LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod - Page 26

MaHuJa · 10-09-05, 11:54 AM

I'd like to declare that lwami 2.01 (or earlier) has officially killed the ffg hull passive.

I mean, it can't even detect a torpedo closing in on you before it detonates anymore. Nor can you see your own torpedoes launched.

XabbaRus · 10-09-05, 12:46 PM

Just curious but do you have AI specific sonar arrays for the 688i, Seawolf , Akula and Kilo?

LuftWolf · 10-09-05, 02:23 PM

MaHuJa, this is a consequence of the torpedo noise level being lowered for every torpedo. I'm not sure, but this probably has to be looked at.

Xabba, no the playable objects retain the same sensors as before and we have not created AI only versions of those objects with separate sensors.

LuftWolf · 10-09-05, 08:37 PM

MaHuJa, regarding the FFG Passive Hull Sonar, even with the stock DB, the passive hull array is deaf enough that it won't detect a supertanker at 8kts within visual range of the contact. We haven't changed the sensitivity at all of any passive sensor in the game, other than the VLAD, in the modified database, only reduced the passive sound levels of objects in the game, which creates a relative decrease in passive effectiveness for all passive sensors.

It really is a poor passive sensor, almost a waste of time to use in anything other than active mode, IMHO.

Pigfish · 10-09-05, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

It really is a poor passive sensor, almost a waste of time to use in anything other than active mode, IMHO.

Hello. Ive mentioned this before but I can find subs at up to 20 miles away using the OHP hull passive. Depends of coarse on the type of sub, sea state etc. Just 'click' around and you will acquire. You DO NOT have to click around degree by degree-just be kinda close. If you've got a contact on TA first and have got a bearing check out the hull passive as another source of info. This is a way to speed up the 'legs' required for accurate auto TMA. Really a bug I think, not intentional. I would sure like to see this station improved so I could see something.

I think I should be able to see, say a noisy Victor at 10-15 miles, while Im going slow under the right conditions instead of 'cheating' by clicking around. I know shes called the "Hellen Keller" of sonars but...

I tried playing around with my limited DWEdit and doctrine skills to improve this station visually but I think its hard coded like weapons.

Ive never found this station useless but taking advantage of a bug is no good either... My 2 cents...

Should also mention once acquired this "bug" will not auto update. You can manually update but now have to be pretty bang on the bearing unlike the first time you acquire so don't let it age to much.

Again I would love to see this station improved.

Molon Labe · 10-10-05, 10:16 AM

To what extent can you guys modify AI doctrines?

I think the torpedo evasion doctrine needs work. They aren't using decoys enough, and some manuevering might be nice to (the Russians in particular seem to only use one passive decoy against an active homing torpedo that will probably need two active decoys to be evaded).

More importantly, there is apparently an AI doctrine causing all platforms to race at max speed when an unknown contact is detected. This is particularly problematic for subs, which are going to flank and giving their positions away to chase after a surface contact that the Orion is going to get to first anyways.

If it can be done, I would like to see the "unknown detected" doctrine to be modified for subs.... they should only investigate unknown sub contacts within a certain range (outside that range I'm thinking the mission designer can use triggers and scripts to send it off, so I wouldn't worry about unintended consequences), they should only investigate once they have come to comms depth and have become aware of the contact, and they should proceed carefully... I'm thinking the best solution would be deep sprint and drifts, with a 60 degree turn so make sure the sonar checks 360 degress, and slowing to tactical speed once it is within 10nm of the contacts last known position.

I know that's a lot to ask for, but if SCS doesn't do it, maybe you guys can... You're doing great work.

Amizaur · 10-10-05, 10:46 AM

About FFG passive sonar not detecting torpedos - we didn't changed it at all. Only reason could be lower NL of torpedos. I tried to calculate torpedo base NL and noise curves so to get unchanged original NL as a result, but maybe I made a mistake somewhere, I'll check it !

About AI sub doctrines. We didn't change it at all beside little fixes of miscalculated ft/m depth settings and added AI reaction if it detects underwater missile launch (reaction is set same as for enemy torpedo launch). Yeah, default doctrines are very basic, I said it few times already, ans MUCH can be done. But it's a lot of work and later testing if all works correctly, I have little time lately, maybe now I find some to further improve 1.02 and maybe add some new already tested stuff (like custom ADCAP and UGST doctrines).

Maybe try to modify the default sub doctrine ? The language is really simple, only you have to paid attention to things like spaces, { and so on. Jsteed's descriptions and his tools to check doctrine integrity (SCDoctrineChecker and doctrine language templates for EditPlus text editor) is all I had and all my knowledge about doctrines comes from.
Later you have to test doctrine with DbgView active to check how it works, it's good to add custom debug comunicates (Debugout, DebugValueOut) after each more important command in test phase and delete them in final version of doctrine.

