ai radar/visual issue or my install ?

[Palindromeria]

so, im at radio depth, peri radio and esm up.
gettin all kinds of esm reports.
i kinda thought the esm buzz at peri meant i had better minimize my exposure or they will paint me.. apparently not...
see an ugly lookin wake i am creating at 5 kts.
can even send a guy out to shoot at aircraft.

yet ai does not seem to "see" me or get even a tiny radar blip on me.
they seem to have no clue im there even after ive shot down helo.

ive reinstalled and it still ocurrs.

so

what am i not understanding ?

[LuftWolf]

Yep, masts are not detectable by AI and sails are marginal.

Known issue. Reported to SCS. Not fixed... not going to be. :shifty:

We all want this one, but it's techincally too difficult to backward enabled in the game, at least that's my theory, SCS has said nothing at all about this for the nine months or so it's been known.

[goldorak]

Known issue. Reported to SCS. Not fixed... not going to be. :shifty:


Why do you say its not going to be fixed, are you privy to some kind of insider information we poor mortals don't know ? ;)

[LuftWolf]

No.

But knowing the database and how it relates to the NavalSimEngine gives a big clue... :cool:

Any change to the game that means the database has to be restructured in any way is not going to happen until the NEXT version of DW or whatever game SCS makes or liscenses using the NSE.

Making masts detectable by radar would mean the database would have to be restructured, so it's not going to happen for this version of the game.

I'm 95% sure of this.

[Palindromeria]

that explains why the helos stay in their pattern and
keep dropping sonobuoys as i shoot em down. :o

thanks

does human opponent at least SEE wake or partial peri / masts / sail above the waterline if in a binoc or pilot view ??

ai does not get visual on this ?

[Molon Labe]

A human opponent will see the sail and the wake, but not any masts. (Just like a human opponent can't see what weapons are on the P-3's wings or which missile is loaded on the one-arm-bandit)

[goldorak]

No.

Making masts detectable by radar would mean the database would have to be restructured, so it's not going to happen for this version of the game.

I'm 95% sure of this.

This is not good news :nope: , oh well time to let go of the air units and concentrate my tactics on subs and the frigate.

[LuftWolf]

Well, if the military can live without it, then I figure we can too. :yep: :up:

[OKO]

Anyway, real masts are made in composite ... to avoid radar detection
So it's not really a big deal ...
Real masts should be quite hard to detect with radars, even at close range, and especially in bad sea.

... And in DW, conning tower will be always detected after some radar sweeps (say 5 to 7 ...).
Even at more than 10 miles, an OHP could detect and engage with SM2 an imprudent who stay too long with conning tower out of the water.

I already sunk some subs like this ... and been sunk like this ...

[Dr.Sid]

I've never been shot at with just tower outside the water. I do that all the time.

[OKO]

probably because your opponent were not aware they could do this.
It happen to me so many times, I'm absolutly sure you could see a conning tower emerged if the player stay too much emerged.

I should have sunk dozen of KILO like this, with SM2

Another thing that makes me sure of this, it's because I requested it on beta test, and SCS implement not only radar, but also visual detection (at shorter range) on conning tower emerged.

It's very easy to test yourself on a short edited scenario.
need 2 minutes to do.

[Dr.Sid]

Will try .. problem can be that AI helos tries to drop torpedo too close to you .. and I usualy manage to shoot them down before they do. So it can be that they 'see' me, but don't drop anyway.

[Molon Labe]

I think the two of you are talking past each other. The AI either does not, or does a poor job of, detecting exposed sails, but human opponents can pick these up on radar and target them quite easily. Make sure you're testing the same thing (or both).

[OKO]

Yes, that's true I'm only talking about MP games, so against humans ...
as I play 90% of time on MP (only tests at single player)
I don't know, in fact, what happen against AI aircrafts ...... :88)

[Dr.Sid]

Gee .. where do you all get time for multiplayer ?

[OKO]

as I don't play alone, answer is : all my free time online :-j

[Molon Labe]

Gee .. where do you all get time for multiplayer ?

An hour spent in MP is just as long as an hour spent in SP.

[Wim Libaers]

Gee .. where do you all get time for multiplayer ?

An hour spent in MP is just as long as an hour spent in SP.

And time acceleration in SP doesn't count?

[Molon Labe]

Nope, the hour you spent doing one is still equal to an hour spent in the other.

What weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of textbooks?

[Dr.Sid]

One hour of singleplayer is usualy full of doing something, some nervous waiting, some adrenaline action. Multiplayer adds a lot of boring waiting. Even in singleplayer I would use faster time acceleration (not to say that even my not so weak 2.4GHz CPU can't make 32x quite often).
I had full hours on multiplayer where exactly nothing happened. Ususaly you track few surface neutrals and that's it.

[Molon Labe]

What scenarios?

[Fish]

One hour of singleplayer is usualy full of doing something, some nervous waiting, some adrenaline action. Multiplayer adds a lot of boring waiting. Even in singleplayer I would use faster time acceleration (not to say that even my not so weak 2.4GHz CPU can't make 32x quite often).
I had full hours on multiplayer where exactly nothing happened. Ususaly you track few surface neutrals and that's it.

I never get bored in multiplayer, and never feel the need to compress time, however in single player (only when testing maps), I do it all the time.

[OKO]

One hour of singleplayer is usualy full of doing something, some nervous waiting, some adrenaline action. Multiplayer adds a lot of boring waiting. Even in singleplayer I would use faster time acceleration (not to say that even my not so weak 2.4GHz CPU can't make 32x quite often).
I had full hours on multiplayer where exactly nothing happened. Ususaly you track few surface neutrals and that's it.

I think you really need to start to meet 2 things :

1) good MP scenarios (that are VERY different from singleplayer scenarios)
2) good MP players

My MP games is waaaayyyy more existing than any of my singleplayer games.

No question about it ... SO better I couldn't play solo, now, without beeing bored whatever the scenario.
One of the main reason is because whatever you could do for doctrine, an good player is MUCH stronger than an AI.

All scenarios I made have minimum 15 minutes for positionning before the action begin.
15mn is a minimum, but this could be 1hour, depends on random fatcors and on everyone attitude.
But during that time, you are supposed to be REALLY busy : identifying contacts, making your TMA on them and finding the best position to attack or to defend.

So, definitly I think you didn't met good MP sessions.

[Dr.Sid]

You find 15 minutes (or hour) of TMA funny ?

Well .. worst case I had was 2 hour game, 1 vs 1 (first mistake) .. I was about quite sure with firing solution when mission ended. My oponent hit the bottom.

I played some better, some was even quite short (15 minutes) .. but most was just that .. long periods of repetitive actions, and sometimes even with no possible enemy contact.

Well .. if you like MP, that's great. I don't.

[Palindromeria]

back to the topic,

it took about 3 minutes to set up a secnario with an akula 2 and 6 enemy seahawks set to random box with rando start boxes all within 5 miles of me or so. have em all set to 100 mph and 150 ft.
ran mission 3 x

show truth on

1) brought akula from 30m to 16m at 5kts. 2 of the helos flew directly over me while doing so. a third flew over me as i jumped to the sam launcher and blew him away. i leisurely set up shot down 2 more helos before realizing a nearby one had launched torps. acclerate tried to make evasive maneuvers and launch cm i shot him down as his torp hit me.
torp was launched too close and i was way too slow to get away.

score 1 sub sunk 4 helos down (of 6)
---


2 and 3 ) were more or less the same , instead of repeating the mistake of staying slow i call flank immediately wait to accel to over 30 kts then come up to 16m. helos again start close enough that at least 1 one
passes directly over head while i am still submerged. (i am wondering if i need different altitude or speed for the to get a mad contact and shoot ? )sail breaks surface and i am off to the sam launcher. in one case i come up and immediately shoot down one no more than 500m on my rel 180. based on his approach this one helo may have noticed me and may have been prepping to shoot. i then proceed to shoot down all helos in both mission runs without having to dodge a torp.

score - 12 helos shot down no return fire.

total of 3 passes - 16 helos to 1 sub sunk - only 1 helo fired at all.
-----

sam hit rate pretty high.
one even locked on to a different helo after being fooled by a cm ( i think ? ).

i cant account for the difference between pass 1 vs pass 2 and 3 beyond inexperience. i had fired a total of maybe 15 sam missiles before this test, and have only had the game a few weeks.

guess i have to be on my honor.

but it REALLY is fun watching em explode.

very tempting...

[LuftWolf]

The sim was designed so that kiddies can have all the fun they want with their little should mounted SAM cannon... :shifty:

Oh well... "who the stock fit, let them wear it". :-j

[goldorak]

The sim was designed so that kiddies can have all the fun they want with their little should mounted SAM cannon... :shifty:

Oh well... "who the stock fit, let them wear it". :-j


Actually Luftwolf if the radar worked the way it should :shifty: the kiddies would have a very hard time having fun with the SAM launcher.

In SCS original plan, the SAM launcher was seen as a last resort weapon when all other options are closed, and I think that was a good idea.
Of course having a totally useless radar made this last resort missile launcher a tactically important armament for subs.
Some may argue even more important than torpedos.

[OKO]

You forget something very important :

1)
a usual ASW mission is not during 2 hours but days ...
And the theatre is not 200miles² but 10 to 1000 times bigger.

In this situation, aerials need a LOT of work to find a target.

With DW, the theatre is very small compared to the real thing.
Just beacuse we couldn't play for days.
So, the direct consequence is aerial could find very easily the sub, subs just become easy targets for them ...

2)
I don't know what you mean last ressort ...
for me last ressort is when I have an aircraft above me.
In this case, as will do a real commander on a real theatre, I won't ask myself if it's realistic or not, I will think to SURVIVE.

If you consider aircraft shouldn't be threatned by SAM, just go in one sub with human aircraft above you, and become the target for a turkey shot ...

From the first day human made war, EVERY MEANS possible were employed to get the victory.
SAM is one of this mean, and as it, could be employed.

Why do you think there is real SAM on real submarine ? for decoration ?? or to be used if the ship is threatned ?

You should remember there is RTE on torpedoes setting, that allow you to engage the sub at safe distance, learn how to use it instead to complain about SAM doing a SAM job ...

[OKO]

You find 15 minutes (or hour) of TMA funny ?


Funny ?
You want funny games ?
I'm afraid you didn't choose the right game for that ...
excitement, tension, evaluation of the threat, THAT IS DW environment.

But if you want a funny game, you better play to something like battlefield2 ...

[OneShot]

Well, I think last ressort was actually well phrased. Only if certain destruction is imminent, a SAM launcher should be viable alternative. As for realistic ... lets compare

DW:
- Being able to keep the masts up with no risk of counterdetection, which means comparable easy detection of Airborne Platforms.
- ability to go from PD to Surface in a heartbeat and then practically immediatly access the SAM Launcher, where you just have to aim it towards the target and of course, due to your prior work you know precisely where it is.
- Shoot, with absolutly zero chance of Escape for the target unless it's close to or outside the range of the missile. Thanks to perfectly workin missiles vs. not really working CMs (for example).
- And of course no ability to get back at you, unless they drop a torpedo which you might or might not evade, at least you have a chance. Fortunatly for you, the missiles which can be carried cannot be targeted at subs, unless you use some time consuming workarounds.

Real:
- Keep the masts up for more then 30 seconds and you are probably toast (I think there is a reason why there is heavy emphasis on quick sweep training for sub skippers), because every platform with a capable Radar has got ya on screen. And given the statements from some former and current TACCOs, the P-3 Radar is perfectly capable of detecting a mast.
- Getting to the surface takes a bit more time and getting up on the sail definitly more then 2 seconds. Which means the Airborne Platform might have already targeted and fired at you some missile to end your fun.
- Even if you get a shot off in time, it might be possible to spoof the missile.

[OKO]

Real:
- Keep the masts up for more then 30 seconds and you are probably toast (I think there is a reason why there is heavy emphasis on quick sweep training for sub skippers), because every platform with a capable Radar has got ya on screen. And given the statements from some former and current TACCOs, the P-3 Radar is perfectly capable of detecting a mast.


I'm sorry but masts are made in composite to AVOID, as long as possible, any detections.
So even IRL, you need to be close to the masts, and need lots of sweep to detect them.
Especially in high sea, where radars should probably be unable to detect anything like a mast from the sea clutter (I use a real radar on my boat and I can tell you on high sea it's a real mess to detect even sail boat with special radar return device -I don't know the english name sorry-)
Masts are also a very faint contacts compared to a ship of course ...


- Getting to the surface takes a bit more time and getting up on the sail definitly more then 2 seconds. Which means the Airborne Platform might have already targeted and fired at you some missile to end your fun.

Are you talking about patch 1.04 ?
With 1.03 and before, you need more than half a minute to come from PD to SAM depth.
This often lead to see an Orion going above you without beeing able to engage him, because it is too late.


- Even if you get a shot off in time, it might be possible to spoof the missile.

as it is in DW, with just releasing some flares ...
A friend of mine is a real expert at this thing : when he know he is in dangerous area, he often release falres and firing SAMs to him become really hard.

But IRL also, aircrafts will not have any detection device against a heat seeker, except on some very recent planes (I know french fighters only -not helos- have this now, I don't know for other countries).


Well I don't see the problem anyway
I learned to use RTE on aircrafts to AVOID to go in the dangerous area, after beeing burned quite a few times by SAM.

On helo, you have a dipping sonar, this allow you to detect the sub at much more than 3 times, the range of the SAM, (talking about LWAMI settings) and engage it in a total safe area for your plane.

So, what do you want exactly ? That subs become only a target without any possibilities to get out of your torps ?

I couldn't be agree with that, sorry !

Aircraft have plenty of means to engage subs without going in the dangerous 3 miles area of them.
I really find the actual situation even for both subs and aircrafts.
On MP matches, there is near 50% of kill beetween them, and I personnally don't want to change that.

Of course, if mast detection could be implemented, this should be nice.
But not what I read, because masts are something VERY difficult to detect.
The first detection device is sonar, not radars, against subs.

[Palindromeria]

hmmm
is there something generally just wrong with ai helo's ?
why do i have to goad them into firing at me ?

ran this tester a couple more times. stayed down . noticed one pass over me and must have got mad contact. the other 5 helos all reacted and they all changed altitude to about 40 ft and spd 130. i went to flank.
they follow and follow and follow circle circle circle repeatedly passing directly overhead....... rarely if ever fire ....

in general im not finding the ffg or helos to be very aggressive at all. (cmon shoot at me ya humps)
when i set helo for sonobouy search instead of dropping in the area designated they just kinda fly off ( ???? !! )
ffg will fire some torps but dont ever really break form to SEARCH and HUNT me down - they just lob a torp my way from 6 miles and keep on truckin'...

i think there is maybe a helo engagement thingy i need to download ?
(among other things)

i am aware the lwami addresses this as well.
it think also addresses lotsa things i havent even encountered yet
not sure how much i will have to learn unlearn relearn on this ...

i tried to go to the script thingy in mission editor to cause damage to the sam launcher but its not an option. :shifty: spose that woulda been too easy eh ? :damn: On the bright side, i noticed that i can destroy torp tubes :up:

maybe a script ?
If ( sub destroys helo and sub depth does NOT = "surface" )
then (all sub torp tubes destroyed)
:-j

[Palindromeria]

Are you talking about patch 1.04 ?
With 1.03 and before .....

erm - ah - hmmm :o

patch 1.04 ???? :hmm:

when/where do i get it ? :ping:

[Molon Labe]

I think that even with composite materials, masts would be detectable if the receiving radar was close enough and if the mast was painted for long enough to stand out of the clutter. OS's 30 seconds sounds fair, perhaps generous at close range situations.

