The DW Mod Scene - Ok, WTF?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by goldorak

In any case some things have to take into account playability yes even in a simulation. And before people start knocking down RA, Lwami in the last versions (although it was finally corrected) went completedly overboard in making the SSK practically invisibile.
So much so that Molon Labe in Lwami 3.10 reajusted the values for something more balanced.

You have to balance realism with playability.
Those that think otherwise would be better served by enlisting in a real navy and use the professional simulators.
Thats real work.

We did move a few submarine active source levels up in 3.10, but it wasn't done for balance. It was done because I accidentally moved the low end too far down in 3.09 and acquisition ranges ended up shorter than we ever wanted them--unrealistically short, at least in my estimation.

There are a number of spots where balance is accounted for in the mod, though, so your point remains valid (as long as Batman isn't riding an elephant, anyways).

ML - The conversation goes concerning noise of a submarine, instead of about her answer-back active echo.

Your mistake that you use the formula Ludger's which is more- less correct for surface ships (will not come yet cavitation - then noise all time not increased).
The formula uses LINEAR gain noise.

However - Submarine Gain noise, uses other formula - LOGARITHMIC!.

Your tables of comparison of noise of submarines - absolutely wrong.

Your tables are suitable only for the surface ships - from some share of a mistake (however on some speeds a share of a mistake makes 3 units(!) from current real noise).

The submarines generate absolutely other noise.

[To be]

Originally Posted by -GrayOwl-

You are mistaken.

The ships at all work in LWAMI not better.

The doctrines for the ships - in any way do not process their tactics.
The doctrines only operate the weapon - and that only partially.

You can in general remove the doctrine CIWS.txt and CIWSAttack.txt.
Despite of it - the ship will have the same behaviour and also will launch the weapon despite lacking the doctrines.

One word - it is manages from NavalSimEngine - but not from the doctrine completely.

There is one known tactics - shoot one missile against the surface ship.
After that - the ship will be sped up up to speed washout of the sensor controls.
And after that you shoot a passive torpedo. The ship will be 100 % killed.

With RA - such will not allow.

You can put the test mission on a forum RedRodgers as attachment archive.

I am not mistaken about my own experiences, and I encourage you to try setting up a mission of the type I described to see for yourself the behavior I described. Any improvement to both, or either, mod would be very welcome to me. However, you appear to be more interested in ignoring any criticism blindly, rather than taking it constructively. No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by -GrayOwl-

ML - The conversation goes concerning noise of a submarine, instead of about her answer-back active echo.

No, Goldorak specifically referred to a change made in 3.10 from 3.09. No changes in PSLs were undone in the 3.10 update, that change was for ASLs.

As for the rest, LWAMI has never made a claim to mod anything hardcoded. We always have been and probably always will be a database & doctrine mod. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from calling us out for "mistakes" that have nothing to do with our work.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by To be

No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.

You are right, no mod will be the perfect mod. This doesn't mean that all mods are created equal. As incredibile as the work on Lwami is and has been over the past several years, there is a point beyond which they simply cannot/willnot enhance the game. Lwami still carries a lot of bugs that are hardcoded in the game engine. They were present in DW 1.0 and are still present in DW 1.04 + lwami 3.10. No amount of modding the database and doctrines will fix these bugs. If people accept this situation then all is good.
But we now have a mod that tries to fix those hardcoded bugs. And this is a good thing too. From this point of view Lwami is "wrong" is the sense that it still relies on buggy behaviour from the navalsimengine.
The problem wouldn't exist in the first place if SCS had done their job and released a functionning navalsimengine. That unfortunately was not the case.

[To be]

Originally Posted by goldorak

You are right, no mod will be the perfect mod. This doesn't mean that all mods are created equal. As incredibile as the work on Lwami is and has been over the past several years, there is a point beyond which they simply cannot/willnot enhance the game. Lwami still carries a lot of bugs that are hardcoded in the game engine. They were present in DW 1.0 and are still present in DW 1.04 + lwami 3.10. No amount of modding the database and doctrines will fix these bugs. If people accept this situation then all is good.
But we now have a mod that tries to fix those hardcoded bugs. And this is a good thing too. From this point of view Lwami is "wrong" is the sense that it still relies on buggy behaviour from the navalsimengine.
The problem wouldn't exist in the first place if SCS had done their job and released a functionning navalsimengine. That unfortunately was not the case.

I very much agree. RA has taken DW mods to a whole new level, and I enjoy it very much. (Except I'm not going to blame SCS - they created a game where there is little market and even less hope of a profit. I'm thankful DW exists - just as no mod is perfect no game is perfect, I'm happy to have what we have.)

Originally Posted by To be

I am not mistaken about my own experiences, and I encourage you to try setting up a mission of the type I described to see for yourself the behavior I described. Any improvement to both, or either, mod would be very welcome to me. However, you appear to be more interested in ignoring any criticism blindly, rather than taking it constructively. No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.

Here asked - what distinctions between these mods.

Partially I have answered.

If I shall begin list other distinctions (I can direct to name them bugs, default comes from SCS game version) - then you again will say that I intentionally " lower downwards " LWAMI.

[dd149]

GrayOwl, I think that is the US it could be a legal concern to openly modify dlll/exe, so please understand Molon Labe and others. They are in no way responsible for the shortcomings of SCS, but have tried to improve DW while avoiding legal trouble, which can really problem in the US.
On the other hand I believe that everybody likes what you are doing in the RA team, as many of original bugs are now corrected by your hard work, with others still being under work.
May I suggest that we could all join forces in developing the next stage. You and RA are certainly the one for the hardcoding, but why not making use of modding by others too? We know that it is not easy and would involve some communication/documentation issues but it would be worth trying.

[Pillar]

Well, does anyone feel enlightened?

I don't really.

Anyways, GreyOwl I had a look with DWEdit and noticed in RA you have passive sonars giving range, course and speed data (like Radar might.) Why is this?

Originally Posted by Pillar

Well, does anyone feel enlightened?

I don't really.

Anyways, GreyOwl I had a look with DWEdit and noticed in RA you have passive sonars giving range, course and speed data (like Radar might.) Why is this?

Because you - having passive contact can calculate his course data using TMA (Shot Solution).

Why AI then can not it do?

However - we make a delay in the doctrine for a shot.

Besides - the parameters on the decision, depend also on other factors - as will shoot on you quickly and exactly AI.


And besides - not all data can be received in the doctrine from sensors.

Certainly - I could leave all as in an original database (that you were quiet), but to calculate correct distance in the doctrine - as I know algorithm (formula) as sonalysts enters an error for to deform true value of range.

But we have made more simply.

[Pillar]

I understand

Is the delay built into the doctrine variable or fixed? In other words: will the time from the moment the AI makes the passive contact to the time the contact is pegged on course and speed always be the same length?

I notice some platforms (surface platforms even) have this "make simple solution" but not others. Why do some platforms use this technique? What is the reason you pick them?

Also what does the AI get from the "Altitude" report from the sensor and how would they use that data?

THANK YOU this is most interesting!

To: Pillar

> Is the delay built into the doctrine variable or fixed? In other words: will the time from the moment the AI makes the passive contact to the time the contact is pegged on course and speed always be the same length?

Variable. For example - If Target Speed very fast - then Signal strength more (Classification quickly ), also - TMA solution more easy this take.
Some different factors are taken into account.

Also - for example at shooting snapshot on your active ping - AI will make a decision - whether she to you will make a self ping before a shot.

Or if passive contact weak and solution bad - AI Sub also can to you make ping, and after that will shoot a torpedo with good solution.
In common, it is possible to speak - in different conditions, all time there will be different variants.

> I notice some platforms (surface platforms even) have this "make simple solution" but not others. Why do some platforms use this technique? What is the reason you pick them?

Some sonars have "800-2000" Hz bandwidth. Therefore - the classification is complicated.
While the target is not determined as "Hostile" - she will not be attacked.

> Also what does the AI get from the "Altitude" report from the sensor and how would they use that data?

Is not used. In the torpedo doctrine, you do not receive any given from Parental of a platform. AI the platform only will give PreEnableCrs and RunToEnable. Depth of the target you can not receive in the doctrine.

[Pillar]

Originally Posted by -GrayOwl-

To: Pillar

> I notice some platforms (surface platforms even) have this "make simple solution" but not others. Why do some platforms use this technique? What is the reason you pick them?

Some sonars have "800-2000" Hz bandwidth. Therefore - the classification is complicated.
While the target is not determined as "Hostile" - she will not be attacked.

What will the AI do with a contact when that is the situation?

> Also what does the AI get from the "Altitude" report from the sensor and how would they use that data?

Is not used. In the torpedo doctrine, you do not receive any given from Parental of a platform. AI the platform only will give PreEnableCrs and RunToEnable. Depth of the target you can not receive in the doctrine.

Is there any functional reason that the "Reports Target Altitude" box is checked on the sensor then? (In the case of a passive sonar here.)

Thanks for the interview

[NFunky]

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute... I've played DW stock and DW/LWAMI for ages and the AI has always been able to get a decent firing solution after a while. Unless this range/course/speed detection was built into the original, I don't really see why it needed to be added. I mean, I actually got killed a few times from stock AI subs, so they definately, definately can aquire an accurate solution without being fed course/range/speed from sonar.

Does RA have that different of an AI? I always thought that TMA (in the style of the autocrew's TMA) was built into all AI passive tracking. Am I wrong?

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by NFunky

I always thought that TMA (in the style of the autocrew's TMA) was built into all AI passive tracking. Am I wrong?

It does. You can see it whenever an AI platform provides a link to a contact it has on ESM or passive sonar. The range solution goes from crap to accurate after a few minutes of tracking and sometimes goes off if there's a course change.