The DW Mod Scene - Ok, WTF?

[Pillar]

I've been around for a long time and even I'm confused. I can't imagine how someone new coming to this would make out.

There are I gather at least five (?) different mods for DW, and the only one that seems well documented and public is LWAMI. DWX is now LWAMI I understand.... (again, ????)

The other three, "Milsab" "Alfa Tau" and "Reinforce Alert" are all non-English projects that seem to be insider mods, not generally meant for the public.

I'm not sure what the difference is between Milsab, AT, RA and LWAMI/DWX are to be honest, beyond the extra platforms.

Which one has the best AI? What has the most detail and focus on sonar and weapons? What about behaviour and accuracy of the individual platforms?

This can't be easy for noobs to figure out. Maybe we should have a thread with some overview of them.

[Molon Labe]

"DWX" is actually an alternate name for Reinforce-Alert. I think they decided to use it once it was clear the SCX team was not going to make a DWX. We did get permission to use a large number of SCX models for LWAMI, so that might be the cause of some confusion.

I'm happy to answer any questions about LWAMI, but I'd rather stay away from comparisons to the others out of deference to their work and also because with all the time I've been spending with LWAMI I haven't had much of a chance to try the others out.

I do have some good news for players new to mods. I've created a comprehensive LWAMI manual for the 3.10 edition that covers damn near everything the mod does. So now more than ever, people can know exactly what they're getting into. (Not that the old readme format was that bad, of course, but this is better IMO.)

[Castout]

Which one's the best is a very subjective issue and sensitive too :DL.

For me PERSONALLY I really like Reinforce Alert 1.1 that's also called DWX 1.1.

It's just released couple days ago if not yesterday. To me it adds far larger number of modifications than any other existing mod for DW.

I'd choose RA 1.1(DWX) over any other but there's nothing wrong installing more than one DW installation and try all them out!

I've tried LWAMI 3.08-3.09 and Alfa Tau too myself.

When LWAMI first came out I cried it was the best mod for DW
and when then Alfa Tau came I cried the same too
and now that RA is out guess what I cry it's the best mod for DW.
LoL.

So you see they are ALL great. But they are all greatest in their own time. I can't speak for LWAMI 3.10 though.

[To be]

I've used both RA and LWAMI - I very much enjoy the ability to control multiple platforms in RA (as well as the enhanced weapons controls) - it adds a lot to the game. LWAMI however crashes less, (though RA doesn't crash too often), and the AI behavior in LWAMI seems much better than RA. I use LWAMI unless I specifically want to control a non-standard sub, mostly due to the better AI behavior.

[Castout]

If West meets East and LWAMI and RA team both work together we could have the greatest mod ever in 10 years time after they settle their feud :haha:

I haven't crashed one time in new RA 1.1

Though I noticed AI is less aggressive than in LWAMI as usual with RA mod. What I really like about RA aside from the many platform and torpedo doctrines is the quietness of electric sub. Electric sub is a nightmare in DW thanks to RA. I really like the feeling that subs now generally quieter and electric sub deadly quiet.

[Pillar]

I do have some good news for players new to mods. I've created a comprehensive LWAMI manual for the 3.10 edition that covers damn near everything the mod does. So now more than ever, people can know exactly what they're getting into. (Not that the old readme format was that bad, of course, but this is better IMO.)

I've gone through a good part of it now and I'm really impressed, thanks for putting this out. Biggest shock for me was that DW has been using only one size for sonar targets all this time >< Very glad to hear about these changes.

[NFunky]

+100 with To Be. The RA/DWX mod is amazing, but I'm going to keep using LWAMI until it includes a truely challenging AI, particularly for surface combatants. Right now it's too easy to kill well defended surface targets with torpedoes or missiles. I do really like the platforms/weapons and, to a point, the sonar performance in RA/DWX, but combat tends to favor the player a little to heavily, even when driving an inferior platform.

Basically the way I see the mod situation is LWAMI is the oldest kid on the block. It's the most stable, tweaked and perfected mod available and has made stock (unmodded) DW seem all but unusable. However, the new RA/DWX mod is very well done. While new and still a bit buggy, It adds incredible new features to the game and vastly expands options for mission building. Alfa Tau was a pretty cool mod for a while, but it has now been rendered somewhat obsolete by LWAMI and DWX. Honestly, I have no idea what the Milsab mod is, but it doesn't seem to be a very widely used one in this community.

Oh yeah, and I agree 100% that the mod situation is as transparent as the global economy. We really do need a sticky that simply lists the major mods and gives a brief description of what they do.

[-GrayOwl-]

I've used both RA and LWAMI - I very much enjoy the ability to control multiple platforms in RA (as well as the enhanced weapons controls) - it adds a lot to the game. LWAMI however crashes less, (though RA doesn't crash too often), and the AI behavior in LWAMI seems much better than RA. I use LWAMI unless I specifically want to control a non-standard sub, mostly due to the better AI behavior.


You can check aggression in such a way.
Make an active ping.
Also see - as quickly AI will answer to you with a torpedo shot.
LWAMI will give an answer-back torpedo shot from 6 about 9 minutes.
RA - will answer immediately - no more than 1 minute. (distance passage of a signal up to the target both back and some seconds on procedure launch of torpedos) is taken into account.

LWAMI of the doctrine - the predicted algorithms of evasion use.
Reinforce Alert - all time uses different variants is is more unpredictable.

RA - takes into account the current depth of a sub with its speed - for prevention cavitation.
LWAMI - nothing takes into account.

RA - diesel boats correctly work at snorkeling.
LWAMI - snorkeling is absent.

RA - the noise by the surface ships - depends on their speed and grows linearly.
LWAMI - the surface ships change the noise only before occurrence cavitation.
If cavitation - then noise all time identical (base noise + 20). It concerns also submarines.

RA - the PD depth for AI of sub is correctly now.
LWAMI (and also original of game) - not correct depth. It is a mistake in the formula from sonalist.

RA - shoots SUBROCs very exact.
LWAMI - AI SUBROCs practically useless.

RA - action under polar ice real.
LWAMI - the submarines pass through ice as through butter, and are not damaged.

RA - begun AI helo from AI of the ship - at first will find out a submarine, then will drop torpedos.
LWAMI - begun AI helo from AI of the ship - simply will drop torpedos in a point to which has arrived, even if a submarine there already no.

RA - the radar on submarines of the player works without a bugs.
LWAMI - the radar on 688 and Seawolfs if is lifted on depth (PD - 1 ft) not counterdetected with ESM of AI platforms.
etc. etc...

Such differences - hundred.
But I shall not list them all.

[Pillar]

But I shall not list them all.

Well yes, do that. That's the point of the thread after all.

If the concern is accuracy, well, there are developers from both mods able to comment here so maybe in the process we'll clear up some confusion.

It's not a contest. Let's figure this out.

[Hawk66]

Though I noticed AI is less aggressive than in LWAMI as usual with RA mod.


Could you explain that a little more...do you mean AEGIS systems in particular?
Thx.

I had a look at some doctrines (Sub/ASW-planes/helos) of RA and they seem to be quite sophisticated, although I did not do any tests so far.

[To be]

You can check aggression in such a way.
Make an active ping.
Also see - as quickly AI will answer to you with a torpedo shot.
LWAMI will give an answer-back torpedo shot from 6 about 9 minutes.
RA - will answer immediately - no more than 1 minute. (distance passage of a signal up to the target both back and some seconds on procedure launch of torpedos) is taken into account.

LWAMI of the doctrine - the predicted algorithms of evasion use.
Reinforce Alert - all time uses different variants is is more unpredictable.
.
.
.

Such differences - hundred.
But I shall not list them all.

The response to particular events might be great - but all I can say is that in my experience the overall employment of tactics by the AI (especially from surface vessels) in RA is significantly less challenging to defeat than the LWAMI behavior. One particular way to see this is to set up a surface fleet of (AI) warships (say, a carrier group), and place a few (AI) subs ahead of the group on barrier patrol. The ships, in my experience, do a vastly better job fighting back in LWAMI than in RA. I use both mods of course, both have their strengths. I'd be happy to send you an example replay file of the kind of test I was talking about if you'd like to see them.

[goldorak]

You can check aggression in such a way.