[OKO]

Are you talking about patch 1.04 ?
With 1.03 and before .....

erm - ah - hmmm :o

patch 1.04 ???? :hmm:

when/where do i get it ? :ping:

it's still in beta test
not public

[OKO]

I think that even with composite materials, masts would be detectable if the receiving radar was close enough and if the mast was painted for long enough to stand out of the clutter. OS's 30 seconds sounds fair, perhaps generous at close range situations.

30 seconds mean less than 3 radar sweeps.
It's probably more around 6 to 8 sweeps IMHO.

I agree mast should be detected if they are always rised and the detecting platform is quite close to them, in light seas.
But that's far from beeing as crutial as it is mentionned in this thread, and the detecting platform will need some luck to be in range for detection and out of range for sam.

This give you a VERY small area and very short time for an Orion to detect before beeing in the SAM range ... Or he will need a big luck (just in distance to detect with a course avoiding the SAM range)

What I mean is : this is a detail, and certainly not crutial, IRL as in DW.
There is enought means to go without it.

Let me give you a link about this "last ressort" weapon (the embarqued SAM) and the way it's going to be developped

=> http://www.dcn.fr/us/offre/equipements/airdefense.html

not so "last ressort" for the futur isn't it ...
And with these systems, aircrafts will be the real turkeys. :ping:

[OKO]

To be complete : I would have appreciated detectable masts
But DW, as it is actually, will not allow it.
That's not a reason to say it's a big problem when it's a small one.

What would you have said if the conning tower couldn't be detected by radar and visual ! :88)

If you compare a conning tower to masts, you could see there is a real huge difference of volume
Not even comparing masts to a ship hull ....

[Molon Labe]

To be complete : I would have appreciated detectable masts
But DW, as it is actually, will not allow it.
That's not a reason to say it's a big problem when it's a small one.

What would you have said if the conning tower couldn't be detected by radar and visual ! :88)

If you compare a conning tower to masts, you could see there is a real huge difference of volume
Not even comparing masts to a ship hull ....

I don't think its a huge issue, since time has to pass before they'd be detected, but it's still a little aggravating. Before I realized that they didn't show up at all, I took an MH-60 out and I was investigating an active contact with MAD run to see if it was a sub or biologic. I had my finger on the trigger for a torp and a penguin and my eyes on the water for a periscope. The ****er surfaced a few feet in front of me and killed me while the Pengin's "fire" light was still flashing. Had masts been visually detectable, there was no way I would have missed the periscope and I could have attacked with a torp before he surfaced...

Next time I'll just listen closer on the dipper from 2.6 miles out, but still, it would be nice...

[OneShot]

A good reading on the whole issue of ASW : The Third Battle by Owen R. Cote, Jr.. Naval War College Newport Papers.

A closer look at this reveals the impact Radar on Air/Surface Platform has/had on submarine detection. While composite material is certainly a lot harder to detect, remember Radars have become quite powerful nowadays. And as I said before, there is a reason why exposing of any of those masts (incl. the periscope) is something the subs are not really fond of.

Either way, the ability to completely avoid detection currently (on behalf of the subs as far as masts go) gives them a clear edge against Air platforms if they have to venture within the range of the SAM.

Its OK to be beaten by good tactics but it sucks to get beaten by an exploit.

[LuftWolf]

Considering most missions designer still like to put a sub in the middle of a 10nm circle and put a big arrow that tells the airdales "SUBMARINE HERE!!!", I'm not losing sleep over the whole mast issue.

If the ASW searches were performed over reasonable areas and the submarine had something to do other than scan the sky for helos and p-3's, I think we'd see a lot fewer cases of bubbleheads starting missions with their balls up against it already and needing to come shallow because they know an airdale is going to be on them within 30 minutes at the most.

I'll start taking the whole issue of masts more seriously when ASW search areas get bigger in missions and bubbleheads are still hanging around the surface even when they ought to be doing something else.

[OKO]

the problem is, on what you say, you need laaarge scenarios during many hours :o/

One other solution I start to use is to put Orions quite far away from the search area.
this way, subs have time to position themselves during half an hour without beeing threathened from the first 5 minutes of game.

But this mean orion will have nothing to do for 30 mn except cruising.

[goldorak]

Well since the bubbleheads seem so keen on breaching the surface the airdales have a new tactic.
Its not optimal because mad/sad can't be used and the camera is near to useless but at 100% the p-3 will be out of reach of the subs.
Take as a loadout only dicass and cruise at 6000 ft out of sam range, drop buoys all over the area and start pinging.
Sooner or later the sub will show out and a torpedo will be launched at him ;)

[LuftWolf]

Yes, the AI uses buoys very well.

If you are in a P-3 in a mission, and you have a lot of AI platforms in the search area, you can drop a good buoy pattern and the AI will do most of the actual work.

That's why I think that moving to larger search areas isn't such a bad thing.

In any case, if the sub driver is essentially tasked with AA duty in a mission, then of course he will find it necessary to use his SAM launcher.

I guess it would be good for mission designers to strive for around 50% or less detections by airplatforms in missions (that percentage can be a lot less if there are other friendly platforms around), since detection more or less means a sure kill.

[Palindromeria]

Yes, the AI uses buoys very well.
.

so how do i force ai to immediately drop buoys upon contact ?

how do i script the helos to randomly place a sonobuoy field ?

using "sonobuoy search" results in helos driving off to nowhere.

am i required to place all sonobuoys myself in the mission script itself ?

helos set as "in station" also rarely break formation despite the fact that one on "random box" or an ffg has picked me up.

i cant seem to program decent ai defenses without going way overboard on the # of vehicles defending.

[LuftWolf]

Ah, that's the rub...

The AI does not DROP sonobuoys on their own very effectively, however, once the pattern is in the water, the AI will read them well.

Some mission designers have found it useful to place sonobuoy fields on their own using place object triggers, sometimes in combination with an planned aircraft fly-by.

You can post over in the mission design forum to see what the mission designers say about this. Personally, I have recommended placing the buoy fields yourself in the mission design phase and then just making sure there are platforms around to read them.

[Palindromeria]

EUREKA !

OK hopefully i wont need 20 helos to the job of 2. THANKS

i am trying to set up a convoy traveling over a large area.
sub placement pretty wide and never detects a thing at start
the sub knows its generally start area but has to go find it.
it can take several tc hours of sprint drift to locate and arrive.

do buoys placed in the mission file have the same 2 hour time limit as ones i drop as helo ?

is there any other particular tactic setting (like sonobuoy search) to make the helos use em ?(or that are useless and should be avoided )
do i have to prog the helo's to use them ? or will every sonobuoy equipped vehicle "hear" the data and uplink it and react ?

thanks again !
sorry for the rush of question :oops:

[LuftWolf]

As long as you do not set their tactic in the mission design to "transit" and they have a LOS to the buoys detecting the sub, the AI will effectively track and attack hostile buoy contacts.

In terms of sonobuoys, yes, they have the same time limit.

You can get over this by attaching the attach object script to a location trigger set off by a convoy or ASW aircraft.

For example, you can program a number of different patterns for each stage of the journey or ASW search, and then as the trigger fires, you can use a dynamic group to determine which of the patterns is actually triggered. Once you get the hang of it, you can actually make effective and unpredictable combinations to catch players as they try to stalk the convoy.

