Luftwolf, I understand that you found the cause of AEGIS defence working only inside 10nm ? That's great, but how the FC ilumination requirement could reduce range to 10nm ? :hmm: :hmm: The iluminator for Aegis ships should be SPY radar (but I have no idea where is this set in database) and it has greater range and radar horizon than 10nm. So why only 10 ? I'm also worried that removing the need of FC ilumination completly would cause other very bad thing - ships would be firing at targets below their radar horizon, so for example shooting at Harpoons or SS-N-27s at 50nm. This is impossible as long as you don't have a missile with active radar seeker, like Aster !!! Or MAYBE with missiles that secondary IR seeker... (yes I know some SM-2s have it, but can it be used in IR-only mode on non-precise linked contact is questionable, it is rather meaned as secondary guidance chanel against seaskimming missiles). With ARH missiles you may fire at linked contacts not visible on your own radar. But not with SAHR or TVM guidance...
I would be very happy if AEGIS ships engaged targets at full range but only if targets are visible for radar so over the radar horizon. High targets at 70nm ? Great. VLow targets at 30nm ?
I even corrected antenna heights for OHP and AEGIS ships to make radar horizons more realistic. Here is nice Radar Horizon Calculator:
http://www.mar-it.de/Radar/Horcalc/horcalc.htm
O here'[s other:
http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm
If removing this flag causes ships firing on targets below radar horizon then it can't be, it's would be situation similar to Maverick attacking submerged subs...
But if removing this flag caused 10nm radius to disappear, so we know that it is somehow connected with FC radar, then maybe we can find the real cause why there was 10nm limit. Maybe launchers from AEGIS ships have no FC radar assigned at all ??? Run DWXHelper and GuidedLaunchers function on database, and check the output txt file.
Launcher 68 Perry LNCHR uses Sensor 295 MK-92 STIR for guidance
Launcher 69 Perry 76mm Gun uses Sensor 294 MK-92 CAS for guidance
Launcher 70 Perry CIWS uses Sensor 278 CIWS for guidance
If those are the only launchers with assigned guidance, then the whole rest of launchers would have no FC radard assigned at all ???
Or maybe this DWXHelper function works only on playable platforms...?
And I also wonder where in the database is this assignement set ? Anyone know ?
Another strange thing - the Kirov with SA-N-6 shots at missiles outside 10nm. What's the difference between Tico and Kirow ? Why Tico defend itself only inside 10nm, but Kirov at full range (as soon as target is over horizon) ? Just checked - SA-N-6 launcher on Kirov have FCR flag set too !
OK, I have to experiment myself with that flag, maybe will be wiser then :-).
About different things that were asked about... Larger det ranges - well we think they are just as small in real life. Have you read this ?
http://mediawiki.advancedgaming.biz/...hp/Sonar_model
Increase torpedo seeker ranges - well we just have decreased them !!! :P
Do you want them to be again 4500m ?
. Well, the ADCAP supposedly have 5000m range but only against large targets in good conditions. Range vs small SSK covered with anechoing coating in shallow water would be MUCH smaller. And for Mk-46 the seeker range is given as about 1500m (probably big target too). For Mk-50 about twice that of Mk-46.
Those are small diameter HF sonars with limited power supply, and going 40-60kts with water flow and noise around the head, how do you expect them to have ranges similar to large sub-mounted sonars ?
If the enemy is evading torps easily, then maybe you are shooting poorly :P Torpedo seekers have limitations, that's why in real life torpedo are launched at ranges usually of few miles, only small fraction of max range.
Anyway, torpedo seeker ranges will be more realistic after 1.02 patch, but not neccesarily longer... With correct active sonar model we will set ADCAP seeker to have 5000m vs Typhoon or Delta class sub, but don't expect such range against small SSK :-).
Oh yes, Akula Improved quieter than 688I ? Well, all data I found says that Akula Improved is slightly more noisy than 688I overall, or is close to 688I at very low speeds but closer to original 688 at higher speeds.
Only Akula II was supposed to be little quieter than 688I at very low speeds, but still more noisy at higher speeds. Convince me that this is wrong (show me other data) and I'll change it because I want it to reflect reality :-). Now I could agree only to make it it equal with 688I below 4kts and noiser when faster.
edit. anyone noticed that FC radars DON'T have "earth curvature" flag set ? So maybe they see through the water and earth now...