LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #7: FFG Helo Dipper [Archive]

LuftWolf

03-03-06, 03:13 AM

As it turns out, adding a (passive) dipping sonar that would work on the FFG helo is theoretically as easy as adding a sonar sensor to the MH-60 with a vertical offset of 300ft+ and a max speed of say 8-15 knots.

Basically, the way it would work, is that the helo, flying at its default height of 300ft, would always have the sensor "in the water" but it would be washed out except when the helo is stopped.

So, basically it WOULD be a dipping sonar in all functionality, EXCEPT that the helo would not actually dip to use it, and there would be no delay as with a human helo.

I could even give it a very deep sensor as well as a shallow one for use with layers (I am contemplating doing this for AI dipping sonars on other helos and the TA on AI ships).

goldorak

03-03-06, 03:28 AM

I'd say go for it, at least until SCS does an official fix for this issue.
One thing I don't understand is if the "dipping sonar" is always in the water (for helo at 300 ft) does the wire break if we exceed a threshold speed ?

LuftWolf

03-03-06, 03:38 AM

goldorak

03-03-06, 04:01 AM

It's not really a dipping sonar... it would just be a sensor assigned to the helo that is offset from the center of the platform by some assigned depth.

The game engine does not require an actual mast or cable for a sensor to be offset from a platform, this is the same way the dipping sonar works for the other AI helos (its just they follow doctrine commands exclusively and can be made to "lower" the sensor into the water) as well as sonobuoys.

Ok, I undestand.
What I'm trying to say is will you be able also to model the "wire breaking" if we exceed a certain speed ?
Can you assign to this sensor a paramter/variable to model the "wire" so that if we go at 200knots the "dipping sonar" is rendered definitely useless. ?
It wouldn't be good for realism if we had helo going very fast with the "dipping sonar" extended and never breaking.

Dr.Sid

03-03-06, 04:04 AM

Well since you can't control height of the OHP hellos, there is no point in modeling wire-breaking speed.
Let's do it ! It is not as good at is could be (placing 'listen for a while' waypont for helo) no active sonar, but good idea until we have something better.
Balance can be an issue for older scenarios, but lot other patch features affect this.

LuftWolf

03-03-06, 04:08 AM

I think you might have missed the point...

I can set the sensor to be always in the water, but not effective if the helo is moving.

The only practical consequence of doing it this way is that there is no delay in the sonar becoming effective when the helo stops... and this I can compensate for by making the sensor less sensitive than the sensor for the human dipping sonar.

Give me some more credit than that sid... :know: :-j

I have been testing this, and it works beautifully. :rock:

goldorak

03-03-06, 04:10 AM

I think you might have missed the point...

I can set the sensor to be always in the water, but not effective if the helo is moving.

Give me some more credit than that sid... :know: :-j

I have been testing this, and it works beautifully. :rock:

Ah, so the "ai pilot" never forgets to "retract" the dipping sonar when going from location a to location b. :yep:
I'm drooling on this improvement :rock:

Dr.Sid

03-03-06, 04:28 AM

Oh .. sorry oh Greatone who make our lives bright !
Here it is: *CREDIT*
:up:

LuftWolf

03-03-06, 04:30 AM

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I was just kidding... although, I have been known to get excited over nothing before, so perhaps you were justified at being skeptical. :)

Still, all kidding aside, this works beautifully and it's totally badass. :rock: :rock: :rock:

XabbaRus

03-03-06, 05:51 AM

Decent workaround for the time being.

I'd say do it.

Bellman

03-03-06, 06:04 AM

:|\ :up: All aboard for a cruise in the FFG now !!

Nice one LW - and a good compromise to balance increased speed of deployment with reduced sensitivity.

Can you kindly give us some idea of the order of the magniitude of the reduction ?

SeaQueen

03-03-06, 07:03 AM

It sounds a lot like what is done in Harpoon, where every time a helo with a dipping sonar hovers, it's assumed to have dipped.

Molon Labe

03-03-06, 10:18 AM

Not a bad idea at all; I would just be careful to test it "at the margins" so that it isnt' doing anything too wierd. In particular, I'd worry about "accidentally dipping" when it partially stops at a drop buoy/weapon waypoint or something like that.

Maybe if you kept the washout speed a bit lower than for the player-helo it would be OK (assuming it isn't now).

Mau

03-03-06, 02:41 PM

Just confirm however that it is only when in the scenario it is designed that the helicopter will be 200 ft or less?

How is it working right now with the present ''fix'' we can find on the Subguru site? Basically the same way?

That would be a good idea yes.

Looking forward to see the fix to positively change the altitude of the AI helicopter so that we can dip and as well keep a good maritime picture around the ship!

Excellent Luftwolf!!!!!!!!

BigBadVuk

03-04-06, 07:37 AM

Do it!....It is bether than nothing....If u use all VLADS and DICASS..u have to retrive your hello...This way u dont have to! :up:

LuftWolf

03-05-06, 02:53 PM

Ok, well after hours of sometimes frustrating work, I have made substantial progress on the entire issue of helo dipping sensors.

I have essentially applied the same fix to all helos, adding a shallow and deep "dipping sonar" to all the helos. I now need to write doctrines that work with the AI but don't break the AI FFG helo, and I hope that I can just edit down the already existing doctrines (they are direct copies from SC) and take out the commands that are no longer used.

I would have been done already, but I had to determine why half the helos ignored all their sonar sensors... turns out it was an old database value that is no longer used to record the number of sonobuoys on the helo, if its anything over 0, the sim treats the helo as if it is waiting to deploy a sonobuoy, and never checks the other sonar sensors, or that's what appears to be happening anyway.

SO, I have the rest of the day free, and barring a rendevous with a certain lady who just called me, I hope to have LWAMI 3.00 done tonight. :)

LuftWolf

03-06-06, 02:21 PM

The process of setting the helo dipping sonars has proven to require substantial testing to get right.

I think I've got all the database problems by the junk now... so just a few more changes there and then I can do what I want to the doctrines, which will either work or it won't, but I am pretty sure that Plan B for those is a straightforward affair... so combine the readme into that work...

And I'd say that Wednesday afternoon is the absolute latest for a release.

Ok, so it will be done sometime between tonight and Wednesday. :)

PS I had hoped to finish sooner of course, but I didn't realize just how many factors needed to be accounted for with the helo dipping, I can see why SCS just disabled it entirely for the stock DW, if they didn't have the time to set the sensors just right, it could have made a big mess. Hell, I still might have made a big mess. :lol: :-j

GunnersMate

03-06-06, 02:31 PM

Why not fix the "visible waterfall but cant mark" problem? :stare: I had to remove LWAMI because of it. :damn: :damn: :damn: I would have given LWAMI a 10 :sunny: but I cant even use it ! ! ! :nope: :cry:

LuftWolf

03-06-06, 02:42 PM

It's hardcoded in the interface, which means it is inaccessible to anyone but SCS. The problem only exists for the sphere array, and when the SNR is high enough (like 8 in the SW) the contact can be marked. This problem exists in stock DW as well, but is less noticable.

BTW, the community had a big conversation because of this.

The mod does not make the problem worse in gameplay terms, because you can mark the contacts on the NB sooner than in the stock database and the mean range at which contacts can be marked on BB remains the same, even though they are displayed sooner.

In other words, its unfortunate, but since you can mark the contacts on the NB as soon as they appear, it is really only a nuisance, and you are only missing out on the chance to get DEMON information... of course, if the contact is of low enough SNR, then you wouldn't get DEMON even if it was marked on the BB. So, in essence, it's a "cosmetic" problem, which is also good for me to say, since I can't do anything about it. ;)

GunnersMate

03-06-06, 02:51 PM

I cant mark contacts :dead: BB NB SA HA WAA TA :doh: until i've held them for 20 - 30 minutes :damn: :damn: :damn:

LuftWolf

03-06-06, 02:54 PM

Then that is a problem with something other than the mod. :)

I'm not sure what to say... sometimes the graphic interface can be tricky when marking contacts, once you get the hang of it, you can learn the places to click relative to the diplay information. For example, people mention that it is hard to drop contacts on russian sonar, but after some practice I have found that I can drop contacts at will just by clicking in the right place near the tracker letters.

For NB, make sure you select your frequency as well as the bearing before trying to mark.

GunnersMate

03-06-06, 02:57 PM

I tried clicking repeatedly fast, 5 degrees around LOB and paused both techniques. i was think of making a manual solution on nav map then trying tma on contact but i hate tma

LuftWolf

03-06-06, 03:01 PM

I assume that is on the Broadband.

Take the same contact, go to the Narrowband. Go to the bearing of the contact, then click the screen on the first frequency line, then try to assign a tracker.

For the Broadband of the sphere array, yes there is a problem assigning trackers if the SNR is lower enough, but if it is above 8 or so (on the SW, other subs require a lower SNR... that's the nature of the bug), then it should work.

Other than the sphere array Broadband, all sensors should appear to function exactly the same with or without the mod.

And the changes related to the sonar have been around for some time (four months or more), so plenty of eyes have seen it work.

I hope this works for you. :up:

GunnersMate

03-06-06, 03:04 PM

I tried everything but after putting stock back it works :huh: :-? :hmm: I cant seem to figure it out!

LuftWolf

03-06-06, 04:01 PM

It sounds like there might be some kind of corruption going on for you.

Unzip the LWAMI 3.00 Preview file into your main DW directory and let it overwrite all the files when prompted, being sure to allow the installer to write to the relative paths.

I know that might sound dumb, but you'd be surprised how many people have blown their installs... :)

LuftWolf

03-07-06, 02:19 AM

So, are you ready for some good news?

We can control the altitude of the FFG AI controlled helo just like anyother AI aircraft at the doctrine level.

In other words, the MH60 will actually dip. :rock:

I still have yet to make it work in game terms, but I successfully manipulated the altitude of the AI helo while under player control.

I am going to make it speed dependant. So that the slower the helo goes, the lower it gets. When it is stopped, it will be dipping, when it is moving it will be higher, the faster, the higher... I hope to get this to work.

Cross your fingers. :know:

Edit: Yes, I just got the player FFG helo to fly along at 300ft, and then come to a stop and dip down to 45ft after some flying around the waypoint (dipping time ;) ). I then ordered the helo to go back to cruising speed and it went back up to 300ft. :)

It's all down hill from here, just the finishing up for the FFG AI helo... now to figure out how to intigrate this into the fully AI helo doctrine. :hmm:

And the gravy on the top is that the doctrine is overridden during recover procedures, so it doesn't interfer with the landing process of the FFG AI helo at all. I was worried about that... :|\

goldorak

03-07-06, 04:59 AM

Sounds great Luftwolf :up:
I have one question though : how far does the dipping sonar extend on the ai helo ? Is the depth always the same (lets say 400 ft) so sometimes the sonar will go under the layer and other times not (if the layer is way under 400 ft), or can the helo decide to use 2 settings (deep and shallow) depending on the circumstances ?

LuftWolf

03-07-06, 05:56 AM

The AI Helo has multiple passive dippers set at 45ft, 600ft, and 1400ft. I can't enable them one at a time, so they all go active (meaning they start listening) at once when the helo is below 50ft. I have compensated for this by reducing the sensitivity of the dipping sonar.

I HAVE to share this with you guys.

I set up everything exactly the way I thought it should be only to find that when the helo came out of the dip, any contacts that it detected would still be updated on the link even though the helo was not still dipping!!! I thought this project was screwed... imagine, dip once, and permanent Show Truth on any detected contacts... :damn:

Fortunately, I was able to find a way to order AI platforms to drop contacts manually based on certain criterion... in this case, if the target was a sub and the helo was going over 10kts (meaning that it is not dipping).

I have put a lot of work into getting this just right for you guys, I can't wait to deliver it hot and fresh into your hands! :up:

porphy

03-07-06, 06:41 AM

goldorak

03-07-06, 06:45 AM

Hi Luftwolf

Amazing work. :up: The helos really should be able to use the dipper. Your way of doing it seems really good. Btw, can't you fix the drunk planesmen in 1.03 as well... :arrgh!: It really disturbs my sense of law and order.

Cheers Porphy

Not to mention that because of this drunken planesman at least on the akula when going from deep to shallow the towed array will be broken, even if the sub changes depth at 5 knots.
This wasn't happening in the previous versions. :cry:

Dr.Sid

03-07-06, 08:04 AM

IMHO 'sober patch' will have to be done by SCS. It is not doctrine related. Are AI units affected too ?

porphy

03-07-06, 08:52 AM

Yes, I really look forward to a sober patch from SCS... :) ;)

Cheers Porphy

Bellman

03-07-06, 10:30 AM

:lol: Yep - I'll buy into that - a 'sober' patch. :up:

Cheers.

Is it your round ? :arrgh!:

LuftWolf

03-09-06, 01:53 AM

I keep getting called for double shifts at work... sleep or mod?

So far I have been modding for three or four says over sleeping, but I had to crash.

LW WILL be released on Thursday, 3/09, unless it isn't. :dead:

Seriously, all the hard stuff is done, it's just a matter of wrap up and the readme, I'm 85% confident for Thursday.

I think you guys are going to like this shnizzle. :up:

Dr.Sid

03-09-06, 03:00 AM

Easy man .. Rome was not built in a day .. but it burned down in one .. take your time.

Bellman

03-09-06, 03:26 AM

:D Agreed Dr Sid. :up:

LW think of the old bull and the young bullock looking down on a field of nubile cows -
' 'Lets rush down and service some,'' said the bullock.

''Nup - lets stroll down and service the lot,'' said the bull. ;)

We can wait ! :yep:

LuftWolf

03-09-06, 03:42 AM

Well, I'm less likely to do something wrong if I've been working at it like a madman... when I screw the pooch tends to be when I take a bit of time here and there and then it amounts to four or five things that don't work well together. :oops:

Plus, my reasons for finishing are purely selfish... I want to play some DW. :rock: :) :-j

GunnersMate

03-09-06, 12:50 PM

Remember "Daikatana" was rushed out the door too :roll: All we ask is a happy medium between Daikatana and Duke Nukem 3. And take some time for yourself :up: Smell the roses :-j

LuftWolf

03-09-06, 02:26 PM

:rotfl:

Good one. :)

LuftWolf

03-10-06, 11:08 AM

Ok, the doctrines are done. :rock: :rock: :rock:

Now I just have some final changes to make to the database, and I can sit down for the readme, which no longer seems like such a hard task after the scripting from the past few days. :|\

One quick question for everyone. I can add an active dipper to the player FFG AI MH60 for use above the layer (depth in water set at 45ft), but I cannot turn it off and on. So, every time the player would go to dip, the Active Sonar would be used.

On the one hand, yes it would be nice to be able to dip sometime without it. However, if I leave it with passive sensors only, the FFG players could dip all they want and not alert submarines at all... and meanwhile still get the benefit of the accurate AI autoTMA positioning from the helo (it's pretty accurate, but not nearly dead-on for marginal contacts like before 1.03 ).

I think adding an active dipping sonar to the MH60 would be good for two reason: the FFG players could use the MH60 for effective shallow water searches now using the dipping sonar (since passive is not so great against those kilos in shallow water); and bubbleheads would get some kind of warning that they are being searched for, which, with the new lethal nature of the helos in general, I think is only fair.

Let me know what you think.

The choices are 1) no active dipper for MH60 at all, or 2) active dipper which is used every time the MH60 dips.

Thanks guys. :)

Sub Sailor

03-10-06, 11:29 AM

YES

Dr.Sid

03-10-06, 11:40 AM

Helo, go active ! :up: Maybe shorter range would work nicely here. Simulating something like 'strong passive signature, pinging !' .. you would have to put helo quite close, but then you know for sure. Can you affect how far the ping can be heard ?

LuftWolf

03-10-06, 11:43 AM

I can't change how far the ping carries... but for the most part, if you are under the layer, you won't hear it until you are very close, like other active sonar systems.

Molon Labe

03-10-06, 11:52 AM

As much as I like passive sensors, if it's either too insensitive to be useful or the "aTMA" makes it too good when it is useful, we're better off with active.

Barleyman

03-10-06, 12:34 PM

Does this helo doctrine tweaking affect NPC helos at all? I mean, for example in the RSR campaign do I get to eat even MORE airdropped munitions? :roll:

LuftWolf

03-10-06, 12:38 PM

In a word yes, all ASW aircraft and helos are 1000% more lethal (that is, they work the way they are supposed to... mostly). :rock: :rock: :rock:

It's really all for TLAM's benefit... reading his AAR's for RSR made me think he needed a challenge. ;) :yep: :-j

It's probably going to fall to the mission designers to tweak some of their scenarios they may have juiced up in terms of the ASW fleet operations if they prove to be too difficult with the AI behavior properly enabled... they are a smart bunch, and have been overcoming the limitations of the simulator using mission design for some time now. I hope to take some of the burden off of them, so they can design missions to be more "realistic" in terms of setup, and still get challenging behavior from the AI for the player to fight against.

LuftWolf

03-10-06, 12:44 PM

Keep in mind, the new changes will also help players out quite a bit if the ASW assets are on their side.

If you link an unidentified track now, friendly ASW aircraft and helos, especially those with dipping capability, will take the track and move in for identification and then handle the prosecution on their own if the track is hostile.

So it works both ways. AI aircraft and helos are now great allies, and formidable opponents. :up:

Barleyman

03-10-06, 02:28 PM

Thank you sir! May I have an another?! :|\

LuftWolf

03-10-06, 02:56 PM

Well, if it makes you feel any better, the full performance of the AI is not what it could be in terms of aggressiveness for reasons other than the core doctrine level scripting. My suspicion is that the link doesn't quite function properly for the AI (it is already known that the link often does not work properly for humans to humans).

The improvements are mainly 1) To add proper dipping and mad sensors and behavior to the MH60 when under player FFG control 2) to allow the human player to utilize the link to get friendly assets to work in coordination.

The full AI performance will unforunately not be sorted out until the link behavior and cross platform communication is solved.

In the mean time, I recommend always linking MANUAL contacts, since the AI and other players will always get them uncorrupted.