Up to this point, there has not been much utilization of this technique, it would be great if you got it to work well. Make sure you keep us up to date on your progress! :up:

Cheers,
David

[Palindromeria]

yep :)

i was thinking once i have dynamic group(s) of buoys set up i could re spawn it further along the route at regular time interval(s).

as sosus is nowhere to be found i have no problems with the realism of it :P

thank you again

l'chaim,
dave

[Palindromeria]

SWEET ! so diff its like freakin nite and day

added a few buoys to that test mission where i blow away 6 helo's while at flank

start at 30m depth
call flank
accelerated to 35kts.
call 16 m
many torps in water :o

:dead:

if my sail broke surface , it was already in pieces. :up:

[LuftWolf]

Yep, if a future patch can address the issue of getting aircraft to lay buoy patterns on their own, the aircraft/helos will be in great shape! :)

I DO have faith that SCS is going to address this one in the future. :up:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Real:
- Keep the masts up for more then 30 seconds and you are probably toast (I think there is a reason why there is heavy emphasis on quick sweep training for sub skippers), because every platform with a capable Radar has got ya on screen. And given the statements from some former and current TACCOs, the P-3 Radar is perfectly capable of detecting a mast.

A bit late, but I thought I'd mention that while this whole "mast" thing can be abused by leaving the masts up for hours, a compensatory factor is that the willing-to-play-by-RL rules but average gameplayer will find this whole "30 second" or "12 second" fast sweep thing a lot harder than the real Captain, in both periscope and ESM:
1) He doesn't get nearly as much practice and training in this whole thing.

2) The interface's limitations. The periscope sweep is reasonably fast at low power, but the range is short (the more so because the resolution of your monitor is low compared to the best resolution of your eye). In real life you can force the scope around fast even at high power and use your peripheral vision to cue you in on specks. In the game, you have those controls that make your scope crawl its way around, so you can't do a 12-second sweep because the scope crawls no matter how good you are. You can also do such things as flash the scope across a ship, mutter "Grisha about 250", and your crew can correlate it with the sonar bearings, while in the game if you want the message that it is a Grisha to transmit correctly you will have to lay the scope with some accuracy, click Photo, fight with the classification interface to get to "Grisha" and if you don't want to accidentally send the wrong range and course to TMA you waste time fighting the stadimeter and AOB system. Plus you don't have VCR recording your fast sweep for later scrutiny.

3) In ESM, it is the same story. You have to fight with your mouse to lay the marking arrow. In real life, they would have a dedicated expert that does only this, and he'd presumably have a dedicated ring control he can twist to achieve the correct lay very fast. In real life, if three radar sources suddenly pop up, all of them will be marked on their first sweep and you can put the mast down for awhile. In the game, by the time you fight your marking arrow onto the first strobe, the second and third will disappear, and to get them you have to wait for them to come at you again.

Of course, you can minimize this problem in SP by pausing the game, but that often isn't an option in MP, which is where most people want to eventually go.

[Palindromeria]

TEST 2

setup
settings to full manual

player helo at 600 ft altitude

ai akula2 set to 56 ft depth 5 kts

note at this depth the ai akula's conning tower just barely breaks the
surface and basically submerging/surfacing with the waves.

game starts - helo on akula's 180 at approx 7500 yds

IMMEDIATELY GET "VISUAL SIGHTING" with full range course and speed info. and yes i can see a spot in the ocean

flip on radar - get a blip there too.

------------------------------------------------------------

as player helo
the radar and visual sighting model is too good.
i immediately detect on both radar and visual from 7500 yds yet the akula's con is at lowest point possible above waterline.

this would result in a player subs getting detected very very very easily.
something i m sure we would all be highly perturbed about.

ai helos do not act on this info, suggesting they dont receive it at all.
and
"eyewitness reports" state that player subs do not get picked up while blasting away at player helos

dubious conclusion - radar and visual info on player controlled subs conning tower is being suppressed.

optimistic view - changing the suppression point and applying it to both ai and player subs would seem to be possible.

