Blue Water Development Diary [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

AzureSkies

03-09-19, 12:55 AM

Wow, this looks very interesting! I will definitely be keeping an eye on it.
I've been having an itch for a modern Surface Naval Warfare game and it looks like this will scratch it! :up:
Keep up the good work! Can't wait to see more. :Kaleun_Wink: Thanks! I have been wanting this for a long time as well.

Something similar to CMANO and Jane's Fleet Command will be well received! With 3D view like the last one! :Kaleun_Applaud:

this screens looks similar to CW so i have some questions:

1. Can you write main differences your game and Cold Waters?

2. Screens shows in right bottom part of display "tactical window" with few buttons. Is in Full mode you will see additional stations like active/passive sonar, towed array, radar, ESM/ECM, damages etc?

3 what is purpose of an adjustable "world scale" slider that modifies the range of all weapons and sensors

4. How you imagine time compression in MP mode?

5. Will you make "link" for information exchange between warships in battlegroup and other forces like AWACS, naval ELINT airplanes, MPA, submarines and land radar stations?

1. I'd say apart from being in the genre of naval games, there's more differences than similarities. One is a singleplayer sub sim where you control a single platform. Blue Water is one where you control a group of ships, with equal attention to subsurface and air assets, with a focus on surface ships (ie battlegroups) and some land installations as well that interact heavily with naval units - such as airbases and SAM sites.

2. Those aren't stations, those are orders you can issue to the ship. Normally an RTS only has to deal with a few commands to send to units, so I had to get creative in coming up with a way to deal with much more complicated affairs like enabling/disabling active sensors, managing a hangar, engaging orders with different weapons with programmable things like waypoints, etc., and decided, "why not keep it thematically appropriate?"

There's a number of UI elements still missing, though.

3. To be able to switch from a more arcadey playstyle that happens on short time scales, to one that might take a lot longer. It serves a similar purpose to time compression.

4. Currently looking at going on the slowest requested speed, but open to community suggestions.

5. It'd be a neat feature, but would be a bit more advanced to implement than necessary. If the game's received well and there are greater resources available, then perhaps it's something that could be added further down the line.

Amazing news! May the most favorable winds blow you through developing the game... although we're probably talking engines, not sails, on this one :arrgh!: Thanks!

Sounds like a very intresting project.

What game engine are you using and how big is the development team?

I grew up with DC and FC and would fully support such a game. The Unity game engine, and as of the moment, the team is closer to the size of Killerfish Games than a larger studio. Namely, a programmer looking for contracts with artists. I have to give a shoutout of thanks to them for their work proving that a small indie team can make a quality product.

nimmerzz

03-09-19, 02:53 AM

Ive been looking for a successor to Destroyer Command for a long time! Good luck to you and i'd be happy to pre-purchase if that means we get to support your development. I feel like 50-60 bucks is a small risk if that means possibly getting the game you have wanted for decades. :Kaleun_Cheers:

Herman

03-09-19, 05:10 AM

3. To be able to switch from a more arcadey playstyle that happens on short time scales, to one that might take a lot longer. It serves a similar purpose to time compression.

It is true that the 1:1 (Real Time) makes games appear to be more twitch-like, but it should be remembered that, in real life, there would be many different competent individuals in command of the various positions and units. Instead, we have a game where nearly every command must be given by the player. To allow him the ability to pause or slow down so that he can issue orders to many different units (which would operate autonomously in real life), is not unreasonable.

4. Currently looking at going on the slowest requested speed, but open to community suggestions.

As far as I know, going on the slowest requested speed is common for most Real Time Simulation games. Of course, there are limitations. In my many Harpoon ANW MP sessions, I encountered some of them. One such situation was the various play styles.

I met one opponent who insisted on playing only at 1:1 or 1:5 second time compression and would throw a fit if anyone asked him to play faster because he felt rushed. So, he kept the game at a max 1:5 ratio. The problem was, we were playing scenarios with 5 day duration. Also, folks would get distracted or bored and wander away to attend to other matters. When combat finally occurred, they often were away from the keyboard and out of control of their units. In the end, the player who most often won was the fellow who played at the slowest rate because everyone had to leave after an hour or got bored and quit.

I am not certain there will ever be a 'solution' for this situation. I think it may just be a fact of life that some opponents should never play some other opponents. I am not critical of his style/tempo of play, but most everyone, myself included, just stopped playing against him. I just did not find the sessions fun or enjoyable. I am just as certain that other ANW players did not enjoy me slowing down the game to issue orders or attend to other minutiae.

p7p8

03-09-19, 07:53 AM

LINK - or any information exchange is needed if you want to make multiplayer mode with cooperation option - where two players controls own warship/submarine and have different sensors and abilities. For example submarine player haven't the same "surface" situation picture like warship commander.
If multiplayer will be only 1 vs 1 link is not needed. But i think most players would like to play with team vs another players team.

For me best solution would be assigning roles. From battle group commander (where player controls own unit + every AI, to warship commander - where player controls only ownship

About time acceleration:
In my opinion it depends on maximum scale of battle. If map size will have thousands kilometers it really have sense. But i think scale shouldn't be so big. For me better solution than "slowest requested speed" will be automatically time managements. For example at beginning of battle both sides havent enemy contact and game would run x2 or x4. It allows to move own forces to key strategic points or for better tactical planning. After detection or some speciffic events (opening fire etc.) game will change time compression to x1.
It will eliminate situation described by @Herman

Herman

03-09-19, 06:21 PM

For me better solution than "slowest requested speed" will be automatically time managements. For example at beginning of battle both sides havent enemy contact and game would run x2 or x4. It allows to move own forces to key strategic points or for better tactical planning. After detection or some speciffic events (opening fire etc.) game will change time compression to x1.
It will eliminate situation described by @Herman

I respectfully disagree with this assessment. IMHO, it is never better to force anything automatically or make any management mandatory. Whenever there is any doubt, it is always better to grant the players the maximum discretion possible, because they can always choose to ignore something. If it is programmed into the code, then nothing can be done to avoid it.

Learn from the mistakes of other games such as Flashpoint Campaigns. They removed most discretion from the players and force AI-controlled actions that would be ridiculous to any human in command. However, there is no way to avoid them. The garbage decisions mandated by the AI/game engine replace reasonable and logical human commands and there is absolutely no way around them.

Forcing battles to only drop to 1:1 time compression upon contact gives away too much information. An unsuspecting player walking into an ambush is immediately warned of impending action simply by watching the clock drop down to 1:1 time.

I have personally used the 'drop to 1:1' time as a feint for my opponent to make him believe combat was imminent, even when I was still distant.

Another possible option lost is for one player to plan intricate manoeuvres such as flank attacks or coordinated approaches (pincer movements).

There are just too many limitations to this mandatory action. Please leave it up to the players. If there is a particular player who insists upon slow play, he is going to find no one willing to engage him. The problem eventually solves itself.

p7p8

03-09-19, 07:20 PM

For me time acceleration is not good choice but if you have to, better is to do it by automatic mechanism. When players can decide when time is set to x1 or x4 or more most players will set x1 in all game.
So your ability for playing with accelerated time will be pure illusion.

In other hand if players at beginning will decide to play faster, and sudenly you will notice time is slowing down to x1 you have the same information like you described above:
Forcing battles to only drop to 1:1 time compression upon contact gives away too much information. An unsuspecting player walking into an ambush is immediately warned of impending action simply by watching the clock drop down to 1:1 time.

For me acceleration should be used for tactical planning like: spliting forces, taking better positions etc. Not for making advantage over opponent: "i will delay returning to x1 time for surprising enemy.
In that case good automatic game system will be more effective and more "fair play" to each players

Herman

03-09-19, 09:17 PM

In other hand if players at beginning will decide to play faster, and sudenly you will notice time is slowing down to x1 you have the same information like you described above:

Not true. I occasionally drop to 1:1 time just to give the impression that I am doing something important. It keeps my opponent guessing so that he can never know whether or not the 1:1 time means that I am detecting him, attacking him, or just checking on the status of a unit. Used judiciously, it keeps all sides honest.

The important thing is that the option is always available to players and is not arbitrarily imposed.

Ramba

03-10-19, 03:39 AM

Namely, a programmer looking for contracts with artists. I have to give a shoutout of thanks to them for their work proving that a small indie team can make a quality product.

So you are basically doing this alone?

Sea Demon

03-12-19, 08:02 AM

Saw this. Had to respond. Wishing the developer success. Count me in as somebody wanting to purchase this game.

Medley1991

03-15-19, 02:21 PM

Amazing news ! :Kaleun_Cheers:

Good luck guys...

Any informations for : Release date, "kickstarter" plan, pre-release, and support of release ? ( Steam ? )

Thanks !

AzureSkies

03-19-19, 12:20 AM

Not true. I occasionally drop to 1:1 time just to give the impression that I am doing something important. It keeps my opponent guessing so that he can never know whether or not the 1:1 time means that I am detecting him, attacking him, or just checking on the status of a unit. Used judiciously, it keeps all sides honest.

The important thing is that the option is always available to players and is not arbitrarily imposed. I know a physicist who refers to equipment that isn't behaving as you'd expect it to (ie, you can't get it to work right) as equipment with "features".

Too much automation can cause problems. I definitely lean towards power to the player, but ultimately the implementation of this is still a ways out.

So you are basically doing this alone? It's a very small team, but it's still growing and it's definitely not a solo job.

Saw this. Had to respond. Wishing the developer success. Count me in as somebody wanting to purchase this game. Thanks!

Amazing news ! :Kaleun_Cheers:

Good luck guys...

Any informations for : Release date, "kickstarter" plan, pre-release, and support of release ? ( Steam ? )

Thanks ! I'd like to have a bare-bones "alpha" sometime this summer. No kickstarter plan at the moment.

Steam will probably be the publisher, yes. If It's received well, I look forward to leading the implementation of a lot of fine details and additions to it over time.

Medley1991

03-19-19, 05:22 PM

You says : "you will take command of NATO and Soviet battlegroups, airbases, submarines and land installations"

NATO, all nations ? All naval/air units ? :D

Herman

03-20-19, 10:59 PM

Too much automation can cause problems. I definitely lean towards power to the player, but ultimately the implementation of this is still a ways out.

I agree that this is the prudent path. When in doubt, leave it up to the players. Even though ANW had problems with the time compression during MP sessions, players were able to work around them with relatively minor ad hoc solutions.

Making more processes mandatory or automatic generates more programming error possibilities. For example, with the time issue, does the time drop to 1:1 upon detection, when a unit fires, when a unit enters theoretical firing range, etc. These are all likely considerations the game engine must calculate to know when it changes time compression. And what happens when something goes wrongly? They are all just additional areas errors can arise. Looking for new ways to add unnecessary complications is just looking for trouble.

Learn from the mistakes of others. Steam and Iron is a solitaire game and has a mandatory change in time compression when enemy units are in visual contact with one another; the game will not move faster than 1:5 time compression. Unfortunately, I often found my finger mashed down on the Increase Time hotkey because I wanted the game to just run through the battle. I wasn't issuing any orders and was usually trying to disengage.

Learn from their mistakes. You will find plenty enough opportunity to create new ones. :ping:

ijozic

03-25-19, 10:00 AM

The interface reminds me more of the Strike Fleet actually, rather than Fleet Command. The only thing missing is the viewpoint from the command bridge.

Always wanted a successor to that game so I'm pretty thrilled by this.

Terminus

03-26-19, 07:01 AM

COOP Multiplayer would be good against AI or against other Humies.

Also hope the Australian Navy is there along with New Zealand, since we operated the same class of ships for the most part.

Terminus

stormrider_sp

03-27-19, 04:53 AM

Fantastic!! Really looking forward for this one!

How moddable will it be?

Chief

04-02-19, 10:19 PM

:Kaleun_Cheers:Something similar to CMANO and Jane's Fleet Command will be well received! With 3D view like the last one! :Kaleun_Applaud:

Overkill

04-10-19, 12:58 PM

Been wanting another "Fleet Command" game for a long time now. :D

Ragnarokkr

04-23-19, 04:41 AM

Okay, gotta come in hot and tell you guys this one thing:

The best of luck to you, will definitely be ready with my wallet :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

strykerpsg

04-24-19, 09:34 PM

Kudos AzureSkies!

This would be great in a market devoid of modern naval 1st person and/or 3D sims not seen since the 90s, with Destroyer Command, Jane's Fleet Command and other WWII naval sims. Some great suggestions already noted within the thread too.

Subscribed to this thread for updates.

AzureSkies

05-14-19, 12:25 AM

Well, I think it's safe to say some improvements have been made.

I can talk about the Ocean a bit more in another post, perhaps, but for now, let's take a look at what's floating in it.

https://i.imgur.com/8MVRWL5.jpg

This is the Azov, lacking her RBU's (still in development), and with the hull number she had in 1983 (The Russians like to change their ships' hull numbers every so often, it seems).

She was a Kara-class cruiser designed with a special modification: an installation of S-300 Fort (NATO reporting name: SA-N-6 "Grumble") missiles and accompanying 3R41 Volna ("TOP DOME") radar replacing her rearward M11 Shtorm (NATO name: SA-N-3 "Goblet") launcher and its accompanying HEAD LIGHTS radar.

https://i.imgur.com/tjw2xeG.jpg

This served as the sea trials for this new long-range SAM system that would be fitted on Slava and Kirov-class ships, and almost doubled the range of her air defense capabilities, and put her up with these fleet flagships in terms of fleet air defense.

https://i.imgur.com/PYFRD01.jpg

She did, however, retain the forward one, so you can see the HEAD LIGHTS radar just behind and on top of the bridge, and the associated M-11 Shtorm launcher on the elevated deck in front of it (currently carrying two missiles). By 1983, I believe this would have been the upgraded version (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/sa-n-3.htm).

https://i.imgur.com/6tEq8EH.jpg

Stationed with the Black Sea fleet, her and the Slava will be the most important ships for Soviet players trying to break out of the Black Sea, providing long-range air defense against large numbers of NATO aircraft.

Some parts of the model are yet to be augmented a bit, RBUs have yet to be added, and the sky will get some drastic improvements soon.

Next update is sure to come much sooner. Until then, good hunting.

AzureSkies

05-14-19, 02:50 AM

Just wanted to let y'all know there's an update on the Dev Diary (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=240099). I want to start using it more.

Amiral Crapaud

05-19-19, 09:08 AM

Your ships are beautiful. Keep up to good work, bro!

AzureSkies

05-23-19, 12:04 AM

This week is a bit late.

Been mulling over decisions with regard to the game's design and release schedule. I've been thinking of using an early access release towards the end of the year to raise funds to put towards a more complete development. It would only be the bare bones of gameplay, only surface ships and probably a simplified damage model, but come with all the updates from there.

Thoughts, comments? Feel free to provide feedback on the idea.

Anyways, I've done a lot of work implementing a sky system in the project, and had to re-do the water to make it look good in light of this. I think it's an improvement - the sky sure is! - but you'll have to tell me what you think of the water.

Anyways, I like to introduce a new vehicle each week, so without further ado...

https://i.postimg.cc/345s5BDs/BW144.png (https://postimg.cc/345s5BDs)

This is a Juliett-class submarine. It was initially built in the 60s to play the role that SSBNs would later take - threatening the US east coast with nuclear-tipped (cruise missiles in this case) missiles. Once SSBNs made them obsolete with the ability to launch nuclear ballistic missiles from submarines, their armaments were switched out for long-range antiship missiles.

Typical armament would consist of 6 533 mm torpedo tubes with 18 torpedoes, and four non-reloadable 400 mm stern torpedo tubes. Usually 4 of the 18 torpedoes were nuclear-tipped antiship torpedoes.

But its main armament to worry about in 1983 was 4 P-6 (NATO reporting name: SS-N-3A "Shaddock") missiles, two of which were typically nuclear-tipped.

https://i.postimg.cc/Z0L126YQ/BW145.png (https://postimg.cc/Z0L126YQ)

By 1983, though, the submarine was old, and bordering on obsolescence. In order to fire, the ocean had to be less than sea state six, but most troublingly, it had to be surfaced and moving less than four knots. It also took about five minutes from surfacing to firing, making it extremely vulnerable to ASW attack.

The Shaddocks had a range of 450 km, or 250 nmi. Their own radar could only acquire targets from about 50 nmi out, and until they did, the missile had to be guided by the Juliett's FRONT DOOR/FRONT PIECE radar, which due to its limited abilities, could only track two at a time. This meant it had to fire its missiles in salvos of 2, guide them until they acquired the enemy targets (50 nmi range), and only then could it fire another pair.

The FRONT DOOR/FRONT PIECE radar had an unusual design in that it occupied a large front section of the conning tower that had to be rotated 180 degrees for the radar to work.

https://i.postimg.cc/ns7WkDw0/BW146.png (https://postimg.cc/ns7WkDw0)

https://i.postimg.cc/PPrBjNP5/BW147.png (https://postimg.cc/PPrBjNP5)

Given the Shaddocks were high-flying, although supersonic, just two at a time meant that a single submarine was highly unlikely to saturate a carrier battle group's air defenses.

Also, while the missiles were guided by the radar from beyond 50 nmi to the target, the Juliett would have to remain surfaced to track and guide them with its radar.

https://i.postimg.cc/ts8fW5Ds/BW148.png (https://postimg.cc/ts8fW5Ds)

https://i.postimg.cc/cgBbqNW3/BW149.png (https://postimg.cc/cgBbqNW3)

https://i.postimg.cc/jLgMLgnY/BW154.png (https://postimg.cc/jLgMLgnY)

The Juliett is a close relative of the Echo II, and 16 were built. It may seem odd, given the Juliett carried half as many missiles as the Echo II, but the Juliett was actually designed after the Echo II's.

It would be fairly easy to model an Echo II if needed, but for gameplay purposes I chose the Juliett, as it would make balancing missions easier, since while you can't have half an Echo II, you can have 1 Juliett instead of 2. Also, 2 Julietts would make for more interesting and dynamic gameplay than 1 Echo-II.

https://i.postimg.cc/n9VwpwVP/BW150.png (https://postimg.cc/n9VwpwVP)

https://i.postimg.cc/MMSFrpCx/BW151.png (https://postimg.cc/MMSFrpCx)

Also, while a single Juliett would do little to a carrier battle group alone, and although its missile armament was designed with carrier groups in mind, it might have also proven useful against Atlantic convoy routes, where smaller escort groups would prove a more vulnerable target to its nearly-obsolete design...

https://i.postimg.cc/pmm4m7QN/BW152.png (https://postimg.cc/pmm4m7QN)

In the end, for gameplay purposes, I'm leaning towards putting a Juliett or two in a wolfpack with other diesel-electric sub(s) against a North Atlantic convoy group, and using Echo II's for a CVBG vs. Soviet submarines mission.

On November 10th, 1983, when hostilities will have broken out, the USS Independence, a Forrestal-class aircraft carrier, had just finished assisting operations in Grenada, and was underway to the Mediterranean. This will have put it somewhere around 1,000 nmi W-SW of Spain, in the Atlantic. Given it would have been impossible to hide the carrier's presence at Grenada, it's easy to imagine that nuclear-powered Echo-II's could have attempted to intercept the Forrestal before it entered the Mediterranean...

It's certainly been interesting researching all of this. Contemporary sources were used, which means there's little chance of getting mixed up with modernizations as opposed to weapons of the time, but also means there was the limitation of what knowledge the US had peering across the Iron Curtain, so if you happen to have a more contemporary reliable source that conflicts any of this, feel free to pipe in.

Also feel free to leave responses, comments and feedback below, I'd love to hear from ya!

Until next time, good hunting.

AzureSkies

05-23-19, 12:06 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/cgBbqNW3/BW149.png (https://postimg.cc/cgBbqNW3)

Another update on the Dev Diary (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2610862#post2610862).

Your ships are beautiful. Keep up to good work, bro!

Thanks!

AzureSkies

05-23-19, 12:12 AM

You says : "you will take command of NATO and Soviet battlegroups, airbases, submarines and land installations"

NATO, all nations ? All naval/air units ? :D The Invincible-class carrier was a very surprisingly even match for a Kiev-class...

COOP Multiplayer would be good against AI or against other Humies.

Also hope the Australian Navy is there along with New Zealand, since we operated the same class of ships for the most part.

Terminus Noted. Thanks for the feedback!

Tnih_n

05-24-19, 01:40 AM

Will this game feature some kind of mission editor, database editor like jane fleet command so player might later add more units, create custom scenario ?:salute:

Aktungbby

05-24-19, 03:52 AM

Tnih_n!:Kaleun_Salute:

ChiefCommander33

05-27-19, 02:25 AM

Hello everyone!

I'm pleased to announce the committed development of this new naval strategy game, Blue Water.

https://i.postimg.cc/h42CzqML/BW167b.png

The name is a reference to the maritime geographical term, "Blue-Water Navy".

It's been a long time since either Sonalysts' [I]Jane's Fleet Command or Eidos Hungary's Battlestations: Midway graced the naval game community, and Blue Water intends to fill the big shoes they left: That of a surface-fleet, real-time naval strategy game.

Set at the end of 1983 in a "Cold War gone hot" scenario, you will take command of NATO and Soviet battlegroups, airbases, submarines and land installations to decide the world's future. You will be able to take command of one vessel at a time and switch between them, or issue orders from a strategic map.

The Soviet and US Navies were very different, however, it is possible to find some ships that had striking similarities in the most important metrics (such as range, type and effectiveness of armament, etc). As such, there's planned to be two different kinds of missions: Symmetric and Asymmetric. In Symmetric maps, roughly equivalent battle groups will be pitted against each other. In Asymmetric, the fleet composition is more broad and better reflects the different doctrines of the two navies.

There will be realistic weapons and ranges, an adjustable "world scale" slider that modifies the range of all weapons and sensors, skirmish and multiplayer modes, and much more. All these features may not be available on the early alpha version of the game, but will be released with free future updates.

On that note, I'm proud to say I'm committed to the old-fashioned, microtransaction-free model of gaming.

But as for now, it is extremely early in development, but with dynamic water interaction and a unique and immersive order/control scheme, it's already looking very promising and I'm very excited to be working on it.

Be sure to check out the development diary (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=240099) and suggestions thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=240100).

Sincerely,
Azure Skies, LLC

I'm excited for this game. All I see are WW2 submarine games. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing them but I want to play a sub and surface more modern day naval game with modern day navies and weapons. A simulator game in that capacity where you can still give order, move around inside the vessel and command it like a modern day vessel would be awesome. I even thought about learning how to code and to become a developer to create a game of this sort if no one was going to create one. I wish you guys the best of luck and I will be following your progress! I can't wait to play this. Let me know if you need a tester. I would be happy to assist.

Sea Demon

05-27-19, 04:06 PM

Checking in. Still watching this product closely with great interest. Fantastic update on May 23rd in the Development Diary. The Juliett sub model looks great! Can't wait til we see shots of weapons on their way to the target. The sky looks great (sunset), and the water is equally as good as what we're seeing in DCS. Haven't seen it in motion yet though.

If you do an early access release, do you envision monthly updates for completion? Or do you see large block updates that come much later?

I for sure would purchase an early release, even if bare bones....but would hope updates would come routinely. (for what it's worth)

Waiting for screenshots of your next vehicle.....

AzureSkies

05-27-19, 08:52 PM

I'm excited for this game. All I see are WW2 submarine games. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing them but I want to play a sub and surface more modern day naval game with modern day navies and weapons. A simulator game in that capacity where you can still give order, move around inside the vessel and command it like a modern day vessel would be awesome. I even thought about learning how to code and to become a developer to create a game of this sort if no one was going to create one. I wish you guys the best of luck and I will be following your progress! I can't wait to play this. Let me know if you need a tester. I would be happy to assist. Honestly not too far off from what I did. I was already familiar with code and I've been modding games - even here on SUBSIM with my personal account - for over a decade.

Like most things, it's more difficult than it looks but still possible with enough commitment.

Checking in. Still watching this product closely with great interest. Fantastic update on May 23rd in the Development Diary. The Juliett sub model looks great! Can't wait til we see shots of weapons on their way to the target. The sky looks great (sunset), and the water is equally as good as what we're seeing in DCS. Haven't seen it in motion yet though.

If you do an early access release, do you envision monthly updates for completion? Or do you see large block updates that come much later?

I for sure would purchase an early release, even if bare bones....but would hope updates would come routinely. (for what it's worth)

Waiting for screenshots of your next vehicle..... I'm very happy to hear that - and that's kind of funny you mention seeing it in motion - I keep thinking to myself, "it doesn't look nearly as good in still pictures...", so I can't wait to capture some video of it.

Monthly updates may be possible, but also may not be practical. We'll have to see. But I'll keep in mind that the playerbase would prefer more frequent updates.

The bigger updates will certainly take time, though. There's one in particular that I really look forward to seeing the community's reaction to, but that's a long ways down the road.

Medley1991

06-11-19, 03:58 PM

hellfish6

06-15-19, 03:34 PM

Just found out about this and I'm really interested.

TheGreatElector

06-16-19, 07:10 PM

The models look great, but will there be other factions to this game? Like american and British naval units?

AzureSkies

06-17-19, 02:45 PM

The models look great, but will there be other factions to this game? Like american and British naval units?

Of course! It wouldn't make sense to only have Soviet units and nothing to combat them. We should have a USN vessel to show off in early July, and at least one NATO aircraft before then.

Also, the Brits will certainly be making an appearance further down the road.

AzureSkies

06-17-19, 02:51 PM

Yeah, nice to see the advancement in the dev process. That's look amazing !
In case of Early acces, it's very important for making a devblog on a website, and making a weekly news. Not necesery a update but keeping a contact with comunity is very important.

For exemple, you can see the devblog form Airport CEO dev's.

I am very exiting about this project, and i buy day one the early acces.

:Kaleun_Cheers:

Thanks! And I'll be sure to try to keep the updates more steady.

Just found out about this and I'm really interested. Glad to hear! As it's still rather early in development, we're open to community feedback and suggestions. Be sure to drop by the other two threads here in this forum - the suggestions thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=240100) and development diary (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=240099). I'm here for conversation and feedback.

AzureSkies

06-17-19, 06:08 PM

I'm going to give the update in two parts. The first is going to be this text-heavy thing, but the next post (planned for tomorrow) will be a more photogenic vehicle highlight with in-game renders.

So this post is going to be some updates with regards to the plot. Not many pictures, and a lot of words, but this provides the context for the conflict in the game, and tells the true story of one of the moments we came the closest to nuclear war during the Cold War.

I've mentioned before that the premise was a Soviet response to Able Archer.

Let's go more into detail.

I'm assuming the readers here are probably familiar with MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea that nuclear war would be prevented, because both parties know they cannot win - that any conflict would cause them unacceptable losses.

A key part of this, is that it takes an ICBM about 30-45 minutes to reach the heart of the USSR from the mainland US, and vice versa. That window of time would allow the other nation to launch its weapons before their silos and launch sites were destroyed, even if they were all located and targeted.

There are also two kinds of attacks: A counterforce attack, which is aimed at destroying your enemy's ability to launch nuclear attacks, and a countervalue attack, which is essentially meant to inflict unacceptable losses on the enemy's population and infrastructure.

With that in mind, let's look at the timeline.

In 1976, the Soviet Union deployed RSD-10 Pioneer missiles (NATO reporting name: SS-20 Saber), truck-launched IRBMs (Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles). The Soviets believed that in the eventuality of a war, they could win a conventional war with numbers, but that NATO would employ tactical nuclear weapons and defeat their forces. So this missile system was developed for "surgical nuclear strikes", to knock out NATO tactical nuclear capability without enough warning for NATO to respond.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Miss_launch_veh.jpg/611px-Miss_launch_veh.jpg (Pioneer missiles*)

They were made to destroy NATO's tactical nuclear capability in Europe.

In December 1979, NATO command decided to deploy new missiles to Europe in response. Among these would be the MRBM Pershing II in West Germany. This would mean it could strike targets in Eastern Europe in only 4-6 minutes, and reach Moscow in only 6-8 minutes. Furthermore, the Pershing II's had a more advanced guidance system than earlier missiles, allowing them to accurately target Soviet missile launch sites.

The hope was they could negotiate with the Soviets to decommission their SS-20 missiles in exchange for NATO decomissioning their Pershing II's.

But the Soviets knew that the Pershing II flight time would not give them time to launch a retaliatory strike, and thus give NATO a true first-strike capability. As a result, in 1981, the KGB launched Operation RYaN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RYAN) to learn about the plans and possibility of a first strike by the US.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Pershing_II.jpg (Pershing II missile*)

Some of the key things they would look for would be preparation of frontline NATO forces and military communications between heads of states as indicators of an imminent NATO attack.

President Reagan took a strong stance against the Soviet Union, one that was interpreted as aggressive. In March of 1983, he announced the Strategic Defense Initiative, which Soviet leaders took as an escalation of the arms race into space, and Yuri Andropov, the then-General Secretary of the Soviet Union, accused Reagan of "inventing new plans on how to unleash a nuclear war in the best way, with the hope of winning it".

In April of 1983, the USN conducted FleetEx 83-1, the largest fleet operation to that date, which even involved provoking Soviets (in ways such as flying over their airspace) to study their electronics equipment and response tactics.

Similar psychological operations had been going on for years, to study Soviet response times and tactics.

In October of the same year, a coup in Grenada killed a number of leaders, and the US decided to answer the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States and the Governor-General of Grenada's appeal for aid. Operation Urgent Fury was launched. Margaret Thatcher publicly supported it, but sent private encrypted messages to Raegan.

Operation RYaN was aware of these messages, but not their contents, and was suspicious that these were some of the warning signs of a NATO first strike.

Then, barely more than a week after the conclusion of Urgent Fury, comes Exercise Able Archer 83. These were exercises carried out every year to test NATO readiness, but this year, the exercise raised the level of realism by including many heads of state of various NATO countries. They were simulating a nuclear strike in response to (fictional) Soviet chemical weapons attacks.

Non-routine elements also included the transporting of 19,000 US soldiers to Europe in a radio-silent air lifts, shifting command from permanent HQs to alternate HQs, new nuclear strike procedures that included communications with Washington and London, and various slips of the tongue that referred to B-52 flights as "strikes" instead of "sorties". It fit all the indications of a NATO first strike perfectly.

Soviet units were placed on high alert with readying of nuclear forces.

In reality, fortunately, the exercise concluded on November 11th, Soviet forces stood down, and we had no WWIII. The Pershing II's weren't even ready during Able Archer 83, though they were deployed immediately after. I personally don't know if the KGB knew that at the time, though they most certainly knew they were deploying sometime around that time frame.

In this alternate timeline, however, the Soviet Union decides to act in accordance with their preparations in Operation RYaN. The SS-20 missile batteries launch surgical nuclear strikes on believed Pershing II sites in Europe, in a desperate pre-emptive strike to restore MAD and prevent the [believed] imminent nuclear destruction of the Soviet Union.

https://i.postimg.cc/Gm4KgctN/Greenhouse-George-225-kt.png (SS-20 missiles had a yield of 150 kt. Pictured is Greenhouse George, yield 225 kt. *)

The General Secretary, Yuri Andropov, simultaneously informs Raegan why he has done this - to prevent a first strike by NATO, and that he will accept a limited tactical nuclear response, but urges him not to escalate the conflict, or face a full Soviet countervalue attack.

Raegan and Thatcher decide not to escalate, and the Soviets keep to their word - and the war remains conventional.

Their war goals are to expand the buffer in Europe, because clearly, the proximity of NATO forces had proven catastrophic, and thus they will enact their pre-prepared war plans to march far west, even into France.

However,

True to reality, France has long departed the NATO military command structure, and they have their own nuclear doctrine. If Soviets near the French border, they will deploy tactical nuclear weapons as a warning. If they cross and invade, France will launch a full countervalue attack on the Soviet Union, triggering a full nuclear exchange.

So the planned campaign of the game will balance on a razor's edge - it will be difficult, and at times, desperate. You may be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons to gain an edge. But their use will result in measured retaliation - either by Soviet naval forces present, or later in Mainland Europe, bolstering the Soviet advance westward.

Failure will also have terrible effect on the war effort.

And in either case, if the Soviets reach the French border...

Good luck.

And with that... Let's rewind a little.

In researching nuclear warfare doctrines and strategy, terms and analysis, I came across something interesting. In November of 1982, a year to the month that Able Archer almost triggered armageddon, a 10-year old girl, Samantha Smith, living in Manchester, Maine, wrote a letter to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Union:

Dear Mr. Andropov,

My name is Samantha Smith. I am ten years old. Congratulations on your new job. I have been worrying about Russia and the United States getting into a nuclear war. Are you going to vote to have a war or not? If you aren't please tell me how you are going to help to not have a war. This question you do not have to answer, but I would like to know why you want to conquer the world or at least our country. God made the world for us to share and take care of. Not to fight over or have one group of people own it all. Please lets do what he wanted and have everybody be happy too.

Samantha Smith The letter was featured in a Soviet newspaper, but it wasn't until April of 1983, after sending another copy to the Soviet ambassador to the United States, that Yuri Andropov himself answered:

Dear Samantha,

I received your letter, which is like many others that have reached me recently from your country and from other countries around the world.

It seems to me – I can tell by your letter – that you are a courageous and honest girl, resembling Becky, the friend of Tom Sawyer in the famous book of your compatriot Mark Twain. This book is well known and loved in our country by all boys and girls.

You write that you are anxious about whether there will be a nuclear war between our two countries. And you ask are we doing anything so that war will not break out.

Your question is the most important of those that every thinking man can pose. I will reply to you seriously and honestly.

Yes, Samantha, we in the Soviet Union are trying to do everything so that there will not be war on Earth. This is what every Soviet man wants. This is what the great founder of our state, Vladimir Lenin, taught us.

Soviet people well know what a terrible thing war is. Forty-two years ago, Nazi Germany, which strove for supremacy over the whole world, attacked our country, burned and destroyed many thousands of our towns and villages, killed millions of Soviet men, women and children.

In that war, which ended with our victory, we were in alliance with the United States: together we fought for the liberation of many people from the Nazi invaders. I hope that you know about this from your history lessons in school. And today we want very much to live in peace, to trade and cooperate with all our neighbors on this earth — with those far away and those near by. And certainly with such a great country as the United States of America.

In America and in our country there are nuclear weapons — terrible weapons that can kill millions of people in an instant. But we do not want them to be ever used. That's precisely why the Soviet Union solemnly declared throughout the entire world that never — never — will it use nuclear weapons first against any country. In general we propose to discontinue further production of them and to proceed to the abolition of all the stockpiles on Earth.

It seems to me that this is a sufficient answer to your second question: 'Why do you want to wage war against the whole world or at least the United States?' We want nothing of the kind. No one in our country–neither workers, peasants, writers nor doctors, neither grown-ups nor children, nor members of the government–want either a big or 'little' war.

We want peace — there is something that we are occupied with: growing wheat, building and inventing, writing books and flying into space. We want peace for ourselves and for all peoples of the planet. For our children and for you, Samantha.

I invite you, if your parents will let you, to come to our country, the best time being this summer. You will find out about our country, meet with your contemporaries, visit an international children's camp – Artek – on the sea. And see for yourself: in the Soviet Union, everyone is for peace and friendship among peoples.

Thank you for your letter. I wish you all the best in your young life.

Y. Andropov

AzureSkies

06-18-19, 07:19 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/2VjkZvs9/BW186A.png (https://postimg.cc/2VjkZvs9)

Today, we'll be taking a look at the S-3A Viking.

In the 60's, work had began on a replacement for the piston-powered S-2 Tracker. The US Navy needed a more modern anti-submarine, carrier-based aircraft. With 186 entering service in the 70's, the S-3 Viking ultimately filled the role.

Since the Soviets invested a large amount of resources into submarines with powerful, long-range supersonic cruise missiles meant to kill US carrier battle groups, the S-3 played an extremely important role in creating an ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) "net" at a long range from the carrier battle group.

Some of you may be familiar with the S-3's ability to carry AGM-84 Harpoon cruise missiles - however, although it wasn't until the late 80's that the S-3B was fitted with that ability (and Blue Water takes place in 1983), the S-3A did carry a wide range of weapons and sensors...

https://i.postimg.cc/5Q4V8dRQ/BW177.png (https://postimg.cc/5Q4V8dRQ)

Extending from the tail is a retractable/extendable boom for a MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector). The sensor carefully scans the local magnetic field. The large metal hull of a submarine hiding under the water will cause a distortion in the magnetic field that it can detect.

(At least, most submarines. The Soviets did build some with titanium hulls to avoid this, however)

https://i.postimg.cc/fkcn5L74/BW180.png (https://postimg.cc/fkcn5L74)

Underneath, many little slots are visible - these would carry 59 sonobouys and one slot was reserved for search and rescue equipment. It also had 3 dispensers for carrying a combination of 90 total flares, chaff, and expendable jammers.

https://i.postimg.cc/wtNgpkNM/BW179.png (https://postimg.cc/wtNgpkNM)

Finally, internal bays could carry four air-dropped Mk.46 or two Mk.50 torpedoes to prosecute any submarines it found. The external pylons were, in some theaters, mounted with bombs, as well, to catch anything surfaced or snorkeling.

And with that, there's little commentary left, so I'll just leave it to the gallery:

https://i.postimg.cc/SnJmZ4NW/BW185.png (https://postimg.cc/SnJmZ4NW)

https://i.postimg.cc/ph1w5hz4/BW187.png (https://postimg.cc/ph1w5hz4)

https://i.postimg.cc/23D8Cg2D/BW181.png (https://postimg.cc/23D8Cg2D)

https://i.postimg.cc/w3QxMFGs/BW182.png (https://postimg.cc/w3QxMFGs)

The Azov from earlier gives us something to park it on to observe its nice folding wings. Almost all, if not all, carrier-based aircraft could fold their wings to reduce hanger space needed.

Pardon many of the WIP and placeholder UI elements.

https://i.postimg.cc/9Rt24FJj/BW183.png (https://postimg.cc/9Rt24FJj)

https://i.postimg.cc/9DKCKkrs/BW184.png (https://postimg.cc/9DKCKkrs)

PurpleCow

06-18-19, 08:56 PM

Personally I think an early release would be a great idea. Many sim fans such as myself are more than willing to invest in an early access project in order to help it progress.

PurpleCow

06-18-19, 09:05 PM

Tnih_n

06-23-19, 01:34 AM

Hello AzureSkies ! I have a small question. What will this game be like ? Simulator-oriented like Dangerous Water or Real time strategy like Fleet command cause from screenshot i've seen so far, this look kinda like Dangerous Water :Kaleun_Salute:

AzureSkies

06-25-19, 07:00 PM

Hello everyone,

I think I'll start trying to make these a regular Tuesday night thing.

For the most recent progress, it's mostly been administrative work, and the hard-working modelers making progress on their end, too. Not much to say on this front, other than switching to a new repository system can be a real pain.

But more on the vehicle fare, today's update is going to be relatively short, and the vehicle of today is the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier FRS-1.

https://i.postimg.cc/gnXNTJ97/BW188.png (https://postimg.cc/gnXNTJ97)

The Sea Harrier FRS-1, informally known as the "Shar", was the variant of the Harrier used on the UK's Invincible-class aircraft carriers.

https://i.postimg.cc/QH20G3hd/BW189.png (https://postimg.cc/QH20G3hd)

With only 111 built, it seems lackluster on paper, being subsonic and having light air-to-air armament compared to other aircraft like the Tomcat.

https://i.postimg.cc/hhGCVs2c/BW190.png (https://postimg.cc/hhGCVs2c)

Nonetheless, its purpose was to provide air defense for the British Navy, and that, it did.

https://i.postimg.cc/14YvBFd6/BW191.png (https://postimg.cc/14YvBFd6)

It, along with the GR.3 land-based variant, the Shar was the primary aircraft of the British during the Falkland Islands conflict, and had tremendous success, shooting down 20 Argentine aircraft with no air-to-air combat losses of their own.

https://i.postimg.cc/WF5XQqbB/BW192.png (https://postimg.cc/WF5XQqbB)

https://i.postimg.cc/BPtMsZjX/BW193.png (https://postimg.cc/BPtMsZjX)

Hovering exhaust effects will continue to receive tweaks, but not so bad, so far.

https://i.postimg.cc/k6JT1v9N/BW194.png (https://postimg.cc/k6JT1v9N)

https://i.postimg.cc/t1HSPHMM/BW195.png (https://postimg.cc/t1HSPHMM)

That's all for this week. Thanks for stopping by!

p7p8

06-26-19, 01:17 AM

It looks awesome - I'm say this as almost "fanatic" DW player :)

AzureSkies

07-02-19, 06:51 PM

Hello again.

More of the same. A new ship model is nearing completion - the first US ship - but it'll be a bit before it has enough of the weapons' systems models to be completed to show it off here.

Last week I showed some screencaps of the Sea Harrier FRS-1 - today, it's a similar, but Soviet aircraft - the Yak-38 "Forger".

https://i.postimg.cc/TLFQbM7R/BW196.png (https://postimg.cc/TLFQbM7R)

The Yak-38 was developed specifically for use on the Kiev-class "Aviation Cruisers", which are strikingly similar in airwing capacity to the British Invincible-class aircraft carriers, except that the Kiev also carried a formidable armament of its own.

https://i.postimg.cc/PppQTVt0/BW197.png (https://postimg.cc/PppQTVt0)

Faced with the same design requirement of VTOL capability, what the Soviets ended up with is very similar to what the British got in their Sea Harrier program: a subsonic jet fighter with relatively little armament and short range - greatly inferior to land-based aircraft, but still a vast improvement to relying on SAMs alone for fleet air defense.

https://i.postimg.cc/jWkhVYrz/BW198.png (https://postimg.cc/jWkhVYrz)

A bit of an unusual design choice, it had no internal guns but instead had to use a 23mm gunpod (or two) installed on one of its four under-wing pylons.

https://i.postimg.cc/XrL88yH1/BW199.png (https://postimg.cc/XrL88yH1)

Part of this relatively restricted loadout, is that it could carry 2 FAB-500 bombs, 2 AA-8 Aphid short-range AAM, or 2 Kh-23 Grom (NATO name "AS-7 Kerry") small air-to-ground/antiship missiles. Use of the Kh-23, however, required another pylon be occupied with its guidance system.

https://i.postimg.cc/w1g2LkVs/BW200.png (https://postimg.cc/w1g2LkVs)

It could also carry external tanks on the pylons, and surprisingly enough given its relatively small payload weight, two RN-28 nuclear bombs.

https://i.postimg.cc/Zv6Py9vc/BW201.png (https://postimg.cc/Zv6Py9vc)

Another interesting design feature is that unlike the Sea Harrier FRS-1, which used two nozzles on each side of the fuselage for balance, the layout of the Yak-38 was more similar to today's F-35, using centerline thrust behind the cockpit to balance the torque.

Some interesting trivia about the design is that it featured an automatic ejection seat that would fire if one of those forward VTOL engines failed and the aircraft rolled beyond 60 degrees.

https://i.postimg.cc/34sCRjNN/BW202.png (https://postimg.cc/34sCRjNN)

By 1983, Soviet pilots were well-adjusted to the new technology.

AzureSkies

07-02-19, 06:54 PM

It looks awesome - I'm say this as almost "fanatic" DW player :) Thank you very much! I was quite a fan of the game, myself! It's aged quite a bit, but every now and then it's nice to break it out again and do some TMA work in a Los Angeles, or sail around in a Perry. Been awhile since I've done that, though.

Medley1991

07-05-19, 02:42 AM

Wow ! Harrier and Yak look amazing ! :up:

Difficult to wait this game... :ping:

Medley1991

07-05-19, 03:01 AM

Hello everyone,

I think I'll start trying to make these a regular Tuesday night thing.

:Kaleun_Cheers:

Yeah ! Perfect idea ! :yep:

Medley1991

07-05-19, 06:22 AM

Little question, french navy is planned ? With Aéronavale ? Nice to see Crusader and Super Etendard in game.

AzureSkies

07-05-19, 05:56 PM

Very interested in this game. The graphics look incredible. I would personally love to see a remake of a Fleet Command game. Command Modern Air Naval Operations doesn't have any graphics which really detracts from the immersion.

This is where Dangerous Waters hit the sweet spot. The game was not "dumbed down", rather the graphics added to the immersion and made it feel like you were really there observing the action. Your game looks to be right on that same track. Well done. Hello AzureSkies ! I have a small question. What will this game be like ? Simulator-oriented like Dangerous Water or Real time strategy like Fleet command cause from screenshot i've seen so far, this look kinda like Dangerous Water :Kaleun_Salute: Apologies on the late response!

There is a single "focus" platform at any given time, though you can issue orders to any platform under your command by a map screen and switch between platforms under your command. In that way, it's a bit like Dangerous Waters with whatever platform you have focused at the moment (though of course not quite as in-depth as DW, switching to a ship allows a far greater level of control) and more like Fleet Command in regards to controlling the other platforms under your command.

Platforms, of course, being a ship, submarine, aircraft, helo, or even land installation. Early Access will probably only have ships at first, but the rest will come.

AzureSkies

07-05-19, 06:03 PM

Will this game feature some kind of mission editor, database editor like jane fleet command so player might later add more units, create custom scenario ?:salute: I've always loved mission editors and modding tools, myself, but those are quite involved and getting the core game made is the first priority - but these are definitely things I'd like to add at some point, time and resources permitting, once the core game is complete.

An added advantage to making the data system moddable is it makes it easier to add new units, though it's more work upfront. Though there is effort being made to make things modular for this so it's easier to implement moddability later.

Little question, french navy is planned ? With Aéronavale ? Nice to see Crusader and Super Etendard in game. I'll look into it. I can think of a place they could fit in with current plans.

Overkill

07-06-19, 10:13 PM

Sound'n like it's gonna be really good! Thank you for the updates. :D

Herman

07-07-19, 12:34 AM

I've always loved mission editors and modding tools, myself, but those are quite involved and getting the core game made is the first priority - but these are definitely things I'd like to add at some point, time and resources permitting, once the core game is complete.

An added advantage to making the data system moddable is it makes it easier to add new units, though it's more work upfront. Though there is effort being made to make things modular for this so it's easier to implement moddability later.
Learn the hard won lessons taught from other games. Harpoon is still going after 25 years because of features like the open database.

Cold Waters learned it. It was only a matter of weeks after CW launched before a user had already modified the database to include new platforms. The sooner functional mod tools are released, the sooner the users can help you create content. IMO, it is an exponential return on the time and effort invested in proper mod tools.

AzureSkies

07-09-19, 08:32 PM

Today, we're going to be looking at a capital ship.

https://i.postimg.cc/GHW8Zs7k/BW203.png (https://postimg.cc/GHW8Zs7k)

This is the Slava.

She was decommissioned in 1990, but re-instated in 2000 as the Moskva, and serves in the Russian navy as the flagship of the Black Sea fleet today. However, since we'll be talking about the ship as she was in November of 1983, we'll refer to it by its old name - the Slava.

Commissioned at the end of January of 1983, she's the only ship of her class to be in service during the events of Blue Water.

https://i.postimg.cc/WDndFY2n/BW204.png (https://postimg.cc/WDndFY2n)

Anyone familiar with modern Soviet warships will probably know about the Kirov. The Kirov is renown for its extremely formidable loadout of 20 P-700 Granit (NATO name: SS-N-19 "Shipwreck") supersonic, long-range missiles and 96 very long-range S-300F Fort (NATO name: SA-N-6 "Grumble") SAMs.

Although not nuclear-powered like the Kirov, and only at around half the displacement, the Slava carried 16 comparable P-500 Bazalt (NATO name: SS-N-12 "Sandbox") missiles and 64 S-300F Fort SAMs.

https://i.postimg.cc/1gPgz1ZX/BW205.png (https://postimg.cc/1gPgz1ZX)

Simply put, while not quite a Kirov, there's good reason that of the 3 Slava-class ships completed, two serve as fleet flagships today. In Blue Water, you will find the Slava as the flagship of a Mediterranean Soviet task force, either leading your fleet, or leading the fleet you must keep from reaching Italy or France.

https://i.postimg.cc/T5y1sRn7/BW206.png (https://postimg.cc/T5y1sRn7)

https://i.postimg.cc/0r3bwwqL/BW207.png (https://postimg.cc/0r3bwwqL)

https://i.postimg.cc/rD2sh2sj/BW208.png (https://postimg.cc/rD2sh2sj)

https://i.postimg.cc/pmQT4cnH/BW209.png (https://postimg.cc/pmQT4cnH)

https://i.postimg.cc/F11Yzxwy/BW210.png (https://postimg.cc/F11Yzxwy)

https://i.postimg.cc/TL3prj1X/BW211.png (https://postimg.cc/TL3prj1X)

https://i.postimg.cc/McWTS0yj/BW212.png (https://postimg.cc/McWTS0yj)

Now let's take a look at her weapons -

https://i.postimg.cc/470NVrjz/BW213-Gun.png (https://postimg.cc/470NVrjz)

First off, Slava carried an AK-130 dual gun. A 130mm gun capable of firing 90 rounds per minute - either HE or fragmentation AA rounds to intercept aircraft or missiles - it is a good gun for closer quarters.

https://i.postimg.cc/tZJ41Xvq/BW214-Gun2.png (https://postimg.cc/tZJ41Xvq)

However, with a maximum firing range of 23 km for ships, 15 km for aircraft, and only 8 km for missiles, ideally, you'd never let your enemies get that close...

https://i.postimg.cc/QVRdtZQD/BW215.png (https://postimg.cc/QVRdtZQD)

Its primary armament is its enormous signature array of 16 P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 "Sandbox") supersonic cruise missiles that would cruise at Mach 2.5, striking targets up to 550 km (300 nmi) away. The 5-ton missiles could carry a payload of a metric ton - either enough explosives to end almost any ship in a single blow (except perhaps an aircraft carrier), or enough weight to fit a 350 kt nuclear warhead, as they were sometimes armed with.

