Official 1.03 coming today...

[Mau]

...is it?

[goldorak]

...is it?

Yes but at what time precisely ?

[DivingWind]

Will know tomorrow,for sure! :lol:

[Hellcat]

This is a big day for Dangerous Waters, what with the Steam release coming today. This could significantly increase the number of players by a large margin. It'll be interesting to see what this new influx of players think on the Steam forums.

[goldorak]

Will know tomorrow,for sure! :lol:

Why tomorrow, the game is to be released today 7 february on steam.
And still no patch in view :hulk: :hulk:

[BigBadVuk]

Well i was on DW official site 3 mins ago and guess what:
There is still only BETA 1.03 patch there...so i guess this was justa bad joke :damn:

[Driftwood]

The man himself stated the patch was done and all they were waiting on was the Steam folks. That was back on 20 Jan.

http://www.sonalystscombatsims.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=287

[Banquet]

I'm downloading it off Steam now :)

Bit confused though, I still got the pre-purchase discount even though it's the 7th? I guess it's still not released quite yet.

Anyway, looking forward to playing. The download is taking ages. I'm getting 125kb/s but after well over an hour it's still only at 63%.. yikes, must be a big old file.

[moose1am]

Are you buying the new game off stream? Or just downloading the new 1.03b patch off stream?

[Banquet]

Buying the full game (now at 92%)

[WolfyBrandon]

"Congratulations to Dangerous Waters for being recognized as IGN's Game of the Month. You can head over here to read their writeup. To check out Dangerous Waters or Space Empires 4 Deluxe as soon as they are available, preload and pre-purchase them before next Tuesday and take advantage of the preorder discount. This offer will expire next week when the games go live."

Just got this update on steam, does this mean dangerous waters was delayed another week from now? :(

Wolfy

[goldorak]

No, the game of the month anouncement was made last week, so today is the day that dw is released on steam, and hopefully for us non-steam customers also the day we can download the final 1.03 patch.

[Banquet]

Well, I got it all downloaded.. can't do anything with it as it's showing as 'pre-loaded:unreleased'

Assuming that it is still going to be released today, anyone know what time zone Steam is using? It's 8.20 pm here in England and I was hoping to get a chance to play it today.

[goldorak]

Well, I got it all downloaded.. can't do anything with it as it's showing as 'pre-loaded:unreleased'

Assuming that it is still going to be released today, anyone know what time zone Steam is using? It's 8.20 pm here in England and I was hoping to get a chance to play it today.

Well valve hq is in GMT-8 so we have to wait wait and wait....grrrrrrrrrrrr

[WolfyBrandon]

Thanks goldorak for clearing that up, I havent seen that add last week so I thought it might be new.

"Well valve hq is in GMT-8 so we have to wait wait and wait....grrrrrrrrrrrr"
heh im in GMT -8 too and love it! :P

Wolfy

[Seeadler]

Isn't this the 1.03 patch, released 2006/02/07 ?
http://www.strategyfirst.com/en/downloads/patches/

[Rotary Crewman]

================================================== =====
================================================== ======
Dangerous Waters Update Version 103 Build 367 (English)
[Released as Patch 103 to the Public]
================================================== ======
================================================== ======

This release has full support for Valve Software's online platform for digital content distribution, "Steam".

For more information on "Steam" please visit:
http://www.steampowered.com/

-------
NOTES:
-------
Save game files which were created with prior versions, will no longer be compatible with this
version of Dangerous Waters.

Manual Errata has been updated in SCS-DW_CombinedManualErrata.pdf. This file contains all errata
that has been issued to date.


-------
FIXES:
-------
- Fixed the FFG throttle to properly correlate with a necessary propeller diameter change.

- The IR sensor that was previously assigned to the SLAM-ER was removed.

- Fixed a problem which was causing the sub motion model to dive more slowly than intended.

- Depths for the sonobuoys and dipping sonar have been adjusted to compensate for the more
realistic thermocline layer modelling.

- Fixed the FFG's AutoTMA which was not utilizing the various speed rulers effectively.

- Adjusted the AutoTMA's performance on "bearings only" solution so that it would obtain a
more reasonable solution over various time periods (i.e. few or multiple lines of bearing).

- Fixed an issue in the FFG Bridge that forcing the player to input an ordered speed twice to
obtain the desired speed.

- Corrected an anomaly in which a surface contact's signal would sometimes disappear and then
re-appear as its object center would be rising and falling with the ocean wave model.

- Fixed an issue which cause the client to never see the Host's platform in Multiplayer.

- Corrected an issue in which the AI-controlled diesel submarines were incorrectly operating on
diesel engines when it was not intended.

- Fixed a crash that was caused when the FFG wasn't accurately following the sync-ed Helo while
operating in REMRO mode.

- All torpedos were speeding up to 55kts despite the designated input by the player, this was fixed.

- Corrected an issue in the physics engine which causing the subs to dive/surface too slowly.

- Fixed a cheat on the Kilo where players' could mark a target even though it wasn't visible
on the BroadBand Sonar display.

- Fixed a problem where the Kilo Demon was not showing data when the initial tracker/contact was
assigned in Narrowband instead of Broadband (which the Demon data is derived from).

