LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[Delareon]

thanks for your fast response LuftWolf.

Ok the Rule of the Day is "Its not a Bug, its a Feature" :P

Then i continue playing arround with this Mod.

Do u have any ideas why the Sonar display freezes from time to time when i use the mod?

Seems like the rest of the Game still runs as long as the display is freezed but
a Submarine without a working Sonar is a blind Submarine and a blind Submarine
can be very fast a dead Submarine.

[LuftWolf]

thanks for your fast response LuftWolf.

Ok the Rule of the Day is "Its not a Bug, its a Feature" :P

Then i continue playing arround with this Mod.

Do u have any ideas why the Sonar display freezes from time to time when i use the mod?

Seems like the rest of the Game still runs as long as the display is freezed but
a Submarine without a working Sonar is a blind Submarine and a blind Submarine
can be very fast a dead Submarine.

Well, my immediate response to that is: does it ever freeze when you don't use the mod?

The actual mechanics of the sonar modding itself is rather straightforward... changing some database values, it sounds like what you are talking about is more interface related, but I've never heard of this occuring before.

Can you perhaps be more specific about what you mean by "sonar freezing"? how often does it happen? can it be reliably reproduced?

Cheers,
David

[Driftwood]

Not sure what kind of "horsepower" you've got running under the hood, but that has happened to me when running the sim on an older PC. It can also happen if you crank up the time compression. It can take a minute or two for the sonar display to "catch up."

[Delareon]

Horsepower shouldnt be the Problem, thats an 3GHz Computer, 1GB RAM and alot of other things that should make me able to run 12 instances of DW simultan without performance loss *joke*

the Essence is that my Computer is a newer one, straight above the DW requirements.

I mean the Sonar display simply stops. The Broadband display exactly.
No more movement its like an JPG. All the other things are still working.
I can push every button switch to every view, its just the Broadband Display.
This Problem never occurs without the mod.

When i installed the mod it works about 30 minutes then it stops.
Then i removed the mod and that problem is gone.


Timecompression, i will test it again and will take a look at the timecompression.
I think that was without compression but im not 100% sure.

Maybe its an interface problem but it only happends when i activate the mod.

The other thing is that this wasnt a single phenomenon.
Its happend again and again.

specially that i also have looked at the Sonar at the highest time compression and never before got an problem like this.

So the only thing that seem logical to me is that there must be something in the mod who dont like me, somekind of Ghost in the machine ;)

[Bellman]

Experienced a freeze only when cranked-up to max time acceleration both in Stock 1.04 and LwAmi '8'.

[LuftWolf]

Yes, this is definately a new problem. I've never heard of anyone else having this issue before, and basically all the sonar changes were done over a year ago, so needless to say, it's been used by a lot of people since then. :hmm:

Is the problem platform specific?

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

I've never heard of anyone else having this issue before, and basically all the sonar changes were done over a year ago, so needless to say, it's been used by a lot of people since then.

I've noticed sonar freezeups before. They have much the same feeling of 3D freezeups. Like 3D freezeups, they occur while using time compression in scenarios that have a lot of objects in them. I've never noticed a correlation between the freezeups and the mod.... and I'm at a loss to understand how it could be anything but a processing or interface issue.

[Delareon]

i tested it again today, in a self created map with Seawolf nothing else just my Boat in this Mission, no time compression. The same effect it works for a few minutes and then it freezes again. When i dissable the Mod it works without any problems.
tomorrow ill do a test run in an russian Boat because of the different Sonar Display.

[LuftWolf]

Well, that's very strange. :-?

I don't really have any ideas for a solution, because I'm not sure it's happening to anyone else.

The only real suggestion is to uninstall the mod and try to reinstall it... if that doesn't work, I dunno.

I really wish I had a better answer for you.

Cheers,
David

[Driftwood]

I second LW's suggestion. When in doubt, start all over again with a fresh installation.

[Gorshkov]

Dear Mr. Luftwolf!

I have just played one test mission which I created in DW Editor and I am deeply worried whether you correctly designed UGST sensor parameters in your LWAMI mod! I was trying to intercept crappy Foxtrot as an Akula skipper and all my three UGSTs couldn't hit target. First I had thought Foxtrot's sonar bearings were too bad but later I saw Replay Mission in the "Show True" mode and I was shocked! Your UGSTs were eight times easily outsmarted by active decoys deployed by Foxtrot at very close distances! I don't know if you have correct data about UGST but this Russian torpedo has multidirectional and multichannel sonar array controlled by digital processor unit linked with its own sonar contacts database. So it is unthinkable to me that UGST could mistake such noisy piece of junk as fifty years old Foxtrot with its equally crappy active decoy at less than one nautical mile range!

Try to upgrade UGST torpedo up to the Mk.48 ADCAP standards! In the meantime I must go back to the stock DW game to be able to effectively hunting Foxtrots with maybe fantastic but realiable 65 cm torpedoes!

[LuftWolf]

At this point, the operational capabilities of the UGST and the ADCAP are roughly the same.

The only significant differences are the speeds, 55kts ADCAP and 50kts UGST, and the seeker maximum ranges which are 3000m for the ADCAP and 2750m for the UGST. The maximum operational depths are both essentially the same in game terms.

In DW as it is now, active decoys are much too effective against all modern torpedoes, this is why it is often necessary to resteer wireguided torpedoes onto the target with the unrealistically long wireguiding lengths.

The next version of LWAMI will feature many realism-oriented changes to the wireguided and non-wireguided torpedoes.

Feel free to use whatever version of DW you want, you most likely paid for it. However, you should be aware that the stock game has the exact same problem.

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

In DW as it is now, active decoys are much too effective against all modern torpedoes, this is why it is often necessary to resteer wireguided torpedoes onto the target with the unrealistically long wireguiding lengths.
OK, but it isn't possible to decrease active decoys efficiency in your mod? Moreover these stupid decoys also cause false sonar snapshots and I don't know where to resteer my torpedoes. For example enemy sub contact can often change its position for several miles during my attack. ****!

The next version of LWAMI will feature many realism-oriented changes to the wireguided and non-wireguided torpedoes.
I am afraid only a few people could be so desperadoes to play your LWAMI 4.xx mod because its torpedo guidance techniques are really a huge mess. :-?

Feel free to use whatever version of DW you want, you most likely paid for it. However, you should be aware that the stock game has the exact same problem.
I was lucky indeed because I paid only about 10$ for legal copy of DW! You know merchandises have to be cheaper in some poor, underdeveloped countries like my own to be able to swamp them at all. :lol:
My impression is that stock DW torpedoes are less vulnerable for decoys maybe because these torps can acquire targets at longer distances.

[LuftWolf]

Yes, I could easily put in variable decoy logic for some torpedoes, however, I have previously been saving that change as part of the package with the rest of the torpedoes, since no one has ever mentioned in the almost two years I've been playing DW that decoys are too effective (other than at blowing up torpedoes).

Regarding the next version of the mod, I fully expect that 40-75% of current LWAMI users will find the torpedo controls unworkable. This is at the same time unfortunate and not a reason not to do it. I've received enough positive feedback from people who have seen the original work to justify spending another couple of months working on the actual playable version.

In stock DW, torpedoes can acquire both targets and decoys earlier. However, decoys appear to be less effective in the stock game because a bug in the torpedo doctrine often disables the torpedoes' ability to track another target if the first one is lost or a more salient signal is detected. Incidentially, this is the same reason that torpedoes in the stock game often go "dumb" after burning through a decoy or being out maneovered by a target (I am assuming that SCS didn't correct this in 1.04 because the torpedo doctrine is still the same from DW 1.00...).

In any case, I find stock DW unplayablely craptacular... that's why Amizaur and I started this mod which a year and a half later appears to be widely accepted by the DW community, which to me is very high praise and I genuinely appreciate it.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Sounds to me that the updates to the AI evasion doctrines are working well. They're actually using the decoys effectively, almost as well as a human player would. :up:

Of course, defeating the decoy is as simple as having a good initial solution and determining his evasion course post-launch. If you know this, you know where he is, where he's going, and where his decoys are. But if you just expect your torps sensor to handle the task for you, then you will likely be dissapointed. :know:

[Gorshkov]

Sounds to me that the updates to the AI evasion doctrines are working well. They're actually using the decoys effectively, almost as well as a human player would. :up:

Of course, defeating the decoy is as simple as having a good initial solution and determining his evasion course post-launch. If you know this, you know where he is, where he's going, and where his decoys are. But if you just expect your torps sensor to handle the task for you, then you will likely be dissapointed. :know:
No, you are wrong, buddy!
Your hypothesis could be enough explanation for me but only during playing the game at realistic sensor settings. Unfortunately post-mission briefing in "Show True" mode showed me exactly what had really happened. At least in four cases my torpedoes were at direct collision course with enemy sub within less than one nautical mile range but they missed target being ugly cheated by active decoy set by Foxtrot in the last moment before expected impact. :damn:

So it must be some error in decoy-sensor unbalanced settings and nothing else...

[LuftWolf]

So it must be some error in decoy-sensor unbalanced settings and nothing else...

I've actually changed exactly zero things related to this, so it's clearly not a mod issue.

Also, the AI would use less decoys, if you fired less torpedoes, which in theory would make it easier for any single torpedo to hit the target.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Sounds to me that the updates to the AI evasion doctrines are working well. They're actually using the decoys effectively, almost as well as a human player would. :up:

Of course, defeating the decoy is as simple as having a good initial solution and determining his evasion course post-launch. If you know this, you know where he is, where he's going, and where his decoys are. But if you just expect your torps sensor to handle the task for you, then you will likely be dissapointed. :know:
No, you are wrong, buddy!
Your hypothesis could be enough explanation for me but only during playing the game at realistic sensor settings. Unfortunately post-mission briefing in "Show True" mode showed me exactly what had really happened. At least in four cases my torpedoes were at direct collision course with enemy sub within less than one nautical mile range but they missed target being ugly cheated by active decoy set by Foxtrot in the last moment before expected impact. :damn:

So it must be some error in decoy-sensor unbalanced settings and nothing else...

That's not an error, and it's not a cheat. That's the Foxtrot firing the decoy at the right time to save his ass. In that case, yes, there's not much to do but re-attack, but the Foxtrot earned it. It will be rare for either a player or an AI to get the timing right enough to pull that off though, especially when you consider that the LW/Ami torp is going to start searching again immediately on the other side, as opposed to a stock torp which will either explode on the decoy, go "dumb" after burning through, or will take over 1000yds to start searching again.

[Gorshkov]

Also, the AI would use less decoys, if you fired less torpedoes, which in theory would make it easier for any single torpedo to hit the target.

Well, I didn't fire any salvo in mentioned here mission but only single torpedoes consecutively.
Yet this Foxtrot was deploying suspiciously big number of active decoys trying to escape only one torpedo...:hmm:

[Gorshkov]

Well, small explanation why I mentioned about US and Russian torpedoes differences at all.

I also played a few similar AI controlled Foxtrot/206A (I intentionally selected rather noisy junk) versus my SSN21/668I missions with LWAMI mod and I didn't have any troubles with achieving kills using ADCAPs despite opposite subs also used decoys very often.

[Molon Labe]

Well, small explanation why I mentioned about US and Russian torpedoes differences at all.

I also played a few similar AI controlled Foxtrot/206A (I intentionally selected rather noisy junk) versus my SSN21/668I missions with LWAMI mod and I didn't have any troubles with achieving kills using ADCAPs despite opposite subs also used decoys very often.
5 knots of extra closure speed means a lot in a tail chase. The UGST spends more time being exposed to possible spoofing.

Edit: 5 knots also means a lot more potential re-attacks before the target outruns the weapon.

[Gorshkov]

I can't understand this completely at this moment! :rotfl:

I tried to play my "Foxtrot-hunt" mission with LWAMI mod once again. This time Foxtrot's AI skipper proved to be stupid idiot! I fired SS-N-27 ASW at him but unfortunately MTP-1UE torpedo fell into water too far from enemy sub and thus it couldn't detect Foxtrot. Foxtrot's skipper had deployed three active decoys as usual but later he accelerated to 15 knots and changed course...directly toward my still searching him torpedo. In a while later MPT-1UE managed to detect and sink silly Foxtrot! :up:

Well, maybe enemy AI possesses some random behavior: it can be very clever but some other time it is completely stupid???

PS. Do you know any proved informations about real speed-range-depth characteristics of new German DM-2A4 "Seehake" torpedo? I have found some strange data about it as 90 km range at 50 kts for example but it looks rather comic taking into account that DM-2A4 is an electrically powered fish, doesn't it?

[Molon Labe]

How many did you shoot, and if more than one, where did the others land?

[Linton]

When is the next version of the mod due out?

[LuftWolf]

G-

My data about the 2A4 appears to give it considerable ability for an electric torpedo. It is certainly the most capable electric torpedo ever built, and it is also a swimout launched torpedo, which makes it rather stealthy.

I wouldn't put anything past the Germans at this point, the 212/4 are wonderful designs.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

When is the next version of the mod due out?

Approximately two months from the day I start working on it... which hasn't happened yet for various reasons, most of them personal on my end.

I have put enough work into things that no one has yet seen (or at least very few people) that I will at some point resume work, but it is both time-intensive and consuming work that has to be done in large blocks, so I have to pick a good time to begin working.

I already have the fundamental technologies finished, they just need to be battle-tested and then implimented into a playable version of a DW mod, which actually will be a bit difficult this time around, considering the magnitude of the changes and the fact that I'm using the doctring and interface system for things never intended in terms of weapon function, so I have to see it work each and every time I make changes, which means extensive testing by a team will be necessary.

I think I've got a nice ready pool of eager testing candidates here at SubSim thankfully. :) :up:

Cheers,
David

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

How many did you shoot, and if more than one, where did the others land?

I fired two SS-N-27 ASWs separately. First of them landed even farther than second one which behavior I described above. Both MPT-1UEs were searching target when Foxtrot's skipper committed suicide.

Another strange but interesting event:

- at 1 nm distance to target: UGST detected Foxtrot and began homing at her. Foxtrot immediately released active decoy and began to escape at 15 knots but UGST was still approaching sub.

- at 0.5 nm distance to target: Suddenly UGST selected active decoy, dropped Foxtrot homing and began to move at decoy. Shortly afterwards UGST "hit" decoy and Foxtrot escaped to safety.

Really funny! :rotfl:

[Gorshkov]

My data about the 2A4 appears to give it considerable ability for an electric torpedo. It is certainly the most capable electric torpedo ever built, and it is also a swimout launched torpedo, which makes it rather stealthy.
Maybe 2A4 is good enough for its older electric counterparts but as sure as hell it can't be on a par with chemical powered torpedoes, like ADCAP! :yep:

PS. Is modified LWAMI 3.xx database included anywhere in USNII Reference? Probably not...

[LuftWolf]

How many did you shoot, and if more than one, where did the others land?

I fired two SS-N-27 ASWs separately. First of them landed even farther than second one which behavior I described above. Both MPT-1UEs were searching target when Foxtrot's skipper committed suicide.

Another strange but interesting event:

- at 1 nm distance to target: UGST detected Foxtrot and began homing at her. Foxtrot immediately released active decoy and began to escape at 15 knots but UGST was still approaching sub.

- at 0.5 nm distance to target: Suddenly UGST selected active decoy, dropped Foxtrot homing and began to move at decoy. Shortly afterwards UGST "hit" decoy and Foxtrot escaped to safety.

Really funny! :rotfl:

Well, yeah, this happens in DW. If you want to think it's a mod issue then fine, but there isn't anything I can do, and it happens to all torpedoes in all versions of the game.

Regarding the USNI, no, I'm only one person and I don't have my whole life to dedicate to DW, although that definately should be done when the mod information is finalized for various platforms.

The decoy-torpedo interplay never has been correct, the best I can do is set things so modern torpedoes don't home on decoys as often as older or less advanced weapons, hell, I can even break wires and make decoy detection more likely when off the wire and the sub-board processors can't communicate with the weapon... but when there are times when the weapon does detect the decoy, the same kinds of behaviors will occur.

If you want this kind of thing not to happen, you'll have to lobby SCS. If I could change it, I would, but there has never been any kind of call for it, so I haven't. In general, most people are happy that decoys work, since you can resteer your own weapons while the AI can't, making decoys much more effective for you.

In fact, against most human players I play in MP, decoys are basically useless because of their ability to resteer torpedoes.

In any case, nothing in the mod is going to change as a result of this discussion, although, as always, I appreciate the feedback. :up:

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

How many did you shoot, and if more than one, where did the others land?
I fired two SS-N-27 ASWs separately. First of them landed even farther than second one which behavior I described above. Both MPT-1UEs were searching target when Foxtrot's skipper committed suicide.

Another strange but interesting event:

- at 1 nm distance to target: UGST detected Foxtrot and began homing at her. Foxtrot immediately released active decoy and began to escape at 15 knots but UGST was still approaching sub.

- at 0.5 nm distance to target: Suddenly UGST selected active decoy, dropped Foxtrot homing and began to move at decoy. Shortly afterwards UGST "hit" decoy and Foxtrot escaped to safety.

Really funny! :rotfl:

That happens in stock DW all the time.

[Gorshkov]

OK, I am nor an expert in submarine warfare neither DW/LWAMI beta-tester. That is why I don't know how torpedo versus decoys issue differs in reality, stock DW and LWAMI mod. Besides I don't have enough time to check it all myself. I simply discovered some strange to me in-game behaviors and reported them here looking for explanations. If you state it is not a LWAMI mod error and thus you can't improve it, this statement ends discussion.

[Gorshkov]

Yes! My ADCAP was approaching Foxtrot at 0.25 nm distance. Sub deployed active decoy and ADCAP immediately resteered toward decoy...:rotfl:

According to various sources about ADCAP's capabilities:

- Janes: Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System (CBASS) program, which will develop a fully digital wideband sonar capability to enable the torpedo to operate effectively both in shallow water (<180 m) to counter diesel electric submarines operating in the littoral and deep water environments. For this the torpedo will also feature frequency agility and optimal frequency selection. This capability will allow the Mk 48 ADCAP to identify torpedo countermeasures and discriminate them from the target. Full rate production of this upgrade is scheduled to begin in FY04.

- Wikipedia: Unconfirmed reports indicate that the torpedoes' sensors can monitor surrounding electrical and magnetic fields used to sense the metallic mass of the ship's hull and detonate at the proper stand-off distance.

BYE, BYE CRAPAMI!!! :down:

[Molon Labe]

[/i]

- Wikipedia: Unconfirmed reports indicate that the torpedoes' sensors can monitor surrounding electrical and magnetic fields used to sense the metallic mass of the ship's hull and detonate at the proper stand-off distance.

...lending some (granted, weak) support to the theory LW, myself, and others have shared that torps would not detonate on expendable decoys--a fix that has been part of LW/Ami since the beginning.

I think we've beaten the other subject to death...

Edit: but why not... :D
In theory, you could use the LW/Ami 4 controls to slow down the torp and switch it to passive homing, allowing you to discriminate between an active decoy and a loud, running submarine. Without being able to change the interface, this is a really good approximation of what Jane's is describing.

It's worth mentioning here that an older version of LW/Ami allowed torps to provide sonar information to ownship, similar to a UUV. This allowed a player to discriminate between the target and decoys with 100% effectiveness. It was nearly universally rejected by the community. Speaking for myself, I found it to be too abstracted to be realistic and that rendered an important skillset irrelevant in the sim.

Was "crapami" supposed to be a play on LW/Ami? If it was, I think it's really immature to resort to name calling in any case, and it's especially worse that you've done it here, considering that LW/Ami addresses both of these issues and that stock only addresses one (and only since 1.04, while LW/Ami fixed it while the current version was 1.01).

[Gorshkov]

I can't understand whether you are moddling this game to be on a par with reality or to have more childish fun because for sure not to achieve both??? :hmm:

Tertium non datur!

[To be]

LWAMI makes DW better. It does not make it perfect. The next version will allow for better torpedo logic, however you shouldn't complain to a modder about how the sim runs. :o LWAMI is the best and only realism mod, if you want you can create your own mod. It is easy to mod the database, harder for the doctrines, but still doable.

[OneShot]

I can't understand whether you are moddling this game to be on a par with reality or to have more childish fun because for sure not to achieve both??? :hmm:

Tertium non datur!

Well, as ML already pointed out - namecalling is childish. Further on - there is nothing and nobody who would stop you from diggin into the DW database as well as all the relevant doctrines and make the changes you desire so much. Feel free to even share your work with others as Lw and Amizaur have done. Of course this would mean actual work on your end to understand how doctrines work, what you can change or not change with them and of course what the database is for.

I understand thats a lot of work and its of course a lot easier to call up some open sources who may or may not be right (or even in the ballpark) and request that everything be made to your liking ... STAT. And of course if those changes are not made or the whole thing doesnt work your way from the beginning then it must be "unreal" or just for "childish fun". Its always fascinating to see people who dig up some sources, preferably (in case of all the russian weapons and platforms) some shiny brochures or data directly from the manufacturer - intended to be published and given to the buyers of those weapons and actually take them for real and as undisposable facts. Now thats one hell of a scientific approach.

Bottom Line .. if you don't like what the LwAmi Mod is offering .. do your own mod. If you find questionable behaviour ... post it in an objective way and wait for the response. The possible responses include :

- Oops ... thats a bug, thanks for bringing that up it will be fixed
- Thats not a bug, its a feature (a Microsoft favourite)
- Its not a bug, it works as designed
- Thats how it should work and this was broken in the stock game
- ...

If the answer doesnt satisfy you, you still have options ...

- bring hard data to support your statements (Wikipedia for example isnt scientifically wise - hard data)
- make the changes yourself
- make do with what you have
- simply revert to Stock DW
- ...

Certainly not an option is being obnoxious and childish (name calling comes to mind). Btw. here is a link how you shouldn't participate in technical discussions (http://www.simhq.com/_air9/air_282a.html).

Cheers
OS

[Molon Labe]

I can't understand whether you are moddling this game to be on a par with reality or to have more childish fun because for sure not to achieve both??? :hmm:

Tertium non datur!
Childish fun? Did you even read what I wrote? Are you saying that because I considered realism and competition at the same time?

You could ask the same question of SCS in designing the sim, or the makers of any sim for that matter. No simulation given to the public will ever be on par with reality, because no one would want to use it. A discussion that considers only realism, to the exclusion of all other factors, is completely pointless.

As LW has said many times, the purpose of the mod is to address the aspects of the sim which most bother [the mod's] designers. This includes fixing a variety of features that are broken (e.g., SUBROC ranges, torpedo homing after losing track, layered air defenses, etc.) and adjusting the database to more accurately represent what is known about the specifications of weapons, sensors and platforms (e.g., replacing the 65cm wireguided torp with the 65-76, making the SS-N-27 ASM a 2-stage weapon, adjusting the sound-speed relationship of ships and subs).

SCS, on the other hand, has shown little interest in making realism adjustments.* With respect to potentially sensitive data, the reason is obvious--they don't want to get in trouble for divulging what might be considered classified information. But not all of it can by explained by "cover your ass." The case of decoys is very demonstrative of this. From the moment DW was released, an overwhelming majority of experienced customers complained about countermeasures to explode on decoys, while new players begged SCS to keep the unrealistic "feature." SCS sided with the new players, not because their position was for greater realism, but because SCS wanted the sim to be easier so that potential customers would be less intimidated. LW and Amizaur, on the other hand, wasted no time removing this "feature" from the sim. That speak volumes about which camp gives realism a higher priority.



*Although, to their credit, they did give us a sound-speed hotfix shortly after 1.01, and 1.04 corrected the lack of a torpedo range-speed relationship.


EDIT: I want to add to this that your assertion that simulation design involves a binary choice between realism and childish fun is flawed in two fundamental ways. First, realism and "childish fun" are not the only factors a producer or modder considers. There really is no limit to what other factors they might consider important, but they could include marketability, "adult" fun (emersion, historical role-playing, etc.), playability (e.g., easy to learn, efficient interface), and balance (which along with realism, is a personal favorite of mine).

Second, even if the two factors you mentioned--realism and "childish fun"--were the only two factors, the choice between them is not binary. No sim has ever been entirely realistic, nor has any sim been entirely childishly fun. All sims involve a combination of both. The challenge of the designer is to maximize both, and then to set priorites when the two come into conflict.

You may think that by quoting obscure contract legalese to a law student you'll sound clever, but what you have actually done yourself harm by demonstrating that you lack a fundamental understanding of the complexity of the issue, and your approach to forming your opinions is rigid and dogmatic rather than balanced and reasoned. Either that, or you incorrectly used the term. And on that question, my friend, there truly is no third option--it's either one or the other.

[LuftWolf]

Yes! My ADCAP was approaching Foxtrot at 0.25 nm distance. Sub deployed active decoy and ADCAP immediately resteered toward decoy...:rotfl:

According to various sources about ADCAP's capabilities:

- Janes: Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System (CBASS) program, which will develop a fully digital wideband sonar capability to enable the torpedo to operate effectively both in shallow water (<180 m) to counter diesel electric submarines operating in the littoral and deep water environments. For this the torpedo will also feature frequency agility and optimal frequency selection. This capability will allow the Mk 48 ADCAP to identify torpedo countermeasures and discriminate them from the target. Full rate production of this upgrade is scheduled to begin in FY04.

- Wikipedia: Unconfirmed reports indicate that the torpedoes' sensors can monitor surrounding electrical and magnetic fields used to sense the metallic mass of the ship's hull and detonate at the proper stand-off distance.

BYE, BYE CRAPAMI!!! :down:

If you can figure out a way to prevent this behavior from happening, I'll very gratefully incorporate it into LWAMI.

Do I care whether any individual DW user uses LWAMI or not? Umm... no. LWAMI is so many light years ahead of stock DW that my only reaction to people who claim stock has this or that advantage is to smile.

And so to you I say :D ! (self-pwnage, the greatest gift of the internets)

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Self-pwnage.... Sigh.

You know why I hate you, LW? What takes me a full page to say, you say in one word! :rotfl:

[LuftWolf]

Self-pwnage.... Sigh.

You know why I hate you, LW? What takes me a full page to say, you say in one word! :rotfl:

It's a skill I learned on the streets of the Bronx and Harlem. :|\\

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

Do I care whether any individual DW user uses LWAMI or not? Umm... no. LWAMI is so many light years ahead of stock DW that my only reaction to people who claim stock has this or that advantage is to smile.
Yes, "...many light years ahead...". Well stated!

Of course, our LuftWolf forgot to mention his LWAMI "realism" mod also includes some cheats, like Chinese "Yu-8" fictional torpedo or "quite real" SS-N-16 + APR-3 mix. :rotfl:

I think if DWEdit were able to change playable units' weapon loadouts, all LWAMI mod would be needless because everyone could make preferred changes himself!

[LuftWolf]

Do I care whether any individual DW user uses LWAMI or not? Umm... no. LWAMI is so many light years ahead of stock DW that my only reaction to people who claim stock has this or that advantage is to smile.
Yes, "...many light years ahead...". Well stated!

Of course, our LuftWolf forgot to mention his LWAMI "realism" mod also includes some cheats, like Chinese "Yu-8" fictional torpedo or "quite real" SS-N-16 + APR-3 mix. :rotfl:

I think if DWEdit were able to change playable units' weapon loadouts, all LWAMI mod would be needless because everyone could make preferred changes himself!

Well, when you are the only game in town, you don't have to be that good. :rotfl:

I can say it openly, I've earned the right to say this. ;)

Cheers,
David

[OneShot]

Do I care whether any individual DW user uses LWAMI or not? Umm... no. LWAMI is so many light years ahead of stock DW that my only reaction to people who claim stock has this or that advantage is to smile.
Yes, "...many light years ahead...". Well stated!

Of course, our LuftWolf forgot to mention his LWAMI "realism" mod also includes some cheats, like Chinese "Yu-8" fictional torpedo or "quite real" SS-N-16 + APR-3 mix. :rotfl:

I think if DWEdit were able to change playable units' weapon loadouts, all LWAMI mod would be needless because everyone could make preferred changes himself!

As was stated before ... with the sole exception of directly changing the loadouts on the playables you can make all the changes you mentioned before yourself with the available tools. You can change the parameters on the loadouts so they behave differently ... wont have the right name but well ... you cant have everything.

So do would you mind and troll somewhere else? Nobody puts a gun to your head telling you to use the LwAmi mod. If its so bad, make yourself a new one and put it up for others to criticize ... oh wait, that would entail a lot of work and put you in the bright spot. Lot easier to stay on the sidelines and bitch.

Cheers
OS

[Driftwood]

BYE, BYE CRAPAMI!!! :down:


Pearls before swine........some people just don't know when to quit. :stare:

[Gorshkov]

[quote=Gorshkov][quote=LuftWolf]
Well, when you are the only game in town, you don't have to be that good. :rotfl:
I can say it openly, I've earned the right to say this. ;)


Would you be so courteous not to make some self-advertising twaddling about your "real" LWAMI mod?
Maybe many people can believe in your "reality mod" but in fact all LWAMI is as real as stock DW, buddy. :rotfl:

[Molon Labe]

[quote=Gorshkov][quote=LuftWolf]
Well, when you are the only game in town, you don't have to be that good. :rotfl:
I can say it openly, I've earned the right to say this. ;)

Would you be so courteous not to make some self-advertising twaddling about your "real" LWAMI mod?
Maybe many people can believe in your "reality mod" but in fact all LWAMI is as real as stock DW, buddy. :rotfl:
All anyone needs to do to know that isn't true is to read the LW/Ami readme. Do you ever get bored of trolling?

[Gorshkov]

[quote=LuftWolf]
Well, when you are the only game in town, you don't have to be that good. :rotfl:
I can say it openly, I've earned the right to say this. ;)

Would you be so courteous not to make some self-advertising twaddling about your "real" LWAMI mod?
Maybe many people can believe in your "reality mod" but in fact all LWAMI is as real as stock DW, buddy. :rotfl:
All anyone needs to do to know that isn't true is to read the LW/Ami readme. Do you ever get bored to trolling?
That is why I can't understand why funny LW hates fantastic 65 cm torpedo found in stock DW but he promotes equally real Yu-8 torpedo as a huge step toward reality in his so called "reality mod"??? :rotfl:

[Bill Nichols]

[quote=Gorshkov][quote=LuftWolf]
Well, when you are the only game in town, you don't have to be that good. :rotfl:
I can say it openly, I've earned the right to say this. ;)


Would you be so courteous not to make some self-advertising twaddling about your "real" LWAMI mod?
Maybe many people can believe in your "reality mod" but in fact all LWAMI is as real as stock DW, buddy. :rotfl:


Let's keep it polite, please.
:()1:

[Driftwood]

OK, OK Gorshkov. So you don't like the Lwami mod. We get it. Now why don't you take your 65 cm torpedo and whatever else it is you're whining about and ...................brighten someone else's day? Huh?

geez........:doh:

[Gorshkov]

OK, OK Gorshkov. So you don't like the Lwami mod. We get it. Now why don't you take your 65 cm torpedo and whatever else it is you're whining about and ...................brighten someone else's day? Huh?

geez........:doh:

Maybe you don't care about reality but I can't understand why you back LWAMI mod which even deepens falsehood already included in stock DW??? Thus real SET-53M torpedo is only a passive acoustic weapon but Sonalaysts gave it additional active seeker. Later our Lufty made the scene with his "uber-realistic" mod and replaced SET-53M with a lot more powerful but virtually non-existent Yu-8 torpedo!

What does this two-stage cheat have something in common with reality???

I am not sure but it looks like someone tries to improve Chinese military capabilities here. Moreover that guy remembers another guys from Pentagon who also constantly far exaggerate PRC military power apparently to finagle additional funds from US Congress...

Unfortunately guys but real Chinese military potential is weak. Indigenous weapon development in this country shows limited progress. Many recently self-made Chinese arms are twenty to thirty years behind Western and even Russian designs. The J-10 fighter jet built around Russian radar and engine is the best example. Vast majority of new weapon technologies possessed by China has been acquired from Russia and other post-Soviet republics both legally and illegally. The main reason is simple: China lacks military industrial complex similar to those created long time ago in US and USSR. I personally think PRC lacks resources to build such complex now without risk of putting its economy in jeopardy! Moreover after massive withdrawal of badly outdated weapon systems from PRC arsenal Chinese armed forces will shrink quantitatively even up to the Cold War's French or German armies level!
Is that this new rising superpower, dear Mr. Rumsfeld? :)

Particularly Chinese torpedoes except a few also not brand-new models imported from Russia seem to be forty years old junk. Although PRC showed a big effort to pirate many Russian and Western torpedo models like Mk.48 for twenty years but without achieving any visible success. Therefore it is very strange that poor Lufty endeavors to change true by force in that area.

If PLAN has only crappy torpedoes in reality, let PLAN have them in this game!

