SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 5 of 11 1234 5 6789 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Dangerous Waters (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Database Mod v3.072 --- Now Available!!! (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=106444)

LuftWolf 03-01-07 01:43 AM
Ok, this the first time I've used this card with you guys, and hopefully, the last.

The TLAM's are going to be what they are going to be. Mission designers are going to have to use restraint as to where they put targets. There is LOTS of land in the DW terrain map, in fact the WHOLE WORLD, so, if you want your missions to be compatible with LWAMI, then put your land targets in places where they can be hit with the missiles in the Mod.

If you don't want to do this, then put a note in your mission that it cannot be completed with LWAMI.

Cheers,
David

Fearless 03-01-07 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellman
Pitch control is of vital importance in the final approach 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 logical approach route.

So there is a dual problem but multi-targets. The TLAMs should be capable of dealing with the defence radar, SAMs and targets in hill-shadowed positions.
True but I wouldn't compare a flight sim with a sub sim though. Precision strikes are much easier from the air than from a surface or sub-surface lauched weapon as aircraft attacks are much closer to targets than subs are and also have altitude advantage when AGs are released. TLAMs are designed for stealth approach to give an element of surprise meaning below radar sig attack and they most definitely have much further to travel.

I still believe this is getting way too deep into the technics.

I certainly wouldn't send a TLAM maximum distance deep into Mountainous terrain on the hope that it would reach it's destination and then destroy the target especially as you said where targets of interest are strategically placed and hard to reach.

Bellman 03-01-07 02:09 AM
Fearless: You do love your mountains :lol: No comparison with flight simming just the reality of dealing with targets sensibly placed to maximise land utilisation and defence capabilities.

LW: I accept that there are limitations and you will achieve the 'best' compromise to achieve 'reality'. Sorry if I appear to have pushed the limits of testing (as requested) - my intention was only positive ! You know as an avid LwAmi fan I am truly chuffed to have this new superb mod. :|\\

LuftWolf 03-01-07 02:13 AM
I just think people are reading WAY too far into this for a bug that took a month to catch...

I'm not minimizing the importance of not messing anything up, that's been a primary goal of LWAMI from day one. However, given that mission designers have 100% choice as to where land targets are going to be, I think it's important to realize that there is never going to be a situation where I have made the missiles "unusable", provided that the mission designers take a quarter of the walk with me.

I find everyone's feedback very helpful no matter what, but let's keep things in perspective. :)

Cheers,
David

Fearless 03-01-07 04:05 AM
My sentiments exactly LW. I'll leave it to the powers to be and yes, It's a awesome mod. :up:

Bill Nichols 03-01-07 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuftWolf
I just think people are reading WAY too far into this for a bug that took a month to catch...

I'm not minimizing the importance of not messing anything up, that's been a primary goal of LWAMI from day one. However, given that mission designers have 100% choice as to where land targets are going to be, I think it's important to realize that there is never going to be a situation where I have made the missiles "unusable", provided that the mission designers take a quarter of the walk with me.

I find everyone's feedback very helpful no matter what, but let's keep things in perspective. :)

Cheers,
David
I'm happy so long as the new TLAMs are not substantially worse than the stock (re. terrain avoidance). I'd hate to have to re-work some of my prior scenarios.

We Dive at Dawn, for example, is one that requres the player to find a route through mountains for his TLAMs.

:|\\

LuftWolf 03-01-07 09:47 AM
I doubt there are any situations in current missions that would expose the new TLAM's weaknesses.

The only situations where it would still fail are under pretty extreme conditions. :)

Cheers,
David

Molon Labe 03-01-07 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Nichols
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuftWolf
I just think people are reading WAY too far into this for a bug that took a month to catch...

I'm not minimizing the importance of not messing anything up, that's been a primary goal of LWAMI from day one. However, given that mission designers have 100% choice as to where land targets are going to be, I think it's important to realize that there is never going to be a situation where I have made the missiles "unusable", provided that the mission designers take a quarter of the walk with me.

I find everyone's feedback very helpful no matter what, but let's keep things in perspective. :)

Cheers,
David
I'm happy so long as the new TLAMs are not substantially worse than the stock (re. terrain avoidance). I'd hate to have to re-work some of my prior scenarios.

We Dive at Dawn, for example, is one that requres the player to find a route through mountains for his TLAMs.

:|\\
Those moutains stopped a stock missile?
I got one through on the first attempt with a LW/Ami missile. There was a pretty obvious valley to go through, and I'm not even sure I needed to use it. This is child's play compared to Iran.

SUBMAN1 03-01-07 12:40 PM
Why is everyone complaining? The flight model in DW is not the best and is not intended to be, but it works. Make missions that work with it. Simple as that. When DW comes out with a airflow over surface flight based calulations engine, then you can complain about this kind of stuff. Until then, just deal with the simple physics as implemented.

As I see it, feel lucky that you get to shoot TLAM's at all towards land based targets!

-S

PS. LW - Thx for the excellent mod!

Fearless 03-01-07 04:41 PM
I don't believe anyone is complaining, more like trying to get way too deep into modding the TLAM. :)

Molon Labe 03-01-07 05:01 PM
unintended side effects are a bitch...but they can't be ignored

Janus 03-02-07 02:22 AM
I want to bring up an issue I have with sphere array and TA on the seawolf and 688i:
on both subs I've had the problem that there was a clear contact line in broadband on the sphere array (short and intermediate display) and the same contact at the TA's intermediate display (not visible on short).
Although the contact was clearly visible on the sphere array I was not able to designate it there, I had to designate it on the TA intermediate display...
In narrowband the contact was only visible on the TA and not sphere array :shifty:

Is this the LwAmi Mod's fault (or feature?) or is this some kind hardcoded-user -interface-sensitivity problem in Dangerous Waters? I cannot recall a similar problem before installing the mod.

Great mod nevertheless by the way :)

Fearless 03-02-07 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus
I want to bring up an issue I have with sphere array and TA on the seawolf and 688i:
on both subs I've had the problem that there was a clear contact line in broadband on the sphere array (short and intermediate display) and the same contact at the TA's intermediate display (not visible on short).
Although the contact was clearly visible on the sphere array I was not able to designate it there, I had to designate it on the TA intermediate display...
In narrowband the contact was only visible on the TA and not sphere array :shifty:

Is this the LwAmi Mod's fault (or feature?) or is this some kind hardcoded-user -interface-sensitivity problem in Dangerous Waters? I cannot recall a similar problem before installing the mod.

Great mod nevertheless by the way :)
It could well have been a Biologic. I have designated targets in SA but not very often.

Janus 03-02-07 03:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless
It could well have been a Biologic. I have designated targets in SA but not very often.
No it was not. That is what I would have thought too if there wasn't a frequency on the TA narrowband and apart fromt that it was a custom scenario I have set up for TMA practice with only one cargo ship, so no it definately was not a bio contact ;)

Dr.Sid 03-02-07 04:28 AM
You could also have frequency range set to low frequencies. TA NB shoould show something anyway. Something simmilar never ever happend to me and I use all the mods all the time.
I guess you should try to repeat the situation. If it happens, save the mission. Try if it exists after mission reload. If so, post the save.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 AM.
Page 5 of 11 1234 5 6789 Last »
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.