Feedback for New Version of LWAMI Mod 2.02

[LuftWolf]

Ooo ooo, I just got them to launch at missiles at 70nm!!!

My Tico shot down 8 of 8 SS-N-27 ASM before they even got within 50nm!

I want a beer!

PS Incidentially, the radar of the E-2 has to be looked at, as currently it is only scanning the front half of the sky. That is a simple fix as well.

[porphy]

You guys are relentless Big kudos for this doctrine and database mod. I find it top notch and you never seem to run out of steem... Thanks!

Cheers Porphy

[Dan Padnos]

- Those transient notifications would be great.

- Larger detection ranges for all torps. I'm not talking about going back to the old settings, rather tweaking what we have now. At the moment, most torpedo attacks are easily evaded with smart CM and counterfire use. Somehow a detection range of 2500yds for an active torpedo doesn't make sense IMO, when a sub can detect active contacts 10nm away... This significantly affects bracket subroc attacks - you have to space the torps close together for them to home, which in turn requiers pinpoint TMA.

- What's up with the length of the TA on the Gepard? Is it supposed to be 700m long? It's kind of annoying to get it dragging all the time...

[XabbaRus]

I am just curious how much testing is done with each change in doctrine and dbase values.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Ooo ooo, I just got them to launch at missiles at 70nm!!!

My Tico shot down 8 of 8 SS-N-27 ASM before they even got within 50nm!

I want a beer!

PS Incidentially, the radar of the E-2 has to be looked at, as currently it is only scanning the front half of the sky. That is a simple fix as well.

Sweet! I guess now the proper question is, does the SM-2 have an active homing option that allows it to engage where the FC radar cannot illumniate. Anyone in the know want to share?

Even if not, perhaps we could still use this to extend the FC radar's range a bit... Or, have the missiles fired before the vamps are illluminated, but timed so that the vamps are illuminated just before the missiles arrive.

Way to go in finding that, that's just awesome.

[zma]

That's what I was wondering as well, since a 50+ nm effective engagement range seemed a bit too much. I calculated a theoretical range at which a Tico could illuminate a missile flying 15 meters above sea level (simple trigonometry), and got a result of about 18 nm (assuming the illuminator is 30 m above sea level). If we double the illuminator height, the range increases to about 22 nm.

Apparently, SM-2 Block IIIB and Block IVA missiles have an IR guidance mode, so if the link data is accurate enough, I guess longer engagement ranges could be possible.

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

... Or, have the missiles fired before the vamps are illluminated, but timed so that the vamps are illuminated just before the missiles arrive.

This would be perfect in my opinion...

Anyway, to LuftWolf for finding a way to make AEGIS ships more effective!

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by zma

That's what I was wondering as well, since a 50+ nm effective engagement range seemed a bit too much. I calculated a theoretical range at which a Tico could illuminate a missile flying 15 meters above sea level (simple trigonometry), and got a result of about 18 nm (assuming the illuminator is 30 m above sea level). If we double the illuminator height, the range increases to about 22 nm.

Apparently, SM-2 Block IIIB and Block IVA missiles have an IR guidance mode, so if the link data is accurate enough, I guess longer engagement ranges could be possible.

This would be perfect in my opinion...

Anyway, to LuftWolf for finding a way to make AEGIS ships more effective!

That engagement range would make a huge difference, since right now its only 10nm. If we could use the link to get engagements of vampires so that the SM-2 arrived as the vamps got in the 18-22 nm range, I think we'd have an ideal situation (except that we shouldn't need links to engage once they enter the 18-22 nm range, but I'm guessing that's hardcoded). If that can't be done, I think a longer engagement range is better since we can at least speculate that the SM-2 has been upgraded for such capability, either through the IR seeker or a classified active radar seeker. (Something had to make them confident enough to retire the Phoenix).

On a related subject, I've also noticed the OHP can use the SM-2 against surface targets in the 30+ nm range. That seems OTH to me, which shouldn't be possible with semi-active guidance only. Maybe this says something about the way the game models illuminator heights/ranges.

[Amizaur]

Luftwolf, I understand that you found the cause of AEGIS defence working only inside 10nm ? That's great, but how the FC ilumination requirement could reduce range to 10nm ? :hmm: :hmm: The iluminator for Aegis ships should be SPY radar (but I have no idea where is this set in database) and it has greater range and radar horizon than 10nm. So why only 10 ? I'm also worried that removing the need of FC ilumination completly would cause other very bad thing - ships would be firing at targets below their radar horizon, so for example shooting at Harpoons or SS-N-27s at 50nm. This is impossible as long as you don't have a missile with active radar seeker, like Aster !!! Or MAYBE with missiles that secondary IR seeker... (yes I know some SM-2s have it, but can it be used in IR-only mode on non-precise linked contact is questionable, it is rather meaned as secondary guidance chanel against seaskimming missiles). With ARH missiles you may fire at linked contacts not visible on your own radar. But not with SAHR or TVM guidance...
I would be very happy if AEGIS ships engaged targets at full range but only if targets are visible for radar so over the radar horizon. High targets at 70nm ? Great. VLow targets at 30nm ? I even corrected antenna heights for OHP and AEGIS ships to make radar horizons more realistic. Here is nice Radar Horizon Calculator:

http://www.mar-it.de/Radar/Horcalc/horcalc.htm

O here'[s other: http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm

If removing this flag causes ships firing on targets below radar horizon then it can't be, it's would be situation similar to Maverick attacking submerged subs...
But if removing this flag caused 10nm radius to disappear, so we know that it is somehow connected with FC radar, then maybe we can find the real cause why there was 10nm limit. Maybe launchers from AEGIS ships have no FC radar assigned at all ??? Run DWXHelper and GuidedLaunchers function on database, and check the output txt file.

Launcher 68 Perry LNCHR uses Sensor 295 MK-92 STIR for guidance
Launcher 69 Perry 76mm Gun uses Sensor 294 MK-92 CAS for guidance
Launcher 70 Perry CIWS uses Sensor 278 CIWS for guidance

If those are the only launchers with assigned guidance, then the whole rest of launchers would have no FC radard assigned at all ???
Or maybe this DWXHelper function works only on playable platforms...?
And I also wonder where in the database is this assignement set ? Anyone know ?

Another strange thing - the Kirov with SA-N-6 shots at missiles outside 10nm. What's the difference between Tico and Kirow ? Why Tico defend itself only inside 10nm, but Kirov at full range (as soon as target is over horizon) ? Just checked - SA-N-6 launcher on Kirov have FCR flag set too !



OK, I have to experiment myself with that flag, maybe will be wiser then :-).

About different things that were asked about... Larger det ranges - well we think they are just as small in real life. Have you read this ?

http://mediawiki.advancedgaming.biz/...hp/Sonar_model

Increase torpedo seeker ranges - well we just have decreased them !!! :P

Do you want them to be again 4500m ? . Well, the ADCAP supposedly have 5000m range but only against large targets in good conditions. Range vs small SSK covered with anechoing coating in shallow water would be MUCH smaller. And for Mk-46 the seeker range is given as about 1500m (probably big target too). For Mk-50 about twice that of Mk-46.
Those are small diameter HF sonars with limited power supply, and going 40-60kts with water flow and noise around the head, how do you expect them to have ranges similar to large sub-mounted sonars ?
If the enemy is evading torps easily, then maybe you are shooting poorly :P Torpedo seekers have limitations, that's why in real life torpedo are launched at ranges usually of few miles, only small fraction of max range.
Anyway, torpedo seeker ranges will be more realistic after 1.02 patch, but not neccesarily longer... With correct active sonar model we will set ADCAP seeker to have 5000m vs Typhoon or Delta class sub, but don't expect such range against small SSK :-).

Oh yes, Akula Improved quieter than 688I ? Well, all data I found says that Akula Improved is slightly more noisy than 688I overall, or is close to 688I at very low speeds but closer to original 688 at higher speeds.
Only Akula II was supposed to be little quieter than 688I at very low speeds, but still more noisy at higher speeds. Convince me that this is wrong (show me other data) and I'll change it because I want it to reflect reality :-). Now I could agree only to make it it equal with 688I below 4kts and noiser when faster.

edit. anyone noticed that FC radars DON'T have "earth curvature" flag set ? So maybe they see through the water and earth now...

[LuftWolf]

Well, Amizaur we could easily limit the engagement range of the AEGIS ships in the CIWS doctrine.

In terms of the firecontrol radars on the Tico, they appear to be the AN/SPG-62 and the AN/SPQ-9, and both of those hard hard-limited in range to 36,000m AND, they are both on sea-level!

So maybe that is the problem right there, let me see what I can do about that.

In any case, aren't the AEGIS ships supposed to be able to engage over-the-horizon missile targets based on information from aircraft? :hmm: Isn't that the point of AEGIS?

[LuftWolf]

I just did a test with things the way they are now, simply with the FCR flag removed from the launchers and the doctrines edited to permit engagement at max range, and the missiles are being engaged by the cruiser at about 15-18nm, which is the range at which they'd be painted by the SPY-1 radar, so at detection range.

We have some flexibililty as to what we want to do now.

We can leave it so they fire without the firecontrol radar, to permit long range over-the-horizion fire against linked missile contact, and perhaps limit the engagement range a bit at the doctrine level, or we can probably edit the fire-control radars to permit them to engage at the detection ranges of the SPY-1.

The SM-2 Block IIIB is said to use IR guidence, we could make this change as well, for AI platform SM-2's, as the interface for the playable FFG doesn't seem to accept this change very well.

So, you experts, how does AEGIS missile intercept actually work in real life? :hmm:

[Amizaur]

I don't think AEGIS ships were supposed to engage over-horizon air targets, this capability is only now being considered/realised. (of course I might be wrong here) Fire quietly at linked contact INSIDE radar horizon yes, but outside radar horizon ? How would be the missile guided ? You could try such shot for slow valuable targets but I'm not sure if link data about fast anti-ship missile would be precise and real-time enaugh...

We can limit engenament range in doctrine, well yes, but do you want to put there full radar horizon calculations ? and how the doctrine could know own antenna height ? Better would be to leave FCR flag but fight 10nm limitation, and for over-the-horizon shots make new missile with SAHR/IR seekers and FCR flag off (hmm but flag is for launcher, not missi,le... hmmt probably this flag works only with GUIDED guidance type, if the over-the-horizon SM-2 version was given MISSILE doctrine type it would work ok I think even with FCR flag... but this have to be checked).
And jsteed said that in DW if antenna height is zero, then in calculations value of 2/3 ship height (mast?) is used instead. Nice solution for most platforms, you don't have to set height for dosens of sensors. For AEGIS ships 2/3 ship height meaned too high that's why I set them to correct heights.

[XabbaRus]

Setting sonar ranges like this though isn't it artificial?

Even with the current acoustic model setting it to 2500m because you think that 5000m is the max range against a big target I think is maybe not the way to go.

Even playing stock DW it isn't too difficult to avoid an ADCAP.

Besides depending on what patch 1.02 brings then you'll have to change everything back.

With the quoted range of 5000m is given I am sure that is taking into account flow noise due to speed. The engineers I am sure would have taken this into account.

Even in SCX the ranges for the ADCAP is 5000 and though I don't know too much about the acoustic model in DW is more advanced.

So shouldn't it just be left for the time being and left up to the sonar model to work out how much of a return it is getting. I know at the moment things are a bit off, but 1.02 will be on its way soon.

Oh and someone mentioned DWX....I just say watch this space....you might be surprised.

[LuftWolf]

Gotcha.

Ok, we've got some flexibility now then.

Things to think about now, like dinner.

[Bellman]

Xab - agreed.

I made a similar point earlier today. This is a time to mark time.

We need to see what comes and how LwAmi mod will interphase.

Seems to me little point in redesigning existing vanilla scenarios, or producing new ones,
specificaly for LwAmi until we get to that position.

[LuftWolf]

Seems to me little point in redesigning existing vanilla scenarios, or producing new ones,
specificaly for LwAmi until we get to that position.

Ok, then we should just stop working.

Like I said, I'll welcome DWX at any day, but if it doesn't come within the next month, it's of no value to me.

I have other things to do with my time.