- Fix provided for the MH60 Dipping Sonar (Active mode) in which any ping emitted was not heard by
other players in multi-player.

- Fixed a problem with the Ming class submarine which had incorrect torpedo launcher orientation.

- Corrected a crash caused by loading certain password protected missions.

- Made a small enhancement which prepends the mission time to each report.

- Fixed a minor problem in which a "Steady On Course" crew report would be played immediately after
the player inserted an initial waypoint.

List of fixes...

[goldorak]

Yes its out :up:
I wonder why I wasn't notified by the scs newsletter though :hmm:

[Zerogreat]

It seems so :huh: :)

[goldorak]

It seems so :huh: :)

I can't download faster than 30kB/s :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk: :hulk:

[Zerogreat]

Well my line can not download more than 50 kB/s so its not that bad :D

[Kapitan]

at last wooohooo

[Neptunus Rex]

Downloading :up:

:rock: .

[Sulikate]

D O W L O A D I N G
















:arrgh!:

[DivingWind]

Oh happy day!

[FERdeBOER]

At last!! :up:

But I have a question... :hmm: I don't see in the readme if the masts are now detectable by radar...
Please, tell me this have been also fixed!!!

[goldorak]

I don't think it has been fixed.

[WolfyBrandon]

I just got done downloading and installing the new patch and decided to give it a test dive.

My results were a little... unsettling. First of all the dive problem seems fixed your sub dives how it should, but for me when i tryed to surface I had some weard issues. Its almost like my sub is coming up at a 45 degree angle for a while then it levels out and the back end of the sub comes up at a 45 degree angle, not sure if this effects your depth, ill have to go look again. Also, they fixed it where when you use your rutters your sub wont dive out of control... that is untill I clicked the rutter buttion twice and my sub did a nose dive for the bottom. :nope: :( :(

EDIT When I installed it and tryed to play when dw loaded up I got an error saying something was wrong with my database, ill post a ss when imageshack is working for me. I think I might try and re-install the game and patch it instead of patching it over 1.03b, who knows maybe itll fix these problems, i hope so

[FERdeBOER]

I installed it iwhout problems, still not play.

[Zerogreat]

I tried it now and the sub still goes down when applying rudder. I tried it with seawolf, which sub did you use? :)

Also the sub seemed to be lot less stable, it was almost scary :huh:

[Zerogreat]

Also the MH60 dipping sonar seems to stream and retrieve faster :up:

[XabbaRus]

OK sub rising strange that is an issue

As for full rudder at flank then you will go into a dive. As SubSailor and Bubblehead pointed out at the mo the crew won't override in manual turn.

[SquidB]

Yeh i got the sub rear end up surfacing thing too....which was a bit wierd :88) :huh:

The general diving and surfacing seems better tho. :up:

[WolfyBrandon]

OK i found out i had a database error because I still had LWAMI 1.03b installed :oops: totally forgot about that..

I took the mods off and re-appyed the patch and the surface issue is still there same with the rudder one. I found that if for example you do a right rudder right rudder it will dive but when you do a left rudder it will recover, not sure if it comes up to your origonal depth you had orderd though. As Zerogreat said, loosing control seems as bad if not worse than it was in 1.03b.

To me it almost seems if the sub thinks its trying to dive sometimes when its surfacing but the bubble is making it come up. Its totally weard having it rock back and forth as it comes up. :doh:

Wolfy

[FERdeBOER]

Tried with an Akula, depth 80 meters, speed 5 knots.

Ordered periscope depth and at 60 meters the stern rises. At 30 meters the sub is leveled again untill the final depth.

[WolfyBrandon]

I have recorded a little movie of the subs dive / surface sequence in the 1.03 official patch for those who want to see it. I played on a test mission I built a while ago starting at a shallow depth i dive to 500ft and then surface to 100ft. For those of you who want to see it here is a download link. (sorry I had to use megaupload because file front's upload service is currently down)

Dangerous Waters 1.03 Patch Dive/Surface Sequence
13.6mb
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5I4YCDR5

[ I did use time compression in the movie to make it shorter and a smaller file ] You will also notise in the video when the sub levels off from surfacing with its sturn up the depth pauses at 158 ~ 159 ft for a few seconds before it continues to surface, and this happends during almost full time compression so during normal gameplay it would hang there for a good period of time.

Wolfy

[Mau]

I have version 1.01 installed (nothing else: i.e. no Sound VS Speed hot fix and no Mods)

Can I install the patch directly then (so passing from 1.01 to 1.03).
Is it going to put the Sound VS Speed (Is it incorporated in the patch by itself?)

Thank you

[WolfyBrandon]

Very Bad News.

I just did some more testing and for a while I could not reproduce the bug where the sub dives out of control... I kept playing for a while and I found out that it only seems to happen at flank or higher speeds. 5 nots or 15 knots worked fine useing the rudders left and right and hitting the rudder command twice left rudder left rudder or right rudder right rudder. If your traveling at high speeds like Flank, You Cannot Use Your Left Or Right Full Rudder At All! If you hit left rudder or right rudder once you will dive out of control. And if you hit your opposite rudder it will recover for a few seconds and then dive out of control with that rudder. I have recorded another movie of my testing for those who want to view it which im uploading right now, ill update this post when its done.

EDIT
Ok finished uploading here is the video of my testing of the rudder problem in the new patch.

Dangerous Waters 1.03 Patch Rudder At Flank Speed Problem
17.3mb
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=M4YTJ2H9

:(
Wolfy

[SquidB]

Can I install the patch directly then (so passing from 1.01 to 1.03).

yes this patch contains all the previous updates :up:

[Rotary Crewman]

Doesn't sound too good then :dead:

[XabbaRus]

Thing is if you are at 5 to 10 knots and hit full rudder and then hit flank you get an increase in turn rate but no sudden death dive.

It only seems to happen when you are already at flank and you hit full rudder.

[JSLTIGER]

Very Bad News.

I just did some more testing and for a while I could not reproduce the bug where the sub dives out of control... I kept playing for a while and I found out that it only seems to happen at flank or higher speeds. 5 nots or 15 knots worked fine useing the rudders left and right and hitting the rudder command twice left rudder left rudder or right rudder right rudder. If your traveling at high speeds like Flank, You Cannot Use Your Left Or Right Full Rudder At All! If you hit left rudder or right rudder once you will dive out of control. And if you hit your opposite rudder it will recover for a few seconds and then dive out of control with that rudder. I have recorded another movie of my testing for those who want to view it which im uploading right now, ill update this post when its done.

Wolfy

Wolfy, this is not an out of control dive. This is simply a modeling of the real world physics associated with a high speed turn. The rudder forces more water to travel over the side that it is facing away from, which causes the turn (kind of like in an airplane). This also causes the sub to "lean" into the turn. The "lean" also causes the rudder to create a downward force, creating the dive. At the higher speed, with the propellor pushing harder, the force is greater.

[WolfyBrandon]

Wolfy, this is not an out of control dive. This is simply a modeling of the real world physics associated with a high speed turn. The rudder forces more water to travel over the side that it is facing away from, which causes the turn (kind of like in an airplane). This also causes the sub to "lean" into the turn. The "lean" also causes the rudder to create a downward force, creating the dive.

Alright so this was intended to happen in the game? I guess its good to have more realism. :)

Wolfy

[Deathblow]

Doesn't sound too good then :dead:

I think these guys are overreacting. My first experiences seem pretty ideal. Doint 20 knots in a SW with a 90 degree course change I lost 10-15 feet of depth. With flank 30 feet of depth. A 180 degree turn at 40 knots I lost about 70-80 feet of depth with the AI dive control trying hard to compensate. Everything feels pretty good at my initial impressions. Draw your own conclusions.

[SquidB]

I have no issue with the rapid decent at full bell and rudder, this as has been mentioned correct.

Tho why my akula should do a head stand when surfacing is a bit of a worry.

[Deathblow]

What I haven't seen, is that super nice looing freighter on the steam trailer... :hmm:

hm... that reminds me... hey XabbaRus, the upgraded models upcoming anytime soon? Ramius is showing off his toys again with a Typhoon on the General Forums.

[Rotary Crewman]

Doesn't sound too good then :dead:

I think these guys are overreacting. My first experiences seem pretty ideal. Doint 20 knots in a SW with a 90 degree course change I lost 10-15 feet of depth. With flank 30 feet of depth. A 180 degree turn at 40 knots I lost about 70-80 feet of depth with the AI dive control trying hard to compensate. Everything feels pretty good at my initial impressions. Draw your own conclusions.

Fair enough, i think i'll wait for a bit and see what others come up with.

[WolfyBrandon]

Ok I figured out the rudder thing.

I did some testing for the past 10 min and got some details. If you do a left or right full rudder the speed of your ship will be a factor in what happends. For example, if your going 30 knots or more your sub will dive out of control, but if your going 25 knots your sub will dip 54 ft in depth from the force of the water at that speed. I did testing on all the speeds and here were my results while diving the 688(i) class.

1 kts - 0 ft dip
2 kts - 0 ft dip
3 kts - 0 ft dip
4 kts - 1 ft dip
5 kts - 2 ft dip
6 kts - 3 ft dip
7 kts - 4 ft dip
8 kts - 5 ft dip
9 kts - 6 ft dip
10 kts - 8 ft dip
11 kts - 10 ft dip
12 kts - 11 ft dip
13 kts - 13 ft dip
14 kts - 15 ft dip
15 kts - 18 ft dip
16 kts - 20 ft dip
17 kts - 22 ft dip
18 kts - 25 ft dip
19 kts - 29 ft dip
20 kts - 32 ft dip
21 kts - 35 ft dip
22 kts - 39 ft dip
23 kts - 44 ft dip
24 kts - 49 ft dip
25 kts - 54 ft dip
26 kts - 59 ft dip
27 kts - 59 ft dip
28 kts - 59 ft dip
29 kts - 59 ft dip
30 kts or more - Dive out of control.

Thanks for pointing out it was intended JSLTIGER, so its confirmed this is not a bug and is a realism factor within the game.

:rock:
Wolfy

[Deathblow]

You didn't mention the degree of course change? 180 degrees? 90 degrees?

My finding is that the AI does a decent job at flank speed of maintaining depth as best as possible, without "loosing control"

[WolfyBrandon]

those results I posted were for left or right full rudder and what happends im sure different degrees of your rudder would change what depth it will push you do but I wasnt going to go through and test every angle for every knot so I just did the maximum depth it will put you at for each knot (useing full rutter) this way you have a basic idea what might happen for the speed your ship is traveling at. This can save you if your near crush depth or in shallow waters while trying to evade torpedos with a full rutter since youll know the maximum dip in depth your ship is going to take at that speed.

Wolfy

[Deathblow]

those results I posted were for left or right full rudder and what happends im sure different degrees of your rudder would change what depth it will push you do but I wasnt going to go through and test every angle for every knot so I just did the maximum depth it will put you at for each knot (useing full rutter) this way you have a basic idea what might happen for the speed your ship is traveling at. This can save you if your near crush depth or in shallow waters while trying to evade torpedos with a full rutter since youll know the maximum dip in depth your ship is going to take at that speed.

Wolfy

What I meant was... did you order right/left full rudder and then let the ship turn in circles for 5min or did you order a right/left full rudder and then rudder amidships after 90 degree course change...

... the difference being that if you order a full rudder and then let the sub continue to turn for a long while of course it will affect the diving depth more than if you order the full rudder and just did a quick short turn... does that make sense?

[WolfyBrandon]

Oh sorry,

What I did was order a right full rudder and let the ship turn in circles and let it dive to its deepest depth and then recorded how many feet below my origonal depth (200ft) my ship stayed at while going around in circles. Once you order Rudder Amidships your ship will level off and come back up to your orderd depth. (for me it was 200ft)

If you did a short turn you would begin to dive but once you order rudder amidships you will come back up to your orderd depth. So even if you were going 30+ knots and did a right full rudder and dived out of control you could turn 180 or 90 degrees and order rudder amidships and it would come out of its dive and recover at your origonal depth. This could be a good tactic when avoiding torps, you could purposly make your ship dive out of control to try and shake the torp and then recover from it. Its also good because I think your ship will dive faster then if you tryed to normally dive.

Wolfy

[LuftWolf]

I don't understand why people think that maneovering a 9000 ton object going 35 kts at 1500ft should be an easy thing that's not possible to foul up. ;)

[Sea Demon]

OK. Here's my little quirky scenario. Seawolf SSN, 900ft. depth, All Ahead Flank. Ordered left 30 degrees rudder. I begin nosing down excessively. After passing 1400 ft., I order "Emergency Surface".

I look in the 3-D window and I'm rising to the surface near vertical and movement is trending reverse (backwards). Should that be correct? Tail is also higher than the nose. Just wondering if anybody else see's this.

My thinking is if I've got momentum forward of 40 knots, I shouldn't be going backwards after a few seconds after blowing ballast tanks. I may be wrong, but I'd like somebody else's opinion.

Sea Demon

[Bellman]

My '2 cents' having just DLd :-

Thanks SAS for delivering on time and as promised. :up:

The dive/turn rate 'new' sub performance should be fully tested in extremis torp avoidance situations before
any definitive critical conclusions are drawn. :hmm:

Savages_Wolf made a good point about ''good tactics when avoiding torps.''

[Sea Demon]

Thanks SAS for delivering on time and as promised. :up:


Not to change the subject or anything, but who the heck is SAS?? :hmm: I thought Sonalysts was SCS.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Folks, that is what I talked about when I said FAST and ABRUPT depth excursions. This is MUCH better than pre-patch. Still not fast or hard enough, but this is a Sim and not real life.

This is why you do not toss a large rudder angle on at high speeds. It is not about the AI maintaining depth control. You flat out CAN'T maintain depth control. If you are shallow enough and catch it quick enough, you can recover. If not? Its loss of ship time.

Anyone out there fly airplanes? You know what the performance envelop is? Well, Subs have one too because of things like this. We have depth/speed envelops for causalty recovery reasons. This being one of them. And before you ask: I wil not elaborate more on this particular topic.

That is why I brought up the too much rudder comment. The AI by default throws on a hard rudder to all ordered course changes. What if you are doing a sprint and drift while deep and this happens? By the time you remember (or react) it is beer can time.

Sea Demon: Raising stern first is what it would do in actuality. You are pointed down and when you do a EMBT blow, you blow fore and aft together. If you are stern up then you are going backwards to the surface. Given enough time and depth the ship MAY level out but probably not. As for the speeds speed, you ever take a board and submerge it at the bottom of a pool? You let go and it rockets to the surface? Same principal.

SCS - BANG ON. Great work.

I have a question, did you change the rate of speed increase for a flank bell vs all other bells? It seems to accelerate faster when you order a flank. I have not timed it properly yet and it may be merely subjective on my part.

[Bellman]

SD - Tested your ''little quirky'' and can confirm your findings.

BH:- ''Given enough time and depth the ship MAY level out but probably not .''
Level in test at 400 ft appx. and forward motion regained before surface.

The Test excesses occured after a 180 deg turn had been completed - only with full rudder maintained
in a continued 180-360 turn. Then the rate of dive increased.

Another point although the indicator in Control showed an excessive initial tail-up on EB ( confirmed in 3D),
at about 400 ft, the indicator still showed the same but when the 3D was checked the sub (SW) had become level.
Cool eh ! :yep: Promotion earned to SAS, SCS :lol: ;)

A quote from Marconi, a 'serving officers' post at Battlefront :-
'' --at high speed (>20 kts) no sane Officer of the Deck would order a turn using full rudder, except to avoid an
imminent collision. The drag of the rudder at full throw is enough to slow the ship by 50-60% during the turn.
At >20 kts you can turn very quickly with 5~10 degrees rudder, while keeping most of your speed in the turn.''

[Neptunus Rex]

Better learn the actions for "Jam Dive" :rock:

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Level in test at 400 ft appx. and forward motion regained before surface.


I was referring to the emergency surface order given when doing the death dive (a.k.a hard rudder at a flank bell) and recovering from a HUGE down angle to level when surfacing via EMBT blow.

Doing so from a level starting point you should end up more or less level or slightly bow up by the time you hit the surface.

[Bellman]

Bubblehead Nuke:I was referring to the emergency surface order given when doing the death dive (a.k.a hard rudder at a flank bell) and recovering from a HUGE down angle to level when surfacing via EMBT blow.

Thats what I did in testing Sea Demons 'quirky' top o'the heap ! So reported confirming your ''May'' level out.

There was no ''level starting point'' I was heading down steeply at full bell from 1400 ft at full rudder which had
maintained an ever decreasing rate of turn. On EB my SW backed up verticaly but I stablised horizontaly at 400 ft.,
confirmed in the 3D view, as reported.

[Three14]

Folks, that is what I talked about when I said FAST and ABRUPT depth excursions. This is MUCH better than pre-patch. Still not fast or hard enough, but this is a Sim and not real life.

This is why you do not toss a large rudder angle on at high speeds. It is not about the AI maintaining depth control. You flat out CAN'T maintain depth control. If you are shallow enough and catch it quick enough, you can recover. If not? Its loss of ship time.

Anyone out there fly airplanes? You know what the performance envelop is? Well, Subs have one too because of things like this. We have depth/speed envelops for causalty recovery reasons. This being one of them. And before you ask: I wil not elaborate more on this particular topic.



Been awhile, but I do know something about flying. And there were earlier discussions about the physics of moving a sub through the water and the similarities to airplanes. The phrase "snap roll" was mentioned.

Pilots are also aware of the aircraft's maneuvering speed -- the speed above which a rapid, full deflection of the rudder is not safe. A similar limit on a sub seems reasonable (though maybe the threat that the rudder will break is not the reason in this case).

I remember when I went to one of Sonalysts games after playing the old game, Seawolf. I was complaining about bit because there was only 1 layer. Why not 4, like Seawolf?

There was also a time when there wasn't TMA, when classification was done by the computer, when subs ran at flank on the surface, and when drifting by at 4 knots was all that was needed to know about tactics.

Now, I guess it's time for sub simmers to get used to subs that move with more complexity. If this crucial area is worked out, it might not be long for good ole F1 station to require a yoke.

[Bellman]

:D With the 'new' dynamics we might be just a spit away from playing at the edges of 'angles and dangles.'

[WolfyBrandon]

Truthfully I never thought about the force of the water driving the subs nose down causing it to dive at higher speeds before I was told about it. Now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense and I think it’s awesome that this is modeled into DW. It might even become useful in some situations while playing. I’m more use to WWII sub warfare and the previous games like 688(i) Hunter/Killer and Sub Command where things like this were not modeled in the games physics, and since nothing was mentioned in the patch readme about this new feature I didn’t know what to think of it at first. Its just something we need to get use to and I think in time will be apart of the game most of us will be happy to have. :yep:

Wolfy

[moose1am]

I played a lot of flight sim games over the years and learned a little bit about flying models. I too was thinking that the modeling of these subs may be simlar to airplanes but then I rethought that though. Airplanes are moving in an air medium not water. Airplanes get lift from the wings but subs don't work like that. Subs get lift from air inside them I guess and they don't really have to move fast to get lift. Subs don't really have wings either. The center of gravity of a plane and a sub are much different. A sub can flood tubes in various compartments inside the sub or push air into those same compartments. Therefore one end of the sub can become more or less boyant than the other end. Airplanes are not going to change their center of gravity very much unless they drop some ordinace or use up fuel. Even then the placement of fuel tanks and ordinace is taken into consideration when loading the plane before takeoff.

At first I was thinking that modeling flight sims may be harder but now I am not so sure. The bouyancy of the water is changing with depth and the bouyance of the different compartments of these subs changes with the amount of water or air in the various compartments.

I do know one thing. My sub (Seawolf) when at 200ft and ordered to surface is nose heavy on the way up until it reaches about 50ft then it levels off and rises to the surface in a level position. This does look wierd when using the 3D external view. Not a game stopper but certainly a funny thing that occurs.


Folks, that is what I talked about when I said FAST and ABRUPT depth excursions. This is MUCH better than pre-patch. Still not fast or hard enough, but this is a Sim and not real life.

