I just tested again, firing from 100nm+, and set the missiles not to enable at all.

And I got the same results. First missile engaged around 16nm and second missile engaged about 20nm.

I don't know why your ships are waiting until they get an ESM contact. DBGview is reporting for me that the missiles are never classified as hostile and are never detected on ESM under any conditions. As soon as the detection occurs, the ships switch to CIWSAttack and engage.

Can I email you my test scenarios?

PM me.

'


Go ahead.

I just got a few longer range engagements, but those occured when a helo was nearby and ID them hostile. I see a pattern emerging.

Unless I force the search radars off, I never get an ID before engagement. :hmm:

[3772] SC2: Launched entity - hull: 4001
[3772] SC2: Launched entity - time - speed: 34.710002 25.722223
[3772] SC2: Launched entity - rates speed: 28.293801
[3772] SC2: New Track Num 3, ent hull 4001, tgt hull 4001
[3772] NSE: 3M54E stage 1 Enabled
[3772] NSE: Run:
[3772] NSE: 138995.328125
[3772] NSE: SS-N-27 ASM detected by TICO CG (VLS) with Radar at rng 35063
[3772] NSE: CIWS Attack Init
[3772] NSE: CIWS Attack Init
[3772] SC2: New Track Num 4, ent hull 34004, tgt hull 34004
[3772] SC2: New Track Num 5, ent hull 34005, tgt hull 34005
[3772] NSE: SS-N-27 ASM detected by O.H. Perry FFG with Radar at rng 33544
[3772] NSE: CIWS Attack Init
[3772] NSE: CIWS Attack Init
[3772] SC2: New Track Num 6, ent hull 34006, tgt hull 34006

Your test scenarios are locking my computer up. Try sending them again inside a zip file, I think outside of a zip they get corrupted.

Done. :cool:

Sorry about that.

Luftwolf and Molon Labe,

This is by far for me the most interesting Topic to discuss
(Can we please put that one on the main one - the general topics, may be under another name like ``Detection of SSM``)

Like you are saying I think the behavior looks all right.
Let say I am well implicated in this in RL. The fact that there is no indication prior to a detection of let say inside 20nm (which is real life - Radar horizon + Atmospheric condition/effect depended and height of sensors) will absolutely take more time to engage that same missile. The assessment of an OPs Team in this has to be quick. Secondly, as in RL, the lock with the FCR will not be immediate (sometimes way faster than other).
If linked by an helicopter, the team knows at that time so as soon as there is a ``Pop-up`` on the same bearing and same speed has reported by link or previous Intel than you are right on top of it with your assessment.
Unfortunately like I was saying couple of weeks ago, we don`t have an altitude provided with our FCR like in RL or automatically (3D Radar) with AEGIS. Than you can assesses if it is a Fighter attack Bomber (usually 500ft) or an SSM (0 feet or on the deck).

I am really really interested in your testing with this!
I know with a ship without AEGIS, even though you have an hostile Link track you can`t engaged until you have it on your FCR radar and locked on the track that has a blip under it. Now I have to find out with AEGIS equiped ship. I don`t think so too. However they shall be able to engaged a bit faster (like in your testing) because of that 3D availability that they have with the AEGIS and the great ``resolution`` provided by AEGIS radar.
I will find out early for you guys if an AEGIS can engaged a Link track for sure.
I would expect to see more missiles in the air however when attacking a threat (CG - 4 FCR and Arleigh Burke - 3 FCR with all AEGIS controlling in te mid term.

Continue your good work!

Mau

Mau, thank you! :up:

I was getting AEGIS ships to fire at link missiles contacts, sometimes up to 70nm away! I accomplished this by disabling the requirement of the AEGIS SM-2's to require the FCR to lock on the missile.

This was done to experiement with the parameters which limit engagement.

The solution put in place now, is to still require the FCR, however the range of the FCR's on AEGIS ships has been greatly increased. Previously it was limited to picking up missiles within 10nm and that was way way too short. So, now, the ships still require the FCR, however for "no-warning" threats, there seems to be a delay between acquiring the missile on the search radar, and the ships painting the vampires with their FCR, which slows down launch a little bit. With link or launch-track warning, the FCR radars seem to be on sooner and the ships have a bearing for the vampire, so engagement occurs a bit sooner.

Interestingly, a lot of this has been largely unintentional, on my part, and seems to be built into the sim. So I think this is another example of how DW was hardcoded with some amazing features, that nobody ever saw because of limitations in the database, in this case, the extremely unnatural range limits on the AEGIS FCR's.

Guys, if you are launching SSMs from 20nm, they even don't get low to their cruise altitude before being engaged :). You know that after launch they climb few hunderds (if not 1k+) feets in the air and then dive low again. Reaching the 50ft altidute takes them quite long time. And they are detected in climb phase usually (by SPY), then if FC radar range is enaugh they would engage them immediately (in my tests I've launched SS-N-27s from well over 50nm (Sink the Nimitz mission), they were detected by SPY while climbing and engaged if FC radar could detect them. By the time SAM arrived, the SSM was again low under radar horizon but this didn't prevent SAM from hitting and destroying it.) The only thing that prevents this now is probably not too great FC radar range.
Try to launch your missiles from over 50nm. I know it's not very game-like scenario, but then you could observe true radars performance against true low flying targets, after gaining this inf you can return to game scenarios (so missiles launched from 20-30nm).
Also if you want to observe FC radar performance, try to disable SPY radar in database and rely on links for initial detection, then first DbgView report would be from FC radar.
Hmm it's interesting than in your tests ships waited untill target was ID hostile. I never observed that (or maybe I had only "detect" filter set in DbgView ?? :hmm: :hmm: )

That was my testing procedure as well, Amizaur. I have achieved the same results (which is good because we are using the same files :) ), although the FCR's included with the 2.02 Mod won't detect the missiles beyond 22-25nm at the absolute most because the detection curves are 91,000m-100 and 9,100-1, so a 50 FCR missile will show up around 45,000m at the farthest.

I have sent Molon my test scenarios to see what we can find out about why his ships were waiting for posID... I think it may have had something to do with the setup of his test scenarios, but I can't figure out what. :hmm:

Well, I suspect that the det curves are NOT linear, because in my tests a SL=50 missile was always detected at a range corresponding to det curve value of 5, not 50! :-? But this missile was really probably 40 (front aspect -10) and detection was affected by low altitude and sea state.
Anyway it's quite confusing and I plan extensive tests that will clear this all definitely (starting at high alt, measuring aspect effect, plotting det curve value/SL dependance, measuring effects of low alt and sea state for sea skimmers, combining it all together).

Well, I sleep well at night because I don't do math. :lol: :-j

Re: Sub evasion doctrine. I've witness several incidents in littoral ASW missions where the new sub evasion doctrine is causing the subs to bottom out and run aground. Happens about 40-50% of the time in waters less than 100 meters deep.

Anyone else confirm this behavior. Sometime the behavior can be written off as role-play with the sub purposely sitting on the bottom to spook the torp, but most of the time is pretty much a nosedrive at 20knots into the seafloor with the sub scrapping the ground trying to obtain flank speed.

To witness the behaviour I recommend the mission FF Gatekeeper and watch the Oscar and/or Trafalgar when evading torps.

This is a feature of the original doctrine as well. AI submarines don't handle gradual inclines very well starting from stock SC onward.

All I have done in the modified doctrine is alter the evasion angle off of the bearing of the torpedo and instructed the subs to always drop an active decoy.

As I said in the readme, this doctrine in particular needs a lot of work, but I wanted to "quickfix" it to give the AI subs SOME chance of avoiding any torpedo, and the result has been to increase their effectiveness pretty dramatically, if you take into account the fact that I just changed a few numbers and swapped one word.

There could also be some issue with the anti-cavitation routines put in the doctrine, but this has been in the Mod for sometime and we haven't noticed any problems.

Thanks for bringing this up though, because there is something that needs to be done to help with this problem. :up: