Index of Stickied topics + RA Mod Discussion here

[mikka]

Just checking in to say "thank you" to the modders for a tremendous effort.
And to the community in general for keeping nuke sims alive. This game is going to give me many years of enjoyment.

[caymanlee]

1 RA team take a lot of effort to reconstruct the Mast, that's really a bold decision and very hard work to finish.

2 flexible parameter setting for Mass(tons):may be different from the reality, but fit the game-play purpose regard to the periscope depth the mast height, smart move

Bravo!

[caymanlee]

satellites in RA_1.0 mod looks fantastic, but their lifetime in mission doesn't last long, besides, their fly speed and attitude aren't stable, I don't know whether the instability is the original purpose of designer or not, but I figure the Satellites are very useful(finally, the Radio antenna fulfill its function ), so why not we make them more stable?

the original satellites setting in RA_1.0 Database


factors that cause the instability: Mass, Thrust, WpnMaxRange, Fuel,Doctrine

My test setting and doctrine for satellites, satellites run stable


by the way , waypoint tactic "Barrier" works great

[pjb1]

Originally Posted by Fearless

Do you guys at Sea Shadows use the RA mod as the standard?

We play all the Mods. it is decided prior to game which mod will be used

[Kapitan]

the seawolves you can use it www.seawolves.org

[Castout]

Hmm I think there's problem with the towed array for the SSKs.

For example in collins class even though a signal was obvious in the narrowband it didn't show up on the broadband at all. The spehere sonar broadband is fine picking up the signal but the towed array broadband doesn't seem able to show lines which are obvious in the towed array narrowband.

[kpv1974]

Originally Posted by caymanlee

[SIZE="4"]satellites in RA_1.0 mod looks fantastic, but their lifetime in mission doesn't last long, besides, their fly speed and attitude aren't stable, I don't know whether the instability is the original purpose of designer or not, but I figure the Satellites are very useful(finally, the Radio antenna fulfill its function ), so why not we make them more stable?

by the way , waypoint tactic "Barrier" works great

Before correct something , you must first understand why it was done and how it work.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Castout

Hmm I think there's problem with the towed array for the SSKs.

For example in collins class even though a signal was obvious in the narrowband it didn't show up on the broadband at all. The spehere sonar broadband is fine picking up the signal but the towed array broadband doesn't seem able to show lines which are obvious in the towed array narrowband.

Doh never thought I would quote myself but it seems to be dependant on sonar conditions. I just tested a scenario and the towed array of the Collins worked just fine I could see line on it.

[Deisel Submarine]

I would like to know Caymanlee how you got the editor to open the RA data base thanks.

[suBB]

something doesn't seem right here, please i need someone else to try and duplicate and confirm..

regarding RA_DWX_1.00 after doctrine and interfaces patches:

4kts seawolf hull & port towed arrays vs a 7 kts transiting alfa in a surface duct / both on top side of layer


i made initial contact on the SW HULL array from 14nm...

then finally I pick up the alfa on the SW PORT TA from 6nm...

my experience has been opposite, where your TA will pick up contacts farther, while the sphere and hull pick up contacts closer in...

IIRC - the seawolf port array is the more sensitive of the two, so it should pick up contacts sooner compared to the stbd array and other arrays in a SD.

i even tried running the loadout screen before running this test.

someone else please confirm this.. going to try another platform vs the alfa..

[goldorak]

suBB please look at the usni for the characteristics of the different sonar and sensibilities.

The Seawolf most sensitive array is STARBOARD with SNR = -12 while the PORT towed array has a SNR = -8
The sphere and hull on the other hand have SNR of -13 and -7 respectively.

The Alfa has on the bow array a SNR of -10 so its better than the Seawolf's port towed array.

[suBB]

Originally Posted by suBB

something doesn't seem right here, please i need someone else to try and duplicate and confirm..

regarding RA_DWX_1.00 after doctrine and interfaces patches:

4kts seawolf hull & port towed arrays vs a 7 kts transiting alfa in a surface duct / both on top side of layer


i made initial contact on the SW HULL array from 14nm...

then finally I pick up the alfa on the SW PORT TA from 6nm...

my experience has been opposite, where your TA will pick up contacts farther, while the sphere and hull pick up contacts closer in...

IIRC - the seawolf port array is the more sensitive of the two, so it should pick up contacts sooner compared to the stbd array and other arrays in a SD.

i even tried running the loadout screen before running this test.

someone else please confirm this.. going to try another platform vs the alfa..

nvm... this isn't a problem... if the transiting platform was a nuke, all is normal..

[suBB]

Originally Posted by goldorak

suBB please look at the usni for the characteristics of the different sonar and sensibilities.

The Seawolf most sensitive array is STARBOARD with SNR = -12 while the PORT towed array has a SNR = -8
The sphere and hull on the other hand have SNR of -13 and -7 respectively.

The Alfa has on the bow array a SNR of -10 so its better than the Seawolf's port towed array.

thanks but the info on signal / noise ratios, which I really would prefer to have, is not listed in the USNI..

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by suBB

thanks but the info on signal / noise ratios, which I really would prefer to have, is not listed in the USNI..

Yes it is, in the gameplay information section.

[suBB]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Yes it is, in the gameplay information section.

OOOHH!!! there it is.....

All the time I've had DW, I've never clicked on that data field.. I thought it was just for show

coolies, back to testing...

thx