LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[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?

[LuftWolf]

Regrettably, LWAMI 4.0 will not be released until SCS releases DW 1.04.

This is the case for a number of reasons, the most important of which is the complete lack of progress towards a new patch that addresses some important concerns that directly affect the mod.

No, this is not the same vaporware excuse used for DWX. LWAMI 4.00 will be released subsequent to a *successful* patching of DW.

Yes, I'm very dissappointed in the course DW development has gone.

I am going to release a patch for the most important issue in LWAMI 3.02, that is, the helo pinging under transit and acceleration related crashes following dipping.

Thanks guys. I wish things were better for us. DW is going to be around for a while, but I'm afraid that SCS's mismanagement or lack of attention or both has cost this community too much in terms of quality people who want to believe in what has been a fundamentally good product from 688i onward, but are given absolutely no reason to by the developers.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

Luftwolf,

I don't understand something.
You always said version 4.0 of lwami mod would come out when the official patch 1.04 by SCS was done.
So, what has happened in the meantime ?
Are SCS not developping anymore the 1.04 patch ?
And what do you consider a "succesful patch" ?
If 1.04 is not a succesful patch do we have to wait until maybe 1.05 to see your mod ?
Its all so disheartening.

[Driftwood]

Damn, this is NOT good news........ Without violating any NDA's can you give us any status as to the SCS 1.04 patch?

[porphy]

complete lack of progress

Seems to sum it up really. To bad, Luftwolf and Amizaur, your mod is what made Dw stay on my hdd. Hopefully things do change to the better and SCS get the 1.04 out.


Cheers Porphy

[LuftWolf]

Goldorak, I don't ever remember tying the release of LWAMI 4.00 with the release of the DW 1.04 patch. :hmm:

In any case, there was no immediate connection until it became more and more obvious to me that way too much of what I was doing was either the direct result of working around some bug that could much more effectively be fixed by patching or inherently limited by some specific crippling issue with the game engine that once again could easily be addressed by patching.

I have absolutely no problem with any of this on the surface. Modding is in some ways advanced beta testing (or testing for the next product, as GOOD game companies utilize their community assets), but it is very clear to me that 1) SCS is going to fix what they want and anything beyond the basics that we find is never going to be fixed in the commercial version, which would again be fine, since at least we'd know where things stand, but 2) it's been a LONG time since anyone has heard anything, and the decision to go to Steam and multi-regional with the flawed DW 1.03 was frankly a direct insult to the BFC and SF customers. The lack of a patch for the new customers is their share of the dissappointment.

I cannot comment on the progress towards the 1.04 patch because there isn't anything to say.

Cheers,
David

[Fish]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Goldorak, I don't ever remember tying the release of LWAMI 4.00 with the release of the DW 1.04 patch. :hmm:

In any case, there was no immediate connection until it became more and more obvious to me that way too much of what I was doing was either the direct result of working around some bug that could much more effectively be fixed by patching or inherently limited by some specific crippling issue with the game engine that once again could easily be addressed by patching.

I have absolutely no problem with any of this on the surface. Modding is in some ways advanced beta testing (or testing for the next product, as GOOD game companies utilize their community assets), but it is very clear to me that 1) SCS is going to fix what they want and anything beyond the basics that we find is never going to be fixed in the commercial version, which would again be fine, since at least we'd know where things stand, but 2) it's been a LONG time since anyone has heard anything, and the decision to go to Steam and multi-regional with the flawed DW 1.03 was frankly a direct insult to the BFC and SF customers. The lack of a patch for the new customers is their share of the dissappointment.

I cannot comment on the progress towards the 1.04 patch because there isn't anything to say.

Cheers,
David

.....Sigh ....

[Bellman]

Sad, sad news - and what of the latest batch of LwAmi beta mods ?

What still stands and what has fallen by the wayside ?

[LuftWolf]

There's not going to be any more progress on LWAMI 4.xx until SCS makes a move.

LWAMI 3.02 will be patched, hopefully soon.

That having been said, the Advanced Torpedo Control Demo that I released with the documentation on the forum has had exactly zero bug reports given to me, so I can say that it works, so you can use that version if you like.

Cheers,
David