SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Dangerous Waters (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   passive detection range comparison between LWAMI and SC (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=143805)

Castout 10-30-08 10:06 AM
passive detection range comparison between LWAMI and SC
 
I just installed SC again and realized that the average detection range in SC is far further out than in LWAMI 3.08.

For example Akula II traveling at 5 knots could detect with her passive towed array A US sub traveling at 2 knots at 43 km range.

has anyone ever detected a slow moving sub at that far out distance in DW with LWAMI(or stock)? I believe you can't. I never detected anythong that far out especially a slow moving sub.

I've read that a 20 km direct sound contact detection is no special thing but in DW it seems unlikely.

Hmm this got me thinking to increase the overall passive detection range in DW.
Anybody got any suggestion on how to do that? Which parameter do I need to change to increase passive sensor detection range? Of course without having to increase the noise level of the platforms.

Hitman 10-30-08 10:20 AM
Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.

SC was a sub vs. sub game, hence it didn't matter as long as it was balanced. However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).

Molon Labe 10-30-08 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.
SCX and LWAMI have rather similar detection ranges; just as SC and DW have similar ranges. In both cases, the mods tightened things up a bit. I can't speak for SCX, but in LWAMI this was done for both realism and balance reasons. It's impossible to create a truly "realistic" acoustic model, so there isn't much point in arguing over the slight differences between SCX and LWAMI detection ranges. The truth is that it all depends on acoustic conditions. LW's main goal in making adjustments to the sonar model was to make detection ranges more dependent on the acoustic conditions than they were in stock DW, and that has definitely happened.

Quote:
SC was a sub vs. sub game, hence it didn't matter as long as it was balanced. However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).
You've analyzed a key balance issue very astutely.

Bringing this back to modding, DW leaves us very few variables in the (very abstracted) acoustic model to play with. So, there is no set of values for sonar sensitivity and PSL's that will yield an accurate detection ranges for all acoustic conditions--no matter what you're going to be too high to be realistic in some cases and too low in others. So which ones values should we use? I would argue, choose the subset that makes the sim most competitive.

Molon Labe 10-30-08 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
I just installed SC again and realized that the average detection range in SC is far further out than in LWAMI 3.08.

For example Akula II traveling at 5 knots could detect with her passive towed array A US sub traveling at 2 knots at 43 km range.

has anyone ever detected a slow moving sub at that far out distance in DW with LWAMI(or stock)? I believe you can't. I never detected anythong that far out especially a slow moving sub.
LWAMI detections against slow-moving subs tend to be rather short. You can definitely get direct-path contacts against a 688I on the Pelamida from 40km+, but the 688I would need to be, well, I'm not sure how high, but more than 2 knots.

Quote:
I've read that a 20 km direct sound contact detection is no special thing but in DW it seems unlikely.
That's just wrong. 20km direct contacts are very common in DW, both with and without LWAMI and including contacts against the quietest submarines at patrol speeds.

PeriscopeDepth 10-30-08 04:41 PM
SC sonar model doesn't take into account speed of target. The only difference in signal level will be if the target is cavitating.

PD

Castout 10-30-08 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).
Which begs the question why the US didn't introduce submarine launched ASROC? Perhpas the US already did but it's just not represented in DW?

Castout 10-30-08 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth
SC sonar model doesn't take into account speed of target. The only difference in signal level will be if the target is cavitating.

PD
Really? Oh lame :). Makes DW twice a better game just basing on that fact alone

Castout 10-30-08 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.
well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. The war machines were never built with regard to balance with the enemy capability but rather to give it the edge to outstealth, outdetect, outmaneuver, outgun, and outkill its opponent or would be opponent. War was never meant to be fair. So war simulation should not give a damn about balancing imo. Balancing could be done through careful scenario design imo. Like starting the game farther out from the enemy detection range for example.

Scenarios would need to be readjusted in order to reflect the changed parameters though.

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.
I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging. Furthermore on few occasions I've felt I'm cruising too blind(or deaf) so that enemy warships could get into dangerously close ranges with me only realizing it almost too late.

GrayOwl 10-30-08 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
Considering what I have readed so far, I would say that SCX had a much more accurate true-to-life detection range than LWAMI 3.08, however I believe that in DW it was purposedly left low to allow a better playability of all platforms. If you increase the detection range and sensitivity dramatically, the Kilo becomes unusable, and the air units can make your life much thougher than it already is.
well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. The war machines were never built with regard to balance with the enemy capability but rather to give it the edge to outstealth, outdetect, outmaneuver, outgun, and outkill its opponent or would be opponent. War was never meant to be fair. So war simulation should not give a damn about balancing imo. Balancing could be done through careful scenario design imo. Like starting the game farther out from the enemy detection range for example.

Scenarios would need to be readjusted in order to reflect the changed parameters though.

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.
I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging. Furthermore on few occasions I've felt I'm cruising too blind(or deaf) so that enemy warships could get into dangerously close ranges with me only realizing it almost too late.
Can imagine Shturmovik IL-2 with balance??? LOL

If it sim - in him can not be of any balance.
If DW is sim. LOL
I simply enjoy by the order - "Full Ruder Left" or "Full Rudder Right".
Excellent sim, excellent Physics! The sub is floating where it would be desirable her, but not there where I wish.

PeriscopeDepth 10-30-08 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).
Which begs the question why the US didn't introduce submarine launched ASROC? Perhpas the US already did but it's just not represented in DW?
The US did, but it has not been in service since the late 1980s. And it's only payload was a nuclear warhead. Which leads me to believe one reason why the US doesn't have a SUBROC in inventory now is that detection of a modern SSK/SSN at patrol speeds, even with a US sensor advantage, would likely be at ranges that would make SUBROC unnecessary. Or it could just be that the reason for its being (Soviet SSBNs) became unreachable after modern SLBMs allowed them to patrol from beneath the ice.

Quote:
Makes DW twice a better game just basing on that fact alone
DW's sonar model is overall much more polished than SC. It still works within the constraints of the age old NavalSimEngine, but introduces several things that SC didn't have or didn't do as well (more sophisticated ray tracing and bearing error). It's not perfect, but no ASW sim will be. And with LWAMI, DW makes for quite a compelling simulation.

PD

Molon Labe 10-30-08 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
well I would like exactly that. I mean I only care about realism and don't give a damn about playability balancing. ...

I for one perhaps a few more out there wish there is a mod out there that address this realism issue in passive detection ranges in DW.
I believe they are rather short at the moment.
They are short in some and long in others. A mod CANNOT be made to be more realistic in this regard. If you change the values to better represent detection ranges in some situations, you also make sim represent detection ranges less realistically in others situations. It's a zero-sum game that there is no way to win, short of remaking the NavalSimEngine.

Quote:
I as long as I can remember never once used the ASROC unless tha data came from radio link when playing the Akula. Or attacking a warship with ASM at long ranges unless it was emitting its radar or was pinging.
Then you're doing it wrong. The SUBROC is the Akula's primary ASW weapon in DW, accounting for far more kills in MP matches than the UGST, and in many cases, at ranges that a UGST would not have been likely to score a hit (beyond 10-15nm). As for warships, the max range you can get ESM is something like 15nm. You can track skimmers in CVs out to at least 90nm and get direct path detection ranges beyond 30nm. So, again, if you can't track them unless they have their radars on, you're doing something wrong.

If your evaluation of the realism of the detection ranges is based on the experiences you've related here, then you're going to have to go back and look at the sim and see what's really possible.

Castout 10-31-08 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Whaaa. . .at Hey there might be female simmers here :rotfl:

Some people like to quote the bible just like that short, simple and wrong.

TLAM Strike 10-31-08 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
However, even so the fast and long range weapons of the Akula unbalanced the game a lot (The fact that a US sub can detect a russian one first is irrelevant if he needs to shoot his ADCAPs from a far range that gives the enemy a good chance of evading them, and replying with a snapshot that will get the US sub way before the ADCAPs are 1/3 on his way to the enemy).
Which begs the question why the US didn't introduce submarine launched ASROC? Perhpas the US already did but it's just not represented in DW?
The US did, but it has not been in service since the late 1980s. And it's only payload was a nuclear warhead. Which leads me to believe one reason why the US doesn't have a SUBROC in inventory now is that detection of a modern SSK/SSN at patrol speeds, even with a US sensor advantage, would likely be at ranges that would make SUBROC unnecessary. Or it could just be that the reason for its being (Soviet SSBNs) became unreachable after modern SLBMs allowed them to patrol from beneath the ice.PD
Well its sucessor SEALANCE was canceled due to the Soviet Union collapsing. Sealance whent way over budget since it was intended to be both for Submarines and Surface ships with diffrent payloads and huge range (3rd convergince zone range, In other words of longer range than the N-16's 655mm verson but 533mm in calaber!) Sealance's development was folded in to VLA, the Verticle Launched ASROC found on the AEGIES ships. Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.

To be 10-31-08 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Whaaa. . .at Hey there might be female simmers here
I am sure there are. What is your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castout
Some people like to quote the bible just like that short, simple and wrong.
Again, what is the relevancy to this thread?

Perhaps you should review this: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting

Molon Labe 10-31-08 12:36 PM
the first one was just a little semi perverted joke.

the second one... probably also a joke but i don't understand its relevance either.

bishop 10-31-08 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth
SC sonar model doesn't take into account speed of target. The only difference in signal level will be if the target is cavitating.

PD
If this is related to the speed/noise issue that was discussed back when DW was first released, I'm not sure this is true of SC. In the archive threads on this topic, Amizaur ran several tests on SC, both stock 1.08 and SCXII and concluded speed/noise modeling actually worked quite well. At the top of the thread he tested against SCX, then further down he tested again on Stock 1.08.

He concluded with "So I would say that the SC speed/noise relation was quite good and I would be absolutely happy if I had the same relation restored in DW :-)."

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB_archive1...r=asc&start=60

PeriscopeDepth 10-31-08 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.
Hmmm...I wonder why the precision of a ping was required? It was after all a rocket with a nuclear depth charge, no?

Bishop,
I guess I stand corrected. Reading that thread again was fun. Ah, back in the heady days of DW. :)

PD

TLAM Strike 11-03-08 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
Plus US sub captains didn't like the SUBROC since it genneraly required a ping to use effectivly.
Hmmm...I wonder why the precision of a ping was required? It was after all a rocket with a nuclear depth charge, no?PD
Well when people think of nuclear blasts they think of huge city blasting explosions blasting wooden buildings to matchsticks.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE01.jpg

But underwater its diffrent. The SUBROC only had a 5kt nuclear depth bomb, even for a tactical nuke that is tiny. Water helps to decrease the effects of the blast, the deeper the less effective the blast (which is why Russian subs were always being made to go deeper) and the blast is spread out over the entire hull of the sub rather than just one part as with a torpedo warhead or a depth charge so a sub is better able to survive a nuclear blast than a depth charge attack. Just to give you an idea how small a punch the SUBROC delivered here is a pic of a live test of a ASROC with a 10kt W44 warhead. Not that big of a blast (the ship is no more than 5 nm away.) Now imagin that much deeper at half the yeld, and you don't have a fancy BSY-1 fire control computer to help you do TMA (All OHP style DRTs). You miss judge the solution and you've got a really ticked off Russian sub out there possably with his own SUBROC getting ready to launch.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ocnuke1962.jpg

MBot 11-03-08 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
[PIC of nuclear ASROC explosion]
I know nukes are bad, but this is such a phantastic photo. You even see the ASROC launcher of the destroyer still trained towards the explosion. I all their terribleness, nuclear explosions have some kind of weird beauty.

goldorak 11-04-08 07:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBot
I know nukes are bad, but this is such a phantastic photo. You even see the ASROC launcher of the destroyer still trained towards the explosion. I all their terribleness, nuclear explosions have some kind of weird beauty.
You should have a peek at the book "100 suns" if you're looking for nice pictures of atomic explosions. ;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.