[Palindromeria]

TEST 3 (run 4 times )
stock 103

conditions clear seastate 3

akula set to 56 ft depth 5 kts
the top of the conning tower is only visible above surface maybe 50% of time but there is a small wake being created by design as result of sub speed.

helo moved back to 40 miles away

close at high speed

turn on radar

get blip on sub conning tower at ranges of 30000 - 31500 every time.(!!!!)

get visual at ranges of 7200 - 8000 every time.

sink sub with stunning lack of effort every time.

further supports "suppression" theory.

[LuftWolf]

I have just tested this whole setup for the AI using Dbgviewer.

Indeed, the AI cannot detect sails at all... the viewer reported no detections at all for the AI P-3.

I have said before on this forum that I'm pretty sure that SCS decided to intentionally disable sail detections for the AI because they wanted human players to be able to use the SAM launcher against AI aircraft with impunity, but knew that this would not be acceptable for MP so allowed detections for human platforms.

Strange but perhaps true... I dunno. :damn:

Another theory is that the code for human platforms is newer (via the interface files) and that they never got around to updating it for AI platforms, which is perhaps more likely, because it would appear there is less code in common between human and AI platforms that one would think a priori.

[Mau]

So based on this, would it be possible to do something about that?

I mean if one way we can see it, I guess we are closer and closer to be able to do something.

[LuftWolf]

In a way, no, this means it is out of our hands.

The sensors for the AI P-3 and the human P-3 are the same in the database... the engine is hardcoded to have certain parameters in this case.

I have to do more testing to figure it out, but my initial tests now and testing in the past has demonstrated to me that there is something being overridden from the database by the engine itself that we don't have access to be able to change.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I have to do more testing to figure it out, but my initial tests now and testing in the past has demonstrated to me that there is something being overridden from the database by the engine itself that we don't have access to be able to change.

How about if we compromise and make a sensor just for the AI? Basically, said specialized sensor has a max alt of say +10m and a min alt of -10m. If we set the altitudes and sensitivities (detection curves and all) just right, in theory we should be able to make the sensor hit a part of the submarine (the top part) if it rises too high and bounce some signal back. That way, we'd discourage people from being too brazen about rising to periscope depth close in - and if they aren't at that depth they won't be able to use their scopes and ESM efficiently.

[LuftWolf]

But that's assuming the database even matters in this case... there are a number of examples where database values are never actually used by the sim, depending on the situation.

For example, in the Thrust Dialogue, although I can set PropEfficiency, it is calculated on the fly by the Sim, so the value entered in the database is irrelevant.

There are any number of reasons why this isn't working, but the database does not appear to be the culprit, although I really have yet to do a full schedule of testing on this aspect of DW.

[Palindromeria]

sorry, i dunno from debug view or how to read the databases.

do the ai and human models actually have the identical sensors ?
or are their possibly sensors just for player vehicles ?

maybe human models themselves have been rendered "invisible to ai lookouts and radar" unless the sub crew says "surfaced" (or some such)

:damn:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

sorry, i dunno from debug view or how to read the databases.

Get DWEdit. It is pretty good. It is available at SubGurus.

maybe human models themselves have been rendered "invisible to ai lookouts and radar" unless the sub crew says "surfaced" (or some such)

:damn:

Worse comes to worst, make the darn thing an "active sonar", with Max Operating at 0 and Min at -15m. They can't possibly deny our rights to the sonar. It won't be perfect but at least it'd discourage people from PDing, which is probably what is wanted. Grrr...

Actually, as I mentioned in a previous post, I don't mind this particular flaw as much as some, but:
1) I don't fly the planes much.
2) I'm all for player modifiability.

[Palindromeria]

'preciate all the input :up: