LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[TLAM Strike]

Try a diffrent time of the year or diffrent ocean. I've been seeing a lot around 600-700 feet recently.

[Hatch]

I did, tried East and West US coast, a few in the Med as well, the layers are being created too deep in my opinion, thoughts?

[HydroShok]

if you pick surface duct then it can be like 400-1200 roughly.

manual says convergence zone is supposed to be 100-300 but its more like 200-400 for me.

try the CZ. shouldn't go deeper than 450ft.

Canary islands make a good CZ. I did some testing there with some seawolves

both above layer at 4 knots, can hear each other 21 miles away

both below layer at 4 knots, can hear each other at 11 miles away

can't hear each other at all more than 7 miles away under any circumstances, even if the sub above layer is cavitating at 40 knots.

you can get an active return above layer at 21 miles, but the layer seems to block the below layer sub. Seems like they fixed active sonar bug i guess. Layer doesn't stop an active sonobuoy too much however.

rock gives long range, mud=medium, sand=short range sonar. if you pick sand and bottom limited it gives you radically bad sonar conditions. Sonobuoy on active wont even work farther than 1 mile. Mud bottom in a place with 200-600ft of water will limit active buoy to 2.5-3 miles. Otherwise its almost always 6 miles.

[Hatch]

Interesting, I'll play with it a bit more, Thanks!

[LuftWolf]

Anyone who is currently working on this project will receive an email/PM from me in the next few days with a complete update on the status of the project as well as some word on how I see the future going, of course everyone should provide their input as well.

I'm really looking forward to working with you all on the future of DW modding.

[LuftWolf]

Got killed at work this past week.

The email is still coming.

[Deathblow]

Here's a thought...

Only 4 trackers on the LAi and SW? I don't think so! COTS baby! 8 trackers per sensor for the SW and 6 trackers per sensor for the LAi.

That should be more "realistic"

[Deathblow]

Hey LW, quick question. Are the Anti-missile defense changes that your made for the AEGIS ships reflected in non-AEGIS missile defense platforms like the, Kirov and Sovremenny, as well? Just curious to whether these platforms have benefitted as well.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

Hey LW, quick question. Are the Anti-missile defense changes that your made for the AEGIS ships reflected in non-AEGIS missile defense platforms like the, Kirov and Sovremenny, as well? Just curious to whether these platforms have benefitted as well.

I can tell you that. Perhaps some but not nearly as much. He blasted the RMAX of the SPG-62 and SPQ-9A (Perry radar) FCRs to over 90km. Everybody else, from the SA-N-9 FCR to the SA-N-6, and also American radars like the SPG-51, has the same RMAX of about 36km.

[LuftWolf]

The primary limitations on anti-missile performance are the number of missiles that can be fired at a time and the range of the fire control radars for semi-active homing missiles.

The previous doctrine had all ships firing one missile at a time from each launcher... fortunately Amizaur was able to work his way around that in the doctrine and introduced moderated salvo fire (moderated because the ships don't just fire everything they possibly can at every possible target), which means that ships will fire appropriately once the targets are within range depending on the target type and the type and number of launchers.

The fix to the FCR's was a quick fix (the radars all need to be redone) to bring the AEGIS performance at least up to the FFG. The Mk92 in the stock database is MUCH longer ranged than the AEGIS FCR's, so I set them equal to quickly rememdy that problem, which means the AEGIS ships will now engage at a reasonable distance against ASMs.

In terms of the other ships, and the fine tuning of the performance, yes these all have to be done... however, right now it involves importing database from the Harpoon database and this takes some time... anyone else know where I can get a complete range table for all modern search and fire direction radars???

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

In terms of the other ships, and the fine tuning of the performance, yes these all have to be done... however, right now it involves importing database from the Harpoon database and this takes some time... anyone else know where I can get a complete range table for all modern search and fire direction radars???

Ultimately, you will have to do something like that. However, in the interim, well, all you need is to make it better. Perfect can wait.

It is hard to write a precise curve. It is not so hard to conclude that the SA-N-6's range would have been pretty useless if the FCR simply cutoff at 36km.

Here is a site with stats on aircraft radars. May need some tweaking but about in the right ballpark and sure as h*** better than the ones now in the game.

Get small things like this done along with each major change you put out, until you finally integrate the precise data you need. This shouldn't take long - do it in between fighting the doctrine to get your SLAMpoon working.

Good work! Keep going! And thank you.

[Deathblow]

Another quick question....

ever notice that a torp going 40knots and a depth of 200ft does not cavitate, but a uuv going 5 knots at the same depth does? That just doesn't seem right..... anyone know what determines the cavitation speed vs depth for each of the platforms/torps and how to modify them.... ideally, a uuv going 5 knots would not cavitate unless right at the surface (say for example, under 10ft). Wonder if this can be modified...

... on a related note, uuvs always seemed too sensitive a sensor, with detection capability as good as the subs own primary sensors and sometimes seem even better than the subs own sensors. In addition, uuv's being developed now are now toting 60hr run times with vastly extended ranges....

how about this.... how does reducing the sensitivity but increasing its range? Mabye limiting the sensors to higher detection frequencies in order to reduce its effective ranges (800-2000 seems a good frequency band) and increasing the range to 30km. :hmm: What'd you think?

[LuftWolf]

Ok, thanks, I'll look into it.

[Deathblow]

I may be mistaken, but it seems like the game engine may be determing cavitation speed vs depth as a function of "percentage of maxspeed" of the object rather than the actual speed itself, but I'm not sure. I've not found a "cavitation depth" value box (or its equivalent) in the DWEdit. :hmm: Perhaps the solution is to set the uuv maxspeed to something high, like 30-40 knots and then use the doctrine to assign the uuv speed (which has always been determined by the doctrine, not the user input) to "SetSpd MaxSpd/6" to achieve the desired 5knot speed without the cavitation profile... no clue to whether this will work.

I think tuning down the uuv sensitivity would probably be good for multiplayer as well. From, what I hear (I'm not a MP myself) uuv's are pretty much abused as serrogate sensors to keep contacts updated, while the player is manuevering and evading, probably not a 100% realistic tatic, or something an actually uuv is capable of... tuning down its sensitivity (by increasing the detection frequencies to high frequency noise) may make things a bit more interesting. What do people think about this?

EDIT: Here's a good UUV link from UnderSea Warfare Magazine
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...e_15/wave.html

EDIT: Hey I tried the method above, setting the uuv top speed to 30 and then changing the doctrine to setspd = 5 (instead of maxspd) and it worked, the uuv is no longer cavitating at shallow depth. . Guess the engine really is using percent topspeed to determine cavitation

[MaHuJa]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

Perhaps the solution is to set the uuv maxspeed to something high, like 30-40 knots and then use the doctrine to assign the uuv speed (which has always been determined by the doctrine, not the user input) to "SetSpd MaxSpd/6" to achieve the desired 5knot speed without the cavitation profile... no clue to whether this will work.

Perhaps one could use similar programming to the new torpedo logic to have it speed up?