LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod [Archive] - Page 3?login=1

View Full Version : LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

Deathblow

10-30-05, 03:34 PM

Interesting... :hmm:

as a simple test perhaps increasing the mass of the ships by a factor of 10 to see how they respond. Would also make the math easier because I think that massess the game uses now are derived from RL stats.

EDIT: but then again 10x might be overkill.... :hmm: :ping:

Mau

10-30-05, 03:37 PM

Well again an OHP should no loose than 6-7 knots on a hard turn at 30 knots. So we have to change it for the best not for the worst. If we add drag.....
Propeller yes should be a better avenue, but you guys are the expert in changing things...

LuftWolf

10-30-05, 03:38 PM

We have to do it with mass, it looks like. About 3x appears to be sufficient, but we'll have to be very very careful with this and do a lot of testing for each individual platform, AI and playable.

Well again an OHP should no loose than 6-7 knots on a hard turn at 30 knots.

I don't understand, I'm sorry. Can you clarify that?

Mau

10-30-05, 03:48 PM

I put a post a bit earlier this week in that regards.

When you have the OHP making a hard turn at 30 knots now, the ship is slowing down up to 9 knots. This is unrealistic.
In a modern frigate when we are conducting a hard turn (30 degrees rudder) and we do a complete donut, (circle) the max we will loose will be 5 knots (so 30 knots to 25 knots)
With a single shaft OHP, we should not loose more than 6-7 kts (so passing from 30 kts to no less than 23 kts.
By this than a Torpedo Counter Measure manoeuvre wold than be more possible.

LuftWolf

10-30-05, 03:54 PM

3kts...

I have to be honest, that doesn't sound like a big deal.... but then again, I'm not a FFG driver usually, so I have to take what you say seriously. :-j

We'll definately look at it as part of the fix to the submarine acceleration/mass. :up:

Thanks for bringing it up for us! :up: :rock:

LuftWolf

10-30-05, 04:27 PM

Ok, I think I have to call off the mass-acceleration fix, unless you want flying SW's followed by minutes worth of occilation.

Sorry... I (and many others) tried and failed. SCS, you're our only hope. :88) :yep: :-j

LuftWolf

10-31-05, 09:39 PM

Molon,

I owe you an appology. Apparently, there is a randomized factor in the anti-missile behavior of the AEGIS ships. In testing the new CIWSAttack doctrine with the comments in a neater order, I noticed that sometimes the aegis ships do wait until they get posID before firing. This occurs in all missions run until I exit the game to desktop and reload it. And then, when I get a load where the ships engage at range, they do this for every mission I load until I exit the game again. This is most likely due to a the random seed generator used in the engine.

I can't believe I never saw this before, as I tested the doctrine many many times. So, the answer to our dilemna is that we were both right, and sometimes the ships wait and sometimes they don't.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this, but a little bit of randomness is ok I suppose, but it would be nice to have some control over it.

In any case, I'm sorry that I thought it had something to do with a difference in our testing procedures, I really should have seen this before, I can't believe I didn't.

Cheers,
David

LuftWolf

10-31-05, 10:05 PM

On second thought, it may have something to do with a random error in reading the CIWSAttack doctrine... I had a comment in a bad location and it may cause the error sometimes, but then I moved the comment to an even worse place and it caused the posID very very often, much more than with the other doctrine. I think once I lock down the right place to put it (it's only because I'm an idiot) it should work the way it was designed all the time.

However, my apology still applies... it's probably my fault. :yep:

Amizaur

10-31-05, 10:23 PM

Just add debugout comments everywhere in important places of doctrine and then with DbgView you would know EXACTLY what happens in doctrine, what is stateof all variables ect. The ship is NOT doing anythng "on it's own", if there is an order to fire it comes from the doctrine, if there is order to wait for ID it have to come from doctrine too. Analyze the doctrine and you'll know if there is ID needed or not. I don't know at the moment, haven't analyzed it about ID.

LuftWolf

10-31-05, 10:25 PM

Amizaur, exact same doctrine and exact same test scenarios, sometimes the ship wait and sometimes they don't.

I really don't know what's going on... even with the best version I could come up with for the doctrine, it's still happening sometime and not others. :-?

There must be some random factor in the ship engagement routines based on the seed number.

LuftWolf

11-01-05, 12:31 PM

Ok, I have sent 2.03 to Bill.

Here is the 2.03 addition to the readme:

LuftWolf and Amizaurâ€™s Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod v2.03
Hosted by www.subguru.com
Readme by LuftWolf
Edited by Amizaur

Amizaur has made a more substantial and significant contribution to the creation of this mod than me. Tgio has made a significant and direct contribution.

Thank you to finiteless, Ludger, and jsteed for their contributions to modding DW. Thank you to Bill â€œSubguruâ€ Nichols for hosting the work of so many talents modders and mission designers. Thank you to Molon Labe for extensive testing and multiplayer testing.

All doctrines by Amizaur.

The purpose of this mod is, straightforwardly, to address the aspects of DW game-play that most bother its authors, while improving the simulation experience and fixing bugs, without introducing any new ones. Thank you in advance for downloading this mod. Please send as much feedback as you can via the dedicated thread on the www.subsim.com mod forum, http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=41581&start=0.

INSTALLATION: Backup your stock Database and Doctrine folders by copying them to a safe place apart from your DW directory. Unzip the file into your Dangerous Waters directory, allowing your unzip program to overwrite all files. The Database and Doctrine files will install to the correct directories automatically. NOTE: Saved games created with one Database are not compatible with any other versions of the database, however, you can restore a previous version of the Database at any time to load saved games associated with that Database.

Note: This mod represents substantial changes to DW core game-play, and as such, will probably require fine-tuning in subsequent versions to particular values based on game-play experiences. However, such is the case precisely because, we feel, it represents a quantum leap towards bringing out the full potential of the massive and dynamic DW engine in terms of providing the feel of a quality simulation experience for both those new to the simulation genre and weathered deep blue warriors. Please send us AARâ€™s and comments in as great a quantity as you can! We would be especially encouraged to hear from players in the multiplayer community.

CAUTION: Missions designed for stock DW v1.01 maybe made unplayable by the greatly reduced detection ranges in this mod. We strongly encourage mission designers who enjoy the mod to support it by creating missions designed with these new realistic parameters specifically in mind. We plan on releasing a guide for mission designers along with the expanded charts and tables to assist you in this endeavor. Please let us know if there is *anything* we can do to help you design missions for our mod!

A Sound vs. Speed profile chart and new Ship, Sub, and Torpedo specification table will be released in support of this readme, to cover any specific changes to AI ships or weaponry (such as the complete listing of sonar parameter assignments) not covered in this document, however, I have taken to care to note the most important specific parameter changes to user platforms and weapons.

Specific changes for v2.03:

The installation procedure has been streamlined and the stock-mod switch bat files have been removed for ease of installation and operation.

CIWSAttack, SubAvoidWeap, Missile DoctrinesÂ¬â€” For CIWSAttack and SubAvoidWeap doctrines, comments have been moved to prevent error returns in the doctrine proofreader. This has not changed any aspect of game-play and has been done as a precautionary measure. The doctrines had been functioning correctly and should still work the same as before. For the Missile doctrine, a variable that previously was not declared has been added to the declaration list.

Iranian Kilosâ€”The UGST has been replaced with the USET-80 for all Iranian Kilos.

Active Interceptâ€”The baffle has been removed for all Active Intercept systems, giving them 360 degree coverage, as we believe to be accurate.

Enjoy! :rock: :arrgh!:

Cheers,
David

Fish

11-02-05, 02:26 PM

Two questions Sirs.
First, I understand the install/uninstall option is no longer there?
Second, did you lower the sounds of the Biologics?
Seems they have the same loudness as in the stock game.

LuftWolf

11-02-05, 04:50 PM

The biologics remain at the same sound level, but now they might show up more clearly on the Sphere and Hull arrays, since they are more sensitive now.

The single-click install/uninstall option is gone, however you can still load and unload the mod very simply by restoring your stock Database and Doctrine folders (just overright the Database and Doctrine folders you use when the mod is installed). To restore, the Mod, just unzip it again to your DW directory.

People reported install problems using the .bat files and it seems the complexity of the mechanism was preventing some players from using the newest version of the mod.

Amizaur

11-02-05, 05:19 PM

Those bats were only my temporary solution for easy install/uninstall, I hoped someone could write better ones or write simple installer.
I liked the bats because they worked so simple and here was even no need to remember at which mode game is currently, just click the option you need and you got it, I even wanted to improve them further. Hm but you guys were exiting the game before doing that ?? :-?
Well Hanu pointed to an universal mod enabler here and maybe it would be more reliable, I'll check it ! :)

P.S. Looks good, should work :) Tomorrow I'll try to redo 2.03 for Generic Mod Enabler and we'll try.

Fish

11-02-05, 06:19 PM

LuftWolf

11-02-05, 06:21 PM

Well, the whales and shrimp are set at 75 PSL, which is about as loud as a Han running fairly fast, only with no NB signature.

We'll probably reduce the PSL for these in the next version.

Amizaur

11-02-05, 07:41 PM

LuftWolf

11-02-05, 07:44 PM

I guess that depends on "how good it is." :lol: :rotfl:

sonar732

11-02-05, 08:08 PM

The singing whale is a VERY loud event, on good sonars hearable form THOUSANDS miles :-). We have data about how loud a whale sings, it almost could kill a man if it was close to it :-). But of course at first whale sing is probably not a very broadband event (although I feel it would show up on BB), and more importantly - whales don't sing all the time :-P
So the sound of whales should rather reflect their normal activity, which is much quieter I believe :-). Shrimp is quite noisy thing too (I don't remember if we had data on that), even single animal can be heard on sonar quite far, but again maybe not that loud. We'll take a look at this. Submariner's and sonarman's opinion is welcomed how far could a shrimp be heard on sphere (BB) sonar ?

The main thing to take into affect is of course the SSP. Give me a few moments to research and jog my memory...;)

Take into consideration that it would be close to seeing a noisy trawler or supertanker though. With this new computer, I don't have the dB comparisons you provided.

A few equations to work up...

FOMpassive SL + DI - NL - DT

This is just an example since I don't have the dB of biologics. Something else to consider is we don't know the exact species of whale or shrimp as this will tell the dB value produced.

The big point is that the environment pays a major role in the ranges observed. A Victor III in the Norwegian Sea (relatively quiet sea and deep) at 12 knots may be detected at several miles. The same submarine in the Med (relatively shallow and very noisy) may be detected at a 1000 yards. At flank speed (27 knots), the Victor III may be detected at 20 miles direct path, 25-40 miles bottom bounce, and possibly to 3 or more CZ's (convergence zones) at 30-33 miles, 60-66 miles and 90-99 miles in the Norwegian Sea, by ship based sensors and sonobouys, and for literally thousands of miles by SOSUS.

Source Level (SL) expressed in decibels (dB). Sound pressure level of individual noise sources of the target, i.e. propellors, drive shafts, reduction gears, steam turbines, electrical generators, reactor coolant pumps, diesel engines, main propulsion motors, other pumps and motors, speed related components (hull resonance's occurring at different speeds). ASW tacticians and operators will use the most detectable steady state noise sources for a given target as their primary detection, classification, and tracking frequencies.

Ambient Noise (AN) expressed in decibels at a given frequency(dB)(which includes sea state, rain, biologics, distant shipping noise, underwater geologic disturbances, etc.) i.e., anything not target related.

Recognition Differential (RD) expressed in dB. The sensitivity of the equipment and operator proficiency (i.e. ability to detect and classify a target unalerted). Tends to be a subjective number.

Directivity Index (DI) in dB. The improved sensitivity of directional sonar systems, where the receivers can be focused on a given sector.

Propagation Loss (PL) in dB at a given freq.. Sound energy is attenuated by spreading losses, absorption (sound energy converted to heat energy), reflection, refraction, etc. Prop loss varies directly with frequency.

Self Noise (SN) in dB. Primarily flow noise over the sensor array, but can also include system noise, artifacts (caused by electrical interference within the equipment-- a design limitation, also affects RD).

Target Strength (TS) in dB. The "sonar cross section" of a target. Amount of sound energy reflected from a target.

Signal Excess (SE) in dB. How much signal is left after accounting for all the variables mentioned above.

These variables are what make up the passive and active sonar equations. The passive sonar equation is as follows:

SE = SL - PL - AN - RD + DI

Propagation loss is usually calculated and displayed on a graph, to which we apply a Figure Of merit (FOM), calculated from a version of the passive equation:

FOM = SL - AN - RD + DI

Using this graph we can determine the expected detection range for a given frequency, including the usability of various transmission paths... direct path, bottom bounce, convergence zones.

sonar732

11-02-05, 09:25 PM

Finally...some difinitive numbers.

Blue Whale 190 dB (avg. 145-172) Vocalizations: Low frequency moans Cummings and Thompson, 1971a; Edds, 1982.

Fin Whale 188 dB (avg. 155-186) Vocalizations: Pulses, moans Watkins, 1981b; Cummings et al., 1986; Edds, 1988.

Humpback Whale 180 dB (avg. 175-180) Fluke and flipper slaps Thompson et al., 1986.

Bowhead Whale 180 dB (avg. 152-180) Vocalizations: Songs Cummings and Holiday, 1987.

Right Whale 175 dB (avg. 172-175) Vocalizations: Pulsive signal Cummings et al., 1972; Clark 1983.

Gray Whale 175 dB (avg. 175) Vocalizations: moans Cummings et al., 1968; Fish et al., 1974; Swartz and Cummings, 1978.

Molon Labe

11-02-05, 10:56 PM

Of course it can be removed easily :).

P.S. After little work it can be even made that human player torps would turn always right, and AI torps random :) But SUBROC torps would be treated as AI drops, I can't discrimine in doctrine if torp was dropped by human or AI SUBROC... so maybe better remove this completly ? Or maybe not, the random circle for SUBROCs makes them less "sniper" weapon after all ?

So what to do ? Remove completly ? Or right circle for human torps, random for AI and SUBROC dropped torps ?

I would defer to the airdales on this one, it makes a much bigger difference to them.

As for ASROC's, the right way to make them less "sniper" is to add some randomness to their accuracy in delivery. They're ballistic missiles after all, and I think the only guidance they have is inertial, or maybe even just timers...

Molon Labe

11-02-05, 11:10 PM

I just re-noticed that you were able to change the 65-76 to only be allowed to be assigned to targets classified as Surface.

Can you change the Maverick to be allowed to be assigned to a target classed sub? This would allow the quick engagement of surfaced submarines detected visually, which revert back to sub as soon as they are changed to surface. As long as your fix for the homing is working, I don't think this would cause any problems.

OneShot

11-03-05, 05:26 AM

Can you change the Maverick to be allowed to be assigned to a target classed sub? This would allow the quick engagement of surfaced submarines detected visually, which revert back to sub as soon as they are changed to surface. As long as your fix for the homing is working, I don't think this would cause any problems.
That would be a great thing. I dont want Uber Missiles, but just the ability to hit everything on the surface (be it surfaced subs or surface vessels) with the Maverick without using workarounds. Which btw. dont come that handy in emergency situations, like when a sub suddenly surfaces 2 nm in front of you.

Amizaur

11-03-05, 07:29 PM

With Maverick doctrine fix (included in 2.03 mod) and Sub type target allowed for Mav (not included in 2.03 yet) this would work exactly this way. You could launch Mavs at sub targets anytime but missiles would guide only against subs on the surface (or at least part of the sail visible, the exact triggering depth could be still tuned).

LuftWolf

11-03-05, 07:37 PM

Well, now that we've got the airdales on board, we should look at the random circle/snake direction as well... perhaps do the even/odd depth--right/left direction torpedo doctrine? :) ;)

LuftWolf

11-06-05, 07:53 PM

Also, any thoughts on how we could improve SSGN performance?

stormrider_sp

11-06-05, 08:35 PM

Bigger salvos?

LuftWolf

11-06-05, 08:52 PM

That would be our goal... not sure if the current limits are on database or doctrine.

We should probably experiment with a new SubAttackSurf_SSGN doctrine and looking at the launchers.

Amizaur, have you looked at this in the past, any ideas?

LuftWolf

11-06-05, 10:34 PM

Amizaur, I just sent you a PM on this... I've got some ideas. :yep: :)

TLAM Strike

11-06-05, 11:22 PM

Anyway to have SSGN's fire a certain number of missiles based on the value of the target IE a Carrier would get more than a Frigate?

But hay if not more missiles would be goodâ€¦ well not you know for the skimmersâ€¦ :lol:

LuftWolf

11-06-05, 11:51 PM

The SubAttackSurf doctrine seems to need some serious help for the SSGN... that would be ideal, but I'm not sure what the exact limitations of the doctrine interpretor are. :hmm:

stormrider_sp

11-07-05, 07:18 AM

I donÂ´t think it should be based on target value.
DoesnÂ´t matter if its an Aircraft Carrier or a Fishing boat, if thereÂ´s a single Aegis around, then youÂ´ll need a whole lot of missiles!

LuftWolf

11-07-05, 06:43 PM

Ah, it seems all that is needed is a linking platform and the engage scripts, and the SSGN's attack very strongly.

All that needs to happen is an increase in the salvo size... or the mission designers could just put a group of Oscars together. ;) :-j

Right now, they use salvoes of four, until they start to get low on missiles. So, three Oscars together, and that's 12 missiles a salvo, for about four or five salvoes. :dead: :dead: :D

Amizaur

11-07-05, 09:40 PM

In Dangerouswaters.ini there are some unknown (for me) but very interesting named variables like:

.EngageDoctrine No
.AllowAAMTargeting No
.SalvoWarheadMethod Yes
.SalvoLimit 8
.FiringAltExcess 250
.MinAirAttackRng 1250
.MinHeloAttackRng 1000
.SalvoMissilesPerPointIncrement 2
.SalvoPointIncrement 250

Anyone know what are they doing ? Especially those with "salvo" in name :)

P.S. I wonder if it was possible to give chaff and flare launchers for SS-N-19s, they are supposed to have even onboard ECM system, just small kamikaze planes :)

LuftWolf

11-07-05, 10:15 PM

Check out my post in the Mission Design Forum, we may not need to do anything. :D

Check it out, and see if you have any ideas, but the mission editor allows for a dramatic improvement in behavior if used to it's full extent. :up:

TLAM Strike

11-15-05, 09:27 PM

One thing. The Sea King seems to be able to drop way too many weapons. Today I saw one drop four depth bombs and four A 244 torpedoes on me. Thatâ€™s just crazy. I think I heard they can carry four weapons but even that seems too much for a normal mission. Maybe make it so they can't launch them all at once.

LuftWolf

11-15-05, 10:20 PM

Did he sink you?

TLAM Strike

11-15-05, 10:33 PM

No he just disabled me. I had no battery juice left when he attacked (ran out while dogfighting a Type 209 and attacking a Carrier Goup, I sank the 209, the Carrier and a Frigate) and his fish damaged nearly all my equipment. His surviving Type 209 buddy finished me off with but it took him three Tigerfish to do it (I was using one of their own Frigates as a torpedo decoy, but it moved out of range when #3 came at me).

LuftWolf

11-15-05, 10:37 PM

Sounds like a very interesting scenario, which one was it? I'll have to give it a try.

In regards to the Sea King, I checked the database, it seems they are a little too heavily armed, as you mentioned. All the airplatforms need to be looked at, but at this point reducing the effectiveness of AI platforms is not something I'm in a rush to do, since they need all the help they can get.

Although, I'm only speaking for myself. I like a challenge! :yep: :)

TLAM Strike

11-15-05, 10:40 PM

I guess I'm lucky the A 244s really suck. :lol:

Sounds like a very interesting scenario, which one was it? I'll have to give it a try. Its called 'South Atlantic CV'. I just posted it on my site- I encountered all this on the final test of the mission. :up:

LuftWolf

11-15-05, 10:43 PM

Cool, I'm going to grab it... hopefully I can play it soon and give you some feedback. :up: :rock:

LuftWolf

11-25-05, 06:48 AM

Here is the 3.00BETA addition to the readme:

LuftWolf and Amizaurâ€™s Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod v3.00 BETA
For the DW 1.03 BETA Patch
Hosted by www.subguru.com
Readme by LuftWolf
Edited by Amizaur

Amizaur has made a more substantial and significant contribution to the creation of this mod than me.

Thank you to finiteless, Ludger, and jsteed for their contributions to modding DW. Thank you to Bill â€œSubguruâ€ Nichols for hosting the work of so many talents modders and mission designers. Thank you to Molon Labe for extensive testing and multiplayer testing.

All doctrines by Amizaur.

The purpose of this mod is, straightforwardly, to address the aspects of DW game-play that most bother its authors, while improving the simulation experience and fixing bugs, without introducing any new ones. Thank you in advance for downloading this mod. Please send as much feedback as you can via the dedicated thread on the www.subsim.com mod forum, http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=41581&start=0.

INSTALLATION: Backup your stock Database and Doctrine folders by copying them to a safe place apart from your DW directory. Unzip the file into your Dangerous Waters directory, allowing your unzip program to overwrite all files. The Database and Doctrine files will install to the correct directories automatically. NOTE: Saved games created with one Database are not compatible with any other versions of the database, however, you can restore a previous version of the Database at any time to load saved games associated with that Database.

Note: This mod represents substantial changes to DW core game-play, and as such, will probably require fine-tuning in subsequent versions to particular values based on game-play experiences. However, such is the case precisely because, we feel, it represents a quantum leap towards bringing out the full potential of the massive and dynamic DW engine in terms of providing the feel of a quality simulation experience for both those new to the simulation genre and weathered deep blue warriors. Please send us AARâ€™s and comments in as great a quantity as you can! We would be especially encouraged to hear from players in the multiplayer community.

CAUTION: Missions designed for stock DW v1.01/1.03 maybe made unplayable by the greatly reduced detection ranges in this mod. We strongly encourage mission designers who enjoy the mod to support it by creating missions designed with these new realistic parameters specifically in mind. We plan on releasing a guide for mission designers along with the expanded charts and tables to assist you in this endeavor. Please let us know if there is *anything* we can do to help you design missions for our mod!

NOTICE: This is a BETA version of LWAMI 3.00 for the DW 1.03 BETA patch. As it is a BETA, there maybe things that need to be changed, perhaps quite a bit. However, it is at least as stable and playable as the 1.03 BETA patch by itself, and, we hope, more so! Also, the Mod documentation will receive a full rewrite treatment in the non-BETA version to reflect the new LWAMI 3.0 version.

A Sound vs. Speed profile chart and new Ship, Sub, and Torpedo specification table will be released in support of this readme, to cover any specific changes to AI ships or weaponry (such as the complete listing of sonar parameter assignments) not covered in this document, however, I have taken to care to note the most important specific parameter changes to user platforms and weapons.

Specific Changes for v3.00BETA: All notations listed here supersede comments below. I will try to note when this occurs in this section when possible.

Active Sonarâ€”Given the game-engine changes to correct hard-coded bugs in the active sonars, we no longer need the bug workarounds, so Amizaur has reset all active sonars and active SLâ€™s back to their original stock DW values. These maybe changed for realism purposes in the full LWAMI 3.0 version, but for now, the stock ranges are suitable as a baseline.

Maverick Missileâ€”Amizaur has changed the range of the Maverick to a more reasonable 25km and reduced the warhead DP to 100. Also, he has enabled helicopters and submarines as legitimate targets for the Mavericks to allow snapshots on surfaced subs, however, the missile doctrine changes will still prevent them from homing in on and damaging submerged submarines.

Assorted Missile Modificationsâ€”The minimum range of the SM-2 has been set to 1nm and the turn radius of the very fast AS-4 and AS-6 has been increased, and their minimum range increased to attempt to emulate the effects of their high-diving trajectories. Doctrine changes will most likely follow in subsequent versions to complete this effect.

Torpedo Doctrineâ€”Amizaur has removed the random circle/snake direction for human launched torpedoes, they will now always go to the right. The random direction is kept for AI launched torpedoes and all SUBROCS.

SubrocAttack Doctrineâ€”Amizaur has added a random range and bearing error calculation into the Subroc trajectory and release point, meaning that Subrocs will no longer fall in exactly the same place for the same range and bearing setting and will produce a bit of a scatter effect for multiple launches set to the same place. While this may seem like it will reduce the effectiveness of the Subrocs, it may actually make it easier to fire multiple Subrocs into the generally vicinity of a POSSUB datum and score a kill, as the user can now set a single drop point and launch bearing and cover a wider areaâ€¦ theoretically. Iâ€™m an Akula diver and I like this change, so no complaining about how weâ€™ve â€œkilled the SUBROC.â€ :-P

Fire Control Radarsâ€”Amizaur has enabled the Earth Curvature flag for the longer ranged FCRâ€™s and reduced their height to be equal to their associated search radars in order to get more realistic behavior. I have also increased the range of the second FCR on the Kongou, which is an AEGIS capable vessel. ALSO!!!, the Mk92 STIR and CAS of the OHP FFG has had their Earth Curvature flags set, meaning you can no longer fire SM-2â€™s over the horizon at distant surface ships and the whole radar dependant FC system on the FFG will be limited by the horizon.

Regarding Sphere Array Trackersâ€”Due to the way the interface handles input from the SAâ€™s, it is possible to see a broadband trace for contacts before you are able to assign a broadband tracker to them. The increased sensitivities for the SAâ€™s in the mod have made this issue more noticeable. You can still assign narrowband trackers to the targets, however, as soon as they appear and later on assign broadband trackers to the targets as their SNR increases in order to get DEMON data, assuming that you are closing on the contacts and they are getting louder. Otherwise, you will have to use the towed array broadband trackers to get DEMON data for fainter contacts. There this, unfortunately, nothing we can do to resolve this issue on our end.

MH-60 Dipping Sonarâ€”MaHuJa brought to my attention that the MH-60 dipping sonar is curling near the surface rather than diving as it should. To resolve this problem, I significantly decreased the buoyancy of the dipping sonar cable and slowed down the deployment speed to a more reasonable level. Thank you for bringing this up, M!

FFG Accelerationâ€”Due to changes in the physics modeling, the FFG thrust was too weak to sustain proper speeds in 1.03. The propeller diameter has been now increased from 3 to 5 to give the FFG proper acceleration and allow it to maintain speed under proper conditions.

Passive Sonarsâ€”Due to the increased detection ranges in 1.03 under some conditions, the sensitivities of all passive sonars has been reduced by 2 (+2 in the database) across the board. This change is preliminary and still fails to bring the detection ranges in line with 1.01 in all conditions, however, given the drastic differences in the sonar model between 1.01 and 1.03, a bit more testing has to be done to figure out just what to do about this, if anything. However, as things stand now, this is quite playable as we have set it!

Submarine Attack Behaviorâ€”I have added to the SubAtkSub doctrine and made some modifications to some submarinesâ€™ launchers in order to allow more aggressive attack behavior by the AI. The AI submarines will now maneuver for their first shot as with the stock doctrine, however, after firing their first shot, will no longer immediately go into their avoidance doctrine, but instead continue to stalk the target. When the target goes into itâ€™s evasion pattern and increases speed to avoid the first shot, the attacking AI submarine, usually, will fire a second shot with a time delay on the target submarineâ€™s evasion solution. The effect of this is to make the AI a much more formidable foe. Beware! ;-)

I will post the distribution to the CADC and send it to Bill soon!

Enjoy! :up:

Bill Nichols

11-25-05, 09:18 AM

It's up on my site, now. :up:

LuftWolf

11-25-05, 11:10 AM

Ok, I have updated the entire distribution to include torpedoes that always go to the RIGHT, and also linked the doctrine by itself as well so you can just update the doctrine without having to download the whole mod over again.

http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=174

LuftWolf

11-25-05, 11:12 AM

This updated version is now also on Bill's www.subguru.com site!

Thank's Bill! :up: :rock:

Lane

11-25-05, 01:47 PM

Hey Guys,
Got the latest JSGME installer Ver 1.3.3.41 installed in root DW 1.03b
Get the newest JSGME from www.berrymod.com/sh3.htm I use it on SH3
work's great :D
Installed LWAMI Beta Realism MOD Ver 3 Beta :D What ever that means :rotfl: :rotfl:
LF, and One Shot bet you are proud of me no Question's So Far :D
Of couse I haven' t start the Sim yet :D
Hi TLAM Strike had not seen any post from you for a few days :D
Thank's Bill for posting these mod's for us.
The OLD Newbee Rookie "Oh Heck my link to Berrys site don't work?"
Lane :D

Hobnail

11-26-05, 05:22 PM

TLAM Strike

11-26-05, 05:53 PM

Hi TLAM Strike had not seen any post from you for a few days :D Let that be a lesson to all of you: Pay your electric bills! :rotfl:

MaHuJa

11-26-05, 06:58 PM

Question:

Has 1.03b modified the effectiveness of missile countermeasures? I fired a volley (10) of SS-N-27 ASM at a convoy and all but one of the spread homed in a single chaff cloud, all detonating on it. 90% effectiveness? :-?

My recollection was that the LWAMI mod adjusted this in the past, have I got this wrong?

It was adjusted slightly up - but this was a rather extreme case.

It would be consistent with my guesses and observations that the effectiveness value is perhaps more of a "reverse dud chance" - if it's a 'dud' it won't attract anything, else anything will home. Meaning spacing them at least a little is a very good idea if CMs are giving you problems.

I'm not quite sure about this, and the one that didn't hit probably had a reason for this. (Maybe just enough out of range when the first missile destroyed the chaff?) It would explain this and more.

Hobnail

11-26-05, 09:27 PM

LuftWolf

11-27-05, 09:27 PM

No changes to launched anti-missile CM's in this version, it's still 25%.

I'll fire some missiles tonight and let you know if I see anything changed in the game engine, but we made no changes to the database in this regard.

Hobnail

11-27-05, 09:59 PM

Cheers Luftwolf, could be that I just got 9 "1 in 4 coin tosses" in a row. It can happen!

LuftWolf

11-28-05, 02:48 AM

I did some missile testing.

I didn't see anything in the CM and missile behavior in my test scenarios that makes it seem like anything has changed.

So I think things are ok.

But please let me know if you continue to see strange or incredibly lucky/unlucky missile spoofing! :up: :)

Thanks for bringing this up!

Deathblow

12-08-05, 08:27 PM

random observation:

Spherical and Cylindrical array's always look 3-dimensional..... think that they provide azimuths data for depth estimates as well as bearing data?

TLAM Strike

12-08-05, 09:10 PM

The BQQ-5 Spherical array on 688 and other class subs provide depth data on contacts. Before there was a separate set of hydrophones on the sail that provided depth data.

I donâ€™t know about Russian subs I but I assume so.

Deathblow

12-09-05, 08:32 AM

Just realized that even if we set the cylindrical arrays to give depth data that they're no display for the depth anyway.... and the auto-TMA could care less...

... darn this inflexible GUI ... so close yet always so so far :dead:

Hobnail

12-12-05, 07:41 PM

Hell, I'd settle for a guage on the subs showing the depth of the TA now that layers are so important...

Apocal

12-17-05, 07:27 PM

I was just watching a few sequences in my new mission play out and I noticed something really odd. The rate of fire is very, very high for all missile-equipped ships. Each VLS group can fire 1 missile a second, and a Mk. 29 (SeaSparrow) can fire a missile every other second. I'm not sure if the Mk. 49 (RAM) rate of fire has been declassified yet.

LuftWolf

12-17-05, 08:08 PM

So, is the current right of fire in the simulator too slow?

It depends on the situation, while it may be able to fire faster, it isn't. Like I said it depends on the situation.

Apocal

12-17-05, 10:19 PM

So, is the current right of fire in the simulator too slow?

It depends on the situation, while it may be able to fire faster, it isn't. Like I said it depends on the situation.

It actually seemed to me way too fast, I saw a Kongo's VLS fire off about three missiles in one second at an inbound Klub.

LuftWolf

12-17-05, 10:25 PM

That's an issue with how it is coded in the database.

The limit for a launcher like a VLS is rounds per minute, not interval between rounds.

You are probably playing with the LWAMI Mod using the anti-missile SAM salvo doctrine. In that case, a hold fire interval would have to be coded into the doctrine, and would produce a lot of overhead code and room for errors and possibly problems for a minor enhancement, at least in my opinion.

Now that having been said, Amizaur has said that he sees that problem, and honestly I never have, all my missiles fire in a nice sequence with a short interval of about a second or so, using the exact same doctrine and database, so it may somehow be system dependant.

The good news is that the way DW does its hit testing, it shouldn't matter significantly in terms of the outcome of the exchange in gameplay terms.

Sorry I can't give you a better answer but quite a bit would have to be invested in changing this and it actually wouldn't make a big difference for gameplay, there are so many other issues we have to address (like the torpedo seeker modelling... :damn: ). I sound like a producer now... :88)

Apocal

12-17-05, 11:24 PM

Thanks. I'd expected as much.

Landorin

12-30-05, 05:29 PM

Hi all,

Since quite some people, especially at orionwarrior are using this mod I am more or less forced to use it as well for playing.

I'm quite sceptical when it comes to mods since they might change the core game too much by adding or leaving out certain elements or (in most cases) making certain units too weak or too strong.

Sadly, this thread is a mess and I was unable to find a complete up to date features list. In case I missed it, please show me where to find it. Otherwise this is badly missing for this mod.

My main concern is the following:
does this mod do anythign about the very unbalancing super sonic anti ship missiles (not sure about the exact name) on the Russian subs? The CIWS on my FFG never takes them out in time. I just get missile alert and boom, I'm gone in the 1st min of the game (and I don't like to waste my time waiting 20 min for a game that lasts 1 min for me).
The 1.0 description mentions some things which I hopefully understood correctly (?):
- CIWS got improved
- pure bearing won't do anymore to get a guaranteed hit on ships with anti ship missiles
- a subroc launch will reveal your position a lot more than without the mod by adding noise (as it is supposed to be imho)

Is that correct?
It also mentions that I should use a different file if I want a more effective CIWS (correct?). If yes, will that still work if only I change that file and join a game where the other players don't use that file or will it be useless because the host doesn't use the file?
This is what I am talking about:

"CIWSAttack.txt-ALPHA- Directs ships to fire a barrage of missles at "hard" targets, very close or very fast. It is your choice to include this, you can backup
your original CIWSAttack.txt doctrine and change the name of the file
included. I have played with this, and it definately makes ships launch more
SAM's at incoming vampires. I have yet to encounter any serious bugs with it."

TLAM Strike

12-30-05, 05:38 PM

My main concern is the following:
does this mod do anythign about the very unbalancing super sonic anti ship missiles (not sure about the exact name) on the Russian subs? The CIWS on my FFG never takes them out in time. I just get missile alert and boom, I'm gone in the 1st min of the game (and I don't like to waste my time waiting 20 min for a game that lasts 1 min for me). Yes. The SS-N-27 ASMs now can only travel 5 miles at supersonic speeds the rest of the time they are only capable of about 500 knots (about equal to a TASM). They are still a dangous weapon but are now more realistic.

LuftWolf

12-30-05, 06:11 PM

Here is the readme for LWAMI 3.00b, included in an RTF file in the distributions: :)

LuftWolf and Amizaurâ€™s Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod v3.00 BETA
For the DW 1.03 BETA Patch
Hosted by www.subguru.com
Readme by LuftWolf
Edited by Amizaur

Amizaur has made a more substantial and significant contribution to the creation of this mod than me.

Thank you to finiteless, Ludger, and jsteed for their contributions to modding DW. Thank you to Bill â€œSubguruâ€ Nichols for hosting the work of so many talents modders and mission designers. Thank you to Molon Labe for extensive testing and multiplayer testing.

All doctrines by Amizaur.

The purpose of this mod is, straightforwardly, to address the aspects of DW game-play that most bother its authors, while improving the simulation experience and fixing bugs, without introducing any new ones. Thank you in advance for downloading this mod. Please send as much feedback as you can via the dedicated thread on the www.subsim.com mod forum, http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=41581&start=0.

INSTALLATION: Backup your stock Database and Doctrine folders by copying them to a safe place apart from your DW directory. Unzip the file into your Dangerous Waters directory, allowing your unzip program to overwrite all files. The Database and Doctrine files will install to the correct directories automatically. NOTE: Saved games created with one Database are not compatible with any other versions of the database, however, you can restore a previous version of the Database at any time to load saved games associated with that Database.

Note: This mod represents substantial changes to DW core game-play, and as such, will probably require fine-tuning in subsequent versions to particular values based on game-play experiences. However, such is the case precisely because, we feel, it represents a quantum leap towards bringing out the full potential of the massive and dynamic DW engine in terms of providing the feel of a quality simulation experience for both those new to the simulation genre and weathered deep blue warriors. Please send us AARâ€™s and comments in as great a quantity as you can! We would be especially encouraged to hear from players in the multiplayer community.

CAUTION: Missions designed for stock DW v1.01/1.03 maybe made unplayable by the greatly reduced detection ranges in this mod. We strongly encourage mission designers who enjoy the mod to support it by creating missions designed with these new realistic parameters specifically in mind. We plan on releasing a guide for mission designers along with the expanded charts and tables to assist you in this endeavor. Please let us know if there is *anything* we can do to help you design missions for our mod!

NOTICE: This is a BETA version of LWAMI 3.00 for the DW 1.03 BETA patch. As it is a BETA, there maybe things that need to be changed, perhaps quite a bit. However, it is at least as stable and playable as the 1.03 BETA patch by itself, and, we hope, more so! Also, the Mod documentation will receive a full rewrite treatment in the non-BETA version to reflect the new LWAMI 3.0 version.

A Sound vs. Speed profile chart and new Ship, Sub, and Torpedo specification table will be released in support of this readme, to cover any specific changes to AI ships or weaponry (such as the complete listing of sonar parameter assignments) not covered in this document, however, I have taken to care to note the most important specific parameter changes to user platforms and weapons.

Specific Changes for v3.00BETA: All notations listed here supersede comments below. I will try to note when this occurs in this section when possible.

Active Sonarâ€”Given the game-engine changes to correct hard-coded bugs in the active sonars, we no longer need the bug workarounds, so Amizaur has reset all active sonars and active SLâ€™s back to their original stock DW values. These maybe changed for realism purposes in the full LWAMI 3.0 version, but for now, the stock ranges are suitable as a baseline.

Maverick Missileâ€”Amizaur has changed the range of the Maverick to a more reasonable 25km and reduced the warhead DP to 100. Also, he has enabled helicopters and submarines as legitimate targets for the Mavericks to allow snapshots on surfaced subs, however, the missile doctrine changes will still prevent them from homing in on and damaging submerged submarines.

Assorted Missile Modificationsâ€”The minimum range of the SM-2 has been set to 1nm and the turn radius of the very fast AS-4 and AS-6 has been increased, and their minimum range increased to attempt to emulate the effects of their high-diving trajectories. Doctrine changes will most likely follow in subsequent versions to complete this effect.

Torpedo Doctrineâ€”Amizaur has removed the random circle/snake direction for human launched torpedoes, they will now always go to the right. The random direction is kept for AI launched torpedoes and all SUBROCS.

SubrocAttack Doctrineâ€”Amizaur has added a random range and bearing error calculation into the Subroc trajectory and release point, meaning that Subrocs will no longer fall in exactly the same place for the same range and bearing setting and will produce a bit of a scatter effect for multiple launches set to the same place. While this may seem like it will reduce the effectiveness of the Subrocs, it may actually make it easier to fire multiple Subrocs into the generally vicinity of a POSSUB datum and score a kill, as the user can now set a single drop point and launch bearing and cover a wider areaâ€¦ theoretically. Iâ€™m an Akula diver and I like this change, so no complaining about how weâ€™ve â€œkilled the SUBROC.â€ :-P

Fire Control Radarsâ€”Amizaur has enabled the Earth Curvature flag for the longer ranged FCRâ€™s and reduced their height to be equal to their associated search radars in order to get more realistic behavior. I have also increased the range of the second FCR on the Kongou, which is an AEGIS capable vessel. ALSO!!!, the Mk92 STIR and CAS of the OHP FFG has had their Earth Curvature flags set, meaning you can no longer fire SM-2â€™s over the horizon at distant surface ships and the whole radar dependant FC system on the FFG will be limited by the horizon.

Regarding Sphere Array Trackersâ€”Due to the way the interface handles input from the SAâ€™s, it is possible to see a broadband trace for contacts before you are able to assign a broadband tracker to them. The increased sensitivities for the SAâ€™s in the mod have made this issue more noticeable. You can still assign narrowband trackers to the targets, however, as soon as they appear and later on assign broadband trackers to the targets as their SNR increases in order to get DEMON data, assuming that you are closing on the contacts and they are getting louder. Otherwise, you will have to use the towed array broadband trackers to get DEMON data for fainter contacts. There this, unfortunately, nothing we can do to resolve this issue on our end.

MH-60 Dipping Sonarâ€”MaHuJa brought to my attention that the MH-60 dipping sonar is curling near the surface rather than diving as it should. To resolve this problem, I significantly decreased the buoyancy of the dipping sonar cable and slowed down the deployment speed to a more reasonable level. Thank you for bringing this up, M!

FFG Accelerationâ€”Due to changes in the physics modeling, the FFG thrust was too weak to sustain proper speeds in 1.03. The propeller diameter has been now increased from 3 to 5 to give the FFG proper acceleration and allow it to maintain speed under proper conditions.

Passive Sonarsâ€”Due to the increased detection ranges in 1.03 under some conditions, the sensitivities of all passive sonars has been reduced by 2 (+2 in the database) across the board. This change is preliminary and still fails to bring the detection ranges in line with 1.01 in all conditions, however, given the drastic differences in the sonar model between 1.01 and 1.03, a bit more testing has to be done to figure out just what to do about this, if anything. However, as things stand now, this is quite playable as we have set it!

Submarine Attack Behaviorâ€”I have added to the SubAtkSub doctrine and made some modifications to some submarinesâ€™ launchers in order to allow more aggressive attack behavior by the AI. The AI submarines will now maneuver for their first shot as with the stock doctrine, however, after firing their first shot, will no longer immediately go into their avoidance doctrine, but instead continue to stalk the target. When the target goes into itâ€™s evasion pattern and increases speed to avoid the first shot, the attacking AI submarine, usually, will fire a second shot with a time delay on the target submarineâ€™s evasion solution. The effect of this is to make the AI a much more formidable foe. Beware! ;-)

Specific changes for v2.03:

The installation procedure has been streamlined and the stock-mod switch bat files have been removed for ease of installation and operation.

CIWSAttack, SubAvoidWeap, Missile DoctrinesÂ¬â€” For CIWSAttack and SubAvoidWeap doctrines, comments have been moved to prevent error returns in the doctrine proofreader. This has not changed any aspect of game-play and has been done as a precautionary measure. The doctrines had been functioning correctly and should still work the same as before. For the Missile doctrine, a variable that previously was not declared has been added to the declaration list.

Iranian Kilosâ€”The UGST has been replaced with the USET-80 for all Iranian Kilos.

Active Interceptâ€”The baffle has been removed for all Active Intercept systems, giving them 360 degree coverage, as we believe to be accurate.

Specific changes for v2.02:

Sphere and Hull Array Modelingâ€”THIS REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT GAME-PLAY CHANGE. All Sphere and Hull Passive Arrays, playable and AI, have had their sensitivity increased significantly from stock DW. These arrays should be much more useful now for detecting and tracking civilian traffic, torpedoes, loud and close submerged targets, etc. Expect to use these arrays much more frequently for general situational awareness and establishing TMA on surface traffic, meaning the TA is now going to be used primarily for tactical awareness, e.g. finding and establishing a track on hostile submerged contacts (or that sneaky FFG stalking slow and quiet). Establishing the correct bearings of Master contacts has never been easier! I have also increased the baffling of all Sphere arrays ACTIVE AND PASSIVE to 120 degrees directly to the stern. The most dramatic effect this will have, in game-play terms, is on the FFG player, who no longer has nearly omni-directional awareness from active sonar, and in submerged stalking of escorted convoys, making it easier to get in behind the escorts. All of these changes are dramatic (in my opinion) and may need to be tweaked later on, hopefully not the day after we release the modâ€¦ ;-)

Sonobuoy Modelingâ€”THIS REPRESENTS A SIGNIFCANT GAME-PLAY CHANGE. To better reflect the way different sonobuoys are utilized in actual practice, the VLAD Shallow has been given the depth of 800ft, and the VLAD Deep has been given the depth of 1200ft, to prevent the use of VLADâ€™s in shallow water, as is realistic. The DIFAR buoy (90/400ft) MUST now be used in shallow water in the game, as it is the preferred buoy for shallow water operations in the real world. You may also want to take DIFAR Deep buoys along if you feel there may be a shallow surface duct and you want to have a good above-layer passive buoy option, that is a personal player preference. The DICASS Deep has also been given the depth of 600ft, to give an under-layer option for medium to shallow surface duct environments. Be aware, that this will change the game-play balance further in the direction of submarines for littoral operations, and possibly slightly in the favor of air-platforms in open ocean operations, given the option to put VLADâ€™s under layers in deep waters. Just remember NOT to load any VLADâ€™s if you are going to be operating in water that is shallower than 800ft. New buoy depths at a glance:
DIFAR 90/400
DICASS 90/600
VLAD 800/1200

AEGIS Ship Behavior BETAâ€”The Fire Control radars of AEGIS cruisers and destroyers were previously limiting their engagement range to an unrealistic degree. We are currently in the process of thoroughly reworking the entire radar modeling treatment in the database. However, in the meantime, we have changed the FC Radars on the AEGIS vessels to enable missile intercept behavior at the limits of the horizon, and slightly further if there is a linking platform, simulating decreased response time. These changes are essentially modeling the realistic engagement ranges on incoming missiles for AEGIS vessels in the real world, meaning that AEGIS ships will now provide effective fleet defense against missile threats at range. Mission designers, enjoy! Note: From a simulation standpoint, the way this has been accomplished WILL change in the next version to better model the way these platforms work in RL, however, from a game-play standpoint, the effect will be nearly the same. This versionâ€™s modification also includes a change to the CIWSAttack doctrine, which will be altered again in the next version of the mod. Also, as part of this temporary fix, I have changed the E-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry radars, as previously they were only scanning half of the sky, meaning these should now be much more effective link participants.Decoy Modelingâ€”I have added a Passive Sound Level of 60 for active decoys, as the cloud of bubbles created by the active decoys have to make some kind detectable broadband sound. I have also added a small Active SL of 40 to passive decoys, which is still significantly less than torpedoes, as should be expected from any metal object in the water of comparable size.

Torpedo SL and ThrustsÂ¬Â¬â€”Due to our error, torpedoes were much too quiet in LWAMI 2.01. This has now been corrected. We have introduced some variability in torpedoes to reflect real-world differences and have altered the thrust values to make possible, in some cases, deep running, slow, stealthy shots, but this tactic still cannot be relied upon, especially given the near-universal TIW calls, which we canâ€™t change.

MANPAD (sub-launched SAMâ€™s)â€”We have reduced the effectiveness of MANPADâ€™s as follows: Stinger (FIM-92) 75%, SA-N-8 65%, and SA-N-5 60%, to reflect what we believe would an accurate representation of the real world effectiveness of these should-launched weapons. Andâ€¦ also to further discourage the gamey and unrealistic use of SAMâ€™s from submarines in missions. ïŠ

TASM and Harpoonâ€”We have reduced the radar signature of the TASM to 45 and the Harpoon to 40 (verses all other missiles which are 50), making them marginally more effective (read: detectable at slightly closer range) against defended surface targets than before, and giving another slight advantage to the Harpoon over the TASM. All missiles will be looked at when we remodel the radars. This is not a drastic change, but should help a bit when attacking with these missiles.

Maverick Missile Fixâ€”The Missile.txt doctrine has been altered to prevent the missile from homing in and destroying submerged targets and aircraft. This constitutes a total removal of the â€œMagerick Missile Cheat,â€ however more testing is required to proclaim it totally dead without consequences, but we are 95% certain itâ€™s gone with no residual traces.

SubAvoidWeap.txtâ€”We have changed the submarine avoidance routines so that AI subs will always throw an Active CM when attacked and will evade incoming torpedoes at 100 to 140 degrees from their initial incoming bearing. This constitutes a simple yet dramatic alteration in the AI submarinesâ€™ ability to evade torpedoes in all conditions. Expect AI subs to avoid the first pass of ADCAPâ€™s or UGSTâ€™s from less than 5nm as well as just about every LWT fired at medium to long range. I believe this to be a major game-play improvement for AI platforms, but more work is required to make evasion routines more complex.

Torpedo.txt Doctrineâ€”I have decided to include the full Torpedo Doctrine Mod in this release featuring random circle/snake direction, the anti-surface casualty mod, the correction from meters to feet so that AI subs will launched torpedoes set at proper depth for submerged targets, and the variable randomized search depths for airdropped torpedoes, meaning sometimes torpedoes will be fired under layers. We donâ€™t believe there to be any bugs in this full modification at this point, but, as always, all feedback is welcome on this or any aspect of the mod! In case you experience any crashes or undesired behavior, I have included the standard non-casualty torpedo.txt doctrine, which will be placed in your main DW directory for backup purposes. So, in the unlikely event you need to install this backup, just delete the â€œtorpedoâ€ doctrine installed with the mod in the Doctrine folder, and change the name of the â€œtorpedo.avoidcasualtyonlyâ€ to simply â€œtorpedoâ€ (without the .txt, this extension is stored by Windows XP automatically) and place it in both your Doctrine and LwAmi.doctrine folders. But like I said, it shouldnâ€™t come to this. ;-)

Specific changes for v2.01:

Active Sonarsâ€”All active sonars have been given the same fix as the DICASS and FFG active arrays, meaning that detections WILL NOT occur at max range automatically and are greatly effected by acoustic conditions, especially thermal layers. Also, additional active sonar models have been added to the game to simulate variable quality and assigned to appropriate platforms, including all playables, which now have variable active sonar quality.

VLAD Performanceâ€”The sensitivity of the VLAD has been reduced somewhat, meaning that subs slightly above â€œsilent speedâ€ will by marginally less detectable.

Torpedo.txt Doctrinesâ€” CHANGED in 2.02 SEE ABOVE TEXT For the â€œtorpedo.txtâ€ doctrine included, Amizaur has changed the default ceiling set in the doctrine from -99.5 to -10.5, as the previous value was unintentional and allowed users to escape AI torpedoes by surfacing. The anti-casualty mod should function with the rest of the torpedo doctrine as intended now. Thank you to Deathblow for finding this. The other two torpedo doctrines included are BETA tests: Torpedo.beta1 converts the search depth set by the AI from meters to feet (the engine gives the number to the doctrine in meters but the doctrine treats all values as feet), meaning that the AI now sets properly deep search depths for submerged targets; Torpedo.beta2 enables random search depth for AI platforms meaning that sometimes the AI will fire torpedoes under thermal layers at submerged targets. Both of these doctrines are largely untested, so you can try them if youâ€™d like (by removing the other torpedo.txt doctrine and changing the names of these files to simply â€œtorpedo.txtâ€) and if you experience any crashes you can revert to the standard non-casualty version of the torpedo doctrine.

Torpedo Feedbackâ€”This feature has been removed from all torpedoes due to game play balance considerations, as it created problems with the auto TMA and torpedoes guided by an experienced operator were virtually assured kills within maximum range.

Launched CM Effectivenessâ€”CM â€œweapon effectivenessâ€ has been returned to the original value of 50%. The previous version of the mod used 40% and this was found to make CMs much less effective than desired. CMs should now be more effective in causing torpedoes to â€œhard-lockâ€ onto them. It is not known at this point what the exact effect this change will have on torpedo â€œjammingâ€ (causing the torpedo to lose its target but not necessarily home on the decoy) behavior under different conditions.

Sound Levels and Sound vs Speed Curvesâ€”Amizaur has worked on tweaking the sound levels for many platforms as well as the speed-noise curves. In general, these changes have been a mix of making platforms more realistically noisy or quiet at certain speeds based on the remodeling of real-world data, along with some changes made for game-play considerations, most notably making the Seawolf slightly more noisy (detectable) at all speeds.

Submarine Damage Levels and ASW Torpedo Warhead Modelingâ€”The damage levels of some submarines known to be particularly tough (such as the Typhoon and Oscar) have been increased and the warheads of lightweight ASW torpedoes have been reduced. The combined effect of this is to make some submarines capable of sustaining a hit from an LWT, as we believe to be realistic, and makes LWTs much less effective against surface ships as is correct. Specifically, the Oscar will take multiple hits from LWTs and the Typhoon will take two ADCAPs to sink. Also, some torpedoes known to have very light warheads have been modeled as such, making it possible for most subs to sustain a hit from some of these torpedoes. In game-play terms for playable platforms and weapons, all playable submarines will still be killed immediately by all playable launched torpedoes (except for the SET-53ME which wonâ€™t kill any playable with one hit), however in cases of indirect hits with LWTs, a submarine may survive if the torpedo doesnâ€™t impact directly.

Mk48 ADCAPâ€”Amizaur has given the ADCAP active sensor the unique ping frequency 20050 Hz and increased itâ€™s warhead to 400kg to simulate advanced fusing.

SS-N-14 Silex SUBROCâ€”The torpedo payload of the Silex subroc (equipped on Russian Kara and Udaloy) has been updated to reflect the current version of the missile most likely in use with the Russian navy. It now has the UGMT-1, the same torpedo as the SS-N-16 Stallion, which is more effective than its original torpedo payload.

Missile Parametersâ€”The weapon effectiveness of the RAM, Aster, and ESSM have been increased from 40% to 75% and the effectiveness of the SA-N-6,7, and 11 has been increased to 60%. Also, realistic minimum ranges have been added for all SAMs except for MANPADs.

Game-Play Changes

Sonar:

Passive Sonarâ€”Amizaur has changed all passive sonars so that there is no longer an artificial â€œhard capâ€ on their ranges, meaning that there should be no sudden spikes when loud contacts come into detection ranges. Sonars are still limited by detection curves, however, the maximum range of each sensor has been set to at least 20% greater than the sensor could detect the loudest of contacts under most conditions, so for virtually all situations, acoustic factors should determine detection ranges rather than artificial database limitations.

Active Sonarâ€”Amizaur has been able to reduce the detection range of all active sonars on submarines to something under max range, so now it is possible for the sub player to avoid detection within the range of the sonar by lowering speed and showing a low aspect to the active sonar array. This change represents a fundamental database correction for the â€œactive sonar bugâ€ currently in DW v1.01 and should help balance the game until the fix is hard-coded in the next official patch, especially aiding Kilo players in attacking surface targets undetected, as previously it was almost impossible to stalk a convoy. Also, additional active sonar models have been added to the game to simulate variable quality and assigned to appropriate platforms, including all playables, which now have variable active sonar quality.
Note: thermal layers are now effective protection against active detection. Comment by Amizaur: Well I will write that itâ€™s only half-solution (in fact 10% solution) and itâ€™s VERY far from perfect, but this is best I could achieve with current sonar model and at least in some cases and for some targets the range will be lower than maximal. But the active sonar bug still is in the game and itâ€™s the most important DW bug currently. As jsteed said, there is somewhere x10 factor in the equation and minimal change in target SL result in great detection range difference. So we still have to wait for the SCS fix to have proper active sonar model, but with those changes Kilo drivers at least stand a chance against air units ïŠ

AI Sonar (Thank you to Periscope Depth for input on this aspect of the mod)â€” I have added sensors to all sonar-bearing platforms that reflect realistic sonars. I have done this in the following method. Divided the sonars into three catagories: Western, Modern Russian/Soviet-Nuclear, Eastern Diesel/Old Eastern Block. From the Western, I made three scaled versions each of the Sphere, Hull, and TA sonars from the 688i sensors, and assigned them to each platform in the game with Western sonars, according to level and whether they had a TA. I then did the same for the Modern Russian, borrowing from the Akula Sensors, assigning them to nuclear submarines with modern Eastern Sonar. The Kilo array model I used for diesels with eastern sonars and old submarines, which are mostly eastern. For surface platform sonars, I have used the FFG sonar as a model.

The primary difference between the Western and Eastern sonars are the washout speed. The best Russian arrays are more sensitive than the worst Western arrays (still good), but the Western arrays maintain a signal at a higher speed. The new Eastern sonars and the old Eastern sonars differ in terms of their maximum range, the Kilo sensors I used for the model are much shorter range than the Akula sensors.

A separate chart listing sonars, assignments, and detection parameters will most likely be released subsequent to the mod after further testing.

Object Sound and Sound vs. Speed Fix (for sound levels credit also to finiteless, jsteed, and Periscope Depth; research, final design, and implementation by Amizaur)â€”Amizaur has completely reworked the object sounds and the sound vs. speed behavior for realistic effects. Submarines and ships are realistically quiet across platforms and have been assigned varying speed-noise curves. New SSNs have different speed curves from old SSNs, and slower SSBNâ€™s have their own speed-noise curves so they donâ€™t increase their noise as much at max speed. Old diesels are quiet when stopped but very noisy when moving at speed, and the latest SSKs are very quiet. In addition, all surface platforms have been assigned more realistic speed-noise curves based on max speed, and American ships, especially the OHP FFG, are quieter than before relative to other platforms. Specifically, the OHP does not increase noise above stationary level until it is running above 5kts (this was in the game from the start, just nobody noticed it until seen in Ludgerâ€™s Analyzer). The Akula II, SeaWolf, and 688i have a somewhat flat curve from 0-4kts, meaning there sound levels do not change in those speed ranges. Please see the separate Sound vs. Speed Chart for specifics.

Playable Passive Sonar Parametersâ€”All playable passive sonar arrays have changed to have a Maximum detection of height of 10m. Previously hull sonars and buoys had a Max of 0m and sphere and towed arrays had a max of 300m. This caused any object with a passive sound level to show up on sonar as if it were underwater, specifically sea-skimming missiles whose sound levels were changed in this mod to simulate underwater missile launch (Thank you TLAM Strike for finding this). I have not set the depths to 0m because this causes contacts to display inconsistently on the BB waterfall. I do not believe that cone sensitivity is effected in any way by this fix within the detection Max and Mins, but there could be other issues I am not aware of. This may be refined later, but it is necessary now to address persistent sea-skimming missile transients.

Torpedos:

Amizaur has been able to make significant improvements to torpedo function.

TorpHoming Doctrineâ€”This doctrine completely disables torpedo explosions on countermeasures. The torpedo, after acquiring a dropped decoy, will pass through the decoy and re-enable on the other side. Sometimes the torpedo will demonstrate odd behavior immediately after being spoofed, as could be realistic, but should always return to seeking properly if within its max range. Note: some of the TEST-71s on the Kilos use the wake-homing doctrine, so their behavior is unaffected by this mod.

Torpedo Doctrineâ€”The updated version of this doctrine: reduces the search arc of the snake pattern for torpedoes from +/- 45 to 30 degrees; randomizes the circle or first snake turn direction, and, most importantly, prevents AI torpedoes launched against submerged targets from striking surface ships 90% of the time, by lowering the minimum depth of AI launched torpedoes.

Torpedo Seekersâ€”Amizaur has modeled a wide range of active and passive seekers, with individual seekers for the most important torpedoes, including distinctive ping frequencies for classification over active intercept, as is realistic. The ADCAP active seeker is max range 3000m and its passive seeker is max range 1000m, will all other torpedoes scaled down from there, meaning there has been a significant reduction in the effectiveness of all torpedo weapons to reflect realistic parameters. Note: the parameters of all of the torpedo seekers have been tweaked so that thermal layers have a much greater effect on torpedo performance. Also, the width of seekers cones of the ADCAP and USGT have been increased to minimize the effect of the reduced snake search pattern on the effectiveness of these weapons. Some small warship active sonar levels have been increased to make the new seekers effective against them and very small civilian ships are nearly invisible to active torpedoes now, due to seeker changes.

Wake-Homing Torpedoesâ€”Amizaur has reduced the visual sensor of the wake-homers, used in the terminal homing of the weapon, to 50m. The practical effect of this is that wake-homing torpedoes now act like true wake-homers, meaning they will no longer home in on the front of ships and must be fired behind the target to insure the torpedo makes contact with the targetâ€™s wake. Now, if the wake-homing torpedoes do not make contact with where the targetâ€™s wake actually is (behind the ship and slightly to the sides), you must have a near perfect shot to hit a target, so they weapons are practically not effective if fired in front of a shipâ€™s path. In addition, surface ships now have an opportunity to lose acquired wake-homing weapons with hard maneuvers at the last moment, if they are able to turn inside the torpedo so it loses the wake and cannot acquire with the visual sensor. Also, all strictly wake-homing torpedoes have altered to be fired only against identified surface targets.

Fast Torpedo Speed Oscillation Fixâ€”Due to a hard-coded error in the DW v1.01 engine, all torpedoes from speeds 56-159 display a wide speed oscillation and or increased speed. We cannot change this directly, however, the speeds of all torpedoes over 55kts have been reduced to 55kts and compensated with more realistic parameters.
ADCAPâ€”Speed raised in v1.03 of our mod to 60kts. Lowered again to 55kts and given the best seeker in the mod as well as torpedo sensor feedback. Also the warhead has been increased from 350kg to 400kg to simulate advanced fusing and max depth increased to 1000m
Spearfishâ€”Range increased by 10,000m to 32km.
Type 89â€”Reduced turn radius to 100 (as all other torpedoes) as previously high turn radius is now unnecessary with lower speed. Increased range by 15,000m to 45km and given it ASuW capability.
Type 40â€”Increased range of SS-N-27 ASW family of subroc missiles to 27nm, as is realistic.
APR-2Eâ€”range increased from 3.2km to 5km.

ASW Torpedo Warheadsâ€”The warheads of strictly ASW torpedoes have been reduced to realistic levels. Combined with the reworked damage modeling, it will now take two lightweight torpedoes to sink some tougher submarines, such as the Typhoon. Also, some torpedoes known to have very light warheads have been modeled as such, making it possible for most subs to sustain a hit from some of these torpedoes.

Damage Modeling:

All values for neutral and supply ships have been adjusted to make them more realistic in terms of the damage they will sustain. Light civilian ships are made more fragile and heavier ships are made realistically difficult to sink. Heavy military supply ships are made slightly more sturdy than the OH Perry Class FFG. Medium supply ships and oil tankers are slightly less rugged than the OHP, medium civilian ships have been made slightly tougher. Expect to have to use several medium and light torpedoes or missiles against heavy shipping now, with more necessity to be careful in wasting weapons when facing a convoy. We have also decided to rework the damage modeling for most warships as well, with heavier ships of better build being modeled with appropriate levels of survivability. Expect some ships to be a little more difficult to sink and some ships to be a little easier in a sensible and predictable way. Further, some submarines known for being particularly rugged, such as the Typhoon, have been given higher damage ratings so that they may now sustain single hits from lightweight torpedoes, as we believe to be realistic. Specifically, the Oscar will take multiple hits from LWTs and the Typhoon will take two ADCAPs to sink. Please refer to the unit information tables to be released following the release of the mod for details.

Masts and Cables:

Periscope Depthâ€™s Cable Length Modâ€”Thank you to Periscope Depth for providing this. The length of user-platform cables have been changed to real-world lengths: SQR-19/TB-29/23â€”5000ft, MH-60 Dipping Sonarâ€”2500ft, and Pelamida TAâ€”2300/701m.

Universal Doctrine Fixes:

SubAvoidxx-- Doctrines correct a bug in sub evasion routines that tells them to come too shallow while evading, causing cavitation. Well tested.

Missle/MissleSam-- Corrects minor bugs in missile launch angles. Well tested.

SubrocAttack-- Improves accuracy of Subroc torpedo drop points.

CIWSAttack.txt-- Directs ships to fire a barrage of missiles at "hard" targets, very close or very fast. This represents an improvement in the behavior of AEGIS and other shipsâ€™ anti-missile behavior, as previously they fired many fewer missiles at potentially lethal threats than they were capable of firing.

Missile Parameters:

Passive Signature for Underwater Missile Launch--All sub-launched missiles now produce a very noisy transient when launched. The exception to this is the Harpoon, which is much quieter, simulating its launch from a canister which opens up once it gets to the surface, making it a better option verse the TASM than previously.***Underwater missile launches will not give a TIW or any other audio warning.*** Thank you Bellman for raising this issue and Fish for confirming it over a LAN. Also, Amizaur has include a doctrine addition to the general submarine avoidance doctrine that allows subs to recognize underwater missile launches and evade under parameters in which it could be a subroc attack, giving AI subs a better chance of clearing the target datum and surviving subroc attack.

IR Signatures-
IR signatures added for all missiles based on type, with a reasonable scaling from
Sea-skimming cruise-missiles to supersonic, rocket powered anti-ship missiles. This now makes RAMs effective against anti-ship missiles.

Amizaur's MANPAD Seeker Fix-
We have included the fix that has been around for sometime, reducing the seeker cone
of MANPADs to 3 degrees.

Radar Heights Changedâ€”Some radar heights have been lowered, as previously some ships
BETA had been able to see too far over the horizon. Also, the minimum altitude
of the AEGIS SPY-1 Radar has been lowered from 5000ft to 10ft, which should
help them better track sea-skimming vampires.

Launched Anti-Missile CM'sâ€”effectiveness raised from 20% to 25%.(Thank you Mau for
suggesting this.)

Missile Effectiveness and Minimum Rangesâ€”The weapon effectiveness of the RAM, Aster, and ESSM have been increased from 40% to 75% and the effectiveness of the SA-N-6,7, and 11 has been increased to 60%. Also, realistic minimum ranges have been added for all SAMs except for MANPADs. This will prevent unrealistic last minute shots against incoming missiles.

MAD/SAD:

MADâ€”sensors have had max detection depth reduced from -3000ft to a realistic -1000.ft

SADâ€”sensors have had max detection depth reduced from -3000ft to a realistic -750ft. Note:
the only difference between a MAD and SAD detection in the game is the depth at which
they are detected, so if I set the depths the same, the sensors would be exactly the
same sensor,as the platforms only vary in MAD characteristic, and have no separate SAD
characteristic).

AI MADâ€”AI platforms do not have a separate MAD/SAD detector. Previously, they had been setto detect from 0 to -3000ft. In order to permit realistic evasion tactics from MAD
equipped AI air platforms, I have set the AI MAD sensor to have SAD characteristics
(have fun under those funky sounding cargo ships!)

User Platform, Weapon, and Sensor Specific Changes

User Torpedo Specification Changes: (Thank you to Bellman for raising the issue of torpedo balancing)

53cm Torpedoâ€”given UGST specifications: Active/Passive Multipurpose Wireguided Torpedo, 50km@50kph, with maximum depth 800m (less on fire-control preset panel) with 300kg warhead.

Mk48 ADCAPâ€”The maximum depth of the ADCAP has been increased to 1000m and the warhead has been increased to from 350kg to 400kg to simulate advanced fusing.

65cm Torpedoâ€”guidance sensor and doctrine changed to simulate 65-76 Wakehoming Hydrogen Peroxide-powered Torpedo (the type supposedly removed after the Kursk Incident). All specifications have been left the same except guidance-following the wakehome doctrine now-and the wire has been removed. The wire-guidance option has been disable in-game, but I can't change the fire-control graphics, so you'll just have to remember that the A/P and search pattern buttons do nothing, and that the torpedo will continue in a straight line after it enables. LAUNCH THE TORPEDO WITH THE DEPTH SET AT ~10m, depending on how lucky you feel that day. The Nixie should not affect this weapon in any way, but over-the-side decoys will cause enough of a disturbance in the water to disrupt the wake-homing, but the torpedo will not detonate on the CM's, and usually reacquire. Also, due to changes in the wake-homing sensors, you MUST fire this weapon behind a ship so that it will make contact with its wake in order for it to home onto the target; it is no longer sufficient to place the torpedo within 500m of the target from all aspects.

Mk46â€”Given Mk54 hypothetical specs, 17km@50kts with max depth 500m and a light weight, for airdrop use in littoral waters (the turn radius may be decreased in subsequent versions to further increase this effect). All non-American platforms are armed with the standard Mk 46 torpedo they had previously, and all American platforms have upgraded to Mk 54. The Mk 46 ASROC has been left the same for all platforms and will still drop the Mk46. I thought it wasn't good to have a useless Mk46, so I did some research and came up with a torpedo that is marginally better than the Mk50 all round, but doesn't replace it, reflecting a torpedo with the upgraded propulsion of a Mk46 with the seeker of the Mk50, which constitutes the actual Mk 54 as indicated by my information. As the Navy's intention is to have a lower cost option to the Mk50, the propulsion system of which is very expensive. For me personally, I will be taking more Mk 54's now, unless I need to kill something deep! Note: When playing as the FFG, you cannot order your AI controlled MH-60 to drop the Mk54 on a waypoint, only from the command on the Nav map. This is due to an interface issue hard-coded in the game, however, you can work around this by creating a manual solution where you want the torpedo dropped and order the torpedo dropped on that solution rather than the actual contact.

53-65 Wake-homing Torpedo Familyâ€”The minimum running depth of the torpedo has been set to -14m in order to ensure proper launch depth against surface targets. You can still launch the torpedo from as deeply as before.

Shikval Mad Sensorâ€”The MAD detonator on the Shikval has had its range reduced by half to 250m, as previously any shot within 500m of the target resulted in a kill, this makes it possible to evade one of these weapons if it is off target and proper maneuvering is used quickly.

SLMM and Mobile Mineâ€”Includes Doctrine Files, Mod by Amizaur
A fix that makes them stop making noise after they have stopped moving has been
applied to both weapons. In addition, they will now actively try to stop once
they have reached their assigned location and will be reliably on target and hold
their position, making them an effective weapon, which they were not before. Their
maximum usable depth remains the same (300ft for SLMM and 450ft for Mobile mines,
the range of their seekers), but the weapon will shutdown below 600ft. These weapons
are for use in shallow water and will "malfunction" in deep water. ;-) Also, do not
try to use these weapons against a steep slope.

Seawolf Max Speedâ€”The max speed of the Seawolf class has been reduced to 38kts, as is more plausible. The Seawolf is still easily the quietest, fastest, and most heavily armed submarine in the world. ;-)

688(i) Towed Arrays- Added TB-23 as starboard array. The reason I have kept it
on the starboard, against what is commonly reported, is because in missions
where ownship starts with TA deployed, it is always the starboard array, and I
figured in most situations I would want that one deployed. The port TB-16
washes out at ~20kts and the TB-23 washes out at around ~16kts (you folks
can tell me if that feels right once you play around with it...
or if I'm just completely off...). I have set the sensitivity of the TB-23
to be pretty much in the middle of the TB-16 and the TB-29. I was even able to
change the names in game, so have fun captains!

Akula II Modified Gepard TAâ€”The array of the Gepard has been upgraded to hypothetical Pelamida II standards, with a Max speed of +4kts over the original Pelamida, and the in game name has been changed to â€œPelamida IIâ€. The sensitivity has been left as it is. This array has also been assigned to the Oscar SSGN, to reflect the latest developments in the most funded Russian submarine projects.

VLAD Passive Sonar Performanceâ€”The sensitivity of the VLAD has been reduced somewhat, meaning that subs slightly above â€œsilent speedâ€ will by marginally less detectable.

Midget Subâ€”The Midget sub has been given a periscope sensor, as previously it had no sensors at all, and its active sonar parameters have been changed to make it more detectable as is realistic.

Russian SVTT-Ship Launched Torpedosâ€”Changed to USET-80, to better reflect Russian
capabilites. Note, only Russian SVTT launchers previously
equipped with 53cm torpedos have been changed, some launchers are equipped
with other torpedos. Also, the Grisha FFL retains the 53cm Torpedo w/UGST
specifications, as the USNR in-game database says its launchers have
been modified to fire wire-guided torpedos, so I thought it might be interesting.

Russian Airdropped Torpedoesâ€”Platforms that had previously been firing the 53cm will use the APR-2E, the torpedo which comes equipped as the default weapon the Helix ASW Helo.

SLAM-ER Fixâ€”I have removed the missile's IR seeker, which apparently was interfering with its terminal homing. The missile now looks in the DB and behaves in the game
like a light TLAM, and, *functions correctly*, exploding on target with
the same accuracy of a TLAM. Note, this weapon is not the most effective strike
missile, as it has less than half of the warhead of the TLAM, meaning you need
more than one missile to destroy medium and heavy targets if the missile does
not land directly on target. Even small, light targets may escape the blast of
this missile if it overshoots. For some reason, IF YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE
WAYPOINTS, THIS MISSLE WILL NOT WORK!!! I can't change this, and I'm not sure why.

SS-N-27 Two Stage Modâ€”Mod by Amizaur, doctrine file includedâ€”The first stage of the missile launches the second one and falls to the water or sometimes rises into the air as a decoy, to simulate the reported real-world function of the missile. This version of the mod uses a streamlined doctrine format that needs only one doctrine file. The enable point of the first stage, which is a cruise missile at 500kts with a max range of 200km/108nm, enables its seeker as usual, however, when the seeker has acquired a target, the missile will fire the second stage, which is the supersonic attack phase equipped with the final seeker and warhead with speed 2.5 mach and range 24km/13nm. This version of the mod requires less finesse in entering the proper range, as the missile will tend to detect targets around the max range of the second stage, but it is good to enable the missile somewhere around the max range of the second stage (11-12nm before the target) to minimize the chance of an early fire and take full advantage of the coordination of the second stage supersonic sea-skimming attack phase and first stage post-launch decoy (to cover most of the air defense zone by supersonic stage, not by vulnerable subsonic stage).

That's it! We hope you enjoy! Please let us know if you find any errors, would like to
contribute to a future release, or have any suggestions or comments. The place is http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=41581&start=0.

Happy Hunting.

LW

TLAM Strike

12-30-05, 06:15 PM

BTW LW how goes the RBU thing?

LuftWolf

12-30-05, 06:19 PM

I hope to have the database done soonish for LWAMI 3.00. :)

TLAM Strike

12-30-05, 06:24 PM

Fantastic! :up:

Any chance they will have their anti-torpedo function modeled? :ping:

LuftWolf

12-30-05, 06:28 PM

Any chance they will have their anti-torpedo function modeled? :ping:

I dunno... :hmm: Hadn't thought about it... :)

Bill Nichols

12-30-05, 06:28 PM

I hope to have the database done soonish for LWAMI 3.00. :)

Can't wait! :up:

Landorin

12-30-05, 07:39 PM

Deathblow

01-01-06, 01:27 PM

Question:
Back on page 12 OlgeM gave us a tutorial on how to edit USNI database.

Now take decmpress command line utility, available at many DW sites (Subguru Bill has it, if not ask me and I'll send it to you)

Does anyone know of what command line utility OlegM was referring to?

db

LuftWolf

01-01-06, 01:30 PM

Thanks for the answers, I really might give this mod a shot. ;)

Speaking of CIWS: someone told me today it only auto shoots at missiles if I face the missiles with my stern, is that true?

The fuNny thing was when the station showed one of the missiles incoming the CIWS didn't shoot at them (they came from 180 and I went to 100 or so still), neither in auto nor in full auto mode.
However, when I manually clicked acquire and engage the CIWS started shooting, weird huh?

I always had the impression the CIWS fires at any direction from the ship and always auto engages targets at "auto" mode?

I don't play ALL that often as the FFG, but the CIWS can fire at targets in any direction except for directly forward, since it doesn't have a line of sight past the bridge. In Auto mode it will engage any inbound target going faster than I think 200kts and in Full Auto it will engage any target it can detect.

Perhaps a skimmer can give us more information, but I have never had a problem with it.

Pirate

01-01-06, 02:49 PM

Deathblow

01-01-06, 07:02 PM

I think it's the decompress.exe utility wich you can find at subguru.com

perhaps I'm blind..... but I don't see a decompress.exe on Subguru.

Deathblow

01-01-06, 07:04 PM

On a unrelated note.

Mine launched torps... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/lsm.htm

fun to model? or cheap for gameplay? Would be easy to model, but a nasty surprise for tight squeezed channels, especially in MP.

LuftWolf

01-01-06, 07:42 PM

An interesting idea, and one that would be possible to impliment for sure. :hmm:

Pirate

01-01-06, 08:18 PM

I think it's the decompress.exe utility wich you can find at subguru.com

perhaps I'm blind..... but I don't see a decompress.exe on Subguru.

Hummm.... I thought it was there!!!
Anyway, PM me your email and I'll send it to you.

LuftWolf

01-01-06, 08:20 PM

Well, I DO know that I'm converting all the Ohio SSBN's to SSGN's each capable of launching 154 TASM's. :up: :rock: :arrgh!:

http://vmcnavy.net/community/viewtopic.php?t=526

OneShot

01-01-06, 08:44 PM

Or the Mk60 CAPTOPR mine : http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk60.htm

LuftWolf

01-01-06, 08:52 PM

I added it to my list as well. :)

Deathblow

01-01-06, 09:29 PM

Well, I DO know that I'm converting all the Ohio SSBN's to SSGN's each capable of launching 154 TASM's.

Neat. I've been looking to do this myself. Cool deal.

I've always had a nice mission design in my mind for a sub recon missions in which the player sub detects some land and sea targets and "calls in the thunder" from a linked Trident SSGN 300nm away that rains down mega hurt. 40-50 tomahawks :arrgh!: :yep:

shouldn't be too hard to code right?

On a related note. Shouldn't TASM have greater range. Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but all my reading puts the range at at least 700nm... but only 250nm in the game. :nope:

Apocal

01-02-06, 03:50 AM

On a related note. Shouldn't TASM have greater range. Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but all my reading puts the range at at least 700nm... but only 250nm in the game. :nope:

No, the TASM's range was actually 250nm... actually, it wasn't so much a "hard" range, but more of a "don't bother", effective employment deal. By time the TASM traveled 250nm (roughly 27 mins) the targets could have moved in any number of directions and, because of it's rather subpar radar, the bird wouldn't acquire even flying a search pattern.

Hobnail

01-02-06, 04:30 PM

Deathblow

01-07-06, 07:47 PM

Hey LW, how's the new SSGN and Captor coming along? Any problems that we might be able to help with?

TLAM Strike

01-08-06, 10:50 PM

Idea just hit me, why not add the ESSM to the Burke DDG? Remove a couple of SM-2s for a bunch of ESSMs. I think they can load four ESSMs in each VLS tube.

Deathblow

01-09-06, 06:21 PM

ESSM?

TLAM Strike

01-09-06, 07:00 PM

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile.

RedDevilCG

01-09-06, 09:24 PM

If any help is needed for the latest version of this mod, I will be willing to help for sure. Just give me the word.

Deathblow

01-09-06, 10:04 PM

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile.

Hm... that's interesting. How is the performance compared to the SM-2?

TLAM Strike

01-09-06, 10:32 PM

SM-2
Range 40-90 Nmi
Speed 1932 Knots

ESSM
Range 20 Nmi
Speed 2400 Knots

The ESSM dosn't have much range compaired to the SM-2 but they can carry four in place of a SM-2.

LuftWolf

01-09-06, 10:38 PM

That can be done fairly simply. :)

OneShot

01-10-06, 04:22 AM

Hmmm.... wouldnt that be a step back in capabilities. To my understanding the ESSM is sort of a longer range RAM. While you can attack ships, and whatnot with the SM-2 you can't do that with the ESSM. Tho acording to the sources its more capable against low profile ASMs ...

Here is a link : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/rim-162.htm

Cheers
OS

LuftWolf

01-10-06, 12:47 PM

Well, I'm looking into it for the next version. The change itself is simple, but I have to look more closely about the details of each weapon to see if it is worth it.

My suspicion is just what you have posted, the ESSM will be able to engage seaskimming vampires that have made it past the SM-2's better at the ranges the second salvo usually occurs against supersonic ASM's, which is between 7-12nm depending on how far out they were intially detected.

Deathblow

01-15-06, 12:06 PM

I've read a recent discussion on the strategypages about true sub speeds, something I've always wondered about myself.

For example, the USS albarcore broke 30+ knots as the speed record in the 1950s, with unoffical rumors that its actual speeds were approaching 50knots.... and that was over 50 years ago!!..... with diseal power!..... :shifty:

You can't tell me that in the last 50 years, especially with 12x the power of nuclear reactors, that submarine speeds are what they are toted as..... 35knots for a 688? :88) ... heck I remember the old 688AttackSub had the 688 doing 38 knots.

I also remember a discovery channel documentargy about the new subs, that stated that even though submarine speeds a highly classified, its generally accepted that latest generation nukes can pass 40 knots and even approach 50knots. My own personal opinion when it comes to sub speeds is that the 688 can do 38knots..... the Akula 36.... the SW 42+ knots.

Anyway, here's the discusion I was talking about. http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/462-2889.asp

LuftWolf

01-15-06, 02:41 PM

Well some people place the 688i at 31kts!

I seem to remember that the speeds in SC were a bit lower for American platforms and a bit more for Russian platforms.

Honestly, the platforms speeds are mostly relative and no one knows. In the same board I read 31kts was max speed for 688i, I read that the SW made 45kts. I have no idea.

If I were going to make changes, I'd do it with more relative concern, and it seems they all fit together pretty well, although I'd like to see the Akula I Imp move faster than a 688i. :cool: :)

But messing with stuff like that without real data is messing with a core aspect of gameplay, so I have to be really convinced about it, and nothing I've read about submarine speeds has been convincing to me. :hmm:

XabbaRus

01-15-06, 03:26 PM

Also these new subs are bigger and high speed means high noise. Even if the SW can reach 45 knots I doubt it does it often.

As for strategy page there are about 3 guys on there whose opinion I trust.

Deathblow

01-15-06, 04:18 PM

hm... with weapons like the squall and ASW missiles dropping 65knot type 40 torps (which is what the SS-27-ASW and stallion carry in my own personal version) think core gameplay doesn't change much.

In my own personal game I've given the 688i 37knots, the SW a 42knots and left the Akula at 35knots seeing that its a larger boat with more drag. Works pretty well imho.

Mocbo

01-15-06, 05:25 PM

I have my LA at 37 Knots to.... an the SW at 42 Knots to. the akula have 39 knots. The Kilo have 25 to 27 Knots .
Then i have Changed the Dive Deeps of nearly all Subs in the Game.
The SW have 4500 to 5000 feet ( 1500m) then the LA have 800m.
The Typoon have nearly 1000m . The Oscar a bit more.
The Kilo up to 600 m

I think the Sonar Detectiion Ranges have to changed in the Next Version of the Mod.

Ive played a self made Testmission with 4 Oscars . 2 Oscars in Groups. One Group 30 miles exactely North an the Othjer Group at 45 Degrees at 15 Miles.
One Sub in each Group facing to me and one facing away. All Boats at 10 Knots. My speed is 5 knots and course is 090.

My Deep is 500 Feet the Others 900 Feet. No Thermal Leyer between the Subs and me.

I used the 688I and detect the Group there was 15 miles at the 45 Bearing with the Narrowband Mode of the TA. Now Way to detect the another Group in the North. NO SINGLE SIGNAL.

Then i used the Seawolf. Here now the Difference. I catched the North Group at 50 hz but only the Facing Away Boat but not the other....
31 Seamiles away.

In some REAL Sub Reports there is to be Read that a LA is able to detect some Sub Contacts at 30 Miles( I mean the older SSNs there are Oscar, Victor etc..). The Seawolf have to do this at more Range because the newer Sensors.

Where i can change the Sonar Range.. What is to change..

I use DWedit.

Greetings

Moc

Deathblow

01-15-06, 05:38 PM

Then i have Changed the Dive Deeps of nearly all Subs in the Game.
The SW have 4500 to 5000 feet ( 1500m) then the LA have 800m.
The Typoon have nearly 1000m . The Oscar a bit more.
The Kilo up to 600 m

Wow, those are some really deep diving depths... 1000m for the Typhoon.... 5000ft for the SW.... :o I'm curious to what's your source of information. :hmm:

LuftWolf

01-15-06, 05:42 PM

Changing the ranges is a fairly complicated affair now in 1.03.

In terms of sonar ranges, they are highly variable in both real life and the game.

In all honesty, I'm pretty happy about the passive sonar ranges in 1.03b+3.00b. :)

Mocbo

01-15-06, 07:12 PM

Read some about the older Subs an thier Dive Deeps

US Boats
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-594.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-637.htm

All the Same , Hy80 Steel and OLDER than the LA.
Official!! Deep is 600 m Then is the Max Deep deeper .
The Tresher crushed at 2700 M !!!... but this isnt the Operating or max usable Deep which is much lower. The Tresher has HY80 Steel to.

Then this seems to BE unreal.... The SAME Steel an a lower Deep??? Not Logical or thinkable.....
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm

Then the Seawolf have HY100 Steel... The Operating Deep is thinkable one third deeper than these of the LA.

RUSSIAN BOATS
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/945.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/685.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/705.htm
All have Titan Alloy Structures. Look at the Depths

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/971.htm
The Akula have a possible Titan Double Hull!! . It goes deeper than the written 2100 Feet!!.

Then the Typoon have a Double Hull with five Pressure Hulls of Titan !! Steel.
NOW say this CANT go deeper than 4 or 500 m !!!
Not very logical.......

Then i heared from a Source that our 214 CAN goes to 1000 m . This i cant believe because this Boat is a relatively small Boat against the nuclear Subs but it is much quieter due the fuel cell plant propulsion system.
But it have a silent water pressure Launch System for Weapons , then multiple outboard CM Launcher etc.
I called it the Mini Seawolf :-)

Greetings

Moc

Deathblow

01-15-06, 09:17 PM

Hm.... those are some good points Mocbo. If you use diving depths that deep its too bad that the game doesn't make use of the deep sound channel like it should.

I'm reading an interesting book, Concepts in Submarine Design, and from what I've read the operational depth is a little grey, not just a function of the material strength, seal strength, and bulkhead buckling pressures, but its response to low cycle fatigue, everytime a surface-to-deep-to-surface manuever is performed the hull undergo elastic deformation which after a while will wear the joints and reduce maximum depth, by how much and how quickly only the Navy knows. So the first dive will be the strongest with the maximum depth subjectively declining after months/years of low-cycle fatigue.

sonar732

01-15-06, 10:39 PM

NO ONE will learn the operating depth of a U.S. submarine. The only sayings we knew in the sub force was...

"Greater than 500ft and faster than 20knts!"

"I can neither confirm, no deny..."

Deathblow

01-16-06, 11:23 AM

As for strategy page there are about 3 guys on there whose opinion I trust.

So what's a good source for technical opinions? I have a ton of technical questions that I can never seem to find any good discussions on. Like...

.. why do you think the VA and SW chose to mount its towed array on fins instead of thru aft control surfaces like on the LA and Ohio? Seems like it would increase drag to me, but am I mistaken.

... why do you think the VA went back to the 4 horizontal + 12 VLS tubes instead of the SW 8 horizontal tubes? Seems like 8 horizontal tubes offers more payload flexibility, with only a minor loss in the rate of missile launch.

... doesn't the depth of a submarine effect its top speed? Intuitively the pressure of the water around it should have some short of drag increase? Or am I mistaken? I know that torp speed is depth sensitive, why not subs?

.. how far can a ultra low frequent radio wave travel in water? What if we link a underwater radio antenae directly to reactor output and pump a 10-100 megawatts thru it? How far would the signal reach thru the water? Would it be detectable on the surface?

.. what's the deal with UUV "Gliders"? Its not like "lift" is a problem in water like it is in air. Why would a "glider" in water have increased range?

.. what do you think the performance characteristics of the new half-length torpedo are likely to be in terms of range and speed? I know it has "increased broadband resolution" meaning better littoral warfare application, but doesn't its smaller size retard the range of the torps significantly?

.. where's the high frequency sonar mounting on the Akula? It could be on the sail, but isn't its sail too far back to give a good forward view?

... what's the true length of a ship wake? DW has wake homers homing in from miles behind the ship? Is a ship wake really *that* long and/or wakehomer sensors *that* sensitive? How do wakehomers really detect a "wake" anyway? I've heard that its highfreqency sensor detecting the wake noise, but is that all?

Anyone got any favorite forums where things like this are discussed?

Mocbo

01-16-06, 11:35 AM

I'm reading an interesting book, Concepts in Submarine Design, and from what I've read the operational depth is a little grey, not just a function of the material strength, seal strength, and bulkhead buckling pressures, but its response to low cycle fatigue, everytime a surface-to-deep-to-surface manuever is performed the hull undergo elastic deformation which after a while will wear the joints and reduce maximum depth, by how much and how quickly only the Navy knows. So the first dive will be the strongest with the maximum depth subjectively declining after months/years of low-cycle fatigue.

That is thinkable . The Steel aging speed up by more Diving an Surfacing of the Sub. An old Sob never goes so deep than a New Sub . Is like a Car, it is staining wirth the Time.

BUT WHY is all Classfied for the Public... All secreet Services in the World know about military Aspects an New Military Equiptment of the opposing other Side in a minimum of Time, due Spy activities.
There is nor Role from what... Submarines, Aircraft, Tanks etc.

The Effect of the Classfied Info to the public is small.
When it is a Sectret then it has the Big Interest off all.
When the Real Things is Public then the Interest sinks.
Is with all Things in the Life.Think back to the own Child Time... What was with Secrets???

Greetings

Moc

TLAM Strike

01-17-06, 03:16 PM

I just got a copy of 'Guide to the Soviet Navy Third Edition' by Norman Polmar and there is an image of the stern of a Koni Frigate and it looks like its equiped with two (or Four) Towed CMs...

"Depth-Charge racks fitted to mine rails on East German Koni-class frigate Rostock (Towed torpedo decoys are between the DC racks.)"

I guess this might be something thats needs to be added to Russian ships in additon to their current OTS decoys.

XabbaRus

01-17-06, 04:23 PM

Can you scan and post a pic?

Oh and how much for the book?

TLAM Strike

01-17-06, 04:49 PM

Sorry I don't have a scanner but I maybe going to a buddy's house this weekend and he has one so I maybe able to get a scan for you then, and I got the book for free- here is a my post form General Topics about how I got it:

My buddy whose in the Navy (Currently at NAS Pensacola but just got orders to USS Winston Churchill DDG 81) got his hands on some old reference books they where getting rid of and sent them to me. I know own:
'Guide to the Soviet Navy Third Edition' by Norman Polmar 1985 printing ISBN 0-87021-239-7
'Soviet Air Power: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Warsaw Pact Air Forces Today' by Bill Sweetman and Bill Gunston 1978 Printing ISBN 0-517-24948-0
'The Illustrated encyclopedia of the strategy, tactics, and weapons of Russian Military Power' by Ray Bonds etc 1982 edition ISBN 517-386968

I guess I have the honor of having books with annotations by US Navy Personnel, in other words some sailors who checked out the book from the base library corrected the naming errors. :lol: Great sources of info. I think Soviet Air Power is going to be a favorite around the TLAM household; the illustrations are fantastic (the Su-15 looks awesome, kinda a mix between the F-4 and F-5) :up:

XabbaRus

01-17-06, 05:20 PM

Well if there are any unusual pics I'd love it if you could scan a few from bith navy power and air power.

The Su-15 is afunky looking bird.

TLAM Strike

01-17-06, 05:55 PM

There are a couple of pics of the Space Control Monitoring ship Kosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, the VDS housing on the Udaloy and Petya I, an image of a Bear-F droping Sonobouys from its bomb bay, a pair of Badgers refueling each other (side by side :-? ), and a Inda riged up for arctic transit that seemed intresting. Those sound good for you?

XabbaRus

01-17-06, 06:05 PM

Very much so
Cheers

RedDevilCG

01-18-06, 10:58 PM

Deathblow: I can for sure answer two of your questions, the one about the glider, and the one about depth and speed. Why don't you open a topic in the general discussion where people can post these sort of questions, and those who might know the answer could answer them.

Ah nuts. I will just open it up, and copy your post there.

TLAM Strike

01-27-06, 05:33 PM

A couple of things to add in the future...

SS-N-14 and SS-N-16 ASROCs to the Kirov CGN.

MU90 torpedoes to the RAN's Frigates, Helos, and P-3s:
Minimum speed: 29Kts
Maximum speed: >50Kts
Range: 12,000m at maximum speed, 25,000m at min. speed
Operational bandwidth: >>10KHz
Acoustic coverage: 120Â°H x 70Â°V
Max. Active detection Range: >2500m
Anti-Torpedo capable. :o

The MK-50 torpedo 3D model would work fine for now.

LuftWolf

01-29-06, 01:15 PM

Thanks TLAM, I think 3.01 is going to be fairly amibitous in terms of adding new weapons and features to the game. :|\ :cool:

HydroShok

01-30-06, 06:59 PM

i got some suggestions for the lwami mod (not sure if any of this is possible to mod for)

1)Longer range radars on some of the land targets. A little unrealistic maybe, but opens the door for some long range online TLAM strikes. Right now at about 18 miles, thats too small. A coupla sonobuoys would cover that space with 6 mile active range. I figured out recently that if you put the airport on a mountain, you can pick up its radar up to 82 miles away (a little excessive, looking for about maybe 25-50 miles). Make the p3 have to hunt a little harder for that sub about to launch soon. Using teamwork to locate the land targets spread out over a large map would be cool, something different. :cool:

2)theres a satelite in the game. The one from SC that you find under the ice in that one mission. Is there anyway it can jacked up way in the air and be given a visual sensor or radar maybe? If it can't move, a map maker could just bring it in and out of the map temporarily with triggers at certain times. I thought it would be kewl, and realistic too, for subs to come up to P-depth and link up to a satelite. Find that convoy a long ways away. :)

3)the DPRK have a modified fishing boat in game. I thought this little sneaky joker would be a nice touch online(once again, something for subs to link with). But the enemy AI instantly knows what it is and isn't fooled by the "fake fishing boat". They blow it out of the water pretty quick if its not neutral. Humans wouldn't know the difference if it weren't for the modded fishing boat not using radar for some reason. Its always on EMCON. But it seems like it does have a radar in the database.

4)i have no idea how realistic this is, but is there any way we can get the Sea Dart, perhaps on the SAM site? I've seen the SD in the USNI and with DWedit, but don't know of any unit that actually uses it. If i remember correctly, its a 35 mile range SAM.

I tried putting the sensors on the above units myself with DWedit, didn't work. Was hoping that i was doing it all wrong, lol.

Bellman

01-31-06, 01:58 AM

I had high hopes for the 'modified' fishing boat 'linking' after switching from neautral but her radar wont play ball.

Would be a real nice 'realistic' spy/sneaky feature if those LwAmi Time Lords could 'engineer' it. :cool:

OKO

01-31-06, 11:04 AM

Hatch

01-31-06, 04:07 PM

Testing FFG7

Scenario setup:

Mission: N. Atlantic Convoy
Patch: 1.03b
LW/AMI Version 3.00b

â€¢ Following the operational doctrine of EMCON established for an FFG7, all emitting sensors were shut down, The helo was sent out to lay down a picket line of sonobuoys, while in transit, I set the Helo to link its radar to the FFG (REMRO) so as to keep the frigate under EMCON, once the Backfire appeared, I used the Heloâ€™s radar to track the TU-22M and assign an SM-2 to engage the Backfire, the FCR gave me a fire solution, I fired and the SM -2 went in the totally opposite direction of its target, if the Heloâ€™s radar link can not be used to fire the SM-2, then it should not give you the â€œFireâ€ option enabled as it did, if on the contrary it can be used to acquire and assign targets to the SM-2, something is not working properly. Also, the Heloâ€™s radar did not paint the incoming Vampires, only the TU-22M.
â€¢ In the bridge, the â€œOrderedâ€ speed setting is always marking 29 knots, no matter what changes you make, either by using the speed control handle, or by manually setting the speed, it always shows 29 knots.
â€¢ The longer TA cable certainly makes for a clearer passive sensor, but wouldnâ€™t you know it, it got caught by one of the convoyâ€™s ships and ate it (I think, there was nothing else that could have crippled it), certainly realistic, something to keep in mind you FFG drivers. Also, I am aware that the depth of the TA transducer is dictated by the length of the cable, or the speed of the frigate, wouldn't be nice if the transducer had a fin stabilizer effect, where you could set its traveling depth to adjust for a given situation, this would be aquestion for the game engine I guess, just an idea.

Thatâ€™s all I got for now, Iâ€™ll keep on giving this thing a once over and see what else I can come up with, see you.

Hatch

LuftWolf

01-31-06, 04:44 PM

Following the operational doctrine of EMCON established for an FFG7, all emitting sensors were shut down, The helo was sent out to lay down a picket line of sonobuoys, while in transit, I set the Helo to link its radar to the FFG (REMRO) so as to keep the frigate under EMCON, once the Backfire appeared, I used the Heloâ€™s radar to track the TU-22M and assign an SM-2 to engage the Backfire, the FCR gave me a fire solution, I fired and the SM -2 went in the totally opposite direction of its target, if the Heloâ€™s radar link can not be used to fire the SM-2, then it should not give you the â€œFireâ€ option enabled as it did, if on the contrary it can be used to acquire and assign targets to the SM-2, something is not working properly. Also, the Heloâ€™s radar did not paint the incoming Vampires, only the TU-22M.

Yes, sometimes the SM-2's seem to act a bit funny. You have to make sure that your FCR is actually painting the target and that it is in range ALSO, you have to have your search radar paint the target as well. So firing on link contacts with SM-2's generally doesn't work. Make sure you are firing (have your FCR painting) the contact generated by the search radar, as both are necessary for the missile to work correctly.

Also, it is a well known short coming of the link that AI missile link contacts are not shared with humans. This is unfortunate and hopefully will be corrected in the future, as AI platforms share linked information on missiles freely as any other target class.

In the bridge, the â€œOrderedâ€ speed setting is always marking 29 knots, no matter what changes you make, either by using the speed control handle, or by manually setting the speed, it always shows 29 knots.

This is an unfortunate consequence of the fix in 3.00b for the FFG speed bug in 1.03b, the FFG is too sluggish and does not reach top speed under most conditions. This has been fixed for the full version of 1.03 and 3.00.

Thanks for the feedback! Keep it coming! :up: :rock: :arrgh!:

Cheers,
David

Hatch

01-31-06, 05:21 PM

LuftWolf

01-31-06, 05:49 PM

The SM-2 is a Semi-Active homing missile, meaning that it needs illumination from the firing (or some other) platform.

On FFG's and all other ships that I know of which use SA missiles the search radar and fire control radars both need to be used to guide a missile, the search to direct the FC and the FC to direct the missile.

Ships run in EMCOM, but once they are fired on, they switch their radars on darn quick because an incoming vampire means you have been detected anyway and the radars are now needed to detect incoming missiles and direct counterfire.

This aspect of the SM-2 is exactly the same with or without the mod and is an accurate represenation of real life semi active missile operation, in regards to the issues you are talking about.

In terms of being able to assign an FCR to the link contact, there are many ways to screw up the commands in station in DW, its your job as the operator to avoid those kinds of errors. There are some safety measures built in but not many. :know:

Hobnail

01-31-06, 06:20 PM

Testing FFG7

I fired and the SM -2 went in the totally opposite direction of its target, if the Heloâ€™s radar link can not be used to fire the SM-2, then it should not give you the â€œFireâ€ option enabled as it did, if on the contrary it can be used to acquire and assign targets to the SM-2, something is not working properly. Also, the Heloâ€™s radar did not paint the incoming Vampires, only the TU-22M.

Yes...this is a quirk I've noticed in all versions of DW since release and it's most apparent to me when playing this particular mission. Maddening watching the SM-2 fly a semi-circle to come back around to hit the vampire.

As to using REMRO, I wouldnt expect what is primarily a surface-search radar to pick up mach 3+ AS-6. As to using it's data to fire SM-2, all the FFG requires to fire the missiles is to have position data accurate enough to slave one of the tracking radars on the required contact. Once the illuminator acquires the target, it's slaved to it by it's own tracking.

LuftWolf

01-31-06, 06:24 PM

I'm fairly certain that the fire control radars on most ships need the search radars to function... :hmm:

Hatch

01-31-06, 08:13 PM

Ok, i get your point, thank you for the explanation, I was under the assumption that the helo's radar was also an air search radar, not just surface, which makes perfect sense.

Thanks

Hatch

Mau

01-31-06, 08:54 PM

Ok, this is the way it would be supposed to work.

A Semi active homing missile needs CWI from the FC radar to be guided to the target. The reflection of the CWI on the target will come back to the nose of the missile.

So first thing (and I am talking about the OHP guided system here and not a Spy radar associated with it - so no AEGIS system that will give a PIP - Point of intercept - and then radiate only on the terminal phase of the missile) is that the ship needs to track the seaskimming missile to handover it to the FC Radar. Without this you will be very lucky to have your FC to have a lock on it since the beam is very narrow. For a sea skimming the best radar is the surface search since the missile is very low above the water. That is why without radar (air or surface) you should not be able to lock on anything. In the game, you can have a lock (fire available) on a link track but good chance that it will miss or have some weird behavior. Even with the Air radar because the update of the track is less than the search one since the rotation of the antenna and the resolution is a lot less than a surface or an air-surface search radar, it would not be as good.

Once you have hooked a sea skimmer at fairly close range (inside 18NM), you should have a good track since it should have been handover to the surface search radar. Then the CWI should be right on the target.

As per the North Atlantic Convoy scenario, we are faced with a very very fast missile coming at us. In real life the only thing why this system would be able to deal with that threat (and in a very limited way) is because this AS-4 Kitchen is a high diver missile, so you see it from a very long distance. The Aircraft would not be able to fire it from 4000ft like in this scenario. In the game, the AS-4 is going right away to the waves top which is wrong and that is why once you detect it, it is mainly already too late.

That is explaining the weird behavior of the SM-2 (I think) for this. Why it is doing a semi-circle going in the opposite side before coming back, is the fact that the very small amount of time the Fire control solution has, makes it thing that the threat is coming so fast that by the time it's launch, it thinks that it will be passed (dead reckoning).

I am pretty sure that this weird behavior is not happening against a subsonic sea skimmer in the game (not that I remember of anyway), because the system has time to calculate.

And guess what, in real life a STIR FC against supersonic sea skimmer will have a really hard time (again I am not talking about AEGIS, which I can talk for a very long time).

But yes the game might have some little bugs as well.
If the persons who are creating scenario thinks about all those things, then the scenario will be realistic (until such time flight profile of the AS-4 willl be fix, or at least having the backfire firing from 10 000 ft minimum).

As of now for this scenario and using 1.03B and 3.0, as soon as you detect the EW of the AS-4, have a lot of chaff (and I mean chaff) away at short regular interval and aim for the last missile of the stream for the SM-2 so that the FC as a better calculation. It works very often because I did a lot of testing......

