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

[Sea Demon]

I'm pretty happy with Dangerous Waters myself. I think it deserves alot of praise.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

In most situations, a sane person will first try to redirect a torpedo before giving up on it.

Why redirect it if there isn't a target to hit anymore?

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).

...Punishing someone for a complete accident.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by 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

Yeah, they did save DW from itself, especially with regards to the active sonar issues.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Why redirect it if there isn't a target to hit anymore?

I'm assuming there is a target off to the far side he can redirect the torp to.

If the target that just got blasted is the last target, what difference does it make. Many people push End Game at this point - which will do the same thing.

...Punishing someone for a complete accident.

I don't see you coming up with suggestions... at least my solution has a shred of SoD realism - just remember to CHECK for wire continuity, and you won't have a problem.

[Molon Labe]

That's a bad assumption, both in the fact that it's common for there not to be a target left, and because the underlying premise is flawed; what matters is not if there is another target present but whether there is a target in range. It also assumes that anyone else's weapons in the water or air that are still running are shut down. Because in many situations there will in fact be other targets present in game outside of the weapons range or other platforms' weapons still on the board after a player destroys a target, your suggestion that the "End Mission" option is a solution to this problem is absurd.

It's going to take a lot of time for every player to develop a habit to "check" the status of a weapon before shutting it down.

I'm a tester, not a modder, so I really don't care if I have a suggestion or not. I'm just calling the problems as I see them.

[LuftWolf]

I think, in context, once all of the changes are implimented including the Advanced (Basic ) Torpedo Physics and the full torpedo individualiziation, this will wind up being a minor footnote.

There is of course another factor that we aren't considering... I would guess that both sides have features on their weapons that can limit the running range of their torpedoes if the wire should break. In DW, we have no such feature, other than the shutdown feature. Now *obviously*, we can be much smarter about shutting down our own weapons in context than a preset feature, but it remains to be proven that this isn't perhaps even a reasonable thing to have, albiet in an imperfect form.

Can anyone answer the question about safety features on wireguided weapons?

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=52820

[LuftWolf]

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

I agree, and thank you.

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

LW: ''Footnote'' - I think you are right - the phrase 'washing the baby out with the bathwater' comes to mind.

Returning to the Playtest UUV, my dives have now allowed me to form an opinion. Mk 2 is a retrograde step
in gaming terms. It is long-ranged but short sighted and relatively useless for ASW. I can however go along with a
neo-political decision to emasculate it in that role. But Mk 2 forfeits the anti- torpedo defense capability.

I have canvassed a mere shuffle forward which as always has to be counterbalanced by a shuffle back.......so:
Forwards - retain the excellent new speed/dive control.
Backwards - Limit top speed to 10 (Two speed 6 or 10 )
Forwards - Marginaly increase range/time of running ........
Backwards -...............but make it speed dependent.

The Stock sonar receptivity should be retained but its range reduced by 30 - 50 % (moot point !)
The existing Stock UUV would be 'detuned' but its deployment would be enhanced.

For the Bronx readers a translation from Dickensian English. Poke it in de deuce of peekers and kick its tail...... Bud !

[Molon Labe]

I tracked LW on a Mk2 UUV yesterday, as well as my own torpedoes...

[Bellman]

ML: Well nobody said its impossible - but some supporting statistics to your general statement would
be appreciated. Egs. Distances, depths, speed and SSP for starters.
What platforms .....etc.

Just a tad more flesh on the bones please - you know what a stickler LW is for proper testing !
We have to rely on the 'experts' to feedback proper and full information !

[Molon Labe]

I practically parked the UUV on top of him (688I), range was about a mile but a lot of it might have been cross-layer. Most of the tracking was while he was evading torps close aboard. Initial detection was about 3 miles, probably, when he accelerated to tactical speed. The torpedoes were detected at about 10-13nm out in the duct in a CV SSP.

[LuftWolf]

Sorry Bellman, we are heading in another direction.

Since I blew the initial testing on frequency sensitivity ranges, the new UUV sensor is going to be completely different (narrow high-frequency detection band with a sensitivity significantly less, but comparable to sphere arrays).

Loud contacts should be picked up at some distance and quiet contacts not at all. The only reason it is in the state that it's in in the playtest is because I thought it had to be thoroughly fudged (very very low sensitivity TA-like sonar), but now we can actually do it the way it should be done, which is, a sonar that is significantly less sensitive than the stock game UUV.

Based on what has been discussed here and what is in the mod, there is basically no way that a UUV sonar should pick up a very quiet submarine moving slowly unless it practically runs into the hull.

[Deathblow]

I would just like to say that more people probably don't make their own mods, because LW&A has come so far and any other mod would probably mimick a lot of what was already down in LW&A.

LW&A was pretty much a conglemerate of all the mod ideas of the community... at least at first... IMHO. I've tried to throw in my coding suggestions from time to time.

As far as cheating in the online community... is this your first time playing an online game? Exploiting bugs and unintentional gliches is what dominates MOST online gaming... its the rule, not the exception, such is online and will always happen. No DW players aren't gamers that walk on water and rise above the problem that every other single online game has... it will be subject to it just the same.

Remember LW and A... create the game that YOU want to play... don't create it for the community, create it for YOURSELF because its what you want to play. Inviting the aid of those that want to help and distrubing your ideals to those interested is appreciated, but never forget that its your game that your trying to perfect. That should keep the frustratoin your starting to feel more in perspective... hopefully. You guys obviously have a vision of what is ideal in the game and go with it, that's about it.

EDIT: grammar

[Bellman]

LW: ''In another direction'' - No sir !

UUV: Only in so far as your initial objectives in ASW have been opposed by the so called 'Reality Now'
brigade ! So you have listened and responded by introducing short-sightedness. I predicted this, if you recall,
and said you were heading into a ''cul de sac.''and also that ''you should listen to calls for the sensitivity to
be reduced'' So thats where you are as predicted in a cul de sac with the short-sighted.
Not ''another direction'' No sirree - Bang on target. In todays climate an inevitable outcome.
We shared initialy an unrealistic goal of achieving a new UUV with a greater ASW role. A great pity !

But in UUV controllability and incoming tracking I am completely onboard ! And as for Torps,
excluding minor wire glitches the same applies here !

So from my negotiating perspective 75% at least of requirements met = One happy bunny here !!
Please keep up the good work - it is greatly appreciated. :|\

[LuftWolf]

I just tested my underkeel detonation scheme for the ADCAP... it works.