Patch Suggestions (Monitored by Sonalysts)

[Dr.Sid]

I'd like to request AA shells for the 76mm gun. Presently, you can engage air-targets with the gun but it's useless, you can't hit the broadside of a flying barn if it was doing a flyby.

The shell-selection should be done automatically, based on the type of target you're trying to engage. If I'm not mistaken, the loading computer in RL takes this into account too. The AA shells should only be used to attack airborne targets and if possible, should be fitted with a proximity or timed fuze which is also set by the loading computer based on target-speed, ballistics and time of flight of the grenade.

Thanks in advance,
Leon

Maybe this could be made in LWAMI ?

[LuftWolf]

I'd like to request AA shells for the 76mm gun. Presently, you can engage air-targets with the gun but it's useless, you can't hit the broadside of a flying barn if it was doing a flyby.

The shell-selection should be done automatically, based on the type of target you're trying to engage. If I'm not mistaken, the loading computer in RL takes this into account too. The AA shells should only be used to attack airborne targets and if possible, should be fitted with a proximity or timed fuze which is also set by the loading computer based on target-speed, ballistics and time of flight of the grenade.

Thanks in advance,
Leon

Maybe this could be made in LWAMI ?

I think my chances of being able to do this are pretty low to zero... sorry. :oops:

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

It's been said before, but now that a new patch is out it's worth repeating:

GET RID OF WEAPON-TRUTH!!!

I wouldn't want to get rid of it totally, its a nice bit of eyecandy, but the option to turn it off (for missiles and broken wire torps) in the dangerouswater.ini would be nice.

[Molon Labe]

It's been said before, but now that a new patch is out it's worth repeating:

GET RID OF WEAPON-TRUTH!!!
I wouldn't want to get rid of it totally, its a nice bit of eyecandy, but the option to turn it off (for missiles and broken wire torps) in the dangerouswater.ini would be nice.

I was thinking more along the lines of a filter option. But anything that gets rid of it in the game is fine by me.

[fatty]

For the amount of times I've thought to myself "damn! I wish I could shoot that airplane with my cannon!" as a jet screams past my lowly frigate, I don't know if it's necessary to go the length of including a whole new set of ammunition. Perhaps the gun could be adjusted to simply have an improved chance of striking aircraft. But I think the SM-2 and CIWS suffice for AAW.

[Dr.Sid]

For the amount of times I've thought to myself "damn! I wish I could shoot that airplane with my cannon!" as a jet screams past my lowly frigate, I don't know if it's necessary to go the length of including a whole new set of ammunition. Perhaps the gun could be adjusted to simply have an improved chance of striking aircraft. But I think the SM-2 and CIWS suffice for AAW.
I looked into the doctrine .. it seems platforms use ammo number 1406 and 1407 to attack incoming missiles. CIWS uses ammo 1411, but that is different doctrine file.
So .. if some platform has ammo 1406 or 1407, it will use it attack incoming threats (missiles). It seems 1406 stands for medium range and 1407 for short range AA ammo. It seems that it would be simple to add the ammo to FFG guns. There are 4 ammo slots per gun, and FFG only uses one slot.

I'll test it, but please somebody with more experience (Luftwolf :|\\ try it too.

PS: just jump to Launchers config, select FFG 76mm, and select 1406 and 1407 ammo (both named 'Guns').

Edit: oh .. I'm stupid .. this of course will only affect AI FFG. For player this can't be used at all.

[LoBlo]

Hi again Sonalyst. A problem came up in the Mission Design Forum

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=414292&posted=1#post414292

It would be nice if an effect could be removed from a platform with a script. As it is now, an effect can be added by script (explosion, fire and smoke, water pume), but it cannot be taken away (from what I've seen anyway, if there is a way to do it, maybe someone can clue me in).

For some missions it would nice to add the fire/smokeeffect to the controlled ship (OHP, MH60, P3), but it can't be removed once there so it really can't be used. Perhaps a time limit or a "remove effect" script option can be added.

thanks,
lb

[Fearless]

I would like to see an option giving the capability of selecting the Sonar Station and assigning my headpones to listen to the sounds whilst the other stations sound files are going through the normal speaker system.

[ASWnut101]

Is that even possible?

[Dr.Sid]

Is that even possible?

Not unless you have 2 sound cards.

[desertisland]

It can be done by assigning sonar and FX to different channels, one left and one right. Each source can be then be split to play normally on your headphones and speakers. They will be mono sounds -- no distinction between left and right.

I believe none of the FXs in DW need to be in stereo as there's no first person perspective as in the bridge in SH3. Neither is there a fixed relation between the player and the sub's orientation -- e.g., your right isn't necessarily the starboard. Sonar sounds are mono, of course.

[major_upset]

New model for the Typhoon. The stock one is to short and ugly.

A new sound for the ping (ESM I think)... one that dosn't make your ears bleed :dead:

[ASWnut101]

The Typhoon model got updated in one of the LWAMI mods. Check them out at www.subguru.com (http://www.subguru.com)

It's in the downloads section, I think.

[major_upset]

The Typhoon model got updated in one of the LWAMI mods. Check them out at www.subguru.com (http://www.subguru.com)

It's in the downloads section, I think.

Just DL'd it... Now that's a Typhoon! :rock: Just got to get used to the Akula's 65cm torp's not having wireguidence :arrgh!: Cheers.

[moose1am]

For those that don't want to see the truth all they have to do is turn it off for either single player games or for multiplayer games. No harm no foul! If you host a multiplayer game you can turn off the "Show Truth" feature and if you join a game that the host setup with show truth on you can leave the game and refuse to play that host's game if he insists on turning the show truth thing on.

For the rest of those that are trying to learn the game and want to check if their TMA solutions are working leave the Show truth as an option that can be turned on or off at will

That should not hurt anyone. :know:

[QUOTE=Molon Labe]It's been said before, but now that a new patch is out it's worth repeating:

[ASWnut101]

The Typhoon model got updated in one of the LWAMI mods. Check them out at www.subguru.com (http://www.subguru.com)

It's in the downloads section, I think.

Just DL'd it... Now that's a Typhoon! :rock: Just got to get used to the Akula's 65cm torp's not having wireguidence :arrgh!: Cheers.

If your pissed about the TLAM performance, than pick up the 3.08 version of the LWAMI mod at this ---> LINK (http://www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/LwAmi_308_Full.exe) <---


(These are updated almost on a "every other day" basis, so check in often!)

[Molon Labe]

For those that don't want to see the truth all they have to do is turn it off for either single player games or for multiplayer games. No harm no foul! If you host a multiplayer game you can turn off the "Show Truth" feature and if you join a game that the host setup with show truth on you can leave the game and refuse to play that host's game if he insists on turning the show truth thing on.

For the rest of those that are trying to learn the game and want to check if their TMA solutions are working leave the Show truth as an option that can be turned on or off at will

That should not hurt anyone. :know:

It's been said before, but now that a new patch is out it's worth repeating:
If that was supposed to be a response to my post, the excised and relevant portion of it was 'get rid of weapon truth.' Weapon truth is not an option like show truth. This cheat is permanently enabled.

[major_upset]

The Typhoon model got updated in one of the LWAMI mods. Check them out at www.subguru.com (http://www.subguru.com)

It's in the downloads section, I think.

Just DL'd it... Now that's a Typhoon! :rock: Just got to get used to the Akula's 65cm torp's not having wireguidence :arrgh!: Cheers.

If your pissed about the TLAM performance, than pick up the 3.08 version of the LWAMI mod at this ---> LINK (http://www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/LwAmi_308_Full.exe) <---


(These are updated almost on a "every other day" basis, so check in often!)

My gripe about the TLAM was "pre-LWAMI"

[Delareon]

Hi Sonalyst,

please work on the physic modell on the next patch.
I got the following problem:

i was attacking a couple of ASW Frigates.
I launched my Torpedoes and a few moments later the Frigates shoot Back.
Then i used the following Voice Commands:
"All Ahead Flank!"
"Right Full Rudder"

i waited a few moments until my bearing was about 120 degrees

then i used the command
"make your course 180"

and then the party began.
The boat doesnt stop turning.
I passed 180 degrees without any effect,
i used the "Rudder Amidships" Command without any effect,
i ordered a speed of 9 knots and repeated again to set course 180 without any effect just the speed was working correctly.
after exactly 3 (in words three) complete 360 degree turns
the movement stops.

So please do something on that physics or whatever helps to avoid this.......

[ASWnut101]

That sounds more like a microphone/sound issue, not nessecarily a physics messup. Still strange that it happened.

[Delareon]

No thats no Microphone/Sound issue because the crew always repeats my orders
and a look at the helm station tells me that they try to execute the order.
Seems like that only happens if u drive at higher speed.
When the speed goes down the orders work.
When i tell the Crew to set a specific Course after the Full Rudder Command
they try to fill it but then the ship passing the right course and i got a "steady on Course...." message but the ship is still turning and doesnt stop turning only if i ordered low speed and then a new course.

[ASWnut101]

...odd.

[LoBlo]

I'ld like to reiterate my suggestion below, that a non-linear, sound vs speed model for the game would be a nice upgrade to the sonar model. Given that noise production is not a linear process and improving the noise modeling to a nonlinear model would be a logical "next-step" in improving the sound model... an essential "next step" even, please consider it. Of note, however, my original suggestion of modeling it by:If engine speed < x then enginenoise = 0
If engine speed > x then enginenoise = engoinenoise_at_max*percent engine speed
Totalshipnoise = baselinenoise + enginenoise


was incorrect as it would not only produce a new slope to the speed vs noise, but would also produce a "jump" in the noise source (similar to cavitation). I think the more accurate way to produce the effect would be


If engine speed < x then enginenoise = 0
If engine speed > x then enginenoise = ( (max_noise / (maxspeed - x) ) *current_speed + 1 - x/maxspeed
Totalshipnoise = baselinenoise + enginenoise


(Forgive me if my math is still wrong). That way... placing 2 or more thrust on a platform with different "x" values would produce the variable slopes like the graph below. An initial noise vs speed slope until a certain value is reached then the slope increases... one could even place many thrust to approximate a quasi-exponential behaviorI think many would appreciate it. Thanks
Hi Sonalyst


One more thing that I'ld love to see in future additions to DW is an advancement in the ship noise modeling. It would be great to see shipnoise taken to the next level by allowing non-linear sound vs speed effects. Like the one shown below.

http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf_02.gif

From the looks of the current model it would be a relatively simple addition to the coding, probably just requiring some offest to the addition thrust noise. i.e.

If engine speed < x then enginenoise = 0
If engine speed > x then enginenoise = engoinenoise_at_max*percent engine speed
Totalshipnoise = baselinenoise + enginenoise

or something along those lines would allow a more stepwise approach to ship noise speed such as the one shown in the graph above. It would be a great addition to the sonar model. And one I think a lot of the game community would appreciate.

Thanks,
lb

[LoBlo]

Here's my total wishlist for future iterations of the sim.

LoBlo's wishlist version 1.01
1. Waterfall display for the Gepard AkulaII
2. Voice effect: Navigation verbal alert when a waypoint is reached such as "Waypoint reached, coming left to course xxx, helm aye."
3. Helms providing a voice feedback when a ordered depth is reach (identical to when an ordered course is reached). "Captain my depth is xxx feet."
4. Waypointing for sublaunched harpoon (as is already available for the OHP harpoon).
5. Nonlinear Speed vs Sound http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=498550&postcount=273 <--- favorite suggestion
6. More post-launch wire-guided torpedo control
7. Fix the "torps breaching the surface after passing a CM" bug

[goldorak]

I don't agree with the waterfall display for the akula.
If there is one thing the akula is superior to american subs is the sonar ssaz display.
That display gives situational awareness much more simply than a waterfall display.
Sure, you don't have a history but thats not very relevant, its much more important to have a good situational awareness in a contact rich environment and ssaz displays are second to none in that regard.
Waterfall displays are notoriously hard (if not impossibile) to interpret correctly with many contacts, and torpedos flying in the water.


Ssaz displays forever on akulas. :arrgh!:

[fatty]

I don't agree with the waterfall display for the akula.
If there is one thing the akula is superior to american subs is the sonar ssaz display.
That display gives situational awareness much more simply than a waterfall display.
Sure, you don't have a history but thats not very relevant, its much more important to have a good situational awareness in a contact rich environment and ssaz displays are second to none in that regard.
Waterfall displays are notoriously hard (if not impossibile) to interpret correctly with many contacts, and torpedos flying in the water.


Ssaz displays forever on akulas. :arrgh!:

History not relevant? Maybe not in your clunker of an Akula! By the time you detect your enemy, he already has a nice stack of dots on you :D

[goldorak]

History not relevant? Maybe not in your clunker of an Akula! By the time you detect your enemy, he already has a nice stack of dots on you :D

It depends on the skipper. :arrgh!:
Good experienced Akula skippers that do everything on manual (including TMA) aren't noobies that 688i or Seawolf's can sink without problem.
You make it sound like american skippers always have the initiative and the easy going part in the game, the truth is much more nuanced my friend.

It all comes down to what you are more confortable with.
I prefer the ssaz display even with the only downside being the absence of a History.
American subs maybe superior in sonar technology, but their arsenal is rather monotonous.
A good Akula skipper with the endless arsenal variatey at his disposal can make a hell of day for the blue side.

[TLAM Strike]

Why not the best of both worlds a Waterfall SSAZ like in 'SSN 21'? (Or was that game called 'Seawolf'?) Whatever I think Sonar732 mentioned his boat had one to me once...

[sonar732]

Why not the best of both worlds a Waterfall SSAZ like in 'SSN 21'? (Or was that game called 'Seawolf'?) Whatever I think Sonar732 mentioned his boat had one to me once...

That was the FRAZ display for NB.

[ZaPPPa]

Get rid of cavitation graphics at the propellor. All those bubbles floating around at 1/3 speed is highly unrealistic. It is exactly what the subs are trying to prevent.

Eye-candy, yuck!

[Molon Labe]

Get rid of cavitation graphics at the propellor. All those bubbles floating around at 1/3 speed is highly unrealistic. It is exactly what the subs are trying to prevent.

Eye-candy, yuck!

The cavitation graphics don't appear unless the sub is actually cavitating.

Maybe you meant to gripe about SHIV instead of DW?

[Dr.Sid]

Actually you can get bubbles at 1/3 in DW with currents on and strong current. That's why I suggest to turn currents off, they are simulated in a very poor way.
Since we are in suggestion thread, what about fixing the currents ? I guess it applies to winds too, but it's not such a pain there.

Just to clarify the problem: most speed dependent effects on sub should be related to speed against the water. When you order engine stop, sooner or later you should get zero speed against the water. Masts should not break, cavitation should not occur, even at 15kts current (I know it's too strong current IRL). In DW cavitation will occur and masts will break just as soon as you raise them.
Scope will also break for 3 kts current and ordered speed 8 kts if you go with the current (so your final speed is 11 kts, more then 10 kts mast-break speed). Cavitation too will occur depending on ground speed more then water speed.

[Molon Labe]

Actually you can get bubbles at 1/3 in DW with currents on and strong current. That's why I suggest to turn currents off, they are simulated in a very poor way.
Since we are in suggestion thread, what about fixing the currents ? I guess it applies to winds too, but it's not such a pain there.

Just to clarify the problem: most speed dependent effects on sub should be related to speed against the water. When you order engine stop, sooner or later you should get zero speed against the water. Masts should not break, cavitation should not occur, even at 15kts current (I know it's too strong current IRL). In DW cavitation will occur and masts will break just as soon as you raise them.
Scope will also break for 3 kts current and ordered speed 8 kts if you go with the current (so your final speed is 11 kts, more then 10 kts mast-break speed). Cavitation too will occur depending on ground speed more then water speed.

Agreed. This has been broken from the beginning, forcing us designers not to include currents in scenarios. From where we stand now, it might as well have not been included.

[micky1up]

i think i said it once before the sonar controller need to classify his contacts better for real even a low ranking operator can tell wether its a surface ship a whale or a fishing boat or a torpedo

[Linton]

Do the patches for SH4 seem to be coming out quicker than the ones for DW?Is this because there is more to fix in SH4 or are the developers better at addressing the problems?

[OneShot]

Do the patches for SH4 seem to be coming out quicker than the ones for DW?Is this because there is more to fix in SH4 or are the developers better at addressing the problems?

I'm not sure if there is more to fix in SH4 then DW ... I guess that depends on your point of view. Personally I would say there is definitly a lot more to fix in SH4, but certainly some will disagree with me on that.

Are those Devs better in adressing the problems? Who knows, but they certainly have more resources available to do the fixing. As was pointed out multiple times before - the business model of SCS and in this case UbiSoft is kinda different, not to mention the priorities they put on their products. Face it, DW is just a sidekick of the simulation SCS has developed for and is selling to its Goverment customers. Their priorities lie with that simulation and not with the commercial Dangerous Waters. And all the bitching in the world wont change that, because in the end they make a lot more and steady money from those customers than from us ... who paid just once.

Cheers
OS

[caymanlee]

1.04 has a lot of problem

DSRV doesn't work properbably, always floating

Subroc doctrine has an unaverage performance, sometime work, sometime not, force me to add some data in it, thus it can work

many details show error:damn:

remember and find out, I'll put them on, hope somebody care

[Dr.Sid]

1.04 has a lot of problem

DSRV doesn't work properbably, always floating

Subroc doctrine has an unaverage performance, sometime work, sometime not, force me to add some data in it, thus it can work

many details show error:damn:

remember and find out, I'll put them on, hope somebody care

Try LWAMI mod .. it fixes a lot (though not DSRV).

[caymanlee]

1.04 has a lot of problem

DSRV doesn't work properbably, always floating

Subroc doctrine has an unaverage performance, sometime work, sometime not, force me to add some data in it, thus it can work

many details show error:damn:

remember and find out, I'll put them on, hope somebody care

Try LWAMI mod .. it fixes a lot (though not DSRV).

I do using the latest LWAMI mod, that's the problem I find out

one more thing, in the latest LWAMI mod, the missile sea eagle missing a BMP picture for mod, I check it out, might be some mistake when it transform form the SCX mod

[UglyMowgli]

Can we have a real depth for the Bosphore strait? with a depth between 30 and 120m.

thanks.

[Molon Labe]

There are still some lingering issues with the designations appearing in DEMON. In an SP session today, I had contact S19 [Udaloy DDG] displayed as S17 on the DEMON (S19 could not have been there in any case, since no BB tracker was, or could, be assigned to it). Later, S17 [Delta SSBN] was tagged in BB for DEMON, and it appeared as M03 (formerly S19).

PS S17 later also appeared as M03 at the BB station as well (mousing over the contact).

[Castout]

Here's an improvement suggestion:hmm::

A fix to own weapon cheat at the weapon control station. Once wire is cut or when there is none the torp should not be displayed.

[TLAM Strike]

Can we have a real depth for the Bosphore strait? with a depth between 30 and 120m.

thanks.
I had an idea on that subject. Maybe add a feature like the current and wind zones but have it dreadge a channel. You set the depth and it cuts in to the terrain leaving water (or land) behind. :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

Can we have a real depth for the Bosphore strait? with a depth between 30 and 120m.

thanks. I had an idea on that subject. Maybe add a feature like the current and wind zones but have it dreadge a channel. You set the depth and it cuts in to the terrain leaving water (or land) behind. :hmm:

I love it!

[Linton]

How about we do what the SH4 community wanted to do-return the game because it is bug ridden and hope the manufacturer responds as Ubisoft has done!

[Sea Demon]

How about we do what the SH4 community wanted to do-return the game because it is bug ridden and hope the manufacturer responds as Ubisoft has done!

DW ain't broken like SH4 is. :-?

[Linton]

DW ain't broken like SH4.
So how do we as a community achieve the result that the SH4 community has with their game developer?

[Sea Demon]

DW ain't broken like SH4.
So how do we as a community achieve the result that the SH4 community has with their game developer?

That's a good question Linton. But it depends on what your objective is. What is it that you want from SCS at this point? I personally want to hear that they are either developing Fleet Command 2, or they are building an add-on or two for DW. Or at the very least...considering something for the future (1 or 2 years from now). And that means petitions/lawsuit threats/boycotts won't work. They have said in the past that the future lies in sales figures. Sonalysts is not Ubi. And if you want my honest opinion, I've gotten better results personally from Sonalysts than I ever got from UbiSoft. DW is a working, fully functional game. And has a great mod in LWAMI to go with it. SH4's future is up in the air at the moment.

[Dr.Sid]

DW ain't broken like SH4.
So how do we as a community achieve the result that the SH4 community has with their game developer?

We multiply .. :rotfl:

[Molon Labe]

DW ain't broken like SH4.
So how do we as a community achieve the result that the SH4 community has with their game developer?
That's a good question Linton. But it depends on what your objective is. What is it that you want from SCS at this point? I personally want to hear that they are either developing Fleet Command 2, or they are building an add-on or two for DW. Or at the very least...considering something for the future (1 or 2 years from now). And that means petitions/lawsuit threats/boycotts won't work. They have said in the past that the future lies in sales figures. Sonalysts is not Ubi. And if you want my honest opinion, I've gotten better results personally from Sonalysts than I ever got from UbiSoft. DW is a working, fully functional game. And has a great mod in LWAMI to go with it. SH4's future is up in the air at the moment.

Fully functional?
What about those jammers? AI aircraft? RAM SAM? Half the air defenses don't work without LW/Ami, and even with the mod some are still broken. The sim pretty much breaks down if a bunch of missiles are fired in MP. Oh yeah, and despite the importance of ASUW and AAW in DW, the physics model for everything not in the water is just sad.

[Sea Demon]

Fully functional?
What about those jammers? AI aircraft? RAM SAM? Half the air defenses don't work without LW/Ami, and even with the mod some are still broken. The sim pretty much breaks down if a bunch of missiles are fired in MP. Oh yeah, and despite the importance of ASUW and AAW in DW, the physics model for everything not in the water is just sad.

Yes, it is a functional game that is not broken. I didn't say it couldn't be improved. There are some things I would like also, such as I would like an sonar active intercept on my FFG-7, better SAM's, an updated database, etc. But broken?? I don't think so. I can play all the platforms as they were intended to be played without any real problems. In the subs I have no problem hunting ships or submarines. In the FFG, I have conducted AAW support missions, ASW screens, and have supported the ASuW mission nicely. And the FFG has no RAM sam. The game puts the SM-2 in it's place for gameplay. The air platforms seem fine as well. I have no problems finding surface platforms with ESM, Radar, or visually. Nor do I have serious problems finding and prosecuting subs using sonobouys, MAD gear, and torpedos. And FYI, I've never seen any PC game give 100% fidelity. As a PC game and naval combat sim, DW meets my needs just fine. Thank you very much. And the LWAMI mod just increased it's value significantly. I don't play MP, but what you describe there might be troublesome.

I don't know Molon Labe. I'm just not having any problems playing DW and enjoying it like you say you are.

[Molon Labe]

Fully functional?
What about those jammers? AI aircraft? RAM SAM? Half the air defenses don't work without LW/Ami, and even with the mod some are still broken. The sim pretty much breaks down if a bunch of missiles are fired in MP. Oh yeah, and despite the importance of ASUW and AAW in DW, the physics model for everything not in the water is just sad.
Yes, it is a functional game that is not broken. I didn't say it couldn't be improved.
You said fully functional. I notice now you've dropped the adjective. I take that as a concession. :smug:


There are some things I would like also, such as I would like an sonar active intercept on my FFG-7, better SAM's, an updated database, etc. But broken??
Are you saying that any of the specific things I mentioned function as they should?

...And the FFG has no RAM sam. The game puts the SM-2 in it's place for gameplay.
Where exactly did I say anything about a RAM SAM on an FFG?


I don't know Molon Labe. I'm just not having any problems playing DW and enjoying it like you say you are.
I'm enjoying it quite a bit, but it's still absurd to call a sim with non-functioning systems "fully functional."

[Sea Demon]

You said fully functional. I notice now you've dropped the adjective. I take that as a concession. :smug:


LOL. OK, whatever :D. I'm simply not going to argue with you over what functionality means to you, and how it differs from my POV. DW is fully functional to me as far as I'm concerned. Simply put, you're free to your opinion. But I don't think you can assign my level of enjoyment to the game or how I view it's functionality. I just don't see the things you list as major show-stopping problems for this game. Nothing to be considered broken at all, and things that may need minor tweaking. But in no way do they get in my way of operating my playable platforms in the environments they were intended to simulate in.

[Molon Labe]

I never called any of these things show stoppers. That's three times in this sequence you've put words in my mouth. Please stop.

Also, none of this is point of view, opinion, or anything like that. Take the RAM SAM example. When fired, the missile will fly in a straight line, passing its target without making any effort to hit it. This is because the missile's seeker is not functioning. Point of view has nothing to do with it; the missile is not functional.

Of course, LW/Ami fixes the RAM, but LW couldn't fix everything. He has tried to find a way, for example, to get the gun component of the SA-N-11+gun CIWS system (listed in the DB as CADS) to work, but didn't find a way. He did get the missile component to work, however, which was NON-FUNCTIONAL in stock DW. Again, not opinion, the gun really doesn't work, no matter what your point of view is.

[Sea Demon]

I never called any of these things show stoppers. That's three times in this sequence you've put words in my mouth. Please stop.
OK. I apologize. But I did not intend to put words in your mouth. It was a misunderstanding. I thought you were complaining about the RAM Sam, like it was a game-user interface or something. My bad on that. My point is that no PC game will ever give you 100% fidelity. There are always trade-offs. And DW is a game that is nowhere near broken. There is nothing stopping you from playing the user playable platforms in a way that simulates closely real world naval ops. Wanting added functionality/accuracy is one thing, calling the game broken is another. I do agree that there is room for improvements and still things that could use tweaking. This thread is helpful in that regard. But I don't consider the game broken or unplayable in anyway. DW is a fine product indeed.

I will no longer respond about this in this thread. The thread's topic is Patch Suggestions, and this conversation is not adding to the topic.

[Molon Labe]

I never called any of these things show stoppers. That's three times in this sequence you've put words in my mouth. Please stop.
OK. I apologize. But I did not intend to put words in your mouth. It was a misunderstanding. I thought you were complaining about the RAM Sam, like it was a game-user interface or something. My bad on that. My point is that no PC game will ever give you 100% fidelity. There are always trade-offs. And DW is a game that is nowhere near broken. There is nothing stopping you from playing the user playable platforms in a way that simulates closely real world naval ops. Wanting added functionality/accuracy is one thing, calling the game broken is another. I do agree that there is room for improvements and still things that could use tweaking. This thread is helpful in that regard. But I don't consider the game broken or unplayable in anyway. DW is a fine product indeed.

I will no longer respond about this in this thread. The thread's topic is Patch Suggestions, and this conversation is not adding to the topic. Well, if you're going to get one last one in before moving on, so will I... Especially as you have once again misrepresented my position. I didn't call DW broken. I called the broken parts of DW broken. The sim as a whole does a very good job at modeling everything that occurs under the waves. In fact, the only broken systems I can think of that relates to ASW are mines that lay on the sea floor and the RBU (both of which LW/Ami fixes). Well, those and the sub-launched missiles that occasionally completely malfunction. And currents. And Convergence Zones in shallow water. Maybe I should stop before I think of more....

I also disagree about the sweeping statement, "There is nothing stopping you from playing the user playable platforms in a way that simulates closely real world naval ops," seeing as it is that the physics system for missiles does not "simulate closely" anything, but is instead a gross abstraction--missiles have a fixed range and constant engergy state; no attempt is made to model the constantly varying engery state of the missile, its capacity to manuever at that engergy state, and the depletion of that energy as it manuevers (which determines its actual range). The abstracted model ends up being relatively OK for the interception of ASMs at long range, since the target is moving in a straight line and constant speed and the SAM doesn't need to maneuver much to intercept. But the model is nowhere near reality for any missile that has to turn or change altitude. For our purposes, this means that anytime SAMs are shot at fixed wing aircraft, a Maverick is fired at a helo, or any non-cruise ASM is fired, the model is very poor. The system is far too abstract to even attempt to model ASMs that perform evasive maneuevers before striking their target, nor attempts by SAMs to intercept them.

The radar model is also grossly abstracted, having a significant impact on the targeting of AAW and ASUW weapons and on how the seekers acquire/don't acquire their targets. (Just as an example, think about how a "soft kill" by chaff is modeled). Worse yet, the IR Maverick target acquisition sytem isn't even an abstraction; it's just wrong.

Quite simply, for anything above the waves, DW does not "[simulate] closely real world naval ops." Now, if you confined your statement to submarine warfare/ASW, then you'd be pretty much right. DW has evolved from two previous sims modeling that environment, and is quite sophisticated in that area. But DW still has a long way to go before it accurately simulates the rest of the battlespace.

...And now, I'm willing to quit taking up more space with this. :cool:

[LoBlo]

Will you guys quit trashing up the Suggestion Thread with that pointless bickering. That's almost a page and a half of meaningless quabble.:shifty: :nope:

Suggestions only please

[Molon Labe]

Will you guys quit trashing up the Suggestion Thread with that pointless bickering. That's almost a page and a half of meaningless quabble.:shifty: :nope:

Suggestions only please We've both already said that we've finished--3 DAYS AGO.
And I really don't care what you say about it. Whenever my positions are publicly misrepresented, I will respond in the same space. In any case, my posts in this sequence contain a $hit ton of issues in DW which should be fixed in the future, so they contributesto the topic anyway.

[TLAM Strike]

On PRC kilo "Crush Depth" is misspelled "Crash Depth" :oops:

That could use some fixing... :know:

[Castout]

On PRC kilo "Crush Depth" is misspelled "Crash Depth" :oops:

That could use some fixing... :know:

Now that's a smart suggestion.:rotfl:

[LoBlo]

Some things from SubCommand would be nice to see in DW. One is the speed vs depth modeling that SC had, where a subs top speed was more dependent on the Subs depth. The other is the wake effect for raised mast.

:up:

[Raskil]

As mentioned in another thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=118797) the towed array audio in broadband display isn't working if you play a multiplayer multi station game and the player at the sonar station doesn't have control over the ship control station as well. The members of taktik-sims.de (http://www.taktik-sims.de) would appriciate a fix for that.

Greets

Raskil

[Linton]

This thread has been running for TWO years and how much of what has been posted has been achieved?

[Tassaddar]

The performance of both ship and airborne AA guns needs to be seriously improved. It seems that regardless of the rate of fire indicated on the database, they fire only a shot or two, wait to check if they hit the target, then fire another, wait and so on, kind of saying "somebody gotta pay that ammo and it ain't cheap anymore so don't waste it"...

Sonalyst corrected this in the last patch of SC by allowing these platforms to fire their guns regardless of targeting constraits or something like that, so we know it is fixable. That would be a nice addition to a future patch...

[Dr.Sid]

The performance of both ship and airborne AA guns needs to be seriously improved. It seems that regardless of the rate of fire indicated on the database, they fire only a shot or two, wait to check if they hit the target, then fire another, wait and so on, kind of saying "somebody gotta pay that ammo and it ain't cheap anymore so don't waste it"...

Sonalyst corrected this in the last patch of SC by allowing these platforms to fire their guns regardless of targeting constraits or something like that, so we know it is fixable. That would be a nice addition to a future patch...

I guess LWAMI fix this but I'm not really sure. :o

[Tassaddar]

Hmm... I have to check it out. I have it somewhere on the hard drive but never tested it due to time constraints. I did my own tests tweaking both the database and the doctrine code but only achieved a slight improvement. It will be interesting seeing what solution was used to fix this.

Thanks.

[Molon Labe]

The performance of both ship and airborne AA guns needs to be seriously improved. It seems that regardless of the rate of fire indicated on the database, they fire only a shot or two, wait to check if they hit the target, then fire another, wait and so on, kind of saying "somebody gotta pay that ammo and it ain't cheap anymore so don't waste it"...

Sonalyst corrected this in the last patch of SC by allowing these platforms to fire their guns regardless of targeting constraits or something like that, so we know it is fixable. That would be a nice addition to a future patch...
I guess LWAMI fix this but I'm not really sure. :o

As far as I'm aware, LW's fixes for AI weapons employment centered around missile defense. That includes CIWS guns, but I don't think AA and naval guns in general were tweaked. Quite frankly, they aren't very important anyways... it's all about the missiles these days.

[Linton]

Saying that SCS monitor this topic and will do something about the issues raised is like me saying that I monitor the petrol burn of my wife's previous car and I will do something to improve it!!

[Dr.Sid]

Well they do monitor .. and they do nothing. New patch was not confirmed, not even talked about. Old patches was talked about and even beta tested for long long time.
Anyway sugestions are always interesting .. just don't hope much.

[Tassaddar]

Thanks; will test it this weekend. It will be nice to have at last some CIWS with real life firing rate.

I know AA and anti-missile defense it all about missiles nowadays and that DW is an ASW-oriented sim but anyways we should not underestimate the importance of AAA mounts and gun-based CIWS. For example, Italian ships don't have the typical high-rate-of-fire gatling guns as CIWS but instead uses twin Otto-Melara Fast Forty 40 mm guns linked the the DARDO system which provides for automated detection, tracking and engagement of missiles and aircraft, just like the FC systems of other CIWS.

Another good example is the ZSU-23-4 Shilka which, despite being a quite simple system with some important shortcommings, managed to destroy a great deal of aircraft during the Yom-Kipur war alone.

[TLAM Strike]

The performance of both ship and airborne AA guns needs to be seriously improved. It seems that regardless of the rate of fire indicated on the database, they fire only a shot or two, wait to check if they hit the target, then fire another, wait and so on, kind of saying "somebody gotta pay that ammo and it ain't cheap anymore so don't waste it"...

Sonalyst corrected this in the last patch of SC by allowing these platforms to fire their guns regardless of targeting constraits or something like that, so we know it is fixable. That would be a nice addition to a future patch...

I guess LWAMI fix this but I'm not really sure. :o

Oh the next verson of LWAMI should fix this. I told LW how to fix it and its a simple fix. The new guns will be nasty! :arrgh!:

[GrayOwl]

Why all manuals for games (688i; SubCommand), ordered after Launch of Missiles from under water, immediately to abandon area of launch for controlable sub? Because the helicopters always flied there where from under water there was a Missile.

In DW, the helicopter for some reason,does not fly there where the missile of water was started, and does not search for the one who has launch her??

The ship is ignored a point launch of a missile from under water - by he there never sends the helicopter.

this very funny.

[Tassaddar]

The performance of both ship and airborne AA guns needs to be seriously improved. It seems that regardless of the rate of fire indicated on the database, they fire only a shot or two, wait to check if they hit the target, then fire another, wait and so on, kind of saying "somebody gotta pay that ammo and it ain't cheap anymore so don't waste it"...

Sonalyst corrected this in the last patch of SC by allowing these platforms to fire their guns regardless of targeting constraits or something like that, so we know it is fixable. That would be a nice addition to a future patch...

I guess LWAMI fix this but I'm not really sure. :o

Oh the next verson of LWAMI should fix this. I told LW how to fix it and its a simple fix. The new guns will be nasty! :arrgh!:

Fantastic!!! :D Please, can you shed some light on what caused ships to not fire their guns as they should and how this can be fixed? I have been always very intrigued about this, did a lot of tests but never found anything conclusive :damn: ; I would really appreciate that.

[Molon Labe]

So here's a variation of a known bug.

I'm turning my boat when the Helo is launching, so the helo apparently smacks into the back of the hangar and blows up. No biggie, except my boat is no longer responsive at that point. Yes, it's the collision bug, I'm at 0% damage but the ship is ruled killed. Killed by bumping into a helo taking off. Sigh.

I got some amusement though, because as my undamaged boat picked up speed on its race to the bottom, the crew provided me with TA and Nixie failure messages. Then, as the boat approached the bottom, it imploded the way a sub would. Continuously. And loudly. For about 10 minutes.

Finally, I got the "she's lost" message from the crew and the boat dissapeared.

[Linton]

Yet another SHIV patch is on its way and where is the DW one?

[Dr.Sid]

Nobody said there will be one .. just for your info.

[Nightmare]

Dangerous water is almost pushing 3 years old. SH4 is still only 5 months old. Big difference at where these two products are in their patching cycle. Most games don't see much support past the year point. Sonalysts has stated in the past that they've had to move everyone off the development team to other more profitable projects. I honestly don't see getting another patch, however I wouldn't be too surprised if they are working on another game.

[Linton]

If there is not going to be a patch then what is the point of this thread?

[Dr.Sid]

Well this thread was created before patch 1.01, so it had a reason.
But we don't know for sure about those patches, and there also maybe new games, which will build on DW. It still gives sense to have this thread. But much less after last patch and. And expectations based on complains here currently gives no sense.

Also sometimes people complains about things solved in mods, and they can get their solution by unofficial 'patches'.

[SeaQueen]

How come Indian Kilos aren't playable? It seems like a no-brainer.

[TLAM Strike]

How come Indian Kilos aren't playable? It seems like a no-brainer. And India has an Akula now too. In missions I've just used the Russian ones.

[SeaQueen]

And India has an Akula now too. In missions I've just used the Russian ones.

That's what I do too, but I'm left thinking, "Damnit... when I play an Indian Kilo I want my crew to sound like they work in a Quickie Mart, not a take-out place!"

Thank you, please come again.

[XabbaRus]

Oooo deary deary,

New contact on bearing 030 sir,

I think he had a bad curry last night, maybe a vindaloo, there is an awful large amount of flushing...

BTW do we get poppadums tonight?

[Sonoboy]

I would like the ability to zoom in on high frequency tonals in narrowband.

[TLAM Strike]

And India has an Akula now too. In missions I've just used the Russian ones.

That's what I do too, but I'm left thinking, "Damnit... when I play an Indian Kilo I want my crew to sound like they work in a Quickie Mart, not a take-out place!"

Thank you, please come again. I think of it as having Russian "Advisors" in my crew.

If we really wanted to we could find some Indians and get them to record the dialog from DW and have a program that will swap the Russian voices and sub picture for Indian ones. Only problem is the weapon loadout and performance would still be the Russian one.

BTW I work in a take out place and no one there sounds like the Russian crew in DW dispite the fact one guy is named Sergei. :p

[To be]

The performance of both ship and airborne AA guns needs to be seriously improved. It seems that regardless of the rate of fire indicated on the database, they fire only a shot or two, wait to check if they hit the target, then fire another, wait and so on, kind of saying "somebody gotta pay that ammo and it ain't cheap anymore so don't waste it"...

Sonalyst corrected this in the last patch of SC by allowing these platforms to fire their guns regardless of targeting constraits or something like that, so we know it is fixable. That would be a nice addition to a future patch...
I guess LWAMI fix this but I'm not really sure. :o
Oh the next verson of LWAMI should fix this. I told LW how to fix it and its a simple fix. The new guns will be nasty! :arrgh!:

Sorry to bring up an old comment, but whatever happened to this? They don't seem fixed, and if there really is a simple way to get above the ROF limit, I would like to know. You don't mean the changing of the bullet to shell, do you?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I want spoken mission briefings back. Its not brilliant to have to read all that background story then proceed to a mission where you'll be waiting for a contact :p

[TLAM Strike]

The performance of both ship and airborne AA guns needs to be seriously improved. It seems that regardless of the rate of fire indicated on the database, they fire only a shot or two, wait to check if they hit the target, then fire another, wait and so on, kind of saying "somebody gotta pay that ammo and it ain't cheap anymore so don't waste it"...

Sonalyst corrected this in the last patch of SC by allowing these platforms to fire their guns regardless of targeting constraits or something like that, so we know it is fixable. That would be a nice addition to a future patch...
I guess LWAMI fix this but I'm not really sure. :o
Oh the next verson of LWAMI should fix this. I told LW how to fix it and its a simple fix. The new guns will be nasty! :arrgh!:

Sorry to bring up an old comment, but whatever happened to this? They don't seem fixed, and if there really is a simple way to get above the ROF limit, I would like to know. You don't mean the changing of the bullet to shell, do you? Go in to the DB and change the max round guideable to the same number as the rate of fire. If you still don't get the correct effect increase the rate of fire to something around 1,000.

I'll try and make sure this is included in the next verson.

[Kaye T. Bai]

So here's a variation of a known bug.

I'm turning my boat when the Helo is launching, so the helo apparently smacks into the back of the hangar and blows up. No biggie, except my boat is no longer responsive at that point. Yes, it's the collision bug, I'm at 0% damage but the ship is ruled killed. Killed by bumping into a helo taking off. Sigh.

I got some amusement though, because as my undamaged boat picked up speed on its race to the bottom, the crew provided me with TA and Nixie failure messages. Then, as the boat approached the bottom, it imploded the way a sub would. Continuously. And loudly. For about 10 minutes.

Finally, I got the "she's lost" message from the crew and the boat dissapeared.

That's exactly what happens to me; the newest DW patch doesn't fix it. It's more funny than annoying, in my opinion.

[Tassaddar]

The performance of both ship and airborne AA guns needs to be seriously improved. It seems that regardless of the rate of fire indicated on the database, they fire only a shot or two, wait to check if they hit the target, then fire another, wait and so on, kind of saying "somebody gotta pay that ammo and it ain't cheap anymore so don't waste it"...

Sonalyst corrected this in the last patch of SC by allowing these platforms to fire their guns regardless of targeting constraits or something like that, so we know it is fixable. That would be a nice addition to a future patch...
I guess LWAMI fix this but I'm not really sure. :o
Oh the next verson of LWAMI should fix this. I told LW how to fix it and its a simple fix. The new guns will be nasty! :arrgh!:

Sorry to bring up an old comment, but whatever happened to this? They don't seem fixed, and if there really is a simple way to get above the ROF limit, I would like to know. You don't mean the changing of the bullet to shell, do you? Go in to the DB and change the max round guideable to the same number as the rate of fire. If you still don't get the correct effect increase the rate of fire to something around 1,000.

I'll try and make sure this is included in the next verson.

I already found a way to correct this, though it is rather a bandaid since the whole sim needs to be remade from the beginning with an internal air / radar physics engine.

First set the max number of guidable rounds to match the desired ROF, check the use FC radar box for that gun/launcher; then adjust the number of "tubes" in the weapon to match the number of barrells the system has in RL (all the test I made so far have been with the the AK-630 M and the CADS-1 AO-18 gattling guns).

Then comes the difficult part, which is not all that difficult after all. Revise the platform's doctrine to make sure you use the command "firebest" to ignore firing constraints at CIWS effective range.

Go back the DB editor, and start checking the radar sensors. You will see radars are poorly modeled. The detection range and curves do not match the RL specifications (at least for the Fregat M and the Hot Shot, MR-145, 130, etc… fire control radars?) nor does the refreshing times. Adjust air search and FC radars detection ranges to RL values and then set the FC refreshing time to only 1 second (if you indicate zero they won’t work). Then multiply the number of FC radars in the platforms to match the radar system’s number of antennae in RL.

So far I have obtained impressive results in antimissile and air raid tests on Neustrashimmy, Udaloy and Kashin (the ones I have updated so far). In fact in several tests Udaloy was able to defend itself only with guns (just AK-630 and AK-100; SA-N-9 was disabled on purpose for the tests) and survive unharmed from an air attack carried out by five Mirage III while Neustrashimy with the awesome Kinzhal and Kashtan pretty much kills whatever you throw at them.

These results lead me to believe the weapon systems are now in fact overpowered but I think that can be fixed and fine tuned later when all the testing is done (either that or that we illiterate westerners long underestimated Soviet SAM and AAA capabilities). However it should be noted that I was using DW default doctrines and DB specs except in the aforesaid ships and their weapon and radar systems.

It should be noted as well that this have two drawbacks. One, you will run out of sensor slots in the DB as ships have redundant radar systems (it is not enough with just one system, i.e. if you have a Hot Shot radar at port and another one at starboard, you need to add two Hot Shot systems in the sensor slots, and so on). Second, application performance will quickly degrade, since processing all the radar input and output will take up a lot of resources. Sluggishness problems are quite evident running a test scenario with just a ship, a sub, a land platform and five mirages on air; anyhow this shouldn’t be a problem if you run this on a more modern machine than mine.