ML I think that you have fingered an important feature the effects of which are more
relevant in SP than in MP.

The test speed of own platform is crucial as at 4kts the very faint tonal or more often an intermittent BB SNR of 1 may account for increased range results in the SW. Also sprint, drifts may be a test variable. Perhaps these may account for my Stock test ranges beeing greater and therefore showing a higher performance edge of the TB29 over Pel. Your tests confirm the 24% gap on average but higher performance is frequently obtained with a 60% gap with care. The SWs BB SNR has an advantage over the AKs
and the AKs early-day fleeting tonal ghost is no compensation.

But for MP I will have a look (this weekend) at the implications for quiet sub v sub contests. If only to reassure myself in confirming your findings. Thanks again for your testing and valuable contribution.

It only seemed fair to take time out to bring forward tests.

The AK v SW sonar game has been a major hook for many bubbleheads since SC days. So whilst ML has chosen to run the 688i against the SW I thought it may add a bit to test the AK v SW TA NB performance.

Here are my results from tests today:

Tests TA NB Range maxima.

Stock:
Ak tracking SW and 688i

688i at 18.6 nm
SW at 13.7nm

SW tracking AK
AK at 19.9 nm

Conclusion - SW has 45% increase in range over AK head to head.

Mod:
Ak tracking SW and 688i
688i at 9-10 nm
SW at 8.7 nm ( Greater ranges found in other scenarios but the differential is always steady.)

SW tracking AK
AK at 9.3 nm ( Greater ranges found in other scenarios but the differential is always steady.)

Conclusion - SW has a reduced advantage in range over AK in head to head.
The absolutes have indeed been reduced from Stock, but the differential in TA sonar performance has been dramaticaly reduced. (Test scenarios available.)

NB. Used ranged target subs and MLs run-in range reduction to obtain results. All subs at -5 knts above layer and SSP and location as before. No BB SNR readings were taken just NB tonals.(This could improve SW ranges but not material to NB comparison)

It's a good thing this discussion is entirely academic... the database can't be set any more correctly than it already is. :-?

Except for those "secret values" only Ludger and I know about. :cool: :rotfl:

Cheers,
David

PS And Bellman, your last findings directly contradict Molon's findings, so you might want to look at your scenario again, but it's really none of my business at this point... because like I said, the database isn't changing from something that's correct, to something that is incorrect... especially because this is the way things have been set for over a year and exactly zero people before this have made any comments regarding this, and believe it or not, I tend to hear about problems reasonably quickly...

Just to give MY last comment on this.

I haven't changed anything related to sonars or platforms noise levels in over a year (December of 2005).

So, I think you missed the boat, since I'm certainly not changing anything now. The SW has a VAST detection advantage over other submarines, and in some situations the mod makes this greater and in some situations the mod makes this less. These are simply the facts and the database itself is the ultimate piece of evidence.

Cheers,
David

Well, I've been corrected by LW that ownship speed doesn't matter as long as you're not in washout range, so I retract my statement about needing to retest controlling for speed. All testing was done at tactical speed and washout was not a factor.

I also want to express my agreement with LW concerning the fact that the NL's and sonar sensitity has not been changed for ages. I've been playing with these levels for a long time now, and it's always been absolutely clear that the American subs had a substantial detection range advantage due to the combination of quieter subs and superior sonar. In fact, the principal fair matchup in LW/Ami was the 688I vs the Akula II, instead of the SW vs. Akula II, because the SW just pwned the Akulas. (1.04 probably tips the matchup back to the SW).

I can only guess this issue is surfacing now instead of when the sonar sensititivies were set because of the changes in 1.04. But, what these test results make abundantly clear is that even in sonar conditions that favor long-range detection (being inside a surface duct), the Seawolf can close with an Akula-II to within no-escape range without ever being detected. And that's without playing any layer tricks. It's only a matter of time before SW skippers learn to control their speed at the right times to become proficient at doing this, and once that happens, it will be the Akula skippers bitching and moaning about the balance changes in LW/Ami--because they are going to die without ever having detected the launching platform, and CMs aren't going to defeat wireguided torps guided in from less than 8nm.

OK guys I'm going to quit the field now (general sighs of relief :D)

I am not yet convinced that something, possibly 1.04 as ML says, has'nt changed the mix.
But I'll mothball-it and perhaps return to the matter further down the road.

Thanks at least for addressing my concerns.

There were no passive sonar changes in the DW engine in 1.04.

Cheers,
David

I said 1.04 tilts the fair matchup; I didn't say that it changed anything with the sonar.

:D So who tweaked the Kilo SA ? :lol:

*yawn*

I don't have the energy to explain the difference between the acoustic engine and the interface.

Cheers,
David

:rotfl:''Yawn'' .........................catch you later. ;)

Thats a promise. :yep:

Then you really wouldn't have liked all the stuff I wrote about SW divers being
"special" and feeling "entitled" and then deleted for not wanting to be inflammatory... :lol:

Cheers,
David

For the five people who are still reading this thread outside of Bellman, Molon, and myself...

I'm feeling a bit better today, so I'd expect LWAMI 3.08 to be out tomorrow.

Cheers,
David

Okay. I wonder who the 5th person is...?

:cool:

Me and my other nick ..

Luft wolf would it be possible to archive the details of each of your mods plus more importantly the data that you rely on to make your mods,such as detection ranges etc.

I thought that's what I was doing with the readme? :hmm:

Regarding materials on detection ranges and platform noise levels, all of this data was taken from primary source materials available to Amizaur in Poland, mostly by the Russian Eugene Miasnikov, and then adapted to the DW database format by finiteless, jsteed, and Amizaur.

http://www.armscontrol.ru/eugene/e-pubs.htm

You'll notice one of Miasnikov's specialities listed on that page is "detectability of submarines and its impact on strategic stability in the world."

Cheers,
David

For those of you who want to do some reading, I suggest this as a starting point:

"Can Russian Strategic Submarines Survive at Sea? The Fundamental Limits of Passive Acoustics", http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/pu...2miasnikov.pdf , Science & Global Security, 1994.

Cheers,
David

Last night, I was within an inch of starting a thread on this very subject myself (and giving up for the same reason), triggered by this latest row. It always seems (to me anyway) that the Akula guys are more "stoic" about things not to their favor (at least in their opinion) and it is the Seawolf guys that make massive noises every time something happens that seems to reduce their massive advantage. I don't find fighting for your own side particularly wrong, but I do personally find this fascinating.

Anyway, I, like all the others, await v3.08. Actually, I'm in a break period on DW (I tend to go on breaks when LWAMI keeps changing until it stabilizes), so it is more realistic to say I'm waiting for v3.1 or so... :cool:

Beh! :smug:

I'll make as many versions in two days as I want! :p

Seriously... I'd rather not have things go this way, and after 3.08 every version of the mod will go through a thorough testing process.

I got seriously surprised by the DW engine a couple times... and I thought I'd seen everything. :88)

Cheers,
David

PS The 688i divers are the most stoic of all! :cool: