I think best idea would be to optimise buoy depth, DIFAR for shallow, VLAD form deep and vary deep water. In shallow water VLADs would lay on the bottom so not very useable ;). Difar in spite of worse parameters, would be better there.
(so VLAD deep could be even under the layer... hmm maybe shouldn't shoudln't say it as a sub player... ;) )

Having discovered "the secret of the z offset" in the sensor parameters, this is so much easier to attain than I first thought. :yep: :lol: :-j

Ok, I've gone with the VLAD 800/1200 set.

Someone let me know if you think this is too deep, since they are both well below most layers. However, that is how they are intended to be used in RL, as far as I can tell.

I agree with that
remember we NEED buoys for very shallow waters !
what's about dicass ?
why not a 90 (shallow waters, we need DICASS here) / 800 (deep waters) for them ? If you have the real values of the DICASS, can you tell us about it please ?

depends on the layer
surface duct are often deeper than 800 feet on deep waters.
800/1200 for VLAD sounds good, as you will need to check the layer depth before choosing the right one.

I can see your MOD improve near each days.
congratulation for your work, LuftWolf and Amizaur ! :up:

I've currently set the DICASS Deep for 600ft.

I don't mind the idea that in very deep waters with a deep surface duct it would still be possible to sneak under the actives.

But if anyone has a major objection to that, let me know, I could set the DICASS Deep to 800.

I mind about it, because I like the idea :lol:
But maybe we need real values here, to have the same tactical consideration as IRL.

Well, most of the sites on sonobuoys with helpful information come with a nice splash across the top like "This information resides on a Department of Defense Computer. Your activity is being monitored. Be advised that it is a crime to use this information in a manner which would jeopardize national security." As if someone in Iran really cares... :P

So... I'm not sure I'm going to find the actual cable lengths. ;)

The DICASS is an older buoy than the VLAD, so 600ft seems reasonable. I really don't know... but I do know that 600ft is deeper than 400ft, which is where it is at now. :hmm:

so, 600 looks good for DICASS deep :)
I could saw when I stay at 320m with the KILO, I wasn't detected even once with buoys, always detected when I reached shallower waters.
As the KILO need to go above 200m to fire torps, this preserve a bit the balance.
I vote for your global solution :

DIFAR 90/400
VLAD 800/1200
DICASS 90/600

but we need some test about the DICASS 600 to verify it still can really detect nearby deep submarines.
I think the buoys could be set to the required depth IRL isn't it ?

According to a post made over on the SCS forums by a former Nimrod flyboy:

The buoys themselves all have the same max cable length for the various types of buoys. The operator can then select a short/medium/long cable length for the actual deployment of the buoys. Once the buoys are deployed, short cables can be deployed further to the medium and long lengths, but not in reverse.

So SCS simplified the modelling a bit to fit it into the way the database is structured, but that's not a big deal, to me anyway.

Regarding the real buoy operating depths, here's something I found at Globalsecurity.org:
Of course, we can't be sure that the values mentioned are the same as real-life values. For all we know, the buoy depth might be arbitrarily selectable as anything between the min and max depths. Why wouldn't it be?

BTW, I'm fine with the DICASS Deep having a depth of 600ft (or deeper).

Some links:
AN/SSQ-62B/C/D/E Directional Command Activated Sonobuoy System (DICASS) Sonobuoy
AN/SSQ-53 Directional Frequency Analysis and Recording Sonobuoy
AN/SSQ-77B Vertical Line Array Directional Frequency Analysis and Recording (VLAD) Sonobuoy

Interesting to note: The 'A'-model VLAD is reported to have operating depths of 500 and 1000 feet. The operating depths of the improved 'B'-model are classified, but apparently the choice is limited to two depths. 800/1200 ? :hmm:

Thanks for the info zma! :)

The values we have currently are draft values and easy to change, but I'm feeling pretty good about this set so far.

DIFAR 90/400
VLAD 800/1200
DICASS 90/600

I might make the VLAD Shallow a bit more shallow or the DICASS Deep a bit more deep, but I think these values make a very good set for gameplay and realism.

Although, as we've mentioned, we aren't going going to get "true realism" on the buoy depths, so all of the values have to fudge something somewhere. :88)

Cheers,
David

I found this

at http://www.sparton.com/sonobuoys

Is it possible that the VLAD only goes down to 1000ft?



Edit: Global Security sais the same:

Those specs are for the older VLAD A. The actual depths of the VLAD B are classified, but we suspect they are close to 800/1200.

As I said before, because we only have two depths to work with, we have to kind of balance what is truly real with gameplay considerations. I think this depth set does a decent job of balancing that, at least in my opinion.

Thanks for the info! :up:

Because it would probably be easier to implement a "release hook" (release predetermined amount of wire) instead of a winch-type (let it slide until we say stop) in the buoy. Probably makes for faster transition too.

Good point, MaHuJa, that sounds reasonable. :up:

I also have to correct my earlier post a little. As drEaPer pointed out, there indeed is a C-model VLAD, which has a shallow 200 ft -setting in addition to the 500/1000 ft depths. I now think it would be safe to assume that the B-model operating depths are similar to the A- and C-model's.

Then again, maybe the vertical line array in these buoys would require some "free water" below them in order to operate properly? (This is 100% pure speculation, btw. The rest is just 80% pure :) ) If so, it would make sense to model the operating depths a little deeper than actual, from a realism standpoint as well as because of gameplay considerations.

OK, I'm finished with my nit-picking of the day ;)