[cut]

RA - shoots SUBROCs very exact.
LWAMI - AI SUBROCs practically useless.

[cut]


And THIS is one hell of a big difference. AI subs with subrocs are very very deadly, we in Betasom learned the lesson. :haha:
Lada/Kilo AI subs getting within no more than 15-20 minutes deadly accurate solutions on a playable Type 212 some 10 nm + out at slow speed. It was a shock to some of our players just how reveresed the situation was with respect to AT3 or even Lwami. It makes mixing AI/playable units that much more challenging.


Such differences - hundred.
But I shall not list them all.

I think this is a mistake although I understand why you don't want to take that route. Good software comes with good documentation, and although the included weapons manual and sonar profiles are very good, a good deal of the behaviour of the mod has to be learned on the field by playing and playing. And we always discover new things. This of course takes time, and certain players accustumed to just having a changelog with all the differences with respect to DW default may be put off. And some even think the mod works badly when its just the correct behaviour because its not documented at all.
But, if you stick with it, and learn by trial and error you'll see just how big a quantum leap RA/DWX really is over the other mods.

[-GrayOwl-]

The response to particular events might be great - but all I can say is that in my experience the overall employment of tactics by the AI (especially from surface vessels) in RA is significantly less challenging to defeat than the LWAMI behavior. One particular way to see this is to set up a surface fleet of (AI) warships (say, a carrier group), and place a few (AI) subs ahead of the group on barrier patrol. The ships, in my experience, do a vastly better job fighting back in LWAMI than in RA. I use both mods of course, both have their strengths. I'd be happy to send you an example replay file of the kind of test I was talking about if you'd like to see them.

You are mistaken.

The ships at all work in LWAMI not better.

The doctrines for the ships - in any way do not process their tactics.
The doctrines only operate the weapon - and that only partially.

You can in general remove the doctrine CIWS.txt and CIWSAttack.txt.
Despite of it - the ship will have the same behaviour and also will launch the weapon despite lacking the doctrines. :hmmm:

One word - it is manages from NavalSimEngine - but not from the doctrine completely.

There is one known tactics - shoot one missile against the surface ship.
After that - the ship will be sped up up to speed washout of the sensor controls.
And after that you shoot a passive torpedo. The ship will be 100 % killed.

With RA - such will not allow.

You can put the test mission on a forum RedRodgers as attachment archive.

[Hawk66]

And THIS is one hell of a big difference. AI subs with subrocs are very very deadly, we in Betasom learned the lesson. :haha:
Lada/Kilo AI subs getting within no more than 15-20 minutes deadly accurate solutions on a playable Type 212 some 10 nm + out at slow speed.

But is that realistic that a Kilo can detect a Type 212 at slow speed 10 nm away with an accurate solution?

[goldorak]

But is that realistic that a Kilo can detect a Type 212 at slow speed 10 nm away with an accurate solution?

Well the Lada has a towed array so its acceptable.
As for the Kilo, while it may not have a towed array, its sonar is not completely useless. You can't track targets at very long range, but 10 nm is not out of the question.
Having an accurate solution is a matter of having the correct number of bearing lines + speed information. If the target mantains fixed speed, the autotma pinpoints the solution much faster than if you changed speed and or/course every so often.
20 minutes gives you 9 bearing lines, plus speed info is more than enough to pin down a very good solution.

In any case some things have to take into account playability yes even in a simulation. And before people start knocking down RA, Lwami in the last versions (although it was finally corrected) went completedly overboard in making the SSK practically invisibile.
So much so that Molon Labe in Lwami 3.10 reajusted the values for something more balanced.

You have to balance realism with playability.
Those that think otherwise would be better served by enlisting in a real navy and use the professional simulators.
Thats real work.

[Molon Labe]

In any case some things have to take into account playability yes even in a simulation. And before people start knocking down RA, Lwami in the last versions (although it was finally corrected) went completedly overboard in making the SSK practically invisibile.
So much so that Molon Labe in Lwami 3.10 reajusted the values for something more balanced.

You have to balance realism with playability.
Those that think otherwise would be better served by enlisting in a real navy and use the professional simulators.
Thats real work.

We did move a few submarine active source levels up in 3.10, but it wasn't done for balance. It was done because I accidentally moved the low end too far down in 3.09 and acquisition ranges ended up shorter than we ever wanted them--unrealistically short, at least in my estimation. ;)

There are a number of spots where balance is accounted for in the mod, though, so your point remains valid (as long as Batman isn't riding an elephant, anyways).

[-GrayOwl-]

ML - The conversation goes concerning noise of a submarine, instead of about her answer-back active echo.

Your mistake that you use the formula Ludger's which is more- less correct for surface ships (will not come yet cavitation - then noise all time not increased).
The formula uses LINEAR gain noise.

However - Submarine Gain noise, uses other formula - LOGARITHMIC!.

Your tables of comparison of noise of submarines - absolutely wrong.

Your tables are suitable only for the surface ships - from some share of a mistake (however on some speeds a share of a mistake makes 3 units(!) from current real noise).

The submarines generate absolutely other noise.

[To be]

You are mistaken.

The ships at all work in LWAMI not better.

The doctrines for the ships - in any way do not process their tactics.
The doctrines only operate the weapon - and that only partially.

You can in general remove the doctrine CIWS.txt and CIWSAttack.txt.
Despite of it - the ship will have the same behaviour and also will launch the weapon despite lacking the doctrines. :hmmm:

One word - it is manages from NavalSimEngine - but not from the doctrine completely.

There is one known tactics - shoot one missile against the surface ship.
After that - the ship will be sped up up to speed washout of the sensor controls.
And after that you shoot a passive torpedo. The ship will be 100 % killed.

With RA - such will not allow.

You can put the test mission on a forum RedRodgers as attachment archive.

I am not mistaken about my own experiences, and I encourage you to try setting up a mission of the type I described to see for yourself the behavior I described. Any improvement to both, or either, mod would be very welcome to me. However, you appear to be more interested in ignoring any criticism blindly, rather than taking it constructively. No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.

[Molon Labe]

ML - The conversation goes concerning noise of a submarine, instead of about her answer-back active echo.



No, Goldorak specifically referred to a change made in 3.10 from 3.09. No changes in PSLs were undone in the 3.10 update, that change was for ASLs.

As for the rest, LWAMI has never made a claim to mod anything hardcoded. We always have been and probably always will be a database & doctrine mod. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from calling us out for "mistakes" that have nothing to do with our work.

[goldorak]

No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.


You are right, no mod will be the perfect mod. This doesn't mean that all mods are created equal. As incredibile as the work on Lwami is and has been over the past several years, there is a point beyond which they simply cannot/willnot enhance the game. Lwami still carries a lot of bugs that are hardcoded in the game engine. They were present in DW 1.0 and are still present in DW 1.04 + lwami 3.10. No amount of modding the database and doctrines will fix these bugs. If people accept this situation then all is good.
But we now have a mod that tries to fix those hardcoded bugs. And this is a good thing too. From this point of view Lwami is "wrong" is the sense that it still relies on buggy behaviour from the navalsimengine.
The problem wouldn't exist in the first place if SCS had done their job and released a functionning navalsimengine. That unfortunately was not the case.

[To be]

You are right, no mod will be the perfect mod. This doesn't mean that all mods are created equal. As incredibile as the work on Lwami is and has been over the past several years, there is a point beyond which they simply cannot/willnot enhance the game. Lwami still carries a lot of bugs that are hardcoded in the game engine. They were present in DW 1.0 and are still present in DW 1.04 + lwami 3.10. No amount of modding the database and doctrines will fix these bugs. If people accept this situation then all is good.
But we now have a mod that tries to fix those hardcoded bugs. And this is a good thing too. From this point of view Lwami is "wrong" is the sense that it still relies on buggy behaviour from the navalsimengine.
The problem wouldn't exist in the first place if SCS had done their job and released a functionning navalsimengine. That unfortunately was not the case.

I very much agree. RA has taken DW mods to a whole new level, and I enjoy it very much. (Except I'm not going to blame SCS - they created a game where there is little market and even less hope of a profit. I'm thankful DW exists - just as no mod is perfect no game is perfect, I'm happy to have what we have.)

[-GrayOwl-]

I am not mistaken about my own experiences, and I encourage you to try setting up a mission of the type I described to see for yourself the behavior I described. Any improvement to both, or either, mod would be very welcome to me. However, you appear to be more interested in ignoring any criticism blindly, rather than taking it constructively. No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.


Here asked - what distinctions between these mods.

Partially I have answered.

If I shall begin list other distinctions (I can direct to name them bugs, default comes from SCS game version) - then you again will say that I intentionally " lower downwards " LWAMI.

[dd149]

GrayOwl, I think that is the US it could be a legal concern to openly modify dlll/exe, so please understand Molon Labe and others. They are in no way responsible for the shortcomings of SCS, but have tried to improve DW while avoiding legal trouble, which can really problem in the US.
On the other hand I believe that everybody likes what you are doing in the RA team, as many of original bugs are now corrected by your hard work, with others still being under work.
May I suggest that we could all join forces in developing the next stage. You and RA are certainly the one for the hardcoding, but why not making use of modding by others too? We know that it is not easy and would involve some communication/documentation issues but it would be worth trying.:yeah:

[Pillar]

Well, does anyone feel enlightened?

I don't really. :rotfl2:

Anyways, GreyOwl I had a look with DWEdit and noticed in RA you have passive sonars giving range, course and speed data (like Radar might.) Why is this?

[-GrayOwl-]

Well, does anyone feel enlightened?

I don't really. :rotfl2:

Anyways, GreyOwl I had a look with DWEdit and noticed in RA you have passive sonars giving range, course and speed data (like Radar might.) Why is this?


Because you - having passive contact can calculate his course data using TMA (Shot Solution).

Why AI then can not it do?

However - we make a delay in the doctrine for a shot.

Besides - the parameters on the decision, depend also on other factors - as will shoot on you quickly and exactly AI.


And besides - not all data can be received in the doctrine from sensors.

Certainly - I could leave all as in an original database (that you were quiet), but to calculate correct distance in the doctrine - as I know algorithm (formula) as sonalysts enters an error for to deform true value of range.

But we have made more simply.

[Pillar]

I understand

Is the delay built into the doctrine variable or fixed? In other words: will the time from the moment the AI makes the passive contact to the time the contact is pegged on course and speed always be the same length?

I notice some platforms (surface platforms even) have this "make simple solution" but not others. Why do some platforms use this technique? What is the reason you pick them?

Also what does the AI get from the "Altitude" report from the sensor and how would they use that data?

THANK YOU this is most interesting!

[-GrayOwl-]

To: Pillar

> Is the delay built into the doctrine variable or fixed? In other words: will the time from the moment the AI makes the passive contact to the time the contact is pegged on course and speed always be the same length?

Variable. For example - If Target Speed very fast - then Signal strength more (Classification quickly ), also - TMA solution more easy this take.
Some different factors are taken into account.

Also - for example at shooting snapshot on your active ping - AI will make a decision - whether she to you will make a self ping before a shot.

Or if passive contact weak and solution bad - AI Sub also can to you make ping, and after that will shoot a torpedo with good solution.
In common, it is possible to speak - in different conditions, all time there will be different variants.

> I notice some platforms (surface platforms even) have this "make simple solution" but not others. Why do some platforms use this technique? What is the reason you pick them?

Some sonars have "800-2000" Hz bandwidth. Therefore - the classification is complicated.
While the target is not determined as "Hostile" - she will not be attacked.

> Also what does the AI get from the "Altitude" report from the sensor and how would they use that data?

Is not used. In the torpedo doctrine, you do not receive any given from Parental of a platform. AI the platform only will give PreEnableCrs and RunToEnable. Depth of the target you can not receive in the doctrine.

[Pillar]

To: Pillar

> I notice some platforms (surface platforms even) have this "make simple solution" but not others. Why do some platforms use this technique? What is the reason you pick them?

Some sonars have "800-2000" Hz bandwidth. Therefore - the classification is complicated.
While the target is not determined as "Hostile" - she will not be attacked.


What will the AI do with a contact when that is the situation?


> Also what does the AI get from the "Altitude" report from the sensor and how would they use that data?

Is not used. In the torpedo doctrine, you do not receive any given from Parental of a platform. AI the platform only will give PreEnableCrs and RunToEnable. Depth of the target you can not receive in the doctrine.Is there any functional reason that the "Reports Target Altitude" box is checked on the sensor then? (In the case of a passive sonar here.)

Thanks for the interview :)

[NFunky]

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute... I've played DW stock and DW/LWAMI for ages and the AI has always been able to get a decent firing solution after a while. Unless this range/course/speed detection was built into the original, I don't really see why it needed to be added. I mean, I actually got killed a few times from stock AI subs, so they definately, definately can aquire an accurate solution without being fed course/range/speed from sonar.

Does RA have that different of an AI? I always thought that TMA (in the style of the autocrew's TMA) was built into all AI passive tracking. Am I wrong?

[Molon Labe]

I always thought that TMA (in the style of the autocrew's TMA) was built into all AI passive tracking. Am I wrong?

It does. You can see it whenever an AI platform provides a link to a contact it has on ESM or passive sonar. The range solution goes from crap to accurate after a few minutes of tracking and sometimes goes off if there's a course change.

[Pillar]

Unless this range/course/speed detection was built into the original, I don't really see why it needed to be added

Some sonars have "800-2000" Hz bandwidth. Therefore - the classification is complicated.
While the target is not determined as "Hostile" - she will not be attacked.

i.e., the AI in these cases lacks the means to engage *any* sub because it cannot classify the target. Hence the workaround.

I don't understand how it works exactly, but that's the explanation I think.

[NFunky]

???????? I'm very confused as to how it works too. The AI-hostile-classification thing is a problem, but I have absolutely no idea how feeding it course/speed/range data helps. It'll give the AI a perfect solution, but still won't tell it what the target is. I'm also not convinced the AI won't fire on a contact that is not 100% classified. Even when I have a couple frequency lines, I still often have a number of choices in narrowband and just have to guess which one is the most likely. I've definately been fired on by subs I don't have a 100% classification on.

[Pillar]

It'll give the AI a perfect solution, but still won't tell it what the target is. I suspect that what I'm seeing are some checkboxes tagged as a result of a "reveal all" tag somewhere else. i.e, output, not cause.

I'm also not convinced the AI won't fire on a contact that is not 100% classifiedWant to be more confused? :) As far as I know, the AI classifies the targets as soon as they are detected anyhow. Maybe that's something different about RA.

ven when I have a couple frequency lines, I still often have a number of choices in narrowband and just have to guess which one is the most likely.You're probably a lot better at it than the AI would be. So the AI doesn't guess... I suppose.

I've definately been fired on by subs I don't have a 100% classification on. Me too :88) Dang rude of them not to wait on MY classification.

[NFunky]

Me too :88) Dang rude of them not to wait on MY classification.

Touché!

To be shamefully honest, I'm completely clueless as to what is in the actual database/doctrines/navalsimengine. I'm just a naval simmer and don't really comprehend all that habbajabbah.

[Gorshkov]

Making a good (means realistic!) modern submarine simulation is an unfriendly task! Let's take a look at DW mods: I improved only one small aspect of entire stuff i.e. PSL levels of submarines to be able to achieve something what is close to early XXI century's reality. After doing that many mad as a cut snake Russkie fanboys, US fanboys and DW fanboys at large appeared questioning my work. I fully understand them all:

- I understand that Russkies still cannot agree with sad truth Russia is not a superpower any longer but only Third World backward country which desperately needs foreign help to remain afloat. I know this is all in a huge contrast to already reestablished comic Red Square Parades, funny military maneuvers in Venezuela and other fancy BS which are served by cunning Kremlin-boys to the Russkie public. Well, what else can they do? They cannot simply say the poor truth about Russkie military downfall to the nation in Moscow TV...

- I also understand US fanboys who cannot take into consideration China is making a huge progress in naval technology and warfare outrunning old America's rival - now flat Russia. Yet they should understand in two decades US will face another Yellow Gorshkov.

- I also fully understand DW fanboys because they need some fictionally upgraded Russkie stuff being still present in the game to save some game balance like winnable fight: Akula II versus Seawolf. Nope, buddies - this is not real!

However no fantasy modding can change present reality and I am interested only in real life simulations. That is why I am modding mods to my personal realistic taste! :rock:

[Molon Labe]

Am I the US fanboy that thinks China sucks? Because I did the specs for the 054A, 053C, 022, etc...and China got pretty awesome in 3.10, if you'd care to look beyond the PSL of the 093 SSN. (And all we did with the 093 is put it where it was on the ONI chart--slightly louder than the Vic III.) We've taken the PLAN from a joke to brush aside to being a serious opponent.

[TLAM Strike]

Am I the US fanboy that thinks China sucks? Because I did the specs for the 054A, 053C, 022, etc...and China got pretty awesome in 3.10, if you'd care to look beyond the PSL of the 093 SSN. (And all we did with the 093 is put it where it was on the ONI chart--slightly louder than the Vic III.) We've taken the PLAN from a joke to brush aside to being a serious opponent.

Don't forget the Yuan ML, and their new anphibs. :salute:

Not to mention the new torpedoes and missiles. :yeah:

[Molon Labe]

Don't forget the Yuan ML, and their new anphibs. :salute:

Not to mention the new torpedoes and missiles. :yeah:

Good point. The change to the Yu-7 from...what was the standard ASW torp before? the A244?... was huge. The YJ-83 upgrade from the HY-2 and old version of the C-802, also huge. Yu-6 from -65K/TESTs as the primary torp of the sub fleet is also a pretty big deal. Air-to-surface going from the C801 to the Kh-31. Area AAW from non-existant to the HQ-9. Point defense from non-functional 37mms to working 37mms, AK-630s and Goalkeeper CIWS copies; ESSM SAMs to the HQ-7 and HQ-16. Okay, losing the ESSM was a downgrade, but China never had ESSMs to begin with (SCS just decided it was "close enough" to the HQ-7 and HQ-61 systems and went with it).

[Gorshkov]

Well, guys - the truth about DW is simple: This is tactical ASW simulator used by US Navy adepts for training. However it was sold as an entertainment game with completely falsified USNII database and simplified Nav-Sim Engine which is fully understandable move of course.

What you are trying to achieve is to recreate this real database and improve game mechanics using open sources. I think this task is not satisfying now because you treat this data too narrowly and too directly but they are in fact highly messed and mixed-up - often intentionally! However I think some level of improvement is possible and thus I tried to show you on PSL values example how to do that - in my opinion - correctly. Well, this requires quite a sheer knowledge compiled from many dispersed and often unconnected with submarine warfare sources along with proper summarization of many factors to get some clear picture what is going on underwater now. Yet it is doable so try, try and try...I won't be bothering you since then. I will be only watching your progress... :salute:

[TLAM Strike]

Our main problem with what you have been saying is your lack of evidence to back what you are saying. We have produced charts available to anyone showing were we got the data for our PSLs.

We will consider what you are saying in relation to our data if you can produce documentation.

[Molon Labe]

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/demotivational-posters-screw-you-guys.jpg

[-GrayOwl-]

Well, guys - the truth about DW is simple: This is tactical ASW simulator used by US Navy adepts for training. However it was sold as an entertainment game with completely falsified USNII database and simplified Nav-Sim Engine which is fully understandable move of course.

What you are trying to achieve is to recreate this real database and improve game mechanics using open sources. I think this task is not satisfying now because you treat this data too narrowly and too directly but they are in fact highly messed and mixed-up - often intentionally! However I think some level of improvement is possible and thus I tried to show you on PSL values example how to do that - in my opinion - correctly. Well, this requires quite a sheer knowledge compiled from many dispersed and often unconnected with submarine warfare sources along with proper summarization of many factors to get some clear picture what is going on underwater now. Yet it is doable so try, try and try...I won't be bothering you since then. I will be only watching your progress... :salute:
bla-bla-bla...

You know as is done PSL in DW? You have not ripened for it !

You only speak - I think, about suspect.. (etc, etc...)

Give the facts.

Differently you ---> Mr. bla-bla-bla :D

[goldorak]

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/demotivational-posters-screw-you-guys.jpg


:har: great pic ML.

[NFunky]

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/demotivational-posters-screw-you-guys.jpg


LMFAO! I swear to god I had SP on in the background and that line came up just as I was reading your post.