LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[LuftWolf]

No, if you have saved your stock and database folders from the previous version, you can copy them back over in your DW folder.

This will return DW to a neutral, stock state.

Then you run FIRST the backup .bat. This will create new folders for your stock files in addition to the normal ones used by the game.

At this point, you use the "install" .bat to instate the mod, and "uninstall" .bat to return to stock.

Extra doctrine files in the doctrine folder do not, in any way, effect game function. If you would like to use an alternate torpedo doctrine full-time, then change the name of that doctrine to "Torpedo" in the database.LwAmi folder and discard the other torpedo doctrine. Then, when you use the .bat file, that new doctrine will be instated in the doctrine folder in place of the original.

For most users, you will only need to: unzip package into DW directory; make sure you have 1.01 restored first; run the backup .bat; run the "install" .bat to switch to the mod; when you wish to play stock DW, then use the "uninstall" .bat to restore your original version.

I hope this clears things up.

If you did not save your doctrine and database folders from a previous install of the mod, then you will have to reinstall DW (or get a friend to email the Doctrine and Database folders to you).

[compressioncut]

Hey, uh, I'm sure this is the first tiome this has been mentioned but it's something that's really come to light with the mod.

Now that the SQR-19 has a correct 5,000 feet of tow cable, the [over]buoyancy of the array is really starting to show up. It takes a very long time to react to changes in cable length and tow speed, with respect to its depth. That can be a fairly critical problem, as placing the array where you want it is priority, and capability, #1 with the critical angle TACTAS.

I don't know if it's a hardcoded problem or what. But something to be aware of, as array depth is very important to a skimmer puke.

If the tow speed vs. cable length vs. depth curves aren't classified, I'll see what I can come up with.

Something weird, however - I've only seen it once, but I noticed that when I began paying out the cable, and accelerated time, that once I went back to 1:1 time after the cable fully payed out, that the array was still sinking at the accelerated rate. Not a mulitplayer concern but strange nonetheless.

[LuftWolf]

It says in the DW manual that depth is NOT modelled for the TAs!

So the 3-d view may show you one thing, but it doesn't at all effect the performance of the array, as far as we know. This is hardcoded (not enabled in the acoustic engine) and I don't think we can change this unless SCS does a major reworking of the TA acoustic modelling.

[compressioncut]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

It says in the DW manual that depth is NOT modelled for the TAs!

So the 3-d view may show you one thing, but it doesn't at all effect the performance of the array, as far as we know. This is hardcoded (not enabled in the acoustic engine) and I don't think we can change this unless SCS does a major reworking of the TA acoustic modelling.

I think you may be interpretting the manual entry incorrectly - it reads thus:

"Note: Be aware that ownship always appears as a contact on the FFG's towed array. In SCS - Dangerous Waters TACTASS provides 360* detection even if the array is not fully deployed. The array is always modelled as level even when it appears to droop in the 3d view" [p. 7-36]

I added the bold. What I interpret that to mean is that the array is modelled at the same depth all along its length, no matter what it appears to be in the 3d view. The depth of the array definitely appears to be taken into account in the acoustic model, and that is borne out in the fact that ownship signature can move down the array the deeper you place it. Also, I have a couple of simple CZ detection missions where array depth will affect POD.

[LuftWolf]

Oh, thanks a lot for that clarification!

That makes a world of difference!

Thank you again, I'll be much better skimmer captain now!

[Bellman]

Well we were asked to give some feedback on the mod and I have been looking at the interaction between torps v CMs.

Time has only permitted SP testing of SW Mk 48 launches against AI subs and self targetting.

I have noted elsewhere the pathetic AI subs in 'Quick Missions' and their inadequate performance cannot be laid at LWAMIs door.

With a SP of 1200 ft I attacked 3 Akulas (8, 10 & 12 nm)each with an active and a passive launched on snapshot bearings,
and allowed to run guidance free but enabled at about 4-5 nm from targets.

This scenario was run 3 times. Each time 2 Aks were despatched and not one single counterfire occured.
The effect of the CMs was a very limited. Twice only passive torps locked on to a passive cm burnt
through maintaining course free of lock for about 500 yds before re-starting a search.
Active torps acquired an active cm on one occasion and on another seemd to lock earlier on a duo of active and passives cms.

On no occasion did I witness torp confusion/dazing/blindness - it was always a lock or nothing.

AI sub manouvering, or I should say lack of it, was very poor but in the test this threw protection
on the cms and they failed nearly 70% of the time.

Self targetting proved in general that it is still own manouveres which save the bacon until the torp is
under 5 nm which is a completely different ball game now. CMs dropped outside that range (Appx) were
marginaly effective in creating a diversionary lock occasionaly. Not necessary to survival at all.

Under 5 nm IMO the CMs are useless and the targetted sub is going shrimping in the majority of cases
given the poor (realistic) sub rates of turn.

So I regret that I'm puzzled - what usefull function do cms perform in sub v sub in the mod ?

My impression is that the cm doctrine setting of 40% efficiency does not appear to be confirmed in-game
If I had'nt been told this I would have gauged it at 25-30 % max. (on a good day) :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

The CMs in this mod are still effective, but need to be combined with skillful tracking and manuever in order to evade the torpedo. I think last week I was able to get away from a UGST that had locked onto me...it can be done but it's not going to be ridiculously easy like in DW 1.01.

The AI just doesn't have the chops.

[Bellman]

ML:

The CMs in this mod are still effective

Can you be more explicit - what do you mean ''still effective''

In what way ? Did you see anything other than a small % occurence of locking-on - was there any spoofing ?

Skillful tracking and manouvre yes that is, I hope a constant ........particularly in your case.
But what have you observed about the contribution of CMs ?

[Bellman]

I will look at UGSTs tomorrow - just in case, someone, somewhere has been tipping the playing
field, or should I say ''Balancing -out''

[Molon Labe]

I've seen torps lock onto CMs, and torps lose the lock on the target when passing close by the CM. The interaction betwen torps and CM's is very similar to how it was in Sub Command, except I don't think torps in SC would ever lock onto a decoy first.

[Bellman]

ML:

torps lose the lock on the target when passing close by the CM

Thats what I have'nt seen yet (in SP) but I will get my microscope out and have another look.

Passives seem more positive in locking on to passive cms but the only time I have seen torp ''confusion''
is with an active when there was a choice between cm and sub and it quickly made up its mind. - sub every time.

[Tgio]

I've seen a collision between a Tico and an Arleight Burke escorting the carrier in the last campaign mission . Is possible to make they avoid each other using the doctrine language?

[Amizaur]

I would say that it's possible.... but this would require HUGE doctrine that would track position and courses of all ships in proximity and checked all the time if there is collision danger and then ordered emergency maneuvers... which could lead to another collision ect. :/. Any idea for simple algoritm that would check if there is collision danger ?
Or maybe just implementing collision checking in part of doctrine that orders evasive anti sub/torpedo maneuvers would help... but this would not prevent all collisions... and I'm not sure how the targets should be tracked - in ship doctrine itself by variables or maybe designate friendly ships as targets to get target doctrine for each, just not order shooting that collision preventing... but this would mean LOT of simultaneous doctrines running and maybe generating contradictory orders and game crash... well it's hard task, I even don't think of that until there are no simple things to fix and improve left

P.S. hmm maybe there is a way to send a signal from one doctrine to others, so when ONE ship begins evasive maneuver then ALL ships in convoy will start THE SAME maneuver at once so collision risk would be minimised...? Would look quite cool but I don't know if it's possible, my knowledge of doctrine language is too weak, EntVar commands probably work only between platform and target doctrine, not between two platform doctrines...?
Maybe at least optimisation of evasive maneuvers, one would have to think what orders would minimise collision risk... but in convoys that would probably not help much... :hmm:
No, thanks, I'll take other bug

edit: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: tracking all near targets all the time would be difficult and time-consuming, but what if we added for each ship separate, specialised anti-collision sensor of very short range (visual would be best I think) maybe even with cones looking at specific angles, and order emergency maneuver if something was detected by this specific sensor ? :hmm: not sure if it would work, all targets would be detected long before by other sensors so they wouldn't be called as new tracks ? but for torpedo proximity fuse it works so should work for a ship "proximity fuse" have to thing on this.
But still I prefer other bugs

[LuftWolf]

Bellman, in a multistation dive recently, with darksythe and MaHuJha (full AAR to be posted soon if not already) we came out of sprint less than 5nm from an Akula II that had bottomed itself and was waiting in ambush, already having fired a torpedo at us.

It fired on us while we were running blind at 20kts and when we came out of the sprint, the torpedo was already tracking us 45 degrees of the bow at 2.5nm. We immediately turned hard left and headed due north and dropped two active decoys and snapshot down the torpedo bearing.

When we counterfired, the Akula II put anothre torpedo in the water, very accurately. The first torpedo's lock was actually broke by our torpedo counter shot, that gave us enough time to get behind our decoy screen, and the first torpedo acquired the double decoys and ran past us. The second torpedo had us dead on so we cut back to the south west and dropped another decoy, this one just confused the torpedo enough that it ran directly between us and the decoy, missing our sub by less and 100m (probably closer to 50m) and ran right by.

The bottomed Akula II couldn't get going in time and we gave her the old rapid decompression death.

So decoys are effective under 5nm, you just have to be on your game, as Molon said.

[darksythe]

This is very much true i had us running at 20 knots to close distance and encourage a shot by what we thought was going to be a delta class.

We came out of sprint after around 5-7 minutes to get the TIW call . We were heading 090 I ordered us to drop the actives and cut back to 000' runing at flank. Once we saw that the first fish had taken the bait we dropped out of flank started turning to the south to reacquire the target (didnt have time to snap on the first fish )

As soon as we came out of warp he once again fired on us i ordered a snapshot down the bearing to shot (Believe it was 110' now) ordered to drop the actives and go left full at flank ( i think our navigator ran us in a complete circle :hmm: ) but it worked out because the fish got confused by our snapshot and started to run at it for a while.

Then I think it probably acquired both us and the countermeasures(we were still close to the decoys) and split the difference between us as we turned into its baffles...

Stay tuned for the full AAR.
Also expect a full AAR from our dive early in the night with same crew on board a Akula II!!