And finally, IIRC in SCX the AI behaviour doctrines (for example torpedo evasion) were in fact much improved and it made a distinct difference, maybe importing some SCX doctrines into our mod would be good idea, they are ready and very well tested. Much of my work was inspired by SCX doctrines and database solutions, I even used parts of them for example in my ADCAP torpedo doctrine doctrine, but up today I never used complete SCX doctrines. I know that great amount of work was needed to develop and test them. Anyone know who I should ask for permission use them in our mod ? Or maybe it would be OK just to use them with original headers and mention use of SCX stuff in mod documentation ?

XabbaRus · 10-10-05, 11:20 AM

I wouldn't touch the SCX doctrines at all if I were you.

Best to send a PM to Thomas first and let him know and WAIT for an answer before going ahead.

Things could get touchy if you blast away with it.

LuftWolf · 10-10-05, 02:28 PM

Since so much is coming out of X camp lately.

XabbaRus · 10-10-05, 02:38 PM

No its just a case of modding manners and avoiding accusations of stealing.

Just something similar happened with SCX and it would be better for their not to be any repeats.

There hasn't been much out of X camp due to waiting for the patch as they alter things that had been set.

Also exporting all the SCX stuff in the DW database will be a very time consuming task, I do understand Ludger is working on an SCX to DWX exporter but since there are twins on the way or arrived I guess he is bsuy.

Also just exporting the data isn't really the end of it. If you remember SCX stuff didn't come out too quickly either due to the testing of the database.

I'm just saying it is wiser to ask then just borrow it even if you add the credits.

LuftWolf · 10-10-05, 02:43 PM

Well, the doctrine fixes have nothing to do with the 1.02 patch.

I would never steal another persons work, but I also wouldn't let prefectly good enhancements rot on the table when the community could have been using them since month one.

LuftWolf · 10-10-05, 02:47 PM

Their knowledge FAR exceeds mine, so I'm sure they have a good reason for keeping their work to themselves for a year and, of course, when and if DWX comes out, it will be truly remarkable.

I'm just not sure why they aren't playing with the rest of the boys out in the field as of now and sitting in their basements instead. :hmm:

But that is the privledge of the people with the knowledge and thus the power.

Amizaur · 10-10-05, 03:01 PM

I'm not going to blast away with anything

that's why I'm asking

Just checked for sure because it was few months ago. I didn't use any parts of Thomas work in my DW demo of ADCAP doctrine, it was based on standard SCS doctrine. Only demo of my SC ADCAP doctrine was based on SCXIIc version, because it was mentioned to be used under SCXIIc so it was simply SCXIIc ADCAP doctrine with only parts calculating torpedo fuel/range/speed changed and notes in header added.

XabbaRus · 10-11-05, 02:45 AM

I am afraid do am unable to say yes or no.

Send Thomas a PM he might answer.
Some times he disappears for ages then comes back and something has been done. Same happened with SCX...thought nothing was happening and then SCXIIC was here almost done.

N00be · 10-11-05, 08:26 AM

Hi! I gor a question: I installed the mod, and played with it fine. Before I ran the install bat, I ran the backup bat file.
Now I wanted to play with someone who hasnt installed the mod. So I ran unisntall bat file but when I am ingame it still sais that my game database differs. Are there any files I need to delete manually, that were added with the mod? What else is changed than the 2 folders doctrine and database?

10-09-05, 12:46 PM	#2
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Just curious but do you have AI specific sonar arrays for the 688i, Seawolf , Akula and Kilo? __________________

10-09-05, 02:23 PM	#3
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	MaHuJa, this is a consequence of the torpedo noise level being lowered for every torpedo. I'm not sure, but this probably has to be looked at. Xabba, no the playable objects retain the same sensors as before and we have not created AI only versions of those objects with separate sensors. __________________ LW

10-09-05, 08:37 PM	#4
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	MaHuJa, regarding the FFG Passive Hull Sonar, even with the stock DB, the passive hull array is deaf enough that it won't detect a supertanker at 8kts within visual range of the contact. We haven't changed the sensitivity at all of any passive sensor in the game, other than the VLAD, in the modified database, only reduced the passive sound levels of objects in the game, which creates a relative decrease in passive effectiveness for all passive sensors. It really is a poor passive sensor, almost a waste of time to use in anything other than active mode, IMHO. __________________ LW

10-10-05, 11:20 AM	#8
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I wouldn't touch the SCX doctrines at all if I were you. Best to send a PM to Thomas first and let him know and WAIT for an answer before going ahead. Things could get touchy if you blast away with it. __________________

10-10-05, 02:28 PM	#9
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Since so much is coming out of X camp lately. __________________ LW

10-09-05, 11:54 AM	#1
MaHuJa Sonar Guy Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: 59.96156N 11.02255E Posts: 385 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	I'd like to declare that lwami 2.01 (or earlier) has officially killed the ffg hull passive. I mean, it can't even detect a torpedo closing in on you before it detonates anymore. Nor can you see your own torpedoes launched.

10-10-05, 10:16 AM	#6
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	To what extent can you guys modify AI doctrines? I think the torpedo evasion doctrine needs work. They aren't using decoys enough, and some manuevering might be nice to (the Russians in particular seem to only use one passive decoy against an active homing torpedo that will probably need two active decoys to be evaded). More importantly, there is apparently an AI doctrine causing all platforms to race at max speed when an unknown contact is detected. This is particularly problematic for subs, which are going to flank and giving their positions away to chase after a surface contact that the Orion is going to get to first anyways. If it can be done, I would like to see the "unknown detected" doctrine to be modified for subs.... they should only investigate unknown sub contacts within a certain range (outside that range I'm thinking the mission designer can use triggers and scripts to send it off, so I wouldn't worry about unintended consequences), they should only investigate once they have come to comms depth and have become aware of the contact, and they should proceed carefully... I'm thinking the best solution would be deep sprint and drifts, with a 60 degree turn so make sure the sonar checks 360 degress, and slowing to tactical speed once it is within 10nm of the contacts last known position. I know that's a lot to ask for, but if SCS doesn't do it, maybe you guys can... You're doing great work.

10-10-05, 10:46 AM	#7
Amizaur Sonar Guy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poland Posts: 398 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	About FFG passive sonar not detecting torpedos - we didn't changed it at all. Only reason could be lower NL of torpedos. I tried to calculate torpedo base NL and noise curves so to get unchanged original NL as a result, but maybe I made a mistake somewhere, I'll check it ! About AI sub doctrines. We didn't change it at all beside little fixes of miscalculated ft/m depth settings and added AI reaction if it detects underwater missile launch (reaction is set same as for enemy torpedo launch). Yeah, default doctrines are very basic, I said it few times already, ans MUCH can be done. But it's a lot of work and later testing if all works correctly, I have little time lately, maybe now I find some to further improve 1.02 and maybe add some new already tested stuff (like custom ADCAP and UGST doctrines). Maybe try to modify the default sub doctrine ? The language is really simple, only you have to paid attention to things like spaces, { and so on. Jsteed's descriptions and his tools to check doctrine integrity (SCDoctrineChecker and doctrine language templates for EditPlus text editor) is all I had and all my knowledge about doctrines comes from. Later you have to test doctrine with DbgView active to check how it works, it's good to add custom debug comunicates (Debugout, DebugValueOut) after each more important command in test phase and delete them in final version of doctrine. And finally, IIRC in SCX the AI behaviour doctrines (for example torpedo evasion) were in fact much improved and it made a distinct difference, maybe importing some SCX doctrines into our mod would be good idea, they are ready and very well tested. Much of my work was inspired by SCX doctrines and database solutions, I even used parts of them for example in my ADCAP torpedo doctrine doctrine, but up today I never used complete SCX doctrines. I know that great amount of work was needed to develop and test them. Anyone know who I should ask for permission use them in our mod ? Or maybe it would be OK just to use them with original headers and mention use of SCX stuff in mod documentation ?

10-10-05, 02:38 PM	#10
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	No its just a case of modding manners and avoiding accusations of stealing. Just something similar happened with SCX and it would be better for their not to be any repeats. There hasn't been much out of X camp due to waiting for the patch as they alter things that had been set. Also exporting all the SCX stuff in the DW database will be a very time consuming task, I do understand Ludger is working on an SCX to DWX exporter but since there are twins on the way or arrived I guess he is bsuy. Also just exporting the data isn't really the end of it. If you remember SCX stuff didn't come out too quickly either due to the testing of the database. I'm just saying it is wiser to ask then just borrow it even if you add the credits. __________________

10-10-05, 02:43 PM	#11
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Well, the doctrine fixes have nothing to do with the 1.02 patch. I would never steal another persons work, but I also wouldn't let prefectly good enhancements rot on the table when the community could have been using them since month one. __________________ LW

10-10-05, 02:47 PM	#12
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Their knowledge FAR exceeds mine, so I'm sure they have a good reason for keeping their work to themselves for a year and, of course, when and if DWX comes out, it will be truly remarkable. I'm just not sure why they aren't playing with the rest of the boys out in the field as of now and sitting in their basements instead. :hmm: But that is the privledge of the people with the knowledge and thus the power. __________________ LW

10-10-05, 03:01 PM	#13
Amizaur Sonar Guy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poland Posts: 398 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I'm not going to blast away with anything that's why I'm asking Just checked for sure because it was few months ago. I didn't use any parts of Thomas work in my DW demo of ADCAP doctrine, it was based on standard SCS doctrine. Only demo of my SC ADCAP doctrine was based on SCXIIc version, because it was mentioned to be used under SCXIIc so it was simply SCXIIc ADCAP doctrine with only parts calculating torpedo fuel/range/speed changed and notes in header added.

10-11-05, 02:45 AM	#14
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I am afraid do am unable to say yes or no. Send Thomas a PM he might answer. Some times he disappears for ages then comes back and something has been done. Same happened with SCX...thought nothing was happening and then SCXIIC was here almost done. __________________

10-11-05, 08:26 AM	#15
N00be Seaman Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 33 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Hi! I gor a question: I installed the mod, and played with it fine. Before I ran the install bat, I ran the backup bat file. Now I wanted to play with someone who hasnt installed the mod. So I ran unisntall bat file but when I am ingame it still sais that my game database differs. Are there any files I need to delete manually, that were added with the mod? What else is changed than the 2 folders doctrine and database?