LWAMI4: Helos, Aircraft, and Submarines

[LuftWolf]

Here is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the changes I am currently making for LWAMI4, so I thought I'd run this by you guys while I was doing the work for the next playtest version (with documentation this time).

Here are things to keep in mind: 1) masts cannot be made detectable in DW, period 2) the detection models for both visual and passive sonar do not make any distinction (apparently) between objects being on the same side of the water level or on different sides (so in the air or underwater) aside from the arbitrary hardcaps set in the database

I have reworked the autocrew lookout sensors on the MH60 and P-3 (the permanently enabled lookouts that report visual contacts ahead and slightly to the rear) so they can "see" underwater and detect submarines at slightly deeper than periscope depth and report these contact to the player (the exact depth varies by the height of the submarine, it's generally 70-80ft).

In good weather conditions, the autocrews will detect most submarines around 2nm (this cannot be varied by altitude), with some variability based on submarine size.

The AI lookout sensors for AI platforms and the FFG have been boosted somewhat over previous settings as they were a bit shortsighted before (in my opinion), and because as part of the fix, I had to reduce the detectability of the submarines when on the surface, although the calibration to the AI and the FFG negates this, while still retaining for AI air platforms the same detection parameters on submerged submarines as the MH60 and P-3 lookouts.

However, I had fewer options with the MH60 and P-3, so the mean detectability for the submarines when at PD is the same as when surfaced (for the lookout sensors). This is unavoidable. This choice was either to have submarines be too detectable while underwater or not to have them detectable at all underwater, in other words make no changes.

That's the first caveat. The second is that in bad weather (night, rain) the detectablity drops not to 0, as one would expect if this were modeling strictly a visual sensor, but to about 60% of the distance in good conditions.

NOW, before you all jump at this, I need to explain the logic behind this configuration. First, the sensor is not modelling strictly a one-to-one visual sweep of the crew of the platform trying to view the submarine underwater. Second, you all need to be aware that the AI platforms, when at PD, are considered to be at Comms depth and able to report links and also will have several other sensors available to them (like perscope, ESM, etc.) when at PD in LWAMI4. These will be enabled automatically whenever the submarine is at PD. So in a sense, any submarine at PD is considered by the engine to have all its masts in the air.

In terms of player submarines, there are definately times when one would be at PD and not have a mast raised, however, this is by far the most common reason one would be at PD, or at least to have the option of raising the mast, with currently no additional risk of counterdetection than being anywhere within MAD or acoustic distance. I believe there should be significant risk in being at PD, and so this is one way of addressing both the mast issue and the inability to see submarines underwater.

The 2nm in good weather is not *that much* greater than one would see submarines in optimal conditions (at least according to some sources...) and the 1nm or so the submarines would be detected in bad conditions would strictly represent mast detection or the wake made by the sail/masts.

On the other hand, for the bubbleheads, one consequence of the way I am redoing the missile launch transients to give TIW's is that helos and aircraft will once again be detectable on submarine sonars, and most likely at ranges greater than the ability of the helo or aircraft to be able to detect you at PD (I have yet to work out the details of this aspect of it), so if you get spotted, that's because you didn't check your sonar, or got "overflown by a low-flying multi-engined turboprop." :p

Oh, also, I'm going to add sonobuoy splashes... they'll be quiet and almost impossible to distinguish on russian sonar, but at least they will be there.

I'm open to any and all feedback about these features. :)

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

I can only express my appreciation for your work, you're THE MAN LUFTWOLF.
At least now subs won't be "invisible" while being near the surface, this for me as a p-3 or mh-60 player from time to time is really really good news.
It makes playing those units less frustrating.
:rock:

[Mau]

Looks very exciting!!!!

Continue your outstansing work Luftwolf
Your the best!!!

Mau

[OneShot]

On the other hand, for the bubbleheads, one consequence of the way I am redoing the missile launch transients to give TIW's is that helos and aircraft will once again be detectable on submarine sonars, and most likely at ranges greater than the ability of the helo or aircraft to be able to detect you at PD (I have yet to work out the details of this aspect of it), so if you get spotted, that's because you didn't check your sonar, or got "overflown by a low-flying multi-engined turboprop."

My suggestion on that would be :

- Hovering Helos (out to 100ft altitude) are detectable out to say 2nm on normal and/or 3nm on good conditions on sonar (TA).
- All moving Aircraft above 100kts and at a max of 400ft altitude are detectable at a max of 500yds [normal conditions] and/or 1nm [good conditions: seastate 1, no rain ...] on sonar (TA).

If possible the detection should be dependant upon the depth of the submarine, but if thats not possible then I would say the numbers work out ok either way.

I would like to hear the opinion from our actual sonar guys (as far as classification allows) on this.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I like it LW, a lot.

PD

[Phullbrick]

Looks very exciting!!!!

Indeed :up:

can't wait more ! ;)

one question, does the game engine allow an ohp to radar detect a sub mats/antennas when raised ? (not sure about this)

[OneShot]

one question, does the game engine allow an ohp to radar detect a sub mats/antennas when raised ? (not sure about this)

Unfortunatly not, otherwise this wouldnt be a problem. Therefore we have to do with some sort of workaround. All masts are neither detectable by radar nor by visual means (with the exception that you can see the masts on your own platform).

[goldorak]

Edit : The issue (non detectability of masts by surface ships) is not to be considered a bug.
case closed.

[DivingWind]

Sounds great! Keep up the good work! :up:

[Phullbrick]

too bad :down:

I remember I read a couple of days ago that some recent furtive frigates can get radar profils as low as a submarine with all its mats raised, too bad we have this bug here which prevent us from doing like in real. Plus, this is one of the OHP role (asw) which can't be done : I'm sure less submarine would go to surface to fire sam if they knew the OHP could already detect them when they are at PD looking above water before they surface. :arrgh!:

[OneShot]

No offense, but technically the non detecting of masts is not a bug. Masts are simply not detectable objects ... at most you can call this an oversight or lack of a feature. If the game would be set up so masts are detectable objects and it doesn't work ... then its a bug. But yes, only SCS can add that well sought after feature.

[LuftWolf]

It is NOT A BUG, there are VERY GOOD REASONS why this is not implimented in DW, and I support SCS 100% in this.

I can make submarines visable to surface ship using the same sensors, and I've been thinking about this carefully. In the end, I have decided not to do it... this sensor modelling is simulating the specialized mast-finding equipment found on many ASW aircraft, not just looking for masts and their wakes and hull of the submarine under the water. Also, of course, aircraft have a much better position (being in the air) to visually detect submarines underwater.

Additionally, the ranges we are talking about here are about 2nm max... any warship that has a hostile submarine within 2nm at PD clearly isn't paying enough attention to notice the masts anyway. :p

So, all in all, I think applying this fix to ASW aircraft only is the proper way to go. We'll see how it works. :)

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

Ok, point taken. :oops:

[LuftWolf]

Ah, no worries... it's just that "bug" is kind of a loaded, and often misused term.

In my modding work, I only use the term bug when 1) I find something totally unexpected and counter-intuitive (from an engineering standpoint) while I'm in the middle of trying to add/fix a feature that really doesn't need any more complications 2) I run into non-optimal behavior in the software that I can't get around using the tools at my disposal.

So, the lack of the TB-23 on the 688i in the stock game: NOT a bug. The improper ascent of the submarines to PD: definately a bug.

But that's only from my perspective. :)

Cheers,
David

[XabbaRus]

Luft what are the reasons that SCS didn't implement this? I can't remember. It is strange as I am dead sure that in 688i if you had your periscope up too long you could be picked up on radar after a bit. Fish will need to help me out with this one.

If it is because the radar model is so simple that the masts would show up 100% of the time regardless of conditions then I can see why they didn't do it.

Thing is any navy types here who could give a ball park range that a sharp lookout could see the masts of a sub at say sea state 2-3 with a sub doing 5 knots.

Luft I hope you don't take this the wrong way I appreciate what you are doing regards masts and getting subs detected at periscope depth etc, I just hope it doesn't affect the balance. If I understood correctly AI lookouts will spot a sub at PD as fast as a sub on the surface. I guess things will come out in the wash.

However is this only going to affect visual. I tried mucking around with the P-3s FLIR and allowed it in the dbase to "see" underwater. Didn't work so I guess it is hardcoded.

[Mau]

Yes masts and periscopes are detectable on radars.

it is hard though and very often the lookouts has to be aware in which vicinity to look for (for visual).

in the navy when we have a possible sub contact we are taking some actions (resolving contact) by looking on the chart (pinnacles), radar and visual (those last two call non acoustic means).

With the very quiet SSk now the non acoustic means represent sometimes up to 50 % of the detections!!

A Periscope at 3 to 5 Knots will create a wake and sometimes because of the sun the lookout can see it from fairly far.

In the game now, I am guessing that from the OHP nothing will be visible on radar or reported visually on any Mast?

I see your points. But I think that would be great to have a slight possibility to detect it with radar at sea state below 2 inside let say 8 to 10 miles (like a 25% chance). But I know we talked about this and I think it is kind of hard to do.
But I am still hoping that with all the work arounds......

Great work Luftwolf!! Continue your outstanding work!!

[LuftWolf]

Some sensors work underwater and some don't, and I'm not sure exactly why other than some apparently arbitrary decisions by the designers, so that means the visual sensors are the only way to do this.

@Xabba The radar model is too simple, yes, and SCS didn't have nearly the time to do the kind of game-tuning (database/doctrines) that makes features like these possible. Technically, nothing about these changes is very demanding, however, very small judgements about parameters this way and that create HUGE gameplay issues. So the process of adding things like this is a matter of judgement, experience, and above all, TIME, which is something official developers rarely have (time that is...). I guess there is also some imagination and desire involved too... :cool:

In terms of balance, the submarines being detectable on the surface (visually) at the same range as at PD applies ONLY to the autocrew lookouts on the PLAYER P-3 and MH60, the AI retains the ability to detect submarines on the surface at greater distance (it's complicated but not really as to the answer why). The player lookouts are a bit more limited as a convention in DW, so this kind of thing has a precedence... additionally, the detectability of the submarines on radar is unchanged. So, really the only issue here is if a player thinks he can gain an advantage over the airplatforms by running on the surface as opposed to PD (because the visual ranges are the same)... which is really dumb logic from a player standpoint, and something the mission designers should de facto already account for (rarely will you have a single lonely P-3 or MH60 out in the middle of the ocean hunting a submarine, so if you want to go the surface fine by me). The point is to make being at PD much more dangerous and the only tradeoff at this juncture is the same detectability curves for the player P-3 and MH60 for PD and surfaced submarines... so nothing has been lost in adding this fix, other than perhaps about a 1-1.5nm of surface detectability for submarines, which I think is a minor trade, personally.

@ Mau The masts themselves cannot be made detectable objects, and the radar sensors don't work underwater, so I can't apply the same changes to the radar sensors. In terms of which platforms will have this capability and which will not, I've given the sensors only to dedicated ASW or multimission aircraft with ASW functions. The reason for this is two fold: 1) only these aircraft have the specialized equipment and trained crew for hunting submarines using the logic I've laid out for these sensors 2) some surface ships may have this equipment as well (to find masts on the water) however it would work without needing the radar equipment on (in game) and would require a range that is simply too far to justify the kind of fast detections we get using these sensors.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Well guess what... after all that, I've found that with some extra fiddling around, I can make underwater contacts detectable on radar...

So what does this mean? I have no idea.

I'll get back to you after I recalibrate.

More options is always good... so all this is currently back into design.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Ok, so here's the new plan.

I am going to keep the visual sensors as I have them, perhaps reducing the range of visual detection a little bit.

For the AI platforms, I am going to add a few "mast detection" radars of various qualities to ASW aircraft and appropriate surface ships (these don't necessarily have to be unique radar systems, they are just fulfilling the role for game mechanics purposes, and actually gives me the flexibility to vary surface and subsurface submarine detection for the AI).

I am going to calibrate these sensors to the ESM meters in the submarines so the meters will actually give you meaningful feedback about the potential threat of counterdetection (finally).

Also, I've found a way to put aircraft into EMCON mode, so I'll have ASW aircraft blinking their radars as well, which should make the cat and mouse game a little more interesting.

For the player platforms, I can't add a new radar system... so I have to work with the MH60, P-3, and FFG radars as they are, but now they will be useful tools for finding submarines at mast depth. I may have to make the same trade off I made for the lookout sensors, that is, make submarine less detectable when on the surface, but not hugely so.

I still have to crunch the numbers... so we'll all see together. :)

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

This is a fascinating development, and I very much like the idea of being able to get useful feedback at ESM.

But, with the newfound radar workaround will the doctrine be able to test to see if a mast is actually raised? Being able to visually detect subs at PD, in spite of the problems with variable visibility being largely unaccounted for, is a great enhancement. The problems are mostly controlled because of the limited detection range; the un-realism introduced is relatively small. But I can't say the same for radar detectability of subs at PD.

[porphy]

How deep can you dig into the database and doctrines Luft? :up: Really good stuff. :rock:
LWAMI4 will be great from what I read. I hope it will be here when I'm back from vaccation in late august. I think I will need some time to relax in front of a computer then.

Cheers Porphy

[SwordfishCrew]

Luftwolf,

I think you are doing a fantastic job with the LWAMI mods.

Let me start my comments on this subject by saying that I have absolutely no experience in creating mods. Additionally, I appreciate your improvements to the P3 CM’s and the changes to the field of view on the sub SAM’s.

I have found that when I have been shot down it is normally after I passed over the sub and have not gained visual contact with the sub or the SAM. This is usually the result of the sub coming to the surface shortly after I have passed over it. Normally when I play the Radar is not auto-crewed. When the Radar is auto crewed it seems to take 3-4 sweeps before a new contact is reported.

Given that the P3 has an aft visual observer position I find that it is somewhat unrealistic that a sub can come to the surface and launch a SAM, in the aft sector, with a low probability of being seen by the P3.

On a second point. I have done some basic testing and found that a human player, in a sub, is able to gain visual contact on an a/c, as it comes into SAM range, regardless or the weather conditions, cloud cover or sea state. The same is probably true for the P3 vs a sub in the forward sector, but I have not tested this point.

If the visual detection range for the P3 is reduced against a surfaced sub, to accommodate the ability of the P3 to detect a mast, it could lead the situation where the sub can remain on the surface and wait for the P3 to come within firing range without the P3 being able to see the sub or the SAM. (Assuming the RADAR is off).

From a P3 player perspective I would like to see your new version of LWAMI improve the probability of visual detection in the aft sector to be at least 50% of the forward sector, and limit the subs ability see the P3 in poor weather, high sea states or high altitude, to the same degree the P3 visual range is decreased in the same conditions.

I am looking forward to any improvements in mast detection with the Radar. Most airborne ASW radars have different modes of operation. Is it possible to have the airborne ASW Radar ‘switch modes’ to go between a mode where the detection ranges are not changed and masts are not detectable and a mode where the detection ranges are reduced and masts are detectable (even better if the sweep was faster in the mast detection mode)?

Keep up the outstanding work. DW is much better with the changes you have accomplished and will accomplish in the future.

SwordfishCrew

[Molon Labe]

Luftwolf,

Given that the P3 has an aft visual observer position I find that it is somewhat unrealistic that a sub can come to the surface and launch a SAM, in the aft sector, with a low probability of being seen by the P3.
The "un-realism" here comes from the speed at which a player can get to the Sail Bridge station. Sure, they can surface the boat pretty quickly if they wanted to, and the guy can be waiting on the ladder with the launcher strapped to his back, but it's still going to take a few seconds to pop the hatch, climb out, and bring the weapon to ready. Maybe if the "reload" timer could be used for the first shot it would be an improvement? As far as spotting the sub from the aft though, LW's visual sensor plan will let you detect him as he's lying in wait now, so you're going to see him. And if you didn't plan on flying directly over him, there's still the IR camera.


On a second point. I have done some basic testing and found that a human player, in a sub, is able to gain visual contact on an a/c, as it comes into SAM range, regardless or the weather conditions, cloud cover or sea state. The same is probably true for the P3 vs a sub in the forward sector, but I have not tested this point.
Are you saying that the scope should be disabled at high sea state and bad weather? You mean the waves washing over the scope, thick clouds and rain that impair our ability to see anything isn't good enough?


If the visual detection range for the P3 is reduced against a surfaced sub, to accommodate the ability of the P3 to detect a mast, it could lead the situation where the sub can remain on the surface and wait for the P3 to come within firing range without the P3 being able to see the sub or the SAM. (Assuming the RADAR is off).
There would be some loss of efficiency of the visual auto-sensor to detect surfaced subs, but do you really think it would be fair to automatically detect submerged subs as far as you could if they were surfaced? The possibilily of a sub being able to surface and remain there is far-fetched, even with a change in visual detection range. The primary means of visually detecting the sub is the IR camera, and that will be unaffected. And as you alluded to, the radar can still be used to automaticaly detect surfaced subs. Is it really worth asking for LW to "fix" this so that submerged subs are automatically detectable out to the same range that surfaced subs are automatically visually detectable now, just so that you preserve the ability to automatically detect to automatically detect surfaced submarines that you already have two very realiable means to detect already? You might wish to consider that this tiny "benefit" to you has a rather large cost to others (being detected automatically while submerged at unrealistic ranges).

[RedDevilCG]

Is this going to negatively affect diesels opperating in Litorial waters? I seam to recall often having to navigate at or even higher than PD to traverser harbours, shorlines etc....

Cheers,
RedDevil.

P.S. Great work Luft!

[LuftWolf]

A quick update for you guys.

I have to consider all these changes very carefully... so I'm going to take a short break from active work to get some distance and perspective, and also to recharge myself a bit from the torpedo work.

I'm still working on this daily, but I may not have enough done to give you guys almost daily updates like I have been... so even if you don't hear anything for a few days, of course, I'm still chewing on it.

Just so you guys can plan things, I'm hoping to have LWAMI4 out around September 1st, so let's say 1st Quarter 9/2006. :)

It may be sooner than that, depending on how things go, but if it looks like things are going to run long, I'll select certain changes to be held for the next version and get an official mod version out for you guys.

Thanks for your continued support in this project!

Cheers,
David

PS I'm going to respond to some of the discussion in this thread when I get a chance to consider what has been discussed.

[GhOsT55]

when u do the tihings on the mh-60 can u make the mad sensor visibale on its pylon cause when u look at a real one u can see it

[UglyMowgli]

for mast detection using RADAR read this paper:

http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/td1801/ousbourn.pdf

[LuftWolf]

when u do the tihings on the mh-60 can u make the mad sensor visibale on its pylon cause when u look at a real one u can see it

Masts and cabels are not modelled for AI platforms, of which the MH60 is one when it is used as the FFG helo. The MAD sensor is visable when the MH60 is player controlled. This is dicated by the engine (that the AI doesn't use masts and cabels per se, but rather the sensor positions are abstracted by the engine based on the database settings).

@ MSG Thanks! That looks like it could be very helpful! :)

Cheers,
David

[Phullbrick]

Very interesting document posted by Galileo :up:


Luftwolf enjoy your break and relax ;)


ps : OHP rules ! :rock:

[GhOsT55]

ok but this is out of place but can u up the cap of the harpoon load on the ffg?