Ah ok thanks, it makes sense now.

:up:

Just 'reporting-in' - standing ready to support the 'next' LwAmi patch.

Edit: Update. AIS coverage query withdrawn. :know:

Contact and Moored mines should have their warheads increased to something approaching 400-450 DP. These mines in DW are ment to be the type used by Iran in the 1980's (The contact ones are ment to be the ones found on the Iran Ajar which were Soviet M-08s). Most sources say the Samuel B. Roberts was "almost blown in half" or "Nearly sunk" and had to be towed to Dubai. So with the OHPs HP at 500 a HP of 450 should come close to disabling one.


More ships to research for damage info:

al-Rekkahre AKA U.S. tanker Bridgeton- Struck Iranian mine, damaged.

MV Sea Isle City, a reflagged Kuwaiti oil tanker- attacked with Silkworm missile, damaged.

Both these ships suffered only minamal damage due to their double hull construction. Bridgeton limped out of the Gulf under the escort of US warships and Sea Isle City was patched up and on her way in a few days.

Ya cant point track moving targets, ya have to manually area track.. If ya r point tracking bombs are falling way off.. :D

I got an idea to create some historical but real LWAMI mod covered 1970s or 1980s. My proposition is based on assumption there was some qualitative balance between Soviet and Western torpedoes in that period excluding American Mk-48, wasn't it?

Hi, Molon!

Your new damage model is a crap. You forgot to include missile's remaining fuel detonation in overall explosion effect!

I didnt forget to. I just don't think there is a way variable damage can be done with the database. If you're aware of a way to do it, please share and I'll be happy to make the revision.

It is simple!
You must enlarge payload of all ASCM warheads by factor equals to fuel's explosion TNT equivalent.

I can only enter a numeric value into the database field for 'damage.' KE + warhead gives me a value I can enter. If warhead = [warhead mass] + [fuel-TNT coefficient]*[m] where m is the mass of fuel on board at the time of impact, there is nothing I can enter. There is no way for the database to know what to do with the variable m.

Since there is no way to account for onboard fuel (or any other variable) in with the database architecture, the only thing that can be done is to enlarge the amount of damage done by the factors that we can account for. The method I used did exactly that.

Too primitive database engine!

So you must add three variables for each ASCM to calculate missile damage: kinetic enegry + warhead's TNT + TNT equivalent of remaining fuel for median of missile's maximum range. Of course, calculating fuel consumption for each ASCM will be difficult, so you must find some good sources and formulas to do that.

However if successful, it should be enough!

I underline these insufficiency in your calculations because remaining fuel is forgotten but often a key factor of ASCM damage capabilities. Note that even small Exocet misslie was able to sink British destroyer without warhead's detonation due to fire ignited by its fuel. Compare primitive Exocet "gnome" with some of the Soviet liquid-fueled giant ASCMs like Shaddock, Sandbox, Shipwreck (sole ramjet powered), Kitchen or Kelt in this aspect! I am afraid one Sandbox hit (a ton of TNT plus huge but unknown amount of fuel) could destroy US supercarrier, buddy...

There is going to be innaccuracy either way. IMO, it is better to base the system on factors that we can account for well and accept the error from factors that are not accounted for, than it is to deliberately introduce error by using factors that we know we can't come close to getting right.

Also, if the fuel onboard is calcuated as a function of range, any missiles that have a terminal, unpowered trajectory will still get a fuel bonus despite the fact they shouldn't have any left.

Ping...

Been deep trying to earn some scratch... anyone with any ideas about DW mods should direct their inquiries at OneShot, TLAM Strike, or Molon Labe, who all collectively are in trust of LWAMI.

Hope to be back on station soon... really. :cool:

Of course, I'm sure everyone figured that out already... thanks for keeping the lights on guys.

Cheers,
David

Possible addon/change to database:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3332377&C=navwar

I just noticed there is both a smoke "flag" in the DB and parts of the model called "exhaust." Which is responsible for those crappy white trails behind all the missiles? I was just thinking, whichever is responsible, it could be possible to use two models for many of these weapons, one with the smoke and one without. You'd use the model with the smoke during the boost phase, and use the 2-stage method spawn the smokeless model when it goes to cruise.

Maybe it's even possible to rework non-cruise missiles so that they burn up to their maximum speed until burnout and are then replaced by a smokeless, gliding model with an initial velocity but no thrust.

Another crazy idea: for "advanced" seaskimmers, would it be possible to use doctrine to create a popup attack profile? This might help get the CIWS to a level of effectiveness that isn't either 0% or 100% and could make these missiles' success in the sim a bit closer to their RL records--if it works, anyways.

Generally speaking, trying to model advanced weapon function in DW is sketchy at best. Two stage weapons are limited because there is no way to pass along the initial presets to the second stage.

Amizaur experimented extensively with popups and determined they do not make the missiles any more effective against ships, and in fact make them much more vulnerable in DW. So that one is a no go.

Cheers,
David

Any chance you could import the LWAMI 4 UTK feature into the 3 series?

Edit: I just noticed that SLMMs have no narrowband signature while intransit. I think this is an unintended consequence of the fix that prevented them from having an SL while at rest. What if the base SL was 1? Would this allow it to have a NB signature while intransit while still preventing passive detection at rest?

suggestion for future update LWAMI
 

I already enjoyed 3.08, but i think there still some room for improvements.

1. I think 600m turn radius for LA and SW in LWAMI 3.08 database is too big. I felt it's much better if we standarize all SSN turn radius to 500m (like Akula etc). I don't see any reason to make a bigger turn radius for LA and SW, either from technical aspect and game balance as well.

2. can you also add spanish navy and indonesia navy. Spanish navy have Agosta class subs (galema class) dan OHP class figates (santa maria class). And Indonesia navy have ex. Van-Speijk class (it's a Leander class originally built for dutch navy, after sometimes these ships sold to indonesia) and type 209 class submarine. I think because these ships and submarines had already presents in DW database, it's not very difficult to add them into new navy. I personally had already add Spanish and Indonesia navy into my LWAMI 3.08 database, nut i would like to see them included in future LWAMI update.

I would really like to see "Collision Avoidance" work for ships that are together in a formation. Nomatter how far away you put those ships, they scatter when you shoot in their direction and then they try to reform the formation again. Unfortunately they don't see each other and crash into each other a lot while trying to reform. I don't know if this is a hard coded stock issue or something that can be fixed but this issue is really hampering a campagn I'm building and I've been having to really jump through hoops to get the formations to behave properly. I would REALLY like this looked at. :D *hint hint* :D

I would really love to have the Kilo form Alfa Tau 3.1 in LwAmi. :yep:
See my last two posts in the DW screenshot thread to see why LwAmi really needs it.

On a side note, didn't Xabbarus make that?