LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #11: Adv. Torpedoes

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Hopefully (for DW's sake), you're too busy doing other things while this is going on. I accepted this answer until I actually played. The truth is that it's overly optimistic.

Hopefully this community will start developing a little bit because it could easily go from a two man show to a no-man show.

I can't tell you how disappointing it is to be the ONLY group of people (aside from the mission designers) doing anything on this piece of software, including the developers. It's starting to not be very much fun, when old-timers in the community can't even take the time to learn DWedit as a reference tool, and many have simply left the community, it makes me wonder why I'm doing this.

In CM there is a tool called PBEMHelper. In short it completely overrides the anti-cheat functions of the Play-by-Email mode. A player using PBEMHelper Fast and Trust could rerun every single results file after watching it if he wanted to before sending one to his opponent. Yet, still many many CM players use this mode with PBEMHelper to play games faster and in a more enjoyable way because they trust their opponents.

And you are saying that we should't do this mod because you can shutdown torpedoes?

That's so weak I can't even explain it. If that's the state of the community here, then I should stop now. Please tell me I can do that.

[Molon Labe]

Hey man chill, I never said anything about whether or not the work should continue. I'm just reporting the fact that this is a bigger problem than we originally thought. Of particular concern is that it could be used to "cheat" accidentally because of the notification problem. Whether or not that's a problem big enough to keep me from using it in the end will depend on the other "plusses" the advanced mod offers.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

True, but for the wireguided torpedoes, the circle and snake selectors are basically useless... I can't think of a single time when I've wanted a circle torpedo on a wire... so it would be nice to have the option to do something more useful with the switch.

Circle search is more useful when you're worried about the wire breaking. When you shoot past the wire length and the torpedo is set to snake search, it makes the torpedo easier to evade by chosing the proper direction. When you have wire guidence, that isn't so much of a problem.

When you have it circle search and you lose the wire, then no direction is obviously favored. There are also ways in which you could shoot a pattern of torpedoes so that an area is covered by circle searching torpedoes which could complicate evasion.

I'd have to work out the geometry, but it might be a good tactic for longer ranged shots against slower targets, shots against groups of warships, or against targets against which you have a questionable firing solution. That's probably a lot more thought than most people playing want to invest in shooting torpedoes, but it is a way to make use of it.

Heh... back when I used to play Red Storm Rising ALL you had was circle search. Snake search is for people who can't get an accurate firing solution.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Hey man chill, I never said anything about whether or not the work should continue. I'm just reporting the fact that this is a bigger problem than we originally thought. Of particular concern is that it could be used to "cheat" accidentally because of the notification problem. Whether or not that's a problem big enough to keep me from using it in the end will depend on the other "plusses" the advanced mod offers.

Sorry, I'm just venting.

This particular issue and the arguments around it seem to have touched a sensitive spot for me that I relate to some other "larger" things that are kind of a downer for me right now when it comes to DW.

On the one hand, I hear that many cheaters are coming into the community... on the other hand it's dissappointing to me that many old timers don't seem to be around anymore, having grown impatient for various fixes, changes, etc. or just moved on, after years of SubCommand, and more or less, having to start over with DW.

I understand all this... I also understand that DW is going to be the only game of its kind for at least the next two or three years, probably longer. In fact, we are probably looking at something like Harpoon here, if only because I'm not sure this game will ever get made again. So my timeframe on making changes is looking at this... I'm trying to picture what the diehards still playing the game in a year and a half will want, and that's what I'm modding for.

The potential for this game is so great, and now that we are really on the cusp of making changes that will fundamentally change tactics in a way not seen in the 688i/SC/SCX/DW family, and that are also the product of a lot of work and judgement, it's concerning to see second-thoughts about something that was disclosed before the hard work started, and that everyone decided could be worked around on the user-end.

Just to put things in perspective, this would be exactly the second thing we are asking for a pass from the user on and a little help in realizing appropriately in game (the first being mentioned in the readme, and so I don't have to repeat here). I think given the scope of the various changes and what we are working with, that's pretty reasonable.

I just want to see us all become better at whatever it is we are doing here.

[Molon Labe]

Sorry about giving it a "pass," but that "pass" was only implicit (by shutting up for a few days) and is only worth as much as went into it--that is to say, I had to form an opinion without having tested it. Now, having actually tested it, I found out that the problem was bigger than it seemed when you shut me up about it a week (or whatever) ago, so I said so...

[LuftWolf]

I found out that the problem was bigger than it seemed

And I'm saying that this "problem" is the user's inclination to use the command that can't be disabled when it could be simply asked of them NOT to use it.

The actual fact of it being there is exactly as it was described.

My basic point is that other communities have done a lot more, and I'm not sure what the hold up is at this juncture here. :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

And I'm saying that this "problem" is the user's inclination to use the command that can't be disabled when it could be simply asked of them NOT to use it.

Which doesn't do any good if they don't know that it's off the wire! That's the whole point! This is going to happen by accident!

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Which doesn't do any good if they don't know that it's off the wire! That's the whole point! This is going to happen by accident!

Considering your argument is that "once the torpedo is off the wire, the user should just shut it down", I don't understand why it would happen by accident if the reason the user wants to shut it down is because he just discovered the wire has run out. :hmm:

I still don't think this is a convincing argument against doing this modification.

[Rip]

Originally Posted by OKO

Maybe I'm wrong, but I heard that wire is not only unrolling from the torpedo, but also from the submarine, to avoid the wire to be cut too easily with sub manoeuvers.
The 10-13 miles of torpedo wire shouldn't be affected, in this case, by sub runs.

All modifications mentionned looks fantastic !

But anyone could give an explanation why non electrical torps run slower at high depth, please ?

The physics of the engine works off of pressure differential as it gets deeper the pressure increases lowering differential. IIRC

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Considering your argument is that "once the torpedo is off the wire, the user should just shut it down", I don't understand why it would happen by accident if the reason the user wants to shut it down is because he just discovered the wire has run out. :hmm:

I still don't think this is a convincing argument against doing this modification.

NO, he would shut it down when it's about to hit something, or when the first weapon in a salvo hit the target and there's nothing left for the second weapon to hit.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

NO, he would shut it down when it's about to hit something, or when the first weapon in a salvo hit the target and there's nothing left for the second weapon to hit.

In most situations, a sane person will first try to redirect a torpedo before giving up on it. This is when he finds out the wire broke. If he still shuts down the torpedo, that at least makes it intentional.

I can see LW can't override the Shutdown command, but I wonder whether it'd be possible to impose some kind of punishment via doctrine - link something extra to the shutdown button if the wire's cut - say he reveals his position to all (suspension of disbelief: he uses acoustic signals to direct the torp to shut down, but the datalink is audible to all).

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Rip

The physics of the engine works off of pressure differential as it gets deeper the pressure increases lowering differential. IIRC

I will be very glad if you could give me some link about spec or graphics !
I suppose non eletric have a closed circuit, using gas pressure to run the propellent, and the external pressure will slowly, with depth, increase the water resistance ? huh ?
But in that case, water resistance should have also effect on electricals ... so it shouldn't be like this.
some info about will be very much appreciate Rip
thx

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by OKO

I will be very glad if you could give me some link about spec or graphics !
I suppose non eletric have a closed circuit, using gas pressure to run the propellent, and the external pressure will slowly, with depth, increase the water resistance ? huh ?
But in that case, water resistance should have also effect on electricals ... so it shouldn't be like this.
some info about will be very much appreciate Rip
thx

I can assure you this is correct.

The non-electric torpedoes run on the difference in pressure between the propellant and the outside world. Electric torpedoes run on a battery powered motor.

As both torpedoes go deeper, their props become more efficient (to compensate for the increased density of the water they are moving through), however, the fuel/engine for non-electric torpedoes becomes less efficient in producing torque, and thus they slow down whereas the electric torpedoes maintain their speed.

Amizaur sent me an email on this, that I can shape up a bit and repost if there is further interest, I probably should have done it sooner.

[LuftWolf]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

NO, he would shut it down when it's about to hit something, or when the first weapon in a salvo hit the target and there's nothing left for the second weapon to hit.

Therefore making it a willful act that can be regulated by rules, or in this case, one rule: "don't shut down torpedoes you can't control."

[jsteed]

Hi Luftwolf,

I can't speak for all old timers, just for myself. I stopped looking at DW well over a year ago. There were a number of reasons, but they were all related to the fact that SA produced a buggy game and had no intention of fixing it. The bug that made me throw in the towel was the in the active sonar. The power output was a factor of 10 to large and could not be compensated for in the db. Now these oversites are not unusual, but what was unacceptable was the length of time it took to fix it and finally distribute the patch. By the time it came along, I was already back to playing SC.

Since my only interest in DW was in the sub portion of the game, there really was nothing to keep me from going back to SC. The physics engine had very serious problems. And that was the only "improvement" over SC that interested me. I certainly am not claiming that SC is not without its share of bugs. It's just that most of those bugs could be compensated for via db and/or doctrine changes. The same cannot be said for DW. In fact DW's are more fundamental and consequently more noticable.

I do not attribute the relative poor quality of DW to the programmers. From my experience with them during the 1st beta testing phase, I can say that they are first rate. It was the management of this game that failed. Their priorities of what to fix were often strange and at times incomprehensible. Much of the time, our requests for certain fixes seemed to be completely ignored. I would guess that you have had similar experiences.

From what I read here from time to time, it appears that you and Amizaur have done an excellent job in improving DW. You are to be congratulated for all your hard work. You two have probably kept DW alive for much longer than it deserved. It's a pity your talents weren't around when SCX and SCU were developed. Had they been, I would have wasted far less time working on DW. Come to think of it, it's not too late for you two to jump ship and bring your ideas to SC.

cheers, jsteed