Feedback for New Version of LWAMI Mod 2.02

[LuftWolf]

Amizaur and I are looking for suggestions for things to include with the next version of the LWAMI Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod.

Here are the ideas we've got so far, from the main mod thread in the Mod Workshop.

Changes and Additions

-Add updated Missile.txt and SubAvoidWeap doctrines to distribution

-Increase Torpedo Passive SL and alter sound vs speed thrust values

-Add LWAMI section to USNI (pending Jamie's clearance on copywrite)

-I would like to review the sonar sensor assignments to individual platforms

-Create the unit information tables (if I have the time... )

-Work on trying to automate Missile Transient Warnings.

I know also that Periscope Depth was working on adding some Navies to the database, but I'm not sure what the status on that is at the moment (my fault for not keeping track). I think we decided to wait for the next version, in which case after this release, we can go all-ahead full on that. :up:

Anyone else have any suggestions on what we should include or change in the mod?

Thanks! :rock: :arrgh!:

[Fish]

Increased detection ranges. ;)

[LuftWolf]

Sorry, that we cannot do. :lol:

Seriously, I know that it makes the sub vs. sub matches a bit different, and maybe that realism is not what some players are looking for, but the balance achieved, by reducing detection ranges to realistic levels, in multi-platform (sub vs. air/surface) matches is one of the things I am most proud of. :up:

Also, if we increase the detection ranges, then all of the acoustic factors that have been brought out in the engine, previously masked by the very high sound levels, will go away again. :cry:

[ohadbx]

-Personnaly, I could'nt care less about balance- if it hurts realism.
In real life not all platform are balanced- some a better than others. This is what I want to see in the game- a realistic presentation of reality, regardless of balance.
I have no idea about real life detection ranges, etc. so I have no choise to count on what you guys are deciding to be real and accurate.

-I would like to see some difference between Harpoon and TASM regarding missile AI (what may be called "ECCM") and ability not to get shot-down.

- Any chance of reducing the connection stress multi missile launches during online play causes?

[LuftWolf]

In the case of DW, I believe that increased realism has actually balanced the game in all contexts. :up: :rock:

-I would like to see some difference between Harpoon and TASM regarding missile AI (what may be called "ECCM") and ability not to get shot-down.

There is now a difference in Harpoon and TASM in the mod: the Harpoon launches are significantly quieter in terms of the missile transient produced from an underwater missile launch. We are currently looking at adjusting the radar signatures for all missiles based on speed and size, we may make the Harpoon less detectable due to the fact that it's smaller than the TASM.

Any chance of reducing the connection stress multi missile launches during online play causes?

This is hardcoded in the way the executable (the program) handles data transfer between computers during multi-player, and so there is nothing we can do about this.

Thanks for your suggestions! :up:

[Molon Labe]

Increased detection ranges. ;)

By tweaking the environmental settings, you can still get detection ranges over 10nm as in DW 1.01. It's not an earth shattering change, except in flexibility to scenario designers that have an optimal detection range in mind. ;)

[Bellman]

:sunny: Greatly appreciate all you have done. :up: :rock:

However I remain to be convinced, as a sub diver, that the detection ranges have yet been fully ballanced
for best gameplay. Has exhaustive testing and feedback taken place ?

IMO consolidation and tweaking of your existing improvements is vital before proceeding towards further developments.
Possibly a wise precaution in view of ''impending'' Patch and DWX mods ?

I would prefer to see an alternative switchable Mark2 LwAmi which incorporated all your excellent
improvements **plus** sensors set at greater ranges. The latter to be defined following further testing.

Your efforts are keeping the light of my interest burning (just) but in vanilla, the duff sub AI in SP and the
'prophetic' auto TMA in MP remain major obstacles to be overcome.

[LuftWolf]

To be honest, I'll welcome DWX at any moment. :-?

This project has evolved into a realism mod, with the goal of getting the platforms sound levels to be as close to what our data tells us as possible. This has had the consequence of putting the detection ranges for most sensors within a range that is also close to what our data tells us is accurate AND brings out acoustic features in the engine. These last two have been the creation of a happy accident: Amizaur corrected the sound levels of platforms to realistic decible levels and by sheer serendipity this has also created realistic detection ranges. To alter the sound levels unravels the purpose of the entire mod project.

I will also note that many of the Multiplayer missions I have seen use the environmental settings to reduce the detection ranges. This works to some degree, but it also washes out and severely limits many of the other acoustic properties that are well modelled in the engine (layers, acoustic environment, sound vs. speed, etc.), although lost because of the sound levels.

Approaching the issue from the level of the platform sound levels lowers the detection ranges AND allows the acoustic engine to function properly. In acoustic terms: it is lowering the signal rather than increasing the noise, allowing much more detail and finesse in the way the game functions.

In regards to exhaustive testing and feedback, this is a community project in our minds, rather than a secretive workshop project, so we are doing that right now! :yep: :lol: :up:

[Bellman]

ML - Should the designers carry the work-load for 'adjustments' given that a whole bunch of further improvements
hopefully ;) , lie around the corner ?

[LuftWolf]

Maybe someone from the DWX could make a statement before we start counting on them. ;)

Unless you want to wait another year to play.

I'm going to be in another country defending Freedom at that point, so I don't really care, to be honest.

[LuftWolf]

I HAVE DONE IT!!!

I have unlocked the secret of AEGIS ship behavior!!!

If you remove the database flag for the SAM launchers that instructs the game to wait until the firecontrol radar acquires the missiles, they will fire on linked missile contacts!!!

YES!!!

BOOYA! :rock:

This WILL be in the next version of our mod. :rock: :up: :rock:

[Bellman]

:) LW - You do care and you have shown it in the best way possible by giving us a great mod.

We talk about adjustments and ballancing to a system that you guys have modified and which
will persist into any new SS or DWX modified state.

:lol: ''Unless you want to wait another year to play.'' Touche. :)

[FERdeBOER]

Great, great job LuftWolf!! :up:

I apreciate very much what you and Amizaur are doing. All that hours in front on the screen...

Thank you very much.

:up: :up: :up: :up:

[LuftWolf]

The AEGIS fix also requires a change to doctrine, but this is minor.

Bellman, I always got the impression that the DWX project is self-contained, and they wouldn't want to incorporate anyone else's work, even if freely allowed.

I want nothing more than the game to be as good as possible. I think the best way to achieve that is for everyone to work together. Since I'm not from the SC community, and I'm really just a rank newcomer to this land, I'm hestitant to expect that my work will be remembered once DWX comes out. I'm sure Amizaur will remain famous, as he is a top-notch doctrine programmer and knows more about modern naval technology than I ever will.

In fact, this is as good a time as any to say, publically, that he has all the rights to everything in this project, and is free to do whatever he likes with it, once I am in the USMC. :up:

In any case, I think we owe a big thanks to everyone in this community, for support, feedback, enthusiasism, and... existence! :yep: :D

Cheers,
David :rock:

[LuftWolf]

Yep, upon confirmation testing, I am now getting AEGIS and even the FFG to engage missile targets at up to 50nm based on links from E-2s.

Things get yet more interesting for you mission designers! :|\ :up:

[LuftWolf]

Ooo ooo, I just got them to launch at missiles at 70nm!!! :D

My Tico shot down 8 of 8 SS-N-27 ASM before they even got within 50nm!

I want a beer! :rock:

PS Incidentially, the radar of the E-2 has to be looked at, as currently it is only scanning the front half of the sky. That is a simple fix as well.

[porphy]

You guys are relentless :up: Big kudos for this doctrine and database mod. I find it top notch and you never seem to run out of steem... Thanks! :rock:

Cheers Porphy

[Dan Padnos]

- Those transient notifications would be great.

- Larger detection ranges for all torps. I'm not talking about going back to the old settings, rather tweaking what we have now. At the moment, most torpedo attacks are easily evaded with smart CM and counterfire use. Somehow a detection range of 2500yds for an active torpedo doesn't make sense IMO, when a sub can detect active contacts 10nm away... This significantly affects bracket subroc attacks - you have to space the torps close together for them to home, which in turn requiers pinpoint TMA.

- What's up with the length of the TA on the Gepard? Is it supposed to be 700m long? It's kind of annoying to get it dragging all the time...

[XabbaRus]

I am just curious how much testing is done with each change in doctrine and dbase values.

[Molon Labe]

Ooo ooo, I just got them to launch at missiles at 70nm!!! :D

My Tico shot down 8 of 8 SS-N-27 ASM before they even got within 50nm!

I want a beer! :rock:

PS Incidentially, the radar of the E-2 has to be looked at, as currently it is only scanning the front half of the sky. That is a simple fix as well.


Sweet! I guess now the proper question is, does the SM-2 have an active homing option that allows it to engage where the FC radar cannot illumniate. Anyone in the know want to share?

Even if not, perhaps we could still use this to extend the FC radar's range a bit... Or, have the missiles fired before the vamps are illluminated, but timed so that the vamps are illuminated just before the missiles arrive.

Way to go in finding that, that's just awesome. :rock:

[zma]

That's what I was wondering as well, since a 50+ nm effective engagement range seemed a bit too much. I calculated a theoretical range at which a Tico could illuminate a missile flying 15 meters above sea level (simple trigonometry), and got a result of about 18 nm (assuming the illuminator is 30 m above sea level). If we double the illuminator height, the range increases to about 22 nm.

Apparently, SM-2 Block IIIB and Block IVA missiles have an IR guidance mode, so if the link data is accurate enough, I guess longer engagement ranges could be possible.

... Or, have the missiles fired before the vamps are illluminated, but timed so that the vamps are illuminated just before the missiles arrive.
This would be perfect in my opinion...

Anyway, :up: to LuftWolf for finding a way to make AEGIS ships more effective!

[Molon Labe]

That's what I was wondering as well, since a 50+ nm effective engagement range seemed a bit too much. I calculated a theoretical range at which a Tico could illuminate a missile flying 15 meters above sea level (simple trigonometry), and got a result of about 18 nm (assuming the illuminator is 30 m above sea level). If we double the illuminator height, the range increases to about 22 nm.

Apparently, SM-2 Block IIIB and Block IVA missiles have an IR guidance mode, so if the link data is accurate enough, I guess longer engagement ranges could be possible.

... Or, have the missiles fired before the vamps are illluminated, but timed so that the vamps are illuminated just before the missiles arrive.
This would be perfect in my opinion...

Anyway, :up: to LuftWolf for finding a way to make AEGIS ships more effective!

That engagement range would make a huge difference, since right now its only 10nm. If we could use the link to get engagements of vampires so that the SM-2 arrived as the vamps got in the 18-22 nm range, I think we'd have an ideal situation (except that we shouldn't need links to engage once they enter the 18-22 nm range, but I'm guessing that's hardcoded). If that can't be done, I think a longer engagement range is better since we can at least speculate that the SM-2 has been upgraded for such capability, either through the IR seeker or a classified active radar seeker. (Something had to make them confident enough to retire the Phoenix).

On a related subject, I've also noticed the OHP can use the SM-2 against surface targets in the 30+ nm range. That seems OTH to me, which shouldn't be possible with semi-active guidance only. Maybe this says something about the way the game models illuminator heights/ranges. :-?

[Amizaur]

Luftwolf, I understand that you found the cause of AEGIS defence working only inside 10nm ? That's great, but how the FC ilumination requirement could reduce range to 10nm ? :hmm: :hmm: The iluminator for Aegis ships should be SPY radar (but I have no idea where is this set in database) and it has greater range and radar horizon than 10nm. So why only 10 ? I'm also worried that removing the need of FC ilumination completly would cause other very bad thing - ships would be firing at targets below their radar horizon, so for example shooting at Harpoons or SS-N-27s at 50nm. This is impossible as long as you don't have a missile with active radar seeker, like Aster !!! Or MAYBE with missiles that secondary IR seeker... (yes I know some SM-2s have it, but can it be used in IR-only mode on non-precise linked contact is questionable, it is rather meaned as secondary guidance chanel against seaskimming missiles). With ARH missiles you may fire at linked contacts not visible on your own radar. But not with SAHR or TVM guidance...
I would be very happy if AEGIS ships engaged targets at full range but only if targets are visible for radar so over the radar horizon. High targets at 70nm ? Great. VLow targets at 30nm ? :nope: I even corrected antenna heights for OHP and AEGIS ships to make radar horizons more realistic. Here is nice Radar Horizon Calculator:

http://www.mar-it.de/Radar/Horcalc/horcalc.htm

O here'[s other: http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm

If removing this flag causes ships firing on targets below radar horizon then it can't be, it's would be situation similar to Maverick attacking submerged subs... :(
But if removing this flag caused 10nm radius to disappear, so we know that it is somehow connected with FC radar, then maybe we can find the real cause why there was 10nm limit. Maybe launchers from AEGIS ships have no FC radar assigned at all ??? Run DWXHelper and GuidedLaunchers function on database, and check the output txt file.

Launcher 68 Perry LNCHR uses Sensor 295 MK-92 STIR for guidance
Launcher 69 Perry 76mm Gun uses Sensor 294 MK-92 CAS for guidance
Launcher 70 Perry CIWS uses Sensor 278 CIWS for guidance

If those are the only launchers with assigned guidance, then the whole rest of launchers would have no FC radard assigned at all ???
Or maybe this DWXHelper function works only on playable platforms...?
And I also wonder where in the database is this assignement set ? Anyone know ?

Another strange thing - the Kirov with SA-N-6 shots at missiles outside 10nm. What's the difference between Tico and Kirow ? Why Tico defend itself only inside 10nm, but Kirov at full range (as soon as target is over horizon) ? Just checked - SA-N-6 launcher on Kirov have FCR flag set too !
:-?


OK, I have to experiment myself with that flag, maybe will be wiser then :-).

About different things that were asked about... Larger det ranges - well we think they are just as small in real life. Have you read this ?

http://mediawiki.advancedgaming.biz/index.php/Sonar_model

Increase torpedo seeker ranges - well we just have decreased them !!! :P

Do you want them to be again 4500m ? :). Well, the ADCAP supposedly have 5000m range but only against large targets in good conditions. Range vs small SSK covered with anechoing coating in shallow water would be MUCH smaller. And for Mk-46 the seeker range is given as about 1500m (probably big target too). For Mk-50 about twice that of Mk-46.
Those are small diameter HF sonars with limited power supply, and going 40-60kts with water flow and noise around the head, how do you expect them to have ranges similar to large sub-mounted sonars ?
If the enemy is evading torps easily, then maybe you are shooting poorly :P Torpedo seekers have limitations, that's why in real life torpedo are launched at ranges usually of few miles, only small fraction of max range.
Anyway, torpedo seeker ranges will be more realistic after 1.02 patch, but not neccesarily longer... With correct active sonar model we will set ADCAP seeker to have 5000m vs Typhoon or Delta class sub, but don't expect such range against small SSK :-).

Oh yes, Akula Improved quieter than 688I ? Well, all data I found says that Akula Improved is slightly more noisy than 688I overall, or is close to 688I at very low speeds but closer to original 688 at higher speeds.
Only Akula II was supposed to be little quieter than 688I at very low speeds, but still more noisy at higher speeds. Convince me that this is wrong (show me other data) and I'll change it because I want it to reflect reality :-). Now I could agree only to make it it equal with 688I below 4kts and noiser when faster.

edit. anyone noticed that FC radars DON'T have "earth curvature" flag set ? So maybe they see through the water and earth now...

[LuftWolf]

Well, Amizaur we could easily limit the engagement range of the AEGIS ships in the CIWS doctrine. ;)

In terms of the firecontrol radars on the Tico, they appear to be the AN/SPG-62 and the AN/SPQ-9, and both of those hard hard-limited in range to 36,000m AND, they are both on sea-level! :down:

So maybe that is the problem right there, let me see what I can do about that.

In any case, aren't the AEGIS ships supposed to be able to engage over-the-horizon missile targets based on information from aircraft? :hmm: Isn't that the point of AEGIS?

[LuftWolf]

I just did a test with things the way they are now, simply with the FCR flag removed from the launchers and the doctrines edited to permit engagement at max range, and the missiles are being engaged by the cruiser at about 15-18nm, which is the range at which they'd be painted by the SPY-1 radar, so at detection range.

We have some flexibililty as to what we want to do now.

We can leave it so they fire without the firecontrol radar, to permit long range over-the-horizion fire against linked missile contact, and perhaps limit the engagement range a bit at the doctrine level, or we can probably edit the fire-control radars to permit them to engage at the detection ranges of the SPY-1.

The SM-2 Block IIIB is said to use IR guidence, we could make this change as well, for AI platform SM-2's, as the interface for the playable FFG doesn't seem to accept this change very well.

So, you experts, how does AEGIS missile intercept actually work in real life? :hmm:

[Amizaur]

I don't think AEGIS ships were supposed to engage over-horizon air targets, this capability is only now being considered/realised. (of course I might be wrong here) Fire quietly at linked contact INSIDE radar horizon yes, but outside radar horizon ? How would be the missile guided ? You could try such shot for slow valuable targets but I'm not sure if link data about fast anti-ship missile would be precise and real-time enaugh...

We can limit engenament range in doctrine, well yes, but do you want to put there full radar horizon calculations ? ;) and how the doctrine could know own antenna height ? Better would be to leave FCR flag but fight 10nm limitation, and for over-the-horizon shots make new missile with SAHR/IR seekers and FCR flag off (hmm but flag is for launcher, not missi,le... hmmt probably this flag works only with GUIDED guidance type, if the over-the-horizon SM-2 version was given MISSILE doctrine type it would work ok I think even with FCR flag... but this have to be checked).
And jsteed said that in DW if antenna height is zero, then in calculations value of 2/3 ship height (mast?) is used instead. Nice solution for most platforms, you don't have to set height for dosens of sensors. For AEGIS ships 2/3 ship height meaned too high that's why I set them to correct heights.

[XabbaRus]

Setting sonar ranges like this though isn't it artificial?

Even with the current acoustic model setting it to 2500m because you think that 5000m is the max range against a big target I think is maybe not the way to go.

Even playing stock DW it isn't too difficult to avoid an ADCAP.

Besides depending on what patch 1.02 brings then you'll have to change everything back.

With the quoted range of 5000m is given I am sure that is taking into account flow noise due to speed. The engineers I am sure would have taken this into account.

Even in SCX the ranges for the ADCAP is 5000 and though I don't know too much about the acoustic model in DW is more advanced.

So shouldn't it just be left for the time being and left up to the sonar model to work out how much of a return it is getting. I know at the moment things are a bit off, but 1.02 will be on its way soon.

Oh and someone mentioned DWX....I just say watch this space....you might be surprised.

[LuftWolf]

Gotcha. :up:

Ok, we've got some flexibility now then.

Things to think about now, like dinner. :88) :lol:

[Bellman]

Xab - agreed.

I made a similar point earlier today. This is a time to mark time.

We need to see what comes and how LwAmi mod will interphase.

Seems to me little point in redesigning existing vanilla scenarios, or producing new ones,
specificaly for LwAmi until we get to that position.

[LuftWolf]

Seems to me little point in redesigning existing vanilla scenarios, or producing new ones,
specificaly for LwAmi until we get to that position.

Ok, then we should just stop working.

Like I said, I'll welcome DWX at any day, but if it doesn't come within the next month, it's of no value to me.

I have other things to do with my time.

[LuftWolf]

According the logic that has delayed DWX up to this point, it isn't coming out until the 1.02 patch is released. That will probably be in 1st Quarter 2006, maybe.

So if you guys want to wait that long. Let me know. I could use some more time at the gym before Boot camp.

Ok?

[Amizaur]

XabbaRus, how much active sonar target strength of small SSK is lower from large sub like Typhoon we could estimate roughly based on dimensions. Then if you know range for big target (assume SSBN or old SSN) you may calculate how much the range would shorten for such smaller target. Also in some unclassfield sources some info about anechoic coating is given, that best modern designs can reduce detection range by as much as 50%. Also there was some info in unclassfield raport (can't remember where to find it unfortunately... found it when googling about ADCAP one day) that ADCAP seeker, designed for blue water, performs not so good in shallow water against hard small targets, and in some scenarios that could even cause it to lost/not acquire target and a miss, what exactly are those scenarios is classfield and work is in progress to improve this.

And you have a real world firecontrolman working with ADCAP saying:

anyone have an idea at what range the act topeto acquires a target?
i figured it around 1000 yard...

Around 2000 is typical.



I would say typical range is against typical target so an SSN. Rather not against SSK or SSBN. Around 2000yd, and in game for ADCAP you have currently little over 3000yds. Too little ? :P

[XabbaRus]

Yea I understand that but the ADCAP still has a nominal range of 5000 yards. That 1000 is more typical is due to conditions of the water and target aspect/size/coating.

So shouldn't you allow the conditions dictate at what range the ADCAP will pick up a return rather than impose an artificial limit on the sensor.

[Tgio]

Keep up the good works, guys.... :up: :up: :up:

We can leave it so they fire without the firecontrol radar, to permit long range over-the-horizion fire against linked missile contact, and perhaps limit the engagement range a bit at the doctrine level,
I vote this. ;)

@XabbaRus and Bellman: LuftWolf and Amizaur for sure know that 1.02 will introduce changes of unknown entity. They continue, however, to improve their mod with enthusiasm and share their ideas with us. IMHO they deserve positive feedbacks. :hmm:

Oh and someone mentioned DWX....I just say watch this space....you might be surprised.
If you are working on it, remember:
Besides depending on what patch 1.02 brings then you'll have to change everything back. :lol:

While waiting for 1.02+DWX, I feel really good with this mod. :D
Going bed, it's midnight here... Bye to all!

[Amizaur]

So shouldn't you allow the conditions dictate at what range the ADCAP will pick up a return rather than impose an artificial limit on the sensor.

Yes I should ! You are absolutely right ! But with current active sonar model/bug it's impossible. With default -15 sensivity you get the max range for all targets in all conditions....
The best I could do was to set typical range instead of max and to reduce sensivity to point that SOMETIMES the enviromental conditions will affect det range but rarely.

With 1.02 patch, which is supposed to fix active sonar model, this (I mean range dependable on target size, aspect and conditions) should be possible and you would have ADCAP max range (5000m or maybe even more) against Typhoon or XIA side aspect, and maybe 1000m for Kilo front aspect. Exact values would depend on sonar model and target cross section calculations, we'll just input what we know (to match for big target or typical target) and from sonar model we'll get ranges for other situations.

Yep I know that with relase of DWX, this mod will be dead. And I'm OK with it. Of course we could still maintain it improve it further but probably everyone would be playing DWX and nobody care ;) But until that, the mod will become better, and after 1.02 patch should improve A LOT.

I never wanted to rival DWX, it was clear from the start that we try to improve the stock game NOW (and make it playable) because we don't know when DWX will show up, and by the way we can try and demonstrate some nice improvements and solutions. I'm waiting for DWX too :-) and would be happy if some of the stuff we developed here could be used to further improve DWX mod.


After relase of DWX I planned to make my own private realistic mod, with same realism/doctrine solutions but based on DWX (which will have MUCH better database from the start, and better default doctrines too).

If there was permission, I could relase it for public (if anyone was interested). If there was no permission, then... well I would use DWX for online playing, hope that with some features from our mod :-)

[SeaQueen]

Thinking in a whole other direction...

I think it'd be worthwhile to look at the airborn aspect of things.

If it's possible, could the database allow for more variation in the aircraft loadouts on various ships? My pet peeve is that the LHDs only have a few options, when in reality, the Marines like a lot of flexibility. I'd also really love to see MV-22s embarked on the ship since they're going to be out soon.

I'm also annoyed with the Harrier loadouts. AAW loadouts should not include Mavericks. I'd think Sidewinders and AMRAAMs are more appropriate. If it can be done, reviewing all that would be worthwhile.

Along the same lines, Predators should have the option of being unarmed. MH-60s should not be the only helos which are Hellfire capable, either.

I dunno... I look what's there and think there almost ought to be multiple databases for different time frames.

[LuftWolf]

Subsim Community:

In looking at where my life is headed and the things I have to accomplish personally before I enter the military, I have decided to retire from Subsim and from modifing DW effective immediately. All rights to the work contained in the LWAMI Mod go to Amizaur, whom I most sincerely thank for his wonderful partnership and tremendous effort in bringing this project to fruition.

I would also like to thank darksythe, Molon Labe, OKO, Periscope Depth, Bill Nichols, and MaHuJa, and a few others whom I'm sure I'm forgetting, for their overwheming help and support during my time here.

Good luck, and Happy Hunting. :rock:

Cheers,
David :up:

[Molon Labe]

Make sure to pop back in when they give you liberty!

Fair winds and following seas :()1:

[TLAM Strike]

Good luck LuftWolf, everyone here at subsim won't forget the wonderful job you've done! :up:

[Bellman]

:sunny: All the best David.

Dont forget us (barnacles and all) as we most certainly wont forget
you and all you have done for this community and our game.

Good luck - come back soon.

[Tgio]

That's a bad, bad way to wake up fo me. :o

Still hoping you can change your mind, however...
Good luck and "in bocca al lupo".

[XabbaRus]

Using the database editor you can alter the loadouts of ships, aircraft etc.

The thing is having multiple databases floating about leads to all sorts of problems.

There isn't a way in game of switching in between different ones easily and it screws things up for MP.

Ideally you would have different databases for different timeframes. But you need a good way of swapping them about and managing them.

Now I guess someone with the programming nonce could make a little utility to do it and do it so that you don't accidently screw up databases.

Looks like I might have to reinstall VB and give it a go.

[darksythe]

Subsim Community:

In looking at where my life is headed and the things I have to accomplish personally before I enter the military, I have decided to retire from Subsim and from modifing DW effective immediately. All rights to the work contained in the LWAMI Mod go to Amizaur, whom I most sincerely thank for his wonderful partnership and tremendous effort in bringing this project to fruition.

I would also like to thank darksythe, Molon Labe, OKO, Periscope Depth, Bill Nichols, and MaHuJa, and a few others whom I'm sure I'm forgetting, for their overwheming help and support during my time here.

Good luck, and Happy Hunting. :rock:

Cheers,
David :up:

:( Hope we can still get a dive or two in maybe tonight? :up:

Ps. Dont let negative people saying negative things about your hard work get yah down man. At least yall are contributing something to our community to keep us going. Which is more then we can say for some people. :zzz:

I see it this way if some people dont like what is being done with LWAMI... Quite simply dont use it.

After that statement i should say that i am in no way shape or form officially involved with the LWAMI mod, and my opinion should in no way be construed as that of the designers of said mod.

Thank you have nice day. :D

[Dan Padnos]

About the torp homing range:

Amizur, I was rather reffering to me avoiding ADCAPS relatively easily and launching uselsss SS-N-27 brackets - so I'm on both sides of the coin here.

I'll be waiting for the improved active sensor modelling, hopefuly it will change the gameplay.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Subsim Community:

In looking at where my life is headed and the things I have to accomplish personally before I enter the military, I have decided to retire from Subsim and from modifing DW effective immediately. All rights to the work contained in the LWAMI Mod go to Amizaur, whom I most sincerely thank for his wonderful partnership and tremendous effort in bringing this project to fruition.

I would also like to thank darksythe, Molon Labe, OKO, Periscope Depth, Bill Nichols, and MaHuJa, and a few others whom I'm sure I'm forgetting, for their overwheming help and support during my time here.

Good luck, and Happy Hunting. :rock:

Cheers,
David :up:

You have a good one David. And good luck with boot camp and the Marine Corps. Hope you've been running as well as going to the gym. :)

PD

[Bill Nichols]

Well, Amizaur we could easily limit the engagement range of the AEGIS ships in the CIWS doctrine. ;)

In terms of the firecontrol radars on the Tico, they appear to be the AN/SPG-62 and the AN/SPQ-9, and both of those hard hard-limited in range to 36,000m AND, they are both on sea-level! :down:

So maybe that is the problem right there, let me see what I can do about that.

In any case, aren't the AEGIS ships supposed to be able to engage over-the-horizon missile targets based on information from aircraft? :hmm: Isn't that the point of AEGIS?

No, AEGIS wasn't designed to enable over-the-horizon air defense. The advantages of Aegis over earlier air defense systems are a) the APY-1 phased array radar can search and track many more targets, more quickly, than previous dish-based radars, and b) the SM-2 missile does not need the target to be illuminated until the last few seconds of flight (other missiles required illumination from launch to intercept, thus the maximum number of targets that could be engaged was limited by the number of illuminator radars on the ship)

With Aegis, SAMs are launched based on track data from the SPY-1. The SPY-1 tracks the SM-2 missiles, and a radio uplink is used to send the missile guidance commands. In the last few seconds before intercept, one of the ship's illuminator radars is directed onto the target, and the SM-2 uses the reflected radar return to guide to the target.

Thus, as designed, the maximum range of Aegis is limited to the range of the illuminating radar, which is limited by the horizon. Aegis was not designed to be an over-the-horizon air defense system. See description here:

That having been said, in recent years the Navy has been developing a 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC) which would allow Aegis to launch based on track data from other (CEC-equipped) ships. With CEC, the launching Aegis does not need to be the ship that provides final illumination. Consequently, one Aegis ship could launch SM-2s from 'over the horizon', as long as another Aegis is within line-of-sight to the target to provide the final illumination.

Concerning the latest Block of SM-2 (which includes combined radar-IR homing), I believe the IR was added to give better capability in scenarios where the radar seeker is degraded (sea-skimming, low radar cross section targets) and added capability against ballistic missiles (e.g., SCUD). I don't believe the IR provides an over-the-horizon capability.

Read

http://www.navy.mil/palib/policy/vision/vis02/vpp02-ch3o.html

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-66.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sm-2.htm

http://www.dtic.mil/matris/sbir/sbir011/Navy87a.PDF

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/dote98/98cec.htm

[Amizaur]

I wish you good luck Luftwolf !!! :up: :up: :up:

It was great experience to work with you, thanks that you started and leaded the project ! If you didn't start it, all my improvements would be still on my HD and in my head only even today :-). Thanx !!! :yep:

And very good news - from the PM I got from Tgio seems that HE has found the TRUE reason of AEGIS 10nm limit !!!! :yep:

The FC radar SPG-62 used on both Tico and Burke, have max range set to 20nm (and only 20nm !!) but the detection curve probably causes a SL=50 missile to be detected only at 10nm !! So that would be reason they can't shoot sooner. Impossible to notice at DbgView because it reports only FIRST detection of target by same platform, and FC radar is second after search radar. But Analyzer results seems to confirm the teory, and tests will show if it's true.
Have to be tested yet but I'm almost sure that this is the cause.

And second very odd thing is that absolute max range of this fire control radar (director) is only 20nm !!! Just a scandal for me! :arrgh!: This suggest that Tico or Burke can's shoot even at high-flying Tu-95 Bear if it's outside 20nm !!!
Anyone seen Burke or Tico shooting at ANY target outside 20nm ? I don't remember.

So adjusting the max range to correct value and setting proper det curve should solve the problem - without enabling non-realistic over-the-horizon shots !!! Perfect solution !! If it work but I'm 90% sure it will ! :up: Can't wait till tomorrow to find some time and check it !! :-)

[Molon Labe]

Xab - agreed.

I made a similar point earlier today. This is a time to mark time.

We need to see what comes and how LwAmi mod will interphase.

Seems to me little point in redesigning existing vanilla scenarios, or producing new ones,
specificaly for LwAmi until we get to that position.

We've been marking time waiting for the patch for too long. DW is an ambitious project with enormous potential, especially with regard to integrating the battlespace between multiple platform classes. But, due to some really bad issues, DW in its current state is next to useless for Air-Surface-Sub matches; it has failed in its primary purpose because these problems have not been addressed. DW 1.01+hotfix is only viable as a sub v sub game, and isn't as good as SC 1.08 or SCXIIc in doing that. It's no surprise that Hyperlobby numbers have been dwindling while the Seawolves SSN division has been growing. For DW to be useful for what it was intended for, the problems have to be fixed.

SCS is primarily a defense contractor, DW seems to be a side project for them that they are happy to do when they have the time and money to do so. Their continued support is essential, but we cannot depend on their patches and updates exclusively. We really need the modding community to pick up the slack when SCS has to put us on the backburner while focusing on it's more profitable military ventures.

The LW/Ami project is giving DW the support that thus far SCS has not been able to provide, eliminating or working around a lot of the problems that are in the game. It doesn't matter that a patch or another mod is purportedly around the corner. We've heard that one before. We don't even have a date yet; and both the original release and the first patch suffered more than a few delays even after such a date was released. Waiting for such a thing is foolish.

LW/Ami is just the thing we need in the interim (and more than likely will still be needed well past DW 1.02), and as such it falls on mission designers like myself to support LW/Ami. Fortunately, the changes are not monumental, it just requires a bit of tweaking of the acoustic conditions or starting positions, or possibly changing AI platforms to balance some of the changing weapon system capabilities. It is still a time consuming process, but it is worth doing so that we have playable missions for a mod that allows DW to be played the way it was meant to be played.

LuftWulf and Amizaur have devoted quite a bit of their time to improve, and possibly save, what could be the most important development in naval warfare simulations ever. After what they've done, it isn't a lot to ask for us to contribute a few hours here and there to support their work--and by extension, the DW project. Especially in a community as small as ours that does not produce a whopping monetary incentive for designers to produce games for us, we have a responsibility to do what we can for the community to keep it healthy.

So praise the modders, and pass the tweaked scenarios! :up:


(PS: My Taiwan invasion series is just about done; it should be popping up around subguru in a week or so :ping: )

[Molon Labe]

With regards to detection ranges, I encourage everyone to read the link Bill posted about the USS Greeneville's collision. It detected the fishing boat at a range of 20nm. Considering skimmers are a bit noisier than subs, it seems to me that LW/Ami's shorter detection ranges are a whole lot more realistic.

[MaHuJa]

It detected the fishing boat at a range of 20nm. Considering skimmers are a bit noisier than subs, it seems to me that LW/Ami's shorter detection ranges are a whole lot more realistic.


- They don't usually have the TA out, as the spherical sonar is "usually enough" (I believe Bill said something to that effect once?)
This scenario, simple transit cruise, certainly doesn't qualify as special enough to bring out the TA.

- They ran on a south-north course track, and I think (someone check this?) that they only detected their s-13 when heading north. The contact was then dead ahead.

- Towed array and angles&dangles might not mix - we've repeatedly heard that the towed array limits

- I seem to remember it as "the spherical sonar console only was manned" from that article - that wasn't what it said but what my mind remembered it as.

In other words, this was with the spherical.

In dw, there has *never* been such detection ranges with the spherical, that I know of, regardless of (published) modification.

[Molon Labe]

Good point, but I always assumed that the performance gap between the TA and spherical array were exagerated in the SC/DW games, especially since subs seem to operate without a TA a good portion of the time.

[Bellman]

ML.
The real issue is not designers ''time'' that is merely the 'egg'

The 'chicken' is sensor range reality v game playability.

I remain fully supportive (and gratefull) for LwAmi but have merely suggested a breather to take stock
of the 'new' ranges, to test, tweak and develop. Refine and adjust the settings.

The issue/s are further complicated by the old chestnut ( :lol: for me too) of ''realism'' I wont join you yet in siting 'Greenville'
I read the 'Unofficial report'' back in august and it raised issues of
the discrepancy (?) between the apparent reality of baffle performance in the incident and the DW baffles.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=41165&highlight=greenville
http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=42264&highlight=greenville

I have just dld. the official report and will peruse carefully. ;)

[Miika]

I think the LWAMI mod is great, and in my opinion it has made the game much more realistic and fun to play. Thank you for it :up:

Physics with a disclaimer: I am not an expert of these subjets. ;)

It would seem logical that the small diameter (and overall volume) of the torpedo seeker won't allow it to pick up targets, at least accurately, from very far. No matter the computing power, the "anternna" size matters a lot, as with radars. So I like these new ranges.

I'm also under the impression that modern missiles have been designed with EW in mind, so again I believe detection ranges well below 20nm (or even 5nm) against modern missiles to be realistic.

[SeaQueen]

In looking at where my life is headed and the things I have to accomplish personally before I enter the military...

Thanks for your work. I've enjoyed talking to you. Good luck in the service.

[Amizaur]

Someone raised important issue here - I though about this many times too. Aren't the spherical sonars too deaf in comparison with towed in the game ? They are next to useless in comparison with towed. Maybe we should boost their performance a bit, they would be more useabe and more often used then. For example tweak performance to detect fishing boat or trawler from 20nm ? ;) We really don't know how loud (or quiet) the Ehime Maru was. Maybe she was very loud ship ? And maybe not more noisy than a frigate ? Anyone could estimate ? How it compared with other civilian ships ?

About all the game balance and det ranges... In general I wanted to be only an "engineer" of the mod - I developed technical solutions to improve the game and enchance realism. How and if they would be used whas up to mod leader so Luftwolf. Later we decided things together and I always opted for more realism personally. I didn't think much about balance and playablity,only about technical issues, though in my opinion increased realism should in most cases mean increased playability in most cases.
But I really didn't think much about that and haven't much time for playability/balance/sensors test too. Initially I though that if someone wanted to have more "playable" and balanced mod, I would give hem for free all my solutions and he could relase his own mod with different database values ect, we wouln't compete because I always meaned my work for realism freaks and honestly didn't care for the rest ;). Now I see that one unified mod is good thing for the community and the game, there are no concurent mods currently (I wonder what happened with Finiteless :-? ), so I think I can make SOME compromises to satisfy both sides.
Well I can always make private hardcore realism version of the mod and other realism fans could use it too if they wanted, for singleplayer.
Of course there is some limit of compromise and I don't agree for something clearly totally unrealistic, even if it was playable as hell (like flying subs, energy shields, or detection ranges much longer than real world data and good estimates says ;-). As I said if you want such thing, relase your own mod, you can use all my work freely. Or if Luftwolf returned, took lead of the project again and decided that he wants such thing - well it's his project, I wouldn't say anything, just relase my own version :).

Regards to testing and playability - I don't have 10% of in game experience that some of you guys have :). I think we could cooperate in some way in the future, I would try to solve problems and keep things technically correct, and you could advise me what can be done (exept setting some parameters to clearly unrealistic values) to improve playability or balance. I simply don't know so much about playability and balance as you.

Up today as I said I only tried to make the mod as realistic as possible. I've set platform noise levels to values I believe are close to real life dB values (recalculated to DW noise scale). Design more realistic torpedos, missiles etc.
But for example we practicaly didn't touch sonar sensivity and frequency settings at all. Here is still a room for enchanced realism and increased playability/balance too. I don't feel very wise in this subject and would like to discuss this in the future with more experienced people. Probably much less is known about sonar performance, than about noise levels for example... And I know much less in this subject too. We can discuss what detection performance different sensors should have, and I can change it to reflect this IF this would not be clearly contradict with my knowledge about sonar physics and some info I have. Of course if you have other info, you can convince me that my info was wrong and I would change my mind and change sonar parameters to reflect this "new vision of reality" :-). I have some general info about passive sonar det ranges, and part of it is that det ranges between very modern subs can be in fact VERY small, and the most modrn subs at slow speeds are close to being practicly undetectable by passive sonar. So good the level of quietening is. On the other hand most modern sonars are very good and sensitive, and detection of other noisy targets like old subs or surface ships can be in range of 10-50nm, and in specific conditions - hundreds of miles. So good the sonars are and so noisy the noisy targets are :-).
But how exactly good should be TB-23 or TB-29 - I don't know. I'm open to suggestions about real life performance against different targets (civ, surf, sub). Vere probable that many of current in-game sensor values should be changed - some to worse, but some to better than now. Especially i feel that spherical and hullsonars are too weak in game.
This is to be done, currently most critical pending changes are to make torps more noisy and relase the AEGIS from it's 10nm leash ;-), but later I want to start modifing passive sonars, even before 1.02 because first I'll do theoretical work which won't be lost if sonar model has changed after 1.02, only the sensor parameters would have to be again tuned to match calculated performance which isnt' so much work.
More realistic active sonars and torpedo seekers have to wait for 1.02 and this is currently the only thing that have to wait for it.
Only if I had more time to do it all... guys, when I'l have a free day I'll discuss with you about who would want and could help in mod improvement (join the mod team if you like to call it this way :). I got a reports already from few people who want to help in database, doctrine design, game testing, designing a web site etc. I will contact with you all soon, there is much work you could do only we have to sit, discuss it and distribute tasks.

Cheers !

[stormrider_sp]

Realism is everything. Balance is a responsibilty of the mission designer.

[Fandango]

Realism is everything. Balance is a responsibilty of the mission designer.

That's it...you couldn't have put it in a better way...

[Bellman]

Amizaur - thank you for your comprehensive response on these issues and addressing them upon completion of the vast work marathon you and LW have undertaken. I assure you we do appreciate and respect all that you have done.

My position is that I wanted realism in the areas of torp sensor and cm performance which you have achieved.

I think we know that passive SA and TA can be further 'tweaked' for realism. Perhaps the other callers
for 'realism' will countenance the introduction of realistic baffled areas. Or are they selective in their 'realism' :lol:

The Greenville report again indicates that the SA real baffle is
vastly greater than that in DW. Baffle clearance course manouveres are frequently 140 deg.
I calculate real passive sensor area is 80 - 90 deg each side of heading. This gives a baffled area of 180 deg
not our DW 60 deg. 300% greater ! :hmm:

The play/realism ballancing of the interelationship between selected sensor ranges on various platforms precedes the requirement then for the designer to ''ballance'' gameplay elements.

If you feel that I can contribute in any way, but particularly in testing, please call upon me - I will be glad to help.

[Bellman]

As ML said 'Greenville' indicates that the passive SA tracked S13
(Ehime Maru) at 20 nm. Greenville on 000 deg S13 at 358 deg.

I ran a test recreating location/conditions/timing for the 'incident' to check in game sonar performance.
I have no intention of second guessing the reports findings.

Took 688i to 650 ft (The incident initial contact depth is classified)
SS 3 - Actual conditions Coast Guard 'Area' - Wind 10 knts Waves 3-4 ft Forecast W 15-20 knts Waves 8-12.

Bottom Limited - Vanilla contact at 5 nm LwAmi 3 nm.
Surface Duct - 650-869 ft. Vanilla contact at 10 nm. LwAmi 7 nm.

Of course we cant know how typical the Greenvilles performance
was in achieving 20 nm. That must be classified info.

How realistic then is the Dw passive SA performance both in sensor range and baffle performance ?

[Bellman]

Its worth noting that my tests were carried out with a 'bog standard' noisy fishing boat, travelling at the same speed and course as EM.

When compared with a relatively modern vessel like the Ehime Maru which had a variable-pitch 4-blade
propeller one should expect to track the FB at greater relative ranges.

[Bill Nichols]

Amizaur - thank you for your comprehensive response on these issues and addressing them upon completion of the vast work marathon you and LW have undertaken. I assure you we do appreciate and respect all that you have done.

My position is that I wanted realism in the areas of torp sensor and cm performance which you have achieved.

I think we know that passive SA and TA can be further 'tweaked' for realism. Perhaps the other callers
for 'realism' will countenance the introduction of realistic baffled areas. Or are they selective in their 'realism' :lol:

The Greenville report again indicates that the SA real baffle is
vastly greater than that in DW. Baffle clearance course manouveres are frequently 140 deg.
I calculate real passive sensor area is 80 - 90 deg each side of heading. This gives a baffled area of 180 deg
not our DW 60 deg. 300% greater ! :hmm:



If you look in the back of the NTSB report, there is a note that describes the 'baffled' area as being 60-degrees either side of the stern. That gives a baffled area of 120-degrees. Less than your estimate, but more than in DW.

[Bellman]

Thanks Bill - I cant find it. Could you please quote a page number ?

Guess we must accept such a reported figure as ''official''. Suspect the figures are classified.

My maths may well be caput but it seems as though the 'truth' could be higher than 'official' and lower than mine. :lol:
Sounds like that game-show, the ''Golden Shot''

[Bill Nichols]

Note 15:

"As is typical of all submarines, interference from noises generated by the Greeneville itself prevented the sonar system from reliably detecting sonar signals between approximately 120° and 240° relative to the vessel's bow. This arc astern of the vessel is known as the "baffles" area, and a submarine has to periodically alter course to uncover this null area, or "clear the baffles," for the sonar system."