This is why you do not toss a large rudder angle on at high speeds. It is not about the AI maintaining depth control. You flat out CAN'T maintain depth control. If you are shallow enough and catch it quick enough, you can recover. If not? Its loss of ship time.

Anyone out there fly airplanes? You know what the performance envelop is? Well, Subs have one too because of things like this. We have depth/speed envelops for causalty recovery reasons. This being one of them. And before you ask: I wil not elaborate more on this particular topic.



Been awhile, but I do know something about flying. And there were earlier discussions about the physics of moving a sub through the water and the similarities to airplanes. The phrase "snap roll" was mentioned.

Pilots are also aware of the aircraft's maneuvering speed -- the speed above which a rapid, full deflection of the rudder is not safe. A similar limit on a sub seems reasonable (though maybe the threat that the rudder will break is not the reason in this case).

I remember when I went to one of Sonalysts games after playing the old game, Seawolf. I was complaining about bit because there was only 1 layer. Why not 4, like Seawolf?

There was also a time when there wasn't TMA, when classification was done by the computer, when subs ran at flank on the surface, and when drifting by at 4 knots was all that was needed to know about tactics.

Now, I guess it's time for sub simmers to get used to subs that move with more complexity. If this crucial area is worked out, it might not be long for good ole F1 station to require a yoke.

[WolfyBrandon]

I do know one thing. My sub (Seawolf) when at 200ft and ordered to surface is nose heavy on the way up until it reaches about 50ft then it levels off and rises to the surface in a level position. This does look wierd when using the 3D external view. Not a game stopper but certainly a funny thing that occurs.

When I did my testing on the sub being nose heavy while surfacing I found that at the point where the sturn begins to level out with the bow and the bow begins to rise again your depth is paused for a specific ammount of time leaving you somewhat vulnerable. Once your sub is level again you will continue to come up.

I wonder If a torpedo was locked onto you and you blew balast and your sturn began to rise could this cause the torpedo to miss? I might try and test this sometime...

Wolfy

[Hartmann]

Water and air are fluids, and has the same phisics laws, only have different density.

The modelling could be the same, only change the type of machine in this fluid .

A submarine in the water has the same behaviour that a blimp, but the blimp uses helium to obtain bouyancy wereas the submarine use air.

:yep:

[moose1am]

Yes both are fluids but the densities of those fluids make hovering in midair for a fixed wing aircraft a lot different than a submarine hovering in the depths.

Now you are right about the ballon or blimb behaving very much like a submarine in a fluid. Those models would be pretty similar. I guess I was thinking more of airplanes that have to move though the air to have their wings create the lift vector that counters the pull of gravity.

I guess my point was that I thought it would be harder to model an airplane flying than a blimp flying. I could be wrong here. I do think that modeling flight sims is difficult. I am sure that modeling a submarine is not easy either.

I guess it's all a matter of force vectors and timing.

[LuftWolf]

And this whole time I thought air was mixture of gasses... :88)


:P

[Molon Labe]

Gasses are fluids you putz. :lol:

With regard to some of the earlier apologist comments, I don't doubt that the physics model that causes some roll during a turn (thus pointing the rudder slightly down and causing a dive) is realistic. BUT, this feature was added without giving us the tools to deal with it.

First, the AI planesmen aren't doing their jobs.

Second, the AI helmsmen (when ordered to go to a course) apparently use "too much" rudder, because the nose dive still happens.

Third, we only have a full rudder hotkey, and ordering evasive turns from ship control instead of from NAV is reckless.

Lastly, in DW, a small amount of rudder at high speed does NOT yield a high turn rate (in spite of what an earlier commenter said should be/is the case.

[Bellman]

ML as usual RL gets in the way - Marconi was talking actuality I think.

Unrealisticaly in game max rudder at high speed allows a very high rate of turn little drag is modelled.
This rate of turn builds so the radius of the turn diminishes and the sub corkscrews in with the rate
steadying after about 270 degs. (Saw you original test pre 1.03 and its conclusion, which I repeated -
and confirmed for myself. Must retest now and hope ;) )

Like an aircraft using heavy rudder ownship rotates around its own axis and as it turns through 90 deg the
rudder takes on the function of an elevator pulling the nose downwards. With no in game airelon equivalent this
tendency cannot be counteracted or controlled.

In extremis manoeuvre we have to go manual control which as you say is digital - full right/centre/left
If, as I have suggested before, we had anologue control, as in flight sims, we could achieve much better finessing
of control. Although aerilon/trim limitations would remain. ;)

[Molon Labe]

Eh, if the turn rate at high speed for low rudder is realisticly modeled, plus the AI planesmen are doing their jobs, and we get FFG-style rudder hotkeys, we'll be fine. No need to plug in a flightstick. :|\

[Bellman]

:D ML those last two statements seem inconsistent.:o Lawyer speak ? ;) Backing it both ways ? :D

Digital rudder, as implemented with the new physics model of inertia momentum, is crude, IMO.
It makes achieving the constant adjustments to hold a rate of turn almost impossible.

Like to know more about ''if FFG key........'' ? For subs ?

Tomorrow I had planned anyway to carry out some SW tests on turn rates assessing speed and depth loss
and searching for optimums.

Looking forward to completing 'Sea Trials' and getting some action. ;) :yep:

[Molon Labe]

:D ML those last two statements seem inconsistent.:o Lawyer speak ? ;) Backing it both ways ? :D

Digital rudder, as implemented with the new physics model of inertia momentum, is crude, IMO.
It makes achieving the constant adjustments to hold a rate of turn almost impossible.

Like to know more about ''if FFG key........'' ? For subs ?

Tomorrow I had planned anyway to carry out some SW tests on turn rates assessing speed and depth loss
and searching for optimums.

Looking forward to completing 'Sea Trials' and getting some action. ;) :yep:

FFG has hotkeys for incremental rudder settings, subs only have full rudder.

[Bellman]

:P Now thats a revelation.

By ''and we get FFG-style rudder hotkeys, we'll be fine.''
you imply that we are getting this for subs or was that only a very big IF ? :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

No, what I'm saying is that if SCS had increased AI-crew and player-crew control at the same time that it added the snap roll effect to the physics engine, we'd be fine, or if they give us those things we will be fine. The problem is that they did one and not the other. It's poor judgment to add a physical effect without giving players the tools they need to deal with it.

[Bellman]

:up: I would like to see some improvements in manual sub rudder control. Short of analogue input. then keys
for different degrees of rudder or worst case even incremental key presses +/- to obtain the more precise
control afforded by mouse selection, in the angle indicator, of Control. But when hard pressed with
a torp on your tail you dont want to be switching positions to go 'eyes down' in Control when you want
eyes glued elsewhere. :o :lol:

' Change course' (C) helps in Nav and together with the "Set Depth' keys a workable alternative
compromise can be found for in extremis situations. When employing a combo of horizontal and vertical
avoidance manoeuvres rudder empoyment is critical and I agree Molon we have more real physics without
appropriate tools to handle it. :hmm:

[Wim Libaers]

Or change the rudder hotkeys to maximum SAFE rudder (dependent on speed), instead of suicidal amounts of rudder.

[Bellman]

Well I did some testing using a few clues from other posts. I wont bore you with columns of figures
but I got some eyeopeners. Some of my bubblehead habits are based on concepts which have changed.

Briefly I have completed stage 1 - level turns at speed to assess comparitive rudder inputs and Manual v Crew.
(Stage 2 - Angles and Dangles.)

SW 500 ft 35 knts dial in turn 180 dg. Timed 49 secs. Spd. change +2 knts. Depth change + 26 ft. Radius * to completed
turn 372 yds.

Ditto with full sustained rudder - timed 36 secs Spd. change - 5 knts. Depth change + 62 ft.. Radius to completed
turn varied (?) but avge. 405 yds.
* Not the same as radius of turn.

SCS have trained those crew well - the conclusions are obvious when the impact on cavitation is considered.

Another shock was as is claimed in RL that given the same circs as above a gentle 15% manual rudder -
timed at 50 secs with no loss of speed , + 48 ft depth change and RTCT of 707 yds,

OK I know nobody in their right minds will stay 'level' if circumstances permit - as the sub goes
deep we put the 'foot down' and 'screw-in.

And WOW a 35 knt 360 deg with 10 deg manual rudder with no loss of speed, + 39 ft depth change
and a true radius of turn of 214 yds. Now thats what the RL guy said -
From where I'm standing SCS seemed to have done some pretty nice tinkering here. :|\..........and thanks.:rock:
Hats off to them - heck glad it isnt eatable.:roll:

PS. Well before I go a twistin and a turnin I am going a playin with Time Lord Amizaurs new dancin torps. ;)

[LuftWolf]

Yesterday, I made a test of an Akula going 7kts at 150 then 3kts at PD with a SW around 10.5 nm away... the SW fired on my Akula (which is incidental to this story... that's the result of some changes to the AI to make it a bit less dense when it comes to figuring out what every human knows... the quiet 50 or 60 hz tonal out there in the forest of huge signals is the bad guy...).

I immediately went full rudder left rudder and to flank and ordered a depth of 520m.

I didn't time it, but given the coordination of how the sub rolled and pitched down and did a crash dive while turning sharply it made me think of what Sub Sailor was talking about, being able to dive deep and quick during acceleration while also turning fast. The sub went down quickly, but not radically so, the autocrew was able to keep a solid handle on attitude, but I had to do considerable steering correction as the sub had terrific lateral momentum relative to the force the rudder could apply on the 9000 odd tons of akula diving at 5m a second (I wasn't counting but that's what it seemed like) at 33kts.

When I got the turn under control the depth crew slowly brought the sub into a level position around 500m-510m and slowly worked the sub down to 520m (without having the advantage of forward planes at 33kts).

It felt right. That's what I'm trying to say. The maneover I did was very much like an elefantine version of a maneover one would use in a dogfight to disengage below a cloud layer and convert altitude energy into speed energy and boggie out of there before anyone notices there is one less FW 190 in the sky... :arrgh!:

Surfacing is a bit less convincing... I don't really know what to make of most of the behavior... but it's not a gamekiller and even quaint, so it's not even nearly the biggest issue right now. :doh:

My advice is not to go too slow if you are in a nuke... they aren't really designed to stop as far as I know for any period of time and certainly not with the TA out. :know: ;)

[Driftwood]

LW, what's the status of Lwami 3.0? Done with the Readme yet?

[LuftWolf]

Been working like a dog... I have some time now.

So I HOPE to be able to finish tomorrow.

[Bellman]

:o :huh: :|\ Angles and Dangles.

Well I'm almost speechless - yeh right. (That will be the toe turn-up day ;) )
SCS have waved a magic wand with the new physics model.

I'm not saying more - a guy has to make a kill now and then. Sufficient to say that I've been dancing torps
without using a single CM and it really is possible to pull some fancy moves now. I'm talking avoidance in from 3 nm.
Now if we have SCX2 type ping rates within that range that would be neat eh ? :hmm:

[Driftwood]

Bellman, are you talking about stock 1.03 or 1.03 with Lwami 3.0?

[Three14]

:o :huh: :|\ Angles and Dangles.

Well I'm almost speechless - yeh right. (That will be the toe turn-up day ;) )
SCS have waved a magic wand with the new physics model.

I'm not saying more - a guy has to make a kill now and then. Sufficient to say that I've been dancing torps
without using a single CM and it really is possible to pull some fancy moves now. I'm talking avoidance in from 3 nm.
Now if we have SCX2 type ping rates within that range that would be neat eh ? :hmm:

A long time ago I asked why it was important for attack boats to be maneuverable (and not just fast). One answer was that maneuverability was important for evasion. But how could maneuverability actually help against a torpedo, which was faster and maneuverable enough? That's one big piece of metal and torps don't have to explode on contact...

Well, perhaps I have an answer!

[Bellman]

Driftwood - all my tests posted in this thread has been with stock 1.03 which only has Amizaurs
New Torp Speed and Depth Beta Mod which I have also been testing.

I have a separate instal with switchable LwAmi 3,0 Beta.

Three14 - give it a roll. My last test was with 3 self-directed Mk 48s activated in a spread within 3 nm
- angles and dangles saved my bacon. Plus speed, depth, timing, turning tightly etc. I am not suggesting the DOD
would allow close modelling of the performance of real avoidance manouvres but I am very impressed with
what SCS has been 'allowed' to simulate. :|\

[LuftWolf]

A long time ago I asked why it was important for attack boats to be maneuverable (and not just fast). One answer was that maneuverability was important for evasion. But how could maneuverability actually help against a torpedo, which was faster and maneuverable enough? That's one big piece of metal and torps don't have to explode on contact...

Generally speaking if a submarine is in the position where the torpedo has acquired it and is actually homing, it is going to be in world of hurt more often than not because as you pointed out the torpedo is faster and more maneoverable than a submarine in most cases.

However, the whole point of submarine torpedo evasion is to never get acquired in the first place by the weapon. The procedure for avoiding a torpedo after it has been fired but before it has acquired because it is still some 3-10nm away is called "clearing datum", with datum refering to the area that your opponent's probably solution places you in (a datum can vary in size based on how strong the solution is). Once you have figured out that you have an inbound TIW (torpedo in the water) you need to do two things generally speaking, clear the datum into a place that the torpedo is not likely to be going and put a counter measure or two between you and the torpedos likely path.

For more information on torpedo evasion, see this thread at the CADC: http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47 :up: :arrgh!:

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

:D Yes, as ML points out over at CADC - aspect ratio is very important ! ;)

[Three14]

A long time ago I asked why it was important for attack boats to be maneuverable (and not just fast). One answer was that maneuverability was important for evasion. But how could maneuverability actually help against a torpedo, which was faster and maneuverable enough? That's one big piece of metal and torps don't have to explode on contact...

Generally speaking if a submarine is in the position where the torpedo has acquired it and is actually homing, it is going to be in world of hurt more often than not because as you pointed out the torpedo is faster and more maneoverable than a submarine in most cases.

However, the whole point of submarine torpedo evasion is to never get acquired in the first place by the weapon. The procedure for avoiding a torpedo after it has been fired but before it has acquired because it is still some 3-10nm away is called "clearing datum", with datum refering to the area that your opponent's probably solution places you in (a datum can vary in size based on how strong the solution is). Once you have figured out that you have an inbound TIW (torpedo in the water) you need to do two things generally speaking, clear the datum into a place that the torpedo is not likely to be going and put a counter measure or two between you and the torpedos likely path.

For more information on torpedo evasion, see this thread at the CADC: http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47 :up: :arrgh!:

Cheers,
David

Yep...that's the standard stuff. But for me it doesn't really explain how much SSN's benefit from their vaunted maneuverability as compared to an SSBN.

Standard doctrine also doesn't answer for me how you'd avoid 2 or 3 torpedoes. Sure they cost a lot, but it's a lot better than being dead!

[LuftWolf]

Ok, sorry I couldn't explain it better, but that's pretty much my best shot... :)

In terms of weapons used... my feeling is that standard Cold War doctrine for submarines involves a lot of stalking and repositioning, so after hours of maneoving for a shot, you would fire when you feel that one torpedo stands a significant chance of making the kill, so more than one torpedo is not necessary, then again, Cold War submarine tactics are not something I am strong in, so perhaps someone else with more knowledge could answer the second part of the question.