..........typo :-

' subs and near surface cavitators'

Is there a way to make the effectiveness of the CMs depend on the type of torp? I don't think there is, but just making sure...

Unfortunately no, P-Diddy. :-j

We can however change the seeker cones of the torpedos, so the SET-65 doesn't have the same seeker parameters as the ADCAP. :88)

Bellman,

Unfortunately, any variable range vs speed calculations have to be added at the doctrine level (by modders anyway, I'm sure SCS could do with a single algorithm in the .exe ) *for each individual torpedo separately* meaning that's a lot of coding for each weapon times 20 or more torpedos, etc.

The best we can do without going to that lenght, is be fair about the selection of speeds and ranges.

Giving the ADCAP near max range near its top speed and giving the UGST mininum range accurate with its range at top speed, as you and others including Fish pointed out, is not fair. So, we have given the UGST max range at max speed (27nm@50kts) and ADCAP near max range at near max speed (27nm@60kts). Amizaur suggested it and I believe that is both fair and playable. :up:

I hope you guys agree. :yep: :know:

I have demo torpedo doctrine, it's public from few months, and the good news is that I designed it from the start to be as easily adaptable for other torpedos as possible :P . To make it reflect parameters of other torpedos, all you have to do is set 5 or 6 parameters - two speeds (for ADCAP 40 and 55kts), ranges at that speed (for ADCAP you would set 21 and 27nm) and a parameter of speed reduction with depth (speed at max depth). The rest (speed/range curve and speed reduction with depth) would be calculated by doctrine :-).
So basically you take my ADCAP doctrine, instert into it UGST parameters (50kts, 35kts, 27nm, 16nm, speed reduction (to be determined yet) and you have ready to use UGST doctrine :-).

P.S. There are few more parameters to set, I forgot about length of guidance wire and torpedo max (fail) depth, but all this takes maybe 5 minutes to make one complete torpedo doctrine. I have not done this myself yet because I planned to further expand this doctrine and add new features, but it's fully functional and very well tested (much better than SS-N-27 stuff) right now.

I am going to set the MAD/SAD sensors to their correct detection depths for v1.03 as well.

What should their proper depths be? :ping:

I don't think this can be fixed. Check my post in the other thread.

Just a thought. The US subs don't have SUBROC's. Wouldn't that off set any unfairness? I say go for realism.
$.02

TLAM, the detection max-mins in the database for each sensor are hardcaps regardless of geometry: if I set the detection max depth at a certain point, the game engine is hard coded not to display those targets to a certain sensor.

Could everyone live with the ranges of 1000ft MAD and 500 ft, SAD?

Ahab,

Thanks for your feedback.

That was my thinking as well (they don't have shikvals either) but the decline in sensor performance is enough to compensate, given that the UGST and ADCAP performances should be judged by the same standards, I believe.

So if you do set it to a 1000 feet you will still detect contacts more than a 1000 feet off your beam?

BTW SAD has a range of 750 according to the manual.

Before you do anything maybe a former P-3 or Seahawk flyer could comment? I know there are a few around here...

The values I am changing are not relative values. They instruct the game to only display contacts to the sensor within a certain range of absolute depths.

It is the same fix I applied to the persistent missile transients, lowering the detection altitudes of sonars to 10ft, just in reverse, raising the maximum detection depth of the mad and sad to 1000/750.

The overall geometry is unaffected by the change.

The biggest problem, is that AI platforms only have the MAD sensor, and that is tuned to 0, 1000, meaning your tactic wouldn't work.

So, I have decided to change it to a SAD sensor in effect, with depth range -50 to -750 feet, to avoid AI aircraft dropping torpedos on overflown ships and to make it possible to avoid them. I am not sure if a crew would actually drop on a MAD only contact with no other confirmation, but I suppose its better this way to be sure.

You guys can let me know if it would be better to have all AI MAD sensors behave like SAD sensors. :up:

What is difference between MAD and SAD ? :-)

MAD detects any metallic object (Except perhaps subs made of titanium like the Alfa) SAD detects only submarines.