LWAMI Mod Poll #5: DIFAR, VLAD, and Air Platform Discussion

[LuftWolf]

Edit: Ignore the poll... guess what, I found an even better option! I'm doing this now, and you can't stop me! :88) :rock: Only the issue with the AI can... :-? We need some help with the air-platform AI.


Ok guys, based on the information that we have, the DIFAR is not simply a less sensitive and outdated version of the VLAD. In fact, the buoys are generally used for different purposed.

The sonar array on the VLAD buoy is supposedly designed to work most effectively in deep water, taking full advantage of the acoustic properties of the open ocean. These buoys are not designed to work and do not function effectively in shallow water.

For shallow water operations, the DIFAR buoy is still the prefered buoy and actually works better than the VLAD in littoral warfare.

So, we have an option about how we can bring the DIFAR back into the game, and simultaneously balance the air-vs-submarine game a bit further in the next version of our mod. However, we cannot directly simulate this in the game, nor can we change the way the interface handles the buoys. All we can do is alter the operating parameters of the sensors on the buoys.

This is what I would do: I would remove the sensor entirely from the VLAD Shallow buoy, meaning that you could only use the VLAD Deep buoy effectively. This means, in game terms, for shallow water operations you could only use the DIFAR Shallow buoy. We would also increase the sensitivity of the DIFAR to make them signficantly more useful, close to the VLAD.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Removed from previous post:

Also, one open issue regarding this is making the AI play with the new set of sensor parameters, but assuming we can do this, please respond to the poll simply thinking about player-platforms.

Ok, the AI-sonobuoy issue is an easy one to fix.

Getting them not to drop VLAD Shallow buoys is as simple as removing them from their buoy launchers in the database. The playable version of the platforms would not be changed in any way, as their loadouts are hardcoded within the interface system, although preventing you from loading useless buoys if you want to isn't that big a deal, anyway. :lol: :-j

[LuftWolf]

BTW, for the folks who are voting "no", can you give some rational for NOT making the change?

From a gameplay standpoint, this fix won't create any new issues other than having to remember not to load any VLAD Shallows, since the loadout interface will still give you the option.

Are you concerned about gameplay balance? Or something else? Since the feeling is that air platforms still have too much of an edge, and it's a shame to have a totally redundant object in the game, I think this change is an obvious one.

Any feedback at all is welcome! (especially for you "no" voters, since I think I'm going to do this regardless of what the poll says, so you've got some convincing to do ;) :lol: )

[MaHuJa]

I once did a bit of buoy-modding, where the changes I made to the vlads were to increase the depths, shallow to 400 feet, deep 1200 feet.

At this point, the difar deep buoy still wouldn't be much competitive versus the shallow vlad though. Maybe set it even deeper, say 600?

[LuftWolf]

Hmm... how do you change the depths the buoys go to? I couldn't find it. :o

It seems that all of the buoys go to one depth, and then the actual operating depth of the sensor is determined by the Z parameter in the sensor dialogue.

Perhaps we do have some options as to what we can do. :hmm:

In that case, I would set the VLAD's to have very deep cables and the DIFARS to have more shallow cables. Ha, that would be much better.

[Tgio]

I really don't like the idea of making an entire class of buoys useless...
This is all here.

If we can try to make VLAD less effective in shallows, I'm with you
But I find your solution really too radical.
And then having to remember every time you load buoys about that... Yuck!

I feel better if we can use a poor quality sensor instead.

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I've found the perfect, and realistic option.

All sonobuoys go to the same depth after launch (this is the transmitter on the surface) and then the delay of them coming online is to simulate a cable deploying with the sonar array down to the proper length.

The difference between the Deep and Shallow buoys is the simulated length of the cable, and this is controlled by the Z offset in the sensor dialogue. If the depth of the water is less than this offset, the buoy doesn't show any contacts, simulating that the array cable of the buoy is sitting on the bottom.

So, disabling the VLADs for shallow water operations is as simple as making the cable length longer. This means that we CAN have two depths of VLADs, one around, as MaHuJa suggested around 600 ft and one around 1200 ft or so, whatever we want.

So, this is what I am going to do. I am going to set the VLAD Shallow cable to be deeper than the DIFAR Deep cable, and set the VLAD deep cable to be really deep. I am also going to increase the sensitivity of the DIFAR to be as close to the VLAD as possible without exceeding it. And presto! We have everything we can ask for! :rock:

So, this is what I am going to. Yeah! Realistic buoys, the DIFAR is useful now for shallow water and the VLAD is useful now for deep water, the way it should be! :up:

I'm pumped about this one, that useless DIFAR was getting on my nerves. :)

Unfortunately, the problem with this is that we still have to deal with the AI platforms dropping the deep buoys in shallow water. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? :-?

Since only very few AI launchers use the VLAD buoys, I can perhaps create a new VLAD with the short cable and assign it to the AI buoy launchers, that wouldn't be too hard. I can't find any doctrines that relate to aircraft launching buoys, however, which is strange. I need to keep looking. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Does anyone have any idea how AI air-platform sonobuoy behavior is controlled?

I can't find any doctrine that appears to be associated with it. Also, the platforms seem to drop the buoys based on the depth of the water, and I'm hoping to be able to find a way to control this, so that they use VLADs and DIFARs that we are planning on modifing in a correct way (eg. no VLADs in shallow water).

My abilities to test this are also limited because I can't seem to get the platforms to drop buoys in tests... how do you mission designers get them to drop buoys?

[LuftWolf]

Based on my testing, it's as if the AI for air-platforms isn't even implimented... :hmm:

But if there is no doctrine for dropping buoys, then why do they drop them occasionally?

One thing is for sure, AI platforms need a lot of work. But if there isn't even a doctrine-level command for buoys, then how are we supposed to improve it?

Does anyone out there know anything about the AI for air-platforms? Even the smallest bit of information would help, as I've never really thought about it before, but if we could get AI platforms to prosecute effectively (or even modestly...) then it would certainly make a huge difference for mission designers. As it stands now, the only way for mission designers to have effective air-platform prosecutions is to pre-lay the buoys during the mission design, and no one really likes that option, although it would work in terms of getting loitering air-platforms to actually be effective in prosecuting targets, maybe.

HELP! :ping:

[OneShot]

The idea of improving the DIFAR capabilities to match the VLAD is certainly appaling. How bout this? Have the DIFAR keep the existing length of 90/400 and set the VLADs for 800/1200.

[LuftWolf]

Ok. Sounds good to me. :up:

I was just waiting for an expert. :yep: :rock:

Thanks OS! :D :arrgh!:

[OneShot]

Thanks for the flowers LW. :rotfl:
Seriously now, even tho I initially voted No on the poll - on second thought this concept makes sense and would greatly improve the capabilities of the Air assests. Especially in view of the changed sonar performances on the various plattforms and the resulting increased "reality" factor. The bubbleheads prolly wont like it, but with this change the playing field would be pretty even, spoken just from the point of buoy vs sub. As a P3 operator you now have to carefully think which buoys to take and which to use in any given tactical/enviromental situation. On a lighter note ... this change would be a bitch as I will have to rewrite a good deal of the P3 OWTOP :hulk: :hmm:

[FERdeBOER]

Allways realism, :rock: if that buoys aren't used on shallow water, then is better to remove the shallow option.

Maybe yo have then to increase the number of other buoys?

[LuftWolf]

We have a better option! :up:

I can alter the cable lengths of the buoys independently.

So the DIFAR will be Shallow-40, Deep-400 just as it is now.

But the VLAD will be, tentatively, Shallow 600 or 800, Deep 800 or 1200 reflecting their deep-water only capabilities in real life. I still have to decide the exact depths, but the depths OS suggested seem right to me, but maybe a little too deep for gameplay.

So we can have it all! :rock:

[Molon Labe]

We have a better option! :up:

I can alter the cable lengths of the buoys independently.

So the DIFAR will be Shallow-40, Deep-400 just as it is now.

But the VLAD will be, tentatively, Shallow 600 or 800, Deep 800 or 1200 reflecting their deep-water only capabilities in real life. I still have to decide the exact depths, but the depths OS suggested seem right to me, but maybe a little too deep for gameplay.

So we can have it all! :rock:

I think that's a great idea, bubblehead or not. :P :P :P

[Amizaur]

I think best idea would be to optimise buoy depth, DIFAR for shallow, VLAD form deep and vary deep water. In shallow water VLADs would lay on the bottom so not very useable ;). Difar in spite of worse parameters, would be better there.
(so VLAD deep could be even under the layer... hmm maybe shouldn't shoudln't say it as a sub player... ;) )

[LuftWolf]

Having discovered "the secret of the z offset" in the sensor parameters, this is so much easier to attain than I first thought. :yep: :lol: :-j

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I've gone with the VLAD 800/1200 set.

Someone let me know if you think this is too deep, since they are both well below most layers. However, that is how they are intended to be used in RL, as far as I can tell.

[OKO]

The idea of improving the DIFAR capabilities to match the VLAD is certainly appaling. How bout this? Have the DIFAR keep the existing length of 90/400 and set the VLADs for 800/1200.

I agree with that
remember we NEED buoys for very shallow waters !
what's about dicass ?
why not a 90 (shallow waters, we need DICASS here) / 800 (deep waters) for them ? If you have the real values of the DICASS, can you tell us about it please ?

Someone let me know if you think this is too deep, since they are both well below most layers.

depends on the layer
surface duct are often deeper than 800 feet on deep waters.
800/1200 for VLAD sounds good, as you will need to check the layer depth before choosing the right one.

I can see your MOD improve near each days.
congratulation for your work, LuftWolf and Amizaur ! :up:

[LuftWolf]

I've currently set the DICASS Deep for 600ft.

I don't mind the idea that in very deep waters with a deep surface duct it would still be possible to sneak under the actives.

But if anyone has a major objection to that, let me know, I could set the DICASS Deep to 800.

[OKO]

I don't mind the idea that in very deep waters with a deep surface duct it would still be possible to sneak under the actives.


I mind about it, because I like the idea :lol:
But maybe we need real values here, to have the same tactical consideration as IRL.

[LuftWolf]

Well, most of the sites on sonobuoys with helpful information come with a nice splash across the top like "This information resides on a Department of Defense Computer. Your activity is being monitored. Be advised that it is a crime to use this information in a manner which would jeopardize national security." As if someone in Iran really cares... :P

So... I'm not sure I'm going to find the actual cable lengths. ;)

The DICASS is an older buoy than the VLAD, so 600ft seems reasonable. I really don't know... but I do know that 600ft is deeper than 400ft, which is where it is at now. :hmm:

[OKO]

so, 600 looks good for DICASS deep :)
I could saw when I stay at 320m with the KILO, I wasn't detected even once with buoys, always detected when I reached shallower waters.
As the KILO need to go above 200m to fire torps, this preserve a bit the balance.
I vote for your global solution :

DIFAR 90/400
VLAD 800/1200
DICASS 90/600

but we need some test about the DICASS 600 to verify it still can really detect nearby deep submarines.
I think the buoys could be set to the required depth IRL isn't it ?

[LuftWolf]

According to a post made over on the SCS forums by a former Nimrod flyboy:

The buoys themselves all have the same max cable length for the various types of buoys. The operator can then select a short/medium/long cable length for the actual deployment of the buoys. Once the buoys are deployed, short cables can be deployed further to the medium and long lengths, but not in reverse.

So SCS simplified the modelling a bit to fit it into the way the database is structured, but that's not a big deal, to me anyway.

[zma]

Regarding the real buoy operating depths, here's something I found at Globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org):
The AN/SSQ-62D DICASS has been improved with the replacement of the lithium chemistry battery with a thermal battery. Additionally, the sonobuoy includes the EFS option of selectable depth families. During preflight, either a shallow or deep family of depth option shall be selected. If the shallow family is selected, depth settings of 50, 150, or 300 feet are available. If the deep family is selected, depth settings of 90, 400, and 1500 are available. These depth options provide sufficient flexibility for both littoral and open ocean ASW operations.

