LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #13: The Stallion

[LuftWolf]

He was asking about the REAL FFG7.

The OHP in LWAMI will definately keep the rail.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

He was asking about the REAL FFG7.

The OHP in LWAMI will definately keep the rail.

Cheers,
David

Silly me

[Bellman]

LW - the decision to intoduce the advanced control system on the UUV is inspirational.

One UUV question - at stop, with indefiinite persist, will it continue to act as a reporting passive receptor, or will functioning be motion dependent ? The latter would simulate limited battery life and is what I am hoping for. :hmm:

I have been retesting comparitive sub sonar receptivity and welcome your APR-3 proposals. It tips the MP balance slightly to a red linked team and as a SW captain I have to declare my position that I shall anxiously await experience of just how low the noise profile is during the 'search' phase.

I still think WAA has been increased in efficiency but hey I better shut up now some advantages are flowing the other way.

Good work in moving us forward we could vegetate in a comfort zone !

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

A quick update for those of you keeping score at home.

I've FINALLY fixed the RBU's.

This was a bit more tricky than the RAM SAM.

Your welcome, Mr. Nichols.

Cheers,
David

Awesome.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

This was my thinking exactly.

Cheers,
David

Where did you get your specifications?
This is all I could find. But if the APR-3 is an improved APR-2, would the range be significantly higher? The APR-2 only had 2200yds of range according to this source. If this is right, then I see the APR series as intended for use from aircraft, not SUBROCs. :p

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Bellman

LW - the decision to intoduce the advanced control system on the UUV is inspirational.

One UUV question - at stop, with indefiinite persist, will it continue to act as a reporting passive receptor, or will functioning be motion dependent ? The latter would simulate limited battery life and is what I am hoping for. :hmm:

I have been retesting comparitive sub sonar receptivity and welcome your APR-3 proposals. It tips the MP balance slightly to a red linked team and as a SW captain I have to declare my position that I shall anxiously await experience of just how low the noise profile is during the 'search' phase.

I still think WAA has been increased in efficiency but hey I better shut up now some advantages are flowing the other way.

Good work in moving us forward we could vegetate in a comfort zone !

Sure, I could put a timer on it, but given the dynamics of batteries etc, the timer would last like 12 hours or more (given that it can last two hours or so moving at 6kts), so I figure that's well beyond the time frame of most DW missions, and therefore unnecessary. Althought I suppose I could do a 12 hour timer just in case.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Where did you get your specifications?
This is all I could find. But if the APR-3 is an improved APR-2, would the range be significantly higher? The APR-2 only had 2200yds of range according to this source. If this is right, then I see the APR series as intended for use from aircraft, not SUBROCs. :p

I'm familar with that page. He's rather conservative, only posting what is definatively fielded for the most part. In regards to the APR-3 data, my assumption is that he extrapolated that data from the APR-2, since I've not confirmed from another source this weapon's design was finalized.

An no, it might not have a greater range if it is much faster...

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Couple more things for 3.06 done and done.

-I made sure the UAV has the correct doctrine... I'm not sure I mentioned this before but this has been fixed for some time. So, in other words, the UAV should work fine for missions, they'll behave like any other aircraft in fact.

-I've added variable decoy logic to the most advanced sea-skimmers in the game, to make chaff 50% less effective for these missiles than for other missiles. The missiles improved by this change are the SLAM-ER, TASM, Harpoon, and SS-N-25. Chaff for these missiles will be 12.5% effective, whereas it is 25% effective against other missiles. Thank you to Mau for suggesting this, and being very persistent about missile and FFG related issues in general. I do agree, the FFG looks much better with the TA and Nixie on the correct sides of the model.

-I've altered the way AI units set the search depths on torpedoes to make them fire torpedoes under layers more often when firing at submarines.

-Also for the torpedoes, I've imported the ASuW Safety feature from LWAMI 4.xx. The safety is set by default, meaning the weapon will not engage surface ships or any surfaced submarines. When you want to disable the safety for use against surface ships, set the ceiling to 60ft or less (18m or less when on an PLAN or Russian vessel) and the torpedo will home on surface targets, although it is recommended you set the ceiling more shallow than this if you want to engage surface targets because the ceiling still acts as a hardcap on torpedo depth control in this version. The AI will utilize the safety when firing at submarines, although this is not always the case, particularly if the submarine is shallow.

-I've also updated the freighter dimensions like I should have some time ago and also fixed the fast infiltration craft so they no longer fly and do other random things, although as part of the fix, I had to remove their sound vs. speed curves, so they are perpetually very loud. I had no way around this unfortunately.

Cheers,
David

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

-I've added variable decoy logic to the most advanced sea-skimmers in the game, to make chaff 50% less effective for these missiles than for other missiles. The missiles improved by this change are the SLAM-ER, TASM, Harpoon, and SS-N-25.

Quick question: Why is the Stage 2 SS-N-27 not on this list? Go by modernity, and it is more modern than the -25 and all the others. Go by stereotypical Russian electronic delay, and the -27 is still newer than the -25 and bigger so if the -25 passed so would the -27.

[LuftWolf]

Preference has been given to slower missiles because more of their mass is guidance and sensors than on supersonic missiles (I think), and because I happen to believe that it is easier for a missile to track a warship moving at 500kts rather than 1200kts.

Also, the SS-N-27 is already mighty powerful, even more so now that the engagement range of the first stage has been reduced for radar guided missiles.

The attempt here is to bring slow, low flying missiles into line with their reported real world effectiveness, and one of those ways is to make them harder to decoy, as this is necessarily a key design feature of slower missiles, since they have to compensate for the increased exposure time during their incoming flight.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

I have finished work on the Mk60 CAPTOR mine!

The weapon replaces the 1000lbs mine on the player and AI P-3.

The mine is an encapsulated MK46 torpedo with a passive sensor equivalent to a VLAD buoy with poor bearing acquity at ranges over 3nm. When the mine is dropped from the P-3 the TACCO selects between four depth selections: surface-90ft, shallow-400ft, deep-1000ft, or bottom, which places the mine on the bottom of the ocean (max depth 3000ft).

When the mine detects a valid target, it switches on its active sensor, depending on the target and acoustics this will occur for the very loudest targets between 3-4nm. If the target is within 4000m, the weapon will fire the Mk46 torpedo and shutdown. If it the target is outside the 4000m range, it will remain in active mode waiting for a valid target to come within its range.

How does the mine distringuish valid targets? My research tells me this mine is a very sophisticated piece of hardware capable of distinguishing sonar signatures. I assume that these weapons are uploaded with appropriate target profiles prior to mission deployment, thus preventing friendly and neutral fire. So, in game, the mine will not fire against any targets but HOSTILE SUBMARINES, it will NOT fire against neutral or friendly submarines, or any surface vessels.

The information about this weapon is very specific that it has these capabilities, so have fun with this one, because it really does seem to exist!

I've also corrected the common mine doctrine used by all the mines in the game to correct for the meters-feet misconversion in the stock game. The mines will now actually go to the depths in indicated in the manual. So for example, when you use the 2000lbs mine on the P-3, the depths will now actually be Surface, 82ft, 436ft, and the real bottom depth when you make your selections in the TACCO interface.

I've got a few more things I'm working on, so I'll either have 3.06 out today or tomorrow. Perhaps I'll do a pre-release for people who want to do some testing of the new features for me, I'd rather have all the bugs caught before release this time.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I have finished work on the Mk60 CAPTOR mine!

The weapon replaces the 1000lbs mine on the player and AI P-3.

The mine is an encapsulated MK46 torpedo with a passive sensor equivalent to a VLAD buoy with poor bearing acquity at ranges over 3nm. When the mine is dropped from the P-3 the TACCO selects between four depth selections: surface-90ft, shallow-400ft, deep-1000ft, or bottom, which places the mine on the bottom of the ocean (max depth 3000ft).

When the mine detects a valid target, it switches on its active sensor, depending on the target and acoustics. If the target is within 4000m, the weapon will fire the Mk46 torpedo and shutdown. If it the target is outside the 4000m range, it will remain in active mode waiting for a valid target to come within its range.

How does the mine distringuish valid targets? My research tells me this mine is a very sophisticated piece of hardware capable of distinguishing sonar signatures. I assume that these weapons are uploaded with appropriate target profiles prior to mission deployment, thus preventing friendly and neutral fire. So, in game, the mine will not fire against any targets but HOSTILE SUBMARINES, it will NOT fire against neutral or friendly submarines, or any surface vessels.

The information about this weapon is very specific that it has these capabilities, so have fun with this one, because it really does seem to exist!

I've also corrected the common mine doctrine used by all the mines in the game to correct for the meters-feet misconversion in the stock game. The mines will now actually go to the depths in indicated in the manual. So for example, when you use the 2000lbs mine on the P-3, the depths will now actually be Surface, 82ft, 436ft, and the real bottom depth when you make your selections in the TACCO interface.

I've got a few more things I'm working on, so I'll either have 3.06 out today or tomorrow. Perhaps I'll do a pre-release for people who want to do some testing of the new features for me, I'd rather have all the bugs caught before release this time.

Cheers,
David

Hold on a sec, how are you defining 'hostile' here? Is is about the sonar profile or on how the sides and allliances are set? Don't forget that the sides of platforms and the alliances of the sides can change during the course of a mission.

[LuftWolf]

It's based on the settings of sides and alliances.

This is the only way to do it, and it's ultimately a limitation of the game engine.

If you're not happy with this, then I can set it to fire at any submerged contact. It's easy to change, however, probably a less accurate modeling of the weapon for most circumstances.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Nah, better allliances than nothing.

Are you sure there are no other alternatives?
I guess the lack of presets for the mines doesn't help...

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Nah, better allliances than nothing.

Are you sure there are no other alternatives?
I guess the lack of presets for the mines doesn't help...

Ok cool. Good, I'm honestly glad that's not too abhorrent.

There aren't really any alternatives. The alliance system is a basic feature of the game, and just about everything related to sensors, contacts, and weapons is dependant upon it, so there isn't any other way to do what it does in the engine, its function is unique and necessary.

Now what should I do next? Any requests?

Cheers,
David