Hope this help
My 5 cents

Mau

TLAM Strike

01-31-06, 09:06 PM

I read the other day that the Tu-22M only carries 1 or in very rare cases 2 AS-4 missiles. I wonder if we should dumb down the Backfire...

Hobnail

01-31-06, 09:21 PM

I admit I've never seen a photo of the Tu-22M with KH-22 on the wing glove and centreline pylons at the same time.

Anyone?

Mau

01-31-06, 09:46 PM

Anyway, you will not find AS-4 anymore.
The Backfire has the AS-16 Kickback and can have up to ten (six in drum and 4 on pylones)

And yes, I don't remember seeing a picture with more than 1 AS-4. Those are massive!

Hatch

02-01-06, 11:33 AM

Ok, I noticed that the layers are now being created by the mission generator, or even manually created missions, at a depth oscillating between 950 and 1200 feet, i tried many missions, and that depth seemed to be consistent in all of them, didn't matter if it was sand bottom or rock bottom, no shallower layers were found.

But i guess you already knew this right?

Hatch

TLAM Strike

02-01-06, 12:28 PM

Try a diffrent time of the year or diffrent ocean. I've been seeing a lot around 600-700 feet recently.

Hatch

02-01-06, 04:46 PM

I did, tried East and West US coast, a few in the Med as well, the layers are being created too deep in my opinion, thoughts?

HydroShok

02-02-06, 03:31 PM

if you pick surface duct then it can be like 400-1200 roughly.

manual says convergence zone is supposed to be 100-300 but its more like 200-400 for me.

try the CZ. shouldn't go deeper than 450ft.

Canary islands make a good CZ. I did some testing there with some seawolves

both above layer at 4 knots, can hear each other 21 miles away

both below layer at 4 knots, can hear each other at 11 miles away

can't hear each other at all more than 7 miles away under any circumstances, even if the sub above layer is cavitating at 40 knots.

you can get an active return above layer at 21 miles, but the layer seems to block the below layer sub. Seems like they fixed active sonar bug i guess. Layer doesn't stop an active sonobuoy too much however.

rock gives long range, mud=medium, sand=short range sonar. if you pick sand and bottom limited it gives you radically bad sonar conditions. Sonobuoy on active wont even work farther than 1 mile. Mud bottom in a place with 200-600ft of water will limit active buoy to 2.5-3 miles. Otherwise its almost always 6 miles.

Hatch

02-02-06, 05:15 PM

Interesting, I'll play with it a bit more, Thanks!

LuftWolf

03-25-06, 03:06 PM

Anyone who is currently working on this project will receive an email/PM from me in the next few days with a complete update on the status of the project as well as some word on how I see the future going, of course everyone should provide their input as well.

I'm really looking forward to working with you all on the future of DW modding. :)

LuftWolf

04-03-06, 01:06 AM

Got killed at work this past week.

The email is still coming. :)

Deathblow

04-15-06, 05:26 PM

Here's a thought...

Only 4 trackers on the LAi and SW? I don't think so! COTS baby! 8 trackers per sensor for the SW and 6 trackers per sensor for the LAi. :yep:

That should be more "realistic"

Deathblow

04-15-06, 07:16 PM

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

04-15-06, 09:34 PM

Hey LW, quick question. Are the Anti-missile defense changes that your made for the AEGIS ships reflected in non-AEGIS missile defense platforms like the, Kirov and Sovremenny, as well? Just curious to whether these platforms have benefitted as well.

I can tell you that. Perhaps some but not nearly as much. He blasted the RMAX of the SPG-62 and SPQ-9A (Perry radar) FCRs to over 90km. Everybody else, from the SA-N-9 FCR to the SA-N-6, and also American radars like the SPG-51, has the same RMAX of about 36km.

LuftWolf

04-16-06, 02:27 AM

The primary limitations on anti-missile performance are the number of missiles that can be fired at a time and the range of the fire control radars for semi-active homing missiles.

The previous doctrine had all ships firing one missile at a time from each launcher... fortunately Amizaur was able to work his way around that in the doctrine and introduced moderated salvo fire (moderated because the ships don't just fire everything they possibly can at every possible target), which means that ships will fire appropriately once the targets are within range depending on the target type and the type and number of launchers.

The fix to the FCR's was a quick fix (the radars all need to be redone) to bring the AEGIS performance at least up to the FFG. The Mk92 in the stock database is MUCH longer ranged than the AEGIS FCR's, so I set them equal to quickly rememdy that problem, which means the AEGIS ships will now engage at a reasonable distance against ASMs.

In terms of the other ships, and the fine tuning of the performance, yes these all have to be done... however, right now it involves importing database from the Harpoon database and this takes some time... anyone else know where I can get a complete range table for all modern search and fire direction radars??? :yep: :lol:

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

04-16-06, 06:01 AM

In terms of the other ships, and the fine tuning of the performance, yes these all have to be done... however, right now it involves importing database from the Harpoon database and this takes some time... anyone else know where I can get a complete range table for all modern search and fire direction radars??? :yep: :lol:

Ultimately, you will have to do something like that. However, in the interim, well, all you need is to make it better. Perfect can wait.

It is hard to write a precise curve. It is not so hard to conclude that the SA-N-6's range would have been pretty useless if the FCR simply cutoff at 36km.

Here is a site (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm) with stats on aircraft radars. May need some tweaking but about in the right ballpark and sure as h*** better than the ones now in the game.

Get small things like this done along with each major change you put out, until you finally integrate the precise data you need. This shouldn't take long - do it in between fighting the doctrine to get your SLAMpoon working.

Good work! Keep going! And thank you.

Deathblow

04-16-06, 03:06 PM

Another quick question....

ever notice that a torp going 40knots and a depth of 200ft does not cavitate, but a uuv going 5 knots at the same depth does? :-? That just doesn't seem right..... anyone know what determines the cavitation speed vs depth for each of the platforms/torps and how to modify them.... ideally, a uuv going 5 knots would not cavitate unless right at the surface (say for example, under 10ft). Wonder if this can be modified...

... on a related note, uuvs always seemed too sensitive a sensor, with detection capability as good as the subs own primary sensors and sometimes seem even better than the subs own sensors. In addition, uuv's being developed now are now toting 60hr run times with vastly extended ranges....

how about this.... how does reducing the sensitivity but increasing its range? Mabye limiting the sensors to higher detection frequencies in order to reduce its effective ranges (800-2000 seems a good frequency band) and increasing the range to 30km. :hmm: What'd you think?

LuftWolf

04-16-06, 03:36 PM

Ok, thanks, I'll look into it. :up:

Deathblow

04-16-06, 04:22 PM

I may be mistaken, but it seems like the game engine may be determing cavitation speed vs depth as a function of "percentage of maxspeed" of the object rather than the actual speed itself, but I'm not sure. I've not found a "cavitation depth" value box (or its equivalent) in the DWEdit. :hmm: Perhaps the solution is to set the uuv maxspeed to something high, like 30-40 knots and then use the doctrine to assign the uuv speed (which has always been determined by the doctrine, not the user input) to "SetSpd MaxSpd/6" to achieve the desired 5knot speed without the cavitation profile... no clue to whether this will work.

I think tuning down the uuv sensitivity would probably be good for multiplayer as well. From, what I hear (I'm not a MP myself) uuv's are pretty much abused as serrogate sensors to keep contacts updated, while the player is manuevering and evading, probably not a 100% realistic tatic, or something an actually uuv is capable of... tuning down its sensitivity (by increasing the detection frequencies to high frequency noise) may make things a bit more interesting. What do people think about this?

EDIT: Here's a good UUV link from UnderSea Warfare Magazine
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_15/wave.html

EDIT: Hey I tried the method above, setting the uuv top speed to 30 and then changing the doctrine to setspd = 5 (instead of maxspd) and it worked, the uuv is no longer cavitating at shallow depth. :up: . Guess the engine really is using percent topspeed to determine cavitation

MaHuJa

04-17-06, 12:40 AM

Perhaps the solution is to set the uuv maxspeed to something high, like 30-40 knots and then use the doctrine to assign the uuv speed (which has always been determined by the doctrine, not the user input) to "SetSpd MaxSpd/6" to achieve the desired 5knot speed without the cavitation profile... no clue to whether this will work.

Perhaps one could use similar programming to the new torpedo logic to have it speed up?

LuftWolf

04-17-06, 12:52 AM

The torpedo issues are separate project... I should try to add those as well for LWAMI 3.03... Amizaur has done quite a bit of work on this.

Deathblow

04-18-06, 10:22 PM

Quick Update: I tried increasing the UUV detect frequency to 800-1200 (similar to a spherical sonar band) and the results are still pretty negligible. Its still detecting everything that moves within 50miles (as good or better than the ships sonars :-? )

Hm..... ever wonder what happens when we set the Nrd to a positive number... its range is -128 to +128, but all the stock values seem to be negative, what happens when be make them positive... come to think of it... what does the Nrd control anyway? :hmm:

Still work in progress. I bet this will be a welcome addition to the multiplayer games... will make them more interesting IMHO :yep:

Molon Labe

04-19-06, 12:01 AM

Hmm, in my experience the UUV has had an effictiveness somewhere between the TB-29 and pelimida. 50nm is way beyond any perfomance I've had, at least against subs.

Deathblow

04-19-06, 12:17 AM

Hmm, in my experience the UUV has had an effictiveness somewhere between the TB-29 and pelimida. 50nm is way beyond any perfomance I've had, at least against subs.

Yep, exactly. A 5ft sensor stuck on the end of a torpedo body shouldn't have comparable sonar performance as a thousand feet of microphones. :dead: (am exaggerating when I say 50miles)

Actually, I have issue with the UUVs being modeled the way they are ingame at all. All the sources I read say that the UUV in operation/development are all anti-mine platforms at their heart and don't really mention tracking/target detection capability... at least in what I've read so far. Perhaps sometime in the future, along with electric drives, half-length torpedoes, and externally mounted torpedoes, but for now does a anti-shipping uuv actually exist? Why Sonalyst decided that UUVs were going to be TA on a string with tracking ability is kindof coming out of nowhere

Maybe its sensor capabilities should be cut back very very drastically... :hmm:

MaHuJa

04-20-06, 07:04 AM

I'm quite interested in this topic. However, there are some concerns I have.

First of all, the UUV is indeed powerful. But even with the crippled torpedo passive sensors, do people here remember what happened when the torpedoes got the feedback flag set?

It may be that the immense range is... a bug.

Secondly, keep in mind the purposes of the UUV when making changes.
Do we want to tune down its passive detection capabilities?
Do we want to increase its minefield mapping capabilities?
Etc.

I'd say yes to both, but with moderation; how often do you run into a minefield?

Third, there are some areas of the UUV that are definitely on the weak side. If you want to have a viable tool for minefield navigation, the speed (and with it, the range) needs to move up, and the active sonar which is not much better than a torpedo could do with some improvement. Given that it has much less propulsion and warhead, a better sensor than torpedoes doesn't sound like asking for much.

Perhaps an idea is to tone down the passive side, and up the active side? If the UUV goes active, its presense is known to the enemy (presuming the enemy has subs or AI... but that's a gripe for another time)

I haven't used the UUV in active mode since... well... I sorta just know I have at some time, but by what I can tell that may as well have been with SC...

Current minefield mapping and navigation performance is quite lacking.

As to the "5ft sensor stuck to the end of a torpedo body" I always imagined the UUV as having sensor packages sandwiching the elec/propulsion "core".

In the seawolf, at least, I wish one could see what the uuv sees by it appearing as a last sensor, along with sphere, hull, and towed. Interface-wise it would be a small difference, and game engine-wise it shouldn't be so much different from sonobuoys. But the other platforms might not have that easy a time with it.

LuftWolf

04-20-06, 11:34 AM

I have no problem with messing around with the active/passive sensitivities of the UUV... in fact we have more or less overlooked it to this point. :oops:

LuftWolf

04-22-06, 10:12 AM

Fighting a busy schedule and a mild case of burnout (general computer not DW specific)...

So, in short, everything talk about is coming (email, new version of LWAMI, and the expansion of the modding projects...).

To the modellers in particular, sorry about being tardy. How is progress on the sail bridge positioning and the adaptation of the playables? Is it worth waiting to put the non-playables in or should we put those in as soon as we can, including the new platforms?

Deathblow

04-22-06, 08:16 PM

Can't wait LuftWolf. Things keep getting better and better. :up:

With the simulation representing more and more plausible system performances its really gathering the feel of warfare that one would expect. Like with the Aegis systems performing like they do I can now understand why some reports say that RL subs don't bother to carry many ASM missiles anymore, if AAW systems are advanced as they seem in-game those are like impenetrable walls.

I haven't used the UUV in active mode since... well... I sorta just know I have at some time, but by what I can tell that may as well have been with SC...

Good question. I haven't used the active UUV mode in forever as well.... wonder how good it is anyway? Does anyone know the expected detection ranges of its active mode? One could probably suspect a similar range to a torp active sonar. And with more range (like 35-45nm) it might be a more suitable anti-mine platform... perhaps anyway.

Random Question: How do we feel about the theoretical performance of ground based SAM and AAW? One would expect that the more in trench SAM (guarding airways, bases, etc) would have comparable performance to a ship-born aegis right? The issue might surface with strike mission in which strike targets supposedly heavily defended aren't really shooting many missiles... :hmm: Could it be as simple as assigning Aegis stats to the SAM sensors and giveing them the CIWS doctrine?

Deathblow

04-24-06, 03:18 PM

More random questions (sorry I post then as they come to me). Torpedo hits

Given the reported destructive power of advanced fusing. Are we sure that ships like the OHP and AB could survive even one torpedo hit? I mean look at the devastation to these ship structures...ouch :o :dead: :doh:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/21456/torpedo_hit/
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/51/5210/640/adcap%20destruction.jpg

On a related note... can anyone think of a way to "randomize" the percent damage of missiles and torps. Say for example, sometimes it might take 1 and sometimes it might take 2 hits to stink a target, but the attacker can't predict which. Maybe something in the doctrine or a .ini file? :hmm:

Deathblow

04-26-06, 02:44 PM

Some observations regarding Aegis escort behavior.

I've run some small scenarios to observe the escort behavior of an Aegis ship since the improvements. The behavoir is much much better, but is still showing goofy decisions sometimes. Here's the test I ran...

I set us one CVSG with a NImitz as the group leader and one AB DDG as an escort. Opposite of them I put a Russian CVBG with a Kirov as an escort. Each groupl also had a aircraft flying above the group for radar coverage (a Hawkeye and a Flanker-D). The were given a RoE or war and attack behavior... here's what happened.

1.... the Kirov began launching Shipwreck missiles as expected at the DDG, about 7-8 missiles. When the missiles reached about 25-30nm the DDG started throwing SM-2s at the Shipwrecks as expected and was able to intercept them in due space.

2... the Kirov then threw a 10 missile volley at the Nimitz. The DDG again responded with SM-2 when the missiles were around 20nm from the DDG (about 16 nm from the CV). Problem it only launched one SM-2 per shipwreck. :dead: :doh: not near enough to garantee protection to its escortee. At least 2 missiles apiece would be needed to compensate for the inevitable SM-2 miss in time to save the Nimtz, also given that the SPY-2 would not nearly be saturated with only having 4-5 SM-2 airborne.

3. As far as the Russian CGN, whenever the AB DDG started a Harpoon volley against the Kurnevoz (sp?) the Kirov didn't really even lift a finger to help.

There's was also an incident where the DDG alllowed a Russian flanker-D, to practically fly right over the top of it and began circling... it eventually shot it down, but only after it had been allowed to loiter for a while. All seem less than "smart" behavior sometimes.

Seems like the current behavior with good for AAW self defense, but not quite perfect yet for escort defense. What are other people perceptoins of the current behavior? Anyone that can proport similar occurences?

LuftWolf

04-26-06, 03:26 PM

The lack of response from the Russian ships was most likely due to the missiles never being in range of its FCR's, the range of which needs to be increased.

In terms of the anti-missile behavior, the ships don't differentiate between missiles targeted at them and missiles targeted *near* them. The problem here is that you have your platforms too far apart for the DDG to respond effectively with a second volley if the first SM-2 misses the supersonic Shipwreck.

The DDG again responded with SM-2 when the missiles were around 20nm from the DDG (about 16 nm from the CV).

Typically escorts would be much closer, and ringed around or in front of the escorted platform.

In terms of the AAW defense, its possible, based on what you said, the DDG didn't class the aircraft as Hostile until late, or it was busy doing other things with its missiles. In general, I have found that ships do hold fire for some time against aircraft unless the aircraft fire (or there are specific IFF settings in the mission engine), most likely waiting for PosID.

Deathblow

04-26-06, 03:53 PM

shouldn't be a problem if the AAW were too fire 2 missiles instead of one. I know the the current CIWSAttack doctrine is stimpulating 2+ missiles for incoming targets speed is greater than 600kts. I wonder why it was still only firing 1 missile at a time? The shipwrecks do 1500kts.

In terms of the AAW defense, its possible, based on what you said, the DDG didn't class the aircraft as Hostile until late, or it was busy doing other things with its missiles. In general, I have found that ships do hold fire for some time against aircraft unless the aircraft fire (or there are specific IFF settings in the mission engine), most likely waiting for PosID

Perhaps time to play with the doctrine a bit. :hmm:
I also wish I could get to the bottom of some of the stranger ship behavior. For example, I set a CVSG group up, and after the initial volleys the escorts ran away the other way while the CV plowed ahead to its peril (eventually to sustain over 14 missile hits at close range :o :dead: . Time to fire some captains!

LuftWolf

04-26-06, 04:20 PM

I'm going to look into the salvo issues. :up:

Although, to be honest, I have found the performance of the AEGIS to be acceptable now.

A Tico and Burke usually hold off against four Oscar II's firing Shipwrecks constantly for 10-15 minutes from 100nm, and a single Burke with two FFG's can hold out for 5-10 minutes.

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/5892/ssgnx4salvo1fo.jpg

Deathblow

04-26-06, 04:26 PM

What about a single AB against two oscars? :hmm:

LuftWolf

04-26-06, 04:56 PM

The sim automatically limits the number of missiles in the air from any one side against a single ship to 4... so using my multiside trick the max number of missiles in the air against the Burke from two Oscars is 8.

It would appear the survival rate for a Burke against 8 Shipwrecks fired over the horizon is about 50%.

Deathblow

04-27-06, 02:54 AM

So from what I understand about Aegis, is that in RL it coordinate missile volleys amongst all ships in the link. But.... and this is just from the scenario that I've been testing, looks like in the game currently is that each Aegis ship is really shooting one SM-2 independently to intercept each incoming missile. Put 2 or 3 Aegis ships together and they will increase, or even top off the number of SM-2s per attacking missile, ewhich increase the success rates... so coincidentially they are accidently mimicking real Aegis strategy.

But put a ship alone, where it should be launching 2-3 SM-2 per attacking missile (because it no longer has backup from other Aegis), its still using only 1 missile instead. Using 2 ships together this behavior isn't a problem, but a solo ship isn't compensating.

All that being said, trying to program a behavior that both responds appropriately to solo defense as well as can coordinate amonst a group effort would be..... an absolute nightmare and probably not worth it. :-?

Oh well

db

ps) want me to send you the mission setup I've been using to test the behavior?

Mau

04-27-06, 04:11 AM

I thought the Mod was better now in that regards.
I thought the Aegis were more agressive now
Luftwolf?

Deathblow

04-27-06, 06:35 AM

Oh, there's no doubt that its much much much better, just looking for ways to make it even better.

LuftWolf

04-28-06, 12:49 AM

Deathblow, actually you are wrong... missiles are shared across the link and the sim intelligently hands off targets to individual ships, reserving some ships for backup salvos on vampires missed by the first salvo of the first ship.

Why do you always assume something is wrong when you haven't done the legwork?

Trust me, when you take the mind to fix things, there is no joy in finding new things that need to be fixed.

***It's patently not possible to reference the state of one object in the sim using doctrines unless that object is a target***

So coordinating between ships is not a doctrine/moddable problem.

LuftWolf

04-29-06, 01:04 AM

Ok, I have fixed the salvo problem with the CIWSattack doctrine, thanks for pointing this out DB, I have looked at this countless times and not noticed a problem. :up:

Deathblow

05-08-06, 07:36 PM

Ok, I have fixed the salvo problem with the CIWSattack doctrine, thanks for pointing this out DB, I have looked at this countless times and not noticed a problem. :up:

Glad i could help. I tend to not mention a behavior until after I've witnessed it, setup test scenarios to test it, and then try to figure out some initial doctrine/database fixes initially (for my own personal tweaks). If the problem doesn't lend itself to any discernable cause or initial solutions then I usually drop a post or two with observations, looking for ideas.

Not that the Aegis modeling wasn't already adequate, the SM2 weapon effectiveness could always be tweaked as a bottom line, just thought that since we were trying to refine AI behavior and decision making it was worth mentioning. I got kindof fixated on surface platform behavior after trying to create a few CVBG and joint task for scenarios where the AI wasn't really behaving ideally.

Deathblow

05-09-06, 04:28 PM

Here's a question. Anyone know what "Affected by ground noise" in the DBEditor Sensor Window means? Ground noise?

I doubt that DW is simulatedly seismic events! :lol:

LuftWolf

05-09-06, 04:49 PM

I'm pretty sure that refers to sea state. ;)

Deathblow

05-09-06, 05:14 PM

Interesting... :hmm: ... there's already a "affected by sea state" option on the sensor dialog, so "affected by ground noise" would represent another, different, aspect of sea states...... I wonder...

... what if it refers to how close a sensor is to the bottom of the ocean... like reverberation effects or ground scatter of sound and the like... if it is, it may represent a way to model the in the increased diffulculty of the littoral sonar envrionment...

... I've been reading sonar in littoral waters can be very different and even weapons like the Mk48 have a terrible times in littoral environments because the sonar picture is more confusing, with more ground scattering, bottom bounce, etc than sensors can compensate for...

... but those are just wild guessing... it might be worthwhile to setup some test scenarios to see how "ground state" effects sensor performance... could be interesting.

LuftWolf

05-09-06, 05:22 PM

I've also learned that a lot of the database is simply redunant and actual has no effect on anything in the sim.

I'm beginning to suspect that the ECM Jammer option does nothing in the sim for example. However, there is a bitcall option in the doctrines to test for the ECM Jammer, so it could be modelled in the doctrines, and this is what I am planning to do, we'll have to see if it works.

Amizaur

05-09-06, 06:49 PM

Deathblow, actually you are wrong... missiles are shared across the link and the sim intelligently hands off targets to individual ships, reserving some ships for backup salvos on vampires missed by the first salvo of the first ship.

Hmm I never observed that... are you sure ? I looked in here accidently and above surprised me. Are we talking about DW here ? I was sure that in DW ship missile defense is controlled by doctrines and there is no way to coordinate launches from different ships, so there is no way that game can globally coordinate ship missile defence (no if it's realised by doctrines - and it is). Every ship defends himself as Deathblow wrote, it was my impression. How did you observed what you wrote - the handing off targets to individual ships ?

P.S. Hmm, IIRC, affected by ground noise was flag for radar sensors... and meaned that low flying targets are harder to detect. for sonars there was affected by sea state. but I can be wrong and can't check this now...
don't think it's about sea bottom background, long ago I tried to enable it for active sonars and there was no difference with detecting targets laying on the bottom. It's a flag for radars most probably... and it's enabled for search radars.

P.S.2. Luftwolf, have you figured maybe what CM type sensors are for ?? They seems to be not used by anything, especially by CM objects... ? Or maybe they are, just it's not show up in Ludger's editor...?

Molon Labe

05-09-06, 06:55 PM

Here's a question. Anyone know what "Affected by ground noise" in the DBEditor Sensor Window means? Ground noise?

I doubt that DW is simulatedly seismic events! :lol:

Actually, the DW software was originally written to record seismic events. When it gets confused, it sorta "runs home to momma." :-j

LuftWolf

05-09-06, 07:25 PM

Deathblow, actually you are wrong... missiles are shared across the link and the sim intelligently hands off targets to individual ships, reserving some ships for backup salvos on vampires missed by the first salvo of the first ship.

Hmm I never observed that... are you sure ? I looked in here accidently and above surprised me. Are we talking about DW here ? I was sure that in DW ship missile defense is controlled by doctrines and there is no way to coordinate launches from different ships, so there is no way that game can globally coordinate ship missile defence (no if it's realised by doctrines - and it is). Every ship defends himself as Deathblow wrote, it was my impression. How did you observed what you wrote - the handing off targets to individual ships ?

The sim limits the total number of weapons in the air at any given time from one side against a single platform/weapon. I believe the total number of weapons is four, so a single missile will never have more than four missiles trying to intercept it at any given point, even if doctrines order two ships to fire four missiles each. This is why SSGN's have to be set on different sides in order to attack surface ships in groups.

P.S.2. Luftwolf, have you figured maybe what CM type sensors are for ?? They seems to be not used by anything, especially by CM objects... ? Or maybe they are, just it's not show up in Ludger's editor...?

It seems likely that these are holdovers from FC or SC. There are a few other clear examples, but I can't remember them at the moment.

Deathblow

05-09-06, 07:42 PM

The sim limits the total number of weapons in the air at any given time from one side against a single platform/weapon. I believe the total number of weapons is four, so a single missile will never have more than four missiles trying to intercept it at any given point, even if doctrines order two ships to fire four missiles each. This is why SSGN's have to be set on different sides in order to attack surface ships in groups.

I'm not 100% sure about that as well. I've found that if you change the "AttackBest" in the CIWSATTACK doctrine to "FIREBEST" then you will see a ridiculous number of missiles go airborne at one target, with the only limit the "max number of rounds guideable" in the launcher dialog. Its a pretty funny firework display with 6-8 missiles being fired at each and every ASM. :huh: :lol: :roll:

Maybe there is some other effect determining missile limits... I know that this came up in the SSGN design.... if 5 SSGN were given attack orders did only 4 shoot?... it might have something to do with the AttackBest logic with isn't amenable to modding atm.

Deathblow

05-09-06, 07:43 PM

LuftWolf

05-10-06, 01:25 PM

The Sim treats attack against surface ships differently than submarines, missiles, or aircraft, in the sense that it automatically deploys more than one weapon against the target using the ATTACKBEST command, usually more than enough. I'll have to look into this farther, but I have encountered the hardcap even when using the FIREBEST command.

BTW, the changes in the new version of the CIWSAttack doctrine allow a single AB DDG to survive against two Oscars until the DDG ran out of missiles, in the middle of the fourth coordinated salvo of eight missiles. :up:

I'd say that's a pretty good improvement. :know:

Cheers,
David

PS When I post the torpedo test version, it the new ciwsattack doctrine will be included.

Molon Labe

05-10-06, 01:31 PM

Deathblow

05-10-06, 01:35 PM

I hate the fact that AttackBest and firebest logic has been hidden the way it has... :-? :nope:

BTW, the changes in the new version of the CIWSAttack doctrine allow a single AB DDG to survive against two Oscars until the DDG ran out of missiles, in the middle of the fourth coordinated salvo of eight missiles. :up:

:o ... :|\ ... :hmm:

Wonder what people will think of this as representative of reality or not... I'm inclined to accept it as reasonable (obviously since I brought it up) only do to the fact that why would a Aegis ship even take a chance and hold back missile launches when lives are at stake. If the ship defenses fail because the missile salvos were restricted then there really wasn't a point to hold back the quantity of missiles in the first place right...there won't be a next time to use the ammo saved.

... sounds reasonable to me. Some might not like it, because ASCM are now even *less* effective against Aegis than they already were... which some may like and some may not... but the behavior sounds reasonable, so if any quams are made then perhaps future tweaks to AEGIS performance will be made to the weapon accuracy of the SM2 itself as the ship behavior will already be a reasonable representation...

... all of course IMHO

Molon Labe

05-10-06, 01:38 PM

Why be H about it?

The AEGIS is the counter-unit to the ASM. If it wasn't effective at doing its job, any the outcome of any mission involving missile shooters would be pre-determined.

Deathblow

05-10-06, 02:10 PM

On a completely unrelated note (as always)... here's more of Deathblows ever persistent, continuously annoying, yet completely unsolicited, interjections of opinion... :)

Some interesting quotes from the May issue of Seapower magazine regarding UUV development. http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

The Navy doesnâ€™t plan to produce the single-mission LMRS, but instead is leveraging the lessons learned from it and moving forward to acquire more advanced, reconfigurable, multimission UUVs. Navy Capt. Paul Ims, program manager for UUVs in the Program Executive Office for Littoral and Mine Warfare, said, â€œOur UUV programs are [now] focused on delivering more affordable, modular, autonomous systems with an open architecture.â€

A contract to develop the first of these, called the 21-inch Mission-Reconfigurable UUV System (MRUUVS), is slated for award in mid-2007, and the UUV could become operational in 2013. An open architecture, or general blueprint, for computerized combat systems means they are standardized, transferable to other platforms and able to accommodate a variety of software applications.

The serviceâ€™s November 2004 UUV Master Plan cites ISR as the Navyâ€™s top UUV priority, followed by mine countermeasures, and then antisubmarine warfare as a longer-term priority

So its continuing to look like the ingame UUV capabilities aren't even close to those in RL... Heck, the statements in this article are suggesting that the USN probably doesn't even have UUVs currently fielded on subs with no plans to field them until 2013.

And even then the above statements proport that intelligence, survelance and recon are the first development goals, anti-mine the 2nd development goal, and *then* after than Anti-submarine warfare.

The Navy plans to operate some existing, less-sophisticated UUVs from its forthcoming Littoral Combat Ships, particularly to hunt for mines, using surface launch and recovery. These include the 10-foot Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Underwater Vehicle developed by the Office of Naval Research and Bluefin Robotics of Cambridge, Mass. The ships are being designed to counter shallow-water threats in coastal areas, such as mines, diesel submarines and fast surface craft
Why this super futuristic piece of technology is sitting in the 1980-1994 representation of ASW is still baffling to me.... I would not be opposed to limited to sensor ability of UUVs to make the good for anti-mine warfare and anti-mine warfare alone... might cause a ruckus though...

... then again whose to say the Russians don't have them... :hmm:

Deathblow

05-10-06, 02:58 PM

Not to shift discussion away from the AEGIS systemps of course...

Deathblow

05-29-06, 09:51 AM

Topic: MAD sensor.
Suggestion: Limited the minimum depth detectable to the MAD.

Its my understanding that deep depths mask the magnetic anomaly detected by MAD sesnors; that is to say, a deep submarines magnetic signiture will be shielded from the surface whenever it is deep enough, thereby hiding it from MADs above.

My suggestion? Lets put a shallow depth limit to the MAD to simulate this behavior. 600 or 800 ft should do it, so that a sub in the deep can hit 1000 ft in order to hide from the P3 overhead:yep:

LuftWolf

05-29-06, 12:57 PM

Deathblow

05-29-06, 02:37 PM

So it has, assuming the DB values are in feet (I hate the way the DB switches between metric and nonmetric values randomly).

Here's also something that's interesting... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/asw3.htm
In order to detect an anomaly, the MAD head of the aircraft tries to align itself with the noise produced by the Earth's magnetic field. Through this alignment, the noise appears as a near-constant background noise value which enables the operator to recognize any contrasting submarine magnetic anomalies from the background noise. However, any rapid changes in aircraft direction or the operation of certain electronic equipment and electric motors can produce so much aircraft electro-magnetic noise that makes the detection of the submarine's magnetic signature virtually impossible

Meaning the direction of the detecting aircraft affects the accuracy of the MAD sensor... wonder how true this really is... if so it would be hard to model because making the sensor cognisant of its direction as well as making the AI respond appropriately would be a real pain. Perhaps making the sensor "target aspect" sensitive would be enough of a compromise.

... can you tell I hate ASW aircraft?

Amizaur

05-29-06, 03:58 PM

So it has, assuming the DB values are in feet (I hate the way the DB switches between metric and nonmetric values randomly).

Yes, distances are in meters, altitudes in feets, I hate this too ! :down:

LuftWolf

05-30-06, 12:37 AM

And database and NSE altitudes in meters... :shifty:

kage

06-07-06, 08:26 AM

This was done some time ago, like six or seven months.

... to the MH-60.

Last I checked, at least, the depth capability of the Orion MAD was still untouched from stock.release;

LuftWolf

06-07-06, 08:51 AM

... to the MH-60.

Last I checked, at least, the depth capability of the Orion MAD was still untouched from stock.release;

Oh, det. and op. (sensor) altitudes are in feet. ;) :know:

So now you know what my hobby-life is like. :doh:

The P-3 Mad is set not to detect contacts under 1000ft in LWAMI.

Sea Demon

06-16-06, 10:33 PM

Very interesting reading here, guys. I have one minor question regarding LWAMI. Which files within LWAMI are the ones responsible for making the AI 'meaner'? Database or Doctrine files?

LuftWolf

06-17-06, 12:33 AM

The way DW works, the Database and Doctrine files are integrally related. They go together as a "set".

So it is really both files working together that makes the game what it is. :)

Qppralke

06-22-06, 01:20 PM

Is it possible to make the sonobuoy splash visible and audible on sonar ?

LuftWolf

06-23-06, 12:54 AM

Not directly no.

In terms of doing this in gameplay terms, I not entirely sure adding this would be accurate...

Remember in WWII when hydrophone operators heard depthcharges entering the water, that's because they were often directly underneth the boat dropping the charges...

Given how loud the sea is on its own, anywhere between 65-100db without anything else in it, I'm not sure how well a sonobuoy splash would be heard in such conditions.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

PeriscopeDepth

06-23-06, 02:27 AM

Unless there's a way where you can only model if it's reasonably close, no.

PD

LuftWolf

06-23-06, 03:11 AM

Yes, I can model the splash to be more or less undetectable unless they are right on top of you.

The way I would do it is to give the Buoys a top speed of 1 kts and a thrust that gives them a +45 PSL. I would then have the buoy go to top speed when it hits the water and stop when it gets about 10ft deep.

I'm pretty sure it would work, but it'd have to be SO quiet, that its unlikely it'd be even worth doing, since on Russian sonar there is no chance at all you'd pick it up and with the waterfall it'd be bearly recognizable too.

I mean, we are talking quiet here...

Qppralke

06-23-06, 09:02 AM

Keep in mind, that sonars have improved since the world war II.
I don't have real life sonar experience, but if you can hear a shrimp far far away, I assume a splash from a buoy which have a bigger mass , could also be audible .
That's just a guess.Of course, the shrimp is very fast moving contact and probably has a larger area .
Can you hear a raft ? Weaves striking into the raft . . . I wonder . . .
Or ship wreck, can you hear the water, moving inside the wreck ?

Another request :-) Do you think it would be possible to create a false contact (like some noise from inside the earth etc ? It could be really tricky . You could make it moving under the bottom (in the scenario editor) and dissapear. That would be really confusing . . .
There are some sounds for them already on the internet , and some comunity sound mods .

LuftWolf

06-25-06, 12:16 PM

I sent you a PM. :)

LuftWolf

07-11-06, 07:00 PM

Ok, I guess I'll do buoy splashes for LWAMI4. :)

Cheers,
David

Qppralke

07-14-06, 12:26 PM

I'll much appreciate it :up:

GrayOwl

07-20-06, 08:20 PM

Hi Guys! And what the truth MK48 ADCAP has TNT a charge in 400 Kg? And UTK Torp 750 Kg? The truth You in it trust? :hmm:

LuftWolf

07-21-06, 12:35 AM

UglyMowgli

07-21-06, 03:56 AM

Inerver heard thaht the Mk48 had a shaped charge, LWT like 46 and 50 should have one because the lack of explosive but the heavy torpedo like mk48 didn't need shaped charge, they acrry enough explosive to blast everthing. I am wrong?

LuftWolf

07-21-06, 04:32 AM

The Mk48 was designed specifically to defeat the fast, deep diving, *double-hulled* submarines the Soviets built, specifically its SSBN's.

As part of an effort to ensure any submarine hit by the ADCAP went to the bottom (as opposed to being able to carry on in some reduced capacity, perhaps as a nuclear threat), I believe (or at least what I have heard says... no special sources, just paying very close attention over time) the USN specified that the ADCAP to some degree be "overbuilt", to ensure the full power of its explosive warhead was directed past the first hull and into the main pressure hull.

I suspect that the ADCAP has at least a two part warhead configuration, with the first warhead being made of a special explosive compound to both physically damage and chemically degrade the common metals found in submarine hull construction. The second part of the warhead has a very short delay with a forward-blast shaped charge. If the timing and fusing is done correctly, the first warhead triggers when the torpedo is nearly within contact distance of the hull, and then just as the blast of the first stage is degrading the integrity of the hull, the second blast fires to blow both its own blast force and the molten metal and remaining pieces of the outer hull into the interior of the sub.

It's basically exactly like a chemical anti-tank round, and just as nasty, only underwater and much bigger.

Cheers,
David

PS I could be completely wrong... but this technology has been around since the early phases of WWII (think panzershrecks and bazookas...), and its the perfect way to defeat a double hulled submarine specifically designed to suffer blast damage to its outer hull and maintain SLBM capability. ;)

PPS And if you think about just how much larger a Typhoon SSBN is than a single ADCAP torpedo, you'll understand why the USN made this specification.

UglyMowgli

07-21-06, 06:48 AM

Well, You didn't need to pierce the double hull of the submarine, you just have to aim the stern aera of a submarine, wihtout propulsion or direction control a submarine is doomed and the blast of the explosion in all case will make severe damage to the shaft and heavy leak in the propulsion room.
Modern torpedo like blachshark, spearfish and certainly the mk48 are 'enought intelligent' to attack the most vunerable part of a submarine, the stern (witch is also the noisy one).

LuftWolf

07-21-06, 07:02 AM

Well, yeah, that's what one would think.

On the other hand, the very fact that the Kursk had survivors on board after two catastrophic internal explosions is testiment to the Russian designers.

I used to be very skeptical of the claims of how solidly the Russians built their boats, until only very recently. If its a matter of bringing the 33,000 tons of total destruction to the bottom or not, I'd think that one would aim for a weapon that absolutely got the job done.

Keep in mind, if you fire at a Typhoon and miss, that means its going to be firing several dozen nuclear warheads at its earliest opportunity.

Not even the Blackshark has that kind of pressure on it. :)

Cheers,
David

GrayOwl

07-21-06, 11:08 AM

The database damage values are not 1-1 damage points to kg.

You'll notice all the LWT's have a warhead of 120 points. :)

The ADCAP is rated higher than other torpedoes for the same warhead weight because it has an advanced shaped-charge warhead , that directs a jet of plasma into the hull of the target, very similar to a HEAT round used for anti-armor work.

Additionally, the UTK torpedo has increased damage to create the underkeel effect for the ADCAP when used in this mode.

Thanks for playing.

Cheers,
David

If you are interested... http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.htm

Explosive Charge 650 lbs. (292.5 kg) PBXN-103
This is equivalent to about 1,200 lbs. (544 kg) of TNT

No, No... Formula for calculate percent damages in "DW" same as in "Harpoon":
ARMOR Tgt / ARMOR Wpn = % Damages. Strongly 1 to 1 ! (Except for the doctrines using variable 'DETONATE')

But if You made recalculate explosion weight - so correctly...

Whether more correctly to calculate a Armor/Damage hulls under "Harpoon" formulas? (Damage Points Calculate)

Some values hulls are obviously high, others are too small.

Under keel explosion Is strongly "Hypotetical".
In DW damages areas at 3d model not modelled...

It only rather feigns a level of damages at the expense increase of quantity of an explosive, but on another it cannot be made. There can be this correct decision...

Only MK 48 ADCAP, UTK mode have been. Why other torpedos with a wire control have no an opportunity to shoot under keel?

This is similar "God Help" for US sub drivers. :hmm:

Or I is wrong?

LuftWolf

07-21-06, 01:08 PM

Well, I'm going on the information I have. :)

In terms of the damage model, it functions 1-1 but the whole damage scheme has to be considered carefully. Simply going through books and plugging in values would result in something like four LWT's to kill a SW and like 15 to sink a OHP.

Clearly, the "real" values aren't very helpful when it comes to warheads other than a guide to relative in-game effects, which is all that matters.

If you are going through our database looking for numbers ripped from Janes, etc. you aren't going to find them, partially because its not interesting and partially because its not helpful.

There are probably thousands of difference between our database and say a Janes book.

Plugging real-world values into a database and calling it "realism" work is the lowest form of modding, IMHO.

Cheers,
David

Qppralke

07-23-06, 04:18 PM

LuftWolf

07-23-06, 04:32 PM

I'll definately look into it.

Although, for some reason, I think a few others have looked at this, and it seems that HF sonar is simply not detectable in the sim engine on active intercept.

Cheers,
David

goldorak

07-23-06, 04:38 PM

Hi guys. I was diving yesterday with my friends , and one of them (Kilo) was caught on hi freq. by Seawolf.
Do you think the Hi freq. are visible on real, active intercept station ? And if yes , is it possible to make this a feature in LWAMI ? :hmm:
If a submarine gets within range to see another one on HF sonar (and that means he's real real real close), then with all due respect the other guy is meat for the fish, whatever sub he is controlling.
Active intercept isn't going to help you one bit.
If you can't detect with passive sonar another sub within 3nm of you, well you don't deserve going back to port to put it mildly. :rotfl::arrgh!:

LoBlo

08-11-06, 08:15 AM

Hi Luftwolf and Amizaur.

When playing through some self-made scenarios I've constantly noticed that subs are always avoiding torpedoes to the left and never right. I think its coded into their SubAvoidWep to evade left.

I've taken the liberty to randomize the torp evasion route a bit in the hope it provides less predictability.

Here are the changes that I've made to the SubAvoidWep Doctrine highlighted in orange. I think you'll like them.

__________________________________________________ ______________
; $Header: SubAvoidWeap.txt Thu Dec 30 16:55:05 EST 2004 mike $
; $Revision: 5 $
; $Copyrt1: Copyright (c) 2003, Sonalysts, Inc. All rights reserved. $
;
; SubAvoidWeap, modified by Amizaur, feet/meters miscalculation corrected
; AI behaviour when evading torpedo still needs improvements to avoid cavitation
; if torp below layer sub could run 5kts above layer and drop CMs, not run full speed cavitating
; Additional edits by LuftWolf, sub always drops active decoy and evades at 100-140 degrees
; Slight increase in recognition delay and decrease in max tgt evasion range
; Modded by LoBlo 8/6/2006 to randomize evasion routes a bit more.
var PreventingSnorkel
var PreventingComms
var LegTimer
var RecognitionDelay
var Snapshot
var LegCourse
var jammerIdx
var decoyIdx
var AvoidLeft
IF Init THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = false
PreventingComms = false
RecognitionDelay = ( Time + 15 + rnd 15 )
LegTimer = -1
Snapshot = false
jammerIdx = DBIdxFromRecNum 1414
decoyIdx = DBIdxFromRecNum 1412
If rnd 100 > 50 THEN {
AvoidLeft = True
DebugOut "Evading to the left"
} Else {
AvoidLeft = False
DebugOut "Evading to the right"
} ENDIF
} ELSEIF LegTimer == -1 THEN {
IF Time > RecognitionDelay THEN {
IF ( TgtRng < 12000 ) AND ( TgtSilos < 0 ) AND ( abs RelativeBearing TgtCrs ( TgtBrg + 180 mod 360 ) < 30 ) THEN {
DEBUGOUT "Sub Evading Torpedo!"
IF Not Snapshot THEN {
DEBUGOUT "Firing Back!"
FIREBEST
Snapshot = true
} ENDIF
IF NOT PreventingSnorkel THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = true
SetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" + 1 )
} ENDIF
IF NOT PreventingComms THEN {
PreventingComms = true
SetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" + 1 )
} ENDIF
LegTimer = ( 180 + RND 180 )
SetPriority 255
SetSpd MaxSpd
; LW Edit to 100 to 140
If AvoidLeft THEN {
LegCourse = ( TgtBrg + 100 + rnd 40 mod 360 )
} ELSE {
LegCourse = ( TgtBrg - 100 - rnd 40 mod 360 )
} ENDIF
; Set Depth Opposite Layer
IF TgtAlt < LAYER THEN {
SETALT ( -600 - RND 50 )
} ELSE {
SETALT ( LAYER - 400 )
; set depth to 400 ft below layer
} ENDIF
; Setalt ( ( MinAlt / 0.3048 ) + 100 )
; DebugOut "MinAlt + 100 feet set"
; Throw CM?
IF RND 10 > 0 THEN {
; Decoy or Jammer?
IF ( TgtSource $= "Active Intercept" ) OR ( rnd 100 > 65 ) THEN {
DEBUGOUT "CM Decoy"
CountermeasureIdx decoyIdx
} ELSE {
DEBUGOUT "CM Decoy II"
; LW always drop active CM
CountermeasureIdx decoyIdx
} ENDIF
} ELSE {
DEBUGOUT "Decoy failed random draw."
} ENDIF
LegTimer += Time
} ELSE {
IF PreventingSnorkel THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = false
SetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" - 1 )
} ENDIF
IF PreventingComms THEN {
PreventingComms = false
SetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" - 1 )
} ENDIF
} ENDIF
} ENDIF
} ELSEIF Time > LegTimer THEN {
LegTimer = -1
} ELSE {
SetPriority 255
SetCrs LegCourse
SetSpd MaxSpd
SETALT ( -600 - RND 50 )
} ENDIF
__________________________________________________ ________________

So far the initial test work great and subs avoid more unpredictably. In regards to surface avoidance, I've not run enough test to know if surface ships are also avoiding left as well. If so the above code may randomize there avoidance a bit as well.

Another approach rather than just avoiding left or right randomly is to code the subs to avoid in the direction that is most convient to where they are heading, though that makes weapon avoidance a little predictable...

TLAM Strike

08-11-06, 07:05 PM

LW I recomend looking at all the CIWS type guns and increasing the amount of rounds guideable or something. THey need to fire faster. Also Depth Charge launchers need looking at, they damage the launching ship. Sacramentos need 3 CH-46 Sea Knights. Natya (Russian) need RBUs (Once they work). Ivan Rugov need Elk Tail VDS. Thats all the problems I remember for now (Got a big list at home).

Driftwood

08-25-06, 06:16 AM

Any updates on the status of Lwami 4.0?;)

LuftWolf

08-26-06, 09:54 PM

Regrettably, LWAMI 4.0 will not be released until SCS releases DW 1.04.

This is the case for a number of reasons, the most important of which is the complete lack of progress towards a new patch that addresses some important concerns that directly affect the mod.

No, this is not the same vaporware excuse used for DWX. LWAMI 4.00 will be released subsequent to a *successful* patching of DW.

Yes, I'm very dissappointed in the course DW development has gone.

I am going to release a patch for the most important issue in LWAMI 3.02, that is, the helo pinging under transit and acceleration related crashes following dipping.

Thanks guys. I wish things were better for us. DW is going to be around for a while, but I'm afraid that SCS's mismanagement or lack of attention or both has cost this community too much in terms of quality people who want to believe in what has been a fundamentally good product from 688i onward, but are given absolutely no reason to by the developers.

Cheers,
David

goldorak

08-27-06, 07:18 AM

Luftwolf,

I don't understand something.
You always said version 4.0 of lwami mod would come out when the official patch 1.04 by SCS was done.
So, what has happened in the meantime ?
Are SCS not developping anymore the 1.04 patch ?
And what do you consider a "succesful patch" ?
If 1.04 is not a succesful patch do we have to wait until maybe 1.05 to see your mod ?
Its all so disheartening. :nope:

Driftwood

08-27-06, 02:38 PM

Damn, this is NOT good news........:cry: Without violating any NDA's can you give us any status as to the SCS 1.04 patch?

porphy

08-27-06, 02:51 PM

complete lack of progress

Seems to sum it up really. To bad, Luftwolf and Amizaur, your mod is what made Dw stay on my hdd. Hopefully things do change to the better and SCS get the 1.04 out.

Cheers Porphy

LuftWolf

08-28-06, 03:50 AM

Goldorak, I don't ever remember tying the release of LWAMI 4.00 with the release of the DW 1.04 patch. :hmm:

In any case, there was no immediate connection until it became more and more obvious to me that way too much of what I was doing was either the direct result of working around some bug that could much more effectively be fixed by patching or inherently limited by some specific crippling issue with the game engine that once again could easily be addressed by patching.

I have absolutely no problem with any of this on the surface. Modding is in some ways advanced beta testing (or testing for the next product, as GOOD game companies utilize their community assets), but it is very clear to me that 1) SCS is going to fix what they want and anything beyond the basics that we find is never going to be fixed in the commercial version, which would again be fine, since at least we'd know where things stand, but 2) it's been a LONG time since anyone has heard anything, and the decision to go to Steam and multi-regional with the flawed DW 1.03 was frankly a direct insult to the BFC and SF customers. The lack of a patch for the new customers is their share of the dissappointment.

I cannot comment on the progress towards the 1.04 patch because there isn't anything to say.

Cheers,
David

Fish

08-28-06, 04:28 AM

Bellman

09-04-06, 01:51 PM

Sad, sad news - and what of the latest batch of LwAmi beta mods ?

What still stands and what has fallen by the wayside ?

LuftWolf

09-05-06, 03:30 PM

There's not going to be any more progress on LWAMI 4.xx until SCS makes a move.

LWAMI 3.02 will be patched, hopefully soon.

That having been said, the Advanced Torpedo Control Demo that I released with the documentation on the forum has had exactly zero bug reports given to me, so I can say that it works, so you can use that version if you like.

Cheers,
David

Jamie

09-06-06, 10:02 AM

Thanks guys. I wish things were better for us. DW is going to be around for a while, but I'm afraid that SCS's mismanagement or lack of attention or both has cost this community too much in terms of quality people who want to believe in what has been a fundamentally good product from 688i onward, but are given absolutely no reason to by the developers.
Update on the SCS forums...
http://www.sonalystscombatsims.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=5288#5288

Progress on patch v1.04 has not ceased, it is just moving at a snail's pace due to paying work from government customers. Take that as you will.

Thanks,
- Jamie

Bellman

09-07-06, 01:10 AM

Was that a nod or a wink ? ;)

Molon Labe

09-07-06, 05:26 AM

More like a consoling pat on the back.

Jamie

09-07-06, 06:49 AM

No, it is what it is... I always try to be honest with the community and that's what I did.

It's not over yet, but sometimes we all need to partake in a "dose of reality" so that people can gain perspective when it is sorely needed.

If anyone that needs consoling, Molon Labe, it's me. No one wanted DW to succeed more than I did.

Molon Labe

09-07-06, 11:16 AM

Bellman

09-07-06, 11:25 AM

Rather than beeing explicit in attempting to read between the lines sufficient to compare the position of Xavius software.

The community has eagerly awaited the release of ATC 2 for years and it has been announced that the development has been shelved. Here also we are told that the project has had to give way to the commercial imperative of catering for the professional market. There are other examples, where this mantra is becoming repetitive, from which it is reasonable to infer that there may well be additional hidden pressures at play. We should expect and accept that we live in a very dangerous world and ultimately decisions must be taken about the security of certain aspects of available software.

Expect strong denials - software houses have a delicate juggling act to perform in maintaining their customer bases whilst under pressures to haul in their sails or at least keep them well trimmed.

LuftWolf

09-19-06, 08:59 PM

I'm considering several options that will allow me to do a version of LWAMI with the advanced torpedo controls without having to mess with the parts of the engine that are really bothering me.

The LWAMI 4.xx ATC demo that I released is in fact a fully working version of the game. The only thing that prevents it from being an "official" LWAMI Mod is that 1)it lacks any kind of proper documentation 2) it has the same helo bugs as LWAMI 3.02 and there are a lot of extra things I want to add.

In other words, I'm thinking of doing a few extra things to the demo and writing a readme for it and releasing it, hopefully soon. I'll keep you guys posted on what I'm going to do.

For my part, and I suspect Amizaur's, the Advanced Torpedo Controls really represent the "creative work" that we have done on the sim, all the other changes are really mechanical, or covering up bugs, work that was previously much more interesting, as it helped us figure out the sim... and now that we have a good grasp on what's going on, it really just becomes an ugly landscape. Not to give the impression that DW is not a good piece of software, it is very good... but that makes the rough spots all that more hard to deal with, because they could be fixed so easily with some moderate level of attention.

Cheers,
David

SaxMan

09-20-06, 11:23 AM

Molon Labe

09-20-06, 12:37 PM

Luftwolf,

I just wanted to thank you (and all the other contributors as well) for all the hard work you've put into the Mod. People like you really take the game to a new level, and it wouldn't be half of what it is without your efforts.

:ping:

Seconded. Modding can be a thankless job, and you've certainly put in a lot of work to deserve a lot of credit. Thanks for all your efforts to make DW as good as it can be.:up:

Driftwood

09-20-06, 05:00 PM

Bellman

09-23-06, 10:07 AM

Many thanks for all your work. :|\\

Driftwood

09-25-06, 08:56 PM

LuftWolf

09-27-06, 05:38 PM

Yep, the whole ATC mod works almost perfectly. :)

I've almost come to a decision about what I'm going to do. Incidentially, the ATC Demo also has a perfectly working SLAM-ER with ASuW function. Just set the last waypoint as the enable point over water (or set it over land for the missile to operate in Strike mode as before).

Cheers,
David

Driftwood

09-27-06, 05:47 PM

LW, forgive me for being a little on the dense side (I've slept since I downloaded these mods :88) ) I've got 4.0, 4. V101, and Playtest One. Which one is the most complete/current one?

LuftWolf

09-28-06, 05:32 PM

The most current version is available at this link: www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/LWAMI4_Playtest_101_NoReadme.zip (http://www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/LWAMI4_Playtest_101_NoReadme.zip) .

Most notably, it has the ATC and Physics, updated UUV with more plausible sonar and advanced controls (enable button=speed control, preenable=depth control, passive sonar always on, no active mode [because of hardcoded DW 1.03 bug]), and the multirole SLAM-ER, plus all the other good stuff from LWAMI 3.02.

Also, it has a cadre of new playable hulls added for the existing classes, as well as an update to the SW sonar systems to better reflect its actual capabilities (forward looking hull sonar, basically...).

I really ought to get this out in some good version... but I just have no steam left (no pun intended) to make changes that will take a lot of time but may just have to be done over (if SCS corrects the bugs themselves).

I'll try to make a decision in a few days or so... in the meantime, enjoy the ATC demo. ;) :up:

Cheers,
David

Driftwood

09-28-06, 06:15 PM

Thanks LW! Don't give up the ship Bro! The community needs you!

LuftWolf

10-03-06, 02:14 PM

A quick update...

There have been some significant developments on a number of fronts. This is good news, but it means I have to wait on a few things to make any more progress directly on this projects.

Let's just say, this delay is good news. ;)

You guys should know more soon, but the sun has broken through the clouds. :sunny:

Cheers,
David

porphy

10-03-06, 02:47 PM

Nice news Luftwolf, I trust you and put on my sunglasses. Been a while since the sun was here. :cool:

Cheers Porphy

Driftwood

10-10-06, 07:00 PM

Are we getting a whiff of a new patch per chance??????:yep:

LuftWolf

10-10-06, 09:24 PM

All I'm saying is that continuing work on LWAMI 4.xx very soon seems to make sense again. :)

Cheers,
David

Qppralke

01-27-07, 01:15 PM

Hi Luftwolf , any chance there's going to be new LWAMI for 1.04 soon ?
We -> [OoO] are creating missions for LWAMI . So we are stuck now. Between old version and LWAMI and new version, but without our missions and LWAMI.
We tried to put old LWAMI on top of the new patch, but it doesn't work.

Come on ! Your people needs you ! :up:

LuftWolf

01-27-07, 01:40 PM

Posted.

Enjoy. :)

Cheers,
David

Qppralke

01-27-07, 02:10 PM

Cheers man :up:

LoBlo

01-30-07, 01:36 AM

Suggestion for the mod.

Consider giving the Trafalgar class two versions of the Spearfish. One with a 70 knot and 12nm setting, the other with a 50 knot setting and 27 nm speed. Equip both in the Trafalgar loadout (perhaps in place of the tigerfish) and whenever the sim plays the AI will chose which one is appropriate (70knot for close range, 45 for long range).

Of course, the speed vs range ability *could* be used instead (one blanket speed for the spearfish), but the problem is that the AI will always chose the max speed and shortest range.

Anyway, something to consider.

LuftWolf

01-30-07, 04:49 AM

That's a really good idea.

Very clever, I like that. We'll see how that fits in, but it's a very sound way to overcome the sound vs. speed issues for the AI. :up:

Cheers,
David

Landorin

03-25-07, 04:00 PM

Hi just tried out the latest mod version (only played 3.04 long time ago a few times) and noticed some weird things: 1) I was playing a quick mission with FFG against an AI Typhoon sub. It took about 5 or so torps to sink it (MK46-50)! Is that really working as intended? I'm not a navy man but I doubt that thing can survive more than 2 hits the most (if at all). 2) readme says platforms now have 360 degree active intercept. Is that realistic (I don't know, so I'm seriously asking)? Somehow the idea of having a blind spot sounded more exciting (and allowed sneakier tactics). What I really like is that thermal layers seem to make a bigger difference now as well as the AI helo uses the dipping sonar. :)

Molon Labe

03-25-07, 07:26 PM

360 degree active intercept has to be realistic...unless there's some engineering reason why it can't be done, but what could that be?

As for the Typhoon, the damage level was set so that it could barely survive a single ADCAP hit. It'll take 5 50s or 54s to take it down. Considering that the 50/54s are very small weapons, and a Typhoon is the size of a WWII carrier, that doesn't bother me too much. And even if it did, I'd still wonder just how often anything that carries the 50/54 would end up getting a shot at a Typhoon. Russia keeps them under the ice and close to home...if someone takes a shot at a Typhoon, it'll be an SSN.

LuftWolf

03-26-07, 05:27 PM

Take a look at a picture of a Typhoon and understand that the warhead of a Mk50 is about the size of your head, and you will understand why that makes sense. :)

The Typhoon has multiple hulls, in fact the gap between the inner and outer hulls is probably bigger than the Mk50 is long.

The ADCAP torpedoes, which are much larger weapons, are in fact designed with a two-stage HEAT-type warhead that is designed to burn through the outside hull of largers Russian submarines and then direct the blast of the second charge completely into the final hull (by reports...).

Russian submarines are supposedly designed to sustain hits from normal torpedo warheads, and so the the Mk 48 ADCAP warhead was designed to defeat these designs... or so the story goes.

Cheers,
David

PS The 360 degree Active Intercept performance is confirmed by modern submariners (Bill Nichols :) ).

Delareon

03-28-07, 02:55 AM

Hi folks,
yesterday i tried the LWAMI mod, seems like a lot of work a lot of good work.
But also i got some problems using this mod.
The first is that Auto SonarCrew doesnt work longer.
I saw a really clear contact on the 688i Broadband Sonar and the AutoCrew
doesnt mind.
This was on the Sicillian Wedding mission while i was moving from one Op Area to another, regulary i dont use Sonar AutoCrew. Then when i marked the Contact myself, The Tracker was left from the place where it was displayed.
No chance to move it to that position where the contact is really displayed at the Sonar. Cant make a screenshot now because im at work but i will try to visualize it.
i use the following signs * for the sonar line and a | for the marker. So when i marked the contact the marker was on a similar position like this:

___|_____________________
´´´´*´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´
´´´´*´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´´

The next problem was that the Sonar display was freezed.
After a few minutes the display starts running again then it freezes again.

Was using the actual version from www.subguru.com (http://www.subguru.com) and there are no other mods installed.
Hope u can reproduce this problems.

LuftWolf

03-28-07, 03:06 AM

Hi!

I don't think this problem is related to the Sonar Autocrew:

XX-Specific Sensor Changes-XX

Sphere and Hull Arrays—The sensitivity of the Sphere and Hull arrays has been increased relative to the Towed Array (to be clear, the TA is still much more sensitive in terms of long range performance) to better simulate their reported real world specifications. Also, the stern facing baffle of the Sphere has been increased to 120 degrees for active and passive modes, including the FFG and all AI platforms. It is not uncommon for contacts to show up on the broadband sphere before they show up on the narrowband sphere, and loud contacts will also show up more clearly on the sphere array broadband than the towed array broadband once both arrays have detected the contact. Expect to use the Sphere and Hull arrays more now to track and identify surface traffic and build situational awareness utilizing DEMON and TMA, and reserve the TA for finding and tracking those quiet hostile submarines or distant warships on narrowband. NOTE: Known Issue. It will be possible to see and hear contacts on the Sphere array before you can assign a Broadband tracker to them. You can immediately assign a narrowband tracker to all contacts on the sphere with a narrowband signature, although it is intended that generally contacts will be detected on the sphere broadband first. The broadband tracker issue is not intended, although it is present in stock DW as well, and the mod does not make it any worse in game play terms.

In regards to the contact being marked off the bearing of the line, I see this occasionally with the Western Sonar systems; sometimes the tick mark is definately off of the bearing of the contact. I don't see how anything in the mod could make this issue worse, although I did increase the bearing error on the sonar, which could be making this occur more frequently in some circumstances. Although not expected behavior (eg. a "bug") it appears to be more of a cosmetic issue to me... which is especially convenient because don't think I can fix it. :)

Thanks for your feedback, I hope this response is satisfactory for you, let me know if there is anything else or if you are unconvinced, I'm never surprised now when a new issue comes up that needs to be fixed! :up:

Cheers,
David