Otherwise if we agree on "two-stage torpedo cheat" backed by some strange "what-if" scenarios, why Russian 650 mm universal torpedo wouldn't be reality now??? In fact declassified CIA papers from 1980s describe Soviet development plans for advanced universal 650 mm fish based on earlier wake-homing 65-76 model! It probably was an unfinished Soviet "overkill" answer for contemporary ADCAP's introduction into US Navy. Under such criteria stock "65 cm torpedo" is more founded in this game than Lufty's Yu-8 sci-fi! :rotfl:

[LuftWolf]

WOW (!)

Much anger in this one...

There's no point in responding, since you clearly don't get it.

Cheers,
David

PS Further posts along this line will be deleted as trolling/SPAM, since you've made your point pretty clear, there's no point in continuing this discussion. I need to keep this thread going for legitament feedback, so thanks for playing. I hope you enjoy LWAMI! :)

[Gorshkov]

WOW (!)

Much anger in this one...

There's no point in responding, since you clearly don't get it.

Cheers,
David

PS Further posts along this line will be deleted as trolling/SPAM, since you've made your point pretty clear, there's no point in continuing this discussion. I need to keep this thread going for legitament feedback, so thanks for playing. I hope you enjoy LWAMI! :)
WOW! It seems to me Lufty is a bit angry because I proved that his mod isn't so fully founded on reality as he trumps it up! That is why he intimates me some ugly censorship. Well, it is typical behavior of unmasked persons with no worthy arguments. He is probably afraid that more funny LWAMI "reality bugs" become known.

Yes, he is right indeed!
I have found in another thread how Lufty explained that APR-3 torpedo can be mounted on SS-N-16. It is no obstacle for Lufty: "Russia can have enough money to do it", he suggested!
Well, I didn't expect Lufty is so common person to be able to use such primitive skeleton key because thanks to it our Lufty can put into LWAMI mod every fantastic weapon system, he ever imagines!
I was wrong...:oops:

Well, Lufty! Would you mind procuring improved stock 65 cm torpedo, please??? Thus Russians could theoretically collect money on it too, buddy! It would be only "one-stage" cheat... :rotfl:

[LuftWolf]

I don't claim LWAMI is anything other than my personal expression of how I think DW should be.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Everything else is a creation of your mind, and your mind alone.

Use it or don't use it, it's a simple, morally neutral choice, that barely deserves 1/8 of the emotion you apparently have brought to it.

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

I don't claim LWAMI is anything other than my personal expression of how I think DW should be.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Everything else is a creation of your mind, and your mind alone.

Use it or don't use it, it's a simple, morally neutral choice, that barely deserves 1/8 of the emotion you apparently have brought to it.

Cheers,
David
Take it easy, Lufty! Easy! ;)

I suppose you simply lost equilibrium hold between reality, side balance and game fun making your mod. Frankly speaking it is rather clear because you tried to accomplish mission impossible :damn: not being Chuck Norris at all! :lol:

But don't worry because I jugde the same about Sonalysts stock game :yep:...I am not sure whether SET-53Ms have been ever sold to China together with Kilos. Certainly only 53-65KE and TEST-71 torps were delivered with them.
To be more funny indigenous Chinese torpedoes like Yu-3 and Yu-4 are a piece of crap even compared with Russian SET-53M and SET-65 twenty years older junk! :)

In sum Lufty, I think your LWAMI mod in the fantastic Chinese weapons area seems to make sport of Red Chinese giving them virtual advanced weapons they lack. Maybe you have fun on it, too?:hmm:

[GrayOwl]

Mr. Gorshkov - You make something self better.
Very simply to criticize - it is more difficult to do something useful.
By the way, APR-3ME really have updating for mounting on ASW rockets
Mister Mikhail Lisichko (general designer of a torpedo APR-3) spoke it in open sources.
Cheers!

[Gorshkov]

By the way, APR-3ME really have updating for mounting on ASW rockets. Mister Mikhail Lisichko (general designer of a torpedo APR-3) spoke it in open sources.
Cheers!
Good! But don't you think both Brezhnev's gold era "Starfish" and "Stallion" dinosaurs were or are withdrawn from service in Russian Navy like 65-76 torps did a few years ago?

I am not sure if 650 mm torpedo tubes on Russian subs are still useful except firing 533 mm weapons!

[Bill Nichols]

I'd hate to have to lock this thread.... I'll say it again: No fighting, boys!

Be cool :cool:

[Molon Labe]

I couldn't help but notice some of the ad hominem, conspiracy theory, personal attacks have been edited out.

Good call.

[GrayOwl]

By the way, APR-3ME really have updating for mounting on ASW rockets. Mister Mikhail Lisichko (general designer of a torpedo APR-3) spoke it in open sources.
Cheers!
Good! But don't you think both Brezhnev's gold era "Starfish" and "Stallion" dinosaurs were or are withdrawn from service in Russian Navy like 65-76 torps did a few years ago?

I am not sure if 650 mm torpedo tubes on Russian subs are still useful except firing 533 mm weapons!

650 mm of a tubes on Russian boats still on a place - and them nobody is going to remove.

65-76 torpedos - lay in warehouses, and them have not thrown out on a garbage tank. And they always can again be put in these by 650 mm of a tubes, my friend :p

[LuftWolf]

Yeah, I didn't want to point out that I actually found a 2005 internet source that spoke indirectly about APR-3M's mounted on ASW rockets... :)

Also, I believe that there may have been one or two 65-76 accidently left aboard some russian subs, just in case... :p :know:

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

650 mm of a tubes on Russian boats still on a place - and them nobody is going to remove.

Thus I didn't state 650 mm TUBES were removed from Russian ships and subs but all wepon models of that caliber were probably withdrawn from service, buddy! :lol:

[Gorshkov]

Yeah, I didn't want to point out that I actually found a 2005 internet source that spoke indirectly about APR-3M's mounted on ASW rockets... :)

Also, I believe that there may have been one or two 65-76 accidently left aboard some russian subs, just in case... :p :know:

Nobody insists that APR-3M couldn't be mounted on some Russian ASROC but noting is known about these torpedoes actually mounted on it! I also have informations that APR-3 was contemplated as a loadout of SS-N-27 ASW but MTP-1UE was chosen due to its lower weight.

Yes, Lufty! I also noticed you are a man of big faith. After all this is a framework of "reality" in your mod! :rotfl:

My bad news for you is simple: Unfortunately there is no qualitative weapon balance between US Navy and Russian Navy now simply because many post-Soviet weapon systems were apparently withdrawn from duty (65-76, Starfish, Stallion) and nothing new was introduced as a replacement (UGST for example). So at present Russian subs use probably only USET-80 torpedoes as their primary weapon partially backed by older designs (TEST-71, SET-65, 53-65K) until reliable. No new SUBROC in known to be delivered to Russian Navy. On the other hand Chinese and Indian Navies use some brand-new Russian naval weapons, like "Club" and "Onyx/Brahmos" missiles family, not seen by Russian sailors at all! That is a real huge mess in this area, buddy! :(

[LuftWolf]

No one here knows anything substantial about anything, except for the people that do, who can't say anything.

I certainly am no weapons expert, and I've never said that I am.

LWAMI is about what's possible to do with DW, not about making Jane's All the World's Naval Weapons with 3-d graphics. That kind of modding is 1) boring as hell 2) pointless if the sim is broken.

I've not spent SO much time fixing the hundreds of things wrong in the stock game to allow this kind of trolling nitpicking to bother me at all, since you OBVIOUSLY speaketh out your anus because you have some kind of hater complex. Period.

As long as people here at SubSim who are going to be around in a year continue to think that LWAMI is worth their time, I'm going to think it's worth my time. Hell, I don't even play DW more than 1% of my total gaming these days, why would I be here and modding DW if I didn't think that people enjoyed it, and I didn't enjoy being here.

Anyway, you can say whatever you want, but it's only the words of a hater.

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

I've not spent SO much time fixing the hundreds of things wrong in the stock game to allow this kind of trolling nitpicking to bother me at all, since you OBVIOUSLY speaketh out your anus because you have some kind of hater complex. Period.

As long as people here at SubSim who are going to be around in a year continue to think that LWAMI is worth their time, I'm going to think it's worth my time. Hell, I don't even play DW more than 1% of my total gaming these days, why would I be here and modding DW if I didn't think that people enjoyed it, and I didn't enjoy being here.

Take it easy Lufty and try to test your LWAMI mod once again along my suggerstions of course. Victory will be with you! :up:

[LuftWolf]

I've not spent SO much time fixing the hundreds of things wrong in the stock game to allow this kind of trolling nitpicking to bother me at all, since you OBVIOUSLY speaketh out your anus because you have some kind of hater complex. Period.

As long as people here at SubSim who are going to be around in a year continue to think that LWAMI is worth their time, I'm going to think it's worth my time. Hell, I don't even play DW more than 1% of my total gaming these days, why would I be here and modding DW if I didn't think that people enjoyed it, and I didn't enjoy being here.

Take it easy Lufty and try to test your LWAMI mod once again along my suggerstions of course. Victory will be with you! :up:

Well, as always, I appreciate the feedback. It's all part of the big rings and fancy-cars lifestyle of being a modder... :|\\

I'll call you when I get to Dubai... :arrgh!:

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

Take it easy Lufty and try to test your LWAMI mod once again along my suggerstions of course. Victory will be with you! :up:
Well, as always, I appreciate the feedback. It's all part of the big rings and fancy-cars lifestyle of being a modder... :|\\

I'll call you when I get to Dubai... :arrgh!:

Before leaving us for Dubai car racing you should take into account all big savings resultant from my proposals! If you remove from LWAMI mod entire fictional, outdated and scarped Russian weapons, this game will be a lot more real and much simpler! Think about "Akula" armed only with USET-80, 53-65K and SS-N-27! Isn't it pretty real and useful platform, buddy??? :sunny:

[LuftWolf]

I think you should run a poll on that in the main DW forum... that's how I solved many of my boarderline issues.

I'm curious to see what kind of response the community would generate to your ideas. :hmm:

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

I think you should run a poll on that in the main DW forum... that's how I solved many of my boarderline issues.

I'm curious to see what kind of response the community would generate to your ideas. :hmm:
I don't need any poll because no poll can change sad reality in that issue. Simply Russia doesn't produce any new naval weapons for its Navy but on the contrary Russia removed from service old ones. Therefore now there isn't possible any based on reality game balance between Red and Blue sides nor in the stock DW neither with LWAMI mod. USET-80 isn't on a par with latest ADCAP anymore.
I thought very long how to easily and at least partially preserve DW reality without deleting older Russian weapons which causes destruction of game balance. My sole answer on it is simple: Sonanalysts or Lufty must remark that stock game and LWAMI mod respectively takes place sometime during 1990-2002 period when all needed for Red-Blue balance Russian weapons and platforms were in inventory. That is all! :rock:

[Fish]

I think you should run a poll on that in the main DW forum... that's how I solved many of my boarderline issues.

I'm curious to see what kind of response the community would generate to your ideas. :hmm:

Cheers,
David

Hmmm, using the Seawolf myself, what about a Akula with only a cook on board? :yep:

[TLAM Strike]

Luft got an idea. Take all the civi models (well most plus that DPRK speed boat) throw a couple of machine guns and maybe an RPG in their weapons inventory and make a terrorist "country" for the database. Would make something more intresting to fight than wave after wave of sucide boats. Oh and make the "Pill Box" have something that can damage a fig, make a shore battery verson or something. I'm making a mission that envolves escorting a merchie along the Al Faw penensula (Iraq) and it would be nice to have some insurgents on land and in small boats that can actuarly hurt the player and his escortie.

[Gorshkov]

Lufty have pointed out earlier that to be able to use SS-N-16/APR-3 effectively this weapon must land very close to its target. I must correct this: APR-3 must land closely but not too close to target! Why? In the last mission I launched SS-N-16 at my favourite Foxtrot-class test sub. The APR-3 torpedo dropped in the water and began to seach. Unfortunately after completing one circle my torpedo shut-down without acquiring any target. What's the matter? Having watched after action report I was shocked! My APR-3 couldn't find Foxtrot simply because...sub was all along INSIDE torpedo's searching circle!

Tough titty! :rotfl:

[LuftWolf]

Lufty have pointed out earlier that to be able to use SS-N-16/APR-3 effectively this weapon must land very close to its target. I must correct this: APR-3 must land closely but not too close to target! Why? In the last mission I launched SS-N-16 at my favourite Foxtrot-class test sub. The APR-3 torpedo dropped in the water and began to seach. Unfortunately after completing one circle my torpedo shut-down without acquiring any target. What's the matter? Having watched after action report I was shocked! My APR-3 couldn't find Foxtrot simply because...sub was all along INSIDE torpedo's searching circle!

Tough titty! :rotfl:

Well, yeah, you just described the function of the APR-3.

In real life, the torpedo actually uses its momentum from airdrop to do its initial search pattern, not firing its rocket motor until it finds a target... of course, momentum in DW is not really well simulated for things like torpedoes, so I need to provide a sufficient thrust for the weapon to actually search.

You really need to read the readme. Of course, you'll probably say that it's too long and not detailed enough... :-?

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

Lufty have pointed out earlier that to be able to use SS-N-16/APR-3 effectively this weapon must land very close to its target. I must correct this: APR-3 must land closely but not too close to target! Why? In the last mission I launched SS-N-16 at my favourite Foxtrot-class test sub. The APR-3 torpedo dropped in the water and began to seach. Unfortunately after completing one circle my torpedo shut-down without acquiring any target. What's the matter? Having watched after action report I was shocked! My APR-3 couldn't find Foxtrot simply because...sub was all along INSIDE torpedo's searching circle!

Tough titty! :rotfl:
Well, yeah, you just described the function of the APR-3.

In real life, the torpedo actually uses its momentum from airdrop to do its initial search pattern, not firing its rocket motor until it finds a target... of course, momentum in DW is not really well simulated for things like torpedoes, so I need to provide a sufficient thrust for the weapon to actually search.

You really need to read the readme. Of course, you'll probably say that it's too long and not detailed enough... :-?

No, you didn't understand my point! I know perfectly well how APR-3 works in your mod. I only described so unique situation when APR-3 can't acquire target because target is all along inside torpedo's searching ring and APR-3 seeker tries to find targets only outside this ring! :yep:

[GrayOwl]

Cone APR-3 in Luft Mod Too Small, real data this:

Weight: kg 525
Diameter: mm 350
Overall length: mm appr. 3,700
Running depth: 0-800 m.
Submerged running speed, Km/h (m/sec):
* in mode I of propulsion unit operation - up to 65 (18)
* in mode II of propulsion unit operation - about 100

Guidance system sonar
Response radius, m:
* in search mode 1,800-2,000
* in attack mode 800-1,200

Aperture of radiation pattern: deg. 90 (2x45)
Resolution (signal/noise) 0.2-0.3
Bearing accuracy, deg. 1.5-2.0
Warhead explosive charge (in TNT equivalent), kg 74
Target kill probability with a MRS error at target designation 300-500 m up to 0.9
Time of combat mission execution, min 1-2

[Molon Labe]

...because target is all along inside torpedo's searching ring and APR-3 seeker tries to find targets only outside this ring! :yep:

I'm sure the seeker isn't slewed to the left, which is what would have to be the case if a torpedo in a right turn was only searching "outside the ring." It searches a cone straight ahead, just like every other torpedo. In a circle search pattern, the cone will include the area both inside and outside of the circle along the torpedo's course, with the size of the area being searched determined by the width of the search cone at maximum acquisition range.

[Molon Labe]

Cone APR-3 in Luft Mod Too Small, real data this:

Weight: kg 525
Diameter: mm 350
Overall length: mm appr. 3,700
Running depth: 0-800 m.
Submerged running speed, Km/h (m/sec):
* in mode I of propulsion unit operation - up to 65 (18)
* in mode II of propulsion unit operation - about 100

Guidance system sonar
Response radius, m:
* in search mode 1,800-2,000
* in attack mode 800-1,200

Aperture of radiation pattern: deg. 90 (2x45)
Resolution (signal/noise) 0.2-0.3
Bearing accuracy, deg. 1.5-2.0
Warhead explosive charge (in TNT equivalent), kg 74
Target kill probability with a MRS error at target designation 300-500 m up to 0.9
Time of combat mission execution, min 1-2

If I'm reading DW edit right, it's set at 2X30 right now. If your info is right, that should be an easy fix to make though. I wouldn't recommend issuing a new release just for this, but if a chunk of updates need to be made maybe we can get him to put it on thie list. :D

[Gorshkov]

Aperture of radiation pattern: deg. 90 (2x45)

If I'm reading DW edit right, it's set at 2X30 right now.
It is now clear why I experienced my mentioned above strange event! :up:

[GrayOwl]

Cone APR-3 in Luft Mod Too Small, real data this:

Weight: kg 525
Diameter: mm 350
Overall length: mm appr. 3,700
Running depth: 0-800 m.
Submerged running speed, Km/h (m/sec):
* in mode I of propulsion unit operation - up to 65 (18)
* in mode II of propulsion unit operation - about 100

Guidance system sonar
Response radius, m:
* in search mode 1,800-2,000
* in attack mode 800-1,200

Aperture of radiation pattern: deg. 90 (2x45)
Resolution (signal/noise) 0.2-0.3
Bearing accuracy, deg. 1.5-2.0
Warhead explosive charge (in TNT equivalent), kg 74
Target kill probability with a MRS error at target designation 300-500 m up to 0.9
Time of combat mission execution, min 1-2

If I'm reading DW edit right, it's set at 2X30 right now. If your info is right, that should be an easy fix to make though. I wouldn't recommend issuing a new release just for this, but if a chunk of updates need to be made maybe we can get him to put it on thie list. :D

====================
It simply gives to know why so happens.
But it does not speak for global replacement. :p

[LuftWolf]

Hehe...

