LWAMI Playtest One Now Available at the CADC! ---UPDATED---

[Bellman]

Then if thats what you see we are not looking at the same dumps. I ran this scenario several times and have other
dumps showing exactly as I reported. Online/transmission interference again ? Its happened before !!
But I say again I think I can make the obvious distinctions you keep hammering-in !
What we see has been distorted ! Firstly by my faulty instalation and secondly evidently en route to you.

David are my earlier posts invisible ? I will say again (Heck how many times is this now)
REPEAT-'' My Playtest instalation is screwed '' - REPEAT ''Back to first base !''

I am just trying to revert and the LwAmi uninstaller still leaves the 'Blind' Mk2 UUV in situ IN STOCK.
So now its a complete reinstal - but lesson learnt this time there will be separate Stock and LwAmi versions
on different HDs.

On second thoughts I'll ice the UUV Playtest process - I can see where this is heading.

[LuftWolf]

David are my earlier posts invisible ? I will say again (Heck how many times is this now)
REPEAT-'' My Playtest instalation is screwed '' - REPEAT ''Back to first base !''

No, but your use of english is often very Dickensonian...

Ok, so if its a messed install, then yeah, anything could be happening.

All you really need to do to have the mod on the same install is to be able to have Doctrine/Database folder sets stored and ready to be swapped in and out (completely), depending on what version you want to run. You can do this with JSGME, batch files, or simply using the delete, copy and paste commands in windows explorer.

[Bellman]

''Heck how many times is this now''

Oh yes very Dickensian Well I will try NY taxicab stuff in future especialy targeted for USA readers.

My stuffs screwed man. Got it bud ! :rotfl:

[LuftWolf]

On second thoughts I'll ice the UUV Playtest process - I can see where this is heading.

Yes, if there are issues in your testing process that are unrelated to the material being tested, like operator error, I'd prefer that you don't test.

[LuftWolf]

And where the heck are Molon and TLAM with the abundance of comments they ought to have about this? :hmm:

[Bellman]

Maybe they dont fancy getting head-bashed and are lying low until the flu cloud moves over.

LW: '' If there are issues in your testing process.....'' Are you running for the Senate ? Politico speak !
Repeat: The 'issues' here are in the Playtest software instalation. CICA.....My game is ********d ! *
Play the ball not the man, bud ! * ( * I am trying to adopt sympathetic vernacular .. Ooops )

Please advise if this is unclear

PS. Let me spell out the meaning of 'Icing' here. You/we/I will end up in a cul de sac with UUV Mk2 proposals.
You are going nowhere only backwards believe me - read the signs!

Expect advise to tune things down - accept it !

[LuftWolf]

What's unclear to me is the difficulty in saving and overwritting folders.

The "mod install" is a .zip containing 71 files. 14 of them are database files and will unzip to the Database directory, overwritting the 14 files already there. 56 of the files are .txt files that are doctrine files, which will be copied to Doctrine directory, overwritting the files there and creating new ones. The extra .txt file is the readme that will be copied into your main DW directory.

That's it.

If you take original copies of the folders and copy them back into the DW directory, your game is back exactly as it was before (some extra doctrine files may remain in your Doctrine directory that are new, but they aren't going to do anything but sit there).

So, yes, this is all very confusing to me, assuming that your game was not corrupted to begin with.

[Bellman]

Sorted - working properly now - and running 'that' scenario again the UUV performed as trailed !!

Ran her in at speed slowing from time to time for sonar and picked up the Kilo at 3 nm when it spooked,
at the incoming, dropped a CM and ran. But (SQ haunts me) a torp would have had the same 'spooking' effect
and my sub sonar did a better job at picking up the the spookee.

The real question to be answered is at what range Mk2 will pickup a loitering Kilo while the UUV is beeing
deployed in a stealthy approach.

Impressed with the ASuW sonar performance in my first proper run though.
The Jurys out on ASW though, but good luck with that element .

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Sorted - working properly now - and running 'that' scenario again the UUV performed as trailed !!

Ran her in at speed slowing from time to time for sonar and picked up the Kilo at 3 nm when it spooked,
at the incoming, dropped a CM and ran. But (SQ haunts me) a torp would have had the same 'spooking' effect
and my sub sonar did a better job at picking up the the spookee.

The real question to be answered is at what range Mk2 will pickup a loitering Kilo while the UUV is beeing
deployed in a stealthy approach.

Impressed with the ASuW sonar performance in my first proper run though.
The Jurys out on ASW though, but good luck with that element .

Great news.

I'm glad everything is working the same on your comp as it is on mine.

In terms of ASW performance, subs running at "silent speed" are going to be invisible to the UUV. In the test scenario that I am using, my 688i isn't picked up even at 500 yards by the UUV! However, a 688i going 14kts, is picked up by the UUV at about 5.5nm.

Personally, I like the way this works a lot. You can move steathily all you want, but if you want to step on the gas, you better be sure there is no UUV lurking about!

In gameplay terms, what this means is that the UUV is a good tool for ASW *after* the shooting starts, to keep track of an opponent's evasion. So picture this, you and your opponent pick each other up on the TA at about 13nm. You close with your opponent, taking multiple unpredictable legs on a closing course to get within good wire range. On your way in, you fire a UUV deep and try to run it by your opponent, hoping to pick him up. Once the TIW's start coming, your opponent decides to flee and he shows up the UUV, and with a nice triangulation from your TA or sphere, you get a good solution and guide your torpedo on target!

Cheers,
David

[Amizaur]

Just launched a mission just to confirm that the whole thing works - for Bellman. I would consider reinstalling DW, if you don't have original database and doctrines folders backed up, to restore original state.

UUV launches, changes depth and speed as advertised :-) But I'm little worried about sensor performace. First, it detects targets that are behind it !!! Has it omnidirectional sonar assigned ?? Have to look into db to check.
Second, it detected Ametyste class at 7kts from... 20nm :-/. It's not particulary quiet sub, but not a November after all. Also detects civilian ships from long way. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

Let me look into db... I see, almost omnidirectional (300deg) sensor... are we expecting such device in a UUV ? :hmm:

But the second thing is, that it's a LF, well, in fact VLF sonar !!! From ZERO to 1200Hz. Jesus, that's a towed array parameters !!! It has better frequency coverage than a large sub sphere sonar :-/.

It's tiny, it - just like torpedo seekers - should work in medium and high frequencies. What's the difference ? Limited detection range. And realistic performance... This was one of things I wanted to do for torpedo seekers, re-tune them to high frequency, it's also much easier det range controlling. But there is plenty of torpedo seekers, quite a work, and only one UUV seeker, and quite important one, so I think this should be done for it.

Please, anyone who knows, tell at what frequency range a modern passive torpedo seeker works. Or it can be estimated based on receiver physical dimensions IIRC ? Hm UUV sonar would have about 0.5m diameter. That equal to sound wave length at about 3000Hz.

On the other hand, 688I sphere sonar have set good sensivity limit at 800Hz (because I'm pretty sure it can receive even 50-100Hz sound, just with very poor sensivity). What it's physical size ? about half of sub hull diameter ? About 5m ? Then it's ten times larger than the UUV seeker (0.5m). Then corresponding good-sensivity limit for UUV seeker would be 8000Hz !!

Now, while working in VLF range, the UUV sensor when set to sensivity at which it can detect quiet contact at close or very close range, it will also detect a moderate or loud target at 10-20nm if not longer - just like towed array does ! HF passive sonar range would be less dependant on target noise level, or to say it another way, it would be range-limited - even very loud contacts unlikely to be detected outside effective range. High frequencies have much higher signall loss with range than LF, high frequency absorbtion, we all know this. That's why sphere sonars are limited in range. And UUV sonar is MUCH smaller than 688I sphere sonar !!

Of course same thing should be made to torpedo seekers, and I planned that, but it was much less important there, because torpedo seekers where hard range-limited by detection curves, so exccessive det ranges of loud targets was not a problem. When (and you say you are planning this) hard limits are being removed from torpedo passive seekers, this is a must too. It simply can't be achieved proper characteristics with curent 0-1200Hz freq range. When very quiet targets detected from 100yd, noisy civilian would be detected from 20nm or so... by a torpedo seeker. At 40kts.

I think you should take DWAnalyzer and compare 0-1200Hz seeker range characteristics with something like 3000-15000Hz seeker. By DWAnalyzer it's much faster and also much easier to understand the difference than in gameplay tests.

I think it's ABSOLUTELY unlikely than UUV passive sensor has better range against loud contacts than sub mounted Sphere or cylindrical sonar. If it was so, such sonars would be mounted on subs :-). And don't say me about OS self-noise, Kilo at stop doesn't produce more self noise than UUV at 4kts... If my sphere sonar didn't detect this 7kts Amethyste at 20nm, there is absolutely now way that tiny UUV sonar could here it.

BTW, single-sensor sonobuoys (are they such, or they are all line arrays like VLAD ?) should have no LF capabilities too. BUT then we couldn't use them to target identification, as there would be no frequency lines in low freq range... so they have to be LF in game. Unfortunately, the sensor sensivity in DW is same for all frequencies... maybe a solution would be give such object few sensors, covering different frequency bands, but with different sensivity ? I wonder if giving it's possible to give DIFAR a two or three passive sensors covering different frequency bands with different sensivity, and would this work ok with GRAM display ?? Can't remember now how are sensor/display connected in DW, can there be only one sensor assigned to a display ? I think this would work for AI sonobuoys (LOFAR?).

P.S. Oh yes, helo dipping sonar. First, I'm under impression that it's a davice few times larger than a torpedo seeker. Second - don't look at it's in-game characteristics. It HAVE TO be VLF capable, to allow players ident targets by frequency lines. But I'm quite sure, that in RL it's sensivity in this range is much lower than at medium frequencies. But in game you can set only one sensivity value for the whole range, so reducing it to give realistic results at VLF, would make it too deaf in higher freq. Again, I wonder if it's possible to assign two seekers to dipping sonar display :hmm:

To summarise:

- speed and depth changes works wery well, no problems. Also can't see how JSGME could NOT uninstall the mod, or uninstall it partially (??), most probably messed game installation...

- please change UUV passive sensor form VLF to HF passive sonar. We don't need to see low frequency lines from it, it has no display, it's an AI sensor in fact, so we CAN make it realistic in terms of frequency coverage and det ranges

- are you sure the UUV should have 300deg sensor cone ? Greater than torpedo, sure, but 300deg ? Maybe 180deg ?

- I would vote for UUV to have max speed 10-12kts. If not, and you insisted in 20kts max speed, then range at this speed should be MUCH shorter - even more than for torpedos. It's propulsion is probably optimised for long endurance at low speeds, and even if it was capable of 20kts (maybe it has smaller (but quieter) electric motor ?) it would strain the battery very much. 32km at 4kts, then 10km at 20kts. But better 10-12kts max speed with some range penalty. Maybe 32km at 10kts and more at 4kts ? On the other hand practical range at low speed would be probably only wire-limited. On the third hand ;-) the "wire" is probably a thin glass optical wire, not a copper wire, and in device of such size you can easily store 50NM of such wire ! There are even much smaller missiles with wire optical guidance (Polyphem to name one) with plenty of wire.

[LuftWolf]

- please change UUV passive sensor form VLF to HF passive sonar. We don't need to see low frequency lines from it, it has no display, it's an AI sensor in fact, so we CAN make it realistic in terms of frequency coverage and det ranges

Game engine ignores such values for the UUV. I left it as it was for reference.

[LuftWolf]

In terms of the sonar performance... I'm quite surprised by this. I tuned it so that it would never detect a contact before the sphere arrays...

In terms of the sensor coverage, I left it the way it was, I assumed this would be discussed.

The sensor performance you describe is a big surprise and is unlike anything I've seen.

[Amizaur]

Game engine ignores such values for the UUV. I left it as it was for reference.

I'm surprised. It's possible to change UUV sensor sensivity, but impossible to change frequency range ? Have to try it myself... right now, I'll set it to 1100-1200Hz and see if it reduces det ranges.

The mission I run, was simply Capitallists vs communists - there is Rubis at 7kts (non cav) which was detected by UUV right out of the tube from 20nm...

edit: I changed UUV sensor freq range to 1100-1200Hz and in the same mission it didn't detect anything (but me), and there were two cavitating Akulas and Type-206 10nm from me. Now reverting to 0-1200Hz...

Cavitating Type-206 detected from 28nm, Rubis 7kts from 15nm, many other contacts, just after leaving tube.

Yeah I know should test same scenario, but from above seems that what is set in frequency limits is making difference in UUV performance.

Now changing to 1200-12000 range...

OK, I have setup with some close targets, Rubis 7kts at 10nm. Launching UUV... didn't detect it. It even didn't detect a close freighter from 6nm !!!

LW, db freq range definitely works for UUV sensor for me. At least this is what I can conclude from above. Two times nothing detected with high freq limit (1100-1200 and 1200-12000), lots of targets, even far away, detected with stock 0-1200 freq limit.

P.S. Cross layer trawler not detected at 5nm, detected at 3.6nm, 1200-12000Hz freq limit. At what range is 8kts trawler detected by 0-2000Hz UUV sensor ? Freighters were even at 10-15nm if not longer...

P.S. Now, when I believe that frequency range is in fact working, I'll try to use DWAnalyzer to give some results for comparison. As long as there is no layers involved, DWAnalyzer sonar model is still very good.

Sea state 1, convergence (but above layer, target and sensor both at 60m/200ft, rock bottom, DWAnalyzer results, all tests on LwAmi302 database

Playtest One UUV, +7 sensivity, 0-1200Hz freq range

Akula II 10kts 180 meters
Akula II 5kts 12m
Kilo Imp 5kts 9m
Kilo Imp 0kts 5m
Rubis 7kts 300m (very strange, maybe mine was CZ contact ?? anyway it is detected by UUV from 10-15nm in every my test in CvC scenario)
Han 5kts 6500m
Han 10kts 12130m
Trawler 5kts 6700m
Cargo Ship 10kts 24000m
Cargo Ship cav 33000m
Supertanker 15kts 29000m
Car Carrier cav (most noisy sound in db) 43000m

so loud targets are detected from far ranges

Now +7, 1200-12000Hz sensor:

Akula II 10kts 10m
Akula II 5kts 4.8m
Kilo Imp 5kts 3.7m
Kilo Imp 0kts 2m
Rubis 7kts 213m
Han 5kts 1922m
Han 10kts 4630m
Trawler 5kts 2333m
Cargo Ship 10kts 10133m
Cargo Ship cav 16300m
Supertanker 15kts 12133m
Car Carrier cav (most noisy sound in db) 21850m

Now +7, 3000-12000Hz sensor:

Akula II 10kts 9.6m
Kilo Imp 5kts 3.9m
Rubis 7kts 212m
Han 5kts 1922m
Han 10kts 4024m
Trawler 5kts 2012m
Supertanker 15kts 12074m
Car Carrier cavitating 19230m


Now for comparison -3 (!!!), 3000-12000Hz sensor:

Akula II 10kts 250m
Kilo Imp 5kts 200m
Rubis 7kts 1920m
Han 5kts 6700m
Han 10kts 9400m
Trawler 5kts 7300m
Supertanker 15kts 18100m
Car Carrier cavitating 25500m

results for stock db -3, 0-1200Hz UUV seeker - later

P.S.

Hm, found something really interesting. I couldn't further decrease detection ranges by increasing freq limit over 3000Hz, even for 20000Hz ranges were the same. So I checked how frequency absorbtion values (visible in DWAnalyser) are looking for different frequencies. And I'm little disappointed.... Seems there is no frequency absorbtion function, only four discrete bands with fixed freq absorbtion coefficient value for each...

Results of freq. absorbtion for passive sonar at 50000m:

Hz 50km 1m (min value)

0 38 4
20 38 4
40 38 4
49 38 4
50 38 6
59 38 6
60 55 6
80 55 6
100 55 6
300 55 6
500 55 6
800 55 6
900 55 6
909 55 6
910 71 8
1000 71 8
1200 71 8
1300 71 8
1400 71 8
1477 71 8
1478 81 8
1480 81 8
1500 81 8
2000 81 8
3000 81 8
5000 81 8
8000 81 8
12000 81 8
20000 81 8

edit: I wonder if this changes with depth or conditions... maybe another time... no, checked this - at least in DWAnalyser water depth doesn't change frequency absorbtion value. So that's why in very shallow water we can get better propagation than on deep water !!!! (narrow sound channel, yes, but I believe in RL multiple bottom bounces should weaken and disperse the sound quickly, and the very low frequency sound waves maybe can't propagate at all when the sound channel is smaller than sound wave length ??). So that would be next thing to ask Sonalysts for - after discussing it with our experts here - to make frequency absorbtion value depending also on water depth and bottom type.

As can be seen, there are only 4 different values for whole range 0-20000Hz... Freq bands would look something like that:

0 - 59Hz 1 or 1.52dB/km
60 - 909Hz 1.45 or 2.2dB/km
910 - 1477Hz 1.87 or 2.84dB/km
1478 - 20000Hz 2.13 or 3.24dB/km

little strange... comparing this to this graph:



on the graph in 1000-10000Hz range, freq absorbtion changes 100x !! At 10kHz it's one dB for 1000m, at 1kHz it's only one dB for 100.000m. Is that graph good ?

And we have... one freq. absorbtion value for this band !!! Any thoughts ??

According to the graph, between 100Hz and 1kHz real frequency absorbtion in water increases about 100 times. 100 times (in dB already - because coefficient value is in dB/m). In DW seems that between 100Hz and 1kHz there is difference of only about 1.44-1.87 times... What's up ?

In original DB there are values 100, 300 and 800Hz used. From data above it would seem that 100 and 800Hz are valid but 300Hz would not make any difference as it comes into same band as 800Hz... This has to be checked in gameplay tests - is there is ANY difference between 300 and 800Hz sensor...? BTW the minimum possible (at 1-100m distance) frequency absorbtion values are greater than zero (-4 at 0Hz to -8 above 1000Hz) and this value has only 3 freq bands... How there can be frequency absorbtion loss of 4 to 8 game dBs (8 to 16 real life dBs) at 1 meter distance ??? All this is little complicated, I'm far from understanding fully how this works in DW :-/.

So in fact there are only 4 sonar "performance" bands, depending on sonar min frequency value. Anything higher than 1500Hz doesn't make any difference. I would suggest to set UUV sensor min. frequency to 1500Hz to get the last, higher frequency absorbtion.

P.S. While searching for frequency absorbtion graphs on the web, i've found this:

http://www.npmoc.navy.mil/KBay/oceano.htm

Absolutely fantastic site with lot's of sound propagation examples and info !!

[LuftWolf]

Huh?

I tested the sh*t out of this...

[LuftWolf]

Let me say for the record that this whole UUV business if beginning to thoroughly p*ss me off.

Just one frustration to the next...

I tested the UUV at 1200-2000 and no change what so ever.

I tested the UUV from 1800-2000 and I get something difference.

Just like there is a fairly predictable sensitivity curve up to 7, and then after 7, it just drops way the heck off.

There is no good predictable way for this behavior to be calibrated with the other sensors... a player sensor with sensitivity 1800-2000 and 7 would be basically useless. I'm just going to have to do this all from the seat of my pants and test it with every kind of contact.

Every time this is run, its giving someone a different result from the next person, based on some minutae BS.

Obviously, if I thought it would do anything, I would have changed the frequencies sensivities.

So everyone just ignore the UUV sensor for now. When I'm not really frustrated by this whole thing, I'll work on it again.