Of course, we can't be sure that the values mentioned are the same as real-life values. For all we know, the buoy depth might be arbitrarily selectable as anything between the min and max depths. Why wouldn't it be?

BTW, I'm fine with the DICASS Deep having a depth of 600ft (or deeper).

Some links:
AN/SSQ-62B/C/D/E Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System (DICASS) Sonobuoy (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/an-ssq-62.htm)
AN/SSQ-53 Directional Frequency Analysis and Recording Sonobuoy (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/an-ssq-53.htm)
AN/SSQ-77B Vertical Line Array Directional Frequency Analysis and Recording (VLAD) Sonobuoy (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/an-ssq-77.htm)

Interesting to note: The 'A'-model VLAD is reported to have operating depths of 500 and 1000 feet. The operating depths of the improved 'B'-model are classified, but apparently the choice is limited to two depths. 800/1200 ? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Thanks for the info zma! :)

The values we have currently are draft values and easy to change, but I'm feeling pretty good about this set so far.

DIFAR 90/400
VLAD 800/1200
DICASS 90/600

I might make the VLAD Shallow a bit more shallow or the DICASS Deep a bit more deep, but I think these values make a very good set for gameplay and realism.

Although, as we've mentioned, we aren't going going to get "true realism" on the buoy depths, so all of the values have to fudge something somewhere. :88)

Cheers,
David

[drEaPer]

I found this

AN/SSQ-77C VLAD
This passive buoy is again an improvement in the evolution of passive detection. It has the directional capabilities of the Q53 DIFAR and, additionally, a vertical line array (VLAD) of omnidirectional hydrophones for improved tracking capability in a noisy, high-traffic environment. There are five different operating life selections (0.5, 1, 2, 4 or 8 hours) and three depths (200, 500, 1000 ft). Depth, life, and channel selection may be set via Electronic Function Selection (EFS) prior to launch, and all but depth selection after deployment via digital Command Function Select (CFS). Download specifications for AN/SSQ-77C VLAD in pdf format.


at http://www.sparton.com/sonobuoys

Is it possible that the VLAD only goes down to 1000ft?



Edit: Global Security sais the same:

The EFS will also allow selection of one of 99 RF channels, two operating depths of 500 and 1000 feet, and selectable life settings of one, four, or eight hours. In all other respects, the VLAD is comparable to the DIFAR.

[LuftWolf]

Those specs are for the older VLAD A. The actual depths of the VLAD B are classified, but we suspect they are close to 800/1200.

As I said before, because we only have two depths to work with, we have to kind of balance what is truly real with gameplay considerations. I think this depth set does a decent job of balancing that, at least in my opinion.

Thanks for the info! :up:

[MaHuJa]

For all we know, the buoy depth might be arbitrarily selectable as anything between the min and max depths. Why wouldn't it be?

Because it would probably be easier to implement a "release hook" (release predetermined amount of wire) instead of a winch-type (let it slide until we say stop) in the buoy. Probably makes for faster transition too.

[zma]

Good point, MaHuJa, that sounds reasonable. :up:

I also have to correct my earlier post a little. As drEaPer pointed out, there indeed is a C-model VLAD, which has a shallow 200 ft -setting in addition to the 500/1000 ft depths. I now think it would be safe to assume that the B-model operating depths are similar to the A- and C-model's.

Then again, maybe the vertical line array in these buoys would require some "free water" below them in order to operate properly? (This is 100% pure speculation, btw. The rest is just 80% pure :) ) If so, it would make sense to model the operating depths a little deeper than actual, from a realism standpoint as well as because of gameplay considerations.

OK, I'm finished with my nit-picking of the day ;)

[LuftWolf]

Yeah, that was my logic zma.

The VLAD buoys, accoding to my info, are deep water only, because of the way the Vertical Line Array functions from an acoustic stand point; bottom bounces and bottom noise are devastating to this buoys effectiveness (as far as I know...). So even using the buoys in 500ft of water or even a little bit more may prevent them from functioning correctly.

So, the cable length is really just a rough estimate of the buoys actual operating parameters in real life, but in the game, it's a hard limit, so I thought 800ft was a good place to put them... especially because an "expert" suggested that to me in this thread. ;)