LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[GrayOwl]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The database damage values are not 1-1 damage points to kg.

You'll notice all the LWT's have a warhead of 120 points.

The ADCAP is rated higher than other torpedoes for the same warhead weight because it has an advanced shaped-charge warhead , that directs a jet of plasma into the hull of the target, very similar to a HEAT round used for anti-armor work.

Additionally, the UTK torpedo has increased damage to create the underkeel effect for the ADCAP when used in this mode.

Thanks for playing.

Cheers,
David

If you are interested... http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.htm

No, No... Formula for calculate percent damages in "DW" same as in "Harpoon":
ARMOR Tgt / ARMOR Wpn = % Damages. Strongly 1 to 1 ! (Except for the doctrines using variable 'DETONATE')

But if You made recalculate explosion weight - so correctly...

Whether more correctly to calculate a Armor/Damage hulls under "Harpoon" formulas? (Damage Points Calculate)

Some values hulls are obviously high, others are too small.

Under keel explosion Is strongly "Hypotetical".
In DW damages areas at 3d model not modelled...



It only rather feigns a level of damages at the expense increase of quantity of an explosive, but on another it cannot be made. There can be this correct decision...


Only MK 48 ADCAP, UTK mode have been. Why other torpedos with a wire control have no an opportunity to shoot under keel?

This is similar "God Help" for US sub drivers. :hmm:

Or I is wrong?

[LuftWolf]

Well, I'm going on the information I have.

In terms of the damage model, it functions 1-1 but the whole damage scheme has to be considered carefully. Simply going through books and plugging in values would result in something like four LWT's to kill a SW and like 15 to sink a OHP.

Clearly, the "real" values aren't very helpful when it comes to warheads other than a guide to relative in-game effects, which is all that matters.

If you are going through our database looking for numbers ripped from Janes, etc. you aren't going to find them, partially because its not interesting and partially because its not helpful.

There are probably thousands of difference between our database and say a Janes book.

Plugging real-world values into a database and calling it "realism" work is the lowest form of modding, IMHO.

Cheers,
David

[Qppralke]

Hi guys. I was diving yesterday with my friends , and one of them (Kilo) was caught on hi freq. by Seawolf.
Do you think the Hi freq. are visible on real, active intercept station ? And if yes , is it possible to make this a feature in LWAMI ? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

I'll definately look into it.

Although, for some reason, I think a few others have looked at this, and it seems that HF sonar is simply not detectable in the sim engine on active intercept.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Tusipex

Hi guys. I was diving yesterday with my friends , and one of them (Kilo) was caught on hi freq. by Seawolf.
Do you think the Hi freq. are visible on real, active intercept station ? And if yes , is it possible to make this a feature in LWAMI ? :hmm:

If a submarine gets within range to see another one on HF sonar (and that means he's real real real close), then with all due respect the other guy is meat for the fish, whatever sub he is controlling.
Active intercept isn't going to help you one bit.
If you can't detect with passive sonar another sub within 3nm of you, well you don't deserve going back to port to put it mildly. :rotfl:

[LoBlo]

Hi Luftwolf and Amizaur.

When playing through some self-made scenarios I've constantly noticed that subs are always avoiding torpedoes to the left and never right. I think its coded into their SubAvoidWep to evade left.

I've taken the liberty to randomize the torp evasion route a bit in the hope it provides less predictability.

Here are the changes that I've made to the SubAvoidWep Doctrine highlighted in orange. I think you'll like them.

__________________________________________________ ______________
; $Header: SubAvoidWeap.txt Thu Dec 30 16:55:05 EST 2004 mike $
; $Revision: 5 $
; $Copyrt1: Copyright (c) 2003, Sonalysts, Inc. All rights reserved. $
;
; SubAvoidWeap, modified by Amizaur, feet/meters miscalculation corrected
; AI behaviour when evading torpedo still needs improvements to avoid cavitation
; if torp below layer sub could run 5kts above layer and drop CMs, not run full speed cavitating
; Additional edits by LuftWolf, sub always drops active decoy and evades at 100-140 degrees
; Slight increase in recognition delay and decrease in max tgt evasion range
; Modded by LoBlo 8/6/2006 to randomize evasion routes a bit more.
var PreventingSnorkel
var PreventingComms
var LegTimer
var RecognitionDelay
var Snapshot
var LegCourse
var jammerIdx
var decoyIdx
var AvoidLeft
IF Init THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = false
PreventingComms = false
RecognitionDelay = ( Time + 15 + rnd 15 )
LegTimer = -1
Snapshot = false
jammerIdx = DBIdxFromRecNum 1414
decoyIdx = DBIdxFromRecNum 1412
If rnd 100 > 50 THEN {
AvoidLeft = True
DebugOut "Evading to the left"
} Else {
AvoidLeft = False
DebugOut "Evading to the right"
} ENDIF
} ELSEIF LegTimer == -1 THEN {
IF Time > RecognitionDelay THEN {
IF ( TgtRng < 12000 ) AND ( TgtSilos < 0 ) AND ( abs RelativeBearing TgtCrs ( TgtBrg + 180 mod 360 ) < 30 ) THEN {
DEBUGOUT "Sub Evading Torpedo!"
IF Not Snapshot THEN {
DEBUGOUT "Firing Back!"
FIREBEST
Snapshot = true
} ENDIF
IF NOT PreventingSnorkel THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = true
SetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" + 1 )
} ENDIF
IF NOT PreventingComms THEN {
PreventingComms = true
SetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" + 1 )
} ENDIF
LegTimer = ( 180 + RND 180 )
SetPriority 255
SetSpd MaxSpd
; LW Edit to 100 to 140
If AvoidLeft THEN {
LegCourse = ( TgtBrg + 100 + rnd 40 mod 360 )
} ELSE {
LegCourse = ( TgtBrg - 100 - rnd 40 mod 360 )
} ENDIF
; Set Depth Opposite Layer
IF TgtAlt < LAYER THEN {
SETALT ( -600 - RND 50 )
} ELSE {
SETALT ( LAYER - 400 )
; set depth to 400 ft below layer
} ENDIF
; Setalt ( ( MinAlt / 0.3048 ) + 100 )
; DebugOut "MinAlt + 100 feet set"
; Throw CM?
IF RND 10 > 0 THEN {
; Decoy or Jammer?
IF ( TgtSource $= "Active Intercept" ) OR ( rnd 100 > 65 ) THEN {
DEBUGOUT "CM Decoy"
CountermeasureIdx decoyIdx
} ELSE {
DEBUGOUT "CM Decoy II"
; LW always drop active CM
CountermeasureIdx decoyIdx
} ENDIF
} ELSE {
DEBUGOUT "Decoy failed random draw."
} ENDIF
LegTimer += Time
} ELSE {
IF PreventingSnorkel THEN {
PreventingSnorkel = false
SetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyToSnorkel" - 1 )
} ENDIF
IF PreventingComms THEN {
PreventingComms = false
SetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" ( GetEntVar "TooBusyForComms" - 1 )
} ENDIF
} ENDIF
} ENDIF
} ELSEIF Time > LegTimer THEN {
LegTimer = -1
} ELSE {
SetPriority 255
SetCrs LegCourse
SetSpd MaxSpd
SETALT ( -600 - RND 50 )
} ENDIF
__________________________________________________ ________________

So far the initial test work great and subs avoid more unpredictably. In regards to surface avoidance, I've not run enough test to know if surface ships are also avoiding left as well. If so the above code may randomize there avoidance a bit as well.

Another approach rather than just avoiding left or right randomly is to code the subs to avoid in the direction that is most convient to where they are heading, though that makes weapon avoidance a little predictable...

[TLAM Strike]

LW I recomend looking at all the CIWS type guns and increasing the amount of rounds guideable or something. THey need to fire faster. Also Depth Charge launchers need looking at, they damage the launching ship. Sacramentos need 3 CH-46 Sea Knights. Natya (Russian) need RBUs (Once they work). Ivan Rugov need Elk Tail VDS. Thats all the problems I remember for now (Got a big list at home).

[Driftwood]

Any updates on the status of Lwami 4.0?