A Public Note to Self: LWAMI4 In Progress Issues (HELP ME!)

[LuftWolf]

Ok, just because I think I'm starting to lose track of things, I'm going to post here literally everything I am contemplating changing for LWAMI4, and I'd appreciate it if you guys post if we've talked about anything or you read something somewhere that I'm leaving out.

I really appreciate this a lot! Thanks!

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

LWAMI 4.xx In Progress Issues

-Finish Torpedoes (the biggest one)

-Consider changing UUV NB tonals

- Update UUV sensor per Amizaur and jsteed

-fix helo issues: raise dipping alt, update doctrines to shut off sensors, enable proper notrack search behavior, and tune the MH60 sections to prevent undesired sensor and flight search behavior

-Make sure the SLAM-ER and TLAM are functioning 100% correctly

-Add a "FRIEND" weapon evasion exception for the AI

-Prevent AI sub grounding

-Add SLBM's

-Convert some Ohio's to SSGN's

-Convert Stallion to drop APR-3

-Add MK60 Captor Mine

-Fix RBU's and enable them for use against torpedo (perhaps create separate doctrine for RBU equipped ships to maximize effectiveness)

-Adjust the playable aircraft lookouts to detect submerged submarines near periscope depth automatically for the player (yes, I tested this, and it definately works)

-Try to improve Air to Air behavior (and aircraft behavior in general)

-See if there is some way to expand the acoustic/MAD sensor drop contact fix to the non-acoustic/MAD aircraft sensors (not looking good... perhaps aircraft are tracking by satillite relay :p ... but the good news is that aircraft will no longer keep updating submerged targets inappropriately, which is really the absolute most important thing here, surface targets are a very close second, but we'll all have to live with this for now and I'm fine with my satillite theory :p :p)

-Adjust AI TA depths to better fit proper shallow washouts for the player TA's Also, I'm going to give all AI TA's a detection bonus of -2 because I recently discovered that the AI detection threshold in the NSE is actually set at POSID of type and class for the AI, meaning that some contacts aren't acknowledged by the AI until ridiculously late (think three lines on the NB for Akula Imp I against 688i and vice versa, when the human player knows almost right away what he is tracking, or at least has a very good suspicion when it is submerged and hostile).

-Adjust Radar and Fire Control Radar ranges across the board

-Add more flight profiles for ASM's, especially high-flying missiles

-Create separate AAM doctrine to prevent fraticide from fighters against wingmen

-Try to separate radar from active sonar EMCON for surface vessels (not bloody likely for this upcoming version, but it'll be on the table for the next version, along with some more changes focused on the AI)

-Add separate torpedo sounds for electric/non-electric and perhaps some unique torpedo sounds for the broadband sonar (for your listening pleasure... interestingly enough, there are some sounds already in the game audio archive that aren't even used by the current database... sure would be nice for SCS to give us some comprehensive materials detailing exactly what we've got to work with, sheesh... how many millions do I have to pay for some service around here!? :lol: )

-Get feedback on the new nuke speeds (not everyone is going to be happy, I understand that, we'll get through this, together :) :yep: )

-Look at increasing the bearing error for low frequency sonars, notably the TA's

-Add Missile Launch Warning ping to all underwater launched missiles and update SubrocAttack doctrine to take advantage of this (I'm also taking votes on what frequency number the launch warning ping should be on active sonar, right now I'm starting the bidding at 1000hz, can I get one-thousand five?) I might also try again to add a genuine TIW for underwater missiles... I mean, how hard could it really be anyway???

-Update all AI evasion routines, including adding last minute evasion for "dead-duck" AI platforms

-Add a small baffle to the TA directly astern (2-4 degrees on either side as black space, tops) to simulate reported signal loss at extreme angles on the TA, which makes sense, the area with almost no ambiguity should be a dead zone if my understanding of array geometry is correct

-Add ESSM quad-VLS packs to Burke DDG, which will improve their ability to take down threats that make it past the TF's SM-2 and also give them more missiles overall, which is a good thing since the CIWSAttack doctrine now works properly in assigning multiple missiles only to targets that make it past the first fire, or are very close and fast to begin with

-Try to fix UAV and DSRV (no promises for this upcoming version...)

-Fix the E-2 crashing on carrier launches

-Investigate the ECMJammer function and see if we can get some wild wiesles up in this piece (no promises for this version on this one)

Ok, so let me know if I'm missing anything!

Looking at this list, it's like we haven't even fixed anything, but the list of things fixed in 3.02 over stock or even LWAMI 1.00 is just massive, so thanks for your support in this endeavor gents!

Cheers,
David

[Orm]

Many thanks Luftwolf for the work you are doing, and again, even if I have told you previously, I do love your mod with DW. It is giving more thrills in my dives. One thing that I would like to see, but it is not so much related to the new version, is a JSGME (DW) compatible with the LwAmi 4.xx. It works great. Cheers. :up:

[sonar732]

Luftwolf,

I have a good friend who states that the helo doctorine is messed up. He says that his testing has consistantly shown that they can ping without slowing down or stoping to drop the sensor.

All in all, I like the list.

Add separate torpedo sounds for electric/non-electric and perhaps some unique torpedo sounds for the broadband sonar .

We spent hours training our ears to this.

Add Missile Launch Warning ping to all underwater launched missiles and update SubrocAttack doctrine to take advantage of this.

Is this the transient warning that I've been begging for since inception?:rock:

[LuftWolf]

I have a good friend who states that the helo doctorine is messed up. He says that his testing has consistantly shown that they can ping without slowing down or stoping to drop the sensor.


Yup, I've known this for some time. Easy to fix.

[Molon Labe]

The "ping" on missile lauch seems a bit gamey to me. I'm happy with the BB noise as it is, although a true transient alert would be nice (and I know only SCS can do that). I do have a preference for things that work over "good-enough" workarounds, though. And making a sonar ping get transmitted by a missile launch is the sort of thing that just seems sloppy and kills immersion.

[swimsalot]

Wow, what a list, I'll be honest I don't know what half of that is, but good to see you're working on it.
Keep it up!

[LuftWolf]

The "ping" on missile lauch seems a bit gamey to me. I'm happy with the BB noise as it is, although a true transient alert would be nice (and I know only SCS can do that). I do have a preference for things that work over "good-enough" workarounds, though. And making a sonar ping get transmitted by a missile launch is the sort of thing that just seems sloppy and kills immersion.

Well, considering that I've been hearing about this for some time, that is the need to make some kind of automatic missile warning, it's interesting that this opinion should be expressed.

I'm not really the one that has been pushing for this really... I'm fine with how it is now like 70%.

The thing is that we have the TIW warning, so not having an automated missile warning seems to be inconsistent with this. Perhaps I will make another attempt at giving a genuine TIW warning on missile launches. :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

I agree that it's inconsistent that we don't have one, but I've always believed that if you can't do something right....

[LoBlo]

The "ping" on missile lauch seems a bit gamey to me. I'm happy with the BB noise as it is, although a true transient alert would be nice (and I know only SCS can do that). I do have a preference for things that work over "good-enough" workarounds, though. And making a sonar ping get transmitted by a missile launch is the sort of thing that just seems sloppy and kills immersion.

Well, considering that I've been hearing about this for some time, that is the need to make some kind of automatic missile warning, it's interesting that this opinion should be expressed.

I'm not really the one that has been pushing for this really... I'm fine with how it is now like 70%.

The thing is that we have the TIW warning, so not having an automated missile warning seems to be inconsistent with this. Perhaps I will make another attempt at giving a genuine TIW warning on missile launches. :hmm:

An interesting undertaking. Here's hoping it works. What if the ping sound effect was substituted with a launch sound effect? Would that be obtainable. The missile launches, gives a ping (which because of the Sound assigned actually sounds like a launch transit) and then goes airborne.

Question is... how do we replace the ping with the sound of our choice?

[Wim Libaers]

The thing is that we have the TIW warning, so not having an automated missile warning seems to be inconsistent with this. Perhaps I will make another attempt at giving a genuine TIW warning on missile launches. :hmm:

Would it be possible to spawn a really loud torpedo when a missile is launched, and to make it disappear again after the missile leaves the water?

[LuftWolf]

If I could get the missiles to fire torpedoes if fired underwater and not fire torpedoes when fired above water, this would be easy.

Here is the problem. The AI simply does not fire at nothing. I can't get the missile to fire the torpedo unless they have a track.

Here's where it gets interesting.

For SUBROC missiles, this is no problem. Since they are classified in the database as a "snapshot" weapon, the target track is provided to them immediately at launch, so they start life with a NEWTRACK from the NSE, meaning they will launch the torpedo. The problem is, they already have a torpedo, and the weapon-selective <Attack "[weaponname]"> command doesn't work for weapons launching other weapons, only Firebest, and it seems the SUBROC missile wants to fire its actual torpedo payload in most situations first.

The problem for non-subroc missiles is that they have no track when they start life.

The way this solution is shaping up, for non-subroc missiles, I would have to give a very short range visual sensor to detect the launching platform and use the IF tgtsource $= "visual" THEN Firebest ENDIF conditional (very similiar to the wirewatch features put into the wireguided torpedoes). Also, I could use a depth-based conditional for either the missile to fire or for the dummy torpedo to simply dissappear if fired above the surface before hitting the water. I think this can simply be added over top of the relevant missile doctrines without any issues, but I could always be wrong of course.

For subrocs, I dunno... I'll probably have to tweak the database, but its pretty risky, I'd have to be pretty confident the actual torpedo would never get launched.

From a coding standpoint, the missile ping on launch is SOOO much more elegant, and would achieve exactly the same freaking thing, Molon. I really like the idea of changing the ping sound to something else BUT i have found no way to control the ping sound and that other platforms share the same ping... I mean, ideally, I could just have no sound at all, and simply allow players to get a newtrack from the active intercept autocrew, which I assume everyone uses (cough cough the GNSF needs get with it on this...).

In this case, I have two options that both suck, mostly. But if I could make either one work the way we want without messing anything up, it'd be pretty good I think.

Let me see... I'm a bit burned out from the torpedo work (don't worry), so I'm happy to do something in which my expectation of success is not quite as high.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, the "best" overall way that I have found so far is to give it an active sonar sensor and delete the ping sound from the sfx.agg so that it is reported strictly by the Active Intercept Autocrew.

Now this has a big problem associated with it. The game sound engine is constructed in such a way that subs, ships, and torpedoes are assigned their own ping sounds that can be edited individually, and then everything else left over gets assigned the generic ping sound. SO... deleting the ping sound for the missile also means no ping sound for any helos or buoys... which is a BIG BIG "hell no!" for doing it this way.

I also am beginning to agree with molon... how big of a pain in the ass would it be to hear a pinging every time you launched missiles. Yikes!

So, the only way left to go is to try to add some kind of TIW (which is automatically not reported to the launching platform, even if the torpedo is launched by a weapon launched by the launching platform)... and this means getting messy. You have no idea how hard it is to try to get missiles to launch torpedoes at nothing! :damn: :p

[goldorak]

So, the only way left to go is to try to add some kind of TIW (which is automatically not reported to the launching platform, even if the torpedo is launched by a weapon launched by the launching platform)... and this means getting messy. You have no idea how hard it is to try to get missiles to launch torpedoes at nothing! :damn: :p

Ok, if the issue is so complicated to resolve for you, why don't we ask SCS to implement a TIW message for missile launches directly into a future patch.
We'll wait for an official patch, and you go on modding DW without loosing your sanity ;)

[LuftWolf]

Ok, if the issue is so complicated to resolve for you, why don't we ask SCS to implement a TIW message for missile launches directly into a future patch.
We'll wait for an official patch, and you go on modding DW without loosing your sanity ;)

I don't ask SCS for anything... I merely hope to catch crumbs falling from their table.

And this mod work is actually helping to KEEP me sane, at least the problem-solving aspects of it. I can live without the grunt work... that's what drives me up the wall, and it's also why I don't work in an office as a cubicle rat keyboard jockey.

[LuftWolf]

Hey I think I've got this one worked out too now.

LWAMI4 should have a genuine TIW message for underwater missile launches (I'm about 75% sure this is good to go).

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, as a followup, I have the Subrocs working perfectly, they give a nice TIW message when launched and still work perfectly (at least as far as I can tell).

The other missiles are proving to be a bit of a problem. I'll get back to you on this.

Cheers,
David

[Drop-Bear]

Hi, I know I am by no means any kind of expert on this kind of subject, but if you are talking about what 'sound effects' to give the launch of missiles other than subrocs, (ie in vertical launch tubes), wouldn't it be possible to produce a loud 'Boom' sound, with extra bass factored in, so it is audible from a distance?

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but I was lead to believe that a vertical launch tube (be they TASM, TLAM, or SLBM) produces such a noise due to the way that the missile is initially propelled from the tube...

Surely such a noise would cause 'reverberations' which would be easier to locate in BB sonar once audibly detected? Doesn't 'hull popping' noise also carry over some distance in the same way?

I apologise again if my ignorance has been a waste of your time...:oops:

[Amizaur]

It's a pity that there is so much problems with getting missiles to launch dummy torpedo... I didn't anticipated that (because I didn't try that :-/).
And in fact I'm still not sure it would be best solution... or maybe active ping is better ?
While ago I tried to set passive sonar as counter detect for torpedo seeker, and unfortunately the ping sound was there (it's not generated by active intercept (because nothing showed on it) but IS generated only in active intercept working cone... grrr weird as usually... And nothing on passive of course.

The active ping on launch is elegant "engineer" solution, but not elegant from a player point of view... active pings... from every missile... someone that didn't read the mod readme (and there are such people :-? question is do we care about them ? ;) unfortunately I think we should...) would be totally puzzled.

(Same for passive enable and active enable in new torpedo control mod. It happened to ME :o personnaly to forget about "first enable is passive enable" after not playing some time, and I was wondering where is the active ping and why torpedos are not seeing my sub... :oops: The important things that are totally different from stock DW have to be written big and bold on the beginning of the read me or better placed in separate "absolutely MUST-READ!!!!.txt" file.

edit: the torpedo speed is good indication of ADCAP state - active or passive. but you have to switch to nav screen to check that and would possibly not be good indicator for slower (TEST-71) torpedos...
maybe I should make in to simply switch to active after second enable, but first preenable for a moment (red V disappears in wepctrl screen) and then enable again in active mode (red V shows again) ? is it worth it ? anyone had problems knowing if second enable worked ? I personally had to click it few times in Playtest mod to enable it active, but maybe it's only for me?)

The pros are many - solution is simple, gives new track (with special designation? were you saying something like that?), and looong range ! The thing againstb it is only one - the ping sound...
For dummy torpedo and TIW message - the automatic message by crew similar like when detecting torpedo launch... more "natural" solution...
but only now I asked myself - what with sub launched ASMs and LAMs ?? Should they give Torpedo In The Water message to player ??? :o Subrocs are a threat similar to torpedo (and they drops it eventually) but ASMs and LAMs are not threat and have nothing to do with torpedos at all ! :-?
Second thing against it is lower range (only 20nm limit like for TIW messages, and missile launches are much louder events) and the fact that player on russian sub could have hard time sometimes to say if it was a torpedo launch or missile launch reported, as they have no waterfall and sonar history, if they don't see the missile spike in time they just don't know what it was...
And at last - it's complicated and very unelegant from "engineers" point of view.

So actually I really don't know... I used to think that TIW message would be better and more natural, but now have realised many arguments against this solution and simply don't know :hmm: , but honestly I'm closer to "active ping" solution... only with good description in a "must-read!!!.txt" file, among few other things.

Hm, a poll ? ;) With arguments for and against each solution clearly described ?

[Molon Labe]

LW: With regards to your parenthetical, GNSF has made active intercept standard at least on a temporary basis, and it might already be permanent.

[Amizaur]

??

Could you clear this a little for me ? :oops:

[LuftWolf]

The Global Naval Strike Force (GNSF), of which I am a member, had their standard ROE set so that players could not use active intercept unless all players agreed to it before hand.

I'm glad they have agreed to this change and I'll be back to full participation, especially in my role as RD-DW, once LWAMI4 is released.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I kind of feel like some engineer standing at the crossroads of two engineering approaches, needing to decide between two radically different solutions to the same problem. :cool:

I have one more ace up my sleeve. I'll let you know. :hmm:

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I'm now 85% sure I've got this one by the stones.

The method I am going to do with is the TIW method, and I've made it work for non-subroc missiles, even without using a sensor (since missiles are simply ignoring tracks until they are done with their semi-ballistic launch).

The subroc fix is to simply add a dummy torpedo to their existing launchers and a firebest conditional with a runonce variable switch, and they will automatically fire the dummy on launch and continue on with their ballistic tradjectory and fire their second torpedo.

The non-subroc fix is to make all underwater launched missiles "snapshot" weapons in the database, thus giving them a Newtrack immediately at launch upon which to fire their dummy torpedo. So far, the fix to make sure the missiles don't misbehave in other ways is to simply make sure they otherwise ignore newtracks if they are not enabled... and since the snapshot track is only fed once to the missile, by the time it is enabled, it is old news, so it should simply be ignored by the missile. In limited testing, this appears to be the case.

The theory and design is now in place. Of course, I could alway run into some kind of unexpected problem, but the underlying mechanics is actually much more straight forward and elegant than I had first thought they'd be.

As a side note, the Harpoon is not going to be set to give a TIW, since the Mod already simulates a "stealth" launch from a canister, I figure this is a nice feature to add/retain on the missile.

Glad I got this one worked out, back to the torpedoes. :know:

[Nexus7]

1. Would it be possible to have the SUBROC or other missiles produce a "Missile launch detected" message instead of a TIW?
I personally am very strict here, rather no message than an unexact message.

2. What do you think about moving those automatic messages into the sonar autocrew modus only? (both TIW and "Missile launch detected") ? Or better, add a switch somewhere stating "automatic launch warnings ON/OFF" ?

This would IMO be a excellent MOD ;)

[Amizaur]

The Global Naval Strike Force (GNSF), of which I am a member, had their standard ROE set so that players could not use active intercept unless all players agreed to it before hand.
Cheers,
David

At all ??? They don't hear active sonobuoys, incoming active torps and active pings of other players ? Or pings of surface ships ? Are they also to not use active sonar at all ? But what with sonobuoys ?

P.S. wait a moment, you can't DISABLE active intercept... what means "not use it" ??? Ignore it ?? Are we talking about AI autocrew maybe ??


P.S.2. LW, while changing all missiles to "snapshot" weapons, please triple try the SS-N-27 ASM if it works at all after the change, the initial version of doctrine worked with "snapshot" weapon and I had problems, then switched to non-snapshot (as original) with a different way of doctrine working (tgt bearing for example)... Please think twice before doing that and check if it doesn't have side effects...

[Molon Labe]

As a side note, the Harpoon is not going to be set to give a TIW, since the Mod already simulates a "stealth" launch from a canister, I figure this is a nice feature to add/retain on the missile.

Glad I got this one worked out, back to the torpedoes. :know:
I'd like to disagree with this last point. The way I see it, with this mod in place, the TIW warning is essentially a quasi-sonar autocrew that reports launch (or splash) transients. The firing of the missile cansiter makes the same noise as a torp launch, so it should be included.

@Amizaur: we meant active intercept autocrew

[LuftWolf]

P.S.2. LW, while changing all missiles to "snapshot" weapons, please triple try the SS-N-27 ASM if it works at all after the change, the initial version of doctrine worked with "snapshot" weapon and I had problems, then switched to non-snapshot (as original) with a different way of doctrine working (tgt bearing for example)... Please think twice before doing that and check if it doesn't have side effects...

I'm pretty sure I can get around this like this:

IF NEWTRACK AND Enabled THEN { FireBest (the missile second stage) } ELSEIF Newtrack AND NOT MissileTIW THEN { FireBest MissileTIW = 1 (the torpedo, I think I can control the firebest logic using database parameters reliably) } ENDIF

or some modification along similar lines to what is there (I haven't checked the 54E doctrine recently, but it has been on my mind that this missile will require a change to the standard solution).

[Amizaur]

One more thing I forgot to mention - if you make some missiles high flying and diving attack, not only the for FFG but even for Ticos and Burkes they will be almost impossible to hit... Long time ago I did a nice doctrine emulating real AS-4 flight and attack profiles, only to see that vertical part of intercept trajectory used by DW (go to target alt immediately) combined with intercept trajectory lag bug makes diving AS-4s almost impossible to hit by SM-2s... Miss distance was so big that even large blast radius didn't help and most of missiles missed by large distance... :-(

(edit: don't know if both intercept and terminalhome trajectories do the same (go to tgt alt right away), have you compared them ? maybe setting intercept instead of terminalhome would help? and switch to term only in last second? I don't know...)

So I dumped this doctrine and returned to standard one... High flying missiles would be normal targets while cruising high, but when diving they become almost impossible target in DW... :down: And AEGIS + SM-2 was designed just to counter such threats like Kitchens and Kingfishes so I don't think they should be hard targets and that few (sometimes even one!) big old Kitchens should make a threat for AEGIS ship... SS-N-27s ASM should, but not Kitchens - if not in quantity of two digit number at once...

About sonar bearing errors - I think first increase it by one for both sphere and towed (setting from 3 to 2) and we'll see what this change does to gameplay and TMA... It's minimum possible change and although momentary bearing errors are few degrees, on TMA station they are minimised to less than that. I hoped to find some info about sphere sonar bearing error (or bearing scatter) in Ehime Maru accident raport, but I found nothing... :( Anyone knows something about this and can say it ? Any link ?

And PLEASE tell me (on the priv if you need ;) ) how do you plan to make under-keel detonations ?? How they would work ? From all I know, under-keel det only result in smaller tgt damage, and has side effects too...
In SCX they were commanded just by specific ceiling setting, I understand that because of new "ceiling" definition you need a separate switch for it - to attack surface tgt, 0ft ceiling must be set and then only switch can force under-keel mode ? Or swich will enable surface as valid target even for negative ceiling, and ceiling depth would determine under-target pass depth (you set it larger for CV than for small craft) ?
Well, there is always a possibility that under-keel could be default... :) just find a depth at which even small patrol crraft would be detected and proximity fuse triggered ?

[Mau]

Hopefully we can do something about the missile flight profile.
Like I was saying, Fleet Command has now 3 to 4 different flight profile (one is actually a high diving one).
I know it is not the same game but may be.....

I really hope we can improve the above water side of it

[Amizaur]

Hopefully we can do something about the missile flight profile.
Like I was saying, Fleet Command has now 3 to 4 different flight profile (one is actually a high diving one).
I know it is not the same game but may be.....

I really hope we can improve the above water side of it

Wasn't FC relased before SC ? Because in SC missile intercepts were just fine, only in DW are broken... :(

[Mau]

But Amizaur, I am a bit confused here. In SC there was no platform from where we can launched missile to intercept another one (SC was just Subs unless you meant the AI ships in SC).

If it is the case, and if it was working in SC, then why it is not working in DW??

Thanks

[LuftWolf]

Adding the underkeel detonation should be easy.

All have I have to is enable a mode on the player adcap that sets the torpedo to fire a large mine under the ship that immediately explodes, and so even with the proximity detonation, the fact that the mine is so large, will cause greater damage to the ship than the ADCAP hitting the hull.

I tested the basic concept of torpedoes firing mines, and it works nicely.

Well, in terms of the different flight profiles, I was simply going to add cruising altitudes of 2000 and 1000 feet, so the missiles would work just like now, but only fly higher. This ought to be "good enough" to give a change for older missiles but not break the game engine. Plus, it's really really easy to do. :)

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

And I suppose for really old missiles I could even do 5000ft and it wouldn't break anything.

We really ought to do new radar seekers for the old missiles too... and increase their radar signature. A AS-4 ought to be damn easy to detect for the SPY-1.

If I combine that with an increase in the FCR range for the AEGIS vessels, which is LONG overdue in LWAMI to be honest, then they should really be no threat anymore except to a lonely FFG or two.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

So... just how far away can a modern ASM missile detect a medium size warship from the side? :cool:

[Mau]

I will go just in a general kind of response to that (I'M sure you understand)

It all depends when the seeker of a specific missile will turn on.

Let just say that if you want to go with a generic one, a missile to have is seeker on and to COMMIT will be between 12-8 miles and then lock on(again will depend of the target size, aspect but on the side with this last one will be fine) and of course the rain.

Hope this help

[LuftWolf]

Thank you, this is very helpful.

So I think it's safe to assume that an AS-4 is probably limited to something closer to 4-6nm, possibly even less?

[Amizaur]

I'll check parameters of russian missiles for you tonight, I have few good books for it :-). For SS-N-27 ASM you can find advertised seeker range, for od missiles I will check. AS-4 was huge missile and had space for huge radar seeker :-) but of course old. I wouldn't be surprised if all what you need is ECM to render it useless and miss target... On the other hand, if you fired it against civilian ship in a convoy, then it would work just fine and be untouchable for small ships like Knox or Type-22 with their point defence missiles. AS-4 was rather convoy killer in 80's than CV killer.

Yes, 5000ft flight with medium speed should make no problem at all for SAMs. Targets are only untouchable when diving hard and fast, like AS-4. When diving slow they would be probably still possible to hit, and with 5000ft flight profile (compared to my 60000ft) it would start diving only very close to target, after many missile intercepts and inside of Phalanx range probably. So 5000ft should be no problem. I though about 30-60 thousands feets or so :-) or very fast dives. Well a cruise missile (500kts) diving from high alt at 30deg angle could be problem to hit maybe... check it, but at lower angle or slower should be ok.

About under-keel explosions - yep, I hit the same idea today's night, before falling asleep, if you can't regulate torpedo's hit points, it could spawn another object with greater blast... :-). Nice idea unfortunately spoiled by fact than you will damage every ship/sub/torp close vicinity of target, for example this det would kill other torpedos from salvo, if you fired more than one on target (against CV for example). Type-65 warhead alone sunk 3 ships and damaged the rest in a convoy :/.
This is caused by fact, that explosion blast radius in DW is enormously big, and secondly that when weapon auto-detonates when hits the target, the DP are transferred fully only to targeted object. Your sub or other ships can be 10m from it and will be not affected. But when detonation is caused by doctrine order (like in case of proximity fuse) then there is no specific tgt linked to it and blast affects all objects around... And it would be GOOD thing, realistic, only if the blast radius was not so LARGE... :-(

Check the blast effects against other close targets and other weapons and see if you can live with it...

Hmmmm to avoid this, you'd have to make this spawned mine detonate in contact of target, not by proximity fuse. Then it should work, damage the target only. Hm maybe fire it at high speed vertically (from launcher pointing vertically) while torpedo passed underneth tgt hull ? This way the mine would directly hit target's hull and detonate in contact, without proximity fuse.

P.S. I even wondered it wouldn't be good to divide all ships and warheads damage point values in database by factor of ten... this should reduce blast radius to more acceptable values... but damage points for small warheads would single points and probably all collisions (with land or other ships) would be 10x more lethal... :/. Or maybe collision DP are calculated as % of vessel's DP value ?

[LuftWolf]

Yeah, I think the easiest way to go would be to have the torpedo launch a "torp" sim object that has a very high speed and no model (this also has the advantage of not having the launching torpedo start homing on the underkeel mine), that simply goes right at the target ship for greater damage.

I could still have the torpedo proximity fuse...

There is a lot that can be done, actually, balancing what works best from an engineering standpoint and what "looks right" to the player.

I'm confident that I can make *something* work. :)

[LuftWolf]

I am also going to change over all the mine and proximity torpedo sensors in the game from "visual" type sensors to MAD sensors.

For one, I'm not sure why they are visual sensors anyway... I mean, MAD sensors DO work for proximity fuses, the Squal already has a MAD sensor. I just tested the wakehomers using a MAD sensor for their final homing and it works fine.

So, from the player and mission designer perspective, this now means that, combined with changes to the MAD signatures of various boats, some boats that are reputed to have either no mad or very low mad signatures (I will probably make sure that all ships and subs have SOME MAD signature, but some of the british t-boats for example will have very low mad signature) will actually be somewhat unaffected by mines and proximity fusing torpedoes like the ADCAP in underkeel mode and wakehomers, although a dead on shot will still mean a hit.

All through this part of it I'm going to be wondering why SCS made them visual sensors in the first place...? :hmm:

[Mau]

Luftwolf,

As per missiles (in particaular AS-4), yes no problem for 1000 feet but I would not go higher than 2000 feet. However for the RCS, don't be afraid to put it a lot higher. The SS-N-2 Styx for exemple was said to look almost like a B-52 as per RCS. So I imagine the AS-4 was as bad or at least very close.

But at 1000 or 2000 feet, is it going to touch the ship (is it going down at the very end). I thought you said the high diving thing was pretty hard to make?

[LuftWolf]

The missiles at 5000ft using the same doctrine will have the same general flight profile as other missiles, they'll just fly higher.

Amizaur made the diving flight profile from 60000ft and it broke the missile intercept function... the SM-2's couldn't touch them. So we'll just have to set them to fly higher and then descend when they are near their targets, much like other missiles.

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

-Add more flight profiles for ASM's, especially high-flying missiles

I've been trying to find a good source that determines which of the Russian Supersonic Cruise missiles are high altitude missiles and which are sea skimmers also, but I have yet to find a good source. Got a good source of infomation?

[LuftWolf]

Yes, Amizaur has some very good sources at his disposal.

[LuftWolf]

Ok, the AI torpedo function and all AI torpedo changes in the database are more or less done. :)

Now I have to finish the player torpedo mods, and do the sensors.

So, you can say, I'm on the downhill side of the work. :know:

Cheers,
David