Kurushio wrote: SQ wrote:OK, OK - I'll settle for a dolphin (conversion) - LuftWolf ? ;)

Why not? Anyone remember Darwin the Dolphin from seaQuest? :lol:

In a sense, this is why it is so fun to be able to make one work from scratch with a database alteration and a few lines of script. :)

I have no problem making a hypothetical 2nd generation ASW UUV.

The biggest issue is that is HAS to be shared between the russians and the US, although I can do some funny things to the doctrines to make them a bit different.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/fi...=0&ti=0&sc=400

In my mind, I have a picture of something very different from anything like the current DW UUV. If possible, I wouldn't bother to make it a tube launched weapon. I'd make it a whole new unit that just links data, like the Predator UAV. It's just way too different from anything that the current UUV does. The Sea Talon UUV is a semi-semersible, trailing an active VDS. It's almost more like a surface ship.

I don't know anything about Russian UUVs or if they exist at all. I'm also not clear that it really fits with their current strategic focus. But what do I know?

'Sea Talon Submarine' - ''Temporarily unavailable'' :D

Well we have a useful tube launcher so we just want a wee shuffle forward from that LW.
Compared with the existing UUV an increased range and higher deployment speed. Loiter and/or stop. start ?

If Amizaurs proposed depth/speed mod bears fruit then some features could cross-fertilise. Might be fun also
to see what a little extra sonar performance might bring. Then we might be able to design the type of lower
density, alrger area, MP maps that SQ loses sleep about. ;)

Sorry, I ask for a lot - all I can offer is comprehensive testing support !

I think one of the current design goals is to equip a radio, where the uuv will go to the surface and broadcast data on a predetermined schedule http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

I don't have time to search for proper post to quote, but:

- to prevent 8 or even 4 torpedo salvos by human player - I think the best solution would be by Sonalysts - if score counting system was modified and some kind of "cost" of each launched weapon was substracted from overal mission score, so by killing a small single target with 8 torpedos salvo, the player could actually earn negative score :-). Or overal mission score would be divided by number of launched weapons - you want good score, spend smallest number of weapons you can to achieve mission. In this case you could sometimes decide to not engage secondary targets (like in RL sometimes), as this would reduce your score seriously.

And in MP games when players don't care about score, just want to kill somebody... I'm not sure there any solution possible for this... other than written or unwritten rules saying what is not fair (and realistic), like launching more than 2-3 torps on one enemy sub.
( In fact, I think in real life the torpedos in salvo have all same electronics and similar sonar picture, so if real life decoy deceive one torpedo, it would probably make same to 4 torpedos... are contermeasures working or not working, it's not based on entirely random factor in real life. And this is the case in the game :-/. )
So in human against human games, I think making and "signing" some kind of ROE for all players in session is the only way to prevent 8 torpedo salvos.

As for AI sub launching torps with new advanced physics outside effective range, or setting wrong parameters - it can be partially resolved by detecting (inside the doctrine) if torpedo is human or AI launched, and if AI, then setting optimal depth for torpedo run (shallow at long range with dive at enable), to prevent out-of-range shots. Also different version of AI torps (and subs) could be made, like in SCX and like Luftwolf proposed, but there is also other option - the AI atack routines are written in doctrine too ! So it should be quite easy to program in sub_eng_sub (or whatever it was named, can't remember now) doctrine correct torpedo evenlope parameters ! Just some more rules than torp max range only - allowed launch range would depend on target class (SSks can't run very fast), target depth ect. We can decide at which range should AI sub launch it's weapons. This could only require making few versions of sub behaviur doctrine for different armed subs (depends what weapons available, different evenlopes for Spearfishs. ADCAP or TEST-71...)

on side note...I've tried messing around with adding new sensor types to the UUV that are more consistent with the USN short term development goals, mainly ELINT as the most immediate goal, planned to give port and shore electronic survilence capability so that subs don't have to risk coming so close to ports for recon mission they would just launch a uuv...
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...2_uuv_copy.gif

... problem is that even if the UUV is given additional sensors, the game engine won't recognize them. Real bummer. :nope:

That's still FAR from the real time information you get now.

Yeah... they can't even make it work on the WWW.

But that's not what's realistic. What's realistic is to keep the speed the same, reduce the sensor range to maybe a nautical mile in each direction make it active only, with a frequency in the tens of kilohertz range or higher.

There's nothing stopping you now. With the exception of the UUV, I'm actually pretty happy with the sensors in the game.

A higher deployment speed means that speed which is appropriate to stealthy routing to the UUVs area of
activation. During this time of transiting passive and active sonar would be suspended. On attaining its area
of search the UUV would be activated in a manner suitable to its purpose given depth and SSP characteristics.

That purpose may be to loiter or stand ( :roll: SQ) receptively, or to search either passively or actively.
If further search is required its progress and sonar stance will be selected for its task. 'Standing' switched off
will conserve its potential. Wire limits would be more suitable to the game environment, though there are indications
that 'on paper' an independent means of contol by near surface radio contact would be desirable

SQ: You and I may be happy with what we have but in the main MP DW gamers will not and cannot tolerate
large maps, distant separations and games which run much over 2 hours. Most MP maps take this of necessity
into account. Hence my 'shock and horror' ;) at 'Scatter and carpet bombing salvo 'tactics on these maps.
Amizaur has pointed the way on salvo rules appropriate to Fleets and disciplined groups.

Taking on board SQs request for more realism in map size/platform separation we are left with a situation
where particularly in LwAmi one cannot risk the higher sub speeds used for searching in SC. Thats the rub !
One answer might be to bring into the game the enhanced UUV (torp mod) discussed above. This would
bring back a facility for stand-off searching in larger maps. So now when the diver gets a distant suspicious NB tonal
he can launch the Mk2 UUV for investigation. Send it steathily out off the contacts bearing, turn back on it and
run it at deployment speed (Sensors off) Slow and search etc.. Or merely patrol UUV/s searching ahead of the sub.
Combined with own subs concurrent tactics this opens up a Pandoras Box !

To maximise on DWs tactical potential, SQ is right to point us in the direction of more realistic MP maps.
We should seek all means to compress the scenarios dynamic evolution into the gamers available time slot.

Ok guys. :)

Great news.

I have finished merging the Advanced Torpedo Control Mod with the WireBreak Mod, and its working... well... *spectacularly*, at least in testing.

So now I need to finish it up with the correct parameters and put it into a playtest distribution.

Expect the LWAMI ATC+WB Mod Playtest to be posted to the CADC today! :up:

Cheers,
David

PS Aren't you guys excited? I am! :rock:

Standingby simmering ! :rock: :up: :cool:

Then basically what you're saying is that there really is no hope of ever making a realistic MP scenario, and therefore we should adopt equally unrealistic limits on tactics in order to make the situation further contrived?

I like simulations not games.

And that's realistic. One of the big weaknesses of submarines is that they are slow, 4-6 knots is about what one would expect for them to search at. Actually, though, if the distance scale is reasonable, higher speeds become more viable sometimes.

Believe it or not, just due to kinematics, it's often very difficult to hit a high speed target. With barrier searches, where you might only get one opportunity to detect a transitor, the cost/benefit of high speed can be less clear.

Sometimes I worry that some of the reason that people do the things in this game that they do is actually because they just don't have a deep enough understanding of exactly what the important things they need to capture are in order to have a realistic set of possible outcomes.

So... what you get is ultimately Sea Doom (with or without salvos).

That's great, but it's science fiction. Any fleet actually interested in realism, would ban the use of any UUVs like that.

That's an odd thing to read, just as I was about to create a Second Generation UUV.

The LWAMI playtest that is going to be released today, will feature an upgraded UUV.

SeaQueen, I like pushing the sim to the limits of what is possible. It is entirely possible to have a good UUV. I'm sure if it were as easy as it is for me to make one in DW, the government would put them on all their submarines as soon as possible.

That's why I mod DW. :)

Creating a mod or a game/sim is not simply plugging in values and writing code, sometimes its just about creating a world in some ways more ideal than the real one.

Cheers,
David

That having been said:

I *strongly* agree with your sentiments on mission design.

Although, there is place in this community for all kinds of quality missions, I think it is important to remember as well.

UUVs: With respect for SQ I do really suspect that he cant leave his work hat outside the game room.
Also given a considered response taking more time than usual from him I think a little misdirection is going on !
I hope that you wont be detered by 'noises off !!'

Realism is a matter of interpretation - can his claim, elsewhere, to enjoy ''Save and exit'' features be realistic ? Not in my book !
That feature, necessary though it is, renders most sims 'gamey' A philosophy which leads to the 'Pause' in flight
mentality ! So there are some fine distinctions beeing made here. Sniffyness to the left and Nelsons telescope a droit !

LwAmi enthusiasts will appreciate that your UUV developments are not prescient but would seem to fill a
gap in the 'market.' ''Science Fiction'' dissmisive criticism just wont hack it ! You are pushing the sims envelope
but I doubt your UUV efforts are unrealistic.

Lets not get this out of proportion you are not taking 'one big step for mankind' but just a small shuffle forward
along a dimly lit but extant path. The best course of action is to poll the players.Its their game ! :ping:

I'm more or less done with the UUV.

It has: 1) a passive sensor similar to a sphere sonar, with a sensitivity equivalent to a Xia or Victor III sphere sonar 2) An active sonar that is inferior the MH60 dipping sonar, but better than a high quality HWT 3) variable depth capability, with the same depth controls as the Advanced torpedo mod 4) A search speed of 6kts, with the capability to sprint at 20kts; the cavitation and sound vs. speed profile is logical and should work well for various tactics 5) a range of 32 kilometers, with *plenty* of wire on board the ship and UUV (eg I can't impliment the wirebreak mod because of the unique qualities of the UUV)

I can't wait to play around with this in a game myself. :)

Cheers,
David

Stands back in amazement ! :rock: Well thats 100% more than I thought would be possible. :|\
The performance and controlability sound nicely judged David. This is going to be one heck of a surgical tool.
It will make GR sniping seem tame !

Cant wait to get my hands on this one ! What with this and the torp upgrades things are really looking good.
All leave here cancelled for the next week (or so) !!

Just to let you guys know.

I have encountered a game-engine related problem.

For some reason,, the active sensor on the UUV works in the sense that it detects things according to the debugger and is also counter detected on active intercept by AI, however, the UUV does not report active tracks to the user and also does not show up on user active intercept. :-?

I suspect this is related to the other problems in 1.03 with enable/preenable behavior for torpedo type weapons and the REMRO/ESM irregularities with the FFG.

So, in short, there is not going to be active sonar on the UUV until this gets resolved by SCS. :cry:

I need everyone to try to remember if they have EVER gotten an active track on the UUV and if they have ever gotten one in stock DW 1.03 or LWAMI 3.02 using a UUV!

So?