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

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Weird - cant understand this :-

I cant understand this as I have separate registry settings as recommended in the dual-instal instructions.
Anyone got any ideas ?

Excuse me please, if it's obvious, but you do switch register keys between different install runs ? It's the only thing you didn't say...

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

From the playtest readme:

UUV-The UUV sensor sensitivity has been reduced and given a hardcap of about 20nm

.

Hm do you think that tiny torpedo/UUV sensor can detect ANYTHING other than an earthquake at range of 20nm ?? Even supertanker at 20kts ?
I don't think so, or rather don't feel soo... anyone more experienced can say ?

Also, the range of the UUV is now greatly reduced by running it at high speed, especially at 20kts.

UGST and ADCAP- I have tuned the wirewatch sensor and doctrines. The only ownship condition now monitored by the wire is the distance from the launchpoint of the torpedo...

And I think it's very good for a test. Later of course, other conditions for launching sub maneuvers/speed can be added, but now that could confuse players only... Not too much things at once or we would have to learn completly new game... for a test

UGST, so that means they will run farther when slower and running more shallow (although the database still needs to be updated to fully take advantage of this at the extreme long/slow range/speed settings).

Come on, it's only two values in DB (weapon rng for both torps) At stock db range with torp range bug there is little reason in running it slow... Can result in less range. In fact you can set torp range in DB even to 50nm, doctrine will limit it correct values anyway :-)

[Bellman]

Amizaur: Yes I have seperate registry keys as I said above -

I cant understand this as I have separate registry settings as recommended in the dual-instal instructions.

Perhaps the 'keys' were also corrupted with the problems I had last week. I will try recreating the keys...
unless you have any other ideas ?

[LuftWolf]

Come on, it's only two values in DB (weapon rng for both torps) At stock db range with torp range bug there is little reason in running it slow... Can result in less range. In fact you can set torp range in DB even to 50nm, doctrine will limit it correct values anyway :-)

Well, yes, but I'm trying to do the changes in sensible blocks... otherwise, I'm going to go nuts! And in fact, I'm almost there anyway...

Hehe...

[LuftWolf]

BTW, I tested the very short WireWatch sensor (200 yards)... and although the sim keeps the ownship tgttrack, it does not update the solution once the sensor loses contact (which is the way it SHOULD work)... so the Sim assume the tgttrack is always moving at the same speed and direction as when it was detected when the weapon was fired and then immediately lost its track, so we have to stay with the 35000m range.

[Amizaur]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

BTW, I tested the very short WireWatch sensor (200 yards)... and although the sim keeps the ownship tgttrack, it does not update the solution once the sensor loses contact (which is the way it SHOULD work)...

Well then it really has to stay long range, but maybe not 350000m but reduce it just to longest possible torpedo range, or even longest possible wire range. After that wire is broken anyway and wire watch is not needed anymore.
I hoped it can be short range or even disabled after own sub is detected...
I though that because in Maverick case tgt once locked was not refreshed and homing worked perfectly. I wonder then if a torpedo would still home on a sub if it's sensor was disabled :-)

P.S. One day I tried to make a torpedo seeker with two very narrow sensor cones looking to the front-sides in V patter (so NOT to the front) and after target is locked and torpedo turns to it, target is outside seeker cone and target don't get active pings anymore :-) Evil weapon, would work great against non maneuvering surfaces if proximity fuse was added. Only if it maneuvers and gets out of the "blind" front cone, it's detected once again by one of side looking seekers and again homed on... it was working crudely and I planned to improve it later but forgot

P.S.2 Looking at torpedo seeker cone (just wanted to try once more what I described above) I noticed that seeker cone parameters are set only for azimuth (+/- 45 deg for example) but in elevation it's 0 so either not used or... all around 360deg ! For years it was annoying me that torpedos running in level detects targets even directly above them so out of real seeker's cone. I don't remember now if I tried to set seeker cones correct in elevation too and if it worked... Anyone knows if elevation settings works at all for sensors in DW ?

P.S.3 AN-SPS-55 has set cone in both azimuth and elevation (+/-10deg) so it should work ! Also CIWS seeker is limited in elevation to 40deg.

I think we should set this to correct value for all torpedo and missile seekers (then you can escape torpedo seeker cone not only in horizontal plane, but in vertical too !! And torpedo depth settings become much more important, torp set to wrong depth and enabled too close would have target out of cone in elevation, currently it's impossible !)
I would set sensor cone elevation angle for same value or little less than azimuth angle (so for example an ADCAP with cone +/-45 deg in azimuth would have +/- 30-45 deg cone in elevation).
Setting this to correct value for air radars (especially MH-60 and P-3, but also EW and fighters) is an option - could have a positive effect on realism, Seahawk and Orion radars would have correct minimum distance if flying high, couldn't detect a close surface tgt from high altitude. But for weapon seekers it's a must !

For sub and ship sonars it's not that important, most sensors have 180+ deg cones so can hear straight down or up also... Maybe for the actives... then you' should have a minimum effective distance for deep submerged contacts... but I can easily imagine that ship mounted active sonar with >180deg azimuth cone, can scan directly underneath too ?

[Bellman]

Well I think I've sorted my scrambled DW installation to enable a dive or two with the new Playtest.

I gotta say the Mk2 UUV is crucial so at the outset I'm looking at its performance in tracking incoming torps
and its range ability to contribute to passive cross bearing fixes.

Second only to that is the persistence of torps to burn-through spoofing CMs and their ability
to regain the track/s post spoofing.

Dickensian * translation for our NY wizard -
1. What ranges will UUV track incoming /surface/subs ?
2. Will torps be easily spoofed ?
* Just a little sarcasm LW !

...and please dont 'lose your marbles'.......................................... ...................just yet !

[LuftWolf]

Dickensian * translation for our NY wizard -
1. What ranges will UUV track incoming /surface/subs ?
2. Will torps be easily spoofed ?
* Just a little sarcasm LW !

Beats me... but these sorts of things can be tweaked easily once the engineering is done. Kind of like tuning a guitar.

Just to give you guys a status report, I have finished dividing the AI from the player torpedoes, which was no small task.

Now I have the bulk of the playable torpedo doctrines to make as well as finishing up the database changes for the AI, as well as the advanced sensor modelling.

I think I can say, confidently that we are about 65% there, with the majority of the large critical blocks being done.

Realistically, I think the torpedo mods can be done in a few days and submitted for testing, and I think LWAMI 4.00 can probably be done in about two weeks or so, and that's with a lot more changes in it than just the torpedo mods, as well as factoring in a testing period.

I'll keep you guys posted.

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

The gremlins are determined that I dont get to dive the latest 'Playable'

My Stock and previous LwAmi separate installs work fine but when I exchange the Database or Doctrine files for the Playtest ones this is what hapopens:

Going into the scenario which works fine as above in Playtest I enter weapons Loadout and make my selection. Click acceptance and dive but Hey Presto my loadout is not what was selected BUT what was there in the first place (ie prior to the attempted change.) Dived many times=same result :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

Delete all of the files in your DW folder marked .lod as their file extension.

[Bellman]

Wizardry works ! That fixed it LW !

Cheers David.

[Bellman]

I like very much what I've seen in dives so far.

Just a couple of things -
Firstly surprised that the Mk2 UUV does not report active cm contacts !
Secondly the happening originaly reported to Amizaur following his first release, still occurs, namely after a torp (Mk 48) has self-activated at RTE range I am unable, within normal wire guidance range, to regain control. But everything works fine if the torp is activated prior to RTE
ie. Speed/depth and directional control.

Standing by - with pillow on head. ;-)

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Bellman

I like very much what I've seen in dives so far.

Just a couple of things -
Firstly surprised that the Mk2 UUV does not report active cm contacts !
Secondly the happening originaly reported to Amizaur following his first release, still occurs, namely after a torp (Mk 48) has self-activated at RTE range I am unable, within normal wire guidance range, to regain control. But everything works fine if the torp is activated prior to RTE
ie. Speed/depth and directional control.

Standing by - with pillow on head. ;-)

Active CMs have a very small NL, I wouldn't expect the tuned-down UUV to pick them up.

[Bellman]

But even when you are very, very close ....................nothing !! ?

Now where did I hear the term 'surrender monkeys' ?
The UUV Mk2 has been emasculated as an ASW offensive tool completely!
This is a big retrograde step in my eyes !!
What was/is called for are marginal changes in performance that do not fundamentaly
change the balance of the GAME ! Repeat GAME not RL -
RL has moved on way,way ahead, we know that !

[Molon Labe]

Well, completely emasculated is obviously going a bit far, since I used a UUV against LW successfully just a few days ago. But even it it were, all of the "expert testimony" here on the boards seems to be in agreement that UUVs are generally not effective at detecting submarines, so the reduced performance is bringing the game more in line with reality. And that is definitely a good thing.

In terms of game balance between subs, it effects both sides, so any change in balance is negligible. In terms of balance between platform types, it can still detect noisy skimmers and torpedoes, so it is still good for ASUW and for quickly localizing air-dropped torpedoes; any change in balance is also negligible.

In terms of playability, tracking subs just got a lot harder, which is also a good thing, since triangulation is just too damn easy. I welcome the return of the importance of good TMA.