Are you sure ? And if so, isn't the acoustic datalink used only in docking procedures, so close to ownship ? I've read that the LMRS reports data about what it found (mines) by periodic surfacing and estabilishing a satelite RF link... anyway it doesn't have any sub-detecting sensors as it's specialised in anti-mine warfare... short range imaging (or rather mapping) sensors...

Maybe. I know Acoustic Datalinks are what everyone is working on.

What I find 100% unbelievable is that a Mk 48 stripped of ts explosive charge but with extant
sonar cant easily be adapted for 'search only' tasks. We need look no further. If folk are not happy
labelling it a UUV call it Mk 48 Probe !

The subject of UUVs is I'm sure highly classified so the bull**** reasoning of the anti-Star Wars brigades
is quite vacuous. We are used to military hardware emerging long after 'sightings' and 'reports.'
Such hardware always ''pushed the limits.'' :P

That there is a need for adaptive ASW tools is self-evident. That developments exist beyond common
knowledge is clear. That authorities would suppress any such information, natural . Opponents
of the development of the sims UUV stand on the same quicksands of doubt and uncertainty
as the proponents.

An analysis of all the unreal elements in DW would be revealing. But to deny marginal improvements to
existing technology is Luddite. Some such voices, one suspects, have a vested interest !

So you don't think something with an electric motor the size of a torpedo could go 20kts?

Of course, not with its sensors working, at least with reasonable sensitivity. Anyway, I think our naval engineers could make something like that, considering the MK50 can make around 50-55 kts, and its a LWT.

This a playtest, so if you want to be stupid about your comments then don't participate. :know:

Otherwise, I appreciate all the feedback you can give. :up:

I wouldn't worry about that. If you COULD stick in a bunch of waypoints and somehow get the data later that'd be great, but if not, oh well.

It could, just not particularly effectively.

The only thing closer is the NMRS which is just like the LMRS but it's not autonomous. It's wire guided. It's exactly the same idea.

There's lots of people at university and corporate engineering labs who have "prototype" UUVs that might be promising for a lot of stuff in the future, but right now the problems they're trying to solve are very fundamental.

It's also unclear precisely how they'd be used. The only one I've seen which had a real purpose was the one you might have seen on the Sea Talon website which just laid distributed sensor nets on the sea bottom. This one does not exist yet, and nobody is really certain they even want to buy it.

None of the ones intended for launch from torpedo tubes are likely to be useful for ASW. The big limitation on these things, particularly the torpedo tube launched ones, is that they are limited by their physical size. Smaller sonars have to operate in higher frequency ranges because of the wavelengths of sound they respond best to. Higher frequencies are attentuated in the ocean more strongly. Hence, a torpedo sensor is very high frequency and shouldn't be able to see very far at all.

If you were to create a UUV with high speed and a torpedo sensor then it should have all of the drawbacks of a torpedo (TIW, loud broadband signature, etc.) if that was the case, why didn't you just launch a torpedo?

There is some experimentation with launching larger UUVs from dry deck shelters. There was recently an article in Undersea Warfare Magazine about using a DDS to launch an oceanographic glider. The problem there is mostly that there's not a lot of DDSes and not every boat is equipped to carry them.

How does a dipping sonar or sonobuoy overcome even more restrictive size limitations?

I think heavyweight torpedoes are MUCH larger than a dipping sonar or a sonobuoy. ;)

All I'm really hearing from this conversation is: it's possible but there hasn't been any serious investment.

I think we all understand what the real life limitations of current UUV's are, but the more pressing conversation is what should we do for gameplay and is what's done for the playtest working the way you want it to.

SQ: Its only recently within MP that the information drizzled out from a senior player that the UUV could be launched
silently. Many of us managed quite well to cope with the TIW limitations by well timed/located launches prior to that.

So in answer to your why not just launch a torp - because a Mk 2 UUV will have more flexible speed options
than a torp. It will stop and sleep and presumably be relatively invisible in that mode. Some pertinent questions are -
Can sutable batteries and power source be accomodated in say a Mk 48 case ? Would such provide the performance
planned ? Could existing, or shoe-horned in alternatives, provide a stop/start (sleep) operational facility ?
These dont seem to me like 'Star-Wars' issues but good 'ole 20th. Century engineering ones !!

The speed (depth) options and 'sleep' mode provide plenty of tactical options from ''known'' hardware
so your boffins can hold their sonar cards tight eh ?

LW: My take on this development is that you accomodate only a small shuffle forward leaving aside sensitive' sonar issues.
If you gave us a quasi-torpedo with probe potential/s. Sonar equivalent but no better than, sqy a Mk 48.
variable speed, depth and stop/start ('Sleep' mode) Careful consideration must be given to top speed and max.
range - IMO both these are too high in the present Playtester version.

I think we can justify such changes arising from real world current equipment availabilities.
Playtesting will assess the impact on the game.

One further point. It is distressing, as a LwAmi enthusiast, to report that my experience of MP recently
indicates that in the majority of cases the host opts for a Stock game. ML put his finger on one cause which
was the lag in most gamers appreciating the effect of recent changes. Many old stock maps are playable
and enjoyable in LwAmi but the prejudice persists. I firmly believe UUV Mk 2 can be the prop for these gamers
to tackle larger maps with confidence.

Ok, I'm home sick with the flu, so maybe I'm going to try to get the new ADCAP and UGST ATC doctrines merged with the advanced torpedo physics, add their appropriate under-keel detonation and wakehoming modes, as well as reconfigure the wire length mod and enable points to use True Run rather than x-y range from launchpoint, AND set the torpedo to use the ceiling feature to select ASuW or ASW modes.

THEN I can check the doctrines that Amizaur created for the other playable torpedoes, and make generic doctrines for the AI.

Here is how I am planning on handling all AI torpedoes. The AI will always use the minimum range and max speed settings for the weapon. The torpedoes WILL slow down when deep (for non-electric) but will not lose range. I think that is a fair compromise between allowing the AI to fire using a middle or compromise range and speed setting and not having the physics work at all.

In terms of the Advanced Sensor Modelling, I am having doubts about how the ADCAP single-beam mod will work with the way the game uses the torpedo and torphoming doctrines together. In order for the torpedoes to start searching again after they burn through decoys or otherwise lose their track, it is necessary to disable a variable in the torpedo doctrine, so that the torphoming doctrine simply overrides the main torpedo doctrine, and there is no state change in the torpedo doctrine for homing that I could use reliably to change sensor modes from search to homing. In addition, it wouldn't really add much to the game, and I'd have to include a snake control as well for those who want to use it in that mode. All in all, I don't think its worth it at this time, there is much too much else on the plate at the moment.

However, I am going to try to change all the sensors from hardcap to sensitivity limited. :up:

I'm not sure if I wouln't chose the other way - took a ATP mod and add ATC and other mods to it... well figure out what would be more simple. I hope the way I wrote them (modded parts clearly separated from the rest of doctrine) makes work easier.

?? are they back ?

true run counter is already in ATP mod, it is needed there, maybe better to take those doctrines as a base. But it's up to you.

This was really brilliant idea, I was so sticked to in-game "ceiling definition" that didn't notice this simple, realistic and in fact more reliable way of doing that :-) That ASW torps can simply IGNORE surface contacts, instead of tracking them to pass under them...

Well, that's also why I think to take ATP mods as a base. ATC mod will probably be used for all wire-guided torps (I think the controls are so basic, that even TEST-71 has them), the avoid-friendly-fire mod in all of them too, same for other small changes. They can be taken as a nearly universal "package" of text blocks. But in various ATP doctrines for different torps, different mod options are used and in fact those doctrines are quite different one from the other. I feel it would be easier to implement all older mods + ATC to new ATP doctrines, than the other way, but again do what you find easier yourself.

Well as you probably guess I'm against such unrealistic artificial compromises... I think it would be possible to program good firing evenlope for AI torpedos and program it into SubAtkSomething doctrines.
And well it's not so simple to just "keep" the range, doctrine simulates torpedo fuel and fuel usage. Everything depends on something else - speed on depth, range on speed and also on depth... To keep max range with lowered speed you would have to increase fuel amount at depth, or alter fuel flow routine, or make whole second separate fuel calculations code just for AI torpedos... Of course possible... but once again complicates the doctrine... for each launched torp. I vote for same torpedo physics for all subs (AI or human) and instead programming correct (as human would do) attack profiles for AI launched torpedos - cruise shallow (even if launched deep) and go to target depth only at enable. Much more realistic and tactics for evading AI shots and human player shots would be the same, not different. Range of AI shots would not be affected much in this case (most of the run is shallow), and averaged cruise speed too.

Or - ultimate solution - in addition to above, to program also correct attack ranges into SubAtkSub doctrine. For each weapon.

I don't feel one wide sensor cone for ADCAP would be bad. Some sources even says that it works this way - just like radars with phased array antenna - almost instantaneous search of whoole sensor cone.

Maybe don't remove snake mode for ADCAP - just give it wide sensor cone with small, +/- 10deg (or other barely noticeable) snake pattern left, just enaugh to see if torp is homing or searching ? If it's sneaking a little, then it's searching, but the snake is so small that it almost doesn't affect average speed and max range. Of course planned sensor cone is decreased by this little snake value (5 or 10deg each side). I think setting 5deg snake results in about +/- 7...10deg true snake, as snake value determines when the rudder is switched to other side, but torpedo has it's inertia in turn and snake is wider than set value.

The old MK 18s of yore could do 29 knots. I think we've come a long way since the days of Fluckey and O'Kane so a 20 knot electric UUV isn't far fetched.

LW and AMI your doing a great job. I've playied a few single player missions with the new ADCAP and UUV and I've found them to be very impressive. :up:

But I'm still waiting on my improved TEST-71s. ;)

Hey, my comments are insightful!.... or do I mean... inciteful? :hmm: :-j The uuv performance currently prescribed are without any basis ... That is all I am saying.

Model the RL limitations of UUV. :yep: As I am not a MP and ultimately kitbash anything and everthing in sight anyway, I shant say anything more on the matter ... until the next time of course. :P

:)

The choices are remove the UUV entirely, or upgrade it along the lines I have done.

Leaving it as a 4kts mobile TB-29 is not acceptable. :down:

So in short, the conversation about improving the UUV is over. If you don't like the improved UUV, don't use LWAMI, don't use the new UUV, and/or ask that your opponents do the same.

I don't have time to debate about old news. ;)

Or option 3: A MOSS for the US boats and the MG-74 Korund for Ivan.

The UUV is a hardcoded loadout. I can't differentiate between Russian and American. :shifty:

Amizaur, my philosophy on the AI has been to put enough work into it to make it better, but because of other pressing issues, not doing so much that the player would never realize what has been done.

In other words, the AI needs to be improved, but the diminishing returns in putting in complex behaviors that are really turn out to be window dressing in many cases and do nothing to make the AI more effective (and may even reduce the effectiveness), and most players won't even notice anyway, kick in fairly quickly in DW.

I think the best solution is a one-size-fits all alteration to the database, making separate AI weapons with fool-proof settings like in the LWAMI 3.02 database. The other option is to go into the doctrines and specify everything for every platform and every weapon. Honestly, I think the mean effectiveness of the AI would be about the same in both cases, but the workload in making database alterations as opposed to doctrine alterations is something like 1/4 of the work, and really requires very minimal testing.

On top of that, there would be a lot of judgement about how the AI sets what and when. I like the idea of a shallowrunout with a deep enable for ASW targets, but creating unique subatksub doctrines for each playable AND NON-playable (and this would also necessitation special doctrines for each AI weapon) is just too much work for too little gain, in my opinion.

I want an AI that can fire weapons at targets and hit them reliably. In LWAMI 3.02 we had that. And we still have that in Playtest One. Once the Advanced Torpedo Physics are fully implimented, the ability of the AI to hit things with torpedoes will once again go down. I think the least number of changes that give the AI reasonable effectiveness while still retaining the essential aspects of the Advanced Physics is the best solution. The AI can do a lot of decision making on its own, the more we try to interfere with that, our workload goes up exponentially, and the gains become fractional.

PS That having been said, maybe once we are into it, we'll see it isn't so much work, but at this point, I have a fairly clear plan about what needs to be done and in what order to maintain consistency in the Mod, and, most importantly, our own sanity. :lol:

But the 688 and Akula Imp have several tonals in common, 125, 320, 1100 and the SW and Akula II have 1125 in common. How would a 55 hz base tonal work out? Sufficiently close to fool the computer/player? The Kilo might be kinda screwed as they have very different signatures, but as a Kilo player I would like my opponent think there is a Akula lurking near by.

I don't understand what you are getting at, TLAM. :hmm:

The 688(i) and Akula Imp have very close acoustic signatures. Could giving a UUV the tonals that are alike and remove the tonals that are not alike and maybe giving them a 55 hz tonal could it fool the player or computer?

I could change the tonals for the UUV, sure.

The player would simply have those new tonals displayed on sonar.

In terms of the AI, its not going to affect its ability to recognize the UUV at all. It uses a probably of classification, rather than the acoustic engine tonals.