[TEC] Thermal Layers (how things work)

[Peto]

You're spot on about the cloaking device! It's much more effective than 20%.

Lowering the sonar cone will create for for fast and furious action--and that's what many people like--no problem there as far as I'm concerned. Looking at actual sensor platforms from that time, only the allies had sonar capable of deep probing. Shallowing the degree (90-100) and extending the range (2400) has made for some long escapes for me--and that's the style of play I personally prefer.

I'm working with using the layer settings in both active and passive now. It seems (although I've just started testing this) that you can decrease the effectiveness od passive by setting the layer # to 3 or more. At the same time, setting the active to 1 or 2 causes a lot more pinging--they quit using their passive as much. Now it's just a matter of balancing the farging sensitivity. And patch 1.4 seems to have affected that.

Getting there may be half the fun, but as you well know, getting it finished is usually the best half !

[Peto]

Notes here because my pen ran out of ink (and I have a short memory):

Try setting passive layer to 4 and active to 1 (0 seems to default back to 5). Increase sensitivity by 0.01 increments. Go to Silent Running but try running at 4 knots to see if the escort still depends on active. If that works, tweak to balance.

[Ducimus]

Just FYI, here's the summation of the changes i made to TMaru to the stock AI where underwater detection is concerned. These are the changes ive been using, up until this point:

sim.cfg
Hydrophone-> Noisefactor from 1.0 to 0.4
Hydrophone-> Thermal Layer Attun from 3.0 to 2.0

Sonar->Enemy Surface Factor from 200 to 150
Sonar-> Thermal Layer attuen from 5.0 to 4.0


AI sensors.dat
Type93-1A -> MaxRange from 1000 to 1200

Type93-1A ->MaxElevation from 100 to 106
Type93-3A ->MaxElevation from 100 to 112
Type93-5A ->MaxElevation from 100 to 118

Depthcharge.zon ->MaxRadius from 40 to 14.5
Deptcharge.sim-> DepthPercision from 5 to 17
Deptcharge.sim-> Explosion_range from 40 to 50

Now, ive just made some adjustments to that, and the first test run looked promising, here is what ill most likely run with soon, although i wonder if its a TINY bit much, not sure. more testing is needed:

sim.cfg
Hydrophone-> Noisefactor remains at 0.4
Hydrophone-> Thermal Layer Attun remains at 2.0

Sonar->Enemy Surface Factor remains at 150
Sonar-> Thermal Layer attuen from 4.0 to 3.0

AI sensors.dat
Type93-1A -> MaxRange remains at 1200

Type93-1A ->MaxElevation from 106 to 108
Type93-3A ->MaxElevation from 112 to 114
Type93-5A ->MaxElevation from 118 to 120

Depthcharge.zon ->MaxRadius from 14.5 to 20 (untested)
Deptcharge.sim-> DepthPercision from 17 to 10 (untested)
Deptcharge.sim-> Explosion_range from 50 to 55 (untested, not that it matters much)

If i still can't illicit a good response from the AI, next on my list is to lower the sonar surface factor in the sim.cfg from 150 to 125, and retest from there, but i dont think it will be neccessary.

One thing i havent done, is extend the maximum range of the active sonar. Doing so, will make convoys really hard (or rather harder) to approach.


edit: explosion range going back down to 50, subs starting to accelerate in speed, which isnt any good.

Sonar thermal layer attuen, i might bring that back up to 4.

With the new settings ive quoted above, i think i got my accuracy back, and im getting more pinging. I think either the min elevation adjustment was all taht was neccesary, or thermal layer.. im skeptical if both were needed.

Try it out, tell me what you think.

[Peto]

Roger, but probably not tonight !!! It looks to me like you and I are kind of working in opposite direction in a couple cases :hmm:. It'll be interesting to see what the results turn out.

Worst case scenario as far as I see it is we'll have 2 options for people to choose from. (Of course--that can be a very bad thing :rotfl: !) Seriously--I see your dirction resulting in faster action-and very challenging and I believe my diection will result in slower action and very challenging. They'll both need tweaking I'm sure .

I really don't see a downside.

[Peto]

FYI--side by side comparison.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

sim.cfg
Hydrophone-> Noisefactor remains at 0.4 : same
Hydrophone-> Thermal Layer Attun remains at 2.0 : same

Sonar->Enemy Surface Factor remains at 150 : same
Sonar-> Thermal Layer attuen from 4.0 to 3.0 : 2.0

AI sensors.dat
Type93-1A -> MaxRange remains at 1200 :2400

Type93-1A ->MaxElevation from 106 to 108 : 100
Type93-3A ->MaxElevation from 112 to 114 : 100
Type93-5A ->MaxElevation from 118 to 120 : 100

Sensitivity has a huge effect on the active sonar to. It seems to be setting that fine tunes it all.

[DrBeast]

I've been tinkering with the sensors for a couple of weeks now, wanting to shorten their overall range but make them more accurate at closer ranges. I did some pretty radical changes to Type 3 sensors, and ran a test mission with Bungo Pete-style ships equipped with those. Some of the settings I used:

Hydrophone: Max Range 5000, Min Elevation 90, Max Elevation 175, Noise Factor 0.2, Sensitivity 0.01
Sonar: Max Range 1500, Max Elevation 150, Surface 100, Sensitivity 0.01
Thermal Layer attenuation as per stock game

I used a couple of elite Akikazes (courtesy of Ducimus), spawing with a one-hour time gap and headed to my direction. Weather was calm.

The result was, I was pretty much undetectable up to about 3000-3500 meters, even if I was going at flank speed at periscope depth. Once they picked me up, however, woah Nelly! No amount of Thermal Layer attenuation could save me from them! Even with Silent Running on and my Balao crawling at 1 Kt at crush depth, they'd home in on me. In the end, and after 3 hours of actual game-play, I had had enough. However, this was all with 1.3. Still haven't patched to 1.4 (I refuse to play the game without ROW!).

ETA: I ran the same test with Sensitivity at 0.1, and suddenly they became deaf, dumb and blind.

[Peto]

[tater]

What are the depth elevations of the stock passives like in your mod, or are they changed, too?

tater

[Peto]

Originally Posted by tater

What are the depth elevations of the stock passives like in your mod, or are they changed, too?

tater

I believe they are 90-100 like what I'm running tater. The main problem with that is the short range of sonar. And with layers cutting sonar performance basically in half ... Just setting the sonar range to 2400 meters (historical) adds a lot. But it can make it so hard that it's not even fun without tweaking some of the other aspects.

Also--in effect--there seem to be two layers in the game. If I set the setting in sim.cfg for active to 1 there is basically no effective layer but I am still told that I'm passing through one as I go deep. That means I can set the same setting for passive sonar (hydrophones) to a higher value. Now it seems that although the layer doesn't affect Active, it does effect passive.

The Downside: More to tweak in an effort to find a balance.

The Upside: It gives you another good reason to go deep.

Testing testing tweaking testing. work work work :rotfl: