Well, it only replaced the torp.txt file...

so only changes in lw/ami to that doctrine should have been effected....

oucch this is bad :shifty:
we need some test here

? MK50 have only 7 miles, but Mk 54 have a little more than 10 miles of range, so I don't see your point Molon ?

And I must congrats a lot Amizaur for this great improvment.
I didn't (had time to) tried it yet, but I will do soon.
This is a very very nice work :up: :rock: ... even if Molon scare me with the problem of programmed depth at search pattern with unguided torps.
We need to dig that.

Be real nice to have some further feedback reports from players who have (actualy) tried this mod. :hmm:

If it is true that the wireguided mod is effecting non-wireguided torepdoes this is really no problem at all. :know:

Because, in the final version of the advanced control mod, it will be buried in the code for each individiual torpedo, since each torpedo will have its own doctrine.

So, for non-wg torpedoes, it simply won't be in the doctrine scripting. :up:

BTW, everyone should be using LWAMI 3.00 Preview, if you don't mind (available at the CACD)... after all there IS a reason I released it ahead of time... so you guys could test it for me before the standard distribution goes around the world. :up:

And because I have been too busy to edit the whole 16 pages of readme... :oops:

But there is a dual purpose. :arrgh!:

:D :yep:

Was holding off as the final seemed imminent. But got the message - its a 'chicken and egg' situation. :up:

LW em on tests + screenies en route.

I can confirm that there IS in fact problem with AI torpedos - I forgot one command and torpedos after reaching RTE don't dive to search depth.
That's why I called it beta and demo ;-). Already fixed on my comp. I have to look on the last thing reported by Bellman yet. To answer question - the counter of Enable and Preenable button is reset to zero after the other button is pressed, so if you press Preenable 3 times and then press enable, preenable counter is reset to zero. Same for enable, pressing preenable resets enable button counter.
I'll check the second problem and then relase fixed demo of this doctrine, but it's still only demo how it works because it has no other LwAmi mod features...

BTW what problem ?

The problem of the Homing variable not being properly reset to 0 which leads to them not starting to search properly after losing a track.

The torps in LwAmi 3.0 Final (Beta) are taking the first bite from old cake - em and screenies just sent to LW

They are too easily suckered and go for relatively old CMs, are spoofed and then lose the target . :hmm:

I wonder whether anyone will be kind enough just to update us a little on progress. Thank you.

Hmm..just stumbled in, and to lazy to read the whole thread. But,... should it not be normal when a torp go's for a "old " decoy? When it find the decoy "before" it find the sub it should go fot the decoy. Of course it should deny the decoy when it acquired the sub first.

It has always been the case in DW--even in SC actually--that a torpedo can be decoyed if the sub maneuvers so that a decoy is between the torp and the sub, breaking the lock on the sub and causing the torp to chase the decoy instead. If this wasn't possible, once the torp had acquired the target you might was well stop playing. This applies with or without the LW/Ami mod.

In stock 1.03, and to a lesser degree in stock 1.01, I've seen torps turn away from the target to chase a decoy; I'm generally not happy about this. If it is happening, it should only be happening when the lock on the target sub is very tenous with respect to the torp's sensor in that acoustic environment, at that range, and at that aspect angle. Strangely, I don't see this happening much in modded play, where torp sensors are generally less-capable. I add this 2nd paragraph only because I don't have your replay, so I can't tell which of the two situations it is.

I expect and find naturaly that a torp at say 2nm from ownship running perpendicular will be spoofed by a cm left in its path. I do not expect that at under .75 nm with ownship acquired in similar circumstances that it will do the same, with ownship merely maintaining a perpendicular course. (Details sent LW)

In SC we can agree surely that when the torp acquired ownship close-in a cm had to be left in the acquisition cone with ownship turning out of the swing of the torps sonar leaving the torp sited only on the cm. :yep:

Futhermore once the torp has been spoofed and has burnt through, the time delay before it restarts its search pattern is quite critical. My impression is that now, tested as LwAmi but originating in vanilla (?), they are extremely lazy at getting back to work. Is this just more dumbing-down ? :arrgh!: