ML: Thats what I have'nt seen yet (in SP) but I will get my microscope out and have another look.

Passives seem more positive in locking on to passive cms but the only time I have seen torp ''confusion''
is with an active when there was a choice between cm and sub and it quickly made up its mind. - sub every time.

I've seen a collision between a Tico and an Arleight Burke escorting the carrier in the last campaign mission :damn: :damn: . Is possible to make they avoid each other using the doctrine language?

I would say that it's possible.... but this would require HUGE doctrine that would track position and courses of all ships in proximity and checked all the time if there is collision danger and then ordered emergency maneuvers... which could lead to another collision ect. :/. Any idea for simple algoritm that would check if there is collision danger ?
Or maybe just implementing collision checking in part of doctrine that orders evasive anti sub/torpedo maneuvers would help... but this would not prevent all collisions... and I'm not sure how the targets should be tracked - in ship doctrine itself by variables or maybe designate friendly ships as targets to get target doctrine for each, just not order shooting that collision preventing... but this would mean LOT of simultaneous doctrines running and maybe generating contradictory orders and game crash... well it's hard task, I even don't think of that until there are no simple things to fix and improve left ;)

P.S. hmm maybe there is a way to send a signal from one doctrine to others, so when ONE ship begins evasive maneuver then ALL ships in convoy will start THE SAME maneuver at once so collision risk would be minimised...? Would look quite cool ;) but I don't know if it's possible, my knowledge of doctrine language is too weak, EntVar commands probably work only between platform and target doctrine, not between two platform doctrines...?
Maybe at least optimisation of evasive maneuvers, one would have to think what orders would minimise collision risk... but in convoys that would probably not help much... :hmm:
No, thanks, I'll take other bug :-j

edit: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: tracking all near targets all the time would be difficult and time-consuming, but what if we added for each ship separate, specialised anti-collision sensor of very short range (visual would be best I think) maybe even with cones looking at specific angles, and order emergency maneuver if something was detected by this specific sensor ? :hmm: not sure if it would work, all targets would be detected long before by other sensors so they wouldn't be called as new tracks ? but for torpedo proximity fuse it works so should work for a ship "proximity fuse" :) have to thing on this.
But still I prefer other bugs ;)

Bellman, in a multistation dive recently, with darksythe and MaHuJha (full AAR to be posted soon if not already) we came out of sprint less than 5nm from an Akula II that had bottomed itself and was waiting in ambush, already having fired a torpedo at us.

It fired on us while we were running blind at 20kts and when we came out of the sprint, the torpedo was already tracking us 45 degrees of the bow at 2.5nm. We immediately turned hard left and headed due north and dropped two active decoys and snapshot down the torpedo bearing.

When we counterfired, the Akula II put anothre torpedo in the water, very accurately. The first torpedo's lock was actually broke by our torpedo counter shot, that gave us enough time to get behind our decoy screen, and the first torpedo acquired the double decoys and ran past us. The second torpedo had us dead on so we cut back to the south west and dropped another decoy, this one just confused the torpedo enough that it ran directly between us and the decoy, missing our sub by less and 100m (probably closer to 50m) and ran right by.

The bottomed Akula II couldn't get going in time and we gave her the old rapid decompression death. :rock: :arrgh!:

So decoys are effective under 5nm, you just have to be on your game, as Molon said. ;)

This is very much true i had us running at 20 knots to close distance and encourage a shot by what we thought was going to be a delta class.

We came out of sprint after around 5-7 minutes to get the TIW call . We were heading 090 I ordered us to drop the actives and cut back to 000' runing at flank. Once we saw that the first fish had taken the bait we dropped out of flank started turning to the south to reacquire the target (didnt have time to snap on the first fish :nope: )

As soon as we came out of warp :lol: he once again fired on us i ordered a snapshot down the bearing to shot (Believe it was 110' now) ordered to drop the actives and go left full at flank ( i think our navigator ran us in a complete circle :hmm: ) but it worked out because the fish got confused by our snapshot and started to run at it for a while.

Then I think it probably acquired both us and the countermeasures(we were still close to the decoys) and split the difference between us as we turned into its baffles...

Stay tuned for the full AAR.
Also expect a full AAR from our dive early in the night with same crew on board a Akula II!!

Yeah, I accidently left the rudder at hard left while I went back to firecontrol to snapshot... :oops: I thought we did fire on the first torpedo?... I was WAY too busy flipping switches, entering values, and repeating back order calls to have a clear memory of the events. It's a good thing the Captain had a clear head and remembers. :yep: ;) :D

Thanks Mike, for the fantastic dives as well! :rock: :arrgh!:

Cheers,
David

Hehe clear head..... right??? Um thats my job isnt it. Lol j/k i think we all did a excellent job especially considering the time we started the mission and the time we ended. gulp... 0300-0830 est.

Not to mention 11:00pm-2:30am for the sinking of the Nimitz. ;) :rock:

Shhh... thats supposed to be a secret untill you do the AAr lol j/k stay tuned for that AAr to folks its just as good maybe even better. :|\

:lol: Ok guys - looks as if you have me triangulated. :o :yep:

There is no substitute for MP experience and I am aware of the severe limitations on my SP testing without a dual PC setup. :P

I sha'nt waste any more time 'tilting at windmills' - probably displacement activity from head banging 'triggers' ;)

I will sort out my router for MP access one day. :damn:

Hope you get it sorted out soon wed love to see you in game with us. If you need any help im willing to give it a try. I hve some networking experience especillay with stubborn routers ;)

Thanks that would be great :rock:

I nearly got into a game with Luftwolf testing the mod last week.
HL was fine but multi players was'nt on (my end) so LW and I atttempted a 1 v 1 start.
No luck - he could see me 'ready' at launch point (I think) but that was it. We didnt persist as others were waiting patiently to join.

:sunny: Dont suppose you are available for HL now ?

Bellman, since you were able to connect to my lobby, but not to the lobby of the game with multiple people, your configuration may be rejecting connections to multiple computers. However, that night, things were rather confused in terms of what was working and what wasn't working with everyones' systems, so it may not have even been you.

Let us know when you are available to play, darksythe's system is very friendly for multiplaying, so I think trying to connect to his lobby would be a good test of your system.

I apologize for that night, things were rather confusing all around, I think.

I wish i was available to play right now but im at work :down: :hulk: tomorrow i will be on HL advertising games all day though (I host str8 ip i dont like HL myself) so i hope to see you there!