No, what I'm saying is that if SCS had increased AI-crew and player-crew control at the same time that it added the snap roll effect to the physics engine, we'd be fine, or if they give us those things we will be fine. The problem is that they did one and not the other. It's poor judgment to add a physical effect without giving players the tools they need to deal with it.

:up: I would like to see some improvements in manual sub rudder control. Short of analogue input. then keys
for different degrees of rudder or worst case even incremental key presses +/- to obtain the more precise
control afforded by mouse selection, in the angle indicator, of Control. But when hard pressed with
a torp on your tail you dont want to be switching positions to go 'eyes down' in Control when you want
eyes glued elsewhere. :o :lol:

' Change course' (C) helps in Nav and together with the "Set Depth' keys a workable alternative
compromise can be found for in extremis situations. When employing a combo of horizontal and vertical
avoidance manoeuvres rudder empoyment is critical and I agree Molon we have more real physics without
appropriate tools to handle it. :hmm:

Or change the rudder hotkeys to maximum SAFE rudder (dependent on speed), instead of suicidal amounts of rudder.

Well I did some testing using a few clues from other posts. I wont bore you with columns of figures
but I got some eyeopeners. Some of my bubblehead habits are based on concepts which have changed.

Briefly I have completed stage 1 - level turns at speed to assess comparitive rudder inputs and Manual v Crew.
(Stage 2 - Angles and Dangles.)

SW 500 ft 35 knts dial in turn 180 dg. Timed 49 secs. Spd. change +2 knts. Depth change + 26 ft. Radius * to completed
turn 372 yds.

Ditto with full sustained rudder - timed 36 secs Spd. change - 5 knts. Depth change + 62 ft.. Radius to completed
turn varied (?) but avge. 405 yds.
* Not the same as radius of turn.

SCS have trained those crew well - the conclusions are obvious when the impact on cavitation is considered.

Another shock was as is claimed in RL that given the same circs as above a gentle 15% manual rudder -
timed at 50 secs with no loss of speed , + 48 ft depth change and RTCT of 707 yds,

OK I know nobody in their right minds will stay 'level' if circumstances permit - as the sub goes
deep we put the 'foot down' and 'screw-in.

And WOW a 35 knt 360 deg with 10 deg manual rudder with no loss of speed, + 39 ft depth change
and a true radius of turn of 214 yds. Now thats what the RL guy said -
From where I'm standing SCS seemed to have done some pretty nice tinkering here. :|\..........and thanks.:rock:
Hats off to them - heck glad it isnt eatable.:roll:

PS. Well before I go a twistin and a turnin I am going a playin with Time Lord Amizaurs new dancin torps. ;)

Yesterday, I made a test of an Akula going 7kts at 150 then 3kts at PD with a SW around 10.5 nm away... the SW fired on my Akula (which is incidental to this story... that's the result of some changes to the AI to make it a bit less dense when it comes to figuring out what every human knows... the quiet 50 or 60 hz tonal out there in the forest of huge signals is the bad guy...).

I immediately went full rudder left rudder and to flank and ordered a depth of 520m.

I didn't time it, but given the coordination of how the sub rolled and pitched down and did a crash dive while turning sharply it made me think of what Sub Sailor was talking about, being able to dive deep and quick during acceleration while also turning fast. The sub went down quickly, but not radically so, the autocrew was able to keep a solid handle on attitude, but I had to do considerable steering correction as the sub had terrific lateral momentum relative to the force the rudder could apply on the 9000 odd tons of akula diving at 5m a second (I wasn't counting but that's what it seemed like) at 33kts.

When I got the turn under control the depth crew slowly brought the sub into a level position around 500m-510m and slowly worked the sub down to 520m (without having the advantage of forward planes at 33kts).

It felt right. That's what I'm trying to say. The maneover I did was very much like an elefantine version of a maneover one would use in a dogfight to disengage below a cloud layer and convert altitude energy into speed energy and boggie out of there before anyone notices there is one less FW 190 in the sky... :arrgh!:

Surfacing is a bit less convincing... I don't really know what to make of most of the behavior... but it's not a gamekiller and even quaint, so it's not even nearly the biggest issue right now. :doh:

My advice is not to go too slow if you are in a nuke... they aren't really designed to stop as far as I know for any period of time and certainly not with the TA out. :know: ;)

LW, what's the status of Lwami 3.0? Done with the Readme yet?

Been working like a dog... I have some time now.

So I HOPE to be able to finish tomorrow.

:o :huh: :|\ Angles and Dangles.

Well I'm almost speechless - yeh right. (That will be the toe turn-up day ;) )
SCS have waved a magic wand with the new physics model.

I'm not saying more - a guy has to make a kill now and then. Sufficient to say that I've been dancing torps
without using a single CM and it really is possible to pull some fancy moves now. I'm talking avoidance in from 3 nm.
Now if we have SCX2 type ping rates within that range that would be neat eh ? :hmm:

Bellman, are you talking about stock 1.03 or 1.03 with Lwami 3.0?

A long time ago I asked why it was important for attack boats to be maneuverable (and not just fast). One answer was that maneuverability was important for evasion. But how could maneuverability actually help against a torpedo, which was faster and maneuverable enough? That's one big piece of metal and torps don't have to explode on contact...

Well, perhaps I have an answer!

Driftwood - all my tests posted in this thread has been with stock 1.03 which only has Amizaurs
New Torp Speed and Depth Beta Mod which I have also been testing.

I have a separate instal with switchable LwAmi 3,0 Beta.

Three14 - give it a roll. My last test was with 3 self-directed Mk 48s activated in a spread within 3 nm
- angles and dangles saved my bacon. Plus speed, depth, timing, turning tightly etc. I am not suggesting the DOD
would allow close modelling of the performance of real avoidance manouvres but I am very impressed with
what SCS has been 'allowed' to simulate. :|\

Generally speaking if a submarine is in the position where the torpedo has acquired it and is actually homing, it is going to be in world of hurt more often than not because as you pointed out the torpedo is faster and more maneoverable than a submarine in most cases.

However, the whole point of submarine torpedo evasion is to never get acquired in the first place by the weapon. The procedure for avoiding a torpedo after it has been fired but before it has acquired because it is still some 3-10nm away is called "clearing datum", with datum refering to the area that your opponent's probably solution places you in (a datum can vary in size based on how strong the solution is). Once you have figured out that you have an inbound TIW (torpedo in the water) you need to do two things generally speaking, clear the datum into a place that the torpedo is not likely to be going and put a counter measure or two between you and the torpedos likely path.

For more information on torpedo evasion, see this thread at the CADC: http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47 :up: :arrgh!:

Cheers,
David

:D Yes, as ML points out over at CADC - aspect ratio is very important ! ;)

Yep...that's the standard stuff. But for me it doesn't really explain how much SSN's benefit from their vaunted maneuverability as compared to an SSBN.

Standard doctrine also doesn't answer for me how you'd avoid 2 or 3 torpedoes. Sure they cost a lot, but it's a lot better than being dead!

Ok, sorry I couldn't explain it better, but that's pretty much my best shot... :)

In terms of weapons used... my feeling is that standard Cold War doctrine for submarines involves a lot of stalking and repositioning, so after hours of maneoving for a shot, you would fire when you feel that one torpedo stands a significant chance of making the kill, so more than one torpedo is not necessary, then again, Cold War submarine tactics are not something I am strong in, so perhaps someone else with more knowledge could answer the second part of the question.