How about a LWAMI adapted stock campaign? Now it's very difficult to finish some campaign mission because of LWAMI changes.

Err just a thought:88)

Double the kilo's battery life if possable. It can only make around 200-250 nms at 3 knots insted of its 400 nms. I'm still running a test (saving off an on) to see just how far it can really travel but my calculations put it around 200 nms right now.

Hey that is a must Kilo's battery fix

Well, that's nice, but really, you should check the battery endurance at higher speeds as well. There's a chance that the problem is in the logarithmic between speed and power consumption. You don't want to screw the battery usage at higher speeds for the sake of the rare used creep function.

Well from my charting I've seen that at 5 knots the Kilo Imp has a range of 62.5 Nms at 10 it has 50 nms, 14 it has 31.8 nms, at 17 it has 21.25 nms and at 20 it has 15.1 nms. As you can see there is a progresson between speed and range as is, but I think it should be greater.

And now for Doctrine suggestions.

I've noticed through casual observation and testing that warships will avoid other warships once their SSM supply is exhausted. Once the ship's side has lost contact with the enemy warship, it will return to its assigned course.

This is good doctrine for solo ships, however, it is also being applied to ships that are part of a formation. The result is that individual escorts in a formation that exhaust thier SSMs will leave their post and make themselves, or the ships they are supposed to protect, vulnerable to enemy attack. I suggest that this doctrine should only be applied to solo ships or to formation leaders; and when applied to formation leaders the test for SSM compliment should be applied to the entire formation rather than the leader itself.

I think this is a serious issue with AI behavoir and should be a high priority.

Just wanted to ping you guys... keep coming up with ideas, I like doing things in bunches. :)

LWAMI 3.09 WILL happen... I should probably do it before the holidays, so maybe in the next three or four weeks. :up:

Cheers,
David

Boo yah!

That's great news LW. :rock: I'm glad I saw this before I went to bed tonight. Looking forward to it. I've got to travel all week so I won't be logging in here very much for the next few days.

Thanks!

:up: Great news!:rotfl:

DSRV problem, I don't know since when those DSRV doesn't work probably:damn: , I think it may be the doctrine problem.
Hope you can fix it

Thank you! looking forward to 3.09


Beside, I'm working on a new controable Astute sub of UK, temporally, using SSN21 interface for modification, changed default weapon loadout:replace MK48 with Spearfish; reduce Rack Stowed from 42 to 32; adjust all those Masts position for the Astute mod(from 3.08), almost done, except one thing------"SailBridge", can't find it's "obj number" in Database(those SAM launcher number doesn't count ), therefor I can't adjust SSN21's sailbridge position into Astute:damn:
Any suggestion? or any idea I can find it's exact number in Databse?

Here is my wish list:

1.. CZ SSP / deeper crush depths for nukes - for nukes make the crush depth to about 2600 ft (for 688 and akula subs) and 3100 ft ( for SW) as to experience the full effect of a CZ SSP. Right now I think nukes are capable of achieving crush depths where they fall short of the maximum benefit of a CZ SSP, but if the depth change took place then nukes would be able to achieve that. I also figure some weapon depths will need to change to be able to acquire targets that deep, so those will need to be adjusted accordingly also. RE: the kilos, AFAIK the kilo is mainly meant for shallow waters, and even still in a ‘shallow’ water environment the maximum benefit of a CZ ssp could still be achieved, and at that point, the kilo as well as nukes would achieve the same benefit from a shallow water CZ SSP also. I guess that also depends on how 'shallow' is defined. In this case in waters where the sea floor is at an unadjusted crush depth for kilos, then both nukes and kilos can both acheive maximum benefit of a CZ ssp.

2.. smaller surface area / reduce active detection of kilos – I feel that since the kilo is smaller than nukes, w/ smaller surface area, they should be more difficult to detect on active sonar. In fact any sub smaller than nukes should be harder to detect on active sonar. Assuming kilos are half the size of nukes, I’d say reduce active detection on kilos and other subs of that size to 50%. I’m unsure about the exact dimensions of kilos vs nukes, but adjust accordingly.

Thanks,

suBB

What do you mean by 'experiencing the full effect of a CZ SSP" ? AFAIK as you get under the layer there is no more changes in performance. And CZ SSPs have quite shallow layer.

I don't have much experience with the CZ SSP, but I'm inclined to agree. Just to use our last game, SuBB, as an example, the detection I had while I was in a below-the-layer 688I's CV occurred while my array was just slightly below the layer. That makes absolutely no sense. Sound that had insufficient vertical velocity to cross the layer have been pulled back down towards the sound channel. Sound that had sufficient vertical velocity to cross the layer should have been ducted towards the surface. It would probably have made more sense to get a detection above the layer than just barely below, and the idea that the actual convergence zone occurred at that depth instead of near the surface or inside the sound channel seems implausible to me. I can only conclude that whatever is going on with depth isn't being modeled very well.

I suppose its possible that signal strength will increase as you go deeper towards the sound channel, but this relationship is apparrently the result of a formula using range and depth as variables, not the result of something that resembles ray tracing. So if such a formula does exist, increasing depth just gives you access to stronger signal strengths at the same range; it doesn't give you access to a sound path that could not otherwise be reached. I don't think that's an adequate justification to change sub performance.

My measurements did not show any sound channel. Convergence zones and surface duct seem to differ in 2 things only: layer is shallower and at 30 & 60 nm distance there is slight signal bonus. Nothing more.
And nothing more means that for surface target, you are either above the layer and then you hear him, or you are bellow the layer. Under the layer if you are close enough you hear him with somewhat lower volume .. and above some distance (about 6nm) you don't hear him at all.
As for submerged contacts, it's pretty complicated and I did not make enough measurements to really understand it, but it even seams that some basic rules are wrong. Especially if A hears B, B should hear A with same transmission loss. It is not so in DW. But I will report about this later as I'll get more data.

Original thread here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=117814

I thought the data from that thread supported the conclusion that a shadow zone was modeled. My observations above tend to contradict that, but that's why I brought up the possible decrease in signal strength just below the layer--to try to reconcile what I saw with the idea that some sort of shadow zone effect is modeled.

I don't think there is a rule that "if A hears B..." though. Just as an example, I would expect that if sub A is in the deep sound channel and sub B is above it, Sub A's sound will tend to get captured in the channel and will allow B to detect it, while sub Bs sound tends to stay captured inside the channel so sub A cannot detect it.