[Bellman]

:) Thanks - got it Page 11 footnote 15. :up:

''Approximately'' is a key word here but we must accept that as the 'benchmark' :yep:

[Amizaur]

If that's baffles of spherical sonar, I guess similar would be baffles of active sonar (so 120deg blind zone insteed of 60deg currently). Quite close to what I though, there were threads about this :-).

And the demo is out already ? Oh my... but :up:

[SeaQueen]

:) Thanks - got it Page 11 footnote 15. :up:

''Approximately'' is a key word here but we must accept that as the 'benchmark' :yep:

EVERYTHING in sonar is "approximately."

[Molon Labe]

Bellman,

In LW/Ami, the fishing boat is quieter than it was in DW 1.01. You might be better of with a trawler.

[MaHuJa]

I remember reading a statement (I think it was on these boards?) that the baffles were actually more increased self-noise until you are unable to detect anything (perhaps short of a supertanker at full steam within 1nm?) than a direct cutoff like in DW.


Anyway, the FFG hull sonar is currently capable of detecting:
1) Supertanker at a few nm range (well within visual)
2) Increased global noise such as from explosions
3) Using stock DW; torpedoes
4) Possibly missile launches if you're watching the screen at the crucial moment.

I figure that if this was its actual capability, they would not bother to actually include it. They chose second (third?) rate sonar for low cost, but no sonar at all would be even lower...

[MaHuJa]

EVERYTHING in sonar is "approximately."

We approximately installed [approximately 1 of] a approximately <insert sonar system designation> in the ship. She's ready to go.

:88)

[Bellman]

ML - :) good point - I will check the profiles. I had forgotten that the DB changes extended to all platforms.

So to compare vanilla with LwAmi you suggest a FB in vanilla and a trawler in LwAmi ?

My main purpose was to check the discrepancy between simulated and reality and en route to compare vanilla with LwAmi.
Have you any views on this apparent discrepancy ?

SQ- **everything** :lol: I hear you - I hear you. ;)

[Molon Labe]

ML - :) good point - I will check the profiles. I had forgotten that the DB changes extended to all platforms.

So to compare vanilla with LwAmi you suggest a FB in vanilla and a trawler in LwAmi ?

My main purpose was to check the discrepancy between simulated and reality and en route to compare vanilla with LwAmi.
Have you any views on this apparent discrepancy ?

SQ- **everything** :lol: I hear you - I hear you. ;)

Just that the performance of the spherical and hull arrays seems to be shortchanged in this series; I know the TA shold be better, but the onboard arrays are nearly useless...

[Bellman]

:) Well I'm going to have a look at the 1.2 Demo now - thats if I dont screw -up my installation.

Its just been one of those days' :yep: :o :damn:
Still we all have 'em eh ? :lol:

[Molon Labe]

Don't forget about BrettDez's demo "expansion pack," available on subguru!

[Amizaur]

Its just been one of those days' :yep: :o :damn:
Still we all have 'em eh ? :lol:

Heh I have sometimes a day, when in the morning I put a toothpaste on my shaver, and then for a while I'm not sure if I should shave or clean teeths with this combination ;) ;) ;) After that I know that it's probably not very good day for anything :P

[Bellman]

:sunny: Thanks ML - I had - but got them now.

Ami - :rotfl: I am always relieved just to see a reflection is still there in the shaving mirror. :lol:

Got the 1.2 up and running and its as smooth as chocolate. I guess I can say that**today** safely.

I hesitate, with todays track record, ;) to give first impressions , particularly as I am not a Kilo diver.

But it **seems** that the Conformal has been beefed-up and (he whispers apprehensively) the Auto TMA
**seems** less accurate (wishfull thinking ?)

I will look closely tomorrow but a very patient wife is prising me away for guests. :damn:

[LuftWolf]

Have I ever told you guys how much I hate doctrors, especially ones that work for the military? :hmm: :damn: :damn: :shifty: :cry: :dead:

Well, I couldn't get a waiver for an old wrestling injury... so long story short, you guys are stuck with me.

No gushing now. :|\

Thanks for your kind comments before everyone, I really wanted to go do some good with some guns out in real world, too. But it's not to be done in this way for me. At least I tried. :hulk:

I'll catch up soon and get back to work on the mod, and work on finding work here in the civilian world. Anyone got an opening in their company for a 4-H'er? :lol: :-j

Ok, so it seems we should increase the hull and sphere passive sonars, I agree with that. Fairly easy to accomplish. :up:

Cheers,
David :up:

PS It makes it a bit easier knowing I have this community here and over at my gaming club, We Band of Brothers (http://www.webandofbrothers.de). So thanks guys! Back to work for YOU! :yep: :D

[TLAM Strike]

Well look on the bright side, you could have been in the middle of basic and then have them find out, or get injured again because of it.

Three of my friends are in the military, Army, Nation Guard and Navy. The one in the Army has been discharged because of a back injury. The Guard one is on extended leave due to a back injury (good thing since he is a Truck Driver :o Better hurt over here then over there). The Navy one maybe discharged soon due to tendonitis in his legs. So your among good company. :lol:

[LuftWolf]

Thanks TLAM! :D

Well look on the bright side, you could have been in the middle of basic and then have them find out, or get injured again because of it.

Yeah, my first goal, was not to wind up in a military hospital, followed by a military prison. They don't f--- around with anything. :huh:

[Deathblow]

Not to be nosey, but was it a ligament tear? Just curious since those things are notoriously persistant injuries and I know a couple of people with bad knee ligaments.

[Tgio]

:shifty: :shifty: Very sorry about that, LW....
But welcome back.
:yep:

[TLAM Strike]

Not to be nosey, but was it a ligament tear? Just curious since those things are notoriously persistant injuries and I know a couple of people with bad knee ligaments. Ligaments are tissue that connects bones to other bones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligaments

[Deathblow]

Not to be nosey, but was it a ligament tear? Just curious since those things are notoriously persistant injuries and I know a couple of people with bad knee ligaments. Ligaments are tissue that connects bones to other bones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligaments

@TLAMStrike: I was asking Luftwulf ;)

[LuftWolf]

Not to be nosey, but was it a ligament tear? Just curious since those things are notoriously persistant injuries and I know a couple of people with bad knee ligaments.

That, combined with complete destruction of the ankle joint, thousand pieces. If I didn't have the best surgeon in NYC as my dad's friend, I may have not been able to walk again. However, he is so good that he put it all back together with some screws and plates and it's literally perfect, once all the metal came out about a year after the surgery.

So I can understand why it was a disqualification, but given the fact that's it just like new, I thought it would be ok. Now I know that it isn't. Live and learn.

[Bellman]

Sorry to hear that David.

But welcome back. :sunny:
The Armies loss is our gain. :up: :rock:

I have nearly finished modifying my MP scenarios for LwAmi and will strive to get them to Bill within 24 hours.

[Bellman]

Returning briefly to the subject of the rear baffles in Greenville - (report P11 Note 15)

I allowed myself yesterday to become fixated with calculating the coverage of the SA. The report indicates
a baffled area between 120 and 240 deg which sternmost limits are set by the coverage of the conformal arrays.

The Captain orders 140 deg turns to 'clear the baffles' Presumably this takes account, as someone with
hands-on experience posted, of the signal detioration in performance at the boundary limits.

In game we have rear baffles of 60 deg = 50% of reality.

I hope in pusuit of 'reality' that we can consider implementing changes both for increased
SA and Conf sensor range and baffle performance.

[Pinetree]

Have I ever told you guys how much I hate doctrors, especially ones that work for the military?

Bad luck mate,I know exactly how you feel,I tried getting into the Territorials(NZ's part-time army) last year and I'm classed as Unfit until I get my snoring sorted out.It is fairly bad but I'm also ex-regular and the doctor has obviously never been in a barracks at night time. :D

[darksythe]

Really sorry to hear that LW.... :down:

But i am happy you will still be here with us. Its good to have you back aboard sailor. :up:

DarkSythe Dances around the forum wildly. :-j

Now clear the bridge and take us down to 300ft all ahead full. :ping:

[LuftWolf]

:lol: Thanks guys... I'm trying to picture a digitized version of the image I have in my head of darksythe (burbon bottle and all... hehe ;) :-j :P ) dancing around a 3-d version of the forum, and it's funny as hell.

I'm classed as Unfit until I get my snoring sorted out

Damn, they're even bigger bastiches than I thought. :x :arrgh!:


@Bellman, thanks mate! That's great news. :up: :rock:

As part of the effort to change the effectivenss of the SA, we can definately change the way the baffling is modelled, as that's not difficult to alter in the DB. :)

[Bellman]

1.2 Demo

I will stick my neck out ( :lol: Its another day) with some initial observations:-

1. The Conformal was in most cases the first array to show contacts which were at 16.6, 10.9 and 11.1 nm.
2. Running with 'Truth' on and testing the Auto-TMA showed its solutions with 2 tracks to be out by 2.5 and 1.5 nm and 1500 yds.

The conformal range for the Kilo has been increased. I am expecting that tests will show that the SA range has been reduced.
Too early to judge if the Auto TMA has been tweaked. These range errors are comparitively small after a short tracking period.

I am sure that there are some nifty improvements to the graphical interphase. I cant detail them but it just felt like
I had wandered from the saloon to the cocktail bar. Heck if your busy (drinking) who notices - but the ambience got to me.
It felt very smoooothe.

:lol: Jamie will surface now and say ' We aint touched anything mate so...' Well par for the course yesterday. :D

:damn: I was on the wagon too - withdrawal. :rotfl:

LW - Thanks mate - youve given me the chance to 'celebrate' your return. I'm going dancing too.......later. :up: :rock:

[TLAM Strike]

Back on topic. This is probably a known issue so forgive my short attention span. When I land a seahawk on the FFG and select what load out I want when I rearm it well look for your self…

http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/7649/screwedupseahawk5ww.th.jpg (http://img452.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screwedupseahawk5ww.jpg)
And this occured after a save...
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/1193/screwedupseahawk28eu.th.jpg (http://img490.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screwedupseahawk28eu.jpg)
What I really want to know is… where can I get this Seahawk when I’m flying them!! :lol:

[LuftWolf]

Yikes... yeah, I wish we could do that intentionally. :88)

[readies himself for the incoming storm of "it's the mod it's the mod"] :lol: :P :-j

Seriously, it might actually be the mod in this case (based on picture one), but maybe not (based on picture two). I've never seen it before. Has anyone seen it with the stock DB?

I hope so, because I don't have the foggiest clue how we would fix it if it was an issue introduced with the mod. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Ok, please take a look at the thread "LWAMI Mod 2.02 Working Issues" for a current list of the changes and improvement that have been discussed up to this point. Please post there if you have mentioned something to us that is not currently listed. Continue to post here about NEW issues that you would like us to look at.

Also, please respond to the poll on the main forum about DIFAR and VLAD balancing, if you please. :) :up:

Thanks guys! :rock: :arrgh!:

[Bellman]

LW - confirming 6 MP scenarios modified for LwAmi have been sent to Bill.

;) Just needed an early start (04.00am) now 0715. here (UK)
Time for some breakfast.

[LuftWolf]

Thanks Bellman. :D :up:

Hmm... breakfast. :|\

[Miika]

Sorry to hear about that, LuftWolf, but like the others I think it's nice to have you continue improving the game. I really didn't start playing DW until I installed the mod from you and Amizaur.

About this realism thing, I also think that concerning solo missions realism is everything, and balance is to be left to the mission designer. Nevertheless, I also agree the issue may be different for multiplayers. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Ok guys, we need some serious help figuring out the air-platform AI, or lack there of.

Please see the dedicated thread here on the main forum or just post here, whatever I'll take this however it comes. It started out as a thread on VLAD and DIFAR, but MaHuJa suggested a more straighforward and much better option for altering the buoys and it is such an elegant option, that there is no reason not to do it. So it evolved into a discussion (I'm trying to evolve it that is...) about air-platforms and their AI, primarily why I can't find a doctrine level command for buoy dropping yet still they drop buoys. :hmm:

If we can't find a doctrine level command for getting air platforms to drop buoys, then there isn't much hope in getting them to prosecute submerged contacts more effectively. As things stand now, the only way to get effective air-platform prosecutions is for mission designers to pre-lay the buoys and have the air platforms just loiter around the buoys, waiting for a contact. In fact, that is my suggestion of the day to mission designers, short of us being able to find a solution. ;) :lol:

Unfortunately, I have good reason to believe that not all air-platform behavior is directed at the doctrine level, since it appears that air-platform attacks are hardcoded, as there appears not to be a doctrine for air attacks, yet air platforms still launch missiles at each other and surface contacts and still drop torpedos at submerged contacts.

[Bill Nichols]

LW - confirming 6 MP scenarios modified for LwAmi have been sent to Bill.

;) Just needed an early start (04.00am) now 0715. here (UK)
Time for some breakfast.

Got em; they're on my site now.

It's 0840 here in Washington DC and I haven't even had breakfast yet :-?

[Bellman]

:sunny: Thanks Bill. :|\ :up: :rock:

[LuftWolf]

Guys, I've got some not-so-great news. :cry:

It looks, at this point, like the whole prospect of improving air-platform prosecution behavior significantly is not likely. There is no command at the doctrine-level, that I can find, that controls sonobuoy dropping or weapon engagement. This means that the best we can do is change helo-dipping prosecution, as Bill has already done effectively, and perhaps add some MAD prosecution behavior.

But in terms of getting AI-platforms to perform completely independently, as if they were human controlled, this is probably not going to happen. Sorry... of course, I'm still hoping that one of you out there has the answer. :up:

So, my advice to mission designers is to, basically, fake it. In other words, if you want to prosecutions by AI platforms, then you have to have the sonobuoys get in the proper locations in some other way than having the air-platforms drop them. So, either create the mission with the buoys already on map, or have them spawn as part of a trigger group (if you can do this, I don't know) after a scheduled aircraft fly-by. So, in any case, sonobuoy fields have to be choreographed somehow. Sorry guys.

Of course, as always, I'm *really* hoping that someone posts here to tell me I'm completely wrong. :yep: :yep: :yep:

[Bill Nichols]

...either create the mission with the buoys already on map, or have them spawn as part of a trigger group (if you can do this, I don't know) after a scheduled aircraft fly-by...:

Yep, I've done this so it can be done.

[Molon Labe]

Guys, I've got some not-so-great news. :cry:

It looks, at this point, like the whole prospect of improving air-platform prosecution behavior significantly is not likely. There is no command at the doctrine-level, that I can find, that controls sonobuoy dropping or weapon engagement. This means that the best we can do is change helo-dipping prosecution, as Bill has already done effectively, and perhaps add some MAD prosecution behavior.

But in terms of getting AI-platforms to perform completely independently, as if they were human controlled, this is probably not going to happen. Sorry... of course, I'm still hoping that one of you out there has the answer. :up:

So, my advice to mission designers is to, basically, fake it. In other words, if you want to prosecutions by AI platforms, then you have to have the sonobuoys get in the proper locations in some other way than having the air-platforms drop them. So, either create the mission with the buoys already on map, or have them spawn as part of a trigger group (if you can do this, I don't know) after a scheduled aircraft fly-by. So, in any case, sonobuoy fields have to be choreographed somehow. Sorry guys.

Of course, as always, I'm *really* hoping that someone posts here to tell me I'm completely wrong. :yep: :yep: :yep:

Partially wrong. I can't figure out the pattern, but in some missions, "sonobuoy search" tactic works better than in others. For example, in Black Market Boomer, the Helixes will drop rectangular buoy patterns rather consistently. The IL-38 will drop buoys at random around the op area as well. In contrast, the S-3's in Rough Riders will only drop buoys at the northern extreme of their op area, unless a sub contact is detected, in which case they will drop buoys in the vicinity of the contact.

I don't know for sure what makes this work for some platforms and not others, in some missions and not others. It *might* have to do with waypoints being created; maybe some platforms are better able to follow those waypoints, while others miss them and end up circling the waypoint without hitting it. That might explain why helicopters tend to to better, although helicopters are by no means dropping buoys whenever they're supposed to. Land masses might also be interfering if they are in or near the search box, forcing planes to turn and missing their drop waypoint. This is all just speculative, and there's evidence against it.

I think the best thing for mission designers to do right now is to start with a few different sonobuoy search boxes, test the mission, and see what happens. If the platforms don't do anything, then falling back on scripts is the way to go.

[LuftWolf]

Molon, I tested some of your missions, and I haven't gotten them to drop anything that is consistently effective. :dead:

I've done basically everything but surface in my test missions, and even after firing missiles being overflow and spotted on MAD, they still don't drop buoys.

And since the most crucial aspects of air-platform engagement aren't controlled by doctrines, I don't see how this can be improved by modders.

It seems squarely in the hands of mission designers. :-?

[LuftWolf]

Also, my goal is not to get some buoys dropped here and there, my goal is to get an active, aggressive, and sub-killing prosecution by air-platforms.

This only occurs when the sonobuoy fields are implimented at the level of the mission design, at least in my experience.

Nothing could be more dissappointing, trust me. :cry:

[LuftWolf]

Ok, well, I've got some good news.

If the work I did overnight works out, the Sphere/Hull arrays will be a WHOLE lot more useful for general situational awareness. This means a lot less time unweaving the threads of the TA, which in turn means that the TA is going to be played more as a strictly tactical array.

Picture this: Using the Sphere and Hull arrays to sort out the civilian traffic out to about 15-25nm, and then switching to the TA and scanning through the NB to find your target at that low HZ line.

The way things stand now, it seems I spend way too much time at the TA station trying to sort it ALL out.

So basically, I'm saying that the sonar should be a whole lot more of a joy now! :up: Hopefully.

Also, we've changed the baffles of all Sphere active/passive sonars to 120 degrees, including surface platforms.

We've got another good one coming soon, I think. :arrgh!:

Maybe in a couple of days, enjoy! :rock:

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

:sunny: Nice work LW and Ami..David now I see why you were up and at it so early this morning. :|\

The compatability between SA and Conf performance enables rapid fixing of master contacts and takes TA
out of the picture for most of the annoying (or threat) local traffic.
I think this is way to go replicating reality - just look at Greenvilles crabbing tactic. The baffle mod also
fits this picture and balances the above step forward.

I have observed that the Kilo in 1.02 Demo exhibits effective sensor ranges of 20.3 nm SA and approx 17 nm(+) Conf.
This is a delight to use with masters falling in your lap.
Whether SS have extended this to other platforms remains to be seen.

If you have achieved this (variably) with other platforms I am very excited not only for the experienced
but for newcommers who may now get into the sim a little quicker.

Great work you two - much appreciated.:|\ :rock: :sunny:

With all these developments I may just at long last finaly prize myself away from flight sims and burn my joystick. :yep: ;)

[LuftWolf]

I have observed that the Kilo in 1.02 Demo exhibits effective sensor ranges of 20.3 nm SA and approx 17 nm(+) Conf.
This is a delight to use with masters falling in your lap.
Whether SS have extended this to other platforms remains to be seen.

That is indeed interesting, as the Kilo in our mod should now be fairly close to that for the loudest contacts, but not better than the Akula. ;)

I'll test that again right now in fact...

[LuftWolf]

Well, against a Super Tanker at flank, pretty much the loudest thing the Mod, the Kilo has a MUCH better performance than that. ;)

We still probably have to do some tuning, but suffice to say, things are looking a whole lot better now. :|\

[Bellman]

Demo - SA BB tracked Victor at 17.1 nm by click to clear - no BB or NB traces.

[LuftWolf]

Well, I'm not looking to get anything near that kind of performance against submerged targets!!! :lol:

And, that would be an example of the interface issue, not the acoustics engine... unfortunately that is out of our hands. :cry:

[Bellman]

My earlier figures were for a freighter in the Demo and the 20.3 nm was the maximum achievable as I tested this at length.
That seemed OK.

With the Victor that range shouldnt happen.:down: I suspect the click to clear bug/fault which was in vanilla,
allowing BB Kilo contact designation out to 40nm has been addressed by reducing the range.

David those Beta guys must be feeling irratatingley smug as they 'listen-in' with sealed mouths. :damn:

Typical bl***y submarriners - I love 'em. :rotfl:

[Bellman]

Afterthought - I used the BretDez missions in the Demo but that shouldnt affect the sensor performance. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

No, the mission loaded won't effect the way the sensors operate. ;) :up:

[Bellman]

Back on topic - will we, should we, still get TIWs from baffled areas ?

[FERdeBOER]

I jusdt had a problem when playing a quick mission.

I was driving an Akula II, detected a Han... launched a Skwal... the crew reports that "the torpedo is running normally"... and in the nav map...

the Skwal is running at 23 knots (me at 5) an in the 3D view it seems to going up!! Finally, aroun 20 seconds later, the "buble" around the torpedo appeared, and it went to 200 knots. The final part was normal.

I have the LwAmi mod 2.01

[LuftWolf]

That's how they normally work.

The minimum range is 2000m. The torpedo, upon launch, will procede at slow speed to the preset depth and when it reaches 2000m or the set enable range, the rocket motor fires and it moves at full speed in a straight line.

Unless I misunderstand what you said?

[FERdeBOER]

You understood well.

Thank you a lot for the explanation. :up: :up: :up:

And the speed. :rock:

[Molon Labe]

That's how they normally work.

The minimum range is 2000m. The torpedo, upon launch, will procede at slow speed to the preset depth and when it reaches 2000m or the set enable range, the rocket motor fires and it moves at full speed in a straight line.

Unless I misunderstand what you said?

Actually, the enable range is when the weapon goes to the ordered depth and the warhead/fuse is activated. The torpedo will accelerate to 200kts once it is facing the correct heading.

[LuftWolf]

To be sent to Bill very soon after some final testing, LWAMI 2.02 for you enjoyment! :|\ :rock:

Here is the 2.02 addition to the readme:

LuftWolf and Amizaur’s Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod v2.02
Hosted by www.subguru.com
Readme by LuftWolf
Edited by Amizaur

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

Specific changes for v2.02:

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

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

AEGIS Ship Behavior BETA—The Fire Control radars of AEGIS cruisers and destroyers were previously limiting their engagement range to an unrealistic degree. We are currently in the process of thoroughly reworking the entire radar modeling treatment in the database. However, in the meantime, we have changed the FC Radars on the AEGIS vessels to enable missile intercept behavior at the limits of the horizon, and slightly further if there is a linking platform, simulating decreased response time. These changes are essentially modeling the realistic engagement ranges on incoming missiles for AEGIS vessels in the real world, meaning that AEGIS ships will now provide effective fleet defense against missile threats at range. Mission designers, enjoy! Note: From a simulation standpoint, the way this has been accomplished WILL change in the next version to better model the way these platforms work in RL, however, from a game-play standpoint, the effect will be nearly the same. This version’s modification also includes a change to the CIWSAttack doctrine, which will be altered again in the next version of the mod. Also, as part of this temporary fix, I have changed the E-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry radars, as previously they were only scanning half of the sky, meaning these should now be much more effective link participants.

Decoy Modeling—I have added a Passive Sound Level of 60 for active decoys, as the cloud of bubbles created by the active decoys have to make some kind detectable broadband sound. I have also added a small Active SL of 40 to passive decoys, which is still significantly less than torpedoes, as should be expected from any metal object in the water of comparable size.

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

MANPAD (sub-launched SAM’s)—We have reduced the effectiveness of MANPAD’s as follows: Stinger (FIM-92) 75%, SA-N-8 65%, and SA-N-5 60%, to reflect what we believe would an accurate representation of the real world effectiveness of these should-launched weapons. And… also to further discourage the gamey and unrealistic use of SAM’s from submarines in missions. :)

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

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

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

Torpedo.txt Doctrine—I have decided to include the full Torpedo Doctrine Mod in this release featuring random circle/snake direction, the anti-surface casualty mod, the correction from meters to feet so that AI subs will launched torpedoes set at proper depth for submerged targets, and the variable randomized search depths for airdropped torpedoes, meaning sometimes torpedoes will be fired under layers. We don’t believe there to be any bugs in this full modification at this point, but, as always, all feedback is welcome on this or any aspect of the mod! In case you experience any crashes or undesired behavior, I have included the standard non-casualty torpedo.txt doctrine, which will be placed in your main DW directory for backup purposes. So, in the unlikely event you need to install this backup, just delete the “torpedo” doctrine installed with the mod in the Doctrine folder, and change the name of the “torpedo.avoidcasualtyonly” to simply “torpedo” (without the .txt, this extension is stored by Windows XP automatically) and place it in both your Doctrine and LwAmi.doctrine folders. But like I said, it shouldn’t come to this. ;)

[darksythe]

Look forward to giving it a complete test with you later on today. :cool:

[LuftWolf]

I think I can accommodate that. :D

In fact, how about we test it with whoever shows up, just to be sure there are no bugs. :yep:

I want to test this one some more, especially the Sphere and Hull sonars. ;)

I'll hit you up on ICQ, what time do you think will be good for you?

[darksythe]

well ive gotta get in the last nine holes of golf for the season ive got a 0900est Tee time at my local country club should finish up there around 1100 gotta pull my buddys boat out of the river and start winterization then head off to eat and come home i would guess no later then 1600est

[darksythe]

really cant wait to get rid of the ugly sonar dudes mug shot from my avatar :dead:

[LuftWolf]

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/soundman.jpg

"Blar... Torpedo in water... blar..." :88)

[Behemoth]

Lw,
Forgive me if this has already been covered by someone else; but in your travels have you gotten any real sence of the ciws behavior in regards to own ship and friendly fired missles. I'd love to see an end to all the phalanx firering when a missle is fired from my ship. I'm no expert, but i would hope that there is a way for the radar to know when a missle being tracked is own or not.
-Chris

[LuftWolf]

Ok guys I've been testing the new sonar suites in LWAMI 2.02 and based on what I've read, we've got this really really close to RL parameters.

Let me describe some results of my tests.

Ok, the most distant contacts achieved will be loud, very low frequency narrowband contacts on the TA's, with no distinguishable broadband. The next most distant contacts will be loud NB contacts along low frequencies on the Hull arrays, with the sphere NB picking up loud contacts a bit before it shows up on the sphere BB.

However, for quiet targets things change a bit. Slow, quiet submerged contacts will show up, as always, first on the TA NB. However, as the targets get closer, they will show up first on the Sphere BB before they show up on the sphere NB or the hull NB. In fact, for very quiet submerged contacts, the BB signal will light up the sphere BB fairly bright on the long term waterfall before there is a trace on the hull NB at all, and the sphere BB signal will be much brighter than the TA BB, even though the TA has a solid low frequency NB long before the contact shows up on the sphere at all.

This correlates well with the information that I have which says that the TA is made to pick up low frequency NB and its BB ability isn't comparatively as good. By contrast, the Sphere is very sensitive to BB contacts and not to much to NB. The hull arrays, on the other hand, have quite a bit of ownship and flow noise to filter out, so very loud contacts will show up well on them, even at long range, since they are tuned for fairly low frequencies, however for close quiet targets, they are not so useful for the reasons mentioned.

Does this sound right to you guys? It sure feels right in play, at least based on the reading that I've done. :)

[LuftWolf]

Behemoth, I'm sorry, I don't think we can do anything about that. The only thing I can say is make sure you don't have full-auto on.

I usually play with auto CIWS, and I'm not sure I remember my phalanx shooting down my own missile, although I don't usually play as the FFG.

Perhaps a more experienced skimmer captain can give Behemoth some better advice?

If turning the CIWS to Auto doesn't help, then I'd recommend turning it off while you fire, although I know that's not the greatest solution, but I'm pretty sure Auto will solve the problem.

[Miika]

Lw,
Forgive me if this has already been covered by someone else; but in your travels have you gotten any real sence of the ciws behavior in regards to own ship and friendly fired missles. I'd love to see an end to all the phalanx firering when a missle is fired from my ship. I'm no expert, but i would hope that there is a way for the radar to know when a missle being tracked is own or not.
-Chris

If I´m not mistaken CIWS works as follows: In AUTO mode, it fires at hostile air targets INCOMING at speeds 200+, and not at friendly targets. Missiles don't have IFF, however. In FULL AUTO mode it engages all targets within range, regardless of speed or IFF.

In reality, I think the gun is given a firing sector (in which there are no friendlies), inside which it will engage all fast targets, unless HOLD FIRE -button is pressed. [/i]

[Behemoth]

Thanks Miika and LW, I guess I'll jump back into the Fig and see if the switching the Auto settings works, it's quite possible that I over look that little detail :oops:. I was pretty sure that in one of Bill's incoming vampires missions when the missles we at their most abundant I was shooting SAMs left and right and my phalanx was dutifully shooting them down, Doh!
-Chris

[Deathblow]

The LW&A mod team might want to consider rewriting the Squall Doctrine to reflect the rumored, homing improvements of the torp. The current versions of the Squall are toted to be able to travel at high speed to their waypoint, slow down to home, and then redirect to a terminal attack.

would be interesting to see how well it works..... perhaps some downgraded sensors would be needed to keep the torp balanced.

[Molon Labe]

The LW&A mod team might want to consider rewriting the Squall Doctrine to reflect the rumored, homing improvements of the torp. The current versions of the Squall are toted to be able to travel at high speed to their waypoint, slow down to home, and then redirect to a terminal attack.

would be interesting to see how well it works..... perhaps some downgraded sensors would be needed to keep the torp balanced.

As someone who loves squashing Seawolves with Shkvals when they stumble into me in shallow water, I have to oppose this idea. Quite simply, a homing feature would make these weapons too powerful. They are currently difficult to employ, and it should stay that way.

[Bellman]

ML. Agreed. :up:

[LuftWolf]

I have sent the LWAMI 2.02 distribution to Bill. It should be posted soon. :up:

Enjoy! :)

Thanks again Bill! :rock:

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I should add, we are going to need A LOT of feedback on the new sonar suites.

As far as I can tell, we are venturing into new territory with this kind of modeling treatment for the SCS Subsim series. I don't think even SCX tried to make these kind of changes to the sonar. Of course, we are dealing with a much more complicated and functional sonar model in DW than SC (even if it needs some minor tweaking at the code level, well really only the active sonar to be honest), and the changes to the sonar sensors that I have made show signs of even more complexity than I previously suspected.

So please, with the feedback! :up: :rock:

[Deathblow]

As someone who loves squashing Seawolves with Shkvals when they stumble into me in shallow water, I have to oppose this idea. Quite simply, a homing feature would make these weapons too powerful. They are currently difficult to employ, and it should stay that way.

Contradictory reasoning for a "realism mod" that is "increasing the realism" of the game. The weapon, as it is now, is reflecting the operational characterics of its 1960's design, and not those currently employed by the Russian Navy. That's not very realistic at all. It would be if if the USN were still employing the Mk 48 original and not the Mk 48ADCAP. If the weapon needs to be tweaked for gameplay, then the sensor sensitivity, warhead yield, and detonation radius can easily be adjusted.

http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

"Too powerful" or not this is a reality of modern naval conflict.... so much so that similar versions are now under development in the RN and USN. Technically Chinese Subs/ship should possibly be employing a nonhoming Squall themselves (the current version in the game), as they have been sold the Squall E version.

[LuftWolf]

Remaking the Squall would require a substantial amount of effort that I believe we could focus on other aspects of the game that are more pressing. :88)

Perhaps in the future... :up:

Keep in mind, many Russian weapons only exist in their literature and often don't function anywhere near as effectively as they claim.

It is my belief, that if the Russians truly had an effective homing Squal, they would sell it to the highest bidder as soon as possible. As the export version of the Squal is non-homing only, I am inclined to believe that this represents the highest level of deployable technology they are capable of fielding. That's my opinion only, of course.

[Amizaur]

Oh My God... :huh: 138 posts in few hours ????????
When I read them all, there will be next 100 probably ?? :-j :-j

You are outstanding, guys :D

P.S. The Skhval is mostb probably unguided and ANTI SHIP weapon, as it only runs shallow. Originally it was nuclear weapon, so you could attack a surface group (or even a sub, shallow nuclear det would kill as good as deep) with a weapon that you can't evade or escape (not in '80s and '90s).
Later export, conventional warhead versions were made, still unguided, those rather pure anti-ship because you can't kill deep submerged sub with shallow running weapon. And even if you could run it at any depth, how could you know what depth to set to hit enemy sub ? In SC/DW you don't know enemy depth, probably same is in real life. 50m of error and Skhval goes over or below, even if on mark in azimuth... Conventional warhead detonation probably doesn't cause too much damage to modern sub from 100 or 200m, like in DW. In DW Shkval has something like low yield nuclear warhead, because it detonates and sinks or severly damages target sub even if passes 500yd from target !!! :dead: Torpedo mounted MAD and conventional warhead with 500m range ??
And even against a ship you would have to aim well in RL, because as we said it's unguided. With nuclear version you had to hit only the group, with conventional you have to hit a ship. So close range rather. Kind of WW2 straight running torp, only 5 times faster (so longer effective range).
I'm under impression that Russians are still developing a homing version (from many years, as it's not easy thing to do acoustic guidance for 200kts weapon). I don't think they have more than a prototype now, even if it works. It's personal opinion of course :-).
I guess wire guidance was considered (but how stron the wire should be) and weapon that runs to proximity of target, slows down or stops, search it with active sonar, update it's position and then attacks again. But for that you need an engine you can disable and enable again, so not solid fuel rocket. Rather liquid fuel rocket engine. IIRC original Skhval had solid rocket engine, was it replaced by liquid fuel engine lately ?

[Deathblow]

I would not discount our [former] Red Brothers so quickly. Russian engineering has proven itself competant and capable of achieving desired design criteria. Lets not forget that many were suprised when the acoustic stealth of their subs began to equal or surpass the acoustic levels of their western counterparts. Their proficiency at arms-making is also poignantly demonstrated in their Klub missle systems, a successful and deadly system. The fact that Russian engineering initiated and successfully fielded the Squall program 40 years ago, while an equivalent western system has yet to surface, speaks for itself.

This weapons was most certainly developed which anti-sub warfare in mind. During the bulk of the cold-war the Russian submarine force was facing an opposition both quieter and with better sensors and Russian tatics designed with that agonizing reality in mind. They new that the American subs would get the first shot most of the time and desperately needed a weapon to compensate for that disadvantage. Curiously the USN is just now having to face that same reality, as sub warfare moves further into the littoral and the domain of quiet diseal electrics, and are even now developing their own squall with the reality of possible acoustic disadvantage in mind, just as the Russian had too.

The hard part of supercavitation development has already been achieved, vehicle stability in ultra turbulent flow, and power source selection. Those obstacles already surmounted, converting the torp behavior to a 2 part system, an intial burst, slowing down to 20-30 knots for a sensor sweep, and the re-entry into supercavitation for a terminal vector, would be far easier than the original design obstacles. Made especially necessary by the conversion to convientional warhead making increased detonation proximity a must.

[Molon Labe]

As someone who loves squashing Seawolves with Shkvals when they stumble into me in shallow water, I have to oppose this idea. Quite simply, a homing feature would make these weapons too powerful. They are currently difficult to employ, and it should stay that way.

Contradictory reasoning for a "realism mod" that is "increasing the realism" of the game. The weapon, as it is now, is reflecting the operational characterics of its 1960's design, and not those currently employed by the Russian Navy. That's not very realistic at all. It would be if if the USN were still employing the Mk 48 original and not the Mk 48ADCAP. If the weapon needs to be tweaked for gameplay, then the sensor sensitivity, warhead yield, and detonation radius can easily be adjusted.

http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

"Too powerful" or not this is a reality of modern naval conflict.... so much so that similar versions are now under development in the RN and USN. Technically Chinese Subs/ship should possibly be employing a nonhoming Squall themselves (the current version in the game), as they have been sold the Squall E version.

The homing capability is just a rumor; when realism is indeterminate, you go with the choice that keeps the game most interesting.

[LuftWolf]

The homing capability is just a rumor; when realism is indeterminate, you go with the choice that keeps the game most interesting.

And the modders from tearing their hair out trying to model the functioning of a suspicion. :yep: ;)

Thanks Molon. :) :up:

[Bellman]

Do we overlook the capability of the Shkval system as a defensive measure ? High turbulence = noise = screen.

Even unarmed they would be super cms creating an anti torp 'noise' barrier or decoying.

Now if they, or similar, could storp/start and be steered would we have a defensive tool par excellence.

[Molon Labe]

I recommend that the UGST be removed from the Iranian kilo and be replaced with a less capable torpedo like the USET-80.

[LuftWolf]

Thanks Molon, honestly, we didn't check that. I wouldn't have figured that it was originally equipped with the 53cm, but rather the TEST like most other Kilos. Yeah, we will remove the UGST from the Iranian Kilo for the next version, for now, let's say they are a "prefered client" of the Russian Naval Arms Industry. ;)

[Deathblow]

And the modders from tearing their hair out trying to model the functioning of a suspicion. :yep: ;)

Sounds like someone isn't up to the challenge! :yep: :lol:

Do we overlook the capability of the Shkval system as a defensive measure ? High turbulence = noise = screen.

Even unarmed they would be super cms creating an anti torp 'noise' barrier or decoying.

Now if they, or similar, could storp/start and be steered would we have a defensive tool par excellence.

IIRC, research is evaluating supercavitation weps as anti-torp potential. Firing a SCtorp at a incoming conventional torp to try to blow it out of the water beforehand. Bit of a challenge though, like trying to hit a bat with a baseball in the dark.

(PS Squall behavior no more a rumor than most of the other aspects of the sim, the ADCAP speeds and ranges, sensor sensitivity, sonar performance, sub sound levels and performance, weapon ranges, etc.)

[LuftWolf]

Sounds like someone isn't up to the challenge!

:P

Maybe... :88)

:rotfl:

Actually, firing a Squal down the bearing of an incoming torpedo is an excellent idea. :hmm:

Probably because that is what they were designed for! :arrgh!:

[Amizaur]

Yes... but design included nuclear warhead ;)

[Molon Labe]

Sounds like someone isn't up to the challenge!

:P

Maybe... :88)

:rotfl:

Actually, firing a Squal down the bearing of an incoming torpedo is an excellent idea. :hmm:

Probably because that is what they were designed for! :arrgh!:

Worked like a charm in MP yesterday!

[Amizaur]

Because DW version have something like low yield nuclear warhead :-j 500m of blast range ? :P

[Deathblow]

Because DW version have something like low yield nuclear warhead :-j 500m of blast range ? :P

Hmm... then its more like trying to hit a bat with a baseball.... thats made of C4 :o :lol:

Worked like a charm in MP yesterday!

Really? you were able to destroy an incoming torp with a Squall? :huh:

[LuftWolf]

Re: the mass-based fix for the acceleration and deceleration of submarines...

What should the turning rate of a nuclear submarine be?

[Mau]

Re: the mass-based fix for the acceleration and deceleration of submarines...

Did you applied this to the OHP as well. I think the acceleretion of the OHP is not that bad but the deceleration...
May be with that Mass-based thing would help a lot the deceleration of the OHP (So it would not decrease too quickly and actually not go lower than some value (like the 23 kts value I was talking about based on a 30 kts speed hard turn (30 deg rudder)

[LuftWolf]

The FFG turning-speed decrease sounds like a different problem, we'll have to do look at it.

If we increase the mass of the FFG, it may make the turning rate lower than you would like, but as I said, we'll have to look at all of this together and apply a solution to each platform individually. :up:

[Amizaur]

I wouldn't change mass of Perry. At least not increase it. I believe now it accelerates about right.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/eng/64P7-101.html

Speed - Ship trials have shown the ship capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots. Acceleration is from 0 to 30 knots in 43 seconds, and from back full (12 - 15 knots) to ahead flank (30 knots plus) in less than 2 minutes.

I guess this was before Perry's mass increased from 3900t to 4100t :) so now for older and heavier ship 29kts and about minute to full speed would be about right ?

[LuftWolf]

Yeah, you've convinced me that we shouldn't touch anything related to physics until after 1.02... ;)

[Mau]

I was just talking about speed lost when conducting a hard turn. Passing from 27-29 kts to a 9 kts is way way too much.

[LuftWolf]

But the FFG does a circle in a boat length and a quarter!

Real FFGs can do that at 23kts??? :hmm: :huh:

[Mau]

They would do that at 23 knots yes. But the tactical turn (diameter) would be in the order of 500 to 700 yards.
I never heard or saw a ship doing that in a lenght or lenght and a half as a tactical turn (diameter) which would be than in the order of 200 yds????
What you are thinking is a full stop in a lenght and a half at full speed no?...

[LuftWolf]

No, if you hit flank and then 25 degrees rudder, the FFG goes in a circle with a diameter of about a boat length and a half.

Unfortunately, if the acceleration of the FFG is correct, which means the mass has to stay the same, I'm not sure there is much we can do about the turn related speed decrease.

In any case Mau, based on the 1.02 demo, there are some changes in the physics engine, so I think we are going to hold off on any changes to physics related things in the DB until after the release of the 1.02 patch, due to the complexity of the changes we would have to make and the time and difficulty of the testing process. Sorry... :cry: :-?

[Bellman]

:D ML and LW Worked like a charm in MP yesterday! Thanks. :cool: :up: ;)

[zma]

Has anybody else had problems assigning trackers in the 688I sphere broadband after installing LWAMI v2.02?

http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/1420/bbtrackers7vh.th.png (http://img306.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bbtrackers7vh.png)
In the pic, there are four contacts clearly visible in the lower (intermediate time average) BB screen. I was able to assign a tracker to only one of them. All of the contacts had visible narrowband tonals, and a tracker could be assigned in NB. Note that of the four contacts, only two show up in the upper (short time average) screen, and one of these contacts is the one I could assign a tracker to. So, the problem is with medium-strength contacts that are just barely or not at all visible in the STA display.

I tried the same scenario with LWAMI v2.01 and the stock DW v1.01. Sphere BB worked just like it should (ie. ITA contacts could be marked). The scenario I mainly used was Miika's "FF China flights cancelled" (shallow water, no layer), but I tested with a couple of other scenarios as well.

This looks like a mod-related issue to me. Could someone else do a little testing with this and see if the results are the same? :ping:

[Molon Labe]

Has anybody else had problems assigning trackers in the 688I sphere broadband after installing LWAMI v2.02?

http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/1420/bbtrackers7vh.th.png (http://img306.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bbtrackers7vh.png)
In the pic, there are four contacts clearly visible in the lower (intermediate time average) BB screen. I was able to assign a tracker to only one of them. All of the contacts had visible narrowband tonals, and a tracker could be assigned in NB. Note that of the four contacts, only two show up in the upper (short time average) screen, and one of these contacts is the one I could assign a tracker to. So, the problem is with medium-strength contacts that are just barely or not at all visible in the STA display.

I tried the same scenario with LWAMI v2.01 and the stock DW v1.01. Sphere BB worked just like it should (ie. ITA contacts could be marked). The scenario I mainly used was Miika's "FF China flights cancelled" (shallow water, no layer), but I tested with a couple of other scenarios as well.

This looks like a mod-related issue to me. Could someone else do a little testing with this and see if the results are the same? :ping:

Assigning BB trackers to traces visible only in intermediate time interval is a problem in stock DW.

[zma]

It is? Then I guess I hadn't come across that one before. :dead:

[Molon Labe]

It is? Then I guess I hadn't come across that one before. :dead:

Yep. There is probably a signal level threshold in the engine that prevents the clicking cheat. The mod is dropping the signals in your scenario below that threshold, I think.

[zma]

Actually, I do now remember seeing this kind of behaviour with stock DW as well (or was it SC?). Only then it was just the very faintest of contacts that couldn't be assigned a tracker. It was hardly worth mentioning, which is probably why I didn't remember it at first. So, while ultimately the issue is with the game engine, the mod has certainly made this issue more noticeable - and more annoying as well!

We know the basic passive sonar equation which determines when a detection is possible (see this post at Battlefront.com forum (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=41;t=000584;p=2#000 035)). And there apparently are some additional limitations. Now, would it be possible to make further DB modifications, which would result in a more sensitive sphere array (compared with stock DW) and without this issue with assigning trackers?

[LuftWolf]

Now, would it be possible to make further DB modifications, which would result in a more sensitive sphere array (compared with stock DW) and without this issue with assigning trackers?

We are looking at a revision of the sensitivity of the sphere arrays that may, as a consequence, make that problem less noticable.

However, the short, direct, answer is "no" as we can't touch the interface. :shifty: