LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Database Mod v3.072 --- Now Available!!! - Page 3

Molon Labe · 02-27-07, 11:09 AM

Hey, it's not like a TLAM strike on an airbase in the Kola penninsula is random craziness or anything.

Back to Iran...
Using waypoints, I can steer the missiles around 3 mountain ridges to hit a target on a plateau 40 miles inland. The other targets at 240 and 270nm inland I can't get to, at least not with just 3 waypoints.

But like I said, this is a worst case scenario. I picked hundreds of miles of mountainous terrain to fly over, and a really ****ty launch point.

Does anyone know where the key Iranian airbases and nuclear facilities are? Maybe I should test to see if they can be reached with a sane launch point.

Bellman · 02-27-07, 11:26 AM

Latest fix now achieves 100% Test success for TLAMS traversing steeply contoured hills/mountains in excess of 1000 ft. Profile may give rise to increase in SAM interception rate - nothing that saturation and multi approach profiles cant beat.

Bill Nichols · 02-27-07, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Hey, it's not like a TLAM strike on an airbase in the Kola penninsula is random craziness or anything.

Back to Iran...
Using waypoints, I can steer the missiles around 3 mountain ridges to hit a target on a plateau 40 miles inland. The other targets at 240 and 270nm inland I can't get to, at least not with just 3 waypoints.

But like I said, this is a worst case scenario. I picked hundreds of miles of mountainous terrain to fly over, and a really ****ty launch point.

Does anyone know where the key Iranian airbases and nuclear facilities are? Maybe I should test to see if they can be reached with a sane launch point.

See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...n/nuke-fac.htm
and http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n/airfield.htm

Molon Labe · 02-27-07, 12:18 PM

More testing...

After 6 attempted flight paths, I managed to hit the Uranium Conversion Facility (thanks Bill) at Isfahan. It only took one attempt to hit the Saghand Uranium mine. =) The trick is getting past the "gates" of mountains north of the Strait. You can "cheat" with the 3d to get a feel for where the passes are in areas the map leaves you unsure. Once you get past that, it's a straight shot over the foothills of central Iran. This is what I meant about using a sensible launch point earlier; from the West you're swimming upstream, so to speak.

Edit: it took me 3, I think, to hit the Natanz Enrichment Facility.

I'm going to say at this point that it is working acceptably for the majority of situations. If anyone has any issues in specific areas I should follow up on, let me know. But if I can hit targets in Iran with 800nm trips over mountains, then it still works. Mission designers may have to designate waypoints in tasking messages in difficult terrain.

Orm · 02-27-07, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

More testing...

After 6 attempted flight paths, I managed to hit the Uranium Conversion Facility (thanks Bill) at Isfahan. It only took one attempt to hit the Saghand Uranium mine. =) The trick is getting past the "gates" of mountains north of the Strait. You can "cheat" with the 3d to get a feel for where the passes are in areas the map leaves you unsure. Once you get past that, it's a straight shot over the foothills of central Iran. This is what I meant about using a sensible launch point earlier; from the West you're swimming upstream, so to speak.

Living in a dream, or what?

Oh sorry, back to business and thanks LW for your work.

Fish · 02-27-07, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

When I disable the LWAMI 3.72 and try to play stock 104, I get a error 13023?

Fish, I'm not sure what that error means. Database issues when reenabling stock usually come about as result of not having properly uninstalled ALL of the previous Mod version AFTER disabling the Mod, including manually deleting any files left over in the Mod folder.

I'd recommend reinstalling DW at this point and the Mod fresh, since it's not possible to know what happened to the files at this point.

Let me know how it goes.

Cheers,
David

I get lost when I have to delete left oves. Where do I find them?
I am afraid to delete the wrong files.

Bellman · 02-27-07, 03:37 PM

Fish I had similar problem earlier so with 3.072 here's what I did. LW and OS look the other way.

1. Used the JSGME tool to deactivate the LWAMI Mod.
2. Uninstalled the Mod using 'All programs' - Dangerous Waters - Mods- Uninstall.
3. Went into main DW Folder/ Mods and deleted everything including remaining JSGME tool, LWAMI folder (and Backup)
4. Installed the 'Full package' LWAMI_3072_Full
5. Activated LWAMI Mod, Kelgety and Splash screen.

That worked fine as did the deactivation to Stock 1.04.

Fearless · 02-27-07, 03:51 PM

Yes, sometimes it's best to uninstall everything and remove all reference from the harddrive and registry and do a complete re-install. That works for me.

Fish · 02-27-07, 03:58 PM

I did what you told me to do, now DW crashes to desktop after the splashscreen, and back to 104 it crashes immediately after I start DW.

Bellman · 02-27-07, 04:04 PM

If you're really screwed , like I was 2, or was it 3, Mods back

-Regedit delete HKEY Local Machine/Sonalysts, uninstall everything, delete everything remaining in the DW folder and start afresh with DW/1.04 plus latest LWAMI Mod. But heck fortunately thats not necessary every Mod upgrade. This latter process preceded the action I mentioned above.

I like the way OS is going with JSGME - soon we may have a list of selectable sub-upgrades/features like the Ghost Recon system. [ Hope

]

LuftWolf · 02-27-07, 09:58 PM

What, so everyone is happy?

No way...

I'm working on some new documentation, and then we'll see a new version in a day or so. OS has convinced me that it's definately time to rewrite the readme, do some charts and graphs, and also to write a platform by platform user guide.

So expect a new version maybe by Friday, if not a little before. THIS version, should hopefully be the final version of LWAMI 3.xx, which should be a stable version for some time while I begin to make the initial changes for LWAMI 4.xx, and that goes into an extensive testing process, which I'm now convinced is VERY necessary for all future version of the mod.

Cheers,
David

Molon Labe · 02-27-07, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

What, so everyone is happy?

No way...

I'm working on some new documentation, and then we'll see a new version in a day or so. OS has convinced me that it's definately time to rewrite the readme, do some charts and graphs, and also to write a platform by platform user guide.

So expect a new version maybe by Friday, if not a little before. THIS version, should hopefully be the final version of LWAMI 3.xx, which should be a stable version for some time while I begin to make the initial changes for LWAMI 4.xx, and that goes into an extensive testing process, which I'm now convinced is VERY necessary for all future version of the mod.

Cheers,
David

Happy is pushing it. The terrain following capability is still pretty bad. (Good= as reliable as we'd think the RL weapon is)

It is arguably an improvement from the stock weapons in some situations though. The LW/Ami TLAMs are essentially lower performance, but more reliable. Stock missiles outperform LW/Ami in responding quickly to more radical terrain features. They only need to be steered around the most dramatic obstacles. LW/Ami missiles need to be painstakingly assigned waypoints through the narrowest of mountain passes, since they react to terrain features very slowly. On the other hand, stock missiles are very prone to sudden pitch departures which sometimes result in a crash. This behavior appears buggy; it isn't consistent behavior occuring for certain terrain, although increasing AGL altitude almost certainly triggers it. As a result, stock missiles are extremely unreliable if fired across rough terrain over long distances.

Which missiles are better is a really tough call to make without extensive game experience in a variety of terrain types. And I don't shoot LAMs all that much.

Whether or not we should be happy depends on whether it's an improvement over stock, and if not, whether that sacrifice is worth getting the TIWs for. So I can't decide if I'm happy or not.

LuftWolf · 02-27-07, 10:38 PM

I can go as high as you guys want... if 1000ft isn't enough, I can do 1500ft, or 2000ft... it really doesn't matter because I'm going to limit the vulnerabiltiy of the missiles using their radar signature setting. Once the missile is above 500ft, just about any altitude is the same from a vulnerabiltiy standpoint. It's all the same, except for the way the missiles look when flying to target.

So should we go higher then?

Cheers,
David

Molon Labe · 02-27-07, 10:39 PM

It's already too high.

Molon Labe · 02-27-07, 10:41 PM

Just to clarify.

To the point that we are chasing down bugs caused by adding the TIW warning, I think we have reached a point where the TIW is not worth the trouble.

But, all of this testing has shown that the stock TLAMs really ****ing suck in mountains, even worse than I ever realized. If you want to work on fixing that problem, I'm all for it.

Edit: but as a policy matter, I think the best thing to do right now is to play with the doctrine we have now, and listen for feedback regarding where LAMs are reaching their targets and where they are not. We compare those results to results with stock missiles in the same situations. If we find that we have an improved situation, or that in the majority of situations the LAMs are hitting their targets, then we don't need to take any action.

02-27-07, 11:09 AM	#31
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Hey, it's not like a TLAM strike on an airbase in the Kola penninsula is random craziness or anything. Back to Iran... Using waypoints, I can steer the missiles around 3 mountain ridges to hit a target on a plateau 40 miles inland. The other targets at 240 and 270nm inland I can't get to, at least not with just 3 waypoints. But like I said, this is a worst case scenario. I picked hundreds of miles of mountainous terrain to fly over, and a really ****ty launch point. Does anyone know where the key Iranian airbases and nuclear facilities are? Maybe I should test to see if they can be reached with a sane launch point. __________________

02-27-07, 11:26 AM	#32
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Latest fix now achieves 100% Test success for TLAMS traversing steeply contoured hills/mountains in excess of 1000 ft. Profile may give rise to increase in SAM interception rate - nothing that saturation and multi approach profiles cant beat. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

02-27-07, 12:18 PM	#34
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	More testing... After 6 attempted flight paths, I managed to hit the Uranium Conversion Facility (thanks Bill) at Isfahan. It only took one attempt to hit the Saghand Uranium mine. =) The trick is getting past the "gates" of mountains north of the Strait. You can "cheat" with the 3d to get a feel for where the passes are in areas the map leaves you unsure. Once you get past that, it's a straight shot over the foothills of central Iran. This is what I meant about using a sensible launch point earlier; from the West you're swimming upstream, so to speak. Edit: it took me 3, I think, to hit the Natanz Enrichment Facility. I'm going to say at this point that it is working acceptably for the majority of situations. If anyone has any issues in specific areas I should follow up on, let me know. But if I can hit targets in Iran with 800nm trips over mountains, then it still works. Mission designers may have to designate waypoints in tasking messages in difficult terrain. __________________ Last edited by Molon Labe; 02-27-07 at 02:11 PM.

02-27-07, 03:37 PM	#37
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	Fish I had similar problem earlier so with 3.072 here's what I did. LW and OS look the other way. 1. Used the JSGME tool to deactivate the LWAMI Mod. 2. Uninstalled the Mod using 'All programs' - Dangerous Waters - Mods- Uninstall. 3. Went into main DW Folder/ Mods and deleted everything including remaining JSGME tool, LWAMI folder (and Backup) 4. Installed the 'Full package' LWAMI_3072_Full 5. Activated LWAMI Mod, Kelgety and Splash screen. That worked fine as did the deactivation to Stock 1.04. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

02-27-07, 04:04 PM	#40
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	If you're really screwed , like I was 2, or was it 3, Mods back -Regedit delete HKEY Local Machine/Sonalysts, uninstall everything, delete everything remaining in the DW folder and start afresh with DW/1.04 plus latest LWAMI Mod. But heck fortunately thats not necessary every Mod upgrade. This latter process preceded the action I mentioned above. I like the way OS is going with JSGME - soon we may have a list of selectable sub-upgrades/features like the Ghost Recon system. [ Hope ] __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

02-27-07, 03:51 PM	#38
Fearless Ace of the Deep Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 1,047 Downloads: 340 Uploads: 1	Yes, sometimes it's best to uninstall everything and remove all reference from the harddrive and registry and do a complete re-install. That works for me.

02-27-07, 03:58 PM	#39
Fish Eternal Patrol Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,923 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I did what you told me to do, now DW crashes to desktop after the splashscreen, and back to 104 it crashes immediately after I start DW.

02-27-07, 09:58 PM	#41
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	What, so everyone is happy? No way... I'm working on some new documentation, and then we'll see a new version in a day or so. OS has convinced me that it's definately time to rewrite the readme, do some charts and graphs, and also to write a platform by platform user guide. So expect a new version maybe by Friday, if not a little before. THIS version, should hopefully be the final version of LWAMI 3.xx, which should be a stable version for some time while I begin to make the initial changes for LWAMI 4.xx, and that goes into an extensive testing process, which I'm now convinced is VERY necessary for all future version of the mod. Cheers, David __________________ LW

02-27-07, 10:38 PM	#43
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	I can go as high as you guys want... if 1000ft isn't enough, I can do 1500ft, or 2000ft... it really doesn't matter because I'm going to limit the vulnerabiltiy of the missiles using their radar signature setting. Once the missile is above 500ft, just about any altitude is the same from a vulnerabiltiy standpoint. It's all the same, except for the way the missiles look when flying to target. So should we go higher then? Cheers, David __________________ LW

02-27-07, 10:39 PM	#44
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	It's already too high. __________________

02-27-07, 10:41 PM	#45
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Just to clarify. To the point that we are chasing down bugs caused by adding the TIW warning, I think we have reached a point where the TIW is not worth the trouble. But, all of this testing has shown that the stock TLAMs really ****ing suck in mountains, even worse than I ever realized. If you want to work on fixing that problem, I'm all for it. Edit: but as a policy matter, I think the best thing to do right now is to play with the doctrine we have now, and listen for feedback regarding where LAMs are reaching their targets and where they are not. We compare those results to results with stock missiles in the same situations. If we find that we have an improved situation, or that in the majority of situations the LAMs are hitting their targets, then we don't need to take any action. __________________