Also visible in this shot are AK-630 CIWS guns. At 4-5,000 30mm rounds per minute, these posed a good defense against any incoming cruise missiles or vehicles in range.

[As with the Azov, not yet modeled are 2 RBU-6000s that will be included in the full game.]

https://i.postimg.cc/B8QqyS0T/BW216-CIWS-and-utility-boat.png (https://postimg.cc/B8QqyS0T)

In addition to the two on the bow, there's also a separate battery of two AK-630 guns (with their own independent radar director separate from the bow battery's) on each side of the ship.

Also visible in this shot is the utility boats.

https://i.postimg.cc/JsQrPy97/BW217-S300-Fort.png (https://postimg.cc/JsQrPy97)

Moving further aft, we find the S-300F Fort (SA-N-6 Grumble) missile silos. I wrote about this weapon system in the Azov post. These are very long-range SAMs that are highly capable for fleet defense, and the Slava carries 64 of them.

In the bottom-right of the picture is the "TOP DOME" radar director for the S-300 missiles.

https://i.postimg.cc/3ydbcVdS/BW224.png (https://postimg.cc/3ydbcVdS)

Easy to miss since the doors are flush with the hull, and thus almost invisible until the doors open and they turn to fire, are the two 5x 533 mm torpedo racks. These could carry torpedoes with a range of about 20 km, and are generally a useful weapon to respond with if a submarine launches an attack.

https://i.postimg.cc/qzyM6Dw3/BW218-Gecko.png (https://postimg.cc/qzyM6Dw3)

And finally, we have the OSA-M (NATO name: SA-N-8 "Gecko") short-range SAM launchers on either side of the helicopter hanger. Behind it you can see the radar unit for its guidance.

https://i.postimg.cc/mP4ZY3p6/BW219.png (https://postimg.cc/mP4ZY3p6)

And finally, the best weapon to use for hunting submarines. Getting close enough to fire from the torpedo racks means putting the ship closer than you'd ever want it to enemy submarines. A better weapon is an escort corvette or frigate - or the best weapon, an aircraft.

https://i.postimg.cc/VSGYPxf3/BW220.png (https://postimg.cc/VSGYPxf3)

Our guest for today's highlight that you may have noticed in earlier shots, is the Ka-25 Hormone. A multipurpose helicopter that features as an extremely useful ASW asset.

The Hormone will get its own feature at some point, but until then, have a few shots showcasing its deployment from the Slava's hanger.

https://i.postimg.cc/njXnF3MM/BW221.png (https://postimg.cc/njXnF3MM)

https://i.postimg.cc/gLRdRrVW/BW222.png (https://postimg.cc/gLRdRrVW)

And that's all for today. Thanks for joining us!

https://i.postimg.cc/Q9vhHcWm/BW223.png (https://postimg.cc/Q9vhHcWm)

SmokingHeadStudio

07-10-19, 05:45 AM

That are very nice Screens you show :)

i like to follow, and look forward to the Project.

best Greetings.
:Kaleun_Cheers:

Sparky_16

07-11-19, 03:30 AM

Will Blue Water be released on steam and if so, in what time frame could we see this game on steam?

-Sparky_16

Aktungbby

07-11-19, 04:33 AM

Sparky_16!:Kaleun_Salute:

AzureSkies

07-16-19, 04:56 PM

That are very nice Screens you show :)

i like to follow, and look forward to the Project.

best Greetings.
:Kaleun_Cheers: Thanks! I look forward to it, too!

Will Blue Water be released on steam and if so, in what time frame could we see this game on steam?

-Sparky_16 Yes! The current plan is to try to get an early access out by November 11th, the date that Able Archer 83 concluded, and thus the day that the events of the game will have started. Early Access would be extremely bare-bones, but will allow us to get feedback on the game early and possibly fund a great deal of expansion with it.

Of course I plan to meet the promises made with it so far no matter what, but a good turnout on early access sales could easily triple the number of aircraft, sub and ship classes that make it into the final game, double the number of missions and add a lot of neat details and mechanics in mind but that haven't been announced yet.

You won't find a page for it on Steam yet, though. That's something I'll need to be setting up soon.

Also, welcome to Subsim!

AzureSkies

07-16-19, 05:43 PM

Hello again, everyone!

It's Tuesday evening and time for a vehicle highlight - or at least a weekly update of some kind. With the new system set up, things have been moving a bit again.

Finally have some basic wake system implemented, and this week I've improved the gun system quite a bit. Did I mention that was done? Hmm.

Anyone familiar with modern naval combat will know that guns are almost irrelevant when it comes to world powers engaging each other, at least (modern asymmetric warfare is a whole different matter). However, depending on how successful missile interceptions and decoys are, they could become surprisingly relevant.

Nonetheless, they're certainly significant enough to be modeled, and I decided it'd be a relatively basic system to start with.

https://i.postimg.cc/Th7b108S/BW232b.png (https://postimg.cc/Th7b108S)

Notice the gun's radar directors - a recent improvement is that they track the target as well, now. Pretty basic stuff, but it's always fun to see incremental improvements.

https://i.postimg.cc/XZb44Rsb/BW233b.png (https://postimg.cc/XZb44Rsb)

A top-down-ish view to see the directors and guns on both sides in rest position and tracking a target, respectively (Notice the guns on the port side moving to the nearest position they can).

https://i.postimg.cc/jW0PKjVS/BW235.png (https://postimg.cc/jW0PKjVS)

https://i.postimg.cc/vxB6Xgn3/BW236b.png (https://postimg.cc/vxB6Xgn3)

It's always fun to watch the rounds arc down to their target:

https://i.postimg.cc/JD3QSkG8/BW234b.png (https://postimg.cc/JD3QSkG8)

There's a lot more being done that isn't all being announced yet, of course, but I thought I'd share some of the work.

But now to today's vehicle highlight - short and sweet, it's the Ka-25 Hormone.

Developed in the 60s and entering service in 1972, the Kamov Ka-25 (NATO reporting name "Hormone") was somewhat aged by 1983. By this year, it had already began being replaced by the more modern Kamov Ka-27, which first saw introduction into the Soviet navy in 1982. Nonetheless, with being introduced only so recently, the Ka-25 was probably the more common helicopter in the Soviet Navy for a while still.

https://i.postimg.cc/2L30s5vS/BW225.png (https://postimg.cc/2L30s5vS)

https://i.postimg.cc/nMLSj35f/BW226.png (https://postimg.cc/nMLSj35f)

https://i.postimg.cc/YvQdKZ4Y/BW227.png (https://postimg.cc/YvQdKZ4Y)

It had a cramped interior - not even tall enough for the crew to stand upright inside - but it could carry what mattered - two air-dropped torpedoes and/or conventional or nuclear depth charges.

https://i.postimg.cc/dLkWnLwW/BW228.png (https://postimg.cc/dLkWnLwW)

https://i.postimg.cc/67wY9cRS/BW229.png (https://postimg.cc/67wY9cRS)

Equipped with surface search radar, dipping sonar, and a MAD sensor, it was more than adequately suited for its ASW role.

https://i.postimg.cc/py1GDDbh/BW230.png (https://postimg.cc/py1GDDbh)

During the Cold War, ELINT and "waving hi" to eachother's ships to do photography and gather intelligence was certainly not uncommon.

https://i.postimg.cc/XZc1Fm44/BW231.png (https://postimg.cc/XZc1Fm44)

A quick disclaimer that many aesthetics are tweaked and improved fairly frequently, (for example, I'm not sure there's been more than two updates in a row where the water's settings have been exactly the same), but nonetheless, I do try to make the shots as accurate to what the final product will look like as possible, and these are, of course, taken in the game engine with the models and textures the game will use.

Thanks again for joining us, feel free to leave feedback, and until next time, clear sailing.

ikalugin

07-17-19, 08:42 AM

O dear, what did you do - did you just model Azov?

agathosdaimon

07-19-19, 01:57 AM

wow this looks really impressive.

i dont know if this is possible but would you be able to have the water notshow ship reflections like shown in the picture - perhaps its a limitation of the technology but ships simply do not have such perfect reflections in ocean water - the killerfish games look great too but also make this error , i always find such reflections make the ocean look still and shallow and like its all just in a big bath tub

if you cant do anything about it, thats fine, its just a detail i notice in games featuring oceans

your project nevetheless looks outstanding and i would buy it for sure!

AzureSkies

07-23-19, 06:33 PM

Hello again!

Well, this update will be a bit different than the norm - there won't be a vehicle highlight in the usual format but two new vehicles will get some spotlight, though both still have WIP elements that make them not quite ready for the full highlight.

First, I want to reply to "agathosdaimon"'s comment on the water - it is indeed very possible to ignore ship reflections but not sky reflections, and I see what you're talking about, comparing to real photos of ships on the ocean.

There's some give and take, though, given that ships do have a visible reflection effect when closer, and especially on smoother seas, but here's two pictures to show with and without:

https://i.postimg.cc/wyTwYgMk/BW242b.png (https://postimg.cc/wyTwYgMk)

https://i.postimg.cc/hzypS67R/BW243b.png (https://postimg.cc/hzypS67R)

...and yes, that is a Spruance. One of the two platforms I mentioned that are going to show up today but aren't quite ready for a highlight.

Anyways, the lack of reflection makes the ship seem a bit more detached from the water, but it does avoid the unrealistically clear reflections in the distance.

I think I know why this is happening, but it probably won't be very simple to solve. Other things are more pressing, but I'm glad you pointed this out - this is the exact sort of thing I like to get feedback on.

If this isn't solved by early access it might be a good option to leave, nevermind for graphical/performance reasons as well.

Anyways, one of the big things done this last week is ship waypoint navigation. Perhaps some of you noticed the two new buttons on the helm UI.

https://i.postimg.cc/sGMK1mpQ/BW251.png (https://postimg.cc/sGMK1mpQ)
(this won't be the final icon for waypoints, but the triangles work well as a placeholder)

The two buttons do two unique functions: on the left with the steering wheel is the "auto-steer". With that on, the ship will turn the rudder to change course to the ordered course. If you take manual control of the rudder, it turns off to allow you to take control. You click the button to turn it back on.

The other button is the "auto-navigate". With that turned on, "ordered course" will automatically change to whatever the current bearing to the next waypoint is. You can also click the numbers in the "ordered course" box to change the ordered course directly - a mechanic that will be familiar to a lot of simmers out there - and that will turn off the auto-navigate. Again you can resume following waypoints just by clicking the button.

The end result is, with both on, the ship moves along its waypoints. With both off, you take manual control, without effecting the waypoints.

You can even leave the auto-navigate off to order a new heading without effecting your waypoints. Just turn it back on to return to following them. There's some other quality of life features to those buttons I hope to implement soon with regards to formations, but that's my solution to a robust and intuitive navigation system.

I hope I haven't made it sound too complicated... But it's my solution to the frustration often encountered in naval sims when you set up some waypoints, then need to break from them only temporarily, and have to set them all up again after.

Anyways, onto our new NATO helicopter!

https://i.postimg.cc/9RMYNbg8/BW244.png (https://postimg.cc/9RMYNbg8)

https://i.postimg.cc/XrfLZpy8/BW245.png (https://postimg.cc/XrfLZpy8)

Fresh out of the hanger, this is the SH-2F Seasprite. It plays the same role as the KA-25 "Hormone", with the exact same types of sensors on-board; a surface search radar, sonobouys, dipping sonar, and Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD). The MAD is the yellow-and-red striped object hanging from a pylon on the right side of the fuselage in the picture above.

https://i.postimg.cc/zbcFmh9J/BW246.png (https://postimg.cc/zbcFmh9J)

https://i.postimg.cc/gx8Svg13/BW247.png (https://postimg.cc/gx8Svg13)

Its armaments were also similar to the KA-25 Hormone, being able to carry two ASW torpedoes (in this case the Mk. 46 or Mk. 50) or two small air-to-surface missiles (AGM-65 Mavericks).

With a maximum and cruise speed of 143/130 knots to the Hormone's 113/104, it was fairly faster. Sources also cite 367 nmi compared to the Hormone's 216 nmi - but that's with two external tanks, which seem to occupy the same pylons that weapons would occupy. So it's hard to ascertain its actual combat range and endurance carrying two weapons, but it's probably very similar, if not a bit less.

https://i.postimg.cc/1VVcytQD/BW248.png (https://postimg.cc/1VVcytQD)

https://i.postimg.cc/68Jz5dTq/BW249.png (https://postimg.cc/68Jz5dTq)

Thanks for joining us, see you next week - or maybe sooner: As always, feel free to leave comments and feedback below.

longface

07-23-19, 07:08 PM

It looks really nice! Do you have any sort of development map, by the way, as in a plan for what units to develop first, or are you not ready to reveal that? Either way, great work so far!

AzureSkies

07-23-19, 07:27 PM

It looks really nice! Do you have any sort of development map, by the way, as in a plan for what units to develop first, or are you not ready to reveal that? Either way, great work so far! I do, but I'm already revealing far more than most developers would probably tell me it's savvy to reveal. Stay tuned for updates, though.

Herman

07-24-19, 02:53 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/sGMK1mpQ/BW251.png (https://postimg.cc/sGMK1mpQ)

The control panel shows different throttle settings such as 1/3, 2/3, Stnd, Full, and Flank. Will the player be able to issue specific speed commands like 17kts?

Naval War Arctic Circle only allowed ships to have generic throttle settings. There was no way to order all ships to move at the same speed. Giving a group of different ships the 'cruise speed' command meant they got scattered, since each ship had a different setting for cruise speed. It was a ridiculous situation, IMHO.

Your description of the 'auto-steer' function seems much more reasonable than the manual micro-management hell required by Cold waters; where the player literally had to play the role of dive officer and helmsman in order to conduct course and depth corrections.

AzureSkies

07-24-19, 09:39 AM

The control panel shows different throttle settings such as 1/3, 2/3, Stnd, Full, and Flank. Will the player be able to issue specific speed commands like 17kts?

Naval War Arctic Circle only allowed ships to have generic throttle settings. There was no way to order all ships to move at the same speed. Giving a group of different ships the 'cruise speed' command meant they got scattered, since each ship had a different setting for cruise speed. It was a ridiculous situation, IMHO.

Your description of the 'auto-steer' function seems much more reasonable than the manual micro-management hell required by Cold waters; where the player literally had to play the role of dive officer and helmsman in order to conduct course and depth corrections.

Notice the + and - buttons on either side of the ordered settings. Those allow you to order a speed to the knot.

As for formations, that's always rather annoying when a game doesn't handle those well. I'm thinking of making them like waypoints in some way.

And to be fair, in Cold Waters you could order depth to the nearest 50 feet and order a course. No waypoints, though.

Herman

07-24-19, 12:40 PM

Notice the + and - buttons on either side of the ordered settings. Those allow you to order a speed to the knot.
Will the player also be able to click on one of the three 'Ordered' boxes and enter a specific value directly? Requiring a player to first click one of the speed buttons before making adjustments with more mouse clicks on '+/-' seems a bit much.

Even better would be to have 3 hotkeys that would call up data entry windows to allow the user to set a course/speed/depth without the need to constantly drag the mouse pointer back and forth around the map/interface just to click on a little box.

And to be fair, in Cold Waters you could order depth to the nearest 50 feet and order a course. No waypoints, though.
Was that capability added after the initial release? I remember taking forever and bobbing and swinging like a yo-yo while trying to hit a specific depth because I had to be painfully aware of the depth planes and rudder, instead of simply saying to the (imaginary) helmsman/depth officer, "Bring us to course 217 at 150 ft depth." :/\\!!

Julhelm

07-24-19, 01:33 PM

Actually that capability was in one of the very early builds back in late 2015, but at some point during development the entire sailing model was thrown out and rewritten.

agathosdaimon

07-26-19, 07:55 AM

thanks for your reply to me quite minor request - its just a cosmetic thing, but it can help the immersion nevertheless

rather than reflections on deep ocean water, in order for ships to look like they a there, then just shadows are needed (relative to the strength of the light from the sun etc)

how world of warships does it, is the best i have seen from games, but also Atlantic Fleet mobile version - the mobile version is better than the pc version in this regards

its not the case that a ship will have no reflections all the time, but when it does it is a much more diffuse and partial and darker reflection the deeper and more in motion the sea state is

Julhelm

07-26-19, 02:11 PM

Well the way planar reflections of this kind usually work is kind of a hack - you create a reflection camera, flip the image upside down and render it to a projected texture and you then use the surface normals to distort it. To get the proper effect you'd have to raytrace the reflections in realtime which seems prohibitively expensive. Pretty sure that World of Warships doesn't have realtime reflections, just a static cubemap which they can get away with because their environments are static.

agathosdaimon

07-27-19, 03:05 AM

thanks for that insight, though i am not au fait with games development techniques - i understood most of what you said but just at the end regarding what Warships may do -what do you mean by static environment and what is a static cubemap? - if this is some "hack" then do you mean that it is an easy way to go about it, or that it is really only something the world of warships environment could do?

ultimately i think that all such reflections could just be omited altogether and just have shadows still - unless the ships are going to be sitting it dead still water, reflections are not needed

but again this is no big deal really, secondary to the main development work.

one could though put together a real rogues gallery of attempts in games to depict the ocean - all the work that can go into games like Naval Action and cold waters and still the ocean looks like abig glass mirror floating in a vacuum

Julhelm

07-27-19, 06:29 AM

World of Warships uses photo-sourced panorama textures for its skies, which means the sky never changes as time or location changes in the game. So what they do then is use the same panorama texture for environment reflections, which is very fast as all you have to do is sample a 6-sided cubemap. I used the same technique when I did the water in Atlantic Fleet. The thing about reflections and why everybody makes their oceans very reflective simply boils down to 'because it looks better'.

agathosdaimon

07-28-19, 05:23 AM

ah thanks - well that explains alot, - i think at least though what has been done in Atlantic Fleet and Cold Waters is i think probably among the best that can be achieved so far, - it would be needless to put more work and demand into something such as the reflections, - i think i play Atlantic fleet on my phone every day and my phone is just some cheap supermarket nokia, but Atlantic Fleet looks and plays excellent on it - so i wouldnt want to have something like ocean reflections make it too demanding on a system.

Herman

07-28-19, 12:33 PM

Actually that capability was in one of the very early builds back in late 2015, but at some point during development the entire sailing model was thrown out and rewritten.
Holy cow, talk about 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'! :wah:

Such a shame, at least there are several valuable lessons to be learned from this episode.

AzureSkies

07-30-19, 08:01 PM

This week's update is being postponed one day - so until tomorrow. Apologies for that. Will try to make it worth the wait.

AzureSkies

08-01-19, 01:30 AM

A day and a good number of hours late - but I've been burning the midnight oil to try to get this out ASAP.

Hello again!

First things first, though - just a little catch-up, this week cruise missiles, helicopters and aviation facilities have gotten some touches, nothing quite ready to show off - but next week perhaps, now that I've got a workflow for videos, perhaps something with the Seasprite...

And about the video thing. First videos released of the game!

Awhile ago someone asked how the water looks in motion, and I said it looks even better than it does in still pictures - well now I finally get to show that off!

Sadly I don't think Youtube links embed here, but here's some links: [Edit: They do! Huzzah!]

The more interesting video with a ship sailing around - but a little preface, the strange black cubes with white outlines in the background are sort of calibration tools I've been using to make sure the ocean's actual wave heights line up with what the "Sea State" variable is. Also, the video capture didn't record my mouse, so you don't see me clicking buttons, but they aren't clicking themselves.

Whenever a new speed is ordered from the presets (all stop, ahead 1/3, ahead full, etc.) the ship's bell rings - that'll probably get removed with a bit more research on nautical tradition, since I don't think that's accurate? I also zoom the map in, lay a nav point, remove it, and click the buttons for auto-steer and auto-navigate.

And finally, if I had a more general audience I'd probably have cut out the part from Sea State 7.5 to 9 and back to 7.5 - there's lots of clipping - but I trust this audience to understand it's a WIP, and Sea States 7.5-9 probably won't even appear in gameplay much, anyways, since that would indicate an exceptionally severe storm or even a hurricane. Very unusual.

But at any rate, I'm quite excited to show off the varying time of day and the ocean in its full animated splendor.

Video Link (video should embed here) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnO-tOG5hv0&feature=youtu.be).

And here's the one centered on the calibration cubes - each are properly sized for their labels - "Sea State X limit" is the correct number of meters tall to indicate the maximum wave height for the ocean at Sea State X. Keep in mind Sea State X.1 will go over those (fencepost problem).

Video Link (video should embed here) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnhTimddacQ&feature=youtu.be).

Enjoy.

Phaeton

08-01-19, 04:54 AM

A very interesting project! Looking forward for it and will be happy to buy it when it will be ready. Also happy that Soviet side will be playable.
Best wishes with development!

Aktungbby

08-01-19, 09:34 AM

Phaeton!:Kaleun_Salute:

THEBERBSTER

08-01-19, 10:35 AM

A Warm Welcome To The Subsim Community > Phaeton
Subsim <> Make A Donation <> See The Benefits <> Support The Community (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2027002&postcount=1)
SH3 – 4 - 5 Tutorials > Downloads > Other Useful Information > See Links in My Signature Below

Herman

08-01-19, 03:48 PM

And finally, if I had a more general audience I'd probably have cut out the part from Sea State 7.5 to 9 and back to 7.5 - there's lots of clipping - but I trust this audience to understand it's a WIP, and Sea States 7.5-9 probably won't even appear in gameplay much, anyways, since that would indicate an exceptionally severe storm or even a hurricane. Very unusual.
Will Sea State play a great role in sensor detection or combat resolution such as sea-skimmers?

Aircraft operations? NWAC had aircraft actually crashing due to severe weather. :)

AzureSkies

08-06-19, 08:48 PM

A very interesting project! Looking forward for it and will be happy to buy it when it will be ready. Also happy that Soviet side will be playable.
Best wishes with development! Thanks! And I'm looking forward to it, myself.

Will Sea State play a great role in sensor detection or combat resolution such as sea-skimmers?

Aircraft operations? NWAC had aircraft actually crashing due to severe weather. :) Well, I guess if NWAC did it I'll have to do it.

As of the moment, a high sea state already decreases the effective seeker range of cruise missiles.

So implementing a high sea state making it harder to detect the missiles themselves should be coming soon...

Aircraft handling will be a bit of a tougher one to implement, but it's definitely worth a shot.

I'll also have to experiment to see if the sea state already naturally decreases ships' max speed. I don't know if you noticed, but in the sailing video, the velocity indicator of the ship was bobbing around on the map - the waves actually push and pull on the ship. Theoretically, this should naturally create the speed reduction seen IRL by high seas. But it doesn't seem to be showing up on the speed dial - but that may be because of how it determines speed.

So, basically, I'll have to play with it.

...Wait, did I say something about cruise missiles?

Next update coming real soon here...

agathosdaimon

08-06-19, 08:51 PM

sea state looks superb! will there be included some splash and spray for when the ship crashes back into sea in the heavy conditions?

AzureSkies

08-06-19, 09:24 PM

sea state looks superb! will there be included some splash and spray for when the ship crashes back into sea in the heavy conditions?

I'll definitely at least look into it. That's gotta be almost a requirement if I'm including sea states above 6 or 7.

AzureSkies

08-06-19, 11:25 PM

Hello again everyone!

Not a day late this time, though a good number of hours. But if trends continue then I should be early on the next update... right?

Anyways, very close to the Spruance getting a highlight, but not quite yet without her AN/SPS-40 and AN/SPS-55 radars. Though finally, the placeholders for all her weapons are gone. You'll get plenty of good views in the two videos, as well.

https://i.postimg.cc/JGbNR0Sc/BW261.png (https://postimg.cc/JGbNR0Sc)

https://i.postimg.cc/dhw83vYM/BW262.png (https://postimg.cc/dhw83vYM)

Also, worked with the water mastermind and got the reflection shader updated to work beautifully. Reflections are clear on close ships, but become very scattered on distant ones. Here's a little demo I arranged with a lot of Spruance duplicates:

https://i.postimg.cc/MXf0rdDL/BW263.png (https://postimg.cc/MXf0rdDL)

But you can also see it at various angles and distances in the following videos. Especially in the one with cruise missiles closing on the Azov.

First - showing some helicopter starts for the SH-2F Seasprite.

Video should embed over this text. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2QdijrsHGA&feature=youtu.be)

Starts with a focus on the helo (An SH-2F Seasprite), then resets and shows the helo start with the camera focused on the ship. Provides some beautiful views and a better feel of how this will look in-game in the finished product.

Improvements to water interaction are planned. Some stuttering from video recording software. May change workflow for recording these videos at some point to get better framerate.

And, cruise missiles. Please keep in mind the Harpoon model is just a placeholder graphic. The real one's gonna be pretty great, knowing the modelers.

Starts with some shots, camera follows one, then about halfway through it follows one all the way from launch to premature detonation.

They're set to get destroyed - as if they were shot down - just shy of the target, just since impact detonation hasn't been modeled yet. So the warhead isn't even going off.

Video should embed over this text. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDkQ-m2oAt4&feature=youtu.be)
[edit - slight change to the video]

As of yet, no way to launch them using the game's UI - or a number of things. But they're destroyable, can follow waypoints, and after their last waypoint "pop up" if that's enabled to a given altitude, acquire a target, and homes in.

I'd say it's pretty good progress for a week.

Though I probably won't be doing such a fancy update again for awhile. Just enjoying the new ability to put out videos, now.

Thanks for joining us!

Note on both videos: Music by Scott Buckley – www.scottbuckley.com.au, used under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Herman

08-07-19, 01:11 AM

As of the moment, a high sea state already decreases the effective seeker range of cruise missiles.

So implementing a high sea state making it harder to detect the missiles themselves should be coming soon...
Sounds very promising. I was also wondering if severe sea states might actually inhibit missile engagements due to the sea-skimmers hitting high waves.

I'll also have to experiment to see if the sea state already naturally decreases ships' max speed. I don't know if you noticed, but in the sailing video, the velocity indicator of the ship was bobbing around on the map - the waves actually push and pull on the ship. Theoretically, this should naturally create the speed reduction seen IRL by high seas. But it doesn't seem to be showing up on the speed dial - but that may be because of how it determines speed.
Good to see the effect of sea state on speed. I urge some restraint on the number of calculations or updates. For example, if there is constant fluctuation in the sea state indicator due to constant revision of the final digit, then it can be more of a distraction than a help. i.e. if the state is 6.27 and the '.7' is forever an amorphous blur as it constantly goes up and down, then the precision really isn't helping the game. Is it really necessary to know sea state to that 100th level of precision?

AzureSkies

08-07-19, 02:07 AM

Sounds very promising. I was also wondering if severe sea states might actually inhibit missile engagements due to the sea-skimmers hitting high waves. A solid possibility. Presumably a real missile would be using radar to determine height and attempting to avoid hitting the water. I'll see if there's something computationally efficient I can do with the code to simulate this, because there may be...

My bet is that it won't be able to function reliably above Sea State 7 or so. Being all-weather capable is an advertised feature of the newest Harpoon missiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)#Harpoon_Block_II+_ER), implying old versions had a max sea state. These would be Block Is, Block IBs and Block ICs, a far cry from the modern block IIER+.

Also happen to know from old research on the Juliet that it couldn't fire its missiles above Sea State 6. Technically that's very different, but broadly it shows how even 70's and 80's navies could be rather severely limited by weather with their missiles.

Good to see the effect of sea state on speed. I urge some restraint on the number of calculations or updates. For example, if there is constant fluctuation in the sea state indicator due to constant revision of the final digit, then it can be more of a distraction than a help. i.e. if the state is 6.27 and the '.7' is forever an amorphous blur as it constantly goes up and down, then the precision really isn't helping the game. Is it really necessary to know sea state to that 100th level of precision? Oh, the sea state indicator shown was just for that demonstration video. Real UI for that will be very different.

longface

08-11-19, 09:31 PM

Phaeton

08-12-19, 01:43 AM

AzureSkies, will you integrate CIWS in game for anti-missile duties? If CIWS will be operational, could it engage surface and air targets?
I know, CIWS weapon range in naval warfare is like a punch range in gun fight. Still, possibility of it is amusing.
For example, in War Thunder AK-230 in close ranges (<2 km) is a threat even to a destroyers.
Example #2: in Wargame: Red Dragon CIWS alongside with autocannons can be used to engage naval and air targets (especially when missiles were exhausted).
Anyway, best luck with development!

AzureSkies

08-13-19, 07:34 PM

Apologies, but this week's update won't be ready tonight. It will be posted by tomorrow night, though, and I'll reply to questions here, as well.

AzureSkies

08-14-19, 08:25 PM

This looks really good! I can't wait to hear more!

Just some questions I have off the top of my mind:
1. Do you plan for a sound delay due to distance for any loud transients/explosions? Cold Waters does that thing where you watch a target explode ten kiloyards away and the explosion comes instantaneously, which of course isn't realistic (but seeing that CW allows you to view events from many different positions not modeling a sound delay is understandable).
2. The Harpoon seems to be tracking the stern of the Azov instead of dead center. Is this true to life? 1. I've noticed that, and personally love the feature. Wouldn't be simple to implement within the Unity game engine, though, unfortunately. Other things are taking priority, but this is a detail I'd like to be able to include.

2. It depends on the particular missile, but old enough ones will go for whatever the biggest radar reflector is, I'd guess. As to the video I posted, though, I'll probably fix that pretty easily by implementing lead into the terminal homing phase. There's already lead in some of the other calculations the missile does, so it'd be a simple fix.

AzureSkies, will you integrate CIWS in game for anti-missile duties? If CIWS will be operational, could it engage surface and air targets?
I know, CIWS weapon range in naval warfare is like a punch range in gun fight. Still, possibility of it is amusing.
For example, in War Thunder AK-230 in close ranges (<2 km) is a threat even to a destroyers.
Example #2: in Wargame: Red Dragon CIWS alongside with autocannons can be used to engage naval and air targets (especially when missiles were exhausted).
Anyway, best luck with development! Definitely for anti-missile and anti-aircraft. Most CIWS systems are highly autonomous and will shoot anything closing in too fast and too close. How sensor systems are planned to be scripted, it won't even bother to differentiate between incoming missiles and aircraft.

And I do plan to have them able to engage other ships, too. That's very simple to do, especially given there's a variety of other weapon systems that will be able to target multiple platform types, anyways (SS-N-14 "Silex" missiles, RIM-66 SM-1 SAMs, and ship guns like the Mk45 or AK130 just to name a few).

Thanks!

Weekly update coming shortly. It's about time for that vehicle highlight...

AzureSkies

08-14-19, 10:56 PM

This week, we'll be taking a look at the USS Spruance, the first and titular ship of the Spruance-class destroyer.

The ships were being built right into the year Blue Water takes place, 1983, making them the new, modern ships of the time, including automated guns and digital weapon control systems.

https://i.postimg.cc/gnHzcL4C/BW264.png (https://postimg.cc/gnHzcL4C)

With the increasing threat from improving Soviet Submarine technology, their designed task was to serve as ASW escorts for carrier battle group.

https://i.postimg.cc/4Y4JY4Sm/BW265.png (https://postimg.cc/4Y4JY4Sm)

Working from bow to stern, first we have our Mark 45 5" guns. These have a rate of fire of 16-20 rounds per minute each, and have an effective range of 24 km, and a magazine with 600 rounds. (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=575&ct=2)

https://i.postimg.cc/tntjg8d3/BW266.png (https://postimg.cc/tntjg8d3)

Behind it is the Mk. 16 Mod 7 RUR-5 ASROC launcher. Although the Spruance itself was new, the ASROC dated back to the 60's. They could launch either a 10-kt W44 nuclear depth charge or a Mk.46 torpedo 19 km. Upon arriving to the specific location, the Mk.46 would separate, parachute, enter the water, and begin searching for nearby submarines.

The Spruance also carried two additional reloads for each in the launcher, for a total of 24 missiles.

https://i.postimg.cc/3yV7fXJv/BW267.png (https://postimg.cc/3yV7fXJv)

https://i.postimg.cc/fShsDMdW/BW268.png (https://postimg.cc/fShsDMdW)

Above the bridge and above the hanger is a Phalanx Block 0 CIWS. These are newer than the Spruance itself, with the USS Spruance not originally having been built with them, and only having just, in 1983, barely been modernized with their addition. Their weapon is an M61 Vulcan capable of putting out 3,000 20mm rounds per minute. Its primary role is to shoot down incoming missiles, though it's also more than adequate against any nearby aircraft. Usage against ships is also possible.

https://i.postimg.cc/234mTBp1/BW269.png (https://postimg.cc/234mTBp1)

https://i.postimg.cc/kBqCHX9f/BW270.png (https://postimg.cc/kBqCHX9f)

Below are the two quad RGM-84A Harpoon canisters. Being 1983, some RGM-84Cs would be in service as well. These sea-skimming, high-subsonic cruise missiles have a range of 92.6 km (https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/harpoon/#easy-footnote-bottom-7-2751).

They have the name "harpoon" because they were originally designed in the 60's as a counter to surfaced Soviet submarines - thus they were weapons to be used against large submerging leviathans, and were called the "harpoon".

While their uses are far more general than that, that role may still prove useful should an Echo or Juliet surface and begin preparing to fire from a far (but not far enough) distance.

Notice the starboard canister has expended two missiles.

https://i.postimg.cc/5XkMjBzR/BW271.png (https://postimg.cc/5XkMjBzR)

https://i.postimg.cc/gwXbhxqk/BW272.png (https://postimg.cc/gwXbhxqk)

Next we have, what may arguably be the most useful ASW weapon on the Spruance. Given the Seasprite has already gotten its own highlight, there's not much to add here. These will prove invaluable in expanding the search area against Soviet "whales", or making full use of the RUR-5's range.

https://i.postimg.cc/dkGMWgxb/BW273.png (https://postimg.cc/dkGMWgxb)

Being primarily an ASW vessel, the Spruance only had (relatively) short-range RIM-7 Sea Sparrows for extended air defense beyond the Phalanx's range. Like the ASROC, it only has a range of 19 km - but against sea-skimming missiles, this may be all the warning you'll get, anyways. Like most SAMs, it is semi-active radar homing.

https://i.postimg.cc/m14vK8xt/BW274b.png (https://postimg.cc/m14vK8xt)

https://i.postimg.cc/Wq7BVgjS/BW275b.png (https://postimg.cc/Wq7BVgjS)

And finally, all too easy to miss, yet still a possible godsend in the worst scenarios...

https://i.postimg.cc/5Xr3k3D1/BW278.png (https://postimg.cc/5Xr3k3D1)

A pair of Mark 32 Triple torpedo tubes on each side of the ship, in a torpedo room within the ship's aft hull, for six Mk. 46 torpedoes ready to launch at any time.

https://i.postimg.cc/ykvn0BPD/BW279.png (https://postimg.cc/ykvn0BPD)

And finally, two more shots of the Spruance during the day - with the last one to show the hanger in the closed position.

https://i.postimg.cc/R3DV5rGq/BW276c.png (https://postimg.cc/R3DV5rGq)

Believe it or not, both of the helos actually can fit in that hanger... But only barely.

https://i.postimg.cc/qhKrPNzZ/BW277b.png (https://postimg.cc/qhKrPNzZ)

That's it for this week, please keep the questions and comments coming, and I'll shoot to be more timely for next week. Until then, good sailing.

longface

08-15-19, 01:22 PM

AzureSkies

08-20-19, 07:57 PM

Absolutely stunning. Love the R2D2! Also, the Seasprite flies now! One thing, though, anything white seems to glow, I think they reflect too much light. Everything else looks lovely.

Are you still aiming for the November release of the game? I think it's worth it to get the sparkling water, though getting everything white to not be so blinding but keeping the sparkling water would be ideal. Should definitely be possible. Will look into it.

As for November, aiming is the key word, here. I'm beginning to wonder if it's realistic - it may have to be delayed, but I'm not ready to give up on it quite yet.

AzureSkies

08-20-19, 08:07 PM

Hello again,

There's not a whole lot to show off - not all work is equally flashy, as I'm sure most here are already aware, but progress is still happening.

One part of that that does create some nice eye candy, though, is recently the model for the P-500 Bazalt has been done, so I decided to make a video and put some pictures together so there's something to show off this week.

With a range of 550 km, cruising at Mach 2.5 and either a 1,000 kg high explosive warhead or a 350 kt nuclear warhead, it is not a missile you want to go up against. The one saving grace is they couldn't/didn't fly lower than 50 meters, and made rather large targets, being about 12 meters long and a meter wide.

It was made to fire in Salvos of eight, and the Slava-class carried sixteen.

https://youtu.be/ulGqNsPVbx8

https://i.postimg.cc/34csTGg5/BW282.png (https://postimg.cc/34csTGg5)

https://i.postimg.cc/wRRSTBVt/BW283.png (https://postimg.cc/wRRSTBVt)

https://i.postimg.cc/MXckYsSW/BW284.png (https://postimg.cc/MXckYsSW)

https://i.postimg.cc/nXftrqNn/BW285.png (https://postimg.cc/nXftrqNn)

https://i.postimg.cc/YG95ZRLz/BW288.png (https://postimg.cc/YG95ZRLz)

https://i.postimg.cc/mcbfNBbq/BW290.png (https://postimg.cc/mcbfNBbq)

https://i.postimg.cc/8sx2XhpL/BW291.png (https://postimg.cc/8sx2XhpL)

https://i.postimg.cc/RNfjkNhy/BW292.png (https://postimg.cc/RNfjkNhy)

https://i.postimg.cc/0r3vgTfM/BW293.png (https://postimg.cc/0r3vgTfM)

Wolfpack345

08-20-19, 08:39 PM

Awesome! The cruise missile looks great!:up:

Herman

08-21-19, 01:20 AM

With a range of 550 km, cruising at Mach 2.5 ...
That is generally how Harpoon simulates the missile, too.

However, I remember an NWAC developer saying that the missile in his game had a slower cruise speed in transit and only increased speed when it neared the target area because it would have insufficient fuel for maximum speed throught the flight profile.

I would not profess to know which behaviour is wrong or right. Have you considered different operational parameters?

Rickster1

08-22-19, 04:10 AM

All i can say is this game is looking good and looking forward to its development

AzureSkies

08-22-19, 03:14 PM

Awesome! The cruise missile looks great!:up: All i can say is this game is looking good and looking forward to its development Thanks!

That is generally how Harpoon simulates the missile, too.

However, I remember an NWAC developer saying that the missile in his game had a slower cruise speed in transit and only increased speed when it neared the target area because it would have insufficient fuel for maximum speed throught the flight profile.

I would not profess to know which behaviour is wrong or right. Have you considered different operational parameters?

This got me digging again.

So, to clarify, these are P-500 Bazalts. These were later upgraded to P-1000 Vulkans, which do have a terminal boost to above mach 3, but weren't cleared for service until the late 80's.

Some sources (https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201601050731-ddon.htm) cite the Bazalt's top speed as Mach 2.5, others cite it as Mach 2 (http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/chelomei/p/500/) or even Mach 1.7 (https://books.google.com/books?id=UU3v0tbq8acC&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=did+the+P-500+bazalt+have+terminal+boost&source=bl&ots=blM7u8eQND&sig=ACfU3U0ObG-BGywULsuZCbjWRbSe594NGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYqIHynJfkAhUFT98KHRbFCs8Q6AEwCHoECAkQA Q#v=onepage&q=did%20the%20P-500%20bazalt%20have%20terminal%20boost&f=false). In any case, its drag would be largely dominated by wave drag. Wikipedia had some nice equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_drag#For_double-wedge_aerofoil) for wave drag. Approximating the Bazalt as a double-wedge aerofoil to get its drag at Mach 2.5, then using the specific fuel consumption of the R-15 turbojet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumansky_R-15) (in afterburner) (since it's a turbojet engine from a similar era, so fuel economy should be very similar), I found it'd only take a few hundred kg of fuel for it to travel its entire range at Mach 2.5, using fairly conservative estimates.

The research on the missile is interesting, though. Learned more detail on their guidance AI and found a small tweak I'll probably make to their visual launch effects. This is another funny case where realism will probably look unrealistic - real pictures of Bazalts or Vulkans launching show an impressively large flame plume from the booster rockets.

On the topic of its guidance, I haven't spoken at length about the Bazalt's guidance software, but as some here may know, it was very impressively sophisticated. I haven't gone over it yet because I'm not sure I can implement it on the game's Early Access release, but realism holds some interesting challenges when it comes to balance.

Herman

08-22-19, 10:28 PM

Some sources (https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201601050731-ddon.htm) cite the Bazalt's top speed as Mach 2.5, others cite it as Mach 2 (http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/chelomei/p/500/) or even Mach 1.7 (https://books.google.com/books?id=UU3v0tbq8acC&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=did+the+P-500+bazalt+have+terminal+boost&source=bl&ots=blM7u8eQND&sig=ACfU3U0ObG-BGywULsuZCbjWRbSe594NGg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYqIHynJfkAhUFT98KHRbFCs8Q6AEwCHoECAkQA Q#v=onepage&q=did%20the%20P-500%20bazalt%20have%20terminal%20boost&f=false). In any case, its drag would be largely dominated by wave drag. Wikipedia had some nice equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_drag#For_double-wedge_aerofoil) for wave drag. Approximating the Bazalt as a double-wedge aerofoil to get its drag at Mach 2.5, then using the specific fuel consumption of the R-15 turbojet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumansky_R-15) (in afterburner) (since it's a turbojet engine from a similar era, so fuel economy should be very similar), I found it'd only take a few hundred kg of fuel for it to travel its entire range at Mach 2.5, using fairly conservative estimates.
Sources often vary, which begs the big question, will players be able to modify operational data if they feel one source is more credible than another? This is how it is done in both Harpoon and NWAC, the games do not profess to be omniscient. Players can enter their own operational data parameters. Of course, there are some self-important developers (of games that cannot be mentioned) who think they know it all and only have one set of 'allowable and acceptable' performance data.

On the topic of its guidance, I haven't spoken at length about the Bazalt's guidance software, but as some here may know, it was very impressively sophisticated. I haven't gone over it yet because I'm not sure I can implement it on the game's Early Access release, but realism holds some interesting challenges when it comes to balance.
I read about a hypothetical Soviet missile guidance system whereby one missile acted as the targeting system facilitator for a group of other missiles that actually carried warheads. This was supposedly used to facilitate long-range over-the-horizon engagements. It was only mentioned in a novel, so I do not know if it ever existed or not (probably not.)

Will the game be able to simulate and allow such potential systems?

AzureSkies

08-27-19, 05:50 PM

Sources often vary, which begs the big question, will players be able to modify operational data if they feel one source is more credible than another? This is how it is done in both Harpoon and NWAC, the games do not profess to be omniscient. Players can enter their own operational data parameters. Of course, there are some self-important developers (of games that cannot be mentioned) who think they know it all and only have one set of 'allowable and acceptable' performance data. That goes right in with modability - so it's something I'll definitely be aiming to include.
I read about a hypothetical Soviet missile guidance system whereby one missile acted as the targeting system facilitator for a group of other missiles that actually carried warheads. This was supposedly used to facilitate long-range over-the-horizon engagements. It was only mentioned in a novel, so I do not know if it ever existed or not (probably not.)

Will the game be able to simulate and allow such potential systems? More than hypothetical, that's the actual way the P-500s and their derivatives/modernizations work.

Both of these things are the sorts of things I'd definitely want to include - the latter in particular has been on my mind as I've been working on the cruise missiles, since something like this would so radically alter their behavior.

Hard to say what'll make it into the early access or not, though.

AzureSkies

08-27-19, 05:58 PM

Progress.

https://i.postimg.cc/ht0rV5x5/BW294.png (https://i.postimg.cc/7Pv2YNJG/BW294.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/GmRK8CBD/BW295.png (https://i.postimg.cc/HTTby3Zb/BW295.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/pdXBCJJX/BW296.png (https://i.postimg.cc/74j7VqtH/BW296.png)

Medley1991

08-28-19, 10:35 AM

I only see on real life the GoalKeepper firing, but the russian version have realy this "green" trace ?

The GoalKeepper is more yellow/orange. :hmmm:

AzureSkies

08-28-19, 01:42 PM

I only see on real life the GoalKeepper firing, but the russian version have realy this "green" trace ?

The GoalKeepper is more yellow/orange. :hmmm: I've seen Soviet tracers depicted as usually being green as far back as WWII. Here's a video clip of what's ostensibly an AK-630 firing - the colors are hard to read on the old video quality, and the old video quality would suggest using tracers was more of an 80's thing - but they do appear like they're green, just as green shows up on relatively older cameras.

(1:06 seconds)
https://youtu.be/t3w5NFMddXw?t=66

Also, source 1 on the gun itself mentions it a few times (https://web.archive.org/web/20100315113834/http://www.indian-military.org/navy/ordnance/close-in-weapon-system/267-ak-630-gatling-gun-close-in-weapon-system.html), and another about the ammo, where you'll have to scroll down to "Naval Weapons (http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_30mm.html#14)", list tracers as one of their rounds.

But I've seen plenty of US C-RAM guns (a Phalanx plopped on land) firing red tracers - my guess is the tracer color is related to what resources are more naturally/commonly available in each country.

Addendum: Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracer_ammunition#Construction) and a Quora (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Germans-tend-to-use-green-tracers-during-WWII-while-the-Allies-used-red-Who-decided-on-a-color-first) seem to back up this supposition - US/Western tracers typically working around Strontium, which seems a bit more complex to get it to work well, with Chinese and Russian tracers using green-burning Barium salts. Could be resource availability or just preference for what may be a simpler construction? Not sure, but it seems they use green tracers, either way.

Herman

08-29-19, 06:50 PM

longface

08-29-19, 08:49 PM

Cold Waters also models tracers as green, and I remember reading somewhere that NATO generally fires red tracers to WP's green.

AzureSkies

09-03-19, 09:24 PM

How about a simple feature that allows a player to set the tracer colour for each side? It might not be perfectly realistic, but it would accommodate those who suffer from colour blindness and other oddities (such as old eyes.) :sunny: Would be kind of an odd feature, but a very easy one to implement, so that doesn't sound like too bad of an idea...

AzureSkies

09-03-19, 09:46 PM

Hello again, everyone!

More CIWS work since last update. Redid their trajectories to match the performance listed with real CIWS guns - the ballistic range of the AK630 is listed as 8km, with its effective range as ~4km. Also knowing muzzle velocity and gravity, this constrains the drag, and so I'm fairly confident the new ballistics are far more accurate to reality.

Also great news for sound delays...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNIQ6RF5lrw&feature=youtu.be
[Music by Scott Buckley – www.scottbuckley.com.au, used under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)]

On shooting down a missile, there's only a certain chance you'll set off its warhead. The P-500 Bazalt carries a solid metric ton of high explosives, making an impressive explosion when it goes.

A Slava-class cruiser and a Spruance-class destroyer cooperate to test the Spruance's Phalanx guns.

CIWS effectiveness turned up to illustrate missile destruction effects.

I think in the finished product, the actual odds of a Spruance shooting down two incoming Bazalts with CIWS guns alone would be very low.

Of course a Slava would never be engaging a Spruance at such close range in this manner, certainly not without the two ships firing guns at each other. This was just a dev scene set up to test the CIWS code. Decided to record some and add some music.

The effectiveness of the Phalanx guns can be modified - the tracking system actually calculates the lead, and every tracer has real collision with the incoming missiles, for very surprisingly little performance cost. At 1:30 you can see this pay off with a very unlikely event - rounds meant for one missile happen to hit another and shoot it down. Perhaps there's a naval sim out there that does this kind of calculating-every-round on point defense guns, but I don't know of any.

I don't think real Phalanx guns use tracers except on the C-RAM/land variants (though perhaps they did in the early 80s), but this is a rare spot where I've taken artistic license, and it's also useful to see where the rounds are going for developing the targeting code.

Someone's already suggested customizable tracer colors - that should go nicely with being able to turn Phalanx tracers on/off.

At any rate, I'm surprised at how well I got the lead targeting script. If it's set to maximum effectiveness, it can reliably almost instantly shoot down missiles all the way at the edge of its range.

Phaeton

09-04-19, 06:06 AM

Nice missile exercises! Let me ask a couple of questions.
1) Which kind of operation theathre shall we expect? Will it be Mediterranea only, or northern seas too? Black sea, maybe?
2) Can we expect to see some BIG BOYS in final game? I mean, CVs for NATO forces and Kirov-class cruisers for Soviet side?
3) Will you implement interactions of submerged submarines? Will it be undersea point of view for them?
Thanks in advance.

longface

09-04-19, 09:20 AM

Are ship sinkings modeled yet? The Spruance ate a Bazalt, so I guess the rear of the ship should have just disintegrated. Also I'm guessing SAMs have not been modeled yet.

It looks lovely! The tracers spitting out and the rip of the Gatling gun just make for such a cool scene.

AzureSkies

09-10-19, 06:11 PM

Sorry to say, nothing to show off this week. For the next bit much of the work will be with things that aren't quite as show-off-able, so it may be awhile before there's really show-off-able things again.

Mostly just UI code and camera behavior stuff this last week.

Nice missile exercises! Let me ask a couple of questions.
1) Which kind of operation theathre shall we expect? Will it be Mediterranea only, or northern seas too? Black sea, maybe?
2) Can we expect to see some BIG BOYS in final game? I mean, CVs for NATO forces and Kirov-class cruisers for Soviet side?
3) Will you implement interactions of submerged submarines? Will it be undersea point of view for them?
Thanks in advance. The focus will mostly be Europe (North Sea, Baltic, Mediterranean, Black Sea and the Baltic) and the North Atlantic, but Pacific action isn't off the table by any means.

And absolutely to all the rest - that's the plan, at any rate, funding from Early Access permitting.

Are ship sinkings modeled yet? The Spruance ate a Bazalt, so I guess the rear of the ship should have just disintegrated. Also I'm guessing SAMs have not been modeled yet.

It looks lovely! The tracers spitting out and the rip of the Gatling gun just make for such a cool scene. Nope, still a bit too early in development for that. And thanks!

AzureSkies

09-17-19, 06:58 PM

Hello, everyone!

Threw yet another little video together. Nothing too flashy, but wanted to show off some of the little details I've improved/added, and the UI interface for issuing attack orders. Custom pointer now shows up in the recordings, too.

There was nothing wrong, per sae, with how older naval strategy/sims handled issuing orders, but I decided I wanted the UI to feel a bit more engaging/immersive than right-clicking drop-down menus, so decided to make something loosely inspired by old control interfaces on systems like the NTDS or fire control computers from the 80s.

Harpoon is listed twice for RGM-84A and RGM-84C variants. Experimenting with different settings for showing weapon names - definitely room for a little improvement there, it's an easy fix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IumUexpDIFw&feature=youtu.be

Select target -> Engage -> All weapons that can engage that type of contact are listed, pick one -> either confirm, or go to Salvo fire and confirm after setting the salvo size.

Only the Metels on the Kara and Harpoons on the Spruance have been modeled so far. There's quite a bit more that's been done also, but none of it is quite ready to show off.

Please feel free to discuss and share thoughts on the system.

There's a lot more improvements in store that I'll keep adding as things move along (there's a few environmental ones I'm particularly looking forward to implementing...), but next week will be another vehicle highlight...

Music by Scott Buckley – www.scottbuckley.com.au, music used under CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

AzureSkies

09-24-19, 07:03 PM

Just checking in to say that this week's development update - an expo of a new vehicle - will be delayed until tomorrow. Apologies.

Herman

09-24-19, 09:34 PM

There was nothing wrong, per sae, with how older naval strategy/sims handled issuing orders, but I decided I wanted the UI to feel a bit more engaging/immersive than right-clicking drop-down menus, so decided to make something loosely inspired by old control interfaces on systems like the NTDS or fire control computers from the 80s.
Please include a hotkey for every possible command because using right-click menus can be fun the first couple of hundred times, but it gets tedious very quickly; especially if you are forced to drag a mouse back and forth across the entire screen ad infinitum for every small command.

The ability to re-map hotkey commands (like Dangerous Waters) would be an incredible feature.
Harpoon is listed twice for RGM-84A and RGM-84C variants. Experimenting with different settings for showing weapon names - definitely room for a little improvement there, it's an easy fix.
It is a good idea to allow for different names. Personally, I prefer the NATO classifications because they are easier to remember than the Soviet designations. Of course, there are always players who like to see "3GMZ-84-EiB mod 4" system listed. If possible, maybe even allow the player to re-name displays/units to something he finds more useful.

Tnih_n

09-25-19, 11:15 AM

Not sure if you have this in mind already, but will the game feature some kind of tactical map ? The control menu "map" is a bit too small. Tactical map with some function to allow the player to set path for ships, subs, airs,... Take DCS CA for example :
https://i.imgur.com/4HAdzon.png

Regards,
:Kaleun_Salute:

AzureSkies

09-25-19, 09:06 PM

The ability to re-map hotkey commands (like Dangerous Waters) would be an incredible feature.

[snip]

If possible, maybe even allow the player to re-name displays/units to something he finds more useful. Both should be relatively easy to do. I'll try to keep these good ideas in mind.

Not sure if you have this in mind already, but will the game feature some kind of tactical map ? But of course. This is rather essential for any naval game, really. The graphics for the map display are actually done in very high resolution, and exported from infinitely scaleable vector graphics, so a map display has been in planning since the start, but is still waiting on completion of other core features, first.

AzureSkies

09-25-19, 09:43 PM

Hello again, everyone.

For this week's update/highlight, we'll have some cooperation with a NATO ally, and be joined by the Royal Navy.

Though too large for a Spruance's hanger, given the Spruance is the only NATO ship modeled at the moment she'll have to do for our landing pad.

This is the American designed, but British-built variant of the Sea King.

https://i.postimg.cc/XN841D8D/BW297.png (https://i.postimg.cc/dJXvfC2v/BW297.png)

Made by Sikorsky as the SH-3 Sea King for the US Navy, it was also licensed to the UK manufacturer Westland as the Westland Sea King for the Royal Navy.

https://i.postimg.cc/CLBrnRzH/BW298.png (https://i.postimg.cc/FNL2K63t/BW298.png)

Identifiable by the six-bladed tail rotor and larger dome on the spine, this is the HAS.5 variant.

https://i.postimg.cc/pLBSRgmg/BW299.png (https://i.postimg.cc/mLn5L3r2/BW299.png)

It could carry 4 Mk. 44, Mk. 46, or Sting Ray torpedoes, or 4 depth bombs, giving it a rather formidable armament.

As an aside, one little detail I'm rather happy with is the automatically-switching "rig for red" lighting.

https://i.postimg.cc/wvRFyPBx/BW300.png (https://i.postimg.cc/2Y9J7YxR/BW300.png)

It has a top speed of 113 knots, just one knot faster than the Soviet Ka-25 Hormone, though with a range of 1,200 km, it has three times the range.

https://i.postimg.cc/cCqhQmKR/BW301.png (https://i.postimg.cc/8DFYyYyF/BW301.png)

An upgraded version built largely off of the HAS.2 variant, the HAS.5 comes standard with MEL Super Searcher radar, Racal MIR-2 Orange Crop ESM and sonobouy tubes.

https://i.postimg.cc/RC32KsYH/BW302.png (https://i.postimg.cc/NYL33F0j/BW302.png)

Many served in this configuration in the Falkland Islands Conflict.

https://i.postimg.cc/bY2FsGG0/BW303.png (https://i.postimg.cc/VYYTDLT1/BW303.png)

Some were later modified to carry the AN/ASQ-81 MAD. This aircraft in particular is modeled as one with such a modification.

https://i.postimg.cc/mDKXm4nF/BW304.png (https://i.postimg.cc/9VSprFY0/BW304.png)

More images:

https://i.postimg.cc/CxJcWkt0/BW305.png (https://i.postimg.cc/1PHSQ2Gv/BW305.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/bY21Qk9J/BW306.png (https://i.postimg.cc/fM3QYb6P/BW306.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/sD4QccQV/BW307.png (https://i.postimg.cc/cxPn46GN/BW307.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/gjPjyXGX/BW308.png (https://i.postimg.cc/Dv4SDFJp/BW308.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/CK3xYBBP/BW309.png (https://i.postimg.cc/7qBbZbSQ/BW309.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/Zqph8fnH/BW310.png (https://i.postimg.cc/W2kjc48Z/BW310.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/htwSbzrD/BW311.png (https://i.postimg.cc/jsw-qqcxL/BW311.png)

Keep in mind, graphics are subject to upgrade, especially with regard to certain details...

I apologize again that this update was late, but thank you for joining us. Please feel free to comment and discuss below!

Sung

09-26-19, 12:53 PM

Mindblowing! So much love on the details. :up:
Keep on the good work.

Did you have video of the starting and landing helicopter?

AzureSkies

10-01-19, 07:22 PM

Mindblowing! So much love on the details. :up:
Keep on the good work.

Did you have video of the starting and landing helicopter?

Not yet, unfortunately.

AzureSkies

10-01-19, 09:31 PM

Hello again, everyone.

Nothing new to see quite yet, but radar does have a contact: The modelers have been hard at work. Recent work has been on a lot of "under the hood" code and optimization, particularly with regards to the map and sensor systems.

Stay tuned for more updates as they come.

Though it's been brief this time, thanks again for joining us.

AzureSkies

10-08-19, 08:34 PM

Hello again!

So, with current work focusing on things less show-offable, and not having shown a lot recently, I've decided to make the best of it and show off some of the changes to/progress on the minimap/control interface.

The overlay and definitely the console textures will probably be improved considerably before any release, but the addition of a number of simple features such as box selection and locking the map on any contact go a long way to improving the feel of the game.

Still deciding on the exact menu layout/tree structure/button positions, and playing with the font size and style to make it the most legible while maintaining a distinct aesthetic.

Also while the sensors modeled are far from complete, they work and auto-classify contact types (air, helo, surf, or sub) based off the contacts' returns and some simple logic, including true classification on visual ID, and also planned is ESM and active sonar interception to classify contacts based on their sensor type.

Also, datalink is being modeled. Should make multiplayer interesting.

Shown are NATO and Soviet colorations/modes, as well as locking the camera on the player ship, selected ship(s), or nothing, and various zooms, distance units modes and menu positions.

https://i.postimg.cc/ZYsT1r1p/BW316b.png
https://i.postimg.cc/YCTyQVcb/BW314.png
https://i.postimg.cc/PqZVy4Th/BW315.png

Also, I'm looking forward to showing off some more progress on the modellers' side next week...

https://i.postimg.cc/8cw8Tb0M/BW312.png

Thanks for joining us, if you have any feedback or concerns with regard to the UI system please feel free to discuss. As stated before, it's a bit tricky to come up with a unique, immersive and functional/well-designed UI system that can both allow a great deal of depth to the control while not being too overwhelming on the learning curve and reasonably intuitive.

Herman

10-09-19, 09:48 PM

Still deciding on the exact menu layout/tree structure/button positions, and playing with the font size and style to make it the most legible while maintaining a distinct aesthetic.
I would like to suggest that you consider using both upper and lower case letters in the display. I know that the Navy has a tradition of only using upper case in all things (and only recently changed to allow lower case in messages), but I think that the mix will make some words more easily recognizable and also save space in your displays. This can allow for longer words to appear on the same line and not be broken.

Also, I suggest a hotkey beside each function. For example, your display shows "FULL" and "HIDE". Perhaps you could consider allowing a mode that shows "Full [F]" and "Hide [H]". Maybe have two different modes that can be activated/disabled according to player preference.

Harpoon also had a space-saving hotkey feature. It might help to display hotkeys with a different colour "Full" or an underscore "Hide". This way, the length of the word is all that is required (no extraneous spaces or parentheses).

Also while the sensors modeled are far from complete, they work and auto-classify contact types (air, helo, surf, or sub) based off the contacts' returns and some simple logic, including true classification on visual ID, and also planned is ESM and active sonar interception to classify contacts based on their sensor type.
The auto-classify function is convenient. However, one shortcoming of Harpoon was the way the game engine tracked contacts. During a battle, a contact might appear and be given the name, "Contact 21". If contact was lost and then re-acquired later, it would still appear as "Contact 21" because the game engine had already assigned every platform a permanent ID number for administrative purposes. This allowed the player to know immediately it was the same contact as before.

Commander Zimm, the creator of the WW2 game, "Action Stations", would have every new contact given a new designation. That way, you never knew if the ship you engaged 5 minutes ago, lost in a smoke cloud, and then re-acquired and re-engaged was the same ship you fought earlier or a new enemy.

Of course, in WW2, it was mostly surface action and often at night, where visibility was the key factor. In modern combat, with the use of electronic sensors, contact is virtually instantaneous. Also, you probably do not want to be generating a gazillion new ID numbers for contacts that are only lost or flicker for a second or two.

Also, datalink is being modeled. Should make multiplayer interesting.
Will the information flow between allied players instantaneously? With players able to use Skype or other chat mechanisms, any delay might be moot. Implementation of any potential delay in data transmission may not be worth the candle or effort and may actually detract from the enjoyability of the gameplay.

I raise it as a discussion point and thought exercise.

Medley1991

10-14-19, 10:28 AM

Oh goooshhh, you break my heart ! SEAKING ! :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

Nice job ! Keep on men ! :up::yeah:

AzureSkies

10-15-19, 07:45 PM

I would like to suggest that you consider using both upper and lower case letters in the display. The LCD font is true to LCD layouts - lower case letters take the same amount of space, and aren't always clearer.

Also, I suggest a hotkey beside each function. For example, your display shows "FULL" and "HIDE". Perhaps you could consider allowing a mode that shows "Full [F]" and "Hide [H]". Maybe have two different modes that can be activated/disabled according to player preference. FULL and HIDE are placeholders for the time being. I'll certainly look at setting custom key bindings, though - that should be fairly easy.

Also, you probably do not want to be generating a gazillion new ID numbers for contacts that are only lost or flicker for a second or two. From the start of implementing the sensor system I made sure lost contacts wouldn't retain information. As it is, there's a fairly simple system in place to account for relatively long delays in-between contact without the contact getting re-assigned next time contact is made. But if it does go for too long, then yes, you won't know which contact is which.

Will the information flow between allied players instantaneously? It depends. But where this will really shine still remains quite awhile down the road.

For multiplayer, I tend to prefer to leave things to the host's settings, and this is probably a good place to do that. Some would rather just trust the other team to not cheat in such a way - and communicating information accurately about the ID of contacts might be difficult enough on its own that it wouldn't be too much an issue - but it shouldn't really be an issue to make data links always active for the entire team as an optional setting.

Oh goooshhh, you break my heart ! SEAKING ! :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

Nice job ! Keep on men ! :up::yeah:

Thanks!

Update coming soon. It's a highlight tonight.

AzureSkies

10-15-19, 09:27 PM

Hello again, everyone!

Tonight's update is another vehicle highlight, and this time it's a ship.

It's the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate.

https://i.postimg.cc/wxs1ccCj/BW319.png (https://postimg.cc/yWs6796M)

With a displacement of 4,100 tons, it's a relatively small ship, nonetheless, it would become well-known for its durability despite its size. It has a top speed over 29 knots. Although ultimately 51 would be produced for service in the US Navy (and a total over 70), by the end of 1983 only 37 were built, meaning along with the Spruance destroyers, these were some of the new ships of the time.

It was designed to escort amphibious assault groups, carrier groups, and convoy groups across the Atlantic, and with a range of 4,500 nmi could do so without refueling. So let's start taking a look at specific systems that make up the ship's other capabilities.

https://i.postimg.cc/KYHYtRQT/BW320.png (https://postimg.cc/1gDPQRkR)

Its primary weapon was the Mk.13 single-rail launcher. It has a magazine capable of holding 40 RIM-66 SM-1 MR missiles, while 26 of those slots could hold RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, though the standard loadout was to split it 36-4, SM-1s to Harpoons.

https://i.postimg.cc/HnGsPRqs/BW321.png (https://postimg.cc/cgmSv91V)

It could load and fire at an impressive rate, firing a Standard Missile every 10 seconds or a Harpoon every 22.

https://i.postimg.cc/65tB2rwS/BW322.png (https://postimg.cc/CdP39fRH)

It should be noted, that while the SM-1 was developed as an anti-air missile, it also could work effectively as an anti-ship missile. Though obviously with a much smaller warhead than purpose-built antiship missiles, the capability makes it a very useful weapon.

Although it's difficult to find reference to it, and was never done much, according to one source the magazine and Mk.13 were able to carry and fire RUR-5 ASROC missiles, as well.

https://i.postimg.cc/SsSGY1TR/BW323.png (https://postimg.cc/JyFX9xWC)

Though it should be noted that the Perry could only carry and fire the SM-1 MR, RIM-66A/B/E, with the E variant only barely entering service in 1983. Thus its range is limited to only 74 km, less than that of the Slava or Azov's S-300 Fort (NATO: SA-N-6 "Grumble") system with a range of 90 km.

Nonetheless, it holds second place with a considerable lead, and definitely far outclasses the RIM-7 Sea Sparrows used on the Spruance that only had a range of 19 km.

https://i.postimg.cc/LsBTXFVG/BW324.png (https://postimg.cc/gwjRS5QK)

But a ship without sensors is blind. At the bottom-left, in the white dome above the bridge we see the Mk.92 fire control radar used for the Mk.13 launcher. In the middle, the radar dish is the Perry's Air Search radar, the AN/SPS-49, with an effective range of 474 km (where it will detect aircraft with a large radar cross-section, but struggle to detect missiles or aircraft with much smaller radar cross-sections).

And finally, on top of the mast, is the little white doppler radar brick of the AN/SPS-55 Surface Search radar.

The ship also houses the SQS-56 sonar system, though the effectiveness of the system as implemented in the early 80's was under question.

https://i.postimg.cc/qR1xscSL/BW325.png (https://postimg.cc/YGmFkFpG)

Back to armament, after RIM-66 SM-1 MR missiles and RGM-84 Harpoon cruise missiles, the next weapon system would be the Italian-designed, water-cooled OTO Melara 76 mm gun. It is capable of an impressive 80 rounds per minute and having a range of 15.9 km with HE-PFF rounds, for engaging either airborne or surface targets.

https://i.postimg.cc/2SNXTD2X/BW326B.png (https://postimg.cc/TpQ9YZ8r)

And it is directed by the AN/SPG-60 target illuminator radar, visible on the elevated platform.

https://i.postimg.cc/VkT6CJKC/BW328B.png (https://postimg.cc/v4rbRZFY)

And finally, it carries two Mk.32 launchers - one on each side, capable of carrying three Mk.46 or Mk.50 torpedoes each.

https://i.postimg.cc/k5xjbb71/BW327-Torp-Port.png (https://postimg.cc/jWSQVCwP)

https://i.postimg.cc/yx5h51V3/BW329.png (https://postimg.cc/hQL7QqQK)

Last but certainly not least, perhaps the most generally useful system on the Perry is its two hangers for storing, and flight deck for operating, SH-3F LAMPS helicopters, making it very formidable in the ASW role.

https://i.postimg.cc/XJds9y31/BW330-Helo2.png (https://postimg.cc/tZRdjJsF)

https://i.postimg.cc/WzrtNTGk/BW331.png (https://postimg.cc/ZvbJjkDb)

Now, some of you familiar with the Perry may be wondering about something that seems to be missing.

In the 90s, Perry frigates were back-fitted with 20mm Phalanx CIWS systems on the stern, just above the hanger.

By 1983, Perries were starting to be built with these, but older ships built without them had not yet been fitted with them. This means that some ships will have them, some will not:

https://i.postimg.cc/wByz8Fct/BW332-Phalanx.png (https://postimg.cc/QB3wcQzs)

And there it is, the 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon fitted in a naval point-defense system known as the Phalanx CIWS. Just remember not to leave it off when you need it - or even worse, leave it on an "engage all targets" setting when you don't.

(In Blue Water, point defense systems will probably be modeled to, by default, be in an "engage incoming targets moving over 200 knots" mode).

So that's our update for the week. Thanks for joining us.

https://i.postimg.cc/LXJnWzhv/BW333.png (https://postimg.cc/zb1zbHCR)

https://i.postimg.cc/dt2DgQtM/BW334.png (https://postimg.cc/6yQ9vXvz)

Medley1991

10-16-19, 01:07 PM

Aaah, Oto melara 76mm... :D Remember time on Frigate !

FPSchazly

10-21-19, 02:32 PM

Looking quite nice :up:

AzureSkies

10-22-19, 07:04 PM

Weekly update will be short again this week,

progress continues on completing the sensor code. Missiles have been updated/integrated with it. Receiving two ESM pings from a radar will lead to the contact being roughly identified, depending on the radar. Selecting a contact by itself will let you view the history of sensor bearing detections on it, whether it be from ESM, active intercept or passive sonar. And now efforts are focusing on other missile systems than cruise missiles, and various types of launchers.

Check in next week for more. Until then, thanks for joining us.

Aaah, Oto melara 76mm... :D Remember time on Frigate ! Did you serve on a frigate with an Oto Melara?

Looking quite nice :up: Thanks!

Medley1991

10-23-19, 02:42 AM

Weekly update will be short again this week,

progress continues on completing the sensor code. Missiles have been updated/integrated with it. Receiving two ESM pings from a radar will lead to the contact being roughly identified, depending on the radar. Selecting a contact by itself will let you view the history of sensor bearing detections on it, whether it be from ESM, active intercept or passive sonar. And now efforts are focusing on other missile systems than cruise missiles, and various types of launchers.

Check in next week for more. Until then, thanks for joining us.

Did you serve on a frigate with an Oto Melara?

Thanks!

Yes, on the F930 Leopold 1er form Belgian Navy.

AzureSkies

10-29-19, 05:24 PM

Yes, on the F930 Leopold 1er form Belgian Navy. Nice - we're glad to have you on-board and hope you'll find our work immersive, enjoyable and compelling.

Update coming very soon.

AzureSkies

10-29-19, 06:40 PM

Hello again, everyone,

First off, I'm very sorry to say it's looking rather unlikely the game will be ready for an early access release by the originally intended November 11 date. Will probably be ready for that sometime in a few months following that date. We'll have to see.

But we'll be making sure it's up to our standards for when it is ready.

But as for that progress, work continues on two main fronts right now: SAMs and the sky.

https://i.postimg.cc/HxnDsV8K/BW336.png (https://i.postimg.cc/LHBHDP9H/BW336.png)

Blast fragmentation heads are modeled, resulting in some interesting things when there are multiple targets flying relatively close by each other, such as a salvo of Harpoons. Even if debris meant for the lead missile misses, other missiles in the line could still fly into it - though the odds are lower since by the time the next missile has arrived, the frag debris cloud is relatively dispersed.

https://i.postimg.cc/fbBQNxym/BW337.png (https://i.postimg.cc/NgwsRDwJ/BW337.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/pr72tK0q/BW338.png (https://i.postimg.cc/FFF13Z05/BW338.png)

Even if SAMs didn't routinely reach very high altitudes, the inclusion of aircraft, high-flying aircraft, tactical ballistic missiles and possibly even low-passing satellites would warrant a skybox that could handle extreme altitudes.

But, long-range SAMs like the Grumble/S-300 not only have the capability of downing very high-altitude targets, but in order to have such long range, they must fly relatively high ballistic trajectories.

Still in early development and continuously being improved, but here's the missile at 60,000+ feet.

https://i.postimg.cc/x8k2gc0H/BW339-60kfeet.png (https://postimg.cc/0KqFy5K2)

And finally, on another note, there's been some much-needed improvements to the Ka-25 Hormone model, specifically with regards to the rotors and the addition of a torpedo bay.

https://i.postimg.cc/zGQBTbTC/BW340.png (https://i.postimg.cc/HTYyDbxh/BW340.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/x8VNMJDx/BW341.png (https://i.postimg.cc/YrhNcYXH/BW341.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/hvnhhkTN/BW342.png (https://i.postimg.cc/M6MB3xTZ/BW342.png)

And that's all for this week's update. As always, thanks for joining us.

Herman

10-30-19, 02:12 AM

Blast fragmentation heads are modeled, resulting in some interesting things when there are multiple targets flying relatively close by each other, such as a salvo of Harpoons. Even if debris meant for the lead missile misses, other missiles in the line could still fly into it - though the odds are lower since by the time the next missile has arrived, the frag debris cloud is relatively dispersed.
You have described some very complex fragmentation behaviour.

IIRC, one of the big concerns regarding point defence weaponry such as Phalanx intercepting Soviet high-speed missiles, like Kitchen and Sunburn, is the fact that fragmentation and ballistic effects of destroyed missiles. Will those effects be simulated within the game?

drmezza

11-02-19, 12:38 PM

Hello @AzureSkies, and all the fine people at KFG,

Thanks so much for involving the community in the process of this new game being built. I was an avid player of Janes' Fleet Command and Dangerous Waters, and am currently replaying Cold Waters again.

I greatly support the hard work you are doing and welcome the opportunity of becoming a beta-tester, if you would be open to that. Due to circumstances, I currently have a lot of time on my hands, so please reach out to me (myusername[at]gmail.com) if you feel like you can use my help.

When I did some soul-searching into what naval simulation games I have played and actually spent a lot of time on, two deciding factors for me stood out:

1) realism (or lack thereof);
2) graphics

I was struck by the fact that I even enter and tend to stick with simulation games which have their realism and graphics in order, sometimes even wandering in to non-naval genres: Train Sim World (TSW) and, to a lesser degree: Farming Simulator stand out to me.

I thus end up at my main points w.r.t. the constructon of Blue Water:

Ad 1) Maybe 688i H/K overdid it a bit with their sense of realism (I never bothered with manually plotting target solutions, but the options was there), but: the way the passive sonar waterfall in Cold Waters is solely used for target classification purposes, seems a bit like babying the player. What I'm trying to say is: lovers of this genre are total suckers for realism. We understand certain sacrifices will have to be made in the interest of broader market-appeal, but please, don't dumb it down too much.

Ad 2) This is not true for all lovers of this genre, but it certainly is for me: I'm having a hard time enjoying (naval) simulation games when the graphical realism is not up to speed with the times. I'm not even talking about ray tracing etc., but using a modern state-of-the-art engine (like Unreal) and having us pay the licensing fees for doing so, are a conditio sine qua non. In fact: I don't even care that much about trains, but take a look at TSW on the one hand, and Train Simulator 2019 on the other, and you'll get my point. It's supposed to be a simulation, and these days a mid-range GPU suffices to make a game look awesome. Make sure to let us pay for the privilege, like the devs of TSW do (every DLC comes at a price, but that's allright). We understand you're operating in a nich market, so appropriate prices are part of the deal.

That is all for now. Keep up the good work!

Best,

DrMezza.

AzureSkies

11-06-19, 11:24 PM

Apologies for the late update, here's some replies and in them I describe some of the work that's been going on since last update with regard to SAM behavior and simulation.

You have described some very complex fragmentation behaviour.

IIRC, one of the big concerns regarding point defence weaponry such as Phalanx intercepting Soviet high-speed missiles, like Kitchen and Sunburn, is the fact that fragmentation and ballistic effects of destroyed missiles. Will those effects be simulated within the game? To an extent, they already are, with missiles capable of taking multiple damage modes, some of which merely throw off their guidance.

Ad 1) Maybe 688i H/K overdid it a bit with their sense of realism (I never bothered with manually plotting target solutions, but the options was there), but: the way the passive sonar waterfall in Cold Waters is solely used for target classification purposes, seems a bit like babying the player. What I'm trying to say is: lovers of this genre are total suckers for realism. We understand certain sacrifices will have to be made in the interest of broader market-appeal, but please, don't dumb it down too much.

Ad 2) This is not true for all lovers of this genre, but it certainly is for me: I'm having a hard time enjoying (naval) simulation games when the graphical realism is not up to speed with the times. I'm not even talking about ray tracing etc., but using a modern state-of-the-art engine (like Unreal) and having us pay the licensing fees for doing so, are a conditio sine qua non. In fact: I don't even care that much about trains, but take a look at TSW on the one hand, and Train Simulator 2019 on the other, and you'll get my point. It's supposed to be a simulation, and these days a mid-range GPU suffices to make a game look awesome. Make sure to let us pay for the privilege, like the devs of TSW do (every DLC comes at a price, but that's allright). We understand you're operating in a nich market, so appropriate prices are part of the deal.

That is all for now. Keep up the good work!

Best,
DrMezza.

I can see two big probable reasons why CW had less TMA work:
1. decreasing the active management/workload for the player so they can actual captain the sub. There's a good reason in real life you have separate crew doing the TMA work while the captain just rolls with the reports that are given.

2. It's a significant extra time and resources to develop something that's not necessarily even a good feature.

Similarly, I plan for TMA work to be unnecessary since there's enough to do with managing weapons, helos and ships.

But that's not to say it's absent. One thing I worked on awhile back is active intercept/ESM code with passive detection legs. Some are saved into long-term history while all are saved into short term history, and they're visible when you only have one contact selected. If you have more or less than one non-friendly contact selected, you only see the sonar pings or ESM intercepts that have happened in the last few seconds.

https://i.postimg.cc/wj5tfRFB/BW343.png

That being said, I'm always a fan of leaving extra options available so I do plan for contact assignments to be able to be made, at least, among a few other manual overrides.

Another fun quirk is any weapon can be fired at any contact. It's really only a question of if the target has a radar reflection and if the weapon's guidance system is capable of detecting and handling whatever you threw it at.

You can even throw an S-300F with a range of 75 km (5V55R missile) at a target 300 km away - it's just the guidance director won't be too happy about it and it'll be a very sad missile.

But the fun thing about systems like this is the "range" of a weapon isn't a magic barrier. Aside, perhaps, from cruise missiles which will run out of fuel and lose speed relatively quickly, the minimum and maximum ranges of most weapons is kind of a blurry line and depends a good deal on how fast and/or maneuverable the target is.

And let's say making a realistic physics-based guidance system on a SAM with quadratic drag, realistic trajectories, limited attitude control authority at higher altitudes, etc. is certainly a challenge.

But it's definitely worth it when it allows players to interact with situations more realistically and creatively. Helicopters will need to keep a further distance than faster supersonic jets, targets with more predictable trajectories are easier to hit, and evasive tactics that take advantage of missile's limited maneuverability should work.

johnnyrey

11-07-19, 09:42 PM

I apologize if this is already been discussed, but will this game have a broadband/narrowband waterfall? Or is detection (other than esm as stated above) essentially automatic?

Thank you!

Herman

11-08-19, 03:16 AM

I can see two big probable reasons why CW had less TMA work:
1. decreasing the active management/workload for the player so they can actual captain the sub. There's a good reason in real life you have separate crew doing the TMA work while the captain just rolls with the reports that are given.

[snip]

Similarly, I plan for TMA work to be unnecessary since there's enough to do with managing weapons, helos and ships.
Good to see that much of the TMA work can be automated.

I hope that BW does not force players to over-manage weapons, the way CW does. In case you did not know, CW forces players to act as Weapons Operator by forcing micro-management of each and every torpedo launch. For example, it is impossible to fire "a torpedo salvo on bearing XXX with 3 degree spread between them" in CW without a zillion clicks.

Even the original Red Storm Rising game required players to control individual torpedoes in order to achieve success.

Julhelm

11-08-19, 03:34 AM

I cannot remember any submarine sim that allowed for one-click salvo fire, so CW is hardly unique in this regard. CW's weapons are modelled on Red Storm Rising, simply because Red Storm Rising is my favorite sub sim.

AzureSkies

11-08-19, 05:09 PM

I apologize if this is already been discussed, but will this game have a broadband/narrowband waterfall? Or is detection (other than esm as stated above) essentially automatic?

Thank you! It's automatic - even ESM. It's just that seeing the bearing lines allows you to try to correct the solution manually (override) if the situation calls for it. Having to manage the sensors of every unit under your command - especially when weapons are flying - would be far too much.

Good to see that much of the TMA work can be automated.

I hope that BW does not force players to over-manage weapons, the way CW does. In case you did not know, CW forces players to act as Weapons Operator by forcing micro-management of each and every torpedo launch. For example, it is impossible to fire "a torpedo salvo on bearing XXX with 3 degree spread between them" in CW without a zillion clicks.

Even the original Red Storm Rising game required players to control individual torpedoes in order to achieve success. It's an interesting conundrum. I want to simulate things like SARH guidance (ie, a need for a director to be radio-illuminating a target for most SAMs to work), but that could lead to some troublesome situations where the player gets frustrated/can't see why the ship appears to be ignoring their orders.

I'm thinking of solving it by not having it be something you have to manage, but something you can see with visual cues on the map (such as a cone for the illuminated area). That would also probably prove useful for managing situations and for important situational awareness. But details of extra optional management options will be interesting and tricky to figure out. I'm looking at possible additional UI elements for optional management commands.

A good tutorial will be very crucial so the player knows why a SAM they fired at a target due south completely fails to intercept after they fired a second SAM due west (since the radar illuminator is now painting the new target to the west). Or even implementing a system where the illuminator switches targets intelligently based on time to intercept.

There's a lot of design decisions to be made.

Herman

11-08-19, 06:47 PM

I cannot remember any submarine sim that allowed for one-click salvo fire, so CW is hardly unique in this regard.There may be no submarine game that allows such ease for launching a torpedo salvo, but Cmdr. Zimm's WW2 "Action Stations" allowed ships to fire torpedo salvoes with just a bearing and spread angle.

Herman

11-08-19, 06:56 PM

It's an interesting conundrum. I want to simulate things like SARH guidance (ie, a need for a director to be radio-illuminating a target for most SAMs to work), but that could lead to some troublesome situations where the player gets frustrated/can't see why the ship appears to be ignoring their orders.

I'm thinking of solving it by not having it be something you have to manage, but something you can see with visual cues on the map (such as a cone for the illuminated area). That would also probably prove useful for managing situations and for important situational awareness. But details of extra optional management options will be interesting and tricky to figure out. I'm looking at possible additional UI elements for optional management commands.
Harpoon3 had a few game options that were helpful. You could activate or disable them at the start of any game session. For example:

ExtraVerbosePointDefense.opt
ShowPointDefense.opt
VerboseWeaponDetection.opt

They would give different levels of text to the player showing values such as detection calculations, firing probabilities of hits, die rolls, results, etc. The options were, I think, originally meant as an aid for database managers in testing and de-bugging their datbase weaponry and entries. I found them useful in some instances. (They could have been even more detailed.)

Such options for BW could help in overall game testing and de-bugging, too. Should BW decide to allow this as an option, I encourage as much detailed information be given as possible, even if some game designers are afraid of disclosing 'secret' formulae and revealing game operations. IMHO, within the realm of de-bugging, there is no such thing as 'too much information.'

AzureSkies

11-12-19, 07:11 PM

This week's weekly update will be moved to tomorrow, since there's something I'm hoping will be ready to show off by then.

IMHO, within the realm of de-bugging, there is no such thing as 'too much information.' I also think it's usually best, when in doubt, to leave it as an option if possible.

torpedolov

11-13-19, 04:31 PM

AzureSkies

11-13-19, 09:31 PM

Hello!Tell me please, this game will be something like Dangerous Waters?
This game will have a mission editor?
How many controlled units will there be?
The detection of underwater targets will be implemented as in DW? 1. It depends on what you mean by that. It will be a naval sim, but it won't be about a single player vessel so much as the player controlling anywhere from one to a good number of vessels, primarily surface ships but including rotor and fixed-wing aircraft as well as submarines and even land installations.

2. The implementation of such things is still a ways out, but probably.

3. See #1. Partially depends on how well it can get optimized.

4. If there are submarines, then of course there'll be a system to detect them, but it won't involve the player actually looking at sensor feeds as DW did it, since that would be impractical for a game where you're controlling a large number of ships. Nonetheless, I do hope to implement some advanced logic on vessel detection, even including things like ducts and layers.

AzureSkies

11-13-19, 09:58 PM

Hello again, everyone.

Firstly, dynamic water interaction is back, and the ocean has received some visual improvements once more, with things like how it handles reflections and subsurface light scattering.

https://i.postimg.cc/KzkSDSCm/BW347.png (https://postimg.cc/47gSXMJ0)

https://i.postimg.cc/90Z6sPWS/BW348.png (https://postimg.cc/CnMrqqnH)

https://i.postimg.cc/YCp5ymTn/BW349.png (https://postimg.cc/zVc2y3zK)

https://i.postimg.cc/zBR6RwRB/BW350b.png (https://postimg.cc/2br2sZGR)

https://i.postimg.cc/CxsFR0pt/BW351.png (https://postimg.cc/k2DrHk4F)

https://i.postimg.cc/gjF5ywvK/BW352.png (https://postimg.cc/N9DpBjCy)

Setting the sea to an extraordinary calm, the dynamic water interaction becomes much more apparent.

https://i.postimg.cc/3RsMLfHm/BW353.png (https://postimg.cc/34FbNBNx)

https://i.postimg.cc/bvrKqfy1/BW354.png (https://postimg.cc/FftPxqJK)

And while there's a lot of improvement and optimization to be done...

Soon.

https://i.postimg.cc/85yfnkjL/BW344.png (https://postimages.org/)

https://i.postimg.cc/VsVbq6y8/BW346.png (https://postimg.cc/pyKTxPXG)

Not a lot of text for this week, but that's all for now. Thanks for joining us.

AzureSkies

11-20-19, 01:01 AM

Hello again, everyone.

Work continues on the environmental aesthetics, and I'm glad to say the clouds have drastically improved since last week, both in quality and optimization.

https://i.postimg.cc/GtQb78Zd/BW366-B.png (https://postimg.cc/GT4092L5)

https://i.postimg.cc/ncCWwQ82/BW365-B.png (https://postimg.cc/vcwX4TZx)

Just to make it clear there's lots of possible cloud coverage levels, just most of these screenshots have more to show off the new graphics.

https://i.postimg.cc/fybcyX7r/BW365b.png (https://postimg.cc/phgh1m6f)

https://i.postimg.cc/bv7Ysjxc/BW367.png (https://postimg.cc/zLkYc620)

https://i.postimg.cc/dtjhpD87/BW368.png (https://postimg.cc/PPNf8XVh)

Also, like the sun, the moon is now correctly positioned for the date, time, longitude and latitude, and also has the correct phase for the date.

A full moon can look almost as bright as daylight.

https://i.postimg.cc/Z5YWSZcw/BW369.png (https://postimg.cc/ZCgb8GXN)

But of course, at a different phase, it's far less bright.

https://i.postimg.cc/zXZh496Q/BW370.png (https://postimg.cc/HjzjyPp0)

And of course, given the environment of the game, being fully 3d/fly-through is a must.

6,000 feet:

https://i.postimg.cc/Gp58KNvq/BW373.png (https://postimg.cc/Tyn3Yt7D)

15,000 feet:

https://i.postimg.cc/KjXKSMqT/BW372-B.png (https://postimg.cc/ygP60kz6)

30,000 feet:

https://i.postimg.cc/HsgJ6b7D/BW371-B.png (https://postimg.cc/xq6TCJRt)

And... 90,000 feet. This is actually higher than the S-300F Fort was rated to be able to engage targets, but I brought it up this high just to showcase the sky appearance from A-12/SR-71-type altitudes:

https://i.postimg.cc/VLphyLm8/BW374.png (https://postimg.cc/tYdkWbsS)

Like the ocean, the cloud system is subject to constant tweaking and improvement, especially with regards to its very high-altitude aesthetic.

Environmental details and aesthetics like this are one of those things that are easy to take for granted when done well, but very apparent when they're not.

But another reason I'm putting so much work into this particular aesthetic is so that at some point, dynamic weather and weather zones can be implemented, which will effect things like sonar, radar, aircraft flight, flight deck operations, missiles, ship speed, etc.

It's particularly worth noting to that end that the Juliett-class submarine, showcased early in this thread and a submarine built around firing anti-ship cruise missiles, can only fire its missiles in conditions up to sea state 6. This, as an example of a significant way weather effects play aside from the more obvious ways like reducing sonar range/sensitivity.

I will note, though, that as soon as the high-altitude appearance is done being set up, work will resume on more mechanical/gameplay-oriented code.

That's all for now, thanks for joining us.

EnjoyableSTIG

11-23-19, 12:56 AM

Man, this game just looks better and better! Sign me up for the beta!

Sung

11-23-19, 10:33 AM

Excellent! :up:

FPSchazly

11-26-19, 09:08 AM

Game is looking nice, I'm enjoying following this.

You have described some very complex fragmentation behaviour.

IIRC, one of the big concerns regarding point defence weaponry such as Phalanx intercepting Soviet high-speed missiles, like Kitchen and Sunburn, is the fact that fragmentation and ballistic effects of destroyed missiles. Will those effects be simulated within the game?

If I may, I think what Herman was asking here is that if a Kitchen, for example, is "destroyed" by a Phalanx, i.e., no longer works as a missile anymore but was blown up close enough to the ship such that its fragments still have a large amount of kinetic energy and could still impact the ship, would the effect of a destroyed missile's fragments impacting the ship be modeled?

AzureSkies

11-26-19, 09:10 PM

Game is looking nice, I'm enjoying following this.

If I may, I think what Herman was asking here is that if a Kitchen, for example, is "destroyed" by a Phalanx, i.e., no longer works as a missile anymore but was blown up close enough to the ship such that its fragments still have a large amount of kinetic energy and could still impact the ship, would the effect of a destroyed missile's fragments impacting the ship be modeled?

Thanks!

Given this has been requested twice now, I'll definitely have to bump up the priority. As it is, a system of complex missile damage is already partly modeled - to the extent that bullets will sometimes (or oftentimes, depending on the missile) merely damage the missile instead of destroying it altogether.

I think I have some ideas on how to implement it more fully. Could also even incorporate the frag model to make even small pieces capable of causing damage to crew or stored helos if they retain enough energy after penetrating the hangar.

Weekly update to come momentarily.

AzureSkies

11-26-19, 10:33 PM

Hello again, everyone!

https://i.postimg.cc/qqLNJtVn/BW380.png (https://postimg.cc/FkYrGHKs)

To start with, a new ship - sort of. The Azov is a modified Kara, so we finally have another Kara-class without the S-300F Fort (NATO name: SA-N-6 "Grumble") modification.

https://i.postimg.cc/prGPcKM0/BW375.png (https://postimg.cc/XB5MpGJF)

https://i.postimg.cc/8PcpJXLx/BW376.png (https://postimg.cc/rK6X7Jn9)

Here we see in the aft, instead of the battery of 5V55R missiles and a 3R41 Volna (NATO name: TOP DOME) radar, it's a dual rail M-11 Shtorm (SA-N-3 "Goblet") with a 4R60 Grom (Head Lights) radar director.

Also note the quintuple torpedo racks (PTA-53).

https://i.postimg.cc/y8S7nJQP/BW377-quints.png (https://postimg.cc/87N8zCVJ)

On the Azov, besides replacing the rear SAM system, the direct torpedo capability was also reduced due to reduced deck space, replacing the two quintuple launchers with two dual launchers.

https://i.postimg.cc/J7P7hCHb/BW378-doubles.png (https://postimg.cc/grLbM5DJ)

A side-by-side view makes the Azov's (top) unique modifications more apparent.

https://i.postimg.cc/Zqt4QTXh/BW379-dangerclose.png (https://postimg.cc/fVKGthwH)

Other changes: high-altitude appearance. Seen here is the view from about 90,000 feet:

https://i.postimg.cc/HnGwc8hh/BW381.png (https://postimg.cc/2bwbgymQ)

With slightly more cloudy weather:

https://i.postimg.cc/L5zzz6d6/BW382.png (https://postimg.cc/Lg8YSS6r)

And a view from the altitude of a low-passing spy satellite altitude at around 220 km:

https://i.postimg.cc/MT4CcwVG/BW385.png (https://postimg.cc/WFGWKQ9R)

And finally... For missions especially far north such as in the Barents Sea, or near the Bering Strait or Alaska, sometimes the sun's weather reaches across the 98 million miles of space to touch the Earth's Thermosphere:

https://i.postimg.cc/cL7QKJRD/BW384.png (https://postimg.cc/v4B1kbS9)

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us. Until next time, clear sailing.

longface

11-27-19, 05:14 PM

Great work, looks wonderful! One thing to add: at low earth orbit, I believe that the lower atmospheric limb becomes visible as a sort of blue haze climbing into space. It would be wonderful to see that modeled!

Edit: I see that it's already there to some extent, but it's not all that apparent.

FPSchazly

12-02-19, 10:28 PM

Damn, those northern lights are pretty cool :up:

BungoJungo

12-03-19, 11:14 AM

Really excited for this, it looks great! Appreciate the updates :yeah:

AzureSkies

12-04-19, 12:24 AM

Hello again, everyone,

Much of the work recently has been clearing up programming debt (ie, debugging and optimizing) and code not quite ready to show off, but there is one thing ready to show off: improving the high-altitude visuals with respect to the Earth's atmospheric haze is relatively easy, so here's some update on that.

If you find pictures of Earth from the ISS (and make sure it's not a narrow field of view or high-exposure picture) you'll realize the haze is actually very narrow from orbital altitudes.

280 km.
https://i.postimg.cc/fWPHsGGX/BW386-280km.png (https://postimg.cc/Btx5cVQQ)

From high endo-atmospheric altitudes, it's considerably more visible. After all, this is more than 3x closer to the ground.

This kind of altitude may be relevant for things like ballistic missile interception.

80 km.
https://i.postimg.cc/Gt7LHL1k/BW392-80km.png (https://postimg.cc/H8MDNCnx)

And going down to the service ceiling of the U-2 or SR-71/A-12 spyplanes or the MiG-31 (just a little higher than the MiG-25's service ceiling)...

80,000 feet.
https://i.postimg.cc/Vst7YGmV/BW387-80kft.png (https://postimg.cc/3WKj1ZyX)

Around the service ceiling of most aircraft, 50,000 feet.
https://i.postimg.cc/YqfbFv4N/BW388-50kft.png (https://postimg.cc/jL2H0d4C)

Familiar as a typical cruising altitude for long airline flights, 30,000 feet.
https://i.postimg.cc/FKqZvcqv/BW389-30kft.png (https://postimg.cc/v1r9L1b2)

15,000 feet
https://i.postimg.cc/xCzP18Dz/BW390-15kft.png (https://postimg.cc/gXGhMY0z)

and just above sea level.
https://i.postimg.cc/rFJNm7bQ/BW391-300-feet.png (https://postimg.cc/QHFTYYjT)

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us. Until next time, clear sailing.

AzureSkies

12-11-19, 05:38 PM

Hello again, everyone.

A day late, but not a dollar short... hopefully. Recent work has continued with more back-end code and implementing radar directors for SAMs. These are pretty important, placing somewhat significant limitations on the engagement and performance abilities of a system (such as some serious performance limitations when engaging enemies from multiple directions), as well as being the vulnerable target of Anti-Radiation Missiles such as the AGM-78 Standard ARM (the predecessor of the AGM-88 HARM, which wouldn't enter service until '85). Knock out a radar director, and the armament of missiles is useless - unless there's another the enemies could use.

https://i.postimg.cc/g2Y3NF8j/BW393.png (https://i.postimg.cc/GdDz3bpF/BW393.png)

The guidance simulation also has some interesting realistic effects - like for example, the effective range against a maneuvering target is going to be significantly lower than the effective range against a slower or less maneuvering target. So although the range of the Grumble may only be listed as 75 km, a helicopter may not be safe from even 100 km, and a fast and maneuverable jet will probably be relatively safe at 70 km (if it responds appropriately).

And when it comes time to simulate decoys and jamming, it's already halfway written and should work very realistically as well.

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us. Until next time, clear sailing.

Herman

12-11-19, 11:53 PM

Recent work has continued with more back-end code and implementing radar directors for SAMs. These are pretty important, placing somewhat significant limitations on the engagement and performance abilities of a system (such as some serious performance limitations when engaging enemies from multiple directions)
Once a target has been destroyed, will there be any delay in engagement of subsequent targets? Most games seem to make subsequent target engagement cycles virtually instantaneous.

So although the range of the Grumble may only be listed as 75 km, a helicopter may not be safe from even 100 km, and a fast and maneuverable jet will probably be relatively safe - if it responds appropriately - at 70 km.
Is an evasive manoeuvre by the target while the inbound SAM is still 70km distant a realistic tactic? I always thought that SAMs were more easily defeated if the target performed a sudden manoeuvre at a shorter distance so that the tiny fins on the SAM could not adjust quickly enough to follow the target. A distance of 70km would allow a SAM to follow the evasive manouevre and make corrections with relative ease. I do not know at what distance the 'sweet spot' might be, but it does not sound reasonable for it to be 70 kilometres.

AzureSkies

12-12-19, 01:01 AM

Once a target has been destroyed, will there be any delay in engagement of subsequent targets? Most games seem to make subsequent target engagement cycles virtually instantaneous. There will be a slight delay, the length of which depends on a few factors and how you've issued the orders.

Is an evasive manoeuvre by the target while the inbound SAM is still 70km distant a realistic tactic? I always thought that SAMs were more easily defeated if the target performed a sudden manoeuvre at a shorter distance so that the tiny fins on the SAM could not adjust quickly enough to follow the target. A distance of 70km would allow a SAM to follow the evasive manouevre and make corrections with relative ease. I do not know at what distance the 'sweet spot' might be, but it does not sound reasonable for it to be 70 kilometres. I edited the punctuation and ordering to make the intent a bit more clear.
So although the range of the Grumble may only be listed as 75 km, a helicopter may not be safe from even 100 km, and a fast and maneuverable jet will probably be relatively safe at 70 km (if it responds appropriately).

Though maneuvering even at long range can have rather detrimental effects on the missiles' performance, since any maneuvers the missile makes will take energy/cause drag. But the most effective maneuvers will be the ones that maximize the maneuvering of the missile. With the S-300F in particular (what this has been tested with) the missile receives midcourse guidance updates from the launch ship even before it's acquired the target with its own semiactive seeker, meaning maneuvering even at long range will cause it to lose energy by maneuvering in response.

Raptor_341

12-15-19, 12:40 AM

Following the project closely - Looks great. If you need any resources on NATO MPA, let me know and I'll see what I can find for you.

Off topic, any chance of seeing the Lun-class ekranoplan modelled, even as a single unit for later campaigns? I believe that would be a first.

Cheers!

AzureSkies

12-17-19, 11:32 PM

Hello again, everyone.

The best time of year is upon us. Nothing new is ready to show off as of the moment, and with next Tuesday being Christmas Eve, there won't be an update for then, and with the following Tuesday being New Year's Eve, the next update may not be until January 7th, or it may come a day early on December 30th to avoid coming on New Year's Eve - TBD.

But I look forward to showing off something real nice, whenever it comes. It should be ready, then, and she's a real beauty, too, and a bit surprisingly unusual for naval sims.

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us. Until next time, clear sailing.

AzureSkies

12-24-19, 06:54 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/mkpBjZsr/BW396-Merry-Christmas-wtext.png (https://postimg.cc/7JzFYkbv)
Excepting the text, of course, this was entirely generated with in-game graphics.

AzureSkies

01-09-20, 06:47 PM

Hello again, everyone!

Apologies for the late update. Tuesday night was rather eventful in terms of global geopolitics. But we're here now.

Today's gonna be something of a mini-highlight, with the first civilian ship to enter the roster: The Maria Yermolova-class passenger ship. Without weapon or aviation facilities, though, there's not as much to go over, hence the "mini" part of the "mini-highlight".

These ships really got around, being used for regional, arctic, and even antarctic cruises. They were used for both Soviet and foreign tourists. Eight of these were produced between 1974-78 as Project 1454, and about half remain in operation today.

Some sources claim they had a top speed of 12 knots, but more claim their top speed was 17-17.2 knots, depending on the ship. For Blue Water, they will be modeled with a top speed of 17 knots.

https://i.postimg.cc/FR8VVBg0/BW397.png (https://postimg.cc/BL5FqNzv)

The ship could provide quarters for 206 souls, with all passenger spaces being air conditioned and ten cabins even having folding children's beds. The upper aft deck had a restaurant that could seat 100, and the ship had an additional bar, cafe-cinema, music room with a bar, dance floor and bandstand.

https://i.postimg.cc/K88345tb/BW398.png (https://postimg.cc/MvgpFVs3)

In addition to the deck space for lounging, there were indoor spaces with large windows to serve the function of deck space when sailing in very cold weather.

https://i.postimg.cc/mrccy2d6/BW399.png (https://postimg.cc/7CkYxDrg)

One of these ships, the MV Lyubov Orlova was being towed to be scrapped in 2012, when the tow line broke sending it adrift. It became subject to some rumors of becoming infested with cannibal rats, but those were ultimately debunked.

https://i.postimg.cc/52KYzFmC/BW400.png (https://postimg.cc/YvgCK0Zr)

There are photos of them sporting different paint schemes, though with the lack of (correctly) dated photographs it's hard to ascertain exactly which ships sported what paint jobs when.

https://i.postimg.cc/nhd1Rrn4/BW401.png (https://postimg.cc/9D7TzWR0)

Civilian traffic poses complications - a radar contact may be a hostile ship or a cruise liner. Even for leadership who disregard the appalling collateral damage, sending an antiship missile salvo at a civilian ship would prove catastrophic, as the number of antiship missiles your task force carries will be limited compared to the enemy's interception, point-defense and decoy capabilities, meaning that not only for moral but also for tactical reasons, getting a VID on the target is absolutely essential.

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us, please feel free to discuss and comment below. We'll hope to be on-time and have more to show off next week. Until then, clear sailing.

AzureSkies

01-14-20, 07:47 PM

Hello again everyone,

Not much to show off this week - there's one new vehicle that's not quite ready for a full feature, but very close, so have this:
https://i.postimg.cc/fbCjDCqL/BW402.png (https://i.postimg.cc/fbCjDCqL/BW402.png)

Very short this week. Work continues. Thanks for joining us. Until next week, clear sailing.

PurpleCow

01-16-20, 09:21 AM

Great to see work progressing. The visuals and models are most excellent. Thanks for updating us.

Ruslan

01-17-20, 11:24 AM

I want to see what it will look like under water,submarines,bottom ocean's,changing transparency and the physical model sumbarines,how will the submarine be managed.Subscribed to the channel :up:

AzureSkies

01-21-20, 09:05 PM

Great to see work progressing. The visuals and models are most excellent. Thanks for updating us. Thanks and you're welcome! I have to thank the excellent modelers for really setting an extraordinarily high bar on the graphics.

I want to see what it will look like under water,submarines,bottom ocean's,changing transparency and the physical model sumbarines,how will the submarine be managed.Subscribed to the channel :up: As of the moment that part of the water system isn't developed, but from what I've seen there's really some excellent potential - however it goes, it'll have to match that high bar set by the asset artists.

Now, for our weekly update, I'm sorry to say a combination of an unexpected holdup with the new model and administrative work taking (albeit somewhat expectantly for this time of the year) an unusually high amount of time, there's not much new to show this week aside from some pretty minor graphical fine-tuning.

https://i.postimg.cc/C58J7mgk/BW403-Sprucan1.png (https://i.postimg.cc/PX3ctRV3/BW403-Sprucan1.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/Pfv6drwJ/BW404-Sprucan4.png (https://i.postimg.cc/jTZBQDqH/BW404-Sprucan4.png)

Until next time, thanks for joining us, and I think I've mentioned before, there's something nice I'm hoping to have ready either next week or the week after, and it's not even the aircraft.

Until then, clear sailing.

AzureSkies

01-30-20, 12:55 AM

Regarding this week's update, apologies for the delay again, but expect it tomorrow.

AzureSkies

01-31-20, 02:29 AM

Hello again, everyone!

This week I'm showing off the wonderful sky and weather system and the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod, MR.2 variant.

As usual, these are all in-game screenshots of course.

https://i.postimg.cc/J7cJ2m53/BW405.png (https://postimg.cc/BtbXjryt)

The Nimrod is the UK's Maritime Patrol Aircraft. While P-3 Orions were stationed in CONUS in enormous numbers, Nimrods were the quite capable UK equivalent.

https://i.postimg.cc/hthdvmWM/BW406.png (https://postimg.cc/bZcJFsv2)

Blue Water taking place shortly after the Falklands war, many MR.2s had just barely been upgraded with a fueling probe, extending their range to anywhere in the Atlantic and beyond, if needed.

https://i.postimg.cc/QdPWTMjD/BW407.png (https://postimg.cc/rD1m6MdZ)

With a rather spacious weapons' bay and the ability to carry up to 20,000 pounds (9,100 kg) of armament, it could carry a large helping of Martel ARMs, AGM-65 Mavericks, AGM-84 Harpoons, Mk. 46 or Stingray torpedoes, sonobouys, and even nuclear depth charges and depth bombs.

Also non-standard, but during the Falklands war MR.2s were equipped with AIM-9 Sidewinders.

https://i.postimg.cc/L5HqpY3t/BW408.png (https://postimg.cc/MMFZ0G4H)

Placing the engines inside the wings instead of in nacelles under them, the design is distinctly British.

https://i.postimg.cc/44571PXB/BW409.png (https://postimg.cc/vD4ZYWgV)

Lowering gear and flaps just to show...

https://i.postimg.cc/7hm5YHKp/BW410.png (https://postimg.cc/dZZs5YPB)

It has a maximum speed of 500 knots, and a typical cruise speed of 426 knots.

https://i.postimg.cc/YqC4DF9k/BW411.png (https://postimg.cc/V52LddnH)

Unsurprisingly for a turbofan design, it can fly quite high with a service ceiling of 44,000 feet, or 13,400 meters.

https://i.postimg.cc/YSWLfwSW/BW412.png (https://postimg.cc/xk9dnhMf)

https://i.postimg.cc/1t0g2cwR/BW413.png (https://postimg.cc/WF3bJZ5x)

https://i.postimg.cc/kXY2056S/BW414.png (https://postimg.cc/CzDMDS4M)

https://i.postimg.cc/CxZRSVkQ/BW415.png (https://postimg.cc/rDkVN3h1)

https://i.postimg.cc/t4LYgmzC/BW415b.png (https://postimg.cc/jD4sgc9G)

https://i.postimg.cc/NMxMpGv5/BW416.png (https://postimg.cc/7GfwLk6k)

https://i.postimg.cc/bJPrxDM7/BW415d.png (https://postimg.cc/d7WJv1J6)

https://i.postimg.cc/k5KDRFjN/BW415c.png (https://postimg.cc/rdyqvW2z)

That's all for today. Thanks for joining us. Be sure to comment below with thoughts, feedback, and whatever else you may want to suggest.

Until next time, clear sailing.

yachieku

02-05-20, 04:38 PM

AzureSkies

02-13-20, 10:50 PM

Wow!

Great job so far! As fan of Jane`s, DW, NWAC, GCB, and of course CW, I`m waiting for early access.

Few questions:

1. Would be a single player dynamic campaign? That was something I miss most in DW and NWAC.

2. Any details about damage model? (I mean, fire on board, subsystems failures, floodings, crew loss, etc.)

Thanks! Thanks for dropping by and the praise!

1. Currently planning on a strongly story-driven campaign with some highly dynamic elements such as persistent fleets, decisions having consequences down the line and ultimately shaping the fate of the war.

2. Fires and flooding are an absolute must. Might even include resulting cascade failures, such as fires spreading too far and setting off magazines, making them much worse (solid rocket fuels like APCP burn rather hot). Subsystem failures are also a must for ARM-type missiles to have any significant or useful effect, and it'd be rather odd if a hangar that's blown apart and on fire could still launch and land aircraft.

AzureSkies

02-13-20, 10:56 PM

Hello again, everyone!

Apologies for all the misses and delays, but there's been some good workings on the business side of things this week. There's some additional features I'd very much like to add before doing the next highlight, so our next one might have to wait a bit. I'll touch base again on the regular Tuesday evening, either way.

Until then, at least have this:
https://i.postimg.cc/nrZJfXQh/BW418.png (https://postimg.cc/7GBcgYVF)

That's all for today. Thanks for joining us. Be sure to comment below with thoughts, feedback, and whatever else you may want to suggest.

Until next time, clear sailing.

EXCELLION36

02-14-20, 12:45 AM

Thanks for dropping by and the praise!

1. Currently planning on a strongly story-driven campaign with some highly dynamic elements such as persistent fleets, decisions having consequences down the line and ultimately shaping the fate of the war.

2. Fires and flooding are an absolute must. Might even include resulting cascade failures, such as fires spreading too far and setting off magazines, making them much worse (solid rocket fuels like APCP burn rather hot). Subsystem failures are also a must for ARM-type missiles to have any significant or useful effect, and it'd be rather odd if a hangar that's blown apart and on fire could still launch and land aircraft.

Hello Azure,

Amazing work so far. This game certainly could become a cornerstone in the naval strategy segment.

I know you said that you are planning for a story driven campaign. But down the line, after the game is released, is there a chance to include a sandbox campaign as an option?

Thank you, you are creating an amazing project :).

Aktungbby

02-14-20, 01:48 AM

ECELLION36!:Kaleun_Salute:

AzureSkies

02-19-20, 04:37 AM

Just dropping a notice that the weekly update will be a day late this week.

Until then, I again feel like I owe at least a little something for the delay, so here's this:

https://i.postimg.cc/qRxfcy0h/BW428.png (https://i.postimg.cc/r8v8kNPJ/BW428.png)

Hello Azure,

Amazing work so far. This game certainly could become a cornerstone in the naval strategy segment.

I know you said that you are planning for a story driven campaign. But down the line, after the game is released, is there a chance to include a sandbox campaign as an option?

Thank you, you are creating an amazing project :). Thanks!

That's most definitely a possibility.

p7p8

02-19-20, 12:00 PM

Sverdlov class!
Nice screenshot :yeah:

AzureSkies

02-19-20, 11:29 PM

Hello again, everyone!

Those who know the Soviet Navy well recognized this ship - it's pretty distinctive as a very WWII-esque ship for the 80's.

Well, because it was designed right around that time.

Here it is, the Project 68bis, NATO designation: Sverdlov-class.

https://i.postimg.cc/ncr1CBcL/BW433-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/HVGMNJMG)

They were approved in 1947 and commissioned in '52. The three goals of the Soviet Navy at the time were defending the Russian coastline, developing a capability to operate out of naval bases anywhere in the world, and to hold control over the Arctic, Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Seas.

https://i.postimg.cc/C10N12zy/BW431-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/bG6bV3xL)

Commerce raiding and maintaining a political presence in the third world were only secondary goals of the ship design. But given its total lack of missiles of any kind, commerce ships became just about the only targets it could manage.

https://i.postimg.cc/VsDRfDwT/BW435-WM-B.png (https://postimg.cc/K43LQ7Rr)

Its guns and armor were formidable enough that it concerned British admirals, and ultimately the response to this ship and similar-sized large Soviet cruisers was the Blackburn Buccaneer, which could use toss bombing to put nuclear weapons on such ships from outside of range of their 37mm AA guns.

https://i.postimg.cc/RVYLfhNL/BW436-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/crQ3Gs7v)

Zooming in a bit to get some of the smaller details on the 37mm AA guns...

Although most sources don't seem to mention it, by the early 60s one source claims no Sverdlov ships had any of their torpedo tubes left (having been removed). I found a number of images from the 60s, 70s, and 80s of Sverdlovs missing their torpedo racks, and none with them, so so far I've taken this source as accurate, but adding them back in would be very easy if there's proof to the contrary.

https://i.postimg.cc/TwQrPYzm/BW437-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/S22XTqNN)

By 1983, aside from the command ship variant which were a small minority, almost half the fleet of Sverdlovs were still 68bis, while the other half were modernized with a large (8 total!) battery of AK230 point defense guns as the Project 68A. The 68A will be modeled for Blue Water soon.

Despite being gun cruisers, the rate of fire of the entire 12-gun battery of 152mm (6") guns could only put out a rate of fire similar to a Spruance-class destroyer, using modern loading mechanisms.

By 1983, the ships were mostly relegated to reserve status. Undoubtably, though, WW3 would have found use for them. Much like the US' Iowas, the guns were still useful for ground support. And while 6" guns are much smaller than 16", they're still much larger than 3" or even 5".

https://i.postimg.cc/XvffTgxs/BW438-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/7CLJz0Fz)

Furthermore, although the value of a WWII-era cruiser may seem even laughable in a modern theater, the large point defense batteries of the 68 A may be extremely useful, and even for the 68bis, its armor was extensive.

With a 100mm belt, 50mm deck armor, 150mm on the conning tower, and 175mm of armor on the turrets, and its large tonnage at 13,600-16,640 tons, it has the potential to shrug off far more punishment than all of its contemporaries except perhaps the Kirov, Iowas, and aircraft carriers.

For a class which still had 9 ships in reserve in 1983 (discounting the Pacific Fleet, which had 4 more), 3 of which were 68As, that's a very impressive level to be punching on.

https://i.postimg.cc/tT93yVMp/BW441-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/kVh6vDCp)

One thing to remember is in a prolonged engagement or campaign, missiles are very limited. Combined with SAMs of other ships in the fleet, decoys, and point defense guns (which the 68A has in troves), It's not impossible that the Sverdlov could endure to the point where enemy ships are forced into a kind of engagement they were hardly meant for - but that the Sverdlov was built for, and excels at.

Far faster than almost any transport ships (32 knots, able to keep up with modern battle groups at top speed) and with plenty of ammo where missiles are in short supply, the Sverdlov may prove to be surprisingly potent even in the age of missiles and jet aircraft, when the conditions are right, it's deployed alongside ships with competent air and submarine defense, and the commander is clever.

https://i.postimg.cc/zfZwtQwL/BW440-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/JsxBtP2m)

I look forward to seeing how commanders make use of it, given I think it's likely it may endure the missile exchanges. It being just a knot or two slower than warships will make using its guns difficult and require intelligent positioning, or even other clever tactics to impede hostile ships' paths. But it certainly gives NATO commanders a conundrum on where to place their missiles, given the 68 may be able to tank quite a bit of damage, and the 68A may turn out to be a missile grinder, but they're certainly not ships you want to leave floating when all harpoons have been expended, and armored belts may make a joke of RIM-66s and 5" guns.

Add in how most transports can only manage half its speed, and in the right circumstances, it may prove useful as a commerce raider even in the early 80's.

https://i.postimg.cc/JzBcQ8XV/BW439-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/WdTk2QSX)

Thanks for joining us, as always, feel free to comment, ask, and discuss below, and until next time, clear sailing.

Phaeton

02-20-20, 01:53 AM

A very beautiful model indeed! Looking forward to try it in the sea. Keep up the great work, AzureSkies!

longface

02-21-20, 01:16 PM

Looks great! I remember in Cold Waters it was always fun to encounter one of those, since they had zero anti-submarine capability whatsoever. But deployed as part of a Soviet ASW carrier task force would probably serve as excellent point- and area-defense assets.

AzureSkies

02-25-20, 10:08 PM

Hello again, everyone,

Not quite a vehicle highlight or a weekly update, this week's weekly update is about a vehicle update.

The Project 68A is here.

And a small correction: the point defense guns added are not AK-630s, but AK-230s. They each have roughly half the rate of fire of an AK-630, but otherwise have very similar performance characteristics.

The other most visible modifications are the expanded bridge space and the added ESM suite on the rear structure.

https://i.postimg.cc/kG97h2v7/BW445-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/ygQqDYGG)

https://i.postimg.cc/bv7ykCGD/BW446-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/2qxNfx7r)

https://i.postimg.cc/zvjqmqxK/BW447-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/Fk7M3X5H)

Last two have the exact same angle repeated with the 68BIS and 68A:

https://i.postimg.cc/0Q78fYmt/BW449-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/1n5hRNv6)

https://i.postimg.cc/8CJkFQCg/BW448-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/XZW6hPFs)

Work continues. Thanks for joining us, until next time, clear sailing.

longface

02-26-20, 08:04 PM

Can someone tell me more about what the 68-A is? I'm having trouble finding information about it, only about the 68-bis.

Martes

02-27-20, 01:54 PM

Just to point out - the forward flags are harbor-only, they would never sail with them.

Aktungbby

02-27-20, 04:25 PM

Martes!:Kaleun_Salute:

THEBERBSTER

02-27-20, 06:27 PM

A Warm Welcome To The Subsim Community >Martes
Subsim <> Make A Donation <> See The Benefits <> Support The Community (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2027002&postcount=1)
SH3 – 4 - 5 Tutorials > Downloads > Other Useful Information > See Links in My Signature Below

AzureSkies

03-05-20, 08:10 PM

Hello again everyone,

apologies on the late update. Non-trivial announcement, though, that these will probably become bi-weekly, meaning every other week. I'll try to drop in on the off-weeks to respond to questions or comments even if there's just one or two.

I'll also try to post Tuesday morning (morning for USA time zones) for this week's. It'll have a little extra something, so look forward to it.

Can someone tell me more about what the 68-A is? I'm having trouble finding information about it, only about the 68-bis. Information on Soviet ships is a bit more scarce than NATO ships, and the Sverdlov in particular seems to be scarce on info. Effects of the iron curtain still seem to linger to today.

All I can say that's true for all ships designated Project 68 A is they were modifications of the 68bis that started in the 70's enlarging the bridge area and adding the 8 AK-230 CIWS guns. I believe there were also ESM suite upgrades. But the Soviets tended to have a habit of modifying ships on a ship-by-ship basis even worse than the US did, meaning different ships received different ESM and radar upgrades, even within the 68 A designation.

One of the best examples of this Soviet inconsistency though is how the Azov differs very significantly from the rest of the Kara class cruisers.

Another example is how the Project 68bis had 5 different subclasses from the main class:
1. The 68 A as discussed,
2. Project 68E: the Dzerzhinsky was modified to use a mid/long-range liquid-fueled SAM (M-2 Volkhov-M, NATO designation: "SA-N-2 Guideline"),
3. Project 68U1: a command ship modification, the Zhdanov had a turret removed to make room for extra accomidations and electronics, 4 AK-230 guns installed and a short-range 4K33 "Osa-M" SAM system installed.
4. Project 68U2: the Senyavin had all of those same modifications, but had an additional turret removed to make room for aviation facilities for a helicopter.
5. Project 68ER: the Admiral Nakhimov had a KSShch (NATO designation: "SS-N-1 Scrubber") AShM system installed in place of both forward turrets.
(all of that is just on Wikipedia)

Dzerzhinsky was relegated to reserve status relatively quickly. The liquid fuel was extremely dangerous for use on a ship, especially a ship that might take damage (hypergolic fuels are a real nightmare).

68ER was decommissioned very quickly, its modification being deemed a failure. It was decommissioned in 1960, while the next ship of Project 68 wouldn't be decommissioned until 1986.

You can get the full, enormous list of modifications and dates here (http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_68bis.htm).

Though the US would on rare occasion make comparably significant changes to their ships, they would usually designate the ship as its own class in those events, such as with the Truxtun and Bainbridge "class" ships, which were single-production nuclear-powered variants of the Belknap and Leahy-class ships, respectively, and arguably the Bainbridge had far less significant modifications than many Project 68 subclasses as its armament was unchanged.

Biggest exception to this would be modernization programs.

Though perhaps the mess of modifications on the Sverdlovs makes more sense when one considers they held a similar place to the Soviets as the Iowas held to the US: old ships with great symbolic value that the navies wanted to modernize to keep relevant and commissioned.

Even the Iowas had much more consistent armament, though.

Just to point out - the forward flags are harbor-only, they would never sail with them. Thanks for the input! I'll be sure to change things to be accurate, then. Do you know of any good sources that summarize the various naval flag traditions? I've found sources that list the meanings of many signal flags, but there's lots of contextual knowledge like this that's more difficult to come by.

Martes

03-06-20, 03:04 PM

Thanks for the input! I'll be sure to change things to be accurate, then. Do you know of any good sources that summarize the various naval flag traditions? I've found sources that list the meanings of many signal flags, but there's lots of contextual knowledge like this that's more difficult to come by.

The ensign regulations are confusing and different for various navies, but as a general rule the ensign on the stern and the jack are flown only on anchored ships in harbor and only in daytime, while underway they either show no ensign at all or fly it from the mast.

BTW, I will duplicate what I have written in Sea Power thread - since it's as relevant here - Will there be any options for non-combat interactions? Like capturing/inspecting/redirecting neutral or suspicious ships, picking up survivors from ships damaged or sunk, downed pilots, etc? When trying to play in heavily modified Cold Waters with a surface ship I encountered a reoccurring problem of damaged subs that blow it and surface, and straightly killing them feels wrong from all perspectives - and unlike a submarine you can't just ignore them.

johnbla

03-06-20, 08:28 PM

Sorry to ask, but will this be released this year? My credit card is waiting.

Raptor_341

03-09-20, 12:57 PM

What is your current intentions for the campaign, insofar as the backstory and objectives? If the first area of operations is going to be the Black Sea and the Med, is something along the lines of this to be expected (Operations in the Black Sea and Bosporus)?

http://northernfury.us/blog/post24/

Cheers,

Raptor341

AzureSkies

03-10-20, 10:53 PM

The ensign regulations are confusing and different for various navies, but as a general rule the ensign on the stern and the jack are flown only on anchored ships in harbor and only in daytime, while underway they either show no ensign at all or fly it from the mast.

BTW, I will duplicate what I have written in Sea Power thread - since it's as relevant here - Will there be any options for non-combat interactions? Like capturing/inspecting/redirecting neutral or suspicious ships, picking up survivors from ships damaged or sunk, downed pilots, etc? When trying to play in heavily modified Cold Waters with a surface ship I encountered a reoccurring problem of damaged subs that blow it and surface, and straightly killing them feels wrong from all perspectives - and unlike a submarine you can't just ignore them. Thanks for the input - I'm looking over many reference photographs again with this awareness and notice it now. It'd be a shot in the dark, but perhaps they fly the flag from the mast if they're a flagship for the Soviet navy, and if they're a formation/group leader for the USN? It's either that, something close to it, or even more circumstantial it looks like.

And yes. One of the reasons I chose the Sverdlov as one of these first few ships is because it offers a variety of gameplay experience. Pure combat can get a bit repetitive, so operations like that have been a plan from the very start, specifically with ships and aircraft leaving behind survivors to pick up.

Also it's an annoying and old trope in games that enemies never surrender. Zateyev may refuse help from USN warships during peacetime, but WWII U-boat incidents are probably a better reference for wartime encounters.

Sorry to ask, but will this be released this year? My credit card is waiting. I sure hope so!

What is your current intentions for the campaign, insofar as the backstory and objectives? If the first area of operations is going to be the Black Sea and the Med, is something along the lines of this to be expected (Operations in the Black Sea and Bosporus)?

http://northernfury.us/blog/post24/

Cheers,

Raptor341 The premise is a Soviet pre-emptive strike, believing that Able Archer 83 was a cover-up for a NATO first strike. As such, the Soviets would be making a limited counterforce strike around November 7th-10th, 1983.

At that time, there were two carriers operating in the Mediterranean, off Beirut, to support operations in Lebanon: CV-67 USS John F. Kennedy (only ship of her class, a non-nuclear Kitty Hawk variant) and CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (Nimitz-class). Notably, the USS New Jersey was also present at the time, and the only Iowa-class active until the USS Iowa was recommissioned on the 28th of April '84.

November 7th would be barely a week after the end of Operation Urgent Fury. With the distance involved, and the USS Independence arriving off Beirut on November 18-20, The CV-62 USS Independence (Forrestal-class) would've been underway somewhere in the mid-Atlantic en route to the Mediterranean.

It seems at the time the Slava was probably in port in the Black Sea, judging by US National Archive photographs showing it deploying to the "Northern Fleet Area" in August, and more photographs of it taken in the Mediterranean in September.

So that's the setup. Given the presence of USN Carriers in the Mediterranean and their immediate ability to launch nuclear attacks, as well as their strategic importance in a conventional war, they would make tempting targets for the opening salvos.

Campaign is awhile off, but one of my biggest aims with it is to make it highly fluid, with the player's actions having significant consequences beyond mere success and failure, with many possible branching storyline paths based on decisions made during normal gameplay, such as effectiveness/losses, success, and ruthlessness.

AzureSkies

03-11-20, 12:49 AM

Hello again, everyone!

First off, I'm glad to announce the opening of a Blue Water Discord server: https://discord.gg/NK7D4Zy
Feel free to join, ask questions, discuss, lounge around and post memes, just use the right channel.

And for today's more regular update, a small feature for the RUR-5 ASROC.

The RUR-5 started development not as the ASROC, but as the RAT (Rocket Assisted Torpedo). But before it became operational in 1961, it was renamed the ASROC (Anti-Submarine ROCket).

78 Gearing-class destroyers were modernized with it, and many ships featured the ASROC's characteristic Mk. 16 8-celled "box" launcher with 4 independently-elevating dual tubes.

It could also be fired from Mk.10 and Mk.26 dual rails.

https://i.postimg.cc/tT7rZQ9d/ASROC1-BW451-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/62JVgP2T)

Sources vary somewhat with range, but a close average seems to be around 820 meters minimum and 16 km maximum (900 yards to 10 miles).

The system was solid-fueled and fired at a fixed launch elevation.

https://i.postimg.cc/FRqT0WKM/ASROC2-BW454-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/N968cxmD)

By 1983, units were the Mod 4 or Mod 5 variants, carrying either a Mk.46 torpedo or a nuclear depth bomb with a W44 warhead with a yield of about 10 kT, respectively.

Pictured here is the Mod 5 variant. Understandably, it seems incredibly difficult to find any sources on what the W44-armed depth bomb looked like. Only one source even listed its name as a "Mark 17 Depth Bomb (W44 Warhead)", but I've found no other references to a Mark 17 Depth bomb.

Knowing US practice, though, I wonder if it wasn't visually almost identical to the Mk. 46...

https://i.postimg.cc/Mpxd0jWp/ASROC3-BW453-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/jLgHt2wp)

Now showing the Mod 4, Mk.46-loaded variant.

https://i.postimg.cc/Df9CZMHs/ASROC4-BW460-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/SjGL1DyN)

The list of ships that carried this weapon system includes the Bleknap, Leahy, Bainbridge, Truxtun, and California-class cruisers, the Farragut, Charles F. Adams and Spruance-class destroyers, and the Bronstein, Garcia, Brooke and Knox-class frigates, making it almost even as - and perhaps even more - prevalent in its era than the 5" gun.

Also, since all the RUR-5A variants could fire from the same launch systems, this made all of those ships nuclear-capable.

https://i.postimg.cc/3xB9tJRC/ASROC5-BW461-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/SnnWs4cJ)

After booster burnout, it would separate and fall away.

https://i.postimg.cc/qBhbpTb4/ASROC6-F1-BW463-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/c6WMcVGb)

At a predetermined point in the flight path, the remaining aerial structure would separate. At this point, if it were the Mod 5 nuclear depth charge variant, it would free-fall, hit the water, shattering the protective nosecone, sink to a predetermined depth and detonate.

https://i.postimg.cc/C5qm7GBz/ASROC7-F2-BW465-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/WqsGbJ7v)

But with the Mod 4 Mk.46 Torpedo warhead, it was a bit more complicated - a parachute was released to slow the descent and water entry to a lower speed. On entry, the protective and aerodynamic nosecone would shatter, absorbing some of the impact energy.

https://i.postimg.cc/CLbcf4p2/ASROC7-F3-BW466-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/cr4RpwH7)

Once in the water, the torpedo would power-on and begin a search pattern looking for sonar signatures to engage.

Thanks for joining us today. Feel free to comment and discuss, leave feedback and questions, and join the Discord. This is its public opening, so don't be surprised if not much has happened there yet.

Until next time, clear sailing.

AzureSkies

03-24-20, 07:10 PM

Hello again everyone,

It looks like a lot of the discussion moved to the Discord server. That's not too surprising, but as a result, we didn't have anything to reply to last week here in this thread.

This week, though, is another update week. And wow how crazy things have gotten in a relatively short period of time. Fortunately I was somewhat prepared already, but I like to try to stay one step ahead of things. The last two weeks have seen a lot of my time and energy taken to making sure friends and family are set to ride out the storm, whether it gets better or worse. That, and completion of the models highlighted recently means there's nothing much new to update on.

However, in addition to being prepared for the worst, it's also a very good idea to be prepared for the more likely case that life goes on as (relatively) normal. As such, work will resume, probably at an accelerated pace, late this week if not sooner.

What an interesting year, eh? Lots of fun memes wondering what April has in store since every month so far just seems to escalate. Fighting Skynet next month sounds fun.

At any rate, it's good to prepare for the worst that you reasonably can, but not at the cost of becoming too unprepared for life to carry on as usual.

Don't spread misinformation - check your sources, think critically from a position of trying to disprove rather than confirm hypothesis, since we as humans have a strong confirmation bias. Trust established science rather than uninformed intuition. Look at data, not anecdote. When it comes to exponential curves/growth, the current value means very little since exponential curves explode very quickly, so rely on the proven science for that sort of thing, not intuition. Exponential models have been extremely accurate thus far.

If I were to skipper a boat, I'd trust the nuclear techs to run and assess the reactor, not my intuition.

If you're cruising in a warship and hear an explosion - Observe, Assess, Decide and Act. You'd gather reports and try to assess while preparing damage control for the worst. Panic sinks ships but rationality designs and builds them, and allows them to complete their missions safely. This isn't all that different. Ask not what others can do for you but how you can best help others stay afloat - that's a great mindset for overcoming fear.

But if you're here and reading this, I trust you're a smart bunch because not everyone likes learning about realistic, technical systems and playing involved strategy sims based around their complex mechanics, so you got this. Go forth and research. Most of you will be fine but you probably know someone who'd be playing a game of Russian Roulette to catch it - mostly the elderly, immunocompromised/unhealthy, and especially smokers, as that makes the lungs much more vulnerable. But even healthy young people are at a small risk - it happens, so stay safe.

I remember someone joking once on these forums that if you wanted a realistic subsim experience of operating a Typhoon or Ohio-class sub, then you should sit in front of your laptop for days, patrolling and doing nothing. Well, if you're in those risk groups, it might be a good time to get a truly realistic boomer patrol experience.

Next update I hope to have some new shinies to show off as game development continues. Or pictures of the destroyed scraps of a robot army I fought off, if April sees fit to gift us with such an experience. Keep Calm and Carry On - be prepared for the worst, but also prepared for the best.

Until next time, clear sailing after this red sky at morning.

w33m4n

04-03-20, 04:52 PM

Hey Subsim folks
and

thx for the words AzureSkies,

someone should reply them to Captain Brett Crozier :(

back to topic: this game looks awesome, sounds like you know alot about all this stuff and maybe served by yourself:salute:, discovered this highlite and now i had to register here ;)

so time to wait until we can preorder or put it on our steam wishlist.

AzureSkies

04-14-20, 09:59 PM

Hello again everyone,

Sorry to say there's nothing to show off for weekly updates this week, but thanks for dropping by if you're reading this. Development continues.

Hey Subsim folks
and

thx for the words AzureSkies,

someone should reply them to Captain Brett Crozier :(

back to topic: this game looks awesome, sounds like you know alot about all this stuff and maybe served by yourself:salute:, discovered this highlite and now i had to register here ;)

so time to wait until we can preorder or put it on our steam wishlist.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear. Can't say I served, only that 20th century maritime engineering, the Cold War and its associated strategy, tactics and engineering; and physics have all been long-time interests of mine, which makes developing this game a real treat.

AzureSkies

05-05-20, 08:30 PM

Weekly update coming a day late tomorrow, but we got a shiny new thing I'm looking forward to showing off. See ya then!

p7p8

05-06-20, 02:58 AM

Keep up good work. im waiting on your game more than any other title. :salute:

AzureSkies

05-07-20, 12:11 AM

Hello again, everyone!

This week our newest addition is another USN vessel. The last ship that was added was the Sverdlov-class Soviet gun cruiser - and to break up the Soviet streak a little, we're now getting a USN Cruiser - the Belknap class.

https://i.postimg.cc/Jny8VRbk/BW468-Belknap1-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/47Tqpk2f)

It was a tough pick between the Belknap, Leahy, and Virginias. But ultimately, the Belknap won out, as it was slightly more numerous in the US Atlantic fleet than the Leahy, far more numerous than the Virgnias, and the single Mk.10 dual rail, as opposed to two dual rails, would make it a bit easier to balance in designing encounters.

While still limited by the curvature of the Earth due to being a Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) SAM system, it boasts a considerable improvement over the Oliver Hazard Perry class'es Mk.13 launcher due to its ability to launch not just RIM-66 SM-1 MRs, but RIM-67 SM-2 ER's.

https://i.postimg.cc/vH7sdq63/BW471-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/vMkHfC8F/BW471-WM.png)

Two AN/SPG-55 radar illuminators make it possible to guide two RIM-67 missiles simultaneously to separate targets. The internal magazine carried 40 missiles.

https://i.postimg.cc/yYCHt4WD/BW472-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/z5VGLqrF/BW472-WM.png)

The Mk.10 Mod 7 launcher could also fire RUR-5 ASROC missiles, so the internal magazine carried 20. Given the number of nuclear-tipped ASROCs produced, I wouldn't be surprised if the typical number of these that were armed with a nuclear depth bomb instead of the conventional Mk.46 torpedo was around 2-4.

https://i.postimg.cc/HWym6sWG/BW473-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/LSys6nrs/BW473-WM.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/5yLMypK9/BW474-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/GLS3M5kD/BW474-WM.png)

Further back on the ship, three different weapon systems occupied the same space as the superstructure. A Mk.32 three-tube torpedo launcher sits underneath a platform with Mk.36 SRBC chaff/IR decoy launchers. Note that here on the port side, the Harpoon launcher sits on its own platform significantly fore of the port Phalanx CIWS gun, while on the starboard side, the Phalanx is fore of the Harpoon launcher and they share the same area. It's an interesting detail of an asymmetric design.

Below, the harpoon launcher is shown with two of its canisters fired.

https://i.postimg.cc/Gmqn44KD/BW476-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/9cjmNTqL/BW476-WM.png)

But, as always, while torpedoes are a good backup for how little deck space they take, and ASROCs are nice, the true best weapon for ASW operations is the aviation facility.

And finally on the stern end, a Mk.42 5" naval gun. Although a much older weapon than the Mk.45 gun, it boasts almost double the firing rate at 34 rounds per minute. It was designed for 40, but frequent failures during Vietnam led to modification of the design. A reliable 34 is better than a very unreliable 40.

It could fire a range of different ammo types from HC Mark 41 Mod 0 to SP Common Mark 42, each of which could be fitted with proximity, timed or point fuses - it could even use RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectile) Mark 58 rounds for a range up to 30 kyds.

The Belknap-class ships carried a magazine with up to 600 rounds.

https://i.postimg.cc/52xM9BB1/BW478-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/L2P4Tvhq/BW478-WM.png)

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us.

Until next time, clear sailing.

https://i.postimg.cc/0QLs9hfH/BW480-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/wqBTQpsH/BW480-WM.png)

Caseck

07-19-20, 11:01 AM

Looking forward to this title.

Furia

07-24-20, 03:03 AM

Whoa !!!! I have missed this announcement!!

This looks awesome !. Jane‘s Fleet Command was one of my favourite naval sims of all times and I have been missing something like this for years.
I have not found an equivalent in CMANO, great game but the lack of graphics and the time mechanics „realtime vs pause“ have not hooked me with it.

I am really looking forward for Blue Water and I will buy it the minute it becomes avalaible.

:Kaleun_Salute:

I have enjoyed reading the narrative to describe the scenario before Third world war including Andropov letter.
Your attention to detail will ensure this is a great success.

AzureSkies

08-11-20, 09:54 PM

Hello again, everyone!

I know it's been awhile. Definitely way too long. Just letting everyone know the project's still going strong, and the lack of updates does not reflect a lack of progress.

Most substantive updates first; the development is going to take a bit more of a sim-oriented direction, focusing on giving the player a deeper level of control over their own platform, though command over multiple platforms or definitely be retained, it will be secondary to the much deeper level of control over your own ship.

If you want an idea of the sort of experience I'm envisioning, Destroyer Command is probably a lot closer than Fleet Command or Battlestations: Midway, with stations and direct operation of weapons systems, in addition to being able to issue orders to a few other units who will operate largely autonomously. So the majority of gameplay should be between stations on your own vessel.

So, that's important to note.

Continuing about updates, while large parts of what's been done since last update aren't easily shown, like helicopter flight physics, other parts are, like the great progress in environmental visuals.

The modelling side has also seen a great new addition, and I definitely owe that modeler a highlight on his great work. So new vehicle highlight will be coming along next week.

And maybe something really nice that I'm looking forward to a week after that. It's a relatively small touch but one that goes a long way in the feeling of immersion.

But I'm long overdue to show some of the progress that's been going on, so without further adieu,

https://i.postimg.cc/sx9pM1Xr/BW539-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/XjtxDC6p/BW539-WM.png)

Maybe should've done more contrail work before releasing these two, but the environment was simply too gorgeous to keep hidden away.

One of the things I've always loved about flying is that up high enough - usually above about 10,000 feet or so - you get above the "pollution". Usually it's mostly water vapor from what I understand, but it looks like this thick fog with what seems like an almost solid surface, when you look at the top of it on the horizon. It gives you this feeling that the atmosphere is just this little pond the clouds float on top of. Above it it's clear and you can see hundreds of miles, out to the curve of the Earth, but below it visibility is severely reduced in the haze of the lower troposphere.

https://i.postimg.cc/k5BFTnjQ/BW534-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/TTc7Y1g4/BW534-WM.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/ZYrP7sLM/BW543-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/S4PZKwYk/BW543-WM.png)

This might seem excessively high - but as mentioned earlier, low-passing spy satellites and ballistic missiles can fly up at these kinds of altitudes (hundreds of km to ~1,500 km - and of course spy satellites go much higher, but tend to pass much closer to make observations).

And while coding realistic flight physics, I'm finding mid/long range SAMs like the SA-N-6 Grumble/S-300 Fort tend to apogee around 20 km/60,000 feet to make it to (even low-flying) targets at the edge of their range. Not to mention high-flying spy planes. Though the view from 60,000 feet is very different than the one from here.

https://i.postimg.cc/mgrQrLWv/BW545-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/fDc5By2R/BW545-WM.png)

And finally, where most of the external camera's time will be spent - the surface. I'm always tweaking and (hopefully, for the most part) improving the water system.

Some days it feels like I've just made it worse, though, and that's always frustrating to have to go back and spend a lot of time fixing it then trying to improve it again. But I think the end results of all that hard work speak for themselves.

These ships are stationary - water interaction is in the middle of some work right now. For now, though, these are to show off the water itself.

https://i.postimg.cc/bNpxK0CN/BW552-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/gd6gLN3R/BW552-WM.png)

https://i.postimg.cc/R0Nj5JCq/BW554-WM-B.png (https://i.postimg.cc/hKrgmVH8/BW554-WM-B.png)

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us.

Until next time, clear sailing.

Don't forget to join the Discord for more regular updates, conversation and feedback; https://discord.gg/9PAJPsC

sacasoh

08-14-20, 10:49 AM

Nice screenshots, been following this thread by a long time.

I don't know on what level of development the game is, but I believe you should already plan how you gonna release it or obtain funding: I mean like setting up a Indiegogo or Patreon, besides a discord server. A clear example in my mind would be "Gunner, HEAT, PC" a indie tanksim that, in many aspects, is analogous to your project. They are releasing some alphas to the their patreon backers, and getting suggestion and bug reports in their Discord.

Also, you sure know of some Microprose Projects like "Task Force Admiral" and "Sea Power" (this last one also a Cold War naval/aerial combat sim, but not unit foscused like yours).

I'm quite happy to know the direction you are going, as I believe that - realistic - your game would not stand a chance (salewise speaking) against Sea Power (multiple devs backed by a publisher, and a more "mainstream" focus). I believe you're going for something unique, and thus won't directly compete against them, probably even benefit from more exposure due to newcomers to the genre.

AzureSkies

08-18-20, 05:45 PM

Nice screenshots, been following this thread by a long time.

... Thanks. I had a very similar train of thought that's behind the decision to go a more sim-ish route.

The plan is for a Steam, and maybe a GoG release, and an Early Access well before the finished game.

I should have today's update up within the next few hours.

AzureSkies

08-18-20, 09:03 PM

Hello again, everyone!

Today, we'll be taking a look at T-AKR-287, the USNS Algol.

One of, if not the primary objective of the US Navy in the event of WWIII, would be to escort transports carrying munitions and men to the war in Europe.

https://i.postimg.cc/6q0d6kth/BW555-B-WM.png (https://i.postimg.cc/c1qThWzP/BW555-B-WM.png)

1983 was, with respect to transports, a very bad year for the US to be pulled into WWIII, as the transport fleet consisting largely of outdated ships of mostly WWII vintage, would, over the next few years, be replaced by very impressive new additions.

The USNS Algol was the first of these.

https://i.postimg.cc/wxc5kmLs/BW556-B-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/bdr2yd6z)

She was launched as a commercial ship in 1972 and delivered to Sea-Land Services, Inc. the next year. The idea was to use fast transports to make more trips in the same amount of time, allowing the company to do more jobs. However, this proved to not quite make up for the higher costs of running a faster and more modern ship, and ultimately, though the project succeeded at a technological level, it failed at a commercial level, and she was sold to the USN in October of 1981.

Then, from Oct. 13th 1982 to June 22nd, 1984, she underwent a series of modifications re-arranging the cargo decks into something more like a parking garage and adding cranes.

Given the outset of war, I imagine this might be done in a shorter time, but regardless, the Algol would not be ready immediately, but would likely take at least a few months before being deployed.

https://i.postimg.cc/TYdVN3JN/BW557-B-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/gr7Lnd53)

With up to 55,355 tons displacement laden and 29,692 tons at a light load, the ship can carry an amount of weight equal to the displacement of an Invincible-class aircraft carrier, and fully laden, has over 10,000 tons displacement over the displacement of a Kiev-class carrier.

She can carry over 700 vehicles and make way at 33 knots.

And at 946 feet (288 meters), she truly is a behemoth.

https://i.postimg.cc/2804sNHk/BW558-B-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/ppnhj4b4)

https://i.postimg.cc/B62Tk8zk/BW559-B-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/1n5VNzsr)

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us.

Until next time, clear sailing.

AzureSkies

09-02-20, 05:37 PM

Hello again everyone,

nothing quite ready to show off for... well, yesterday, hah. But I did want to drop by to mention work continues, and there's a little one-question survey up on the Discord server that you can see in the #game-dev-announcements channel. I'd like a few more responses before proceeding with some important work, so a little help there would be much appreciated.

Check us out at https://discord.gg/9PAJPsC

Onkel Neal

11-25-20, 12:34 PM

How's this project going? Any updates?

stay safe,
Neal

UglyMowgli

11-26-20, 11:45 AM

Still alive from what I read on the Discord channel but no new screenshot.

https://discord.com/channels/596062326851895327/596083054674575372

AzureSkies

02-02-21, 09:59 PM

Small update imminent to show off a new ship model!...

I got the whole thing just about written out when I noticed a small accuracy error that needs to be corrected on the 3d model, hah.

AzureSkies

02-10-21, 07:25 PM

I do love some high-altitude shots...

This one's from 33,000 feet.
https://i.postimg.cc/Kvm94PH7/BW594-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/QVngyTsV)

So here's that "imminent" update!

I sincerely apologize for the long silence!

Work recently has been in areas that have little to show graphically but are essential to making a functional sim - mostly framework in the code for handling elements essential to any naval sim, such as the wide range of possible weapon systems and their various behaviors, and making it possible to simulate truly vast areas at a time.

But, fortunately, there is something nice and graphical to show off - and that's some of the excellent 3d modelling work.

Joining the Juliett, Slava, Kara and Sverdlov for the Soviet fleet, is the Project 1135 Burevestnik, NATO designation, the Krivak.

https://i.postimg.cc/43yqy6n2/BW583-WM-B.png (https://postimg.cc/f34Bg0cY)

https://i.postimg.cc/L6SWLKn1/BW584-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/py0kMSQW)

Working our way back as usual, we start with the "hot dog pack" (From an old rhyme used to help memorize for identification, "Hot dog pack, Smokestack, Guns in Back — Krivak") - these "hot dogs" are URPK-4 missiles as part of the Metel missile complex, almost identical to the ones on the Kara-class ships, and also designated the "SS-N-14 Silex" by NATO.

However, as the Krivak lacks the HEADLIGHTS fire control radar (since it lacks the M-11 Shtorm (SA-N-3 Goblet) the Karas have), alone, it cannot datalink with its Silex missiles to change their behavior in-flight as the Karas can.

https://i.postimg.cc/pVz7mXXv/BW585-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/RqCG8mHp)

https://i.postimg.cc/wTkGkfmb/BW586-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/fJJCzv5x)

Behind it is an OSA-M (NATO: SA-N-4 "Gecko") launcher providing short-range air and point defense, and behind that, two RBU-6000 antisubmarine rocket launchers. Up on top of the bridge sits the MPZ-301 Baza (NATO: "POP GROUP") fire control radar for the OSA.

https://i.postimg.cc/527KhXpB/BW587-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/DSGcsy90)

A fairly standard load on most Soviet ships of the time, the Krivak also carries two 53cm torpedo racks capable of carrying dual-purpose torpedoes. Also note on the platform behind them and far above them, sits the POP GROUP fire control radar for the rear OSA-M launcher.

https://i.postimg.cc/bvZVpqFK/BW588-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/yJzyTCKP)

And here's the stern OSA-M launcher, just forward of two dual AK-726 guns, capable of 45 shots per minute each. Although guns aren't exactly the primary armament of a modern warship, it is an interesting side-note that this means the Krivak-class frigate has twice the broadside gun firepower as a Kara-class cruiser.

https://i.postimg.cc/jjBgjBpC/BW589-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/B8ccY7QG)

And on the Krivak-II configuration (1135M / Burevestnik-M), the two AK726 turrets are instead replaced with two AK100 guns. Larger caliber, half the number of guns (though they have a higher rate of fire, but not nearly double) - but greater range.

https://i.postimg.cc/JnJTHP8x/BW590-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/ZBbP1PCv)

That's all for now. Thanks for dropping by! Be sure to comment and/or join the Discord, I'm far more frequently on there. https://discord.gg/9PAJPsC

Until next time, clear sailing.

https://i.postimg.cc/rwFYZ1Gy/BW591-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/vckzc6SC)

https://i.postimg.cc/KcPqZqJv/BW592-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/gr0qsKCf)

https://i.postimg.cc/rsNQQsKt/BW593-WM.png (https://postimg.cc/p5yfd2Q2)