SUBSIM Radio Room Forums


SUBSIM: The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Subsims & Naval Games > Blue Water
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-23-2019, 12:56 AM   #106
EnjoyableSTIG
Seaman
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Downloads: 68
Uploads: 0
Default Awesome!

Man, this game just looks better and better! Sign me up for the beta!
EnjoyableSTIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2019, 10:33 AM   #107
Sung
Developer
 
Sung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 321
Downloads: 3
Uploads: 0
Default

Excellent!
__________________

SILENT DEPTH the submarine simulation for your mobile device
www.silentdepth.com
https://www.facebook.com/silentdepth/

Silent Depth Manual
Sung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2019, 09:08 AM   #108
FPSchazly
The One and Only
 
FPSchazly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Maryland
Posts: 635
Downloads: 7
Uploads: 0


Default

Game is looking nice, I'm enjoying following this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Herman View Post
You have described some very complex fragmentation behaviour.

IIRC, one of the big concerns regarding point defence weaponry such as Phalanx intercepting Soviet high-speed missiles, like Kitchen and Sunburn, is the fact that fragmentation and ballistic effects of destroyed missiles. Will those effects be simulated within the game?

If I may, I think what Herman was asking here is that if a Kitchen, for example, is "destroyed" by a Phalanx, i.e., no longer works as a missile anymore but was blown up close enough to the ship such that its fragments still have a large amount of kinetic energy and could still impact the ship, would the effect of a destroyed missile's fragments impacting the ship be modeled?
__________________
Your friendly neighborhood modern submarine YouTuber!

My videos:
**NEW** Dangerous Waters Liu Doctrine (LwAmi) **NEW**

688(I) Hunter/Killer
Cold Waters South China Sea

Remember, it's just a game
FPSchazly is online   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2019, 09:10 PM   #109
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 69
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FPSchazly View Post
Game is looking nice, I'm enjoying following this.

If I may, I think what Herman was asking here is that if a Kitchen, for example, is "destroyed" by a Phalanx, i.e., no longer works as a missile anymore but was blown up close enough to the ship such that its fragments still have a large amount of kinetic energy and could still impact the ship, would the effect of a destroyed missile's fragments impacting the ship be modeled?
Thanks!

Given this has been requested twice now, I'll definitely have to bump up the priority. As it is, a system of complex missile damage is already partly modeled - to the extent that bullets will sometimes (or oftentimes, depending on the missile) merely damage the missile instead of destroying it altogether.

I think I have some ideas on how to implement it more fully. Could also even incorporate the frag model to make even small pieces capable of causing damage to crew or stored helos if they retain enough energy after penetrating the hangar.

Weekly update to come momentarily.
AzureSkies is online   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2019, 10:33 PM   #110
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 69
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default WEEKLY UPDATE

Hello again, everyone!



To start with, a new ship - sort of. The Azov is a modified Kara, so we finally have another Kara-class without the S-300F Fort (NATO name: SA-N-6 "Grumble") modification.





Here we see in the aft, instead of the battery of 5V55R missiles and a 3R41 Volna (NATO name: TOP DOME) radar, it's a dual rail M-11 Shtorm (SA-N-3 "Goblet") with a 4R60 Grom (Head Lights) radar director.

Also note the quintuple torpedo racks (PTA-53).



On the Azov, besides replacing the rear SAM system, the direct torpedo capability was also reduced due to reduced deck space, replacing the two quintuple launchers with two dual launchers.



A side-by-side view makes the Azov's (top) unique modifications more apparent.



Other changes: high-altitude appearance. Seen here is the view from about 90,000 feet:



With slightly more cloudy weather:



And a view from the altitude of a low-passing spy satellite altitude at around 220 km:



And finally... For missions especially far north such as in the Barents Sea, or near the Bering Strait or Alaska, sometimes the sun's weather reaches across the 98 million miles of space to touch the Earth's Thermosphere:



That's all for now. Thanks for joining us. Until next time, clear sailing.
AzureSkies is online   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2019, 05:14 PM   #111
longface
Watch
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 22
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
Default

Great work, looks wonderful! One thing to add: at low earth orbit, I believe that the lower atmospheric limb becomes visible as a sort of blue haze climbing into space. It would be wonderful to see that modeled!

Edit: I see that it's already there to some extent, but it's not all that apparent.
longface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 10:28 PM   #112
FPSchazly
The One and Only
 
FPSchazly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Maryland
Posts: 635
Downloads: 7
Uploads: 0


Default

Damn, those northern lights are pretty cool
__________________
Your friendly neighborhood modern submarine YouTuber!

My videos:
**NEW** Dangerous Waters Liu Doctrine (LwAmi) **NEW**

688(I) Hunter/Killer
Cold Waters South China Sea

Remember, it's just a game
FPSchazly is online   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 11:14 AM   #113
BungoJungo
Nub
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 2
Downloads: 3
Uploads: 0
Default

Really excited for this, it looks great! Appreciate the updates
BungoJungo is online   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 12:24 AM   #114
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 69
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Hello again, everyone,

Much of the work recently has been clearing up programming debt (ie, debugging and optimizing) and code not quite ready to show off, but there is one thing ready to show off: improving the high-altitude visuals with respect to the Earth's atmospheric haze is relatively easy, so here's some update on that.

If you find pictures of Earth from the ISS (and make sure it's not a narrow field of view or high-exposure picture) you'll realize the haze is actually very narrow from orbital altitudes.

280 km.


From high endo-atmospheric altitudes, it's considerably more visible. After all, this is more than 3x closer to the ground.

This kind of altitude may be relevant for things like ballistic missile interception.

80 km.


And going down to the service ceiling of the U-2 or SR-71/A-12 spyplanes or the MiG-31 (just a little higher than the MiG-25's service ceiling)...

80,000 feet.


Around the service ceiling of most aircraft, 50,000 feet.


Familiar as a typical cruising altitude for long airline flights, 30,000 feet.


15,000 feet


and just above sea level.


That's all for now. Thanks for joining us. Until next time, clear sailing.
AzureSkies is online   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2019, 05:38 PM   #115
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 69
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default WEEKLY UPDATE

Hello again, everyone.

A day late, but not a dollar short... hopefully. Recent work has continued with more back-end code and implementing radar directors for SAMs. These are pretty important, placing somewhat significant limitations on the engagement and performance abilities of a system (such as some serious performance limitations when engaging enemies from multiple directions), as well as being the vulnerable target of Anti-Radiation Missiles such as the AGM-78 Standard ARM (the predecessor of the AGM-88 HARM, which wouldn't enter service until '85). Knock out a radar director, and the armament of missiles is useless - unless there's another the enemies could use.



The guidance simulation also has some interesting realistic effects - like for example, the effective range against a maneuvering target is going to be significantly lower than the effective range against a slower or less maneuvering target. So although the range of the Grumble may only be listed as 75 km, a helicopter may not be safe from even 100 km, and a fast and maneuverable jet will probably be relatively safe at 70 km (if it responds appropriately).

And when it comes time to simulate decoys and jamming, it's already halfway written and should work very realistically as well.

That's all for now. Thanks for joining us. Until next time, clear sailing.

Last edited by AzureSkies; 12-12-2019 at 01:11 AM.
AzureSkies is online   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2019, 11:53 PM   #116
Herman
Ace of the Deep
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,148
Downloads: 233
Uploads: 1035


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzureSkies View Post
Recent work has continued with more back-end code and implementing radar directors for SAMs. These are pretty important, placing somewhat significant limitations on the engagement and performance abilities of a system (such as some serious performance limitations when engaging enemies from multiple directions)
Once a target has been destroyed, will there be any delay in engagement of subsequent targets? Most games seem to make subsequent target engagement cycles virtually instantaneous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzureSkies View Post
So although the range of the Grumble may only be listed as 75 km, a helicopter may not be safe from even 100 km, and a fast and maneuverable jet will probably be relatively safe - if it responds appropriately - at 70 km.
Is an evasive manoeuvre by the target while the inbound SAM is still 70km distant a realistic tactic? I always thought that SAMs were more easily defeated if the target performed a sudden manoeuvre at a shorter distance so that the tiny fins on the SAM could not adjust quickly enough to follow the target. A distance of 70km would allow a SAM to follow the evasive manouevre and make corrections with relative ease. I do not know at what distance the 'sweet spot' might be, but it does not sound reasonable for it to be 70 kilometres.
__________________
Guidelines for ScenShare scenarios:

1) Enjoy creating it
2) Enjoy playing it
3) Enjoy sharing it
4) Enjoy helping others create them

The PlayersDB - The Harpoon Community's #1 Choice.

Harpoon3 Frequently Asked Questions
Herman is online   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2019, 01:01 AM   #117
AzureSkies
Blue Water Dev
 
AzureSkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 69
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herman View Post
Once a target has been destroyed, will there be any delay in engagement of subsequent targets? Most games seem to make subsequent target engagement cycles virtually instantaneous.
There will be a slight delay, the length of which depends on a few factors and how you've issued the orders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herman View Post
Is an evasive manoeuvre by the target while the inbound SAM is still 70km distant a realistic tactic? I always thought that SAMs were more easily defeated if the target performed a sudden manoeuvre at a shorter distance so that the tiny fins on the SAM could not adjust quickly enough to follow the target. A distance of 70km would allow a SAM to follow the evasive manouevre and make corrections with relative ease. I do not know at what distance the 'sweet spot' might be, but it does not sound reasonable for it to be 70 kilometres.
I edited the punctuation and ordering to make the intent a bit more clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzureSkies View Post
So although the range of the Grumble may only be listed as 75 km, a helicopter may not be safe from even 100 km, and a fast and maneuverable jet will probably be relatively safe at 70 km (if it responds appropriately).
Though maneuvering even at long range can have rather detrimental effects on the missiles' performance, since any maneuvers the missile makes will take energy/cause drag. But the most effective maneuvers will be the ones that maximize the maneuvering of the missile. With the S-300F in particular (what this has been tested with) the missile receives midcourse guidance updates from the launch ship even before it's acquired the target with its own semiactive seeker, meaning maneuvering even at long range will cause it to lose energy by maneuvering in response.

Last edited by AzureSkies; 12-12-2019 at 01:11 AM.
AzureSkies is online   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2019 Subsim