LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #1: Mk54 vs. Mk46

[LuftWolf]

Molon Labe has found that changing the mk46 torpedo to the mk54 torpedo prohibits the player, when commanding FFG, from telling the AI controlled helo to use the Mk54 in its inventory as the last torpedo drop waypoint, meaning you can only assign two torpedo drop waypoints (mk50's) to your AI helo. You can still drop the Mk54 from the Nav Map as usual.

Note: This relate only to AI controlled MH-60R's and does not affect in any way the player-controlled MH-60.

[TLAM Strike]

I've only used a drop waypoint maybe three times on the FFG. On the P-3/MH-60 maybe once. :roll:

2 MK50s and 1 MK54 is a good loadout.

[Molon Labe]

The thing to keep in mind here is that if you order the MH-60 to drop the weapon using the Nav map, the chopper pilot will foolishly enter the SAM range of the target sub. Unless the target player really has his hands full, there would be no excuse for him not to be able to shoot the helo down before it drops the Mk54.

It's better to have a weapon that works consistently than to have one the cannot be deliverd except in extraordinary circumstances.

[LuftWolf]

I haven't play MP yet, so I'm not sure, but is it common practice for players when they know they are facing air units to stay at PD and scan the skies with the periscope?

How else would they know they are being targeted by your helo at that time?

I almost never spend time at PD so I guess you'd get me all the time. :arrgh!:

[Molon Labe]

I haven't play MP yet, so I'm not sure, but is it common practice for players when they know they are facing air units to stay at PD and scan the skies with the periscope?

How else would they know they are being targeted by your helo at that time?

I almost never spend time at PD so I guess you'd get me all the time. :arrgh!:

In DW 1.01, unmodded, a sub's only chace of survival if there are air platforms around is to constantly scan the skies. Your mod MIGHT have changed this by reducing DICASS effectiveness, but the improvements in passive performance may have cancelled this out. In any case, unless there is a compelling reason NOT to be at PD, this is what subs will be doing.

[LuftWolf]

I can definately assure you that air platforms will have a MUCH more difficult time finding subs unless there is a ship linking its TA contacts nearby and the reason to be deep is that the thermal layers will probably be much more useful at the extreme ranges of buoys and dipping sonars.

I was dipping 3nm from the Gepard and NOTHING NADA no contact. My FFG picked it up at outside 5nm or so (it was a test scenario not looking specifically at that).

Edit: there is no improvements in passive performance, it is all relative to the sound levels being drastically reduced.

[Molon Labe]

I can definately assure you that air platforms will have a MUCH more difficult time finding subs unless there is a ship linking its TA contacts nearby and the reason to be deep is that the thermal layers will probably be much more useful at the extreme ranges of buoys and dipping sonars.


I was dipping 3nm from the Gepard and NOTHING NADA no contact. My FFG picked it up at outside 5nm or so (it was a test scenario not looking specifically at that).

Edit: there is no improvements in passive performance, it is all relative to the sound levels being drastically reduced.

Udaloy FF's are picking up 688's deep under a surface duct at 20 miles. (688I speed 14kts) In unmodded DW, the Udaloy wouldn't detect a 688 at 17kts until it was within 10 miles, presumably with active sonar.

I've also noticed improved performance of the FFG's TACTASS array, detecting Kilos at around 10 miles and tracking a DD from 40 miles.

VLAD performance against Kilos has improved dramatically; they used to be undetectable unless the buoy was right on top, in this mod a VLAD will pick up a Kilo from 2-3 miles (in a bottom limited environment).

I'm not sure if these changes are good or bad yet, but they are there. For sure, the passive sonar capability of surface vessels have improved dramatically, and may even be superior to that of subs...I still need to do a few more dives to be sure of who's TA's are working better. I know the old TB-16 was picking up a 7knot Akula I around 12 miles, the new TB-23 won't do the same job until about 6-7 miles. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Molon, surface units did not have passive sonar to speak of in unmodded DW, only the FFG.

You need to be aware that sub speed DRAMATICALLY effects how loud or quiet they are now. So when you do your tests, you need to standardize your speeds to something low, I think, or else you are going to get huge detection ranges because the subs are noisy at speed, but quiet when crawling, the way it should be. :up:

In our mod, a kilo at 8kts is louder than a kilo in the standard DB running at flank. It is similar for other subs as well, as the official sound vs speed effect for diesels was an anemic 5 points at flank. Now it's five points at 7kts for the Kilo.

We simply did not increase the sensitivity of any passive sonar system in the game, so I'm not sure how detection ranges could have increased in any situation for objects making the same noise level.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Note that there is a big difference between a standard and improved Kilo noise level wise.

[LuftWolf]

Hello PD! :sunny:

Molon, the FFG DID NOT report a Kilo Imp at 3kts to link at 5nm. (Surface duct, lowest sea state).

I am now testing the dipping sonar and vlads as well.

[LuftWolf]

I place two VLADS 1 nm apart.

A Kilo Imp was in the middle moving at 3kts in a surface duct with lowest seastate. At 715 yards I had a single dot. One buoy lost contact at 925 yards. When the sub was 1000 yards from each buoy, neither one had any contacts at all no red dot no activity nothing.

Incidentially, the VLADS didn't pick up the OHP at 9kts at range 5nm. :rock: There's yer a Prairie Masker for ya gents. :arrgh!:

[Molon Labe]

Okay, I guess didn't appreciate just how steep the sound-speed curves were compared to the hotfix. It'll take some time to figure out just how this impacts the game. You'll probably want to tweak it a bit in future versions based on players' experiences, so I'm going to go ahead an volunteer my subjective judgments. :lol:

My first impression of the sound-speed curves as they are now, especially in light of the 688I v Udaloy experience, is that the curves are a bit harsh.

For the SSN's, the curves seem too steep. The SSN's should have a relatively high base noise level with noise that increases with speed at a rather slow rate. I subjectively believe that modern SSN's can travel at moderate (~15kts) transiting speeds without becoming "loud," and that speeds below 10 knots should produce very little additional noise above what the reactor makes at rest.

For SSK's, the base noise level is too high; it should be significantly lower than an SSN at rest and at low speeds(5 knots or less). Unlike the SSN, this noise level should increase rapidly as the speed increases. I subjectively believe the point where an SSK's noise level would be about equal to an SSN's to be in the 7-10 knot range (meaning that in that range, the SSK loses its edge over the SSN, and beyond that range generates enough flow noise that it should detected somewhat easily).

Of course, getting the feel for the steepness of the slope is going to take time, so I'm really just framing the issue as I see it right now. But, the question I have right now is, are we comfortable living in a world where a 688I under the layer cannot travel at moderate speeds as far as 20 miles from a Russian skimmer? I suspect that in real life, it can, and that this is going to sloooowwww gameplay down a lot. Or maybe it won't. Tune in next week... ;)

[LuftWolf]

Molon, thanks very much for your thoughts.

Amizaur and I were actually just emailing about precisely the issue you raised. The knowledge of how to make flatter curves was only very recently unlocked from the DWeditor "unknown" file, so now that we have the tools, I think we can do something very soon. In fact, the hardest work of the creating the templates has been done, any additions to structure would be minor, and values are especially easy to change once they have a home.

In other words, we'll have it soon! :up:

Edit: That is to say, we've had something of this in mind.

[LuftWolf]

Udaloy FF's are picking up 688's deep under a surface duct at 20 miles. (688I speed 14kts) In unmodded DW, the Udaloy wouldn't detect a 688 at 17kts until it was within 10 miles, presumably with active sonar.

I have the FFG picking up the 688(i) at 15 kts at 11nm.

Of course, the regular 688 is a bit louder, especially at speed.

[Molon Labe]

Udaloy FF's are picking up 688's deep under a surface duct at 20 miles. (688I speed 14kts) In unmodded DW, the Udaloy wouldn't detect a 688 at 17kts until it was within 10 miles, presumably with active sonar.

I have the FFG picking up the 688(i) at 15 kts at 11nm.

Of course, the regular 688 is a bit louder, especially at speed.

I was actually playing in the 688I, I was just lazy. Sorry.
My environment was a surface duct at about 600 feet, sub at 800 feet. Were you in bottom limited?

[LuftWolf]

No, it was surface duct and the 688i was above the layer. :hmm:

Could you have been in a convergence zone?

[PeriscopeDepth]

For SSK's, the base noise level is too high; it should be significantly lower than an SSN at rest and at low speeds(5 knots or less). Unlike the SSN, this noise level should increase rapidly as the speed increases. I subjectively believe the point where an SSK's noise level would be about equal to an SSN's to be in the 7-10 knot range (meaning that in that range, the SSK loses its edge over the SSN, and beyond that range generates enough flow noise that it should detected somewhat easily).


Why? Not saying you're wrong, just curious.

Specifically I'm talking about why the SSK's curve should be produce more noise than the SSN at speed.

[Molon Labe]

For SSK's, the base noise level is too high; it should be significantly lower than an SSN at rest and at low speeds(5 knots or less). Unlike the SSN, this noise level should increase rapidly as the speed increases. I subjectively believe the point where an SSK's noise level would be about equal to an SSN's to be in the 7-10 knot range (meaning that in that range, the SSK loses its edge over the SSN, and beyond that range generates enough flow noise that it should detected somewhat easily).


Why? Not saying you're wrong, just curious.

Specifically I'm talking about why the SSK's curve should be produce more noise than the SSN at speed.

Well, I'm not saying I'm right either....but anyone who knows the truth isn't going to be free to tell us, so we can only speculate within reason...

Quality of engineering, mostly. SSK's are low-tech alternatives to SSNs and aren't really built with speed in mind, flow noise should be a problem for them. Modern SSN's are so well engineered that flow noise shouldn't be much of a problem unless they really get going. The same differences in quality of engineering would apply to plant noise as well...I don't think an SSN's plant noise will increase all that dramatically until it's trying to haul ass. All that extra $$$ had to go somewhere, right?

In any case, reading about SSK's just about anywhere will reveal a consensus that they're nearly undectectable at low speeds, but nobody claims that they can pick up the pace and stay quiet. On the other hand, the Seawolf is sometimes claimed to be "silent running to 20 knots," and similar claims are made about 688I's and such.

Are you thinking that even at high speed, an SSK will still be quieter than an SSN?

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't see why flow noise would be that much of a problem, personally. First of all they rarely will make 20 knots. I frankly don't think streamlining a sub to make it quiet is that much of a problem. Especially at the lower max speeds SSKs may move.

BUT I still think they'll still make more noise at high speeds than an SSN though, but that's because they're small. They don't have the room for all that super neato quieting gear.

I don't think an SSN's plant noise will increase all that dramatically until it's trying to haul ass. All that extra $$$ had to go somewhere, right?

Yup. People talk about reactor pumps forever, but that technology has been in development since the late '50s. I'll bet they know how to make them REAL quiet by now. Not to mention the huge sensor advantage the SSN has on the SSK. You simply can't do modern sonar on the cheap. And on the cheap is what most SSKs are all about.

[compressioncut]

I don't see why flow noise would be that much of a problem, personally. First of all they rarely will make 20 knots. I frankly don't think streamlining a sub to make it quiet is that much of a problem. Especially at the lower max speeds SSKs may move.

BUT I still think they'll still make more noise at high speeds than an SSN though, but that's because they're small. They don't have the room for all that super neato quieting gear.

I don't think an SSN's plant noise will increase all that dramatically until it's trying to haul ass. All that extra $$$ had to go somewhere, right?

Yup. People talk about reactor pumps forever, but that technology has been in development since the late '50s. I'll bet they know how to make them REAL quiet by now. Not to mention the huge sensor advantage the SSN has on the SSK. You simply can't do modern sonar on the cheap. And on the cheap is what most SSKs are all about.

You're forgetting that SSNs have a big, complicated and potentially loud source of noise that an SSK does not have - a geared turbine reduction system between the turbine and the shaft. That's the point of the vast majority of a nuc boats's quieting, and a straight electric boat just doesn't need it. Bolt the propeller to an electric motor and go.

[PeriscopeDepth]

You're forgetting that SSNs have a big, complicated and potentially loud source of noise that an SSK does not have - a geared turbine reduction system between the turbine and the shaft. That's the point of the vast majority of a nuc boats's quieting, and a straight electric boat just doesn't need it. Bolt the propeller to an electric motor and go.

I defer to the person that knows what he's talking about. :)

But for the record I never said SSNs are quieter than SSKs when at low speed.

[Molon Labe]

You're forgetting that SSNs have a big, complicated and potentially loud source of noise that an SSK does not have - a geared turbine reduction system between the turbine and the shaft. That's the point of the vast majority of a nuc boats's quieting, and a straight electric boat just doesn't need it. Bolt the propeller to an electric motor and go.

I defer to the person that knows what he's talking about. :)

But for the record I never said SSNs are quieter than SSKs when at low speed.

Neither did I; I said SSN's are louder at low speed... ; )

[LuftWolf]

Molon and others,

So you know, since the range of the Mk54 is significantly longer than that of the mk50 (mk50 ~13,000m and mk54 ~17,000m) so dropping the weapon from the Nav Map may not result in the helo closing the distance too much.

I am going to test that now.

[LuftWolf]

Nope, the helo still closes to point-blank range before launching the torpedo.

The workaround I had thought about was to create a manual solution where you want the helo to drop the torpedo and then use the drop command on the nav map. It's basically a two step version of the same process... :88)

I think based on the results of the poll I am going to leave the AI helo loadout at two mk50 and one mk54, although a call on realism stictly on the basis of loadout alone would make me inclined to assign two mk54 and one mk50. This might be sensible if the mk54 was used as the primary weapon for the user FFG SVTT launchers, with the MK50 as the airdropped point blank weapon and the FFG using the Mk54 as a stand off weapon.

Also, I'm still inclined to think that players are going to want to spend more time NOT scanning the skies now at PD depth for airplatforms considering the changes that have been made, especially the MANPAD seeker cone reduction to 3 degrees. :up: :arrgh!:

[Amizaur]

In DW 1.01, unmodded, a sub's only chace of survival if there are air platforms around is to constantly scan the skies. Your mod MIGHT have changed this by reducing DICASS effectiveness, but the improvements in passive performance may have cancelled this out. In any case, unless there is a compelling reason NOT to be at PD, this is what subs will be doing.

Hey :)

First, I think reverting the name of the weapon back to Mk-46 should fix this issue. Performance only changes should not affect AI weapon usage, change of the name could.

Second - Molon Labe, the Kilos now ARE more noisy at speed than they were. The base noise level is the same, but speed added noise is set to more realistic value and from +5 changed to +12 or +15. So at all speeds greater thab 0-1kts they are more noisy than before, no wonder they are detected easier :-). But this should be no problem to fix. We didn't touch VLAD passive sensor yet in 2.0 now for 2.01 version we may look at it closer and review the detection ranges, this may result in reducing it's sensivity.
About SSNs noise levels - I changed the noise curves of advanced SSNs in the last moment, and didn't managed to recalculate corrections for base noise levels. The noise levels we had were for about 4kts speed, for 688I whis was 59. To get base noise level for database, a correcion was applied based on noise curves. The corrections for SSNs were -2 (this gives 57 for 688I), now for modified more flat SSN's curves the corretions will be -1 and for Seawolf maybe zero, so they will be slightly more noisy in 2.01, after fine tuning :-).

[LuftWolf]

First, I think reverting the name of the weapon back to Mk-46 should fix this issue. Performance only changes should not affect AI weapon usage, change of the name could.

Amizaur, this will not fix the problem as the issue is that the Mk46 ASW torpedo was the original assignement to this platform and the interface is expecting that torpedo only, so the problem was introduced when I changed it from the Mk46 ASW object to the Mk46 object, not then the entity name of the Mk46 was changed to Mk54.

[Amizaur]

I was dipping 3nm from the Gepard and NOTHING NADA no contact.

well Luftwolf, IIRC the dipping sonar was not touched...? or do you mean sonobuoys ?


Udaloy FF's are picking up 688's deep under a surface duct at 20 miles. (688I speed 14kts) In unmodded DW, the Udaloy wouldn't detect a 688 at 17kts until it was within 10 miles, presumably with active sonar.


I didn't touch AI active sonars, wanted to check the changes first on FFG sonar. In active sonar calculations, target speed related noise is added to active sonar equation ! Can't do anything with it. So when speed noise has increased, increased also active sonar detection ranges for fast moving contacts. But I didn't see problem in that because from all my tests AI actives detected everything at max range in standard version so I would be very surprised if detection range increased further than max :-/ unless Luftwolf modified Udaloy's active sonar.

edit: :oops: I read it again and see you were talking about detecting 688I by PASSIVE Udaloy sensor, not active. Well, Lufwolf modified those I think, maybe the sensivity values are too optimistic... Will be fine tuned.

VLAD performance against Kilos has improved dramatically; they used to be undetectable unless the buoy was right on top, in this mod a VLAD will pick up a Kilo from 2-3 miles (in a bottom limited environment).

The performance probably is increased, because the Kilos are much more noisy at speed than they were. VLAD sensor was not changed so det ranges of stopped Kilo should be same, for running would be greater.
Now for next version of mod det ranges would be looked at and VLAD passive sensor maybe made less sensitive.

I'm not sure if these changes are good or bad yet, but they are there. For sure, the passive sonar capability of surface vessels have improved dramatically, and may even be superior to that of subs... :hmm: well this would be looked at too, as I said in this relase only noise levels and active sonars were modified, compatibility was partially assured by unchanged base noise level of some platforms (Kilos).
Now in next version some remodelling of passive sensors is very probable.
What range would you expect real life TB-16 to detect Akula at 4kts ?

Some estimations are made here, the most recent sensor used in those estimations was TB-16.

http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/snf/snf03222.htm

edit: about Mk-54 - now I understand, sorry, I didn't notice that you changed this

P.S. Molon Labe - both the sub noise levels and noise-speed curves were modeled based on our best knowledge of real-world values. Most of the SSKs in the game IS louder in RL than 688I even at 3kts, only at stop they can be quieter but I can't simulate this effect. Making the curves more sloped would earn us 2-3pts on the left side of the graph, but then at speed they would become make noise like supertanker :-/.
The SSNs still ARE relatively quiet at up to 15kts. The noise increase corresponds to real-world values of 15-20dB, (flow noise alone almost generates such increase), so they 688I at 15kts is still not very noisy (notice that MUCH quieter than Han at stop!!!). The noise increase in Sub Command was EVEN HIGHER.
The curves were based on known values for older subs and scaled down for more modern, but most of the noise at speed above 15kts comes from flow noise and it increases in same way for all submarines (with sixth power of submerged speed), you can reduce base value but it will still increase with speed, just like drag - you can reduce base drag, but rather can't modify the way drag increases with speed. For most modern subs values I used are distintly lower from those below:


http://www.armscontrol.ru/pics/ssr1e.gif

Note on the graph sub grows in noise for 30dB in range 4-24kts.
688I noise in the mod increases only by 11pts = 23dB in the same speed range. The Seawolf even less.

(from http://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/snf/snf03221.htm )

So I think just the sensors are too sensitive currently. The det ranges should be lower for 15kts speed, and this means almost undetectable at 3-4kts...

On the link above, you can also find some values for an moderatly modern SSK (german design, probably more modern than Type-209, most probably Argentinian Santa Cruz class) at different speeds. As you can see it grows in noise too, even the difference between 2kts and 5kts is 7dB !! In range 2-15kts it grows in noise by 14-15dB. In the Mod Kilo is slightly worse, but as I said the curves will be fine tuned yet. The curve was made more sloped for Kilo, to allow him have better NL bonus at stop, but the effect is probably too weak to bother...

The curve of SSK in the mod was based on this data, combined with earlier knowledge how flow noise and machinery noise increases with the speed. Most SSKs, especially the older ones, are not very hydrodynamic, and this is reflecled in noise curves for old SSKs - they grow in noise much more than the Kilo.

So I can only say, that this data is not taken from nowhere, or current values are not just like this because the author "feels" that it's right - it's based on then best (still limited, but best we could obtain) knowledge of real world values, scaled to DW noise scale. If somone have better data (expressed in dB) about how the noise of modern submarines changes with the speed, please make it available to us, we will use it.

[LuftWolf]

LuftWolf wrote:
"I was dipping 3nm from the Gepard and NOTHING NADA no contact."

well Luftwolf, IIRC the dipping sonar was not touched...? or do you mean sonobuoys ?

I mean this is a good thing. ;) :up:


I didn't touch AI active sonars, wanted to check the changes first on FFG sonar. In active sonar calculations, target speed related noise is added to active sonar equation ! Can't do anything with it. So when speed noise has increased, increased also active sonar detection ranges for fast moving contacts. But I didn't see problem in that because from all my tests AI actives detected everything at max range in standard version so I would be very surprised if detection range increased further than max :-/ unless Luftwolf modified Udaloy's active sonar.

I think Molon and I may have figured out it was in a CV because I picked up the 688i@15kts at 15 nm on the SQR-19, a single line on the LOFAR.

The performance probably is increased, because the Kilos are much more noisy at speed than they were. VLAD sensor was not changed so det ranges of stopped Kilo should be same, for running would be greater.
Now for next version of mod det ranges would be looked at and VLAD passive sensor maybe made less sensitive.

I tested a Kilo Imp at 3kts and the detection ranges are under about 900 yards for VLADs.

[Molon Labe]

LuftWolf wrote:


I think Molon and I may have figured out it was in a CV because I picked up the 688i@15kts at 15 nm on the SQR-19, a single line on the LOFAR.

[quote]The performance probably is increased, because the Kilos are much more noisy at speed than they were. VLAD sensor was not changed so det ranges of stopped Kilo should be same, for running would be greater.
Now for next version of mod det ranges would be looked at and VLAD passive sensor maybe made less sensitive.

I tested a Kilo Imp at 3kts and the detection ranges are under about 900 yards for VLADs.

Nope, no convergence zone, the SSP was surface duct. The 688I was in or near the "shadow zone." There might be a difference between what is visible to the player in the FFG and what the AI can see in the Udaloy. Also, if through some quirk like what Amizaur mentioned in an earlier post, that active sonar detection is infuenced by contact speed...this might actually have been an active detection!

@Amizaur: I'm liking that graph. But I'm not buying that putting on less than 5 knots gets an SSK up to SSN noise levels (and I mean modern SSK's, not an old Foxtrot :P )

[LuftWolf]

Also, if through some quirk like what Amizaur mentioned in an earlier post, that active sonar detection is infuenced by contact speed...this might actually have been an active detection!

That sounds possible. In fact, speed and aspect heavily influence active detection ranges.

[Molon Labe]

Is a DW NL unit equal to a decibel?

[LuftWolf]

No, and this has caused SO many problem! :nope:

There is a crazy conversion that Amizaur has but the long and the short of it is that it's a reduced scale in terms of range and that reduces the ability of any given value to represent a specific decibel value. In other words, it's a issue that Amizaur and I have to work around every time we deal with sound levels, since Amizaur's data is all in real values and sometimes making that behavior with SL values and thrust curves can be very hard, since creating a change SL that is meaningful often means going beyond the changes in actual decible level.

I think Amizaur can give you better explanation of the practical effects on modding and gameplay.