Requests for Upcoming LWAMI Patch

[OneShot]

@Bakani : If the folder structure within the Steam DW directory is the same as on the other versions everything should be fine. Just as pointed out above, activate the mod afterwards via the installed JSGME Tool.

The only requisite to activate is the LwAmi Mod itself, all other "mods/addons" can be activated at your leisure, tho only one of the splash screens obviously at a time.

[Molon Labe]

Great news, everyone!

You know how in DW, whenever a platform detects an unknown contact (usually with radar), every sub on that side immediately goes to flank and races to identify the new contact, usually cavitating and making themselves easy targets?

A workaround for this problem has been found and will be implemented in LWAMI 3.10. The culprit is hardcoded behavior, and nothing can be done about it directly, BUT the navalsimengine does reference the database in deciding when to call upon the routine. In this case, the database entry is the Recon value in the Mission Priorities fields. By setting this value to 0, the platform will no longer rush to ID unknown contacts.

"But won't that prevent subs from prosecuting enemy contacts," you ask? No, at least not in any way I think is going to be noticeable. One of the oddities about the DW AI is that no sonar contacts are ever reported unclassified. (Stock DW deals with this by making the AI detection ranges pitifully small. LWAMI deals with this by programming some "prosecution" behavior into the AI before they start shooting. In case you were curious.) So, this change has no effect on AI subs prosecuting their own sonar contacts or linked sonar contacts from other platforms. And really, it's only sonar contacts that are going to matter. ESM contacts and most visual contacts are classified. Radar contacts are going to account for 90% of unknown contacts....the other 10% are going to be those contacts reported by players (unknown sonar, manual contacts to get a helo to investigate). And those contacts were the ones that were causing the problems in the first place. So the only downside is, if an unknown (radar) contact is reported on the link, the subs in the area aren't going to head that way. The aircraft and skimmers still will, which really is who you want tracking down the unknowns anyways, not the sub trying to stay hidden. Mission designers who need subs to pursue unknown radar contacts can still get this behavior to occur using scripting, and in doing so can control the speed and depth the sub investigates at so as to prevent cavitation.

If anyone can think up any side effects I haven't thought of, please let me know. So far testing hasn't shown anything unexpected.

[Molon Labe]

Need some advice.

I'm working on making some major adjustments to DW's radar/ESM model, including reworking detection curves for radars, adjusting ESM and radar antenna heights, etc.

I've found that when ESM antenna height is adjusted, detection ranges against seaskimmers can go out beyond 20nm*. I've looked at the equations and I think this is appropriate, but I wanted to run it by people in the know before I get too excited. Assuming that it's right, and I think it is, this means that DW has quality built-in equations for radar horizon that has been tucked away where we rarely get to see it, thanks to artifically limited ESM/radar ranges. I'd like to start unlocking the potential of the radar/ESM model in the NavalSimEngine.

So, I'd like to ask if you could steer me in the direction of any ballpark/non-classifiied figures for radar and ESM performance, especially for missile seeker heads (I've already found pretty good information for naval search radars thanks to the Naval Institute Guide on Google Books, and ballpark figures for aerial maritime surveilance radars from OneShot--but a 2nd opinion never hurts.). Right now my thoughts on ESM are to try to tweak the sensitivity so that counterdetection of an active seeker occurs somewhere around 2-3x the seekers' range. But the performance of various missile seekers is a bit of an enigma, since DW gives all missiles the same seeker--one that sees a skiff at 9km and an aircraft carrier at 18km--and that's really all I've known.

I'm not going to create individual seekers for every missile, but I would like to break them up in to families, e.g. 1st generation high-diver, 3rd generation sea-skimmer, etc.

Any thoughts?


*In-game results vs. ASCMs using the "missileskim30" doctrine (which I believe means the missiles cruise at 30ft) were 27km for a 10m mast (Osa), 39km for a 30m mast (Luhu), and 39km for a 35m mast (DeGaulle). A little longer than they should be, but close.

[Rip]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Need some advice.

I'm working on making some major adjustments to DW's radar/ESM model, including reworking detection curves for radars, adjusting ESM and radar antenna heights, etc.

I've found that when ESM antenna height is adjusted, detection ranges against seaskimmers can go out beyond 20nm*. I've looked at the equations and I think this is appropriate, but I wanted to run it by people in the know before I get too excited. Assuming that it's right, and I think it is, this means that DW has quality built-in equations for radar horizon that has been tucked away where we rarely get to see it, thanks to artifically limited ESM/radar ranges. I'd like to start unlocking the potential of the radar/ESM model in the NavalSimEngine.

So, I'd like to ask if you could steer me in the direction of any ballpark/non-classifiied figures for radar and ESM performance, especially for missile seeker heads (I've already found pretty good information for naval search radars thanks to the Naval Institute Guide on Google Books, and ballpark figures for aerial maritime surveilance radars from OneShot--but a 2nd opinion never hurts.). Right now my thoughts on ESM are to try to tweak the sensitivity so that counterdetection of an active seeker occurs somewhere around 2-3x the seekers' range. But the performance of various missile seekers is a bit of an enigma, since DW gives all missiles the same seeker--one that sees a skiff at 9km and an aircraft carrier at 18km--and that's really all I've known.

I'm not going to create individual seekers for every missile, but I would like to break them up in to families, e.g. 1st generation high-diver, 3rd generation sea-skimmer, etc.

Any thoughts?


*In-game results vs. ASCMs using the "missileskim30" doctrine (which I believe means the missiles cruise at 30ft) were 27km for a 10m mast (Osa), 39km for a 30m mast (Luhu), and 39km for a 35m mast (DeGaulle). A little longer than they should be, but close.

2X would be about right I would expect on average. Usually anything that would be a concern would not enable until well within detection range. The signal and scan characteristics make classification on an computer ID assisted system almost instantaneous.

Just wish there could be a difference between a WLR-8 equipped boat versus say WLQ-4.

Rip

[Seamutt]

Does anyone have advice on this? I'm flying the Seahawk and trying to take out a SAM site on an island. The SAM site's location is not sent as a link (set in the mission editor), but is detectable by ESM. Since the Seahawk doesn't have TMA to set distance and I can't fire a hellfire at a target based on detecting it by ESM, how can I attack the SAM site without having to go in close to visually ID it? Any ideas?

[Seamutt]

Here's a few ideas I've been thinking about lately. I would be great to get your comments.
-Would it be realistic to receive missile information through a link? It would help a great deal when using air platforms.
-Is it possible to remove fire and forget torpedos from the NAV map?
-Would it be possible to make mines detectable by air units. visually and/or MAD. For FFG lookout too i guess.
-Also sometimes i can destroy mines with the FFG machines guns and sometimes it doesn't work (Al Faw Ambush). Is there anything that can be done about this?
-Could we create a "wreck" to be placed at the bottom of littoral waters to make active sonar searches more difficult? It would create active returns but no noise on passive sonar. Is there another way with the current version to simulate wrecks?

Here's a general LWAMI question:
-how well does chaff work against FCR directed missiles?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Seamutt

Does anyone have advice on this? I'm flying the Seahawk and trying to take out a SAM site on an island. The SAM site's location is not sent as a link (set in the mission editor), but is detectable by ESM. Since the Seahawk doesn't have TMA to set distance and I can't fire a hellfire at a target based on detecting it by ESM, how can I attack the SAM site without having to go in close to visually ID it? Any ideas?

This question seems moot, considering the Hellfire has less range than the Seahawk's visual range.

You can assign an ESM contact to a Hellfire, but it won't work until it's in range and locked on target. And lock-on range can be shorter than the 8km max range.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Seamutt

Here's a few ideas I've been thinking about lately. I would be great to get your comments.
-Would it be realistic to receive missile information through a link? It would help a great deal when using air platforms.

Not sure about weapons like the AMRAAM, but I suppose it's possible. TACTOMs and SLAM-ERs definitely participate in the link IRL, because they have "man-in-the-loop" technology that lets them be targeted on the fly. Some Russian ASCMs have similar systems.

-Is it possible to remove fire and forget torpedos from the NAV map?

Don't I wish!

-Would it be possible to make mines detectable by air units. visually and/or MAD. For FFG lookout too i guess.

Looks like some of them have a Visual SL and some don't. I guess I never gave it much thought since they're usually underwater. I can fill in the values for the missing ones.

-Also sometimes i can destroy mines with the FFG machines guns and sometimes it doesn't work (Al Faw Ambush). Is there anything that can be done about this?

Probably not. My best guesses as to the cause are either not enough of the mine is above the surface or its not in range.

-Could we create a "wreck" to be placed at the bottom of littoral waters to make active sonar searches more difficult? It would create active returns but no noise on passive sonar. Is there another way with the current version to simulate wrecks?

I think so, and we actually have something along those lines for 3.11 called a non-mine bottom object that effs with your HFS sweeps.

Here's a general LWAMI question:
-how well does chaff work against FCR directed missiles?

That's a subject of debate. In my judgment, CMs are not effective on any weapon using the Guided doctrine, which includes SARH missiles. TLAM and OneShot disagree, which is why SARH missiles still include a radar seeker--just in case they're right and they can cause a spoof.