Sounds like I'm getting encouragement to actually make LWAMI 4.xx, which will FINALLY give DW some significant differentiation between various weapons in parameters other than range, speed, and warhead size.

I'm only one man... what I really need now is a partner to take up the role that Amizaur played, as he is now gone deep and comms are infrequent.

I am not a naval weapons expert, nor even a hobbiest for that matter. My area of hobbiest knowledge lies in WWII-era land and air weapons and combined arms doctrine.

I need a person who has been an active member of subsim for at least as long as I have to step forward and commit to doing some database editing for the new platforms. This work is time consuming but extremely easy, the person needs no familiarity with DW, only the general processing of modding software (DWedit is easy for anyone who uses Office or database tools) and a thorough knowledge modern naval weapons.

The ideal candiate is TLAM Strike, but he's also gone deep. Next would be Molon, but he's a stubborn PITA.


If you guys know anyone, let me know. :up:

Cheers,
david

[Molon Labe]

That's so unfair LW.

Stubborn pain in the ass? People who've had to deal with me should know that I'm far more arrogant than I am stubborn! I even let you get away with the Yu-8 without bitching forever about it! :p

[LuftWolf]

That's so unfair LW.

Stubborn pain in the ass? People who've had to deal with me should know that I'm far more arrogant than I am stubborn! I even let you get away with the Yu-8 without bitching forever about it! :p

You can make up for it by adding the the non-playable platforms from SCXIIc to the LWAMI database. :sunny:

Cheers,
David

[Driftwood]

That's so unfair LW.

Stubborn pain in the ass? People who've had to deal with me should know that I'm far more arrogant than I am stubborn! I even let you get away with the Yu-8 without bitching forever about it! :p

Agreed! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :arrgh!:

[TLAM Strike]

The ideal candiate is TLAM Strike, but he's also gone deep. Next would be Molon, but he's a stubborn PITA.

When it comes to math and stuff when determing the seeker cone or range and such I'm not your man. :lol:

Molon would be a good choice even if hes a stubbon and arrogant PITA. But hay John Holland was a stubbon PITA and Rickover was an arrogant PITA... oh wait he was just an ass... :lol:

[Molon Labe]

How the **** did I get on the short list?

[Bill Nichols]

How the **** did I get on the short list?

Lucky you... I didn't even make the list.

:-j

[Molon Labe]

Yeah! LW, why don't you pick on the better scenario designer!

[OneShot]

Actually he just needs someone to research dry data (Naval Weapon Systems, Aircraft, Ships, etc) and enters that stuff into the database - where necessary correcting existing data and if they are available (modellwise) adding some new non-playable platforms.

Most of that sounds a lot like being a lawyer (you know ... researching dry data and such) and you need someone to be very nitpicky ...

I wonder why you were only #2 on the list? :rotfl:

TLAM prolly had his modding experience going for him as the deciding factor ... :p

@Bill : If you want on that list, I'm pretty sure Lw would be more then glad of adding you .... ;) :p

Cheers
OS

[Molon Labe]

Actually he just needs someone to research dry data (Naval Weapon Systems, Aircraft, Ships, etc) and enters that stuff into the database - where necessary correcting existing data and if they are available (modellwise) adding some new non-playable platforms.

Most of that sounds a lot like being a lawyer (you know ... researching dry data and such) and you need someone to be very nitpicky ...

I wonder why you were only #2 on the list? :rotfl:

TLAM prolly had his modding experience going for him as the deciding factor ... :p

@Bill : If you want on that list, I'm pretty sure Lw would be more then glad of adding you .... ;) :p

Cheers
OS

We need a 'flip off' emoticon like they have at Frugals.

[Gorshkov]

Hello Lufty, you old fogey!

I discovered, you bamboozle us some birdseed about USET-80 torpedo! But this torpedo is optionally WIRE-GUIDED weapon! Where did you find these false informations??? In the stock DW database??? You stated yourself there are many bugs there, you have been still correcting in LAWAMI mod!

[Molon Labe]

God forbid he doesn't find everything wrong with the stock DB.

Care you provide us with a source, btw?

[Gorshkov]

Care you provide us with a source, btw?

Yes, I have found recently some interesting data in Polish military monthly "Nowa Technika Wojskowa" (what means "New Military Technology" in English). They published one big article about "Oscar" class submarines with respect to "Kursk" incident a few years ago. As we know "Kursk" was armed with USET-80s during disaster. That is why author described USET-80 characteristics in this article as follows (my own translation):

"USET-80 torpedoes were introduced into service in early 1980s. They are electrically powered with Zn-Mg batteries as their energy source. They have range of 18 km and speed of 50 knots. USET-80 is equipped with active-passive acoustic sensor, wake-homing device and it is also wire-guided. Torpedo warhead contains 200-300 kg of explosives. USET-80 torpedo can hit surface and subsurface targets up to 500 meters (other sources says up to 1000 meters) depth."

Besides, if USSR introduced first wire-guided torpedoes of TEST-68/TEST-71 types in the late 1960s, it is logical that USET-80 must be a lot better weapon than those in all aspects because it was created a decade later. Moreover USET-80 was a primary weapon of Soviet nuclear (not diesel!) submarines in 1980s and thus it is not possible USET-80 don't have wire guidance, which was a basic standard at those days. Maybe this torpedo can be fired without attached wire but for sure not only with such option!

PS. I personally suppose, USET-80 can sustain 50 kts speed at its maximum 18 km range! It is quite enough because modern submarines can't detect and engage each other on longer ranges. So, USET-80 is a formidable ASW weapon even now!

[Molon Labe]

Care you provide us with a source, btw?

Yes, I have found recently some interesting data in Polish military monthly "Nowa Technika Wojskowa" (what means "New Military Technology" in English). They published one big article about "Oscar" class submarines with respect to "Kursk" incident a few years ago. As we know "Kursk" was armed with USET-80s during disaster. That is why author described USET-80 characteristics in this article as follows (my own translation):

"USET-80 torpedoes were introduced into service in early 1980s. They are electrically powered with Zn-Mg batteries as their energy source. They have range of 18 km and speed of 50 knots. USET-80 is equipped with active-passive acoustic sensor, wake-homing device and it is also wire-guided. Torpedo warhead contains 200-300 kg of explosives. USET-80 torpedo can hit surface and subsurface targets up to 500 meters (other sources says up to 1000 meters) depth."

Besides, if USSR introduced first wire-guided torpedoes of TEST-68/TEST-71 types in the late 1960s, it is logical that USET-80 must be a lot better weapon than those in all aspects because it was created a decade later. Moreover USET-80 was a primary weapon of Soviet nuclear (not diesel!) submarines in 1980s and thus it is not possible USET-80 don't have wire guidance, which was a basic standard at those days. Maybe this torpedo can be fired without attached wire but for sure not only with such option!

PS. I personally suppose, USET-80 can sustain 50 kts speed at its maximum 18 km range! It is quite enough because modern submarines can't detect each other on longer ranges. So, USET-80 is a formidable ASW weapon even now!

It's not logical to conclude that a weapon made later in time will necesarily have all the features of a previous model. For example, the Mk54 does not have the depth capability that the Mk50 does.

My gut feeling is that the article made a mistake. I can't find any other source that says the USET-80 is wire guided. It seems that Russian torpedo development went along two tracks: the SET/USET line, which are not wire guided, and the TEST line, which is. (It looks like the UGST is part of the TEST family.)

Of course, if we find more non-classified sources saying the USET is wire guided, I could change my mind, but for now it seems the info out there overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that it is not wire guided.

[LuftWolf]

USET-80 is NOT wire-guided.

Bill, I assume you are too busy... BUT if you'd like to volunteer, I'm not turning away any SubSim member with standing. :cool:

Anyone who decides to take this on (this is directed at the general audience) needs to have three things 1) the time and patience to learn the process and actually do it 2) an understanding of how various database parameters influence the sim (this is fairly straightforward if you have someone to ask specific questions to... like me :) ) and 3) competance with modern naval weapons so that the person in question can independantly adjust values when taking data from the SCXIIc database without clearing each and every little parameter transposition with me.

In this sense, the person who decides to do this is really going to be creating a mod for which he takes the credit... even copying things from the SCXIIc database creates enough opportunities for judgement that it is not simply a bunch of copied values, the previous database is merely the most complete reference for the platforms that must be added, BUT NOT a 1-1 storehouse of everything that needs to be done.

SO, this person must be able to make judgement calls that the community can be in a consensus about.

And so, this brings us to why I can't do it, or at least really don't want to. I have to do all this work, and then on top of that, before I even start, I have to get myself to a hobbiest level knowledge about this material. Once this is done, the excuse "well, that's the way it is in the stock database" will no longer fly... the data must be defensible, and given the sheer volumn of material, it will take me MONTHS of my own time just to do the research, and personally, I think this is time better spent on the the Advanced Weapons Mods, since I am the only person who can do that (since I have already done the doctrines and I'd hate to be the person that has to go back and figure out how my ADCAP doctrine works, for example).

So, I guess I'm putting it out there. I'm happy to do the ATC mods, but if you guys want some kind of SCX-type expansion of DW, someone else if probably going to have to volunteer to do it, unless you don't mind waiting for maybe a year or more for me to get around to it.

Also, the work on the ATC is on hold until I have the course set on this issue.

So, let's all sit down and work out a plan here. :know: :up:

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

USET-80 is NOT wire-guided.

No, it is! :yep:

[LuftWolf]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTRussian_post-WWII.htm

While it does have a wake-homing mode that is not simulated in DW (yet), it is most definately not wire-guided.

Your source is the only one I've ever seen listing it as wire-guided, and given that it is a peripheral reference in a periodical about the Kursk (as opposed to a dedicated techincal reference), I'm not inclined to assign it a higher level of credibility than other sources.

Also, giving the USET-80 wire-guided capability would drastically alter the weapon balance on the Russian Kilos, making the TEST-71 completely redundant weapons, which is one of the reasons I'm not inclined to believe they are wireguided, because the Kilo submarine then would have no reason to carry the TEST-71, either in DW or in real life.

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

Also, giving the USET-80 wire-guided capability would drastically alter the weapon balance on the Russian Kilos, making the TEST-71 completely redundant weapons, which is one of the reasons I'm not inclined to believe they are wireguided, because the Kilo submarine then would have no reason to carry the TEST-71, either in DW or in real life.
Funny deduction!

I have never heard that Russia ever sold abroad USET-80s along with Kilos. But because Kilos possess two wire-capable tubes it is logical move that Russia agreed to export them with older and much less capable TEST-71 torpedoes! So, export Chinese and Indian Kilos should be armed primary with universal TEST-71s in DW+LWAMI as it takes place in reality. In contrary Russian Kilos should possess wire-guided USET-80s and maybe wireless SET-65Ms.

Anyway I see a big mess in Kilos armament! I propose following solution:

- export Kilos armament: 53-65KE, truly universal TEST-71ME-NK, SET-53M (sci-fi Yu-8), maybe various "Club" versions.

- Russian Kilos armament: 53-65K, wireless SET-65M, wire-guided USET-80, no SS-N-15 and any other SUBROCs.

[LuftWolf]

Well, what you propose is both interesting and possible, given that the database object for the TEST-71 is actually different for the Russian and two types of Chinese Kilos.

Deleting weapons is not possible, so the SS-N-15 is going to stay, which I want anyway (I like giving players more options as opposed to less).

[Everyone wants to hate on the Yu-8... and I even see your point. Hell, I even agree with you. However... you can't say you don't like the idea of having that option on the Chinese Kilos when you are pressed to driving one. Besides, I have the cover of having my database timeframe set in 2012... and no one will critize a game like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for having "sci-fi" weapons, as you call them.]

I'm not yet ready to start a poll about this... I need to be more convinced the USET-80 is in fact wireguided.

Can anyone with some good reference materials try to dig up something on this? I'll see what I can find as well. :hmm:

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

1. No way Soviets didn't introduce any new wire-guided torpedo like USET-80 during 20 years! Certainly not during Brezhnev's arms race era! USSR was developing simultaneously more than a hundred various weapon systems then! Besides in 1980s Soviet economy was more than a half of US economy. Now Russian GNP is less than one twentieth of US GNP!

2. Can in-game SET-65 be used on playable subs in LWAMI mod?

3. If SS-N-15 can't be removed from Kilos armament, players needn't use it!

[LuftWolf]

1. No way Soviets didn't introduce any new wire-guided torpedo like USET-80 during 20 years! Certainly not during Brezhnev's arms race era! USSR was developing simultaneously more than a hundred various weapon systems then! Besides in 1980s Soviet economy was more than a half of US economy. Now Russian GNP is less than one twentieth of US GNP!

2. Can in-game SET-65 be used on playable subs in LWAMI mod?

3. If SS-N-15 can't be removed from Kilos armament, players needn't use it!

Honestly, the biggest reason I'm not inclined to believe that the USET-80 is not wireguided is because Thomas, the creator of the SCX mod database, did not include the USET-80 as wireguided, and he IS a real naval weapons hobbiest/expert.

If I were to make the USET-80 wireguided, the amount of criticism I would face from people who have been around would be volumninous.

Now, this is not necessarily a reason to do or not do anything, but it is an indication of the strength of the belief of this community that the USET-80 is, in fact, not wireguided.

I'm simply going to need more solid evidence than the polish magazine.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

You really don't gain much from wireguidance on a torp that only has a range of about 10nm. It makes sense to me that they put their efforts into the UGST instead.

[LuftWolf]

You really don't gain much from wireguidance on a torp that only has a range of about 10nm. It makes sense to me that they put their efforts into the UGST instead.

Actually, Molon, that statement is contradictory. :)

It would make much more sense to say: "you don't really gain much from giving a torpedo a range of greater than 10nm if the weapon only has a guidance wire that is 10nm long."

In real life, Russian weapons use a wire-guidance system that puts 13.5nm of wire in the weapon and 2.5nm of wire in the submarine itself (according to Amizaur's sources). As you can see, the max range of the TEST-71 is exactly the length of its wire. The Soviet weapons designers only allocated space inside the weapon to enough batteries to send it to its theoretically maximum effective range, which is where the wire runs out.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Contradictory my ass. You're the one assuming that you can't hit anything once the wire is cut.

For a target less than 10nm away, it's unlikely that the target will be able to clear datum effectively, so wire guidance is mostly unnecessary, especially if you give the weapons a bit of a spread.

For distant targets, the utility of using multiple weapons is limited (unless you're using stock DW and using a helluva lot of weapons, but I'm talking more about RL) since there is so much more area the target can run to. Wireguidance is key so that the weapons fired can be steered to intercept the target on its evasion course, once it is known--which should happen before the torp runs out of wire.

[LuftWolf]

In DW terms, I think what you are saying makes a bit of sense (although not much), but in RL terms, I think you are way off the mark.

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

Anyway I must say that Kilos with their present crappy armament are very ineffective platforms both in DW and RL! Lack of TA, limited speed, torpedoes beat range-speed performance make Kilos no match for any nuclear sub and military surface vessel until very short distance and collision course emerge.
Maybe equipping at least Russian Improved Kilos with UGST torpedoes could change this hopeless situation? Otherwise Kilo can be only civilian shipping littorial "happy hunter".

[Molon Labe]

Anyway I must say that Kilos with their present crappy armament are very ineffective platforms both in DW and RL! Lack of TA, limited speed, torpedoes beat range-speed performance make Kilos no match for any nuclear sub and military surface vessel until very short distance and collision course emerge.
Maybe equipping at least Russian Improved Kilos with UGST torpedoes could change this hopeless situation? Otherwise Kilo can be only civilian shipping littorial "happy hunter".

