I'm of the opinion that we are right now at the tipping point.

I'm not taking out the TIW messages because the TLAM's have to graphically fly higher than in stock, especially if this has the extra benefit of making the TLAM's more reliable.

Just to be clear, I've ALWAYS had trouble with TLAM's, SLAM-ER's, and LAM's in terms of 1) getting them to target 2) getting them to detonate on the target to damage it, from DW 1.00 onwards, so I'm really just going to set this and then drop the mic and walk off the stage.

Cheers,
David

LAM's:
Tested them with last doctrine. Fired couple of them directly across 300-460 m hills and they passed reaching the targets. The next time i have enemy OHP placed nearby, making the LAM waypoints that they flies approx 15 nm from the OHP. Fired 8 LAM's (4 x 2) and all of them were destroyed by OHP SM-2 engaging from ~14 nm.

The TLAM's in the next version of the mod will be no more likely to be shot down than TLAM's in past versions.

Cheers,
David

Is somethings screwed with my JSGME install ?

Having looked again at the matter following Fishs post about problems I decided to do what was advised. I carried out a full uninstall removing all vestiges of DW and LwAmi from my PC., including regedit removal. I then did a clean install and patched to 1.04 followed by a 'Full package' install of LwAmi 3072.

Everything appears to run fine but wanting to look again at the new LwAmisub_Test for TLAM, prior to installing it, I had a look in my various Doctrine folders. (3 - Main folder, LwAmi Mod and Backup) All contained the identical TLAMsub txt file modified on the 24.02.07. Can this be correct ? :hmm:

Edit: See below - It is correct and OK as the original file is switched back in on reverting by JSGME to Stock.

My reinstall followed a suspicion that all was not well with my earlier 100% success rate using LwAmi 3072 TLAM Test.

I set up a scenario with SAMs in the lee of steeply contoured hills - an unrealistic TLAM target but a severe manouvering problem for the 'new' mod. In stock all the targets were destroyed and the TLAMs were observed to carry out large pitch correction movements. In LwAmi 3072 with the latest 'Test' no targets were hit - there were 50% near misses and 50% enroute ground collisions. The inflight higher ground clearance altitude seems to accompany a very gentle pitch adjustment which proved, in my tests, incapable of responding efficiently to the ground contours.

Edit: Tests show under these severe conditions TLAMs overshoot (as expected) Also given routing over less steeply contoured terrain the success rate is proportionately higher.

That is interesting :hmm:

I opened up the DW Doctrine folder then tested the JSGME and what I found was that the stock files inside the DW Doctrine folder changed and added the TLAMsub.txt file when I enabled the LWAMI mod. Then I disabled the LWAMI mod and watched the files go back to there original stock files and the TLAMsub.txt file was removed.

Just wondering, did you deactivate the mod first before uninstalling as well as remove all the left over folders on your harddrive after the uninstall was done?

:D You are right when deactivating LwAmi Mod the TLAMsub file is replaced just by the older TLAM file. My concerns were groundless. Thanks. :rock:

Yes, Molon has demonstrated that some targets that cannot be hit in stock DW can be hit in LWAMI after the TLAM change, and vice versa, some targets that cannot be hit in LWAMI can be hit in stock DW.

This is something we are all just going to have to live with.

Cheers,
David

Eh. That's not quite right. The stock missiles perform better at getting over radical terrain. But, they're buggy, and will sometime nose dive too steeply to pull out in time. It's not that the stock missiles cannot hit targets, it's that they are unreliable in their ability to do so. The more uneven terrain they have to cross, the more unreliable they become.

LWAMI missiles perform more poorly, and because of that, cannot hit some targets. But they are predictable, and if you're willing to really study the topography, you can find routes to targets provided there are not so many features that the missile just doesn't have enough waypoints to get around them. This is much more of a can-can't proposition than with the stock missiles, where it can just be a crap shoot.

Yeh I agree with ML and in more recent tests have had greater success with LwTlAms given larger profile targets and carefull route planning.

However it seems that Stock tend to overpitch on more extreme contoured final phase approaches whilst if anything LwTlAms underpitch. This characteristic probably assists LwTlAms in crest riding enroute at the cost of increased exposure to interceptor missiles.

I dont recognise the description of Stocks as ''crap shoot'' as I achieved a higher proportion of kills with them when approaching over extreme topography. The LwTlAms still overshoot too often or plow a furrow in a hillside. The result is a much reduced kill ratio.

It sounds like we're using different standards. You seem to be considering not only the missile's performance, but the ability of the player to find a flight path.

I am only analyzing the performance of the missile on a given flight path. For a LW/ami missile, a given flight path will either be passable for all missiles or it will be impassible for all missiles. For a stock missile, there is some unknown probability of failure which increases with rougher terrain and longer flight paths. So for a stock missile, if you're firing over rough terrain, whether any particular missile will reach the target is unknown. With a LW/Ami missile, you know that it will or that it won't.

I totally agree ML. Since when were TLAMs designed to be mountain climbers anyway. As far as I can see, waypoint plotting is the strategy so that TLAMs have a success in reaching their targets but that also is not a 100% certainty.

I think this is being looked into way too deeply. The more changes made in the TLAMsub.txt, the more irregularities are found. All I did was changed:
IF TerrainAlt > -100 THEN {
SetPriority 249
SetAlt ( TerrainAlt + 800 )

and left the skimming at 50 feet. The TLAMs reached their target no problems even clearing 2400 feet.

Fearless: ''Mountain climbers'' :lol: - I tested over hills between 1000 - 3000 ft. References to extreme topography or rough terrain relate, as I understand it, to the rate of change in contours and not to the absolute height levels. In practise routing over or through such terrain would only be necessary where the limited waypoints prevented planning low level flight paths. But waypoints are limited which imposes compromises in long distance run-ins over 'hilly' terrain.

My aim was to simulate a target set in a valley or superbowl stadium of surrounding hills where at the end of a long waypointed flight options for approach are limited. Results as reported elsewhere were 'mixed.'

But given a level approach over sea to a 'steep' hill under 3000 ft no ground collision should be expected but I experienced such frequently with the latest LwAmi TLAM mod.

Pitch and rudder control is of vital importance in the final run-in to target stage. Flight Simmers will recognise the situation where a vital target nestles in the hills. And where have the sneaky defenders placed the SAMs - thats it right behind the brow of a hill on the potential sensible approach routes.

The TLAMs should be capable of dealing with the defence radar, SAMs and targets in hill-shadowed positions. This demands a higher degree of responsiveness to control inputs in the terminal stage/s than the 'ballanced' wave crest riding approach run-in. A 'Formula One' car settings adjustment 'on the hoof' ?

With sim software limitations a compromise adjustment should be found. My preference would be to move in the direction of Stock performance even at the cost of TIWs. I dont think MP considerations should be paramount in this issue.

This is what I did originally... however some people want to shoot them at things on the tops of sea mountains and such, so it's necessary to give them a significant cushion even while over water.

Cheers,
David