
It will work ok.
When i saved the error came up. Oh ok i see what you mean thx

[pjb1]

OK heres a bug. In a scenario i have a User FFG OHP. If the player decides to take an Udaloy the helos go away, that is there are no more helos on board. The same thing happens when the default is an udaloy and the player chooses to take an OHP instead. I guess the only way around this is to not check the box player has choice of platform when making the mission.

[Deisel Submarine]

:down:I think the RA Team should reconsider unlocking the DB beacuse every one enjoys changeing things and adding new units and the Fact that No other Mod has been locked i think makes them look bad.:)

[Kapitan]

Well if we each had a copy of this mod and a one person changes it, and you want to play multiplayer with it, you with either corrupt everyone else's version or you just wont be able to join full stop.

Locking it has its uses and as some of the models belong to third parties it can act as a sort of protection for that authors work, im niether in favor or against but i can understand both sides.

Personally i have no wish to edit the DB infact i dont even have the knowlege to.

[goldorak]

Well if we each had a copy of this mod and a one person changes it, and you want to play multiplayer with it, you with either corrupt everyone else's version or you just wont be able to join full stop.

Locking it has its uses and as some of the models belong to third parties it can act as a sort of protection for that authors work, im niether in favor or against but i can understand both sides.


Sure I agree with this point of view.
But it also implies that people wishing to publish new 3d models can't.
Because nobody except the modders of RA can insert them in the database.



Personally i have no wish to edit the DB infact i dont even have the knowlege to.

Thats your choice of course, but some people wanting to publish 3d models (not playable units but simple 3d models) for all to enjoy are banned from doing this, or just adding new navy entries unless asking the RA modders and them releasing a new database version with your models inserted.

[Theta Sigma]

I asked earlier (twice) about the audio and scenario folders and whether they are usable in the ra_mod folder in MODS, or need to be copied into the main folder to add/overwrite.

No one's replied, and I need to know the same for this:

http://crazyivan.nextmail.ru/DWX_RA_ver1/RA_DWX_ENG1_Voice.rar

Can that just be extracted to the folders in ra_mod OR does the batch need to be run OR does either need to be done for the main audio folder?

[goldorak]

The batch file has to be run to install the new voices.

[-GrayOwl-]

I asked earlier (twice) about the audio and scenario folders and whether they are usable in the ra_mod folder in MODS, or need to be copied into the main folder to add/overwrite.

No one's replied, and I need to know the same for this:

http://crazyivan.nextmail.ru/DWX_RA_ver1/RA_DWX_ENG1_Voice.rar

Can that just be extracted to the folders in ra_mod OR does the batch need to be run OR does either need to be done for the main audio folder?


You must place (unzip voice archive) into Root game folder and run a BAT file.
Similar installing DWX mod.

[tony65]

..in the Lada knob streaming wire does not work..
:salute:

[goldorak]

..in the Lada knob streaming wire does not work..
:salute:

Yes it works.
Be sure to always go into the weapon loadout screen before entering a mission. Otherwise strange problems can occur.

[tony65]

Yes it works.
Be sure to always go into the weapon loadout screen before entering a mission. Otherwise strange problems can occur.


done already ..not work..

:hmmm:

[goldorak]

Sorry, I thought you meant the Towed Array.
If you're refering to the wire antenna, yes its disabled.
Although I don't rember if this was done on purpose or is a genuine bug.
In any case the Lada still has the normal radio antenna.

[tony65]

Sorry, I thought you meant the Towed Array.
If you're refering to the wire antenna, yes its disabled.
Although I don't rember if this was done on purpose or is a genuine bug.
In any case the Lada still has the normal radio antenna.

..yup..the "antenna floating" wire..!! :yep:
..but is just a graphic bug..for now i extend the antenna wire only with the "order menu"..

[FERdeBOER]

http://www.ra-dwx.narod.ru/

Here's a patch that corrects
BB and NB "Freezing" (212, 212A, Collins, Harushio)

Some fixes in doctrines (current cumulative pack)

download starts pressing Загружаем just under "latest news".

[Theta Sigma]

The batch file has to be run to install the new voices.

That doesn't specifically answer the question.

You must place (unzip voice archive) into Root game folder and run a BAT file.
Similar installing DWX mod.

Not with JSGME. I'm specifically asking about installing the voice pack on a JSGME install of RA.

I'm assuming that I should disable RA, then unzip the voice pack to MODS\RA_mod and run it in there, but I obviously wanted to ask before assuming anything. However, as I asked before, I wanted to know if MODS\RA_mod\AUDIO is recognized by dw, or does it only recognize AUDIO and SCENARIO folders in the root folder?

[goldorak]

I'm assuming that I should disable RA, then unzip the voice pack to MODS\RA_mod and run it in there, but I obviously wanted to ask before assuming anything


Its a plausible assumption so yes I think it should work.
But if you want hard confirmation, you'll have to find a player that has RA installed in a jsgme configuration. ;)

[Theta Sigma]

Considering the other main mods use it, and even come with it, I have to assume I'm not the only one to do so.

There I go assuming again....

I also assumed mod mission files wouldn't be recognized by other mods if they remained in their own specific scenario folders, so I copied them to the main scenario folder to be on the safe side. However, I would like to save disk space and delete that folder in RA_mod if it's redundant, or the RA files in the root scenario folder if they are.

The voice pack is a more critical issue since the it says it will overwrite all previous audio, and if it would be recognized in the MODS\RA_mod\AUDIO folder when RA is enabled, then I wouldn't want to possibly corrupt LWAMI, AT or stock DW.

[NFunky]

Anyone have any ideas as to what the Avalon and Mystic stores are in the LA weapons loadout?

[goldorak]

Anyone have any ideas as to what the Avalon and Mystic stores are in the LA weapons loadout? You can't seem to load them in a torpedo tube, but you can store them.

DSRV, mini submarines carried for search and rescue operations and they definitely are not stored in the torpedo tubes. ^_^

[OneShot]

Patch compilation updated at the CADC - Grab it here : http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/downloads.php?do=cat&id=5

Cheers
OS

[Castout]

http://www.ra-dwx.narod.ru/

Here's a patch that corrects


download starts pressing Загружаем just under "latest news".

Thank you!:yeah::yeah::yeah:

[Lane]

What does patch fix? :hmmm:
Installed Patch.

Thanks for any info.

Lane

[goldorak]

What does patch fix? :hmmm:
Installed Patch.

Thanks for any info.

Lane


Narrowband and broadband freezing problems, and cumative patch for doctrines.

[Bellman]

Huge vote of thanks for all the excellent work produced by this dedicated team.

My Beta Adcap performance criticisms have been sorted. As the dark nights return
us to more intense gaming, RA is going to be a favourite.

:|\\

[Kapitan]

Kaaping up apperancies eh bellman?

[Castout]

We need missions and campaigns that take advantage of the new playables BAAAAAADLY :damn:

Too bad I'm not qualified to make my own missions and campaigns

[Kapitan]

IF some one could help me install it properly i maybe able to get something rolling however i cant get it installed correctly i keep getting bitmap loadout failed messages and then i have to close down the game using ctrl alt del which is annoying.

I want to make some missions and i will as soon as i can figure it out or get some help the read me isnt that good i have to say.

[pjb1]

I am working on re-doing some already made missions mostly for multi-player but some co-op missions too. They will be posted at Sea Shadows Virtual Navy when i have them re worked.

[pjb1]

IF some one could help me install it properly i maybe able to get something rolling however i cant get it installed correctly i keep getting bitmap loadout failed messages and then i have to close down the game using ctrl alt del which is annoying.

I want to make some missions and i will as soon as i can figure it out or get some help the read me isnt that good i have to say.

If you see me on X-fire give me a yell. I will come to your vent and talk you thru install.

[goldorak]

IF some one could help me install it properly i maybe able to get something rolling however i cant get it installed correctly i keep getting bitmap loadout failed messages and then i have to close down the game using ctrl alt del which is annoying.

I want to make some missions and i will as soon as i can figure it out or get some help the read me isnt that good i have to say.

- uninstall DW, everything including jsgme. Nuke everything.
- reboot
- install DW (battlefront or strategy first version)
- apply patch 1.04
- reboot
- unzip DWX 1.0
- copy the two files, RA_OPFOR_DWX and Install_RA_OPFOR_DWX.bat inside the main dangerous waters directory
- double click on Install_RA_OPFOR_DWX.bat and wait for installation to finish.
- Job Done, mod installed
- reboot if you want
- play, if everything is ok then install the latest RA_DWX patch and the voice pack.

[Fearless]

I am working on re-doing some already made missions mostly for multi-player but some co-op missions too. They will be posted at Sea Shadows Virtual Navy when i have them re worked.

Do you guys at Sea Shadows use the RA mod as the standard?

[mikka]

Just checking in to say "thank you" to the modders for a tremendous effort.
And to the community in general for keeping nuke sims alive. This game is going to give me many years of enjoyment.

[caymanlee]

1 RA team take a lot of effort to reconstruct the Mast, that's really a bold decision and very hard work to finish. :yeah:

2 flexible parameter setting for Mass(tons):may be different from the reality, but fit the game-play purpose regard to the periscope depth the mast height, smart move :up:

Bravo! :salute:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/dwedit_mast.jpg

[caymanlee]

satellites in RA_1.0 mod looks fantastic, but their lifetime in mission doesn't last long, besides, their fly speed and attitude aren't stable, I don't know whether the instability is the original purpose of designer or not, but I figure the Satellites are very useful(finally, the Radio antenna fulfill its function ), so why not we make them more stable?

the original satellites setting in RA_1.0 Database
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/satcom-0.jpg

factors that cause the instability: Mass, Thrust, WpnMaxRange, Fuel,Doctrine

My test setting and doctrine for satellites, satellites run stable
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/satcom.jpg

by the way , waypoint tactic "Barrier" works great

[pjb1]

Do you guys at Sea Shadows use the RA mod as the standard?
We play all the Mods. it is decided prior to game which mod will be used

[Kapitan]

the seawolves you can use it www.seawolves.org (http://www.seawolves.org)

[Castout]

Hmm I think there's problem with the towed array for the SSKs.

For example in collins class even though a signal was obvious in the narrowband it didn't show up on the broadband at all. The spehere sonar broadband is fine picking up the signal but the towed array broadband doesn't seem able to show lines which are obvious in the towed array narrowband.

[kpv1974]

[SIZE="4"]satellites in RA_1.0 mod looks fantastic, but their lifetime in mission doesn't last long, besides, their fly speed and attitude aren't stable, I don't know whether the instability is the original purpose of designer or not, but I figure the Satellites are very useful(finally, the Radio antenna fulfill its function ), so why not we make them more stable?

by the way , waypoint tactic "Barrier" works great

Before correct something , you must first understand why it was done and how it work.

[Castout]

Hmm I think there's problem with the towed array for the SSKs.

For example in collins class even though a signal was obvious in the narrowband it didn't show up on the broadband at all. The spehere sonar broadband is fine picking up the signal but the towed array broadband doesn't seem able to show lines which are obvious in the towed array narrowband.

Doh never thought I would quote myself but it seems to be dependant on sonar conditions. I just tested a scenario and the towed array of the Collins worked just fine I could see line on it.

[Deisel Submarine]

:)I would like to know Caymanlee how you got the editor to open the RA data base thanks:).

[suBB]

something doesn't seem right here, please i need someone else to try and duplicate and confirm.. :nope:

regarding RA_DWX_1.00 after doctrine and interfaces patches:

4kts seawolf hull & port towed arrays vs a 7 kts transiting alfa in a surface duct / both on top side of layer


i made initial contact on the SW HULL array from 14nm... :-?

then finally I pick up the alfa on the SW PORT TA from 6nm... :06:

my experience has been opposite, where your TA will pick up contacts farther, while the sphere and hull pick up contacts closer in...

IIRC - the seawolf port array is the more sensitive of the two, so it should pick up contacts sooner compared to the stbd array and other arrays in a SD.

i even tried running the loadout screen before running this test.

someone else please confirm this.. going to try another platform vs the alfa..

[goldorak]

suBB please look at the usni for the characteristics of the different sonar and sensibilities.

The Seawolf most sensitive array is STARBOARD with SNR = -12 while the PORT towed array has a SNR = -8
The sphere and hull on the other hand have SNR of -13 and -7 respectively.

The Alfa has on the bow array a SNR of -10 so its better than the Seawolf's port towed array.

[suBB]

something doesn't seem right here, please i need someone else to try and duplicate and confirm.. :nope:

regarding RA_DWX_1.00 after doctrine and interfaces patches:

4kts seawolf hull & port towed arrays vs a 7 kts transiting alfa in a surface duct / both on top side of layer


i made initial contact on the SW HULL array from 14nm... :-?

then finally I pick up the alfa on the SW PORT TA from 6nm... :06:

my experience has been opposite, where your TA will pick up contacts farther, while the sphere and hull pick up contacts closer in...

IIRC - the seawolf port array is the more sensitive of the two, so it should pick up contacts sooner compared to the stbd array and other arrays in a SD.

i even tried running the loadout screen before running this test.

someone else please confirm this.. going to try another platform vs the alfa..


nvm... this isn't a problem... if the transiting platform was a nuke, all is normal..

[suBB]

suBB please look at the usni for the characteristics of the different sonar and sensibilities.

The Seawolf most sensitive array is STARBOARD with SNR = -12 while the PORT towed array has a SNR = -8
The sphere and hull on the other hand have SNR of -13 and -7 respectively.

The Alfa has on the bow array a SNR of -10 so its better than the Seawolf's port towed array.

thanks but the info on signal / noise ratios, which I really would prefer to have, is not listed in the USNI..

[goldorak]

thanks but the info on signal / noise ratios, which I really would prefer to have, is not listed in the USNI..

Yes it is, in the gameplay information section. ;)

[suBB]

Yes it is, in the gameplay information section. ;)


OOOHH!!! there it is..... :oops: :har:

All the time I've had DW, I've never clicked on that data field.. I thought it was just for show :rotfl2:

coolies, back to testing... :salute:

thx

[OneShot]

I'm working currently on a modified one-click installer for the DWX Mod. Just have to get the last bugs out of the .bat file which is used for installing and then make the actual installer which just takes a bit of time because my laptop isnt the fastest.

Once I'm done, that installer will be released at the CADC for download. Oh, btw. the installer ships with the latest JSGME Tool and of course DWX is fully JSGME compliant then.

Cheers
OS

[falconsix]

I'm working currently on a modified one-click installer for the DWX Mod. Just have to get the last bugs out of the .bat file which is used for installing and then make the actual installer which just takes a bit of time because my laptop isnt the fastest.

Once I'm done, that installer will be released at the CADC for download. Oh, btw. the installer ships with the latest JSGME Tool and of course DWX is fully JSGME compliant then.

Cheers
OS

If you do this, it is possible to make an setup for the german version for the Game, too? It is defiantetly possible, it runs at my system, too. ;) Just rename all "Database" files from XXXX.exx to XXXX.gxx and in the interfaces folder all "textE.dll" and "textCE.dll" (if present, not all units does have this file) to "textG.dll" or "textCG.dll". This works fine!

[OneShot]

It is certainly possible, but since I dont have the german version I have no way of bugtesting as well as making sure to get all the files in the first place. So I leave this task to someone else.

[Theta Sigma]

I'm working currently on a modified one-click installer for the DWX Mod. Just have to get the last bugs out of the .bat file which is used for installing and then make the actual installer which just takes a bit of time because my laptop isnt the fastest.

Once I'm done, that installer will be released at the CADC for download. Oh, btw. the installer ships with the latest JSGME Tool and of course DWX is fully JSGME compliant then.

Cheers
OS

I love you. :)

Please include the most recent patches/doctrine updates and the english voice pack as well.

[OneShot]

Where do I get the Voice Pack and whats the latest Patch?

[goldorak]

Where do I get the Voice Pack and whats the latest Patch?


Here : http://www.redrodgers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4912&langid=1 and follow the links. :DL

Voice packs in the number of 2 : English and Russian

The latest patch supersedes all other patches, it includes all the doctrine patches + patch that fixes the sonar freezing on the Harushio, Type 212 and Collins.

[Snakeeyes]

Here : http://www.redrodgers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4912&langid=1 and follow the links. :DL

Voice packs in the number of 2 : English and Russian

The latest patch supersedes all other patches, it includes all the doctrine patches + patch that fixes the sonar freezing on the Harushio, Type 212 and Collins.

Beware... it made my game unplayable for some reason. I had problems with it being compatible with DWX/RA.

[Castout]

Beware... it made my game unplayable for some reason. I had problems with it being compatible with DWX/RA.

Well I have no problem with the voice pack and patch. Perhpas your installation or download was corrupted?

[Fearless]

No probs here either.

[OneShot]

I've got an error in the Weaponsloadout screen for both the KA27 and the 212A Class sub (haven't tried any other platforms yet). It says "Failed to load Bitmap" On my netbook DW continued to work and I could go on into the mission and on my other laptop DW crashed after displaying the error.

Any ideas ?

[goldorak]

I've got an error in the Weaponsloadout screen for both the KA27 and the 212A Class sub (haven't tried any other platforms yet). It says "Failed to load Bitmap" On my netbook DW continued to work and I could go on into the mission and on my other laptop DW crashed after displaying the error.

Any ideas ?

Try a different graphics driver.

[Fearless]

I've got an error in the Weaponsloadout screen for both the KA27 and the 212A Class sub (haven't tried any other platforms yet). It says "Failed to load Bitmap" On my netbook DW continued to work and I could go on into the mission and on my other laptop DW crashed after displaying the error.

Any ideas ?

had the same problem when installing the mod via JSGME. When I installed it normally (in root directory) no problems anymore.

[caymanlee]

I've got an error in the Weaponsloadout screen for both the KA27 and the 212A Class sub (haven't tried any other platforms yet). It says "Failed to load Bitmap" On my netbook DW continued to work and I could go on into the mission and on my other laptop DW crashed after displaying the error.

Any ideas ?

"Failed to load Bitmap" caused by lack of certain weapon loadout bitmap in "wpnloadout*.grp" files, the reason that happen, in RA_Mod case, is the unclean installation. recommend clean sweep the old DW, reinstall the DW, then patch, then RA_mod, there will be no this kind of problem. --------"DWX_RA_OPFOR_INFO.txt" make it very clear

[suBB]

hey there,

Just finished initial testing and I'm starting MP objective based mission planning very soon.

I'm a bit out of touch but will attempt an idea; input is welcome from any and all. This is what I have in mind so far:

* open ended scenario(s) and complete freedom of movement of all sides.

* up to 5 hours run-time. Actual run-time is dependent on actions of the players involved.

* MP scenario will involve transiting of a platform and the requirement of reaching it's destination alive by any means necessary, or total elimination of opposing forces, whichever 1st.

* in some instances, scenarios will include stealth as mission tasking (remain covert, avoid contact)

* 'linked' MP scenarios where each map of a series will represent a part of a larger scenario. Of course I can't link the actual outcome of one of the series; wish i could.

* ROE in effect, yet subject to change based on possible escalation of events. When I say 'possible' I do mean possible, it will really depend on the actions of players involved.

* mission tasking and any / all intel updates will be sent via radio comms.

* custom audios of XO to help keep the commander(player) abreast of the situation / change of events.

that's all for now.. :ping:

[kipper]

I think I may have lost the plot here.

Many RA subs have no AI. They just plod along at he initial spped and ignore everything around them, including torpedoes. For example, one of my tests is a Skipjack and I am an Alfa. I can go around him in circles at ranges of 5000m down to 300m with no reaction, fire torpedoes and don't get a response, etc.

I was planning on doing some structured testing and formally report results but I needed to check in to see if I am doing something stupid, have missed something in the docs... or are big parts of this mod MP only?

Tx

K

[goldorak]

Did you install the latest patch ?

[kipper]

Tx, I tried to patch again and it must not have overwritten files in the first attempt to patch.

Thanks

K

EDIT: I have to say this mod is an amazing achievement - the graphics modelling, although not something I am too interested in, is amazing and very well done. Many many hours of hard work went into this.

[OneShot]

Well, I've put the JSGME compatible version on hold at the moment. While the .bat file is complete and seems to work obviously something is still wrong because I get the aforementioned errors. And that even after installing the RA mod (with the modified bat) on a completely clean and fresh installed DW plus I double checked that I done everything the original install.bat does.

Guess I have to get back to the drawing board and check it again.

On a sidenote, since I want to include the audio packs as optional modules I will have to convert those .bat's as well which will take some more time once the RA mod itself if working as intended.

[Fearless]

The only thing I found was the DW_Opening wav file doesn't play when the Opening cinematics is running.

[caymanlee]

:)I would like to know Caymanlee how you got the editor to open the RA data base thanks:).

:salute:with all due respect to RA team, I have to hack something for fun;)

[kipper]

I have noticed, with truth on for testing other items, that US SSNs tend to cruise of the surface quite a bit (and nearly pay for it with their lives sometimes!). Is this a doctrine issue?

[-GrayOwl-]

:salute:with all due respect to RA team, I have to hack something for fun;)

It not a difficult part.:DL

For an fun, it is possible for example to make Russian helicopter KA-27- system of the world in meters instead of ft and yards.

Out of respect for us - you too can it hacking :)

[suBB]

It not a difficult part.:DL

For an fun, it is possible for example to make Russian helicopter KA-27- system of the world in meters instead of ft and yards.

Out of respect for us - you too can it hacking :)

GrayOwl,

please tell us.. what is the logic behind weak LWT torpedoes in RA???

I think the low damage values for these weapons can make a scenario unplayable for a helo against a submarine. And we all know the primary role of the helo is ASW.

low values of these weapons are stripping the role and capability of ASW from helos and frigates.

please respond...

[caymanlee]

For an fun, it is possible for example to make Russian helicopter KA-27- system of the world in meters instead of ft and yards.


you mean something like this?
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/ka27_meters.jpg

[-GrayOwl-]

I have in a kind just it: " This Command text and voice part still need some detail work ".
But I do not see detailed work...
Such helicopter cannot be used in game.:down:

[suBB]

@ goldorak and anyone else investigating low damage values:

did anyone run some other tests on how LWTs perform against other subs, like the US hulls, or SSKs??? if so what were your results.. I'm still in the process of trying to determine the worth and value of this mod. I’m thinking if this ‘issue’ is across the board on submarines, then its definitely a real problem.

and then, shortly after we get a response, but not about the inquiry about low damage values ... :hmmm:

I have in a kind just it: " This Command text and voice part still need some detail work ".
But I do not see detailed work...
Such helicopter cannot be used in game.:down:

:hmmm:

It appears to be that our claim of a blemish in RA mod is deliberately being ignored. And it will be left to the DW community reach their own conclusions and determine the real worth and value of RA mod.

As far as I’m concerned, low damage values on air and surface units isn't an issue if all you are doing is using submarines(i.e. sub vs sub), which basically says, that the RA mod really isn't a mod, it's just another DM scenario.

But low damage values is an issue when we start talking about MP objective based scenarios, where the role and capability of ASW on air and surface platforms are no longer effective, thus reducing the mod to 1/3 of its full worth and value.

I derive 1/3 value retained from the effectiveness of just submarines, and 2/3 of value lost in the inabilities of air and surface units in its current state as a whole.


:ping:

[pjb1]

@ goldorak and anyone else investigating low damage values:

did anyone run some other tests on how LWTs perform against other subs, like the US hulls, or SSKs??? if so what were your results.. I'm still in the process of trying to determine the worth and value of this mod. I’m thinking if this ‘issue’ is across the board on submarines, then its definitely a real problem.

and then, shortly after we get a response, but not about the inquiry about low damage values ... :hmmm:



:hmmm:

It appears to be that our claim of a blemish in RA mod is deliberately being ignored. And it will be left to the DW community reach their own conclusions and determine the real worth and value of RA mod.

As far as I’m concerned, low damage values on air and surface units isn't an issue if all you are doing is using submarines(i.e. sub vs sub), which basically says, that the RA mod really isn't a mod, it's just another DM scenario.

But low damage values is an issue when we start talking about MP objective based scenarios, where the role and capability of ASW on air and surface platforms are no longer effective, thus reducing the mod to 1/3 of its full worth and value.

I derive 1/3 value retained from the effectiveness of just submarines, and 2/3 of value lost in the inabilities of air and surface units in its current state as a whole.


:ping:
I havent tested this but LWTs are, i dont want to say weak, but not strong, henceforth the name LightWeight Torpedo. Over at NWP i know LWTs are also wimpy. I have needed many to kills Typhoons in Fleet Command.

[goldorak]

I havent tested this but LWTs are, i dont want to say weak, but not strong, henceforth the name LightWeight Torpedo. Over at NWP i know LWTs are also wimpy. I have needed many to kills Typhoons in Fleet Command.

Maybe, but the way damages have been assigned to LWT makes the use not only of air units, but surface units irrelevant in RA.
Now understand I'm not asking for 1 shot =1 kill, but considering that torpedos are very easily spoofed in RA, and that a helo for instance only carries 3 torpedos, it becomes a gameplay/balance problem because you'll never be able to sink any playable sub if you're playing on a helo.
Its just not possibile since all 3 torpedo have to hit to sub to score a kill.
So maybe for GAMEPLAY purposes it would be well advised to increase damage to 50% so that 2 torpedos are sufficient to have a kill.
I think it is a necessary change because otherwise there is no point at all in playing on helo or air units. Let alone surface units.

[Castout]

Or can something be done with damage effect say a damaged sub would have increased noise signature, [some] disabled tubes, reduced top-speed, reduced max depth, disabled sonar passive and or active.

So a say a 30% damaged sub would lose say 60% of its lethality and stealth while a 50% damaged sub would lose 100% of its lethality and 80% of its stealth.

If that could be done air units could be used to weaken a sub substantially as to render it pretty much neutralized.

In real life a 50% hull damage to a nuclear sub would most probably sink it.:O:

[suBB]

Or can something be done with damage effect say a damaged sub would have increased noise signature, [some] disabled tubes, reduced top-speed, reduced max depth, disabled sonar passive and or active.

So a say a 30% damaged sub would lose say 60% of its lethality and stealth while a 50% damaged sub would lose 100% of its lethality and 80% of its stealth.from a strategic point of view, the role and capability of air and surface(frigate) is Anti Submarine Warfare, not Semi Submarine Warfare. :rotfl2:the weapons on these platforms should be able to own an SSK probably in 1 shot, down a nuke in up to 2 shots with the weakest LWT warhead, and the same number against a typhoon with a heavier warhead.

If that could be done air units could be used to weaken a sub substantially as to render it pretty much neutralized.

In real life a 50% hull damage to a nuclear sub would most probably sink it.:O:I think in real life, ASW air and surface (frigates) are in the business of killing submarines not crippling them. Any mod that claims realism should reflect that... :yep:

[Castout]

So you're saying just increase the overall torpedo damage strength?:DL


That's certainly the easiest way.

But would still make damage under 100% ridiculous.

[goldorak]

So you're saying just increase the overall torpedo damage strength?:DL


That's certainly the easiest way.

But would still make damage under 100% ridiculous.


Castout what you're failing to understand, is that DW is not only about subs.
People play air units and surface units. People design cooperative multiplayer missions where assests other than subs come onto the scene. Even with all the great advances in programmability of the frigate's/udaloy's helicopters; with the damage LWT torpedos make choosing a unit other than sub doesn't make any sense. You won't be able to carry ASW operations and you won't be able to defend yourself against those threats.
This is a serious gameplay/balance problem and I hope the RA modders will address it.

[oscar19681]

where can i download the update for this mod? I have the previous one.

[pjb1]

where can i download the update for this mod? I have the previous one.

http://seashadows.org/index.php?seashadows=download

[Castout]

Castout what you're failing to understand, is that DW is not only about subs.
People play air units and surface units. People design cooperative multiplayer missions where assests other than subs come onto the scene. Even with all the great advances in programmability of the frigate's/udaloy's helicopters; with the damage LWT torpedos make choosing a unit other than sub doesn't make any sense. You won't be able to carry ASW operations and you won't be able to defend yourself against those threats.
This is a serious gameplay/balance problem and I hope the RA modders will address it.

No I understand you but just that I would like to see a better implementation of damage effect if possible rather than solely increasing the damage strength. perhaps a combination of both is the best.

[suBB]

No I understand you but just that I would like to see a better implementation of damage effect if possible rather than solely increasing the damage strength. perhaps a combination of both is the best.

They are looking into it and the situation is in very good and capable hands. :yep:

[dd149]

Regarding this issue, which has really raised hell on the forums, one question from a non specialist: I agree that LWT low damage model makes air assets quite useless, and therefore affects playability of scenarios with air assets a lot, but what is the experience in real world? As not so many nukes or modern submarines were sent to the bottom by torps (fortunately i would add!) nobody really knows the real thing and those who know are not allowed to talk. Is it so strange that these lightweight torps are not very effective against 3000 to 6000 t displacement vessels? I understand that many navies have developed heavyweight torps for exactly that reason, and increased range too obviously.

Anyway, the response from RA development team up to now has been outstanding and I again want to thank them a lot for their efforts. Even with some pending issues the mod is a very good and interesting one, lets hope to get good scenarions quickly.

[Sea Demon]

1. I think the American surface ship missile defenses are way too weak and completely innacurate. 14 Sandbox missiles coming our way, and the AB and Tico fire 1 SM-2 at a time at single missile targets. That's not accurate at all. In fact, me (OHP-SM-1), a Ticonderoga Cruiser, and an Arleigh Burke protecting a Wasp Class Amphib. group, and I was doing the heavy lifting in AAW. That's just not correct. The Tico and AB should be firing at least one per target (maybe two) in salvo's. It should be able to easily handle saturation level missile attacks from significant distances.

(Russian surface units in the mod seem to layer their defenses better)

2. I would love to see a comparison noise level chart for the submarines if anybody has it. Not sure if noise levels are accurate.

- There should be different levels of quieting between all three versions of LA class boats. They appear to be the same.
- Akula 2 should be quieter than 688(I) at lower speeds. Akula-I improved should be just a tad noisier.
- Seawolf and Virginia should be quieter than they are portrayed.
- And diesel electric subs should emit more noise as they increase speed (doesn't seem to be the case??)(Flank speed at less than 1,000 yards---I should see something on my sonar)
- Alfa doesn't accelerate as fast as I thought it should. Shouldn't it reach flank speed quicker than it does? I thought it had the power output to achieve a quick acceleration from low speeds.
- Did anybody resolve the issue with the Alfa diving depth? Shouldn't it be able to dive significantly deeper than 600 meters?

[Castout]

They are looking into it and the situation is in very good and capable hands. :yep:

Really? That's great :)

[suBB]

Hey,

I've been testing SSP types in RA and something is weird going on with Surface Duct. All the rest seem ok.

someone please run this simple test, report back and compare results..

AFAIK, from previous tests, seastate, weather and time of day have no effect on detection ranges, these factors are not included in my data so please do not consider these factors for comparison.

regarding a surface duct, detection ranges should increase above the layer and decrease below the layer..

well, based on the data I have, its opposite. detection ranges increase below the layer while detection range decreases above the layer..

for test purposes, SW vs transiting akula2 @ 14 kts / two separate tests of both platforms above and below the layer

my results:

TA NB contact at 8.5nm above the layer and 14.3nm below the layer respectively..

please run this simple test and confirm..

*deep water
*place your akula on a perpendicular to the SW
*ak2 @ 14kts, 20nm away, SW @ 5 kts(avoid TA drag)
*monitor SW TA NB for initial contact, and time compression of course :D
*both platforms 600 ft (above layer test) & 1600 ft (below layer test)
*when scenario is loaded, check SSP and ensure side of layer for test

please tell me what you find so I can better understand what is going on..

thanks

[pjb1]

Hey,

I've been testing SSP types in RA and something is weird going on with Surface Duct. All the rest seem ok.

someone please run this simple test, report back and compare results..

AFAIK, from previous tests, seastate, weather and time of day have no effect on detection ranges, these factors are not included in my data so please do not consider these factors for comparison.

regarding a surface duct, detection ranges should increase above the layer and decrease below the layer..

well, based on the data I have, its opposite. detection ranges increase below the layer while detection range decreases above the layer..

for test purposes, SW vs transiting akula2 @ 14 kts / two separate tests of both platforms above and below the layer

my results:

TA NB contact at 8.5nm above the layer and 14.3nm below the layer respectively..

please run this simple test and confirm..

*deep water
*place your akula on a perpendicular to the SW
*ak2 @ 14kts, 20nm away, SW @ 5 kts(avoid TA drag)
*monitor SW TA NB for initial contact, and time compression of course :D
*both platforms 600 ft (above layer test) & 1600 ft (below layer test)
*when scenario is loaded, check SSP and ensure side of layer for test

please tell me what you find so I can better understand what is going on..

thanks
Postive or negative gradiant? I ask because that does make a difference a big one. Sounds like you had a postive grad there. remember sound is lazy so if the ssp is slower above layer detection range will be farther.

[suBB]

Postive or negative gradiant? I ask because that does make a difference a big one. Sounds like you had a postive grad there. remember sound is lazy so if the ssp is slower above layer detection range will be farther.

as far as I know, DW doesn't model SSP in that fashion. I wish it did so we can make more use of it. that said, the gradient won't matter. It only models the layer depth and changes in detection ranges relative of the two platforms.

So, in this test, if both platforms are above the layer in a positive gradient, then yes I should achieve detection father out, than closer in(inside a negative gradient = below layer). What I'm seeing is reduced detection ranges in a positive gradient & increased detection ranges in a negative gradient. That is what appears to be the problem here and wanted to see if someone else can repeat it based on the parameters I've used..

also I'm not really sure exactly what the SSP is for the transiting platform(AI) another test I can run is MP and obtain data that way, but that would take longer..

[pjb1]

as far as I know, DW doesn't model SSP in that fashion. I wish it did so we can make more use of it. that said, the gradient won't matter. It only models the layer depth and changes in detection ranges relative of the two platforms.

So, in this test, if both platforms are above the layer in a positive gradient, then yes I should achieve detection father out, than closer in(inside a negative gradient = below layer). What I'm seeing is reduced detection ranges in a positive gradient & increased detection ranges in a negative gradient. That is what appears to be the problem here and wanted to see if someone else can repeat it based on the parameters I've used..

also I'm not really sure exactly what the SSP is for the transiting platform(AI) another test I can run is MP and obtain data that way, but that would take longer..
everything i have read about DW says it does model SSP to work like it does in real life.

[suBB]

everything i have read about DW says it does model SSP to work like it does in real life.

1.. regardless.. there is still what appears to be a problem here and need someone beside me(another person) to see if its repeatable or not.. in a surface duct you should not have decreased detection range above the layer(and vice versa) in fact, if you took a brief moment to run this simple test with the same parameters, we would have a better understanding of what is happening.

2.. I don't think you'll get a SSP delta on same side of a layer to yield a difference in detection range of 5.8nm..

3.. we won't get very far with this w/o repeatability. Either it's something I'm doing on my end, or surface duct doesn't work with RA mod.

[pjb1]

I am testing i am using the same parameters and i can get contact at approx 15NM above the layer. Below didnt get contact until approx 11NM. i replayed the same scenario many times and the detection ranges were not constant. They changed slightly depending on how sharp the SSP changed but the difference in ranges was not that much + - 1NM. I did try to use use different depths too. Above i used between 200 and 600 ft. no real difference. Below used between 1200 and 2000 ft. range increased slighty at 2000 ft maybe 1/2 NM was hard to tell but was slightly farther. I even turned off RA and tried LWAMI and got roughly the same results.

[Castout]

Today I shot 2 Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes at an enemy gunboat set in active mode at 45 knots speed and 200 feet depth.

Though passing close to the target(less than 1nmi) the two didn't even home in onto the gunboat. The two missed completely.:nope:

Am I doing something wrong?

[suBB]

I am testing i am using the same parameters and i can get contact at approx 15NM above the layer. Below didnt get contact until approx 11NM. i replayed the same scenario many times and the detection ranges were not constant. They changed slightly depending on how sharp the SSP changed but the difference in ranges was not that much + - 1NM. I did try to use use different depths too. Above i used between 200 and 600 ft. no real difference. Below used between 1200 and 2000 ft. range increased slighty at 2000 ft maybe 1/2 NM was hard to tell but was slightly farther. I even turned off RA and tried LWAMI and got roughly the same results.

Thanks for testing.. I have data on LWAMI and I know the SSP 'works' in that mod. going to try a different geographical location and see what happens.

However, the RA mod i have installed is clean, meaning I've erased DW completely and just installed RA mod only to a different folder..

[pjb1]

Today I shot 2 Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes at an enemy gunboat set in active mode at 45 knots speed and 200 feet depth.

Though passing close to the target(less than 1nmi) the two didn't even home in onto the gunboat. The two missed completely.:nope:

Am I doing something wrong?
Have you read the weapons manual? There are different settings needed for surface contacts. On the 19th you asked about the SET-65 and someone told you read the weps manual, guess you havent yet because the ADCAP is the very first entry. I would recommend that you even print out the manual because almost all weapons have different settings in RA.

[suBB]

Pjb1,

I'm seeing mixed results now. In my recent test of the same scenario and parameters, I'm getting performance of a positive gradient(top layer) and detections out to 20nm, possibly farther. :o

The reason for this could be that the SSP of the two different platforms are not 'possibly identical' especially when platforms are that far apart. The SSP is recalculated each time the scenario is loaded.

Also it strikes me as odd to detect a transiting ak2 imp. at 14 kts when it's not cavitating from 20nm. The performance of this is more along the lines of a bottom limited SSP(positive gradient to the bottom)..

Any rate, I think a conclusion has been reached. Thanks again for your help. Going to try a MP test to insure that both platforms are on the same side of layer..

:salute:

[goldorak]

Today I shot 2 Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes at an enemy gunboat set in active mode at 45 knots speed and 200 feet depth.

Though passing close to the target(less than 1nmi) the two didn't even home in onto the gunboat. The two missed completely.:nope:

Am I doing something wrong?

Did you set them for surface acquisition ?
What value of "ceiling" did you use ?

[-GrayOwl-]

Bad idea - to attack the ship of the small tonnage by an active mode of a torpedo.
The passive mode most approaches - for such attack. As a rule these ships noisy enough.

[Castout]

Oh yea that again I've been relying on the USNI :oops:

Just read the Mk 48 ADCAP entry and WOW

@GrayOwl: Yea I suspected that active mode wouldn't be so effective against very small surface vessel at least in RL but I was testing the active mode of the ADCAP and it happened that the unidentified target I launched at was a gunboat :DL Seeing the two missed I suspected it was covered or made with sonar absorbing material :88).

Anyway further testing against ASW targets proved that the ADCAP is a deadly little fish major improvement to the old beta.

[-GrayOwl-]

Oh yea that again I've been relying on the USNI :oops:

Just read the Mk 48 ADCAP entry and WOW

@GrayOwl: Yea I suspected that active mode wouldn't be so effective against very small surface vessel at least in RL but I was testing the active mode of the ADCAP and it happened that the unidentified target I launched at was a gunboat :DL Seeing the two missed I suspected it was covered or made with sonar absorbing material :88).

Anyway further testing against ASW targets proved that the ADCAP is a deadly little fish major improvement to the old beta.

Study Weapons Guide Doc correctly to apply this weapon - and you will are renumerated.


MODE: 2 (TWO) - SEARCH PATTERN – SNAKE: TOWARD SEARCH.
The following mode is stipulated for inclusion ONLY of directly focused sensor control.
* - All time only forward focused sensor control works - lateral sectors ARE NOT LOOKED THROUGH.
For activation of this mode follow such steps:
Establish Value FLOOR as 21000.
First digit in the category (Red Designated)- will establish number of a mode – Mode Number TWO.
The following four digits 1000 - is FLOOR in which the torpedo works.

[I-25]

im loving this mod guys!:yeah:

but im getting a lot of random CTD :cry: i isntaled over 1.4 and did all steps in the manual.

CTD's arent fun ;):cry:

[pjb1]

im loving this mod guys!:yeah:

but im getting a lot of random CTD :cry: i isntaled over 1.4 and did all steps in the manual.

CTD's arent fun ;):cry:
I had CTDs in the beta but havent had 1 yet since this update. When are these ctds happening. Without a good description of whats happening the modders cannot figure out whats causing it. When i say good description i mean day or night, platform type, what happened, ie. i launched a SET-65 and got a CDT.

[blackbird34]

can someone pleas help me out i installed RA mod over Vanilla install and game crashes at start up. every procedure done by the book.

[pjb1]

can someone pleas help me out i installed RA mod over Vanilla install and game crashes at start up. every procedure done by the book.
Vanilla with 1.04 patch?

[blackbird34]

Yeah i had the 1.04 patch as well

[pjb1]

Yeah i had the 1.04 patch as well
Game version must also be English speaking version. Also when you clicked on the .bat file and the install started a DOS screen should come up and start scrolling thru stuff sometimes you must answer yes and if you dont let this run until it stops by itself then game wont work. This can also take sometime depending on your PC.

[blackbird34]

will the dos screen exit it self? because i get a message something like
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
and it continues to go on? and yes i have English version
this is frustrating i want to play it :shifty:

[pjb1]

will the dos screen exit it self? because i get a message something like
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
File installation complete!
and it continues to go on? and yes i have English version
this is frustrating i want to play it :shifty:
yes it will exit itself sometimes it can take a long time to run it is installing the graphics and with out it completely running game will crash.

[blackbird34]

alrighty thanks a lot for the help!, excited to play it and Btw do you or anyone know of a replacement model for the 688I to make it the 688 original? with forward dive planes on the conning tower?

[Castout]

alrighty thanks a lot for the help!, excited to play it and Btw do you or anyone know of a replacement model for the 688I to make it the 688 original? with forward dive planes on the conning tower?

That's 688 and not 688I.

In the game 699 Flight I and II boats have their forward dive planes on their sail while 688 Flight III is the 688I with forward dive planes on its hull to give it a better breaking the ice capability.

Just curious may I know which country you are from friend? And welcome to the forum! The people here are among the nicest you could find on the internet! Something about fascination on the sea and naval warfare make people a real gentleman ;-)

Perhaps the feeling of smallness compared to the vast empty majestic sea remind people of how small they are. The air force pilots look at the world from 20,000 feet that's why they think the world revolves around them while the army is too busy shooting at other people to reflect on life. LOL

[blackbird34]

Canada actually and yes i have found that this game has a kind and very helpful community, well with what you have clarified for me. my a re-phrase the question, is the a model of the 699 class to replace the 688 currently available to the player.

[Castout]

The 688I now is called 688 flight III and uses the same model as in post patch 1.04

688 is now represented as 2 different platforms: 688 Flight I and 688 Flight II. They use a new much more enhanced model than the vanilla(The forward dive planes stay on the sail). You can check the model by looking at the USNI reference. Go to USA section and see the sub model yourself:DL

[blackbird34]

alrighty, so there are no 3rd party downloads for a playable one?

[Castout]

alrighty, so there are no 3rd party downloads for a playable one?

You don't need any. DWX provides the new 3d models. They are gorgeous ;)
DWX is all you need or DWX is the 3rd party download which adds new 3D models and new playables

[dd149]

After some arguments and discussions (sometimes a bit heated:03:), the RA team decided to leave the database unlocked in the update to come. This is good news and will mean that more community modders will become interested and active, thanks to RA team and to Cayman and Fleetcommand CC who lead the charge. Next update is going to be even better.

[Castout]

Umm when can we expect this update be released? Thanks for the news

[caymanlee]

After some arguments and discussions (sometimes a bit heated:03:), the RA team decided to leave the database unlocked in the update to come. This is good news and will mean that more community modders will become interested and active, thanks to RA team and to Cayman and Fleetcommand CC who lead the charge. Next update is going to be even better.

open data, more modders, better DW---- that's all we want. RA team make a good call

[Fleet Command CC]

After some arguments and discussions (sometimes a bit heated:03:), the RA team decided to leave the database unlocked in the update to come. This is good news and will mean that more community modders will become interested and active, thanks to RA team and to Cayman and Fleetcommand CC who lead the charge. Next update is going to be even better.

Hey dd149.

Yep its great that CrazyIvan and RA Team have changed their minds on this, they have made a cool mod.

SUPER-SUPER-COOL!!! :yeah::yeah::rock::rock:

FCCC. :salute:

[Fleet Command CC]

Umm when can we expect this update be released? Thanks for the news

A few weeks I think. :salute:

[Fleet Command CC]

Here are some new model's that might find their way into the RA Mod.

The Tupolev Tu-95 that a friend of mine gave me.

Credit must go to Guido Militello for making this great model. I'm trying to get the model to work in DW.

http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss62/fleetcommandcc/3D%20Models/TupolevTu-95.jpg

Thank you Guido Militello niceone. :salute:

[Fleet Command CC]

Here is the Tupolev Tu-22 that a friend of mine gave me.

Credit must go to Guido Militello for making this great model. I'm trying to get the model to work in DW.

http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss62/fleetcommandcc/3D%20Models/TupolevTu-22.jpg

Thank you Guido Militello niceone, another super model. :salute:

[Fleet Command CC]

Here is the Tupolev Tu-16 that a friend mine gave me.

Credit must go to Guido Militello for making this great model. I'm trying to get the model to work in DW.

http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss62/fleetcommandcc/3D%20Models/Tu-16.jpg

Thank you Guido Militello niceone, another super model. :salute:

[Castout]

That's some very cool planes CC :yeah:.

If you could try to persuade your friend or put him under gunpoint to do more. I would certainly love to see a reworked Su-27 model for example. And add a new F-16 and F-15 model as well.

[dd149]

On the Russian forums, thy announced that ,due to the amount of additional things they receive from other developers, there will be no update 1 to follow update 0 already published, but more likely DWX1.1 complete new release. Lets just hope that it will not take too long.

[goldorak]

On the Russian forums, thy announced that ,due to the amount of additional things they receive from other developers, there will be no update 1 to follow update 0 already published, but more likely DWX1.1 complete new release. Lets just hope that it will not take too long.

DWX 1.1 for 2010. :D (that's my opinion of course).

[Castout]

I hope it won't take another year. And we need missions and campaigns for God sake.....:damn:
Right now playing DWX is like driving a Ferrari in the garage...

[goldorak]

I hope it won't take another year. And we need missions and campaigns for God sake.....:damn:
Right now playing DWX is like driving a Ferrari in the garage...

Be optimistic Castout, 2010 is less than 3 months away.
For all we know they could release DWX 1.1 on january 1st 2010. :DL

[Castout]

Be optimistic Castout, 2010 is less than 3 months away.
For all we know they could release DWX 1.1 on january 1st 2010. :DL

Hmm judging how long they held DWX 1.0 in beta it's kind of hard to be optimistic. I was thinking more like October 2010 :hmmm:.

[Castout]

Is there something wrong with the ALFA anti ship cruise missile?
I launched 4 of them at a carrier target near their maximum range set their scan zone to wide and seeker range to 20nm and they always seemed unable to detect any target though they flew quite close to their intended target.

I've repeated the procedure for about 5 times and read DWX weapon manual and there's nothing to help me.

[goldorak]

Hmm judging how long they held DWX 1.0 in beta it's kind of hard to be optimistic. I was thinking more like October 2010 :hmmm:.

Well if you look at the number of revolutionary things that DXW 1.1 will support, october 2010 doesn't seem so bad after all. :D
The eventuality of having finally a working DSRV is just icing on the cake. :woot:

[Bob117]

I havent posted here in a few months at least and I have some suggestions for the next release of the RA mod. If its not too late to add things I was wondering if it would be possible to add ASROCS to the ffg and make its hull lauched torps wire guided. Also those helos that you control in the astac screen it would ne nice if you could order them to start using their dipping sonar in active and passive. I know the modders are severly limited it what they can do by a lack of source code but hopefully these things are attainable.

[goldorak]

I havent posted here in a few months at least and I have some suggestions for the next release of the RA mod. If its not too late to add things I was wondering if it would be possible to add ASROCS to the ffg and make its hull lauched torps wire guided. Also those helos that you control in the astac screen it would ne nice if you could order them to start using their dipping sonar in active and passive. I know the modders are severly limited it what they can do by a lack of source code but hopefully these things are attainable.



Real life OHP class frigates don't carry asrocs nor wire guided torpedoes.
The main line of attack of these ships are the helos. The frigate's torpedoes are only for self protection, and if a sub can get to less than 5 nm from you, you aren't exactly doing a good job with the helos and active/passive sonar in the first place.

By the way I wonder if people really read the documentation of the mod.
Its not difficult and many questions are answered right there.
As for letting helos use active/passive dipping sonar the answer is no.
Its not going to happen ever. /end sarcasm.

RTFM. :timeout:

[Bob117]

thats really dissapointing to learn that real life ohp ffg's dont carry asrocs thats just strange i mean that way once you use up ur helos torps they r not useless. it just would be nice is all able to target subs at longer range and attack them faster. oh well i didnt know that. i do know that the austrilian ohp ffg's carry wire guided torps but i wonder why we dont. and why do you say it will be impossible for the modders to add an option that commands the ai controlled helos that are lauched from your ship to use their dipping sonar? is it something the game engine cant handle? Also you mentionnede documnetation for the mod where can i find that? Keep in mind I havent kept up to snuff for a few months so theres no need for sarcasm.

[goldorak]

and why do you say it will be impossible for the modders to add an option that commands the ai controlled helos that are lauched from your ship to use their dipping sonar? is it something the game engine cant handle? Also you mentionnede documnetation for the mod where can i find that? Keep in mind I havent kept up to snuff for a few months so theres no need for sarcasm.


Ok ok non sarcasm.
The final version of the mod RA already has controls for setting the dipping sonar in active passive.
The documentation is released with the mod.

You can download the mod here (http://www.redrodgers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=93461&postcount=1) :salute:

[Fleet Command CC]

That's some very cool planes CC :yeah:.

If you could try to persuade your friend or put him under gunpoint to do more. I would certainly love to see a reworked Su-27 model for example. And add a new F-16 and F-15 model as well.

Hey Castout.

I've got a Su-27, Mig 29, F16, F15, F14, B-2 Spirit, and a lot more but the RA Team doesn't seem to be that bothered about having them. :hmmm:

I will post some screen prints of them asap. :salute:

[dd149]

RA team is announcing revised version 1.1 in "a couple of weeks" maybe you can still persuade them, but at the moment they seem to be concentrating on the game engine and bug fixes, which is understandable. On the other hand, it is true that communication via the Russian forums seems to be quit difficult as the team members sometimes don't answer for some time to the messages

[Castout]

Hey Castout.

I've got a Su-27, Mig 29, F16, F15, F14, B-2 Spirit, and a lot more but the RA Team doesn't seem to be that bothered about having them. :hmmm:

I will post some screen prints of them asap. :salute:

Well that's terrific :yeah:. Please do post some pictures. The pictures may eventually persuade the modders to include them in their next patch or immediately after the next.

RA team is announcing revised version 1.1 in "a couple of weeks" maybe you can still persuade them, but at the moment they seem to be concentrating on the game engine and bug fixes, which is understandable. On the other hand, it is true that communication via the Russian forums seems to be quit difficult as the team members sometimes don't answer for some time to the messages

Wow somebody has been working hard for our enjoyment :D

[goldorak]

In any case should the modders not have the time/will to include these models the database will be open no ?
So we can create a patch that will directly update the database without their intervention. :)

[dd149]

You are Right Goldorak, I think that it is more urgent to fix the bugs and identified issues in the game engine, after that, the community will be able to add models, as for that the method is clear and easy, the difficult par being the graphic work on the models proper. I think that a good basic game will attract more people to do additional cosmetic mods after. so let us leave our Russian friends with their coding issues and wait for the next gem to come.

[OneShot]

@FCC : Would you mind contacting TLAM & Molon Labe with the modells you have? I'm pretty sure that they would love to include them in the next itineration of the LwAmi Mod.

[-GrayOwl-]

Hey Castout.

I've got a Su-27, Mig 29, F16, F15, F14, B-2 Spirit, and a lot more but the RA Team doesn't seem to be that bothered about having them. :hmmm:

I will post some screen prints of them asap. :salute:


But we did not see normal models - with textures.
That that you have shown is only washers in 3D max. Crude meat.

We support good job.
But we do not like lazy hack-work

[Fleet Command CC]

But we did not see normal models - with textures.
That that you have shown is only washers in 3D max. Crude meat.

We support good job.
But we do not like lazy hack-work

If the RA Team hadn't blocked the modding of the database I would have post some in game screen prints. I wasn't going to uninstall the RA Mod & DW, then reinstall DW just to posts do some in game screen prints!!!

I probably won't be doing them a tall now, because 3D Studio Max R3.1 won't install on Window 7 Professional 64bit, which is now my new OS.

[Fleet Command CC]

In any case should the modders not have the time/will to include these models the database will be open no ?
So we can create a patch that will directly update the database without their intervention. :)

Hey goldorak.

That sound like a much better idea, if they do open the data base. :salute:

[goldorak]

If the RA Team hadn't blocked the modding of the database I would have post some in game screen prints. I wasn't going to uninstall the RA Mod & DW, then reinstall DW just to posts do some in game screen prints!!!

I probably won't be doing them a tall now, because 3D Studio Max R3.1 won't install on Window 7 Professional 64bit, which is now my new OS.

Windows 7 professional has xp mode.
So you can try to install 3d studio max 3.1 directly on the xp virtual machine and see if it works. :03:

[Castout]

If the RA Team hadn't blocked the modding of the database I would have post some in game screen prints. I wasn't going to uninstall the RA Mod & DW, then reinstall DW just to posts do some in game screen prints!!!

I probably won't be doing them a tall now, because 3D Studio Max R3.1 won't install on Window 7 Professional 64bit, which is now my new OS.


I just hope it will be used sometime in the future somehow

[Bob117]

so is the DWX_RA_1.0 the latest version of the red alert mod?

[MR. Wood]

Yes it is has a few buggs bt they are getting them worked out patch/update is suppose to be out sometime soon

[dd149]

One update is already out, it seems that the next step will be a completely revised full release.

[Bob117]

I know that Dangerous Waters was desgned primarily for subs and focues mostly on subs but in the next RA update will there be any changes in the ASW area specifically the ffg? I've been playing this game long enough and it took me a few months but ive finally found my calling perfroming asw. I love the challenge of hunting subs

[LoBlo]

Anyone else getting a DWEdit error when trying to use DWEdit on the RA database?

[goldorak]

Anyone else getting a DWEdit error when trying to use DWEdit on the RA database?


The RA database is not moddable for the moment.
For the next update the modders have agree to free the database.

[fitzcarraldo]

The new update for the RA mod is coming soon?

January 2010?

I like the mod but there are many bugs...I wait for the next update.

I´ll uninstall DW with RA and return to LWAMI...Or I will conserve the DW RA installation and re-install DW with LWAMI or Alfa Tau...

Regards.

Fitz :salute:

[-GrayOwl-]

The new update for the RA mod is coming soon?

January 2010?

I like the mod but there are many bugs...I wait for the next update.

I´ll uninstall DW with RA and return to LWAMI...Or I will conserve the DW RA installation and re-install DW with LWAMI or Alfa Tau...

Regards.

Fitz :salute:

We shall be grateful for illumination - " I like the mod but there are many bugs... I wait for the next update. "
Give the description these bugs.

[dd149]

Don't worry gray owl if you can fix the original game bugs, it will be already a great achievement. What is the progress o the new release by the way?

[-GrayOwl-]

Don't worry gray owl if you can fix the original game bugs, it will be already a great achievement. What is the progress o the new release by the way?

But i not informed about "original game bugs" :)

[goldorak]

But i not informed about "original game bugs" :)

Well for one the DSRV not working. ^_^
Now if you could fix that in the navalsimengine it would definitely rock. :rock: :salute:

[-GrayOwl-]

Well for one the DSRV not working. ^_^
Now if you could fix that in the navalsimengine it would definitely rock. :rock: :salute:

To disconnect physics of game.
It is impossible.
Having removed a mistake with DSRV- all defective physics of game will be broken.
Unfortunately is an irreplaceable loss...

[Castout]

The new update for the RA mod is coming soon?

January 2010?

I like the mod but there are many bugs...I wait for the next update.

I´ll uninstall DW with RA and return to LWAMI...Or I will conserve the DW RA installation and re-install DW with LWAMI or Alfa Tau...

Regards.

Fitz :salute:

What bugs? DWX is GREAT! It is definitely not buggy :DL

[fitzcarraldo]

...But the RA Reinforce Alert mod is plenty of bugs...Please, read the post in the Red Rogers Forum...:yeah:

CrazyMan and the russian team is working in the corrections!

Regards

Fitz :salute:

[Castout]

You mean DWX??! So far it's not buggy for me as play it. But I mostly play the sub :hmmm:

[Mau]

Just want to make sure?? We are talking the same thing (``DWX`` and RA??) right?
ANy comments on the surface or air sides (buggy wise).
For installation, what do I need (files with fixed doctrine...) and what are the steps.
That would be great if someone can answer those questions!!

Thank you!

[whiskey111]

Another question "how to install this". Sorry but readmy file is not so clear as it should be.
I have twelve zipped files. Should I unzipped all of them or just one ?
Someone was writting that installed it on LWAMI. Is this possible ?

[Castout]

I think only two parts instead
http://www.redrodgers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4912

And update
http://www.ra-dwx.narod.ru/todo.htm

To install put everything from DWX one xtract to your main DW game directory then run the bat file. It will then install everything.

To install the update simply replace the files provided by the update.

[whiskey111]

Unfortunately links doesn't work (for part 1 and 2).

[Castout]

Unfortunately links doesn't work (for part 1 and 2).

Are you by any chance using a referrer control program. HTTP referrer must be set to normal(be allowed) for download to succeed. I just tried to download they are okay. If you're using HTTP referrer forger or the like you need to allow the browser HTTP referrer to work to download the files.:)

[whiskey111]

referrer control program - what is this ?!

[Castout]

referrer control program - what is this ?!

It's a browser add on to fool site where or what page you just came from :).
Anyway the links are working fine when I checked them. I had to disable my HTTP referrer forger though other wise I couldn't download them.
I just checked again and the links are fine.

From Wiki
The referrer, or HTTP referrer — also known by the common misspelling referer that occurs as an HTTP header (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_headers) field — identifies, from the point of view of an internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) webpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webpage) or resource, the address of the webpage (commonly the URL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Locator), the more generic URI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier) or the i18n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I18n) updated IRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_Resource_Identifier)) of the resource which links to it. By checking the referrer, the new page can see where the request came from. Referrer logging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log) is used to allow websites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website) and web servers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_server) to identify where people are visiting them from, for promotional or security purposes. Referrer is a popular tool to combat cross-site request forgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery), but such security mechanisms do not work when the referrer is disabled. Referrer is widely used for statistical purposes.

[whiskey111]

OK I'm a stupid noob. Anybody know where this option is in Firefox ?

[whiskey111]

Can anyone help me. PLEASE !!!!

[Mau]

Those 2 dates from almost last year.
I thought RA (not the beta version but the 1.0 one) was fairly new??

Am I missing something? People are still reporting that this MOd is great after almost a year...???

But I am probably missing something.

[whiskey111]

No, I have just missed something. I have very long brake with DW and someone just told me about this mod. Since two days I'm trying to download it but I think I will never make it.
I can't find the info which files are newest and where I can download it.
To many posts, to many information in one topic...

[Castout]

OK I'm a stupid noob. Anybody know where this option is in Firefox ?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:1/cat:12

In privacy and security
search for refcontrol

Besides that I also recommend
NoScript
Ad Block Plus
Better Privacy
Ghostery

You can't be too paranoid about the internet.:D

Those 2 dates from almost last year.
I thought RA (not the beta version but the 1.0 one) was fairly new??

Am I missing something? People are still reporting that this MOd is great after almost a year...???

But I am probably missing something.

Look at the words below the post. I'll bold them for you
Последний раз редактировалось CrazyIvan; 14-09-2009 в 19:41.

[whiskey111]

Links doesn't wor for me...
Can somebody upload those files on some other server, please ?

[Castout]

Perhaps you can get it here

http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39337#post39337

Must be registered though:)
Don't forget to install the patch

[whiskey111]

Thanks ! :DL

[Castout]

Thanks ! :DL
No problem


Anyway what's the latest news on the coming update. It's been couple weeks since the leak that it was going to be released in 2 weeks time :DL.

[whiskey111]

I was trying to find any information about what is done and what works incorrectly but there is only manual for weapons. So please forgive me that I didn't have enough time to read all these 30 pages (of this topic) to find information.

My question is:
1. Is this normal that USET-80 bitmap doesn't want to load and cause me game crash to desktop ?

2. Is it normal that some Alfa sub is not able to load any weapon ?

[Castout]

No those are not normal try reinstalling and install DWX on top of patched(1.04) stock DW.

Btw I'm looking for people to play DWX online with :). If you're up to it PM me and we'll exchnage email to set the game up from messenger.:03:

[whiskey111]

I have reinstalled the game but with no positive changes.
1. Installed DW
2. Installed patch 1.4
3. Unziped files and copied all of them to root folder of DW
4. Run Install_RA_OPFOR_DWX.bat (installation asked me many times for overwrite some files - I asked YES every time).
5. Did changes in DangerousWaters.ini ("SkipOpening Yes")
6. Copied all update files to root directory of DW and overwrited them.

What I have missed ?


BTW, if You are looking for people to play try this link http://www.dangerouswaters.pl/
They are my friends. They speak english fluently and forum is only english written so no problems with communication.
They play every friday with people from different country (not only from Poland).
Unfortunataley I don't have time now for playing.

[goldorak]

I have reinstalled the game but with no positive changes.
1. Installed DW
2. Installed patch 1.4
3. Unziped files and copied all of them to root folder of DW
4. Run Install_RA_OPFOR_DWX.bat (installation asked me many times for overwrite some files - I asked YES every time).
5. Did changes in DangerousWaters.ini ("SkipOpening Yes")
6. Copied all update files to root directory of DW and overwrited them.

What I have missed ?


Follow the guide :

The mod comes in 2 files (lets forget for the moment about voice packs and patches).

DWX_RA_1_00.part1.rar
DWX_RA_1_00.part2.rar


Once you download those 2 files (for simplicity put them on your desktop), use 7-zip or winrar to decompress the first file DWX_RA_1_00.part1.rar.
This will AUTOMATICALLY decompress also DWX_RA_1_00.part2.rar and you'll find on your hard drive 2 files :

RA_OPFOR_DWX
Install_RA_OPFOR_DWX.bat


Copy these 2 files inside the main directory folder of dangerous waters and double click on the bat file.
The installation starts , let it be and when it ends it will ask if you want to delete temporary files.
Answer yes and thats it. You've got DWX installed correctly.

[whiskey111]

Thank You very much Goldorak.
Everything works OK without Typhoon class sub. Game crash to desktop when I'm trying to use it.

But, mod is fantastic. I was waiting for something like this for many years...
Now I can die in peace :D

[Mau]

Same here,

Thanks a lot!
(I need to do some more testing but it looks awesome, did not try the Typhoon yet).

Now which patches do I need (doctrine, files) to update?
Thank you very much!