LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[Amizaur]

Of course it can be done to steer by depth - even number right, uneven number - left :-).

Molon Labe - in tests of Tgio's FC radars I noticed that first detection was often by ESM, not by radar. You have to use DbgView (it's really easy, I wrote description few times here on forum) and see what sensor makes first detection - radar or ESM. If ESM, then probably detection is made by ESM, and target is engaged immediately because it's within FC det range (FC radars are disabled at start, enable only when platform fire - and then possibly are left enabled). Or maybe it's indeed ID, DbgView reports identification of targets too, you can check.

P.S. Right - ESM and FC radars are "mounted" higher than SPY radar !!
Have greater radar horizon. For SPY I've set correct height, for ESM and FC radar is still zero so 2/3 of mast height is used ! And it's higher.
It's OK for ESM which can be high on mast, but FC radars should be set height equal to SPY, even though they are higher physically, they probably have to be fed with target data from SPY radar to acquire.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

Of course it can be done to steer by depth - even number right, uneven number - left :-).

Molon Labe - in tests of Tgio's FC radars I noticed that first detection was often by ESM, not by radar. You have to use DbgView (it's really easy, I wrote description few times here on forum) and see what sensor makes first detection - radar or ESM. If ESM, then probably detection is made by ESM, and target is engaged immediately because it's within FC det range (FC radars are disabled at start, enable only when platform fire - and then possibly are left enabled). Or maybe it's indeed ID, DbgView reports identification of targets too, you can check.

Well, I guess it wouldn't hurt for me to learn dbgview. But the Burke is not in EMCON, that's for sure.

[Amizaur]

Download http://members.chello.pl/m.ostrowski...gView_4_DW.zip

There is short graphical guide how 2 use with DW. Notice that there is one space between DW executable name and -debugoutput addition. Use filters "detect" if you want detections only, or more arguments spaced by , if you wants more. Best to run once with all inclusive * filter to see what kind of info you get, and then choose few keywords you want and use them as filter arguments (f.ex. "detect","launch","hostile","evad")

[LuftWolf]

I should mention that there is a difference in engagement range for AEGIS vessels if they are able to detect the launch of the missile before it reaches its skimming trajectory or if they have a linking platform.

If their first warning of the incoming missile is the missile in its search phase, then they will engage the missile later than if they knew the missile on launch before it went low or had a link contact for the missile.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure why this is, but it's not from the ESM detection, which there usually isn't until the missile gets much closer. Perhaps there is a delay in turning on the FC radars? The detection information from DBGViewer is a little confusing on this issue, and I can't figure out why.

Like I said in the readme, the simulation aspects of this will change, but for now, it behaves in a way that feels right, to me anyway, simulating reaction times and everything (even though that is a bit of an accident). :|\

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I should mention that there is a difference in engagement range for AEGIS vessels if they are able to detect the launch of the missile before it reaches its skimming trajectory or if they have a linking platform.

If their first warning of the incoming missile is the missile in its search phase, then they will engage the missile later than if they knew the missile on launch before it went low or had a link contact for the missile.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure why this is, but it's not from the ESM detection, which there usually isn't until the missile gets much closer. Perhaps there is a delay in turning on the FC radars? The detection information from DBGViewer is a little confusing on this issue, and I can't figure out why.

Like I said in the readme, the simulation aspects of this will change, but for now, it behaves in a way that feels right, to me anyway, simulating reaction times and everything (even though that is a bit of an accident). :|\

OK, got DbgView up and running.
Launched 4 ASM from 20 miles out. E-2, DDG, and FFG all detected at launch.

ASMs enabled 10nm out. ESM contact was made, and missiles were identified hostile. Chaff was fired and a barage of SM-2 were launched. I'm not sure which stage they were fired at. A second volley, however, was required, resulting in one missile getting through.

As far as I can tell, even with Dbg, they are holding fire until the targets are classed hostile, and this does not occur until their seekers enable.

[LuftWolf]

Huh?

In my tests, the missiles are never classified before they are engaged.

Do you have the ships and the launching platforms set on different sides?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Huh?

In my tests, the missiles are never classified before they are engaged.

Do you have the ships and the launching platforms set on different sides?

Of course!

[LuftWolf]

I tested again from 20nm.

The first barrage of missiles are engaged around 15nm.

The second are engaged as soon as I launch them. Apparently there is a delay in turning on the FC radars and then once they are on, the engagement is made much faster.

I dunno what's up... there must be something in your test setup that is different than mine. :hmm:

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I tested again from 20nm.

The first barrage of missiles are engaged around 15nm.

The second are engaged as soon as I launch them. Apparently there is a delay in turning on the FC radars and then once they are on, the engagement is made much faster.

I dunno what's up... there must be something in your test setup that is different than mine. :hmm:

What was your enable range?
You also might have been detected when you launched, classifed hostile when the missiles that came from you were classifed, and then all further missiles coming from you were classifed hostile. Maybe.

[LuftWolf]

I've also tested the missiles launched from over 100nm away.

Give me one second to try something.

[LuftWolf]

I just tested again, firing from 100nm+, and set the missiles not to enable at all.

And I got the same results. First missile engaged around 16nm and second missile engaged about 20nm.

I don't know why your ships are waiting until they get an ESM contact. DBGview is reporting for me that the missiles are never classified as hostile and are never detected on ESM under any conditions. As soon as the detection occurs, the ships switch to CIWSAttack and engage.

[LuftWolf]

Can I email you my test scenarios?

PM me.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Can I email you my test scenarios?

PM me.

'


Go ahead.

I just got a few longer range engagements, but those occured when a helo was nearby and ID them hostile. I see a pattern emerging.

[LuftWolf]

Unless I force the search radars off, I never get an ID before engagement. :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

[3772] SC2: Launched entity - hull: 4001
[3772] SC2: Launched entity - time - speed: 34.710002 25.722223
[3772] SC2: Launched entity - rates speed: 28.293801
[3772] SC2: New Track Num 3, ent hull 4001, tgt hull 4001
[3772] NSE: 3M54E stage 1 Enabled
[3772] NSE: Run:
[3772] NSE: 138995.328125
[3772] NSE: SS-N-27 ASM detected by TICO CG (VLS) with Radar at rng 35063
[3772] NSE: CIWS Attack Init
[3772] NSE: CIWS Attack Init
[3772] SC2: New Track Num 4, ent hull 34004, tgt hull 34004
[3772] SC2: New Track Num 5, ent hull 34005, tgt hull 34005
[3772] NSE: SS-N-27 ASM detected by O.H. Perry FFG with Radar at rng 33544
[3772] NSE: CIWS Attack Init
[3772] NSE: CIWS Attack Init
[3772] SC2: New Track Num 6, ent hull 34006, tgt hull 34006