The Kilo isn't good for much besides attacking merchants in RL, unless you're dealing with badly mucked up acoustic conditions in an area where warships must pass through. DW+LW/Ami seems to do a pretty good job representing that.

[GrayOwl]

The guys, irrespectively to speak about real parameters of the weapon is simply ridiculously. :p LOL

If mr. Gorshkoff the expert in the weapon - let he to us will say about it, we shall make these replacements in a our databases.

But I think that he at first should ask about it at from CIA and KGB. They for certain know it.:D :D :D

That than us is fed with magazines and other " the open sources " are all a deceit.

Will pass 20 years and only then we find out on what the weapon was capable nowadays existing.

Mr. Gorshkoff - I have the documentary amateur film which has been make onboard a boat of a class Oscar (TOMSK Hull) during training - and I see as charge a torpedo USET-80 in the torpedo apparate for a shot, and it does not have any adaptations wire of the control.
This torpedo shot from boat, and crew have forgotten about it - and only waited when she will find the target...

If you in a zoo will see the elephant in a crate, and on the table "MOUSE" for You will be written: what is it do not believe the own eyes?

That You, will believe more - Eyes or Tables???

LW EDIT: Removed Political Content

[Gorshkov]

LW EDIT: Removed Political Content

[LuftWolf]

Please save political discussion for the General Topic forum.

Further posts in this thread regarding politics will be deleted without warning.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

LW EDIT: Removed Political Content

[GrayOwl]

LW EDIT: Removed Political Content

[Molon Labe]

LW EDIT: Removed Political Content

So anyways, about the mod... did you know the helos are pinging when they are landing on the FFG?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Please save political discussion for the General Topic forum.

Further posts in this thread regarding politics will be deleted without warning.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Cheers,
David

Can you somehow just move the "political" posts? There seems to be substantial interest. I'd like to ask some questions myself, but I'd respect the moderator, the intent of this particular sub-board and the intent of the thread.

Back on topic, citing a source that does not mention a capability is not a disproof of the ability. You might notice that the UGST's wire guidance capability is not mentioned either.:D

[LuftWolf]

Please save political discussion for the General Topic forum.

Further posts in this thread regarding politics will be deleted without warning.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Cheers,
David

Can you somehow just move the "political" posts? There seems to be substantial interest. I'd like to ask some questions myself, but I'd respect the moderator, the intent of this particular sub-board and the intent of the thread.

Back on topic, citing a source that does not mention a capability is not a disproof of the ability. You might notice that the UGST's wire guidance capability is not mentioned either.:D

Yes, you are extremely sharp, I noticed the same thing. :)

Of course, I failed to remember that Amizaur was quite familiar with the details of that weapon due to a relative of his. In fact, he knows quite intimate things about the USET-80 such as the fact that the weapon has only two discrete speed presets, selectible only by removing a panel from the weapon and reaching into the engine and pulling a lever. Apparently, the process is such a pain, that the weapons are almost never fired in any mode other than their max speed.

I believe if the USET-80 were wireguided, it would have come up long before now. :know:

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

LW EDIT: Removed Political Content

[Molon Labe]

LW EDIT: Removed Political Content

[Gorshkov]

LW EDIT: Removed Political Content

[Driftwood]

When is everyone going to simply ignore this guy? You know......don't go away mad......just go away. :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

@ Troll: I haven't reported it yet... I'm not backing anyone. That was just a joke to LW, partly at my own expense.

@Capt. Sparrow: will you be stepping away from your pig boat anytime soon? We could use a SW driver on Cinco de Mayo...

@LW: Sorry for the OT message. I'll be good. Or better yet.... you know the detection ranges are too long right? Remember that russian analysis in the pdf? You should learn from it.

There, now it's on-topic!

[Gorshkov]

When is everyone going to simply ignore this guy? You know......don't go away mad......just go away. :hmm:
Do you have anything interesting to announce to us in this thread? Maybe some info or photos about Russian torpedoes? Maybe some unknown proofs of Yeltsin's big achievements in the naval shipbuilding area?

If not, go to wag one's chin somewhere else! :yep:

PS. Could you finally clear this tread by removing or shifting all off-topic posts into General Topics Forum, Lufty?

[XabbaRus]

OK as a mod here I am going to get my big stick out. This thread is about the LWAMI mod so I want to see it stay that way from now on with no name calling or bitching. If you want to have a political discussion do it by PM or in General topics. One of you already has a warning by PM (you know who you are) I don't want to have to hadn out another. I will be watching.

[Bill Nichols]

Yes. We have our eyes on you.

:o

[Gorshkov]

OK as a mod here I will be watching.
As an user I will be watching equality of treatment, too!

Back on topic: I have good news for future Kilo skippers! I have read great article in mentioned earlier Polish periodic "Nowa Technika Wojskowa" about Kilo's successor called project 677 or "Lada"-class sub will be armed with UGSTs and up to four Club-S missiles! Additionally "Lada" will also carry self-propelled submarine imitation devices (something now completely lacks in DW!) fired from torpedo tubes and made on the basis of electric torpedoes. There are three types of them now available: "Korund" ("Corundum"), "Berilij" ("Beryllium") and "Tuniec" ("Tuna"). Brand-new sonar suite called "Arfa" ("Lyre") includes first on Russian diesel subs towed array sonar which can detect surface targets up to 200 km! Also AIP propulsion of "Krista³³-27" ("Crystal-27") type is planned for next "Ladas"! This sub costs about 250 million USD but including independent AIP module total price is 300-320 million USD. Quite cheap if compared with its Western counterparts!

Hurrah!!!:up:

There is plenty of new work as you can see, Lufty. So, snap to it!
(http://www.dict.pl/plen?words=Snap%20to%20it%21&lang=EN)

[LuftWolf]

Damn it, you guys made me actually read those posts and sort out the wheat from the chaff... I asked you to stop, but you still waste my time. :cool:

Ok... NO MORE POLITICS.

Molon, yeah the pinging helos on landing is a bit of an annoyance... I'm not sure if there is another way I can do it so that this doesn't happen.

I'll think about it. :hmm:

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

Hello Lufty!

Could you make playable "Lada" sub or Kilo armed with UGST??? :hmm:

Think about it!

[Molon Labe]

Damn it, you guys made me actually read those posts and sort out the wheat from the chaff... I asked you to stop, but you still waste my time. :cool:

Ok... NO MORE POLITICS.

Molon, yeah the pinging helos on landing is a bit of an annoyance... I'm not sure if there is another way I can do it so that this doesn't happen.

I'll think about it. :hmm:

Cheers,
David

You know, I've given this a bit more thought and I've decided it's only minor. Don't lose any sleep over it. :lol:

[Molon Labe]

Now onto something more serious...

Is there a limit to how far out you can get the helo to prosecute a contact?
I'm trying to engage a sub at ~60nm. FFG control loses the link at about 33nm. I've tried promoting the contact manually with the helo 30mn out, but he just turns around and heads back for the boat at that point.

Any ideas, or is there a 'hardcap' on how far out you can use the helo?

[GrayOwl]

Please save political discussion for the General Topic forum.

Further posts in this thread regarding politics will be deleted without warning.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Cheers,
David

Please... :p

[GrayOwl]

Now onto something more serious...

Is there a limit to how far out you can get the helo to prosecute a contact?
I'm trying to engage a sub at ~60nm. FFG control loses the link at about 33nm. I've tried promoting the contact manually with the helo 30mn out, but he just turns around and heads back for the boat at that point.

Any ideas, or is there a 'hardcap' on how far out you can use the helo?

The communication with the helicopter seems has dependence on height of flight of the helicopter. By default in the engine of game the helicopter travels in height of 300 ft. Concerning it distance - management of the helicopter also depends.

[GrayOwl]

@LW: Sorry for the OT message. I'll be good. Or better yet.... you know the detection ranges are too long right? Remember that russian analysis in the pdf? You should learn from it.

There, now it's on-topic!

The reduction of ranges of detection will be bad to work for the visual control on acoustics sonars for the player :cry: .

Frequency show the lines on NB, will occur at once on 2 or 3.

[Molon Labe]

Please save political discussion for the General Topic forum.

Further posts in this thread regarding politics will be deleted without warning.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Cheers,
David
Please... :p
I believe the proper expression is...
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/starbuck_bitchplease.JPG

[GrayOwl]

Please save political discussion for the General Topic forum.

Further posts in this thread regarding politics will be deleted without warning.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Cheers,
David
Please... :p
I believe the proper expression is...
http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/starbuck_bitchplease.JPG

Where censorship!? :hmm:
Or the dirty curses are purer than politics? :D :D

[GrayOwl]

We were going to to speak about serious - Who some that wanted to speak directly...:know:

For MH-60 Helo radar is established in wrong meanings - on the screen of a radar station for the player of the helicopter, a scale of the display is limited 40 NMI, at the same time AI helicopters use full detection distance - about 256 kyloyards for this sensor control in a database. Thus AI helicopters have advantage in for detection 3 times greater than player. Or Radar Ranges in "REMRO" Mode - distance controllable MH-60 from FFG Station Control also - Cheats .:huh:

Even if the target is found out for detectable, if distance in 40 NMI will not be closed , target yet will NO appear on the screen of a radar for the player for marking. :rotfl:

Khe-Khe… For myself I already have corrected it.
Very much it would be desirable to have a "Nice Music"……:up:

[Gorshkov]

Hello again Lufty, old bungler!

Something is wrong with fuses of Russian wakehomers in your mod! Such torpedo can swim through ship's hull without detonation. Only if it hits hull's center, explosion takes place.

Any explanations, buddy? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Hello again Lufty, old bungler!

Something is wrong with fuses of Russian wakehomers in your mod! Such torpedo can swim through ship's hull without detonation. Only if it hits hull's center, explosion takes place.

Any explanations, buddy? :hmm:

No, the wakehomers work fine... the way the have been working for 1.5 years.

Try again.

Cheers,
David

[Bill Nichols]

Uh oh. Here we go again!
:lol:

[Gorshkov]

Hello again Lufty, old bungler!

Something is wrong with fuses of Russian wakehomers in your mod! Such torpedo can swim through ship's hull without detonation. Only if it hits hull's center, explosion takes place.

Any explanations, buddy? :hmm:
No, the wakehomers work fine... the way the have been working for 1.5 years.

Try again.
Not necessary to try again!

If you think they "work" fine, it means your understanding of "working fine" is slightly dorky in that matter, pal! :rotfl:

[GrayOwl]

Hello again Lufty, old bungler!

Something is wrong with fuses of Russian wakehomers in your mod! Such torpedo can swim through ship's hull without detonation. Only if it hits hull's center, explosion takes place.

Any explanations, buddy? :hmm:
No, the wakehomers work fine... the way the have been working for 1.5 years.

Try again.
Not necessary to try again!

If you think they "work" fine, it means your understanding of "working fine" is slightly dorky in that matter, pal! :rotfl:


Probably torpedo with defect - maybe props By curve ?:hmm:

Torpedo following has got can be good! :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Gorshkov]

Hello again Lufty, old bungler!

Something is wrong with fuses of Russian wakehomers in your mod! Such torpedo can swim through ship's hull without detonation. Only if it hits hull's center, explosion takes place.

Any explanations, buddy? :hmm:
No, the wakehomers work fine... the way the have been working for 1.5 years.

Try again.
Not necessary to try again!

If you think they "work" fine, it means your understanding of "working fine" is slightly dorky in that matter, pal! :rotfl:

Probably torpedo with defect - maybe props By curve ?:hmm:

No defect. All wake-homing torpedoes in DW+LWAMI (65-76, 53-65K) have been acting like this many times so far! Maybe Lufty lowered sensitivity of their detonators too much? Anyway it looks pretty comically...torpedo penetrates across ship like a ghost. :)

[LuftWolf]

If you say so... :p

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

If you say so... :p

I woudn't have to say so if you weren't blind! :rotfl:

[OneShot]

Could some of the Moderators step in here please. This namecalling is kinda annoying and this thread is constantly moved OT.

@Gorshkov : If you have valid critique or found some bugs - great. But do not simply post anything without providing some facts and test results. Screenshots are quite helpful not to mention your results of a number of tests. If you want to be taken seriously you should try to act seriously and not like a 12 year old.

Cheers
OS

[TLAM Strike]

If you say so... :p

Cheers,
David

More importantly I say so. I've seen the 53-65K series weapons pass through the bow or stern of a target many times as they aimless cercle the target (since they seem to lack the turning capablity to hit it when fire at 90 degree angles). The center of the model (below the waterline) is where all weapons detonate and where a ship's noise is generated. :damn:

[LuftWolf]

If you say so... :p

Cheers,
David

More importantly I say so. I've seen the 53-65K series weapons pass through the bow or stern of a target many times as they aimless cercle the target (since they seem to lack the turning capablity to hit it when fire at 90 degree angles). The center of the model (below the waterline) is where all weapons detonate and where a ship's noise is generated. :damn:

If you don't fire the wakehomer so that it catches the wake of the ship and approaches it from the rear, the shot is going to miss.

From everything I've seen testing the sim, this is appropriate in the larger context of DW.

If I were to make the wakehomers all aspect, as they are in stock DW, they will no longer be wakehomers and will once again be all aspect weapons, capable of sniffing the bow of a ship from hundreds of yards away. This is exactly what was FIXED from stock DW.

We all know the collisions in DW are a little bit wonky when it comes to weapons. This is what you are seeing here, not an error with the wakehomers.

And again to remind everyone, this was set about 1.5 years ago, so I'm a bit skeptical about changing it now.

Cheers,
David

PS Hey TLAM, do you want to import the SCX platforms into LWAMI? The job is yours if you want it.

[Molon Labe]

If you say so... :p

Cheers,
David
More importantly I say so. I've seen the 53-65K series weapons pass through the bow or stern of a target many times as they aimless cercle the target (since they seem to lack the turning capablity to hit it when fire at 90 degree angles). The center of the model (below the waterline) is where all weapons detonate and where a ship's noise is generated. :damn:

That is every weapon (including missiles) in DW. The mod has nothing to do with it.

[Gorshkov]

It seems I am not a sole person who "has" visual hallucinations as Lufty suggested! :rotfl:
(http://www.dict.pl/plen?words=visual%20hallucinations&lang=EN)

[Gorshkov]

That is every weapon (including missiles) in DW. The mod has nothing to do with it. I checked myself what Molon wrote above and I must acknowledge this. Also in stock DW game the 53-65K wakehomers act equally daffy.

Could you improve this bug in LWAMI, Lufty?

[TLAM Strike]

If you don't fire the wakehomer so that it catches the wake of the ship and approaches it from the rear, the shot is going to miss. Hmmm I fired from 90 degrees off their bow, dead center, at a stationary target, a text book shot as they say. and they don't always aquire hit home. They tend to just cercle constantly missing the target. Ok A) the weapon should just just detonated when it impacted the hall and B) it should NOT have contiued trying to hit the target!

LOL

Luft if you say your from BuOrd and it my fault I'll kill you! :p

We all know the collisions in DW are a little bit wonky when it comes to weapons. This is what you are seeing here, not an error with the wakehomers.

And again to remind everyone, this was set about 1.5 years ago, so I'm a bit skeptical about changing it now.

Cheers,
David Yea its a problem with all weapons. :-? I think its up to SCS to fix it. :cry:

PS Hey TLAM, do you want to import the SCX platforms into LWAMI? The job is yours if you want it. Well I don't have all the SCX platforms (deleted the last verson of it from my HD a long time ago, leaving me with an old backup I made when it was still SCX V1.0), I don't have an internet connection at home to get them or a way to send the DB and files back out once I import them. I would if I could, sorry... :damn:

[LuftWolf]

Oh I have everything you need.

I can mail you a CD-RW to your mailing address if you'd like, and you can send it back to me when you are finished. :)

Cheers,
David

PS If you fire a ***wakehomer*** at a stationary target, OF COURSE it's not going to work! If I wanted to model the weapons like dumb torpedoes, there's a few other things I'd have to do to make it work... like Thomas did with the Mk 8's in SCX.

[LuftWolf]

That is every weapon (including missiles) in DW. The mod has nothing to do with it. I checked myself what Molon wrote above and I must acknowledge this. Also in stock DW game the 53-65K wakehomers act equally daffy.

Could you improve this bug in LWAMI, Lufty?

Sorry, there's not much I can do about this... it's hardcoded in the NavalSimEngine.

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

That is every weapon (including missiles) in DW. The mod has nothing to do with it. I checked myself what Molon wrote above and I must acknowledge this. Also in stock DW game the 53-65K wakehomers act equally daffy.

Could you improve this bug in LWAMI, Lufty?
Sorry, there's not much I can do about this... it's hardcoded in the NavalSimEngine.

What a pity! So we must watch at ghost-like target ships until SCS fixes this bug. :shifty:

A have another two questions:

1. Simulating of dumb torpedoes behavior in DW would be useless because neither accessible in game submarine platforms nor human players don't possess impact point calculating instruments, found in SH III for example. Am I wrong?

2. Would you mind giving me approximate target's wake detection ranges versus target speed for 65-76 and 53-65K torpedoes, if you have such ones, Lufty?

[caymanlee]

I do found a bug in the subroc though, and I add some data in the original Subroc doctrine to fix the problem, if you like, I could upload it somewhere

[LuftWolf]

Post it here, I can figure it out.

What is the problem exactly?

Cheers,
David

[TLAM Strike]

Oh I have everything you need.

I can mail you a CD-RW to your mailing address if you'd like, and you can send it back to me when you are finished. :)

Cheers,
David Don't have a CD burner. Heck my 3 1/2 in floopy drive dosn't work. :oops:

PS If you fire a ***wakehomer*** at a stationary target, OF COURSE it's not going to work! If I wanted to model the weapons like dumb torpedoes, there's a few other things I'd have to do to make it work... like Thomas did with the Mk 8's in SCX. Thing is it still detects a stationary target... and can occassonaly hit them... :hmm:

[caymanlee]

Post it here, I can figure it out.

What is the problem exactly?

Cheers,
David

mainly problem is the "torpedo drop" success rate is barely low, when the ASW missile drop the torpedo(no matter ss-n-16 or ss-n-27), tropedo often lost! can't active, then disappear, I figure out it main have something to do with the droping altitude, so I do some writing in it's Doctrine, turn out great


here is my modified SubrocAttack doctrine:

; $Header: SubrocAttack.txt Thu Jul 24 17:05:51 EDT 2003 mike $
; $Revision: 3 $
; $Copyrt1: Copyright (c) 2003, Sonalysts, Inc. All rights reserved. $
;
; fixed and modified by Amizaur
; random range (controlled by MissileCEP value) and bearing (+/- 2deg ) error added
var firing
var initx
var inity
var apexrng
var currng
var ordalt
var ordalt2
var ordptch
var OrdCrs
var MissileCEP
var rngerror
var brgerror
var KillSwitch
IF Init THEN {
firing = false
initx = ownx
inity = owny
apexrng = ( ( xyrng ( tgtx - initx ) ( tgty - inity ) ) * 0.475 )
DebugOut "Asroc launch, rng:"
DebugValueOut ( apexrng * 2 )
IF ( apexrng < 1852 ) THEN {
apexrng = 1852
DebugOut "rng setting lower than minimum, correcting to 2nm"
DebugOut "Rng now"
DebugValueOut ( apexrng * 2 )
} ENDIF
MissileCEP = ( 100 + ( apexrng / 10 ) )
DebugOut "Missile CEP"
DebugValueOut MissileCEP
rngerror = ( ( rnd MissileCEP ) - ( rnd MissileCEP ) )
DebugOut "range error:"
debugvalueout rngerror

brgerror = ( ( rnd 2 ) - ( rnd 2 ) )
DebugOut "bearing error:"
debugvalueout brgerror
apexrng = ( apexrng + ( rngerror / 2 ) )
KillSwitch = 0
} ELSE {
currng = xyrng ( ownx - initx ) ( owny - inity )
IF OwnAlt > -300 THEN {
KillSwitch = 1
} ELSEIF ( OWnAlt < -300 ) AND KillSwitch THEN {
Shutdown
} ENDIF
IF ( currng > apexrng ) AND ( OwnAlt < 5500 ) AND ( NOT firing ) THEN {
FireBest
DebugOut "Asroc drop"
DebugValueOut currng
firing = true
} ENDIF
OrdCrs = GetEntVar "PreenableCourse"
OrdCrs = ( OrdCrs + BrgError )
SetCrs OrdCrs
SetSpd MaxSpd
ordalt = ( abs ( currng - apexrng ) / apexrng )
ordalt = ( MaxAlt * ( 1 - ( ordalt * ordalt ) ) )
ordalt2 = ( abs ( currng + 1 - apexrng ) / apexrng )
ordalt2 = ( MaxAlt * ( 1 - ( ordalt2 * ordalt2 ) ) )
ordptch = xybrg ( ordalt2 - ordalt ) 1
IF ordptch > 180 THEN {
ordptch = ( ordptch - 360 )
} ENDIF
SetPitch ordptch
; DebugOut "Ballistic Alt"
; DebugValueOut ordalt
; DebugOut "Ballistic Ptch"
; DebugValueOut ordptch

} ENDIF



the red part is the modified part, test reasult is good


by the way: I change the SS-N-16 asw trop launcher default loadout, base on a optional loadout in the reality, I replace the torpedo with a depth charge nuke bomb;)

[LuftWolf]

That's interesting to hear you say that as it appears that no one else is having issues... I believe that I had fixed the Subrocs.

There is a specific reason I've actually not done one of the things you mentioned...

I'll look at it for a future update, but I'm fairly certain the vast majority of users are not having any problems with the latest version of the mod.

Cheers,
David

[GrayOwl]

That's interesting to hear you say that as it appears that no one else is having issues... I believe that I had fixed the Subrocs.

There is a specific reason I've actually not done one of the things you mentioned...

I'll look at it for a future update, but I'm fairly certain the vast majority of users are not having any problems with the latest version of the mod.

Cheers,
David

No Has of problems who not make changes speed ASW of missiles - at all missiles she practically identical. :o

If you will increase speed SS-N-27 up to 1600 Kts you will have a problem with to throw a torpedo.

SS-N-27 for ASW of a rocket has a very short distance, therefore she has supersonic speed - there is no economy of fuel - for such short distance it it is not meaningful.

I have decided this problem - torpedo falls smoothly - as on a parachute, from any rocket and on any speed.:damn: :damn: :damn: :rock:

[Molon Labe]

Hey, LW (and LW/Ami players), I got you a present:

UPDATED PLAYABLE SUB PSL TABLE FOR LW/AMI 3.08 (http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/Updated%20PSL%203.08.xls)
The old PSL chart for previous LW/Ami versions is out of date since the speeds of the Akula-1 Imp and 688I have changed. Also, I'm 99% sure DW doesn't round to the nearest integer, as shown by the older charts. Plus, the SW on the old chart is just wrong as far as I can tell; probably because it wasn't updated when the speed went down to 38 knots back in the day...

[Driftwood]

Terrific ML! Thanks for doing this! :up:

[Molon Labe]

Terrific ML! Thanks for doing this! :up:

You're welcome, Cap'n Jack!

[Driftwood]

Terrific ML! Thanks for doing this! :up:

You're welcome, Cap'n Jack!

LOL, there's a handle I've not heard in a while! :D At the risk of getting slightly off topic, are you still flying? I'm in the middle of remodeling my "man-cave" so my online time is limited to when I'm at work. It'll probably be another week before I'm out of dry dock and back in the "conn." :arrgh!:

[LuftWolf]

I've done some fixing on the MH60 dipping doctrine to make sure the helo launches with its dipping sonar OFF.

I need some people to look at it before I release it as an official patch.

www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/HeloDippingMH60.zip (http://www.commanders-academy.com/luftwolf/HeloDippingMH60.zip)

Thanks! :)

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

You know I only added that in so the post was on-topic, right?

Anyways, the issue was during landing (although it might have been an issue on takeoff too), but in any case this will only take all of 5 minutes to test in MP. Let me know when you're around and I'll set it up.

[LuftWolf]

Well... it should fix it for both landing AND takeoff... although I might have to set the delay timer to be a little bit longer to cover the landings as well.

I'm around all day today, so we should probably test it... I'll jump onto AIM at some point today and we can do it in MP.

Cheers,
David

[Zacho]

Can the P-100 Oniks SSN-22 Sunburn Encapsulated folding-fin version
launched from 65 cm torpedo tubes on SSN's. Associated with Rim Hat FCS.
industrial code 3K-55

or
SS-N-21 Sampson

be launched in the akula

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/?

[LuftWolf]

Can the P-100 Oniks SSN-22 Sunburn Encapsulated folding-fin version
launched from 65 cm torpedo tubes on SSN's. Associated with Rim Hat FCS.
industrial code 3K-55

or
SS-N-21 Sampson

be launched in the akula

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/?


I'd have to sacrific some weapon or another... most likely the 65-76 since it's no longer actually carried on Russian submarines (reportedly...), but I'm sure that most players would not be in favor of this change, also I'm not sure any version of the Sunburn is carried on the Akula... I've never heard this before.

So, thank you for the idea, but I'm not sure it'd be a popular decision to go in that direction, or necessarily good from a gameplay/simulation stand point.

Cheers,
David

[Castout]

LuftWolf what about limited guidance wire?

Is there a way to hide the torpedo in the weapon control station once the wire has been cut? This was an issue back then with Sub Command. They still haven't changed it in DW:dead:.

[LuftWolf]

LuftWolf what about limited guidance wire?

Is there a way to hide the torpedo in the weapon control station once the wire has been cut? This was an issue back then with Sub Command. They still haven't changed it in DW:dead:.

Wirebreaks have been implemented in the Advanced Torpedo Control Mod... of which I made a working Alpha with complete torpedo individualization for DW 1.03. I hope to someday soon have the time to work on LWAMI 4.xx which will feature this weapon individualization with complete weapon physics, unique speed vs. range vs. depth curves for all weapons, fully 3-d limited seeker cones, vertical search patterns, multiple wire-control settings, etc.

In terms of eliminating weapon truth... nope, unfortunately this would have to be done by SCS.

Cheers,
David

[Castout]

LuftWolf what about limited guidance wire?

Is there a way to hide the torpedo in the weapon control station once the wire has been cut? This was an issue back then with Sub Command. They still haven't changed it in DW:dead:.
Wirebreaks have been implemented in the Advanced Torpedo Control Mod... of which I made a working Alpha with complete torpedo individualization for DW 1.03. I hope to someday soon have the time to work on LWAMI 4.xx which will feature this weapon individualization with complete weapon physics, unique speed vs. range vs. depth curves for all weapons, fully 3-d limited seeker cones, vertical search patterns, multiple wire-control settings, etc.

In terms of eliminating weapon truth... nope, unfortunately this would have to be done by SCS.

Cheers,
David
Great news. Abt eliminating weapon truth, i'll go nag sonalyst:rotfl:

@Molon Labe: Thx for the table.

[Molon Labe]

Can the P-100 Oniks SSN-22 Sunburn Encapsulated folding-fin version
launched from 65 cm torpedo tubes on SSN's. Associated with Rim Hat FCS.
industrial code 3K-55

or
SS-N-21 Sampson

be launched in the akula

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/?

I'd have to sacrific some weapon or another... most likely the 65-76 since it's no longer actually carried on Russian submarines (reportedly...), but I'm sure that most players would not be in favor of this change, also I'm not sure any version of the Sunburn is carried on the Akula... I've never heard this before.

So, thank you for the idea, but I'm not sure it'd be a popular decision to go in that direction, or necessarily good from a gameplay/simulation stand point.

Cheers,
David
It looks like the Moskit is too big for the 650mm tubes anyways.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/moskitm.htm and http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.101/cruise_detail.asp report diameter at 760mm.

The Sampson is just a Russian TASM. AEGIS will smack it down without breaking a sweat.

[TLAM Strike]

The only submarine with the N-22 to my knowlage was a modified Victor III the K-292. It launched them with a specal launcher forward of the Sail.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/7495/vic307pt2.th.jpg (http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vic307pt2.jpg)

[Zacho]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WMRUS_ASHmis.htm

for the Encapsulated folding-fin version

or the
3M55 Oniks
P-800 Yakhont
P-800 Bolid
SSN-X-26

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm

the 65-76 sucks need a new 650mm tube Weapon

[Molon Labe]

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WMRUS_ASHmis.htm

for the Encapsulated folding-fin version

or the
3M55 Oniks
P-800 Yakhont
P-800 Bolid
SSN-X-26

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/ss-n-26.htm

the 65-76 sucks need a new 650mm tube Weapon
From the FAS link: "The supersonic P-800 Yakhont (Gem) is a ramjet version of P-80 Zubr [SS-N-7 Starbright]. The ship, submarine and coastal-launched Yakhont is launched from the unified ampoule-shaped transport-launching container (TLC). The container is 9 m long, is 0.71 m in diameter."

Still too big for a 650mm. TLAM might be onto something about the special launcher.

EDIT: It looks like this was an experimental weapon that never fully entered service, but became the basis for the BrahMos project.

EDIT 2: And the Lada class SSKs will include a VLS launcher for anti-ship missiles, which could include the BrahMos. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/india/2006/india-060706-rianovosti01.htm

I think what's probably going on here is someone, somewhere heard about encapsulated -26's and immediately thought 650mm tubes without giving it much thought, and some websites have been repeating it. But what was really going on was development for either custom launchers (like TLAM reported) or with the new VLS system.

[Molon Labe]

Speaking of BrahMos, it's operational on surface ships and coastal batteries in India already.

The first BrahMos missile was test-fired from a coastal launcher on June 12, 2001 and was subsequently installed on Indian warships. The Indian Navy's destroyer Rajput, a revamped Soviet-made anti-submarine warfare (ASW) ship [Project 61ME], was the first to receive these missiles. Two of the Rajput's obsolete Termit anti-ship missile systems in her bow section were dismantled at the Mumbai (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/india/2006/india-060706-rianovosti01.htm#) shipyard and replaced with two twin-mounted BrahMos missile systems. All tests carried out with these launchers and the new missile system proved successful. Consequently, the Indian Defense Ministry decided to equip all five destroyers of Project 61ME with these missiles. Brahmos missiles will also be installed on Project 15A Bangalore-class guided-missile destroyers and Project 17 guided-missile frigates, which are larger versions of Project 11356 Talvar-class frigates, and which are to be constructed at Mazagon Dock Limited, India 's best shipbuilder. Conventional Amur-class submarines being offered by Russia to India may also be used as BrahMos missile platforms.
Current loadouts:
Kashin (61ME): 4 SS-N-2 Styx
Delhi DDG (project 15): 8 SS-N-25
--Project 15A Bangalore is a modified Delhi.
Krivak III: [no offensive missiles]
--Project 17 is a modified Krivak III.

[Zacho]

is thare some thing we can replace the 65-76 with it is no longer in the RN?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

is thare some thing we can replace the 65-76 with it is no longer in the RN?

Yeah, you could replace it with the stock torpedo. If the Russians don't eventually just reallow the 65-76 back into the fleet, they'd eventually build a new torpedo, presumably with monopropellant, and it'd probably have similar coefficients to the stock DW uber-65.

[GrayOwl]

is thare some thing we can replace the 65-76 with it is no longer in the RN?

Yeah, you could replace it with the stock torpedo. If the Russians don't eventually just reallow the 65-76 back into the fleet, they'd eventually build a new torpedo, presumably with monopropellant, and it'd probably have similar coefficients to the stock DW uber-65.

Very well that is possible to test a different type of the weapon on Akulas - if in them it is possible to load 65-75 torpedo - and to shoot her.

65-75 torpedoes lay in Russian warehouses - from boats them have removed there. If war tomorrow will begin, this weapon again will return on boats.

So, guys, try this weapon - it still "alive".

[Zacho]

Type 65 torpedo


Homing: active/passive and wake homing

Variants
65-73 Entered service 1973, unguided torpedo. 20 kt Nuclear.
65-76 Kit (Russian: Кит, Whale) Entered service 1976, wake homing.
DT Length 11 m. Weight 4,500 kg. Warhead 450 kg.
DST92 Length 11 m. Weight 4,750 kg. Warhead 557 kg. Wake homing anti-ship weapon. Operates at 20 m depth. Sensor points upwards to detect the ships wake, the torpedo sweeps from side to side to find the edges of the wake.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_65_torpedohttp://milit.ru/torpedoes.htm

In 1956 the SET-65 new generation of active/passive homing torpedo system was put into service and in the 1960-1970s the first telecontrolled torpedoes, TEST-68 and TEST-71, appeared.

can it have active/passive and wake homing?

http://www.subsim.com/ssr/akula2.html

Both the SET 53 and SET 65 torpedoes are wireguided and possess active, passive, and wake-homing capabilities. The SET 65 pack a 900kg punch, enough to take out a carrier with one unit.

[TLAM Strike]

Both the SET 53 and SET 65 torpedoes are wireguided and possess active, passive, and wake-homing capabilities. The SET 65 pack a 900kg punch, enough to take out a carrier with one unit. The SET 65 has a 205 kg warhead and is ment for ASW work...

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WTRussian_post-WWII.htm

[Zacho]

so hard to git good information on Russian subs

[TLAM Strike]

I was expermenting with the CAPTOR Mines (in part to see if their doctrine would support Cluster Gulf/Bay type weapons) and I found that some of the time the Torpedoes launched would just drive in to the seafloor. I think that there should be something in the doctrine that will shoot the torpedo a hundred feet up first then have it proceed to target.

[Shadowmind]

I haven't been able to find the Advanced Torpedo control mod merged with the v3.08 mod, so I attempted to merge the ATC and v3.08 torpedo doctrines together. I've done some initially testing and it looks good. I made one change from the stock ATC. When the preenable button is clicked for the fourth time I send the torpedo to the floor depth instead of the launch depth. I wanted a way to launch torpedos deep and then pop them up to attack surface ships.

Another nice change would be the ability to increase the torpedo's speed to max speed without making it go active. If only we had a few more buttons. :hmm:

Luftwold/Amizaur, are either of you interested in this? Is anyone?

[LuftWolf]

I haven't been able to find the Advanced Torpedo control mod merged with the v3.08 mod, so I attempted to merge the ATC and v3.08 torpedo doctrines together. I've done some initially testing and it looks good. I made one change from the stock ATC. When the preenable button is clicked for the fourth time I send the torpedo to the floor depth instead of the launch depth. I wanted a way to launch torpedos deep and then pop them up to attack surface ships.

Another nice change would be the ability to increase the torpedo's speed to max speed without making it go active. If only we had a few more buttons. :hmm:

Luftwold/Amizaur, are either of you interested in this? Is anyone?

Hi!

Well, doing the complete ATC and weapon physics mods are the ultimate project for me, since I have asked another SubSim member to do the database expansion and SCXIIc unit imports. So, my project is currently on hold until this person finishes that project, since the DW structure dictates that only one project can be done at any time, unless someone wants to do their project twice.

Basically, the project involves duplicating all the playable weapons so they have non-playable counterparts, then reconstructing all the torpedo doctrines, creating mulitple doctrines for each playable weapon, some of the non-playable weapons, and all of the non-playable torpedo types. I have a reasonably ambitious plan for expanding the AI's use of torpedoes by allowing them to selectively fire passive weapons and weapons at speeds lower than their max speeds, but that's a finishing touch.

At this time, I'm not in a position to add the ATC to the 3.08 database, so if anyone out their wants to work on it on their own and pass the files around, I actively encourage you to do so, however, the number things in the air at any given time necessitate signifcant testing for most changes so I think it'd be best to think of it as an ongoing project.

Also, some of the weapon doctrines need a bit of work, although they all were working as advertised in the old ATC test for DW 1.03, at least as far as I could tell with the limited amount of testing I have done.

Let me know if you have any specific questions as you go along.

Cheers,
David

[GrayOwl]

LW, you are informed on that what the passive mode works with bugs?

The passive torpedo do not lose contact - doctrine does not receive never command LOSTTRACK in a passive mode. More correctly to say - torpedo loses contact, but the doctrine does not receive LOSTTRACK message from the engine - because of it of a torpedo emerge on a surface and jumping as dolphin.:down:

When such "surprises" - I become known for me become sad.:cry:

Also in an active mode, all time remains switched on the passive gauge.
For example when is started UGST in an active mode, if the purpose moves on the large speed and does a lot of noise, the detecting is real occurs by a passive sensor control, but not active!
Check up it debugger and you will see it.

Have it in a kind at designing new ATC.

Cheers!

[LuftWolf]

Yes, all of these things I sadly found the hard way... these, plus about 10 more things that were unexpected, grew the size and complexity of the ATC doctrines quite a bit over what a simple engineering plan would have allowed for, simply accounting for the code that makes the weapons behave.

Cheers,
David

[Fish]

David,
Can you figure out how many playables is the max for multiplayer, or can't you see that in the database?

[LuftWolf]

That's not something I know... perhaps you could PM FryingTiger?

Cheers,
David

Will do.

[GrayOwl]

That's not something I know... perhaps you could PM FryingTiger?

Cheers,
David

And where main associative game producer ? :huh:


Has run away? :lol: :lol:

[GrayOwl]

Sonalysts Game Design Notes:
The passive sonar modeling in Sub Command was modified from 688I in an
effort to upgrade the sonar detection and classification performance. Sub
Command models the individual variables in the passive sonar equation:

Passive Sonar Signal Excess = Radiated Noise - Propagation Loss - Interfering Noise - Recognition Differential


1. Radiated Noise is the initial source level of the signal that emanates
from the contact. Broadband radiated noise varies with speed, narrowband
radiated noise does not.

2. Propagation Loss is the amount of loss the source signal sustains as it
travels from the contact to the sonar. Sub Command calculates proploss on
the fly, accounting for the loss due to interaction of the signal with the
acoustic boundaries (surface, bottom, and thermal layer) and the
attenuation loss of the signal as a function of range.

3. Interfering Noise is a combination of background noise (sea state, rain,
shipping density) and self noise (noise emanating from the detecting ship)
that is a function of own ship speed..

4. Recognition Differential is how well a sonar system can differentiate a
signal from the background noise. Sub Command models separate sonar
Recognition Differentials depending on sonar type and model.

All these variables are modeled in Sub Command to determine whether or not
to display a signal on a sonar screen, and how brightly to display the signal.

Broadband radiated noise varies by platform class, and is adjusted for
target speed. Broadband radiated noise values are modeled for
representative frequencies in the 2 kHZ - 4kHZ range. ???!!!

Narrowband radiated noise is modeled by assigning a narrowband profile to each
appropriate platform - 5 discrete narrowband frequencies. The 5 discrete narrowband
lines range in frequency from 50 Hz - to - 2 kHZ. All U.S. built ships
will have a 60 HZ lines because the U.S. uses 60 cycle electrical
equipment. The rest of the world uses 50 cycle electrical equipment, so
their narrowband profile will have a 50 HZ line.

Low frequency signals propagate through water with much less loss than do
high frequency signals. Therefore, in most cases the best/initial
detection sensor will be the detection of narrowband lines on the towed
array. The window at the top of the Narrowband Station allows the user to
perform a narrowband search. Even though a signal is not visually apparent
in the search window, moving the cursor through all the bearings may
discover a narrowband contact line that will then be displayed in the
middle window. This occurs because the sonar system is able to pull a
signal out of the noise. This is the systems Recognition
Differential. This is the reason why an auto Sonarman will report a
contact that the player does not visually see on the Broadband screen.

The lower frequency lines will be detected first as the range between ships
closes, and the brightness of the lines will depend on the calculated
Signal Excess. The Broadband Station will generally detect after detection
has been made on the Narrowband Station. Towed arrayed broadband will
detect first over the spherical and cylindrical arrays because of it's
lower frequency band and better recognition differential. However,
spherical and cylindrical array detections eliminate the problem with the
ambiguous towed array detection.

The environmental inputs for each mission have a major effect on the sonar
detection performance. The inputs are environmental profile type (surface
duct, convergence zone, bottom limited), bottom type (rock, mud, sand), and
sea state (0-5). The depth of the water is also a major factor. These
inputs are available in the mission editor.===========================


All that is written above - complete false.
That that is declared, obviously does not work. To deceive very bad...


Damn It and more damn it!

[OneShot]

All that is written above - complete false. That that is declared, obviously does not work. To deceive very bad...

Might be because what you posted is for SC and not DW? Further on, Jamie has left SCS to work with another company ... that was a couple of months ago.

[GrayOwl]

All that is written above - complete false. That that is declared, obviously does not work. To deceive very bad...

Might be because what you posted is for SC and not DW? Further on, Jamie has left SCS to work with another company ... that was a couple of months ago.


Since then nothing has changed - as in that game it did not work, so on former does not work and in DW.
The realization of Speed vs Noise, this one, and work of all acoustic model as a whole is another.

[Bospor]

Just a quick question for you experts. I am very new to this game, so I am still learning the ropes... Downloaded this mod and very much liked the new models, improved torps and missiles behaviour. However, just two days ago I ran into a small problem (in my opinion). I was in Akula-I sneaking at 2 knots with towed sonar fully extended. At the same time 688I was fighting with another sub nearby. I could not detect him at all. I checked the Show truth part and here he was going at 11 knots 48 meters deep about 6.5 nm from me! From what I have read and heard about Akula, that sub should of picked up 688I going that fast that close to me. Is this mod a little bit anti-Russian or 688I is really that quiet?
Also I noticed that Akula's didn't get the new skin like Victor, Typhoon or Oscar. Still has that rediculous rusted piece of sh... look from vanilla game. I noticed that TLAM Strike has a cool looking model in his avatar (or whatever that is). Did I download just a part of the LA mod, not the full version?

[To be]

What array were you looking on, and were you looking on the Narrowband or Broadband display?

[Bospor]

Autocrew on sonar

[Molon Labe]

LW/Ami doesn't include updated models for playables. That invovles complications that require a lot more labor.

It's pretty well established that sonar autocrew is not capable of anywhere near the performance of the sonar. It follows that it isn't fair to evaluate the capability of the sonar based on what the autocrew can do.

[Bospor]

So, you guys play constantly staring at the sonar screen? I usually have auotocrew let me know when there is a contact. Than I go and check it out. Plus faint contacts are impossible to recognize on that Russian sonar. If it is a loud contact the spike is high and noticable, but faint contact look no different from the backround noise spikes. I think that auotocrew can see those little spikes much better than I can, unless I am doing something wrong...
Another strange thing I just noticed. I had made a small mission where I was in Akula and Victor 3 was an ally nearby. I witnessed a bizare behavior of Victor 3. She detected US FFG and sped up to 25 knots and got right behind the FFG, only about 0.5 nm behind. Then it would slow down and then accelarate again. It was doing it till the chopper dropped a tarpedo and sunk it. The damn thing wasn't attacking, just jerking off like that for good 7 nm! When I set up a mission, I gave orders to attack, not to track (or whatever she was trying to do). It was suppose to target another ship (target platform section), perhaps that was what screw it up. I have never seen this kind of behaviour in vanilla game. Was something changed in AI attacking behaviour in LA mod?

[Bospor]

I am guessing I asked a very noobish question or something...

Well I hope people still visit this forum cause I have another question. My computer had crashed and I had to re-install everything. I have re-installed DW and updated it with the latest patch. Then I extracted LuftWolf and Amizaur mod into the main folder of DW. Ran the installation and had chosen all the mods to be added by that little program that pops up when you done (the SSN, P3, FFG, Kegetys, etc). Now when I am running the DW the main picture changes to a new picture with Seawolfe coming out of the computer screen. BUT... when I go into editor and add subs, I am getting old DW models instead of new LW and A mod models (like Delta4, Oscar 2). Seems like the mod is there, but why don't I see the new models???

[OneShot]

What DW version do you have (especially language)?

As for the entries in the JSGME (the thing that pops up) you only have to activate the following entry : LwAmi_Mod

Everything else is optional. On top of that, you can only see the latest activated Splash Screen (LwAmi_Mod_Splash_*).

Cheers
OS

[Bospor]

English (US) version of the game.
But I have activated ALL the modes, including LwAmi_Mod, so the models should show up. Is there some sort of interference between these different mods? Is that what's causing a problem? Also do I start a game from a regular shortcut icon on my desktop? Sometimes mods have to be started from their own icon. I used this mod about a month ago, but now I can't figure out what am I doing wrong!

[OneShot]

Given that you updated DW with Patch 1.04 and then used LwAmi 3.08 (Full Install) everything should work perfectly. The Installer for the Full version should find the DW main folder automatically, dont make any changes there unless you see its pointing to a different path. The only solution I can offer is to deinstall everything and start afresh.

[Bospor]

I have done it 3 times already with same results... I'll try it again tonight, but this time I would activate the mod only. Thanks for all your help anyway OS.

[goldorak]

I have done it 3 times already with same results... I'll try it again tonight, but this time I would activate the mod only. Thanks for all your help anyway OS.

Thats very strange in the sense that it happened one time to me also.
But right now, I have dw 1.04 with the latest lwami enabled and don't get the problem anymore when designing missions.

[Bospor]

I figured it out! There is another icon that needs to be used, not the regular DW that gets placed on the desktop after installation. This mod has it's own icon to launch the game. I replaced the old one on the desktop and started the game via new icon, now everything works!

[LuftWolf]

I figured it out! There is another icon that needs to be used, not the regular DW that gets placed on the desktop after installation. This mod has it's own icon to launch the game. I replaced the old one on the desktop and started the game via new icon, now everything works!

I'm not sure about this, but as long as it is working on your machine, this is all that matters. :up:

Enjoy!

Cheers,
David

[Daylight]

Last night I played my very first random mission with AkulaII A in DW and there were some really strange things happening during that game. I have installed the latest patch and the latest LWAMI 3.08 mod. I saw this all in replay so I don't know anything about bearings etc. First of all, nearly all my 65cm torpedoes, which I used against an enemy sub, worked really strange. They passed all the decoys the enemy sub laid and chased the enemy sub all the time and when it caught the sub it just circled it and started to chase it again until most likely its max range shut it down. They also seemed to be more sensitive to contacts than the normal, wired torpedoes. Is there any known bug in the torpedo homing doctorines in LWAMI 3.08? I don't know if this is a bug or is it supposed to happen this way but in the end of the game the computer which was some USA sub, accidentally killed himself with his own torpedo. The torpedo flew past my decoy, turned (and maybe ran through another decaoy laid by me, I don't remember) and hit the USA sub. Is this possible? =) I read LWAMI 3.08 mod's readme and I remember something about torpedoes and CM's in there but I didn't really understand what kind of bug is it and how is the game going to change if I change the value in the ini-file. And last but not least, I don't seem to be able to make any columns in this text. I'm sorry for the confusing pile of words but these forums just didn't let me do it properly :( Thanks for your help

[To be]

That would be because:

"65cm Torpedo-WEAPON ADDED-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 disabled in-game, but we 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 then the torpedo will continue in a straight line after it enables. Although you can launch the weapon deep, SET THE SEARCH DEPTH AT ~10m, depending on how lucky you feel that day. This weapon is only for ASuW and cannot be targeted at submerged contacts." --LWAMI 3.08 readme

Bolding is mine. The readme has a lot of helpful info beyond that, I recommend you read/re-read it.

[Molon Labe]

As for the second issue you mentioned, it's entirely possible that a torp can chase decoys around and head back toward the shooting sub. That's what the wire and the "pre enable" and steering commands are for. The AI can't use wire guidance, so there isn't a damn thing they can do about it the torp ends up facing the wrong way.

[To be]

I was wondering if anything can/will be done about air combat in the future. Right now it is completely unworkable, the carriers never launch anything, and fighters launch off all their missiles at ghost contacts. Is it possible to fix this through Doctrine scripting, and if so is it planned for LWAMI? Obviously this is a subsim, but having carrier groups that can defend themselves from bombers reasonably would be nice, especially when operating as part of a carrier group.

[LuftWolf]

I was wondering if anything can/will be done about air combat in the future. Right now it is completely unworkable, the carriers never launch anything, and fighters launch off all their missiles at ghost contacts. Is it possible to fix this through Doctrine scripting, and if so is it planned for LWAMI? Obviously this is a subsim, but having carrier groups that can defend themselves from bombers reasonably would be nice, especially when operating as part of a carrier group.

Regrettably... air units are not subject to the doctrine constraints that are usable for undersea and to a less extent, surface units. Even worse, some air launched weapons even ignore some database constraints.

What this means is that virtual all air behavior is hard-coded in the NavalSimEngine, meaning that it is out of reach for us modders.

My best advice is for the mission designers to take care to make their air units work properly using scriping and triggers, as this is basically all that we can do to make them work in missions.

Cheers,
David

[Hawk66]

I was wondering if anything can/will be done about air combat in the future. Right now it is completely unworkable, the carriers never launch anything, and fighters launch off all their missiles at ghost contacts. Is it possible to fix this through Doctrine scripting, and if so is it planned for LWAMI? Obviously this is a subsim, but having carrier groups that can defend themselves from bombers reasonably would be nice, especially when operating as part of a carrier group.
Yes, the behaviour can be improved. My idea was/is to introduce doctrine files which belongs to a mission (->http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116912)

For example you can create an AEW patrol, which moves with the carrier, which cannot be accomplished in the mission editor.

As far as I'm remember you can improve the behaviour of fighter/missle behaviour ("firing on ghost objects") a little.

The main drawback is, that you cannot create a generic doctrine to improve certain things, like AEW patrol, because the scripts presuppose a fitting mission. See my other thread.

Unfortunately I've forgotten to backup my doctrines files before I've switched to Vista, else I would post some examples. :damn: But nevertheless I hope to start with a mission the next weekend and then I'll revisit that topic.

If there is some interest I can provide then some examples here or in the Wiki.

[LuftWolf]

Of course, the DW doctrine and mission script system are meant to work together.

Ideally, mission designers would create their own doctrines that would be loaded into the sim for those specific missions... the complete set of database, doctrine, and mission file are created for each application of the sim in it's "contract" (government/military) form.

My knowledge of the mission creation system is limited, however, I see why both me and the mission designers would have an incomplete picture of what can be done, since it's all meant to be done as a single package.

Of course, in regards to the DW community, creating mission specific doctrines creates its own logistics problems...

In any case, if there is any general fix that I can incorporate into LWAMI, I'd love to see it, if such a thing were available. :)

Cheers,
David

[OneShot]

@Hawk66 : I for starters would welcome any useful addition to the Wiki, especially in regard to such "uncharted" parts of the game like the doctrines.

Cheers
OS

[LowAndSlow]

I just installed LWAMI 3.08 on top of DW 1.04, and when I try to launch a quick mission, about 80% into loading it, it craps out complaining about an English Text file or something.

I'm going to try to deactivate the mod to see if it's the cause, but has anyone else seen this?

<addendum>
It wasn't the LWAMI mod it was the sounds stuff I had added. Good thing I backed up the stock files. :)

[To be]

I've created a Ohio SSGN (identical to the SSBN except with the capability to launch 54 TASM and 100 TLAM missiles, at a rate of 1 every 2 seconds, if you are interested in it. Obviously you could do this easily, but...

[LuftWolf]

I've created a Ohio SSGN (identical to the SSBN except with the capability to launch 54 TASM and 100 TLAM missiles, at a rate of 1 every 2 seconds, if you are interested in it. Obviously you could do this easily, but...

Yeah you are right, I should probably add this to the upcoming patch for LWAMI. :up:

Thanks for the reminder. :)

Cheers,
David

[Gorshkov]

Hi, guys!

I have bad news for Lufty. Several bugs still remain in DW database even after three years long LWAMI development period. Thanks to DWEdit I was able to check torpedo parameters and I have found the following bugs:

- MPT-1UME torp has 13 km range at 45 kts speed! Very comic but virtually impossible. Think about decreasing it to 10 km or set 50 kts at 6 km values.

- USET-95 torp has 50 kts speed at 30 km. Very interesting values for SET-40/72's (31 kts at 8 km) export model, indeed! I had to fix this idiotism myself by setting 20 kts and 40 km less respectively.

- I don't know why some anti-ship missiles are placed in DW database torpedo section??? SimType parameter is set to "Torp" not "Missile"!

I hope my own debugger will be helpful for you and this help you to improve LWAMI. Besides you have always liked constructive feedbacks! :rotfl:

[Molon Labe]

Hi, guys!

I have bad news for Lufty. Several bugs still remain in DW database even after three years long LWAMI development period. Thanks to DWEdit I was able to check torpedo parameters and I have found the following bugs:

- MPT-1UME torp has 13 km range at 45 kts speed! Very comic but virtually impossible. Think about decreasing it to 10 km or set 50 kts at 6 km values.

- USET-95 torp has 50 kts speed at 30 km. Very interesting values for SET-40/72's (31 kts at 8 km) export model, indeed! I had to fix this idiotism myself by setting 20 kts and 40 km less respectively. Note: as far as I can tell, this weapon is NOT loaded on any platform in the DB.

- I don't know why some anti-ship missiles are placed in DW database torpedo section??? SimType parameter is set to "Torp" not "Missile"!

I hope my own debugger will be helpful for you and this help you to improve LWAMI. Besides you have always liked constructive feedbacks! :rotfl:
Thanks for checking in.

Here's what I can say on my end:
The USET-95 specs are going to be changed... in fact I might already have done it.

The MPT-1... I'm very curious where Amizaur/LW got the data for this weapon. I agree with Gorshkov that the numbers don't seem right, especially if its an electric torp. I'd like to see some hard numbers before committing to any changes though.

Sub-launched missiles are flagged as torpedoes so they generate TIW warnings. (This is also what is keeping them from being engaged by the playable FFG's CIWS).:damn:

[Gorshkov]

Here's what I can say on my end:
The USET-95 specs are going to be changed... in fact I might already have done it.
Tell us what values you entered for USET-95.


The MPT-1... I'm very curious where Amizaur/LW got the data for this weapon. I agree with Gorshkov that the numbers don't seem right, especially if its an electric torp. I'd like to see some hard numbers before committing to any changes though.
Search Subsim forum carefully. Amizaur wrote here two years ago that MPT-1 is an electric torpedo and he was rather very pessimistic about its real value. This type of propulsion, quite old design (work started in 1987), dwarfish dimensions (comparable with Mk46 chemical torp!) and this weapon origin as a part of mine or light Medvedka ASROC absolutely exclude possibility that MPT-1 could achieve 13 km range at 45 kts speed! Moreover there is no data about MPT-1 which describes its speed or range. Only those referring to dimensions, weight, seeker type and warhead are accessible.

Willy-nille I have just examined contemporary LWT designs myself and I opt for 45 kts at 8 km or 50 kts at 5-6 km at best.


Sub-launched missiles are flagged as torpedoes so they generate TIW warnings. (This is also what is keeping them from being engaged by the playable FFG's CIWS).:damn:
I see. Well, some tradeoffs always take place... :lol:

[Molon Labe]

Here's what I can say on my end:
The USET-95 specs are going to be changed... in fact I might already have done it.
Tell us what values you entered for USET-95.
I used the Janes info quoted by Amizaur that you linked to me. 30kts, 12801m.

[Gorshkov]

Here's what I can say on my end:
The USET-95 specs are going to be changed... in fact I might already have done it.
Tell us what values you entered for USET-95.
I used the Janes info quoted by Amizaur that you linked to me. 30kts, 12801m.

Speed is good but it seems to me range is too long. We don't know what type of SET torp was labeled by Soviets as USET-95 for export. Note that basic SET-40 torp has 8000 yds range at 28 kts and modernized SET-72 variant almost 14000 yds at 30 kts. I really doubt Soviets could extend its range by 75% and improve speed simultaneously!

[Molon Labe]

Here's what I can say on my end:
The USET-95 specs are going to be changed... in fact I might already have done it.
Tell us what values you entered for USET-95.
I used the Janes info quoted by Amizaur that you linked to me. 30kts, 12801m.
Speed is good but it seems to me range is too long. We don't know what type of SET torp was labeled by Soviets as USET-95 for export. Note that basic SET-40 torp has 8000 yds range at 28 kts and modernized SET-72 variant almost 14000 yds at 30 kts. I really doubt Soviets could extend its range by 75% and improve speed simultaneously! 14000yds = 12801m. It's cited by Janes, which I consider reliable.

[Gorshkov]

I think we are about to rebuild all Russian torpedoes in LWAMI mod! I constantly hear your cry all the time because there is no reliable data about new Russian naval weapons.
I have already checked it out at the most reliable source: on Russian torpedo manufacturer's website! Probably the main difficulty for you is that these website is in Russian but don't worry guys..I speak Russian a little bit. :up:


So...let's begin. Here you are data from "OAO Gidropribor" website, which is now the main producer of underwater weapons in Russia:

1. UGST heavyweight 533.4 mm torpedo - thermal propulsion, length 7.2 m, weight 2200 kg, warhead 300 kg of TNT, max. speed 50 kts or 35 kts (two settings), range 50 km, max. target depth 500 m, sonar range: 2.5 km active, 1.2 km passive, wake-homing sensor detects wake up to 6 minutes after ship's pass, wire-guidance: 25 km of wire on torpedo and additional 5 km of wire on ship.

http://www.gidropribor.ru/info.php?id=11&show=20


2. UGST heavyweight torpedo with TPS-53 pump-jet module attached - all above data applies except: max speed 30 kts to 65 kts, max. range 60 km, and max. target depth 400 m.

http://www.gidropribor.ru/info.php?id=11&show=24


3. MTT lightweight 324 mm torpedo - can be installed on surface ships, aircrafts and as a part of ASROC/SUBROC systems: thermal propulsion, 3.2 m length, weight 390 kg, warhead 60 kg of TNT schrapnel charge, max. speed 50 kts or 30 kts (two settings), max. range 20 km, max depth 600 m, active sonar range: 2.5 km above 200 m and 1.2 km below 200 m depth.


http://www.gidropribor.ru/info.php?id=11&show=17

[dyshman]

Hi! I often read this topic and your discussion. its very interesting, but i see, that only Gorshkov speek russian here. i from Belarus and speek russian better then english and spanish(hablo espñol un poco). I can read some russian web-sites and translate some pages in english if you want!))
with my friends playing in DW with ReinforseAlert Addon (by crazy ivan). we can use such playable units as virginia, 677-lada, alfa, viktor3, trafalgar, delta4, ohio, udaloi. if you want enjoy to our battles.
(sorry for my gr. mistakes))

[Gorshkov]

Hi! I often read this topic and your discussion. its very interesting, but i see, that only Gorshkov speek russian here. i from Belarus and speek russian better then english and spanish(hablo espñol un poco). I can read some russian web-sites and translate some pages in english if you want!))
with my friends playing in DW with ReinforseAlert Addon (by crazy ivan). we can use such playable units as virginia, 677-lada, alfa, viktor3, trafalgar, delta4, ohio, udaloi. if you want enjoy to our battles.
(sorry for my gr. mistakes))
Hello!

It would be very appreciated because I don't have much time to surf on Internet. So if you want, you should first scour Russian military and naval forums like www.navy.ru (http://www.navy.ru) for instance. I am sure there are many interesting facts about current Russian naval weapon and shipbuilding programs discussed in such places, often by Russian specialists and sailors. Thus we wiil get first hand informations about real state of interesting for us affairs like those what weapons are in fact on-board Russian ships now, domestic and export weapon nomenclature, real torpedo parameters and more.

For example I read yesterday that one guy had mentioned there USET-80 torpedo is designated TE-2 for export purposes. Later I looked on TE-2 data in Rosobronexport Export Catalogue 2003 and discovered this torpedo is optionally wire-guided one which is widely questioned fact by many people here on Subsim forum! :know:

TE-2 (USET-80) 533.4 mm heavyweight torpedo - electrically powered multipurpose weapon existing in three variants TE-2-01 (mechanical data input for older subs), TE-2-02 (electric data input integrated with sub's targeting system), TE-2-03 (much improved version). Now I desribe third and most modern variant: length 8.1 m, weight 2400 kg, warhead 250 kg (this is 450 kg of TNT equivalent), two max. speed settings 33 (+/-3) kts and 48(+/-2) kts, weapon range 30 km in first mode and 20 km in second mode, max. target depth 600 m, magnetic proximity detonator instad of acoustic one, command wire coil can be added separately.

[XabbaRus]

Maufacturer's websites aren't the most reliable....for obvious reasons.

[Gorshkov]

Maufacturer's websites aren't the most reliable....for obvious reasons.

What doesn't prevent you to believe in 50 kts speed at 50 km range for German DM2A4 as I can see. :rotfl:

[RVer1]

Hi All,

Is there a table or listing available somewhere that lists all of the weapon ranges and the sensor ranges for the LW-Ami mod 3.08 ? I looked through the readme file for the mod but with all of the changes over the past few revisions, it's hard to find the data with all of the changes. I've tried advanced searchs of this thread and haven't found anything.

Thanks in advance for your input,

RVer1

[SandyCaesar]

RVer1:

Try Bill Nichols' Subguru (http://www.subguru.com) site. I remember seeing a few tables there. It's pretty the definitive place to go for DW goodies.:rock:

[feld]

I seem to recall plans to integrate the COMSAT/Radio mod and the Sakura Mod into the next version of yours. Is this still the case? Thanks: love the mod!

R/
feld

[OneShot]

Yes this is still the case.

[feld]

Thanks for the info. Eagerly awaiting both mods!
R/
feld

[Blacklight]

I seem to recall plans to integrate the COMSAT/Radio mod and the Sakura Mod into the next version of yours. Is this still the case? Thanks: love the mod!

R/
feld
OneShotYes this is still the case.

How IS progress on the COMSAT/Radio mod ? Has it been perfected yet ? Just curious. Last I heard, people were still trying to nail down some issues with it.

[monkeypilot]

))

For example I read yesterday that one guy had mentioned there USET-80 torpedo is designated TE-2 for export purposes. Later I looked on TE-2 data in Rosobronexport Export Catalogue 2003 and discovered this torpedo is optionally wire-guided one which is widely questioned fact by many people here on Subsim forum! :know:

TE-2 (USET-80) 533.4 mm heavyweight torpedo - electrically powered multipurpose weapon existing in three variants TE-2-01 (mechanical data input for older subs), TE-2-02 (electric data input integrated with sub's targeting system), TE-2-03 (much improved version). Now I desribe third and most modern variant: length 8.1 m, weight 2400 kg, warhead 250 kg (this is 450 kg of TNT equivalent), two max. speed settings 33 (+/-3) kts and 48(+/-2) kts, weapon range 30 km in first mode and 20 km in second mode, max. target depth 600 m, magnetic proximity detonator instad of acoustic one, command wire coil can be added separately.

Just came across this....not sure if it helps anyone.

The Naval Institute Guide to Naval weapons systems by Norman Friedman states that the TE-2 is intended to be fired free running from surface ships and wire guided from submarines.
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA734&lpg=PA734&dq=uset-80&source=web&ots=hHTtRTVW6U&sig=K7XNZwt1He6nsr4Y3wO8woGsHmE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

note the torpedo dimensions - gives a length with wire reel

Please don't burn me at the stake, I am just quoting what this book says...not trying to hold it up as proof. You guys who know torpedo stuff can be better judge.

[monkeypilot]

Well a quick google search of Te-2 torpedo reveals a lot of sources claiming it has wire guided capability. As long as the Te-2 and Test-80 are basically the same thing.

Maybe this is 1 of the sources Gorshkov mentioned, for those interested http://www.pwgs.org/rosoboronexport/navy.pdf

[TitaniumRR]

Howdy!

I am a newcomer in DW.

I have just installed the newest version of LWAMI (and the Patch_1.04). After I read the readme file I was looking forward to finding the supposed new playable sub model Typhoon in the game (as it was written), but unfortunately I did not succeed.

The JSGME v1.5.0.60 offers these MODS to be activated:

Kegetys_fonts
Lwami_mod
Lwami_mod_splash_all_platforms
Lwami_mod_splash_FFG
Lwami_mod_splash_P3
Lwami_mod_splash_Plain
Lwami_mod_splash_SSN

I am quite anxious about having the Typhoon in the game. What have I done wrong? Thanks in advance.

[goldorak]

Lwami mod does not let you have new playable units.
You're stuck with the default units (akula, kilo, 688, seawolf, p-3, mh-60r and frigate).

[TitaniumRR]

Yes, true! Thanks. I didn't read it thoroughly enough. The new types are only in the credit list file, but being not playable. :roll:

Does a DW MOD exist that gives new playable sub models?

I am also browsing subguru.com

[Hitman]

No legal one does. There are some ilegal ones out there, but no discussion about them is allowed here.

[TitaniumRR]

Roger that, thank you. :cool:

[OneShot]

LwAmi v3.09 is released ... see more here : http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/showthread.php?p=33921#post33921 (the link to the download can be found there as well).

Cheers
OS

[Weiss Pinguin]

Very cool! Although as soon as I logged in to download it said my bandwidth had been exceeded. :( Would it be possible for this to be uploaded elsewhere?

[Blacklight]

There's some kind of problem with the server over there. No one can download it. :cry:

[Weiss Pinguin]

Any news?

[Blacklight]

Nope. The download is still broken. I'm sure when they next log on, they'll notice and fix it.

[MR. Wood]

The download is still broken:damn:

[Blacklight]

Yep. The download link is still broken.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Download is stillllllll broken I see... :(

[goldorak]

It was all a big joke.
Some heads will :/\\chop :rotfl:

[OneShot]

It's fixed ... see more in this post : http://www.commanders-academy.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34012&postcount=7

[Bill Nichols]

I'll gladly mirror if only I could download it from CADC (getting the error mentioned above).

[Blacklight]

Nice to know I'm not the only one who's still having the problem.