LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[LuftWolf]

Well, before I give credits I make sure to look over the threads first to make sure I didn't miss anyone.

As I recall, you brought it up that you didn't notice it and then Fish confirmed it during a LAN session, so you both get it...

Thanks for reminding me... I have a very busy weekend ahead of me, I can work on the MP stuff that you, Kapitain, and me talked about on Monday... sorry work get's in the way!

Enjoy your weekend Bellman.

[TLAM Strike]

One thing I would like you guys to consider for a future update is the MAD detonators that I think SCX added to SC. I would really love to see those under the keel detonations brought back.

[Amizaur]

They are possible but will they do more damage than normally ? :hmm:
IIRC something changed in DW and under-keel detonations make same damage as normal... but I may be wrong, have to check it :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

I did a little moding of my own and it looks like the Under the Keel damage has been totaly removed.

[Amizaur]

I miss them too Could someone ask for them in patch suggestions thread please ? :-)

In short, about Luftwolf's mod - I was quite suprised that missiles in the air became detectable by sonar, I was sure that passive sound noise level works in the water only... for example IR rather doesn't work in the water, because you can't detect submerged submarine by IR (at least deep submerged), thought that sound doesn't work in the air... were wrong...well, I broke my own rule to check everything by myself before writing this in public Never noticed them on the sonar because after launch it takes some time before they lower to <300ft and only then they were detectable, also never noticed that playable sub's sonars detects targets up to 300ft in the air (in the sensor dialog the altitudes are in feets rather, so it was 300ft not 300m. But detection curves are in meters, in objects dialog sub or weapon depths are are in meters too... what a mess :-)

Luftwolf's solution to lower the sonar's altitude limit to 10ft is exactly what I would do, I hope this fixed the problem ? Yes, this will cause the choppers and P-3 (both having assigned sound levels and even sound profiles) to stop being detectable on sonar, but we chave to chose: do we prefer helos detectable on sonar or missile launch transients, unfortunately we can't have both nder 1.01 game engine :-/. I think that helos detectable on sonar are less important, it's rather rare thing and I personally never seen helo or P-3 on sonar, for me missile launch transients are much more important so I think it's good thing to lower sonar detection level to 10ft.

About TIW messages - missile is not a torpedo so we will not get TIW message with this mod, sorry, it's game engine issue. Sonalysts were asked for this, so maybe in 1.02 or later we will get UnderwaterMissileLaunch messages or something similar, for now the only thing we can do in mod is what we did - make missiles to generate great noise at start so detectable by sonar. Works very nice, now missile launches are detectable FAR away (noise level 100) and the only shortcoming is absence of TIW messages - sorry, we can't do this by database or doctrine...

About AI Akulas firing now-wakehoming 65cm torps on enemy subs - Luftwolf, have you changed mission priorities for 65cm in DB editor ?

For universal 53cm or ADCAP they are:

ASW = 1, SUW = 2

and for anti-ship 53-65K

ASW = 3, SUW =1

little strange, I though that ASW means AntiSubmarineWarfare but maybe it's the opposite here ? Try to set for 65cm torp same values as for 53-65K torpedo. (edit: I see you did this in 1.02 mod - is it ok now ? does AI shoot it at subs now ?) If this doesn't help, maybe try to disable sub as a legal target (DBTargetFlags - surface only). Next modification to consider is lowering it's max depth to -10m (or similar value, equal to max useable depth of wake-homing guidance). Unfortunately I have contradictory info about this torp, one says that it's near-surface anti-ship weapon, can be launched at maybe 50m and run only shallow, other says that it can be launched very deep and run quite deep. Limiting it's depth to 10m in the game doesn't mean that you can't launch it deeper than that, only that you can't set run depth more than 10m. So you would never observe them missing targets because you forget to set it to run shallow (as I do frequently ), shalow run would be default. Drawback would be that you could not use it against submarines anymore, but with wake-homing weapon it was rather difficult (you had to guess right depth) and unrealistic anyway.

And, people, give us some feedback about how it works Are they working for you (detectable missile launches and new SS-N-27 ASMs) ? And if they work - do you like them ? I'm especially curious about my two-stage SS-N-27s :P Or maybe we should change or improve something ?

Cheers!

P.S. I'll take a look at SLAM-ERs when I find some time (finish home repair).

P.S.2 My Missile.txt doctrine fix worked only in about 50% of cases, best I achieved after many hours of work :-/. Strange thing, after 1000 tests of various combinations trying to find what t's the cause, I only can say that something is screwed in doctrine language with "VARIABLE = something" commands in Init phase of doctrines and something other is wrong with SetPitch command which sometimes doesn't work... So PreenablePitch assign have to be done outisde Init area, and some kind of math operation have to be added to SetPitch command argument to make it work, and even with that it sometimes works, sometimes not... for MANPADs works, for RAMs usually not...)
So, I looked at this missile.txt doctrine fix again while all-around testing of whole mod and found it not working in version I send to Luftwolf... worked just like stock one. Don't know the cause... Probably little change in doctrine text caused that, maybe even added comment, quite crazy thing... Wouldn't believe if didn't see that before - one absolutely insignificant change change working version to not working and vice versa with this bug... that's why I think that it's a bug in doctrine language interpreter. So Luftwolf, you can leave it like is or replace it with with stock Missile.txt (both works same), and remove it from ReadMe text as it is not functioning now. If I figure out what causes that or make a workaround I'll send you new one.
Nearly identical MissileSam.txt fix works great so no need for change here.

What else, one thing that needs correction is turn radius of missiles. Some very fast missiles have turn radius that would require over 100g acceleration. It can be left for SAMs and AAMs (which are quite maneuverable) but not for such mastodonts like AS-4, also SS-N-19, SS-N-12, SS-N-27ASM and SS-N-22 are very fast and can't make turn with 700m radius. For SS-N-27 ASM I set it to 2500m (and even this at 1900kts requires nearly 40g !), for other you can calculate needed turn radius from formula R = V^2 / G where R = turn radius in m, V = speed in m/s and G is acceleration the missile is supposed to be capable (in m/s^2 so value in g * 9.81). We can assume that Shipwreck and SS-N-22 are capable of 25g (at best), SS-N-12 and older missiles maybe 15g...
At present AS-4 Kitchens after acquiring a target can make "square corner" 700m turn and it looks... little "strange" at speed of 2200kts :-) Nearly 200g turn

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Amizaur

I miss them too Could someone ask for them in patch suggestions thread please ? :-)

I think I posted that there soon after DW came out.

[SquidB]

Nice work guys, an amazing mod. Quick question though.....is there any way of backing up my original files so that i can swap back and forth for MP purposes?

Thanks in advance.

[Amizaur]

Of course, just backup original Database and Doctrine folders.
If you restore them, the mod will be gone :-)
For example I have Database.org and Doctrine.org backup folders created for this purpose.

[SquidB]

Thats great, thanks for the info and thanks even more for the work you guys have put into this

[LuftWolf]

Amizaur, great stuff!

About the missle turning radius, I am worried that the turning radius variable has a "special" effect on the physics algorithm and if they are made too tight for fast targets, may produce some funny results (airdropped/launched torpedos seems to prone to this, with the porpoising behavior), so we'll have to look at it very carefully.

Depending on your thoughts and schedule, maybe we can aim for another version soon. I will get together a list of things we perhaps need to add/change and send you an email soon.

You guys rock, thanks for trying the DB!

Cheers,
David

PS About the 65-76, I have changed the mission priorities ASW-3 ASUW-1 and left the subs and surface flags, so it resembles the 53cm wakehomer. AI Akulas will fire 65cm torpedos at range. This may not be such a bad thing, as it has the range of the ADCAP so commanders do have an emergency standoff ASW torpedo, and a long range launch may get a target to run like heck for no reason, meaning the attacker can follow up with subrocs, etc. Depending on the feel of the community, we can disable this, or keep it. My feeling is, if the torpedo could reasonably used in this way in reallife (deep diving torpedo, can pick up wakes of fleeing submerged targets if the depth is close and target is moving fast enough) I'm in favor of keeping it, as it's one more thing that an opposing commander has to worry about, and in reallife, I'm sure a commander would launch a weapon with a chance of hitting at range if no other weapons carried by the sub would work. (Launch the 65-76! No capitan, it says in the DB that it's only for use against ships! Damn the DB flags... hehe)

I actually killed a Kilo at a huge range by mistake when I launched a spread of them against a convoy and it got caught up in it near the surface. :|\

[Amizaur]

Aha, I think I'm close to catching the bug by the balls , now I have few versions of most simple doctrine like this:

var A

If Init then {
A = 45
} ELSE {
Debugout "A"
Debugvalueout A
SetPitch A
} ENDIF

which works or not with a change of single line, or even THE SAME doctrine that sometimes works, and another time fails, and another time works 50% :-/. Tested on RAM missiles (don't know if this matters, same problem was with MANPADs but was easily fixed).

For example the first doctrine usually fails (A = 0.0000), but this one:

var A
var B

If Init then {
A = 15
B = 45
} ELSE {
Debugout "A, B:"
Debugvalueout A
Debugvalueout B
SetPitch B
} ENDIF

usually works. What changed ? Added second variable B and that's all...

And in some cases even this doesn't work:

var A

If Init then {
A = 15
} ELSE {
Debugout "A"
Debugvalueout A
SetPitch 45
} ENDIF

debugout gives 0.0000 and missile fly in level and doesn't pull up - after direct command setpitch 45 !!!
If this isn't bug then I don't know what's up :-/

I'll ask you Luftwolf to try this, maybe it's on my computer only, but if you find them not working (or sometimes working, sometimes not) then I'll send it to patch suggestions & Battlefront's technical problems forums...

[Kapitan]

i fire 65cm at submarines most of the time in fact the 65cm is the weapon of choice for me and i only fire one at a time id say 75% of my tonnage that has been sunk the ship was hit by a 65cm some were hit by SS-N-27 and some hit by 53-65K

[Bellman]

Thanks guys - a great mod.

Feedback:-
1. Transients now well defined and observable at a greter range.
2. Choice between heli spotting and this feature clearly favours transients.
3. Not too happy about the 65s - as a sub v sub diver I miss the 27 nm range and loss of wire guidance.
Sometimes the Ak counterfires a snapshot to the SW, at long range, and this torp is initialy a lurker but
can come in usefull when the AKs missile activity or range closing permits a 'final' TMA solution and a wired kill.

Maybe this is a minority opinion as the wake-homing feature is ideal within the DW setting.
But for me the SCX UGST type of variable useage would have been ideal or, if not, the ability
to choose between two types of 65, namely conventional or wakehoming.

But, in the round, a nice piece of work. :|\

[Adm. Ahab]

Is this mod compatible with finitniss (sorry for spelling) sonar mod? Or do they overwrite the same files?

Thanks

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Adm. Ahab

Is this mod compatible with finitniss (sorry for spelling) sonar mod? Or do they overwrite the same files?

Thanks

No, they overwrite the same files. You can have one or the other, not both.