-ReinForce Alert - worldwide discussion

[dd149]

When I create a random mission involving ASUW CV vessels dont appear only their wake.

[CrazyIvan]

When I create a random mission involving ASUW CV vessels dont appear only their wake.

Name CV ?

[dd149]

Chakri Naruebet CVS from Thainland appears when random mission in northern austrailia with French Amethyste sub.
Also seems in USNI ref some counties missing?

[CrazyIvan]

Chakri Naruebet CVS from Thainland appears when random mission in northern austrailia with French Amethyste sub.
Also seems in USNI ref some counties missing?

[dd149]

Checked , some files were corrupted, probably installation problem. Do not consider my report. Thanks for your development efforts, when can we expect the revised 1.1 version?

[CrazyIvan]

Checked , some files were corrupted, probably installation problem. Do not consider my report. Thanks for your development efforts, when can we expect the revised 1.1 version?


The small adjustment of a sensor control UUV should be completed.

I checked installations of a sensor control in LWAMi mod.
As a whole it is possible to note, that UUV in it subjects not worked units.

Was checked up Akula-I Improved.

Based levels in LWAMi such:
Passiive Sonar SL: 59
Thrusts: +23 gains

According to the formula, we shall receive such maximal and minimal noise levels:
0 kts - 59. (Min noise)
33 kts - 82. (59 + 23 = 82 Max Noise)

For intermediate speeds such results:
30 kts: ~ 80 points noise
27 kts: ~ 78 points noise
23 kts ~ 75 points noise

UUV has given such distances of detection for Akula-I Improved run at of the above designated speed:

33 kts: detect by UUV at range 780 m.
30 kts: detect by UUV at range 485 m.
27 kts detect by UUV at range 310 m.
23 kts detect by UUV at range 30 m.


If Akula-I Improved run it is less than 23 kts (Or if only another target run with Noise < 75) - detect is impossible.


We congratulate the fans a LWAMi mod :D !

[goldorak]

I wonder if it will ever be possibile to have a UUV that works correctly ?
Maybe the problem originally came from SCS when they decided to add passive sensor to the UUV, whereas in real life UUVs are not "mini towed arrays".
Maybe we should just ditch the whole passive sensor, and leave the UUV only with high frequency sonar. So that its used exclusively to detect objects at short range that are outside the immediate visibility cone of the submarine.
Detect objects in shallow waters, wrecks, mines, subs etc...

Read here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/uuv.htm)how real life UUVs are used.

[cayman]

only one kind UUV in so many different Subs, that's funny thing

[CrazyIvan]

I wonder if it will ever be possibile to have a UUV that works correctly ?
Maybe the problem originally came from SCS when they decided to add passive sensor to the UUV, whereas in real life UUVs are not "mini towed arrays".
Maybe we should just ditch the whole passive sensor, and leave the UUV only with high frequency sonar. So that its used exclusively to detect objects at short range that are outside the immediate visibility cone of the submarine.
Detect objects in shallow waters, wrecks, mines, subs etc...

Read here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/uuv.htm)how real life UUVs are used.

Actually I do not see the large difference in features of a torpedo and UUV.

UUV - the same size of a torpedo, why UUV could not have a passive head in same size device body?

Certainly in performance SCS it looks incredibly.

However passive sensor control comparable on the abilities with a sensor control of a torpedo - quite can is on UUV.

I do not think what is it Mini Towed Array - is does not give mirror contacts, and sensor cone has no same baffles of area as at TA.

[goldorak]

only one kind UUV in so many different Subs, that's funny thing

Is this a limitation of the database ?

[goldorak]

Actually I do not see the large difference in features of a torpedo and UUV.

UUV - the same size of a torpedo, why UUV could not have a passive head in same size device body?

Certainly in performance SCS it looks incredibly.

However passive sensor control comparable on the abilities with a sensor control of a torpedo - quite can is on UUV.

CrazyIvan, I can agree with you that UUV's being as big as torpedoes COULD use the same kind of sensors, active or passive. The big problem as I see it, is that a torpedo cannot detect a contact 5-6-7-8-9-10 nm out. UUV's in the game can. This is an enormous difference in capability. If the range of the passive sensor could somehow be reduced without problem, then you would be right in your assessment about UUV's being more or less Torpedoes without explosive heads.

:)

[dd149]

Considering that UUV has no warhead, it is plausible that it can carry a sensor suite superior to the one of a torpedo, but still limited by the size. in my understanding passive sensors partly depend on size of the array in order to be able to triangulate distance, which is clearly not going to be accurate with the size of a torpedo. But passive capability should normally still be superior to just torpedo auto director, otherwise, why would one bother to fabricate UUVs?a;)

[goldorak]

Considering that UUV has no warhead, it is plausible that it can carry a sensor suite superior to the one of a torpedo, but still limited by the size. in my understanding passive sensors partly depend on size of the array in order to be able to triangulate distance, which is clearly not going to be accurate with the size of a torpedo. But passive capability should normally still be superior to just torpedo auto director, otherwise, why would one bother to fabricate UUVs?a;)


Yes I understand, the point remains though, what kind of performance can we expect from a passive sensor in an uvv (that has the same size of a torpedo) ?
It cannot have the same kind of performance of a towed array, I think you will agree with me on this dd149. I'm not against using a passive sensor in a UUV, I would just like for its performance to be "inferior" to that of the subs towed array and superior to that of a torpedo. It is a realistic expection don't you think ? ;)

Let me give you an example :

Most torpedoes active or passive can't detect contact beyond 2-3 nm at most.
This should represent the inferior threshold for UUV active and passive sonar performance.

As it stands right now, passive uuv sensor in generic conditions (so no convergence zones etc...) has more or less the same capability of a towed array. This is WRONG. Even if we keep the passive sensor, it should have a performance less than that of a fully deployed towed array. And this means (and its my personal opinion) that its maximum range should be somewhere between 5 and 7 nm at most.

[CrazyIvan]

Yes I understand, the point remains though, what kind of performance can we expect from a passive sensor in an uvv (that has the same size of a torpedo) ?
It cannot have the same kind of performance of a towed array, I think you will agree with me on this dd149. I'm not against using a passive sensor in a UUV, I would just like for its performance to be "inferior" to that of the subs towed array and superior to that of a torpedo. It is a realistic expection don't you think ? ;)

Let me give you an example :

Most torpedoes active or passive can't detect contact beyond 2-3 nm at most.
This should represent the inferior threshold for UUV active and passive sonar performance.

As it stands right now, passive uuv sensor in generic conditions (so no convergence zones etc...) has more or less the same capability of a towed array. This is WRONG. Even if we keep the passive sensor, it should have a performance less than that of a fully deployed towed array. And this means (and its my personal opinion) that its maximum range should be somewhere between 5 and 7 nm at most.


It is little wrong treatment - that the device " can not hear far ".
All depends on loudness of a signal - what his part reaches sensor.
Certainly from a silent submarine, the noise travels calming down. It similarly to whisper for the man with weak hearing. When he can not hear whisper on far distance.
However, if the steamroller gives the singing or thunder strike - I think that the man even with weak hearing can hear it on impressive distance.

At the end all is limited what part of a signal arrives to a sensor control - whether the sensor control is capable to take this value signal for a recognition. And the recognition is already dependence on good quality of a sensor control.

Goldorak, I sent you the letter where has specified provisional curves and noises threshold of a new passive sensor control UUV.
( We again collide with incorrect job of the formulas from guy's SCS. :157: )
Check up the your e-mail.

[dd149]

For sure UUV cannot have passive capability equal to a towed array, it doesnt have either size or computing power, but my point was that it could still be superior to regular torpedo sensor, anyway it is open to wide speculation as I believe nobody knows real figures even approximately for sure. I'm sure that despite lousy initial job, the RA team will be able to improve the original settings.:D

[goldorak]

For sure UUV cannot have passive capability equal to a towed array, it doesnt have either size or computing power, but my point was that it could still be superior to regular torpedo sensor, anyway it is open to wide speculation as I believe nobody knows real figures even approximately for sure. I'm sure that despite lousy initial job, the RA team will be able to improve the original settings.:D

Then we agree. :D

I'm just trying to get a good understanding of UUV sonars performance.

@CrazyIvan, I will check the email.

[dd149]

Just have seen that bug report has been updated in the RA download site, one little question what happen to the bug:The "damage system" not working properly on 212, 212А, Collins and Harushio subs, which seem to have disappeared from the list?
Does the update mean we will have access to download again soon:32:?

[cayman]

Is this a limitation of the database ?

Nope. no limit

actually, I created several different UUVs in different Navy, FOR example, LMRS for Virginia, fully fuctional UUV + mine sweep ability, only thing can't be done is the HF visual feedback ability to mother Sub

If we change the UUV's attribution in weaponloadout.dll to torpedo's attribution, we can do much more----which RA team already did

In the future, different doctrines and different database setup for UUVs might be a considerable direction

[goldorak]

@ CrazyIvan,

I've read the email, and I agree with your proposal to use the UUV exclusively in ASW mode.

As for the detection curves, yeah I'm a little sad that we can't have a continuos (linear or mostly linear) detection range. But if the game is coded is such a way that the modders can't do anything around it we have to keep it as it is discontinuos jump and all.

Anyway your proposed changes make the UUV more "viable" as I see it. It has the right amount of sonar extension without competing with the towed arrays performance.

:)

[CrazyIvan]

Now AI units sensitivity to opening hatches or torpedo muzzle. ( The influence of distance - is taken into account )
Check up attached mission - only on 1.1 versions.

[Jaf]

Just have seen that bug report has been updated in the RA download site, one little question what happen to the bug:The "damage system" not working properly on 212, 212А, Collins and Harushio subs, which seem to have disappeared from the list?
Does the update mean we will have access to download again soon:32:?

The bug "damage system not working properly..." was in RA v1.0 and it was corrected in RA v1.1

Current bug report applies to RA v1.1

[dd149]

Ok thanks Jaf, I did not understand it. So it is coming soon....;)

[Castout]

We need more new AI only platforms warships and subs but perhaps warships the most.

New Chinese warships, Singapore navy and a lot more warships for smaller navy countries such as Argentine, Brazil even European countries that seems lacking in DW such as Germans, Italian, Spanish, Turkey, Greece.


And we need a great mind to create missions and campaigns for them!;)

Let's support this cause and nag every day for them!:D
Believe in the power of nagging!

[dd149]

Castout, I agree with you, but let us not disturb the modders with changing requests all the time, let 1.1. come as it is with a max of bugs sorted out, then the community will use it as the core version for online play and missions will come. I understand Tlam Strike of LWAMI team in the US is coming with some new models, maybe they can be combined later. RA 1.1 is already is huge step forward especially due the the better multiplayer stability and lots of bugs dating from original DW game sorted out. Models which don't change the core of the game can be added more easily later

[dd149]

Another issue is that if the models are only cosmetic candy without realistic data in the DB, they are as good as nothing, and to get proper data will not be easy for exotic navies, it is already an issue for the sound and stealth level of the existing subs, so it will be a problem for sure. This is not what DW is all about, a certain level of realism must be there, otherwise we can as well play an XBOX fps like World of Warcraft ;).

[Castout]

Castout, I agree with you, but let us not disturb the modders with changing requests all the time, let 1.1. come as it is with a max of bugs sorted out, then the community will use it as the core version for online play and missions will come. I understand Tlam Strike of LWAMI team in the US is coming with some new models, maybe they can be combined later. RA 1.1 is already is huge step forward especially due the the better multiplayer stability and lots of bugs dating from original DW game sorted out. Models which don't change the core of the game can be added more easily later

I didn't mean them to be incorporated into DWX 1.1 maybe 1.2 :)

Can't wait to re-release of DWX 1.1

[goldorak]

Castout, I agree with you, but let us not disturb the modders with changing requests all the time, let 1.1. come as it is with a max of bugs sorted out, then the community will use it as the core version for online play and missions will come. I understand Tlam Strike of LWAMI team in the US is coming with some new models, maybe they can be combined later. RA 1.1 is already is huge step forward especially due the the better multiplayer stability and lots of bugs dating from original DW game sorted out. Models which don't change the core of the game can be added more easily later

You're right. There has to be a common base upon which to extend and improve non playable AI units. Thats going to be DWX 1.1 (since the database is open). I just hope that people such as Tlam Strike that have really done an outstanding job creating 3d models for Lwami will be willing to include his models also in DWX 1.1.
The only problem I see, is if there is not a centralized structure for improving the 3d models in the database we'll end up with many variants of the database fragmenting further still the multiplayer community.
As there is only ONE Lwami, there should be ONE DWX. :rolleyes

[CrazyIvan]

You're right. There has to be a common base upon which to extend and improve non playable AI units. Thats going to be DWX 1.1 (since the database is open). I just hope that people such as Tlam Strike that have really done an outstanding job creating 3d models for Lwami will be willing to include his models also in DWX 1.1.
The only problem I see, is if there is not a centralized structure for improving the 3d models in the database we'll end up with many variants of the database fragmenting further still the multiplayer community.
As there is only ONE Lwami, there should be ONE DWX. :rolleyes


DW is through impregnated with the bugs...
Different levels of noise why that by the ship of the player and AI.
Screen - Perry_User_CAV.bmp:
The ship of the player on speed of 9 knots run with cavitation - it is visible bubbles behind of the prop.

Screen - Perry_AI_NO_CAV.bmp:
AI the ship on speed of 9 knots run WITHOUT cavitation - bubbles behind of the prop NO.

Between the ships is sonobuoy:
The ship of the player is located on bearing 90 from sonobuoy.
AI the ship is located on bearing 270 from sonobuoy.

Screen BUOY_TRACK_ONLY_USER.bmp demonstrates that really, sonobuoy receives a signal only on bearing 90 - from cavitation of the ship the player.
And AI Perry, run without cavitation at 9 kts - and signal on bearing 270 at sonobuoy - NO.

The controlled Ship ALWAYS begins cavitation between 5-6 knots.
Default bug arriving from SCS - is checked up on 1.04 to patch.
Mission I put. Can check up - on original 1/04 or -RA- addon.

[CrazyIvan]

Bug with low cavitation speed on User Ship has been fixed.

[dd149]

Thanks for fixing, did it also appear for submarines, or only for surface vessels. What else are you still going to fix before re-release?:32:

[dd149]

In random mission Minerva (Italy) does not have skin color, appears white, it can also be seen in USNI data.

[goldorak]

In the USNI database, the text entry for the chinese Improved Romeo SSK submarine is messed up.

[Drakken]

Hi CrazyIvan, in the db in the section of THRUST the category "SSN +20" associated at the AKULA I imp and II has a value to "cspeednoise" of "21"...

it is correct or the "true" value is "20" and it will be to fix ???

[CrazyIvan]

Hi CrazyIvan, in the db in the section of THRUST the category "SSN +20" associated at the AKULA I imp and II has a value to "cspeednoise" of "21"...

it is correct or the "true" value is "20" and it will be to fix ???


"SSN +20" - this is only name.

True value - in parametr window"cspeednoise" of "21".

[CrazyIvan]

Seawolf Current Noise Table.

[cayman]

Seawolf Current Noise Table.

Just finish a sound level test: Kilo Imp vs Seawolf

seastate level:3, No sea currents setting

Seawolf at 10Kt, Kilo IMP(at 2kt) can't detect it even around 3nm, barely detect around 2nm; same condition, Seawolf can catch Kilo Imp at around 7nm, with tow array, use 1000Mhz

Seawolf at 13kt, Kilo IMP(2kt) barely detect it around 5nm


By the way: the new doctrine "Subdef" is a brilliant work. subs AI greatly improved, bravo!

[Sag75]

this is a little off-topic on generic DW exe behaviour..

Is there a difference between launching the game with Dangerouswaters.exe or LaunchDW.exe ?

When I switch between two mods using Jsmge.. if I launch the game via Dangerouswater.exe I still have the previous screen and previous DW! If I launch it via LaunchDW.exe everything is all right as I would expect.. It's weird!

[cayman]

@RA team:Is it possible to make a DWEdit.exe without J3D-viewer? like the original DWEdit, version 1.0?

It may sounds strange, here is the the why?: I try to add some FC-addon model into DW, most of them are fine. but some good quality model couldn't tweak in DWEdit J3D viewer(but it works fine in DW game, just save the database change without double-click the model could do), every time I tried to view in J3Dviewer in order to tweak those moving parts in the model, DWEdit crashed. encountered that several times, beside diable J3Dviewer, Any solution?

here is a sample, Kuznetsov-chn.J3D, looks great in DW, but many moving parts like SA-Guns and propellers couldn't work
8451
India Kiev CVHG Vikramaditya also have the same problem
8452

the 3D files for those 2 models
8453

[Lau]

1) Is it normal that AI Victor III can track torp even at 29 kts, seems not realistic because of water flow around sensor at that speed...?

2) Will French Amethyste be in metric sys instead of imperial sys in next release of RA1.1?

So far I've not managed to sink AI Victor III or AI UDALOY with Amethyste even with show truth on, F17 mod 2 seem not efficient at battle :192:

Same goes for ASURA SM, most of the time it gets intercepted by ship AI SM

I start attack at distance around 5 miles from track. At this distance Amethyste will already be counter detected by most platforms. So no chance to get that close...

All of this makes Amethyste very weak platform

Thanks,

Lau

[CrazyIvan]

@RA team:Is it possible to make a DWEdit.exe without J3D-viewer? like the original DWEdit, version 1.0?

It may sounds strange, here is the the why?: I try to add some FC-addon model into DW, most of them are fine. but some good quality model couldn't tweak in DWEdit J3D viewer(but it works fine in DW game, just save the database change without double-click the model could do), every time I tried to view in J3Dviewer in order to tweak those moving parts in the model, DWEdit crashed. encountered that several times, beside diable J3Dviewer, Any solution?

here is a sample, Kuznetsov-chn.J3D, looks great in DW, but many moving parts like SA-Guns and propellers couldn't work
8451
India Kiev CVHG Vikramaditya also have the same problem
8452

the 3D files for those 2 models
8453


Put here in archive files which you pack - bmp and j3d. (Kuznetzov content)
Probably I can to you help.

[cayman]

Put here in archive files which you pack - bmp and j3d. (Kuznetzov content)
Probably I can to you help.

already pack all J3D BMP into that rar in the last post, could you download it?
It contain all files of the two boat

[sertore]

Hello, found a bug on Lada: start mission, set waypoints, then select again Navigation from NavMap and the relative menu is corrupted.

Please find attached test mission and screen with the corrupted menu.

Thanks for support.

[Lau]

Can AI detect periscope on radar in RA_mod v1.1?

Regards,

Lau

[cayman]

the new chinese frigate "054A", texture like Kuz&Kiev, also crashed in DWEdit
works great in DW and FC
8456

[goldorak]

Bug with low cavitation speed on User Ship has been fixed.


Is is also fixed for the Udaloy ? Going over 5 knots will make the ship cavitate.
The frigate and Udaloy should not cavitate at least up to 10 knots.

[CrazyIvan]

Is is also fixed for the Udaloy ? Going over 5 knots will make the ship cavitate.
The frigate and Udaloy should not cavitate at least up to 10 knots.

Yes, certainly.

[Sag75]

Is it a my feeling, or Heli launch from FFG is no more sensitive to wind envelope? I can launch it safely even if the red gauge is outside the green pattern. What's wrong?

[CrazyIvan]

Is it a my feeling, or Heli launch from FFG is no more sensitive to wind envelope? I can launch it safely even if the red gauge is outside the green pattern. What's wrong?


Try this mission on original 1.04 version.
I think what is it will be and in the original similar.

[dd149]

I think that the wind direction did not affect the helo in any version.

[dd149]

On Amethyste sub,
Torpedo station, when you move the pointer on flood equalize muzzle commands you get Ahead 1/3, 2/3 et etc.

[Jaf]

Hello, found a bug on Lada: relative menu is corrupted.

A possible reason for this - you have un-English localization of Windows
and you just switched the keyboard layout on the un-English language.
Try to switch the keyboard layout to English (Ctrl+Shift, Alt+Shift or whatever you have) and enter again the corresponding menu.

Can AI detect periscope on radar in RA_mod v1.1?

In DW all masts are non-physical objects, so they are not detected by radar. In RA was modeled detection of masts from user controlled airplane or helo.

On Amethyste sub, Torpedo station, when you move the pointer on flood equalize muzzle commands you get Ahead 1/3, 2/3 et etc.

Similar things can be found in almost all added units - this is small evil, on which it would not be desirable to waste time and which does not affect gameplay, I hope.

Is there a difference between launching the game with Dangerouswaters.exe or LaunchDW.exe?
When I switch between two mods using Jsmge.. if I launch the game via Dangerouswater.exe I still have the previous screen and previous DW! If I launch it via LaunchDW.exe everything is all right as I would expect.. It's weird!

If you have installed multiple versions of DW, it certainly has value.
To run the appropriate version you must change paths in registry and execute exactly the dangerouswaters.exe, which relates to mod or run LaunchDW.exe which makes all of this itself.

[dd149]

1) towed array of Trenchant sub is hanging in the water besides the ship, not connected to the ship
2) menus for control of Red Oktober Typhoon are messed up (commands icon leads to wrong menus)
3) periscope of Seawolf seems short barely comes out of water when ship at periscope depth

French Mille Sabords team has started extensive testing of RA mod, we will keep you informed. Some CTD occurred but we need more investigation before being able to report in detail.
Thanks to RA team

[dd149]

The Millsab team (France) would like to discuss some issues about realistic behavior of French and US subs (speed, depths, TA washout)with you, we believe that we have some more realistic values to propose compared to what is currently in RA. Is this still open for modification before next re-issue of RA mod?
Best regards from France!

[Sag75]

I think that the wind direction did not affect the helo in any version.

Hi, if I remember correctly.. in Lwami the helo will blow up if launched outside wind envelope.. I'll check it

[dyshman]

present your statements:possible behavior, speed and other elements. and, of course, give your sources.

[dd149]

present your statements:possible behavior, speed and other elements. and, of course, give your sources.

We will try to give you some data this week. All the best!

[dd149]

Hi, if I remember correctly.. in Lwami the helo will blow up if launched outside wind envelope.. I'll check it
I will check again too, but never noticed.

[Sag75]

I will check again too, but never noticed.

Hi, I have tried it again several times using Lwami with 32kts wind, and my launches were fine.... Probably I only had bad luck last times!


However, I report here a probable bug about Heli behaviour. When Heli is loaded for ASuW operations (Penguin+Torpedo) and you select through menù on navigation map a submerged contact to sink with the Heli torpedo, sometimes Heli launches Penguin instead of torpedo (I paid attention, I don't click on wrong command).

[dd149]

In France we ran a multi station test last night, some preliminary bug reports:
1) On Amethyste (but maybe not platform dependent); error 12010 (bitmap failed to load) while trying to redirect torpedoes.
2) CTD in Akula initial screen while trying to select weapons load

Players are using either Vista or Windows 7 with no OS obvious related problem, we will have more tests almost every evening this week. We will try to give you more details. We will at first concentrate on platforms already known by the players ,SW, Akula, 688, issues of new platforms to be checked later.
For our realism suggestions we will send by MP (to whom should we send?)

[CrazyIvan]

In France we ran a multi station test last night, some preliminary bug reports:
1) On Amethyste (but maybe not platform dependent); error 12010 (bitmap failed to load) while trying to redirect torpedoes.
2) CTD in Akula initial screen while trying to select weapons load

Players are using either Vista or Windows 7 with no OS obvious related problem, we will have more tests almost every evening this week. We will try to give you more details. We will at first concentrate on platforms already known by the players ,SW, Akula, 688, issues of new platforms to be checked later.
For our realism suggestions we will send by MP (to whom should we send?)

I think it result of poor-quality installation of addition.
I have no such mistakes as bitmap.

[dd149]

I think it result of poor-quality installation of addition.
I have no such mistakes as bitmap.
We have had no problems with 688, Akula and seawolf stable for more than one hour 3 players with Win 7 ,vista and XP pro so good news for multi.
Then initiated another game with Amethyste and Akula improved the player with Amethyste had again Error 12010 : Bitmap failed to load as he was in narrow-band sonar and pushed F6 key (after approx. 20minutes) The player who suffered the crash had vista OS. We will test more the coming days

[CrazyIvan]

We have had no problems with 688, Akula and seawolf stable for more than one hour 3 players with Win 7 ,vista and XP pro so good news for multi.
Then initiated another game with Amethyste and Akula improved the player with Amethyste had again Error 12010 : Bitmap failed to load as he was in narrow-band sonar and pushed F6 key (after approx. 20minutes) The player who suffered the crash had vista OS. We will test more the coming days

OK.

It is necessary to remove in a file controllers.ini a one key string:

[Interface] "Rubis" 90
[BitmapName] "Rubis.jpg"
[DLL] " ShipControl. DLL " "X000Y000.bmp" 564 6
[DLL] "SonarBB.DLL" "X035Y000.bmp" 577 7
[DLL] "SonarNB.DLL" "NOLINK"
[DLL] " SonarDemon. DLL " "NOLINK"
[DLL] " SonarActive. DLL " "NOLINK"
[DLL] " SonarIncpt. DLL " "NOLINK"
[DLL] "SonarSSP.DLL" "NOLINK"
[DLL] " Radar. DLL " "X000Y035.bmp" 571 8
[DLL] " Radio. DLL " "X035Y035.bmp" 572 9
[Nav] "X000Y140.bmp" 12
[DLL] "FCTD.DLL" "X035Y070.bmp" 573 11
[DLL] "FCLP.DLL" "NOLINK"
[DLL] "FCCM.DLL" "NOLINK" < --------------------- Remove This Key
[DLL] "FCINV.DLL" "NOLINK"
[DLL] "TMA.DLL" "X000Y070.bmp" 574 10
[DLL] " Periscope. DLL " "X035Y105.bmp" 576 13
[DLL] " Stadimeter. DLL " "NOLINK"
[DLL] " SailBridge. DLL " "X000Y105.bmp" 575 528

also for Amethyste in section:

[Interface] "Rubis" 411

[dd149]

Ok we will try and let you know thanks

[cayman]

Put here in archive files which you pack - bmp and j3d. (Kuznetzov content)
Probably I can to you help.

Any news?

[CrazyIvan]

Any news?

Obviously model incorrect.

For example is can be connected with animate barrels directly in the model.

[CrazyIvan]

Separate Russian sonobuoys of a series RGB were created and are added in addition.

RGB-55A (Dicass Analog)
RGB-25 (Difar Analog)
RGB-75 (VLAD Analog)
RGB-15 (LOFAR Analog)


---------------------------
Structure of search-aim system "Korshun" includes four radio hydroacoustic buoys - basic sources of the information about underwater conditions intended for detection sub and definition of their place and elemental motions. Accordingly buoys are called RGB-75, RGB-15, RGB-25 and RGB-55A. First two buoys are intended for search Sub, and second - for specification of the received contact, definition of a place and elemental motions. However RGB-15 together with another buoys also can be used for specification of a location sub target.
Note: RGB-15 buoys are not carried by controllable platforms in ЦRA- Add-on, but can be placed in scenarios by mission creators. They can be picked up by buoy processors and may appear in gameplay.

RGB-75:
Buoy RGB-75 is intended for reception of acoustic signals created sub in VLF and LF sound ranges of frequencies, transformation them in electrical and transfers on the radiochannel aboard the plane for the subsequent processing.
Weight buoy makes 9,5 kg, length of 1214 mm, is included into a complete set 24 buoy. The buoy radio transmitters after activate in water work continuously.

RGB-25:
For reception of acoustic signals created by a target in a sound range of frequencies, and the definitions their magnetic bearing with the subsequent processing and transfer aboard the plane are used passive directed buoy RGB-25. The aerial it buoy represents a spatial developing lattice from five separate skeletons connected among themselves to the help of cylindrical hinges. In three average wings are established garland 34 acoustic receivers. Weight of the aerial of 7 kg. The acoustic system under action of an electromechanical drive rotates with speed 6-12 rev/min, carrying out the review of water area. At occurrence target in an operative range buoy noise, created by her, are perceived by the acoustic aerial, will be transformed to electrical signals, which after amplification are passed by the transmitter of the information aboard the plane. For definition of the current situation of an axis of the diagram of an orientation of acoustic system is used compass the device. Range measure the channel buoy works together with radar of the plane, providing definition of coordinates of a buoy concerning the plane. The buoy acoustic system deepens on 20 or 150 meters, duration of job buoy - about 40 minutes, accuracy of definition bearing of the target - no more than 3 degrees, the complete set consists from 10 buoys, weight - 45 kg.

RGB-55A:
Used in system RGB-55A, is air buoy of the directional action. He is intended for detection in an active mode submerged sub and also transfer of the information for definition of a location buoy concerning the plane. Besides buoy provides definition of radial making speed of sub target.
The buoy enabled to active mode is made from a board of the plane by the special transmitter of commands of management.
On a command from a board of the plane on environmental water environment the sound signal is radiated. The signal, accepted from the target, is passed aboard for measurement of time of his passage and dopplers shift of frequencies. It allows to determine range and radial speed of the target rather buoy. The information from two-three sonobuoys in a combination to knowledge of their location allows to determine a place and elemental motions.
At absence of a command on radiation, sonobuoy works as passive directed. sonobuoys RGB-55A are delivered by complete sets on 16 pieces. On variants of loading is suspended up to 15 sonobuoys, radiation, working on four frequencies, of the hydroacoustic channel. The duration of radiation can vary. Duration of job sonobuoys - till one hour, deepens of acoustic system 20-200 meters, weight sonobuoy - 55 kg. Range of detection not less than 5 km.
All sonobuoys are supplied with devices them self-deepens after the expiration of time of serviceability. Power supplies practically are unified: on everyone sonobuoy is established one or two (on RGB-75, RGB-25). Batteries 15-9 is water-activated a source of a current of expendable action working in sea water. The battery is made on the basis of electrochemical system magnesium-silver chloride. The negative electrode - sheet hire of an alloy magnesium, positive electrode is stamped from hire of chloride silver (power supplies cheaper) subsequently were made. However capacities of the similar power supply have not enough for job sonobuoy in an active mode, therefore in a lowered part sonobuoy RGB-55A the storage battery 64NKPL-1,5A is established alkaline nicel-cadmium. The battery consists of 64 elements placed in the metal container.

RGB-15:
Sonobuoy RGB-15 provides reception of acoustic signals both in VLF, and in a MF sound range of frequencies, and also signals created by explosive sources of a sound, with the subsequent transformation and transfer them on a radioline sonobuoy - plane. The working range of frequencies of the hydroacoustic receiver it sonobuoy from 2 up to 5000 Hz. In an active mode (with use of the explosive charge) is provided definition of range sonobuoy - radar and location sonobuoy concerning the plane with the help rangemeasure of the channel at job of a radar-tracking subsystem, but independent beacon - respondent on sonobuoy no, and in rangemeasured of the channel, the channel of the information is used.
The acoustic system sonobuoy (hydrophone) in a working mode, represents the cylinder by a diameter of 80 mm, length 1400 mm, consists of six receivers and can deepens on depth 20, 150 and 400 m. The duration of job sonobuoy up to 2 hour, weight of 9,5 kg, in a complete set enters 16 sonobuoys.
As it was already marked, RGB-15 is applied independently or together with the VIS (explosive charge), In the first case the noise available in water environment in a range of frequencies of job sonobuoy are accepted and are passed aboard the plane. Onboard with the help of the equipment УNR-PФ the spectrum of accepted signals is analyzed visually in a range of frequencies from 2 up to 6 Hz and on hearing - in a range up to 5000 Hz. The capabilities sonobuoys and classification of the target at the visual analysis of a spectrum of noise are a little bit worse, than with application sonobuoy RGB-75. At the same time analysis of noise on hearing in some cases can give some prize.

* - in game the explosive sources of a sound (VIS) are not simulated.

The decision typical ASW of a mission:
The decision typical ASW of a mission of primary search sub can be submitted in the following general view. After an exit of the plane in the nominated area of search, his survey with the help Radar search is made, and then (it most often is applied) the statement sonobuoy RGB-75 is made.
At detection sub with the help sonobuoy RGB-75 the necessity of specification of its place before transition to tracking can appear. The preliminary specification of the area of a possible finding can be made by statement some sonobuoys RGB-25.
The search sub target can be made and with the help some sonobuoys RGB-25, or, that is least expedient and probably, with the help sonobuoys RGB-55A in an active mode. In the second case( active mode RGB-55A)the search is made not covertly, that reduces probability of detection. The tracking is carried out by statement of arc or linear barriers on prospective directions of movement sub target, and in this case can be used sonobuous RGB-25 and RGB-55A.
The transition to destruction sub depending on a concrete task is possible as after tracking her, and at once after detection.
In any case, directly ahead of attack, it is recommended to use RGB-55A in active mode for an receive exact location of the target.

[goldorak]

Hi CrazyIvan,

The french mille-sabords community has found a bug pertaining to the uset-80. If you play on the Typhoon, these torpedoes don't work. They activate normally but its impossibile to lock on a target especially in ASW mode.
If on the other hand you use another sub, for instance the Alfas or the Kilos then the uset-80 works ok.

[CrazyIvan]

Hi CrazyIvan,

The french mille-sabords community has found a bug pertaining to the uset-80. If you play on the Typhoon, these torpedoes don't work. They activate normally but its impossibile to lock on a target especially in ASW mode.
If on the other hand you use another sub, for instance the Alfas or the Kilos then the uset-80 works ok.

Well, I shall check it.

[cayman]

Obviously model incorrect.

For example is can be connected with animate barrels directly in the model.

Good to know, thx!

[cayman]

Separate Russian sonobuoys of a series RGB were created and are added in addition.

RGB-55A (Dicass Analog)
RGB-25 (Difar Analog)
RGB-75 (VLAD Analog)
RGB-15 (LOFAR Analog)


---------------------------
.


practical add-on, sensitivity? are they any different?
at least , US and Rus have different sonobuoys, in sensitivity and pattern

[Drakken]

Hi CrazyIvan, :)
I see in the simulation that the "AI" SURFACE warship use the CM (active or passive) when a enemy Torpedo are incoming...
my question: Is possible to add at the PERRY and UDALOY *User* the CM...
they can add "for example" to list where are loaded the sonoboy.
In my test the NIXIE is not very good against incoming torpedo... 0% :42:

Another question about DDG Udaloy. :rolleyes
I see that in this 1.1 there is only one CIWS station... in the slot free is possible to add the RBU 6000 system or the UDAV-1 anti-torpedo system ...

The system consists of:

A KT-153 remotely controlled multi-barrel automated rocket launcher with indirect elevation/traverse stabilisation;
111SG depth-charge rockets with HE warhead and impact-time fuze to engage underwater targets;
111SZ mine-laying rockets with hydroacoustic proximity fuze for remote mining of a water area to make a barrier for incoming torpedoes;
111SO decoy rockets to divert homing torpedoes from the surface ship by creating false acoustic target;
fire control devices;
an ammunition loading device;
ground support equipment.

What do you think about ??? :rolleyes:D

[Sag75]

yes, I also observed AI surface units can deploy CMs against torpedoes. I always asked to myself why player units doesn't have this capability.

[goldorak]

yes, I also observed AI surface units can deploy CMs against torpedoes. I always asked to myself why player units doesn't have this capability.

The player has the nixie which fulfills exactly that role.

[CrazyIvan]

Hi CrazyIvan, :)
I see in the simulation that the "AI" SURFACE warship use the CM (active or passive) when a enemy Torpedo are incoming...
my question: Is possible to add at the PERRY and UDALOY *User* the CM...
they can add "for example" to list where are loaded the sonoboy.
In my test the NIXIE is not very good against incoming torpedo... 0% :42:

Another question about DDG Udaloy. :rolleyes
I see that in this 1.1 there is only one CIWS station... in the slot free is possible to add the RBU 6000 system or the UDAV-1 anti-torpedo system ...

The system consists of:

A KT-153 remotely controlled multi-barrel automated rocket launcher with indirect elevation/traverse stabilisation;
111SG depth-charge rockets with HE warhead and impact-time fuze to engage underwater targets;
111SZ mine-laying rockets with hydroacoustic proximity fuze for remote mining of a water area to make a barrier for incoming torpedoes;
111SO decoy rockets to divert homing torpedoes from the surface ship by creating false acoustic target;
fire control devices;
an ammunition loading device;
ground support equipment.

What do you think about ??? :rolleyes:D

If to remove sonobuoy, then the helicopter will lose it sonobuoy.
For modeling UDAV - it is necessary to alter ALL torpedo doctrines.
I think this doubtful improvement

[Sag75]

The player has the nixie which fulfills exactly that role.

I know Goldorak, but isn't the nixie only against passive torpedoes? is it?

[Drakken]

If to remove sonobuoy, then the helicopter will lose it sonobuoy.
For modeling UDAV - it is necessary to alter ALL torpedo doctrines.
I think this doubtful improvement

Is not possible simply to add CM in the list of sonobuoy of the ship ???
Attention not replace... but add the CM at the sonobuoy list...

for UDAV you can use the doctrine of MINEs ... already there are...
simply the new launcher system release MINEs...

Is not true that NIXIE is good against active torpedo... 0% ratio.
Please test it.

Thanks for your attention...:)

[goldorak]

I know Goldorak, but isn't the nixie only against passive torpedoes? is it?

The point of the 2 playable surface units is this.
Since wakehoming against playable units doesn't work (damn SCS), the torpedoes will be fired in snaphsot.
If passive the nixie can take care of it.
If they are active, then your best bet is to drop a sonobuoy to get a fix on the weapon and then get out of the way before you fall inside its acquisition cone.
In either case they are not much of a threat.

The situation is a little bit different against torpedoes launched from playable units. But even here, you can't use the wakehoming ability. So you have to use either active or passive and steer the torpedo on the correct course. For the player on the frigate, the best tactic is the same, drop the nixie and an active sonobuoy.

Having countermesures as on the subs doesn't really change that much the situation. Although if they were available it would be a little "plus".

@ Drakken : losing the ability to drop sonobuoys from the helicopters is a feature that should not be eliminated. They have their uses.

[dd149]

Test mission

French Amethyste (player) vs. Lada (AI)
Lada 300ft
Layer 500ft
Amethyste 800ft
Amethyste distance 8 nm
Launches 2 F17 mod 2 torpedoes under the layer at 800ft

Question 1): As soon as torpedoes point towards Lada, it counter detects and accelerates, the layer should normally mask the noise? Or is it in some way linked to the detection of muzzle doors opening?
Question 2): The torpedoes arrive under the Lada at 800ft as soon as they are activated they acquire and sink the Lada, it seems the layer again does not have any influence.
Question 3): Lada at 16kts 300 ft seems to cavitate (graphic view show bubble trail), is it normal.

We are running several other tests, we will report. (it seems in some case TIW warning still happens at 12nm, is it reduced in all cases?)
Multiplayer very satisfactory on the other hand.
Thanks to the Russian team

Added: Tonight 7-8 players on a test mission designed for RA1.1
Russian side Two Akulas, 1 Typhoon, 1 Lada
US side: 688, Seawolf, Ohio
1 Orion and 1 MH 60 + OH Perry
Theme: attack of San Diego including possible nuclear strike to employ possibilities of Typhoon for the Russian side, defence for the US side.
We will report the results and behaviour, it should be a good proof of stability if we get no crash, as it is quite complex with a number of AI and playable units.

[sertore]

Thanks to french DW addicted for good report.

I would like to say that at Betasom we already played some multiplayer games (usually from 4 to 8 players, all from Italy, host and client on XP) without any blocking issue, just minor bugs already adviced.

Nuclear weapons tried with full success, and we are now creating mission with complex triggers structure to test game stability.

Last mission we had bad behaviour of sonars on Akula I Improved: it seems that during the major part of the game the spheric and conformal acted like the towed array, showing target and mirror contact, but letting the player able to mark just one of them.
I mean that when we marked the target on spheric or conformal, we were able to see even its mirror, but when we marked it the marker on original target disappear, and so on in a unlimited chain!

We are trying to reproduce the issue, that is not the first time that someone of us see, but it seems to be related to more than one event, that have to happen to switch on the mirron contact on spheric and conformal.

We will let you know something more on this issue as soon as possible.

Thanks again to RA team for superb MOD!

[dd149]

Thanks to french DW addicted for good report.

I would like to say that at Betasom we already played some multiplayer games without any blocking issue, just minor bugs already adviced.

Nuclear weapons tried with full success, and we are now creating mission with complex triggers structure to test game stability.

Last mission we had bad behaviour of sonars on Akula I Improved: it seems that during the major part of the game the spheric and conformal acted like the towed array, showing target and mirror contact, but letting the player able to mark just one of them.
I mean that when we marked the target on spheric or conformal, we were able to see even its mirror, but when we marked it it the marker on original target disappear, and so on in a unlimited chain!

We are trying to reproduce the issue, that is not the first time that someone of us see, but it seems to be related to more than one event, that have to happen to switch on the mirron contact on spheric and conformal.

We will let you know something more on this issue as soon as possible.

Thanks again to RA team for superb MOD!
I have reported you information on the French forum, we are presently investigating an issue with sonar as well, it might be related. Parameter report accuracy has been changed from 2 to 3 and it seems to cause some trouble between TA and sphere, less between sphere and lateral.
We will let you know after some more investigation.

Thanks to RA team

[dd149]

Host on Vista & Hamachi 6 players total

Total 2 Seawolves (one on host computer), 2 Akula II improved (Win 7), 1 Typhon (XP Pro) and 1 Ohio. plus some AI P3, Lada, OH Perry. Games mostly in windowed mode.5 players in France, one in Serbia.
Game crash seemingly occurred when player on host (Seawolf platform) closed torpedo tubes in order to reload after missing one Akula.
Mission has been slightly redesigned in order to improve playability, we will try again. Also added more civilian traffic, it is supposed to be San Diego bay!;)
Besides that, apparently no sonar issue, detection seemed to work ok.

[dd149]

I have reported you information on the French forum, we are presently investigating an issue with sonar as well, it might be related. Parameter report accuracy has been changed from 2 to 3 and it seems to cause some trouble between TA and sphere, less between sphere and lateral.
We will let you know after some more investigation.

Thanks to RA team

We had similar issue on sonar i.e. mirror on conformal array on Virginia platform during multiplayer session. (ended up in game crash but maybe not related)

[Castout]

IS there a chance that a super holiday cruiser be included I found the original too small an appetizer :D.

A loong big super holiday cruiser makes an absolutely enormous sinking :)

[dd149]

We see that for some towed arrays you have changed the parameter "reporting accuracy" from 2 to 3. It seems to create some trouble to merge tracks between sphere and TA. Can you explain what was the reasoning to do that?

RA 1.1. is a great mod, what is cooking for the new release 1.1 bis or 1.2?

[Lau]

Hi RA modders,

Seems a bit quiet on your side, how are you doing? Busy with other things...?

Kind regards,

Lau

[dd149]

Same question here, please let us know about latest news.

[CrazyIvan]

We almost that have finished job rather icebergs problems.

Now behavior more correct: they are seen on HF sonars.
(In original game HF sonars are broken, you can not see on them icebergs [malicious gift from SCS - :D ] )

Physics more RL: The torpedos and missiles - not can penetrate icebergs, as through butter piece.

Now, at collision with iceberg, the submarine crashed, instead of iceberg.

But some tests are required still.

It will make battle under polar cap, extremely realistic and difficult.

[dd149]

If you want some testers, we can maybe arrange with Millsab team, especially if you have some clear areas that you want to test. The offer stands... just let us know if it can be of help.

[sertore]

We almost that have finished job rather icebergs problems.

Now behavior more correct: they are seen on HF sonars.
(In original game HF sonars are broken, you can not see on them icebergs [malicious gift from SCS - :D ] )

Physics more RL: The torpedos and missiles - not can penetrate icebergs, as through butter piece.

Now, at collision with iceberg, the submarine crashed, instead of iceberg.

But some tests are required still.

It will make battle under polar cap, extremely realistic and difficult.

Dear CrazyIvan,
I am a quite confused: we are playing polar scenarios in the last three weeks, and we experienced a good behaviour with icebergs: when a submarine collide, it sink even if iceberg is damaged too.

Torpedo and missile cannot penetrate iceberg too: I can see the missiles exploding when try to penetrate the iceberg, but I did not tried with torpedo.

Are you sure that the bugs you fixed were always present or were related to a particular conditions?

Thanks in advance for help.

[CrazyIvan]

@Sertore

As a whole, I speak concerning the original version.

Rather, the additions -RA-, were partially corrected these bugs, however icebergs did not keep ordered depth. In 20-30 minutes after of a beginning of the mission, they rise on a surface.

Now it was corrected.

Also - now icebergs the damages will not take at collision with a submarine or weapons.

[sertore]

You are totally right: please find here (http://www.betasom.it/forum/index.php?showtopic=33682&pid=317633&st=0&#entry317633) an example of what happened yesterday night in a polar mission. :80:

Icebergs were flying over the surface, and also on the top of some units! :132:

A Lada was also able to drill the submerged part of an iceberg, apparently without any mayor issue (just 24% of damage). :52:

We really need the fixes you mentioned to be able to play a decent polar scenario! :D

Keep your good work up and thanks for efforts to you and your friends! ;)

[CrazyIvan]

The interaction of submarines with ice keel is corrected.
Now submarines take damages. (Pic.1)

Is corrected bug when surfaced through ice a "Typhoon" SSBN could not launch SLBM Missiles. (Pic.2)

Other submarines are corrected also.

Surfaced "Los-Angeles Imp" now is capable launch missiles from VLS (TLAM; TASM) - if the ice thickness does not exceed 2 feet.

At thickness of 3 ft and more - the launch missiles becomes impossible.

[dd149]

Superb job, fortunately we have people like you who can fix the mess of sonalysts.

[fleet command CC]

May I ask have you done any new update to the RA mod that are available to download?

I've been a way from this forum for some time now, and I just wonder what was going on with your mod. :D

[Castout]

Still some time I guess.

I'm happy that they are still working on it because when it's done it's going to be sweet and less bug driven.:32:

[Lau]

Goldorak / CrazyIvan

What are the chances that you modify some of the parameters of Rubis and Amethyste before new release of the mod.

With new release of RAmod French MilleSabord team will be organizing international meetings and it will be nice to be able to play with Amethyste and Rubis during does games.

The idea will be for Amethyste to have similar caracteristics to Los Angeles flt II + blackshark torp as you did for the Italian team Betasom.

Rubis can stay as it stands, this way it makes two different sub, one good and one average for different type of games.

Please :rolleyes

We are all really looking forward for the next release and already having so much fun with v1.1

Best regards,

Lau

[goldorak]

Hi Lau,

First let me say that I'm in no way directly connected to the modders and what they may or may not include in the mod. I'm a simple player, like the rest of you guys.

Now as far as your criticism of not including the Black Shark abord the Rubis class. I have to say that I agree with the modders to not include it, as in real life these subs just don't carry it. They are old generation subs, and are being phased out for more modern AIP subs and nuclear subs. New models that will carry the Black Shark. Unfortunately for whatever reason the modders decided to not included a new generation playable french sub in the mod.

If the modders start adding arbitrary weapons to platforms disregarding completely realism, all that the mod has strived for is being thrown out the window. Whats to stop someone asking to include I don't know shkvals aboard the sturgeons just because they would make formidable close range weapons ?

The Rubis are not the equivalent of 688 flt III or Virginias or Seawolves. I don't even think they are the equivalent of new generation AIP subs such as the Type 212. Rubis are old technology, decades old technology this is the real truth.

So what to do with them ? Either design missions around the capabilities of the Rubis class, as you would design a mission around the capabilities of a Kilo class if you were to use that in a mission. But no one designs a mission with a Kilo that goes against a Seawolf and expects the Kilo to havbe the upperhand. It can happen if you have a very skilled player on the Kilo and an incompetent on the Seawolf. But besides this, the capabilites of the 2 platforms are so different that you can't possibily design a versus mission with a Kilo going against a Seawolf and expect "equal performance". Its just not going to happen.

If you want to use the Rubis in multiplayer, design the mission around subs that have the same capabilities more or less. That means putting Rubis together with Collins, Harushios and Kilos. But asking to include the Black Shark just so it can compete with the big guys is wrong.

This puts obviously a strain on the mission designers that have to know the ins and outs of the different platforms. Just designing a mission and throwing in arbitrary playable platforms may actually hurt the mission because of the great difference in capability each of these platforms is capable of.

I think we should pressure the modders (maybe sending them a nice box of bordeaux wine) to put a modern playable french sub (Suffren class maybe ? ). ;)

[Lau]

I know and agree with all you are saying, but as the game stands we have no chance of playing often with Rubis or Amethyste, which is a shame as they are so nicely modeled in 3D and other aspects. I have actually strugled to convince players to use other platforms than Seawolf and Akula II improved in our next tournament MS team vs DW.pl team and we will use the Rubis and Amethyste. But lets face it players around the world like playing with LOS Flt III and modern subs, we will not have many opportunities to include Rubis and Amethyste and really represent France in international tournaments, so yes we really need a modern SSN in the French side with torpedoes that can give us a chance to compete. Else you will always have the classical Russian vs US scenarios... So yes RA moders give us the tools to represent our French flag during important events :bud:

Follows the list of platforms for this event (I selected Rubis for my self knowing that other french players will avoid selecting weak platforms, even the Amethyste has not been selected, surely because of the F17 mod 2 torp as the other performances are ok) So we really have a problem.

BLUFOR team (french speaking)

OHP -Nemo "MS"
Los Angeles Flt I - Alex "MS"
Sturgeon - Senegolois "MS"
Amethyste -?
Rubis "Casabianca" - Lau


OPFOR team (english speaking)

Udaloy - Grindler
Akula I -Achachtel
Victor III - Dobedoo
Victor II - U47 "MS"
Alfa -guybrush
Lada -Motrius22 "MS"
Kilo normal -Ronipl


The french community is very active and playing weekely, we are even looking forward to challenge the moders of the RAmod on board french submarines, if I say this they will give us platforms with poor capabilities :D

The reason I wrote your name in the my last post is that I know you know that we need this, so please help us getting our toy:rolleyes

We can help with documentation and other informations as we have enlisted people as well as on the 3D modeling ;)

Before you say so, I know that we will be able to do this ourselves as the data base will be open. However having it already in the official release, will guarantee that all the navyes in the world have the same data base, ready to play!:32:

Kind regards,

Lau

[dd149]

A new 3d model of SSBN le Triomphant is under preparation and it might be possible to have it playable. As for the new French SSNs, characteristics are not yet known accurately besides DCNS advertising brochures and it would make them fictional, which is not what the game is supposed to be about.
The actual Rubis and Amethyste are noisy due to their small size.

[Lau]

to DD149 : Yes I agree, my point is about game play. Red October isnt real too :ku

You can see it during games, none of the french players is willing to spend a night in a Rubis or Amethyste (I do) because of their poor capabilities, they simply act as torpedoes magnets and can only fire when is too late. I feel it is a shame to have modeled these two subs so beatifully and that no one uses them. It would therefore really be nice to have a modern submarine for our international challenges, not necessary matching Seawolf, but something in between Virginia and Trafalgar with blacksharks.

The easiest solution to this problem will be to simply improve Amethyste capabilities, upgrade it to something close to Los Angeles Flt I + real torpedoes like blackshark so we can play, just for game play purposes.

The fact is that these submarines are not in war against each other in real life, that we do not exactly know their real capabilities as it is top secret, however it will be very usefull to be able to play with them, just for game play purpose and of curse, for the fun of playing with french fleet platforms.

[CrazyIvan]

@ Lau

Really your commanders will refuse performance of the tasks on existing submarines?

"I refuse to carry out the task - because my submarine too noisy!
And the torpedos have not a long range... "

Battle by that weapon which is present. :)

PS: I will consult with RA by the members of a team - we shall be possible to do "Suffren" SSN a class.

However it will increase time of an output of addition by some time.

[dyshman]

the appetite comes with eating, as i see, doesn't it?
lets imagine all your dreams, French comrades! adding non existing sub to game is wonderful idea. real capabilities for game-play, at your disposal! . try to write gamers petition to your president, to build suffren-class faster!

[goldorak]

the appetite comes with eating, as i see, doesn't it?
lets imagine all your dreams, French comrades! adding non existing sub to game is wonderful idea. real capabilities for game-play, at your disposal! . try to write gamers petition to your president, to build suffren-class faster!


Well to be honest you can't really blame us.
Your mod is a jewel, to desire modern playable units is understandable.

If adding a new playable starting from zero takes to much time, why don't you use the already present Triomphant model and transform that to a playable. There are already several playable SSBNs in the game (Ohio, Typhoon) so adding a french one wouldn't be a stretch. Although in this case the problem of modern torpedoes won't be fixed, since the Triomphant carries F17 torpedoes and not Black Shark ones. :bud:

[dyshman]

well, interesting. i'm not blame you personally, but why should we(i mean our players community) have to much unused units? how many missions were created for playable victors or harushio&collins? lets create many interesting missions and campaigns for new units. it will be best way to increase playability. simple duels is not interesting, i think.

[CrazyIvan]

As - DW the completed stage in development of games from SCS (I think everyone understand - that further deploying of games from SCS to expect does not cost).
Therefore we can add "Suffren" SSN Class.
There can be in 2016 it will in french fleet.?

However - will not be more naval sim from SCS or from -RA- modders to 2016 y.

We can place it (Suffren)- for the future (Survivability) of this addition.

[goldorak]

well, interesting. i'm not blame you personally, but why should we(i mean our players community) have to much unused units? how many missions were created for playable victors or harushio&collins? lets create many interesting missions and campaigns for new units. it will be best way to increase playability. simple duels is not interesting, i think.

There is nothing wrong in desiring new units. Reality on the other hand is a totally different issue. I know full well that compromises have to be made, and that not every navy in the world is going to be represented in the game.
It is also natural that most playable units are russian and americans. The first because well the mod is made by russians, and the american units well because their navy is quite important world wide. The other navies are minor navies, yes even the british and french ones.
Personally I don't have a problem if a new french sub is not included. As I said the mod is great because we have tens and tens of units to choose from.
Most of them have different capabilites and it is NOT A FAILURE of the modders if certain players always want to use the same 1-2 units. Adaptability is king, we in Betasom have long learned to design varied missions. Missions that employ many different units, missions that take place in the open sea (and therefore will have certain types of units), and missions that take place near coastal waters (and so SSK types of units are more preponderant). Players have to overcome shall I say their dependance on the latest and shiniest units to also try classical SSK's. Gameplay is different and nonetheless challenging.
You can design missions where SSKs go against one another, or where they operate together with surface or air units etc... As I said the problem is not with the mod, the problem is with certain players and how to design missions that cater to certain class of units. Its a learning experience thats all.

All this said, and I enjoy using all the subs in the mod, the more playables we have the nicier it is. :D

[goldorak]

As - DW the completed stage in development of games from SCS (I think everyone understand - that further deploying of games from SCS to expect does not cost).
Therefore we can add "Suffren" SSN Class.
There can be in 2016 it will in french fleet.?

However - will not be more naval sim from SCS or from -RA- modders to 2016 y.

We can place it (Suffren)- for the future (Survivability) of this addition.

Well CrazyIvan, if putting a sub in the game that is still in the planning stages and is not in operational service constitues a problem (and I can see why), why don't you consider instead the Scorpene class ?
These are still french designed and built modern AIP subs (they are more or less the equivalent of the Type 212).
They already are operational in several navies (chilean, brazilean, indian and royal maleysian navies). And these subs carry the Black Shark, at least the chilean ones do (and maybe the brazilean ones althought on this I'm not sure).

Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpene

For realism sake I'd propose to include in DW the Scorpene (although they are not in service in the french navy) but we can stretch a little and say yes ? for gameplay purposes ?

[MSNemo]

Hi Lau,
Rubis are old technology, decades old technology this is the real truth.



Hi, goldorak it's nemo from MS-team.

How are you?

Sorry but i can not agree with this...
Each submarine goes in "IPER"...you really think that in 20 years we have not improved our submarines while he was in drydock..??:52:

Obviously a Améthyste is not equal to a virginia or seawolf, but for the noise he was equal to an 688flt II.
Currently we are install the latest sonar suite on the Améthyste class for tracking the AIP submarine So I think we just consider that the capacity will be higher than that people think.

[Lau]

@ Lau

Really your commanders will refuse performance of the tasks on existing submarines?

"I refuse to carry out the task - because my submarine too noisy!
And the torpedos have not a long range... "

Battle by that weapon which is present. :)

PS: I will consult with RA by the members of a team - we shall be possible to do "Suffren" SSN a class.

However it will increase time of an output of addition by some time.

As - DW the completed stage in development of games from SCS (I think everyone understand - that further deploying of games from SCS to expect does not cost).
Therefore we can add "Suffren" SSN Class.
There can be in 2016 it will in french fleet.?

However - will not be more naval sim from SCS or from -RA- modders to 2016 y.

We can place it (Suffren)- for the future (Survivability) of this addition.

Thank you CrazyIvan for considering our point of view and yes you are right in saying that after next release we are not sure when will be the next one.

As I said Red October is in the mod for game play, adding a Suffren will be the same, just for game play. Suffren will be equiped with torps inspired by the blacksharks, we can provide you with more info on this topic. What is important is game play. I suppose RAmoders added french submarines for people to use them, well it will be a pleasure and we already do to test them in every mission, we really talk a lot about them and our senior members, members that are enlisted in these units think that not all parameters are realistic because based on wikipedia info which must of the time gives same info for must submarines.

In order to use the platforms you created for us (thank you for this:bud:) we need them to have some game play capabilities.

In the french team we all agree that Amethyste should be close to Los Angeles Flt II with regards to noise radiation and close to Los Flt III with regards to sonar performances. I am sorry but these submarines have proven very efficient in OTAN exercices which gives indication that they are not that bad. F17 mod 2 torps, they are not performant and therefore hard to use in game. But if it is not realistic to change them, then dont do it, but then please provide us with a Suffren + FTL torps (derived from Blackshark) + Exocet SM39 + SCALP cruise missile + Mines

As said by Goldorak, we already use Amethyste and Rubis in several scenarios against Victor I, II and other SSK. vs Victor III it already becomes very challenging with F17 mod 2 torps.

To Goldorak, thank you for your input, but we do not need an other Agosta hull (Scorpene), what we need is a submarine capable of playing vs Los Angeles, Trafalgar, Virginia, Seawolf, Akula II improved. Without proper torpedoes it will never work on the game play side.

Thank you :rolleyes

Lau

Suffren info :
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Suffren
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCALP_(missile)

[Lau]

F17 mod 2 torpedoes/Blackshark and FTL
Please do not forget that the french are part of the developping process with the Italians of the extraordinary Blackshark. As soon as the Suffren class is ready they will be equiped with FTL, which is simply a variant based on the Blackshark, I mean it can not be worst. Triomphant and Suffren will be equiped with these weapons for sure it is only a matter of time.

Time?
Yes the world is in crisis and budgets are cut every year we all know this. Lets not sacrifice game play for delays with incorporation of a technology that everyone knows the french navy posses.

F17 mod 2 /Blackshark and FTL info:
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=106270

[Lau]

Rubis / Amethyste performances modification request :

Speed : 29 kts Rubis / 32 kts Amethyste (For game play like los flt III)
Max depth : 500 m for both hulls (for game play like los Flt III)
Sonar : Equivalent to los Flt III for game play
Noise radiation : Equivalent to los Flt I for Amethyste / For Rubis in between Alfa and Akula I

Information based on enslited personnel not giving real figures but figures that will be closer to reality than existing parameters in RAmod.

FTL torpedoes are a reality in french navy it is just a matter of time. Lets not sacrifice game play
F17 mod 2 are out of date and will soon be replaced

[goldorak]

Hi, goldorak it's nemo from MS-team.

How are you?

Sorry but i can not agree with this...
Each submarine goes in "IPER"...you really think that in 20 years we have not improved our submarines while he was in drydock..??:52:

Obviously a Améthyste is not equal to a virginia or seawolf, but for the noise he was equal to an 688flt II.
Currently we are install the latest sonar suite on the Améthyste class for tracking the AIP submarine So I think we just consider that the capacity will be higher than that people think.


Hi Nemo,

I'm great thanks for asking. :D

I knew you would not agree with me. I should have been more precise then, the basic design is old. You can only enhance so much before you start reaching diminishing returns and have to design a whole new unit. No amount of modernisation can bring a Rubis to Virgina or Seawolf class status.
No matter how whishfull one is. If it were possibile then navies would just continue to improve on old designs. And thats not how it works.

On the other hand, having correct "values" for the Rubis in DW is a must. So if you have found that the values that are being used are totally incorrect then by all means give the modders the "more or less correct values". I'm sure they would be happy to comply with such a request.

For the weapons, it is what it is. The Rubis class will never ever have the Black Shark. And as someone on mille-sabords noted, the mod makes the F 17 torpedo in the game more deadly than its real counterpart. %)

Correcting the Rubis is a must, putting fantasy weapons on it is not.

So we are left with players wanting a french unit that carries the black shark (a heavyweight ASW/AsuW torpedo). Inserting in the game the Suffren class as cool as it would be, from a realistic point of view doesn't make a lot of sense since its not even being built. Its a concept, yes it will be the french navy next generation SSN. But not right now and not for several more years.

The only other french sub that carries the black shark and is operational is the Scorpene class. Now before Lau comes in and says that he doesn't want another Agosta class sub (but the game doesn't have Agosta class playable subs dear Lau), all modern diesel electric subs (Kilos excluded) in the game are modeled as nuclear subs. The reason being that its the only way to make them access the towed array. The only difference between real nuclear subs and fake nuclear subs in the game is the top speed. So for all pratical purposes, the Harushio, the Collins, the Type 212 are castrated nuclear subs. They have no battery penalty etc... And neither would a hypothetical Scorpene. The only limit it would have would be its top speed obviously.

I'd say that the Scorpene class makes much more sense in DW than the Barracuda class.

To finish, the Red October is a fantasy unit and you're correct on that point Lau. But the modders didn't just put the Red October, they also put real life like Typhoons for realistic missions. The Red October is present as an homage to a great film (that talks about submarines). Its like having Jules Verne's Nautilus in the game. Not realistic, but just fun to have. Last week Betasom designed a mission to relive the Hunt for the Red October. And what better place than to use the Red October model ? :D And a great mission it was. :pilot

[MSNemo]

Hi goldorak

My speech is not in order to include a suffren or BlackShark, or put a ruby equal to a Seawolf.:)
For me the most important thing is get closer to reality as possible without compromising the gameplay

At first it is necessary to differentiate the class ruby of Class amethyste
The Amethyste is more efficient.
And the ruby class has been improved to the amethyste standard during IPER

In fact each submarine of the same class is different from each other and they are not necessarily the same capacities.
Ex: some los angeles FLT II go to 30 kts and the other at 35kts and yet they are all FLTII

It is the role of the modder to find a compromise between the best submarine of a class and the worst.

That's why I propose the following settings for amethyste:
For the noise radiation they are the equivalent of a 688 FLT II
For speed and immersion it's 30kt 500M
It's the average between the best of our SNA and the "worst"

For info: A améthyste carry 18 weapons, 14 in stock 4 in tubes.
It's a mix between F17Mod2/SM-39/mine..........and the head of Zidane:P Normally each SNA carries 2 blackshark and 4 for the SNLE...But I've never seen so I can not say.

[Lau]

Hi Nemo,

I'm great thanks for asking. :D

I knew you would not agree with me. I should have been more precise then, the basic design is old. You can only enhance so much before you start reaching diminishing returns and have to design a whole new unit. No amount of modernisation can bring a Rubis to Virgina or Seawolf class status.
No matter how whishfull one is. If it were possibile then navies would just continue to improve on old designs. And thats not how it works.


Who said we want Rubis to become Seawolf or Virginia :52: This is why we are asking for the type Suffren, which is something you asked to the moders some time ago, you did this because it makes sence with current platforms in game. + As CrazyIvan said we do not know when will be next release of RAmod and it does not cost anything, just time...


On the other hand, having correct "values" for the Rubis in DW is a must. So if you have found that the values that are being used are totally incorrect then by all means give the modders the "more or less correct values". I'm sure they would be happy to comply with such a request.

Values posted already by me and re-posted by Nemo


For the weapons, it is what it is. The Rubis class will never ever have the Black Shark. And as someone on mille-sabords noted, the mod makes the F 17 torpedo in the game more deadly than its real counterpart. %)

Correcting the Rubis is a must, putting fantasy weapons on it is not.

You are right, actually is both Rubis and Amethyste parameters that need correction as I already posted


So we are left with players wanting a french unit that carries the black shark (a heavyweight ASW/AsuW torpedo). Inserting in the game the Suffren class as cool as it would be, from a realistic point of view doesn't make a lot of sense since its not even being built. Its a concept, yes it will be the french navy next generation SSN. But not right now and not for several more years.


Yes you are right and this is mainly due to the fact that there are no more wars putting at risk France. Have an Akula or Seawolf slurking the French Mediterranean coast like it often happens in RAmod and you will see if the Suffren is not built in a week with blacksharks on it %)

You are talking about realism and I talk about realism + game play (we are not far away)


The only other french sub that carries the black shark and is operational is the Scorpene class. Now before Lau comes in and says that he doesn't want another Agosta class sub (but the game doesn't have Agosta class playable subs dear Lau)

Sorry Goldorak, but you missed my point, I am talking about the hull and not the engine. If I remember well you read and speak french, so be my guest and read :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classe_Rubis



, all modern diesel electric subs (Kilos excluded) in the game are modeled as nuclear subs. The reason being that its the only way to make them access the towed array. The only difference between real nuclear subs and fake nuclear subs in the game is the top speed. So for all pratical purposes, the Harushio, the Collins, the Type 212 are castrated nuclear subs. They have no battery penalty etc... And neither would a hypothetical Scorpene. The only limit it would have would be its top speed obviously.


This I know and you are correct


I'd say that the Scorpene class makes much more sense in DW than the Barracuda class.

A french SSK will be nice, but will not fullfill our real needs with regards to modern warfare, on the other side Suffren will :bud:


To finish, the Red October is a fantasy unit and you're correct on that point Lau. But the modders didn't just put the Red October, they also put real life like Typhoons for realistic missions. The Red October is present as an homage to a great film (that talks about submarines). Its like having Jules Verne's Nautilus in the game. Not realistic, but just fun to have. Last week Betasom designed a mission to relive the Hunt for the Red October. And what better place than to use the Red October model ? :D And a great mission it was.

Ok, I love The Hunt for Red October and you are tuching an interesting point it is for the fun of the community and the modders, so will be the Suffren with Blacksharks or lets call them FTL (Future Torpille Lourde), which are milles beyond realism and a very close reality in wikipedia...

You know dont worry, you will be allowed to use the Suffren as well during international events if you play on the french side, again it is just for game play;)

Greetings,

Lau

[goldorak]

Hi goldorak

My speech is not in order to include a suffren or BlackShark, or put a ruby equal to a Seawolf.:)
For me the most important thing is get closer to reality as possible without compromising the gameplay

At first it is necessary to differentiate the class ruby of Class amethyste
The Amethyste is more efficient.
And the ruby class has been improved to the amethyste standard during IPER

In fact each submarine of the same class is different from each other and they are not necessarily the same capacities.
Ex: some los angeles FLT II go to 30 kts and the other at 35kts and yet they are all FLTII

It is the role of the modder to find a compromise between the best submarine of a class and the worst.

That's why I propose the following settings for amethyste:
For the noise radiation they are the equivalent of a 688 FLT II
For speed and immersion it's 30kt 500M
It's the average between the best of our SNA and the "worst"


It makes sense. An average between best and worse values of the entire class.


For info: A améthyste carry 18 weapons, 14 in stock 4 in tubes.
It's a mix between F17Mod2/SM-39/mine..........and the head of Zidane:P Normally each SNA carries 2 blackshark and 4 for the SNLE...But I've never seen so I can not say.

Putting Zidane apart :P, I've never read that the Black Shark was being used on the Rubis/Amethyste class or on the Triomphant class. I thought they were used only on the Scorpene and then on the future Barracuda class.
Do you have some link that say otherwise ? :52:

[Lau]

It makes sense. An average between best and worse values of the entire class.



Putting Zidane apart :P, I've never read that the Black Shark was being used on the Rubis/Amethyste class or on the Triomphant class. I thought they were used only on the Scorpene and then on the future Barracuda class.
Do you have some link that say otherwise ? :52:

Is everything in RAmod in books or in wikipedia ?

French are part with Italians in the developpement of the Blackshark, why would they not use it in their navy to protect their home land...?

[MSNemo]

No link is just information I learned from a friend submariner.
My last trip in a SNA was a few years old and at the time there was no BlackShark.
they boarded two for testing and exercice, but probably not for operationnal use, however i think(hope) the cdt is not stupide and if he must engage another submarine, he use in priority the BS because the F17 is really bad...

[dd149]

With Sturgeon long:
At 7nm cruise ship moving 15kts no visual clue on the waterfall when switched to spherical array. (but nois is present)
Contact is seen on broadband only on the lower display (with higher time compressions)
contact can be maintained on narrowband

You need to be closer than 5nm to see a fiant line appear at last...

Is this due to some hard coding or to the noise scale in database in you opinion?

[kpv1974]

I think that addition of non-existing units to game is wrong thing. better add enterprise from startreck! for game-play!
startrek.

i want to drive Sierra-class submarines. this type REALLY EXIST instead of suffern. but this perfect submarine not included to addon!
:(

[cayman]

I think that addition of non-existing units to game is wrong thing. better add enterprise from startreck! for game-play!
startrek.

i want to drive Sierra-class submarines. this type REALLY EXIST instead of suffern. but this perfect submarine not included to addon!
:(

Sierra-class is almost perfect, but it is not the major part in Russian sub-force, besides, there already so many Rus-subs in DWX, other part of world should have some place in the game-------I think, French design is elegance and unique , we should have a taste

[dyshman]

yeah, is very "elegance and unique"))) see advantages and dis-advantages of rubis below:
adv: small, based on agosta hull-type.
-low costs of building and exploitation
dis-adv:
-small, not anough free space for modernization and new equipment.
- small operational depth (no more than 350 meters)
- absence of anti-sonar coatings (evidences of russian navy-officers, during joint exercises)
- hight lewel of magnetic field (the same source)
-only four torpedo tubes
-high noise lewel
some russians experts compare rubis to november-class. is only good torpedoes gives rubis advantages against november.

[Lau]

Sierra-class is almost perfect, but it is not the major part in Russian sub-force, besides, there already so many Rus-subs in DWX, other part of world should have some place in the game-------I think, French design is elegance and unique , we should have a taste

Suffren, first construction steps started in dec 2007

Video http://www.corlobe.tk/article6955.html
Article http://www.corlobe.tk/article6953.html (French)
Article http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4158841 (English)


So we are left with players wanting a french unit that carries the black shark (a heavyweight ASW/AsuW torpedo). Inserting in the game the Suffren class as cool as it would be, from a realistic point of view doesn't make a lot of sense since its not even being built. Its a concept, yes it will be the french navy next generation SSN. But not right now and not for several more years.

Who said Suffren is utopia...

[MSNemo]

-small, not anough free space for modernization and new equipment.
Considering the miniaturization of electronics that was a false problem

- small operational depth (no more than 350 meters)
No it's 500m, 350m and 25 kts are the maximum admit during peace time

- absence of anti-sonar coatings (evidences of russian navy-officers, during joint exercises)
Correct
http://www.sectionrubis.fr/IMG/jpg/DSC00562.jpg

- hight lewel of magnetic field (the same source)
correct

-only four torpedo tubes
correct :132:
-high noise lewel
Only at high speed

some russians experts compare rubis to november-class. is only good torpedoes gives rubis advantages against november.


If you would know if a submarine has a pumpjet or not here is a lot of pictures http://forummarine.forumactif.com/france-f1/question-sur-nos-sna-t4089-30.htm

[dd149]

Good points Nemo waiwe the flag.:bud:
The acoustic detection suite of the French subs is not as bad as other characteristics, being selected over German competition quite often by Diesel sub buyers.

[dyshman]

i mean Rubis not sufren when i've compared. of course, sufren will be perfect and functional, but it will in 2016. i think, that mod-team should include only existing and "well known" subs, not perspective. may be, sufren,like rubis, firstly will have some problems (its usual situation with newest types of any mechanisms) i perfectly understand, it just game, but "simulator", how can we simulate non-existing subs? may be we'll want to add some russian perspective subs, like graney or borey, or others unrealesed projects like "957-Kedr" or "958-Afalina"?
personally i'm prefare drive old subs, like victors of sturgeons. it help me to think much and be patient.
does we are guilty what France built only 3 types of nuclear subs? if you want to win your battles, use old designs against rubis, as she was constructed against victors of charlies.
lets add to the game dark-star, only for gameplay!!!
now we only have awesome pictures of sufren insted of really existed graney, which will be launched within month.

[Lau]

i perfectly understand, it just game, but "simulator", how can we simulate non-existing subs?

Sorry to say it again but you do not seem to read all posts, what about RED OCTOBER? Startreck... I say this but I have nothing against this idea, I feel it is so nice to be able to play as Ramius from time to time. Plus I have big projects of multistation games with fully crewed subs to revive The Hunt of Red October during international events. I am just waiting for the new release of RAmod to come in order to build scenario :rolleyes

may be we'll want to add some russian perspective subs, like graney or borey, or others unrealesed projects like "957-Kedr" or "958-Afalina"?

Personally I would have nothing against it, after all we all build the scenarios according to our needs. It is not because a platform is in the data base that you need to use it. Can you think a little about the others in your perspective of things :152:


personally i'm prefare drive old subs, like victors of sturgeons. it help me to think much and be patient. does we are guilty what France built only 3 types of nuclear subs? if you want to win your battles, use old designs against rubis, as she was constructed against victors of charlies.

Yes we already do this in order to use the French sub kindly designed by the RA team, really even if their performances are not correctly modeled we really enjoy them. As Goldorack said, we need to strive for players to stop using the same 1-2 platforms all the time. Personally I fight for this idea every day, using the French Sub vs more modern units, its a good way to become a good captain as when you get in more recent sub...:bud:


lets add to the game dark-star, only for gameplay!!!
now we only have awesome pictures of sufren insted of really existed graney, which will be launched within month.

We only made a request to the RAmoders and we are doing our best to provide you with the best information we can, also explaining the reasons of our motivations which are more legitime than only a startreck story.

You are not the one playing with very low performances sub, belive me if all Russian or American subs had the same problem we French have, I am sure you will be on our side.

By the way the invitation to join our games was serious, we need more players willing to play in Victor I, II

Greetings,

Lau

[dd149]

When playing with Amethyste, and probably also Rubis, we experience game crash after variable time, but seems to occur in any case.
Do you think that a particular characteristic of these new playables may cause it? Solved by a fix in the interfaces that was not installed by one of the players, please consider this bug settled, thanks to te team for the fix.

By the way may we get some information on the work in progress after you fixed the "flying icebergs"?

[goldorak]

If you would know if a submarine has a pumpjet or not here is a lot of pictures http://forummarine.forumactif.com/france-f1/question-sur-nos-sna-t4089-30.htm


:52::52::52::52::52::52: that forum is a real treasure trove.
I've bookmarked it and started reading some threads. Real cool stuff.

:D

[dd149]

:52::52::52::52::52::52: that forum is a real treasure trove.
I've bookmarked it and started reading some threads. Real cool stuff.

:D

Same here:D

[kpv1974]

http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_021c.html

[dd149]

@Kpv1974, this is what we do here cheers:bud:

[dd149]

1) When launching Stallion or ASW, the torpedo disappears from the map ass soon as it enters water after parachute descent, is it normal or due to some coding problem?
2) Lada detection range for towed array seems to be 5 to 6nm, is it correct in your opinion.
3) UGST torpedoes max depth programming value is 515m, is it correct?
4) It seems that a lot of players from our forums are desperate for Suffren Barracuda type playable sub, so we all join the request, we can try to arrange 3d model and are ready to help with sub parameters. You can contact me either here or by pm to discuss the possibility.

[Jaf]

1) When launching Stallion or ASW, the torpedo disappears from the map ass soon as it enters water after parachute descent, is it normal or due to some coding problem?
2) Lada detection range for towed array seems to be 5 to 6nm, is it correct in your opinion.
3) UGST torpedoes max depth programming value is 515m, is it correct?
4) It seems that a lot of players from our forums are desperate for Suffren Barracuda type playable sub, so we all join the request, we can try to arrange 3d model and are ready to help with sub parameters. You can contact me either here or by pm to discuss the possibility.

1) Due to the fact that it is necessary to transfer presets from a rocket through the chute to the torpedo.

2) Under what circumstances did you conduct the tests? I just detect B.Franklin (5kts) on 11.5nm with Lada`s TA

3) Max. operational depth for UGST is ~515m=564yards.
(See ...\Manual\RA_Weapon_Info_rev2.pdf)

4) It all depends on what decision take CrazyIvan after considering all the pros and cons. If decision will positive - creating of Suffren will be only a matter of time.

[dd149]

Spassiba for your quick answer Jaf!

[MSNemo]

No problem with the LADA TA i can detect a 688FLTIII at 11.2nm, speed 7kts for the lada and 688

[goldorak]

2) Lada detection range for towed array seems to be 5 to 6nm, is it correct in your opinion.


No, the range is a lot more. It depends obviously on the SSP but 5 to 6 nm is too short in standard conditions. In RA you really really have to set the monitor gamma setting to an optimum value. Otherwise, and especially on subs such as the Lada and the new Akula II Improved that use red/orange color for signals, you might not see signals that are there. You have to calibrate the monitor correctly, if its a bit too dark, some really faint 50/60 hz tonals wil not be visibile at all. At subguru.com you can download the zip file containing Timmy g00 tactical manual, together with the manual is an image that people can use to calibrate correctly the pc monitor to use at maximum efficiency the sonar station.

[dd149]

No, the range is a lot more. It depends obviously on the SSP but 5 to 6 nm is too short in standard conditions. In RA you really really have to set the monitor gamma setting to an optimum value. Otherwise, and especially on subs such as the Lada and the new Akula II Improved that use red/orange color for signals, you might not see signals that are there. You have to calibrate the monitor correctly, if its a bit too dark, some really faint 50/60 hz tonals wil not be visibile at all. At subguru.com you can download the zip file containing Timmy g00 tactical manual, together with the manual is an image that people can use to calibrate correctly the pc monitor to use at maximum efficiency the sonar station.

Thanks! I didn't realize that this and not the sound physics might be the problem? I will ask our member to check that.

[goldorak]

Thanks! I didn't realize that this and not the sound physics might be the problem? I will ask our member to check that.

You can set a baseline value directly in the dangerouswaters.ini file. There is an entry .gamma . Choosing between 0.65 and 0.67 might be a good thing.

Now if you're using XP and Nvidia cards, its possible to associate hotkeys with tha gamma. So you can change dynamically the gamma during the games. Its what I use normally. The default dangerouswaters.ini .gamma value for all the stations, except sonar station where I increase the gamma through the hotkeys. You most assuredly don't want to have a high gamma on all stations since that will be painfull for the eyes. You don't want to play blindly. :80:

I think you can do the same thing on Vista and 7 for Nvidia and AMD cards.

[MSNemo]

Small question why not add the TB-29A on 688FLTIII.
TB-29A replaces the TB-23 for a while now.
It's just a suggestion ;)

[Jaf]

For those who waited and hoped (MilleSabords and oth.) :)

[dd149]

Very very good news:D, thanks a lot to the team, how can we help from France?

[dd149]

By the way Tlam Strike has prepared a nice 3d model of the SSBN Le Triomphant, would you be interested to get it? He has no problem with its use in RA 1.2

[MSNemo]

MESSAGE FOR RA TEAM:

I propose the line of reflexion;

If we take the units currently under construction or finished in 5 years.
We have:
-Suffren
-Astute
-Borei
-Graney

Rather than redo an update of the mod in the coming years, it would 't it be easier to add these units now?
To ensure the survival of the game and RA mod.

[dd149]

I understand that the Borei is already under development for the next release (at least seen the 3d model in some posts)?
It is also true that Astute is already being commissioned.
For Graney we don't know what is RA team's opinion as it is your country's project.
For Suffren and Le Triomphant we are glad if you agree to develop them.

[Jaf]

To date, no plans to add new managed platforms.
Perhaps in the future, who knows... :)

[dd149]

Anyway your work to improve the game is also very important and impressive, thanks. We will send you information on the Suffren to help the development.
Cheers:D

[sertore]

To date, no plans to add new managed platforms.
Perhaps in the future, who knows... :)
I already miss the long list of bugs and new features that will be introduced by the new release of RA 1.1: this is why I totally stick up for a new release with the improvements agreed few weeks ago, together with the fixing of all the bugs reported. :D
Then you will have all the time to develop all the new requested class platforms and units, leaving the DW addicteds free to play with a more stable version of your superb MOD. ;)

[Lau]

1)Mirror signal in towed array does not produce WAA RNG. Shouldnt mirror signal be identical in all ways to avoid unveilling real signal to player too easely?

2) What is the possibility to add unlimited number of trackers in sonar stations for multiple target following purpose?

[goldorak]

1)Mirror signal in towed array does not produce WAA RNG. Shouldnt mirror signal be identical in all ways to avoid unveilling real signal to player too easely?


If you think about it, its normal the WAA doesn't produce range information on mirror contacts. Mirror contacts exist only within the towed arrays system because of how this peculiar sonar works.
The bow array doesn't indicate mirror contacts, and neither does the WAA they only show true contacts. So no bug here.

[CrazyIvan]

-Reinforce Alert- DWX 1.1 has been released.

Check Up Link at first post this theme.

[dd149]

-Reinforce Alert- DWX 1.1 has been released.

Check Up Link at first post this theme.
French team says thanks a lot, we are going to test as soon as possible:bud:

[goldorak]

Many thanks to all the RA mod team. :D
Downloading right now and will take the Type 212 with BlackShark and the new Barracuda for a spin. :pilot

[CrazyIvan]

Many thanks to all the RA mod team. :D
Downloading right now and will take the Type 212 with BlackShark and the new Barracuda for a spin. :pilot

enjoy !

[cayman]

here comes the firework! :D:80::80:
best regards to RA team!:bud:

[CrazyIvan]

here comes the firework! :D:80::80:
best regards to RA team!:bud:

Tnx !

[cayman]

Jimmy Carter
Suffren SSN
BlackShark Torp
.........Fucking great! damn good!

Bravo, RA team!

[CrazyIvan]

Say - Enjoy... :-)

[cayman]

Delta IV SSBN, amazing model!

[Von Faust]

Thanks to all RA mod Team :bud::)

[Castout]

Let's sink some North Korean corvette . . . in game with RA :32:

Thank you for the developers of RA. Your work is much enjoyed and appreciated. Simply put the best supermod for DW.:rolleyes

[goldorak]

Ok guys,

Here is my first feedback :D

Wonderful, the Black Shark is amazing for its wake homing capability and is a nice complement to the A184 Mod 3. Good thing the BS can't be loaded on all tubes, but only in 5 and 6. So the maximum amount is limited to 6 at least on the 212.

The Suffren is cool, and the new periscope reticle on the kilo/alfa and other russian subs is wicked. We now have a very simple and quick way to determine range to surface and air contacts.

The only thing I wish was back from the precedent version is the ship control station for the Type 212, Collins and Harushio. I don't understand why the old high tech control was substituted with the russian one. %)

My first bug report : selecting the iranian kilo in quick mission gives a CTD when starting the mission. The error message says that the file responsabile for the crash is fctarget.dll and the address is 00020b58.

[sertore]

Thank you so much! :D

[Jaf]

The only thing I wish was back from the precedent version is the ship control station for the Type 212, Collins and Harushio. I don't understand why the old high tech control was substituted with the russian one. %)

It is payment for the transition to the metric system.

My first bug report : selecting the iranian kilo in quick mission gives a CTD when starting the mission. The error message says that the file responsabile for the crash is fctarget.dll and the address is 00020b58.

Confirm.
This will be fixed.

[CrazyIvan]

It is payment for the transition to the metric system.



Confirm.
This will be fixed.

Has been fixed.

[dd149]

Has been fixed.
Will you change de download file or issue a patch?
Thanks again:D

[CrazyIvan]

Will you change de download file or issue a patch?
Thanks again:D

Check up first post this theme.

[dd149]

Thanks, what is on your program next with RA? Other bugs chase? Other developments? We in France are eager to assist next development maybe in some database edition similar to the Millsab mod if you are interested. Our idea is that with a corrected RA core game (less bugs, more stability and nice new platforms), we would like if possible to try to have a common and as realistic as possible DB (as explained to you in PM) and also have the possibility to use purely graphic mods on top. This would hopefully bring up a common platform for interesting multiplayer games between countries as we have already done together with Italian and Polish team.

Anyway we will still test the new version and let you know if we find out any bug.

[goldorak]

@dd149 : there is no one true mod. Each mod has its plus and minuses.
Thats the beauty of having choice. I for one don't want RA to be just a lwami database with pretty graphics on it. The database the modders have chosen, and its values for the different units is what makes this particular mod compelling.
Some people like lwami, some like AT3 (that uses a variant of lwami), others like Mille-sabords mod which further changes lwami and finally some prefer RA mod.
Doing a levelling of the different databases is not a good thing in my opinion.
Just because a mod chooses a certain value, or does a thing in a certain way and another mod chooses different values and do things in some slightly different way doesn't mean that one of them is right and the other is wrong. :)

[dd149]

@dd149 : there is no one true mod. Each mod has its plus and minuses.
Thats the beauty of having choice. I for one don't want RA to be just a lwami database with pretty graphics on it. The database the modders have chosen, and its values for the different units is what makes this particular mod compelling.
Some people like lwami, some like AT3 (that uses a variant of lwami), others like Mille-sabords mod which further changes lwami and finally some prefer RA mod.
Doing a levelling of the different databases is not a good thing in my opinion.
Just because a mod chooses a certain value, or does a thing in a certain way and another mod chooses different values and do things in some slightly different way doesn't mean that one of them is right and the other is wrong. :)

Agree to a certain extent? what we like in RA is that some original game bugs are fixed, which is not the case with the other mods, thats why we feel that it is a good idea to establish it as a core of game. (no other mod provides this advantage). Provided that it is simple to switch databases pending on each ones preferences.:D

[goldorak]

Provided that it is simple to switch databases pending on each ones preferences.:D


Exactly I agree. The modders give us a baseline.
Then anyone can change the doctrines, the database (if it is open) etc... to better suit their needs and that of their playing community.
What I don't want is for the modders to publish RA mod with the lwami database or another database. They have their own visions.
And to be perfectly honest, only the people (officers and enlisted men) that serve aboard real subs/warships have any idea of what the correct values for top speed, maximum depth, maximum weapon range etc... are. And they cannot tell us. So every mod under the sun has to use public sources. And public sources give estimates. Estimates vary, Janes can publish some values, and russian sources for the same units can publish a different set of values. Which is correct ? Its a question that doesn't even make sense because unless you happen to know the real values, all else is just guessing more or less. Its nothing to lose your sleep over. And little variances account for slightly different playing schemes in the different mods. :)

[PJB]

Seawolves Navy says great job and thank you

[Castout]

Crazy Ivan the Kilo Iran Fix didn't work for me I still get CTD when picking Iranian Kilo in quickmission and selecting loadout or start playing. Am I doing something wrong?

And the fix provided chnaged the interfaces of Alfa too not the Kilo or Iranian Kilo.

[MR.Wood]

You guys did a kick ass job thank you

[CrazyIvan]

Crazy Ivan the Kilo Iran Fix didn't work for me I still get CTD when picking Iranian Kilo in quickmission and selecting loadout or start playing. Am I doing something wrong?

And the fix provided chnaged the interfaces of Alfa too not the Kilo or Iranian Kilo.


Try remove a old file 173_588_New Player.lod from a root of game.

Interface ALFA - It is correct replacement for Iranian Kilo.

[Castout]

Sweet that did the trick. I'm still going to download the whole rar. archive.

This DWX is truly a gem now I've got to sink something :157:

[Lau]

Great RA team, there are no other words :)

Thank you so much for all your efforts;)

[Lau]

@RA moders

1) Countermesures no difference in lunching from menu deep or shallow,
countermesure stays at sub depth.

2) Dive planes in Amethyste separates from hull if sub speed over 15kts

3) Dive planes disapear from Suffren if sub speed is over 15kts

4) Periscopes in french submarines are very low in water (not 1st time that I mention this)

5) Country menu in stadymiter not in alphabetical order

6) Enemy fire SSN27 generates report as TIW sound report and missile lunch report in window text box

7) TIW report sea state 3 SD at 8Nm in Amethyste depth 100m
TIW report sea state 4 BL at 8Nm in Amethyste depth 100m

Same but with enemy fire at 22Nm and no report : )

This warning was supposed to be reduced to 4Nm?

8) Are missions edited with previous version playable in new release

9) 1st part of diving process too fast to my point of view (not realistic) Is it possible to make it a bit slower, not like real but just a bit slower.

Still testing your superb mod


@Goldorak

You keep saying that data base is open and that we can modify it as we whish. Could you perhaps let us know how to modify platforms parameters, weapon loadouts and add other units?

This way we can add missing units for french fleet (FFG + Helicopter, SSBN and Plane) and modify SSN parameters to more accurate values. This only for use during internal games in MilleSabord.

Will this modified version bring some problems in MP games if modified platforms are not in game?

Greetings and thanks again to the moders for great work !

Lau

[goldorak]

You keep saying that data base is open and that we can modify it as we whish. Could you perhaps let us know how to modify platforms parameters, weapon loadouts and add other units?


Hi Lau,

I don't keep saying that the database is open.
The RA modders said that the database would be unlocked so you could edit it using the standard tools available in subguru.com. Dwedit for instance.
Once you can edit the database, modding is easy. How do you think Mille-sabords made its mod ? Lwami ? AT 3 ? They all edit the standard database and change the values. Now keep in mind, that modding only the database will give you new non playable units, for instance adding new navies and changeing maybe tunning specific values for missiles, torpedoes, subs etc...
Ask Nemo how he did the mille-sabords mod. Or in the english comunity ask Molon Labe, Tlam Strike or even Luftwolf.


This way we can add missing units for french fleet (FFG + Helicopter, SSBN and Plane) and modify SSN parameters to more accurate values. This only for use during internal games in MilleSabord.


As I said, adding non playable units is the easy part. All the modders (in mille-sabords, in subsim, and betasom) know how to do it, as well as changeing specific values. The big problem is when you want to add new playable units.
There you will need to hack into dll files and the database. Not for the weak of heart, and to learn how to do correctly it takes times.
More so if you start from zero, having no experience whatsoever.



Will this modified version bring some problems in MP games if modified platforms are not in game?

No no problems if all players use the same version of the database.

[cayman]

to RA team:
actual weapon loadout= (default loadout -1)
this bug(my opinion) still exist in many later-add platform, if you need, I could fix it one by one

[CrazyIvan]

to RA team:
actual weapon loadout= (default loadout -1)
this bug(my opinion) still exist in many later-add platform, if you need, I could fix it one by one


You have at loadoud "NONE" onboard DSRV or Special Forces?
"Sirena"? or "divers? "

I have established default loadout as carries - Special Forces.

[cayman]

You have at loadoud "NONE" onboard DSRV or Special Forces?
"Sirena"? or "divers? "

I have established default loadout as carries - Special Forces.

Only for SSBNs without DSRV & Special Forces, for example, Delta IV SSBN
the following wpnloadout.dll with two function: 1 disable SLBM loadout function. 2 usefull 24 amout
8593
8594

[cayman]

Typhoon(3 types) Ohio all get done. weapon loadout no -1 and SLBM loadout disable.

[CrazyIvan]

Typhoon(3 types) Ohio all get done. weapon loadout no -1 and SLBM loadout disable.


It nothing gives.

You can not launch the SLBM from Torpedo Tubes.

Even if you load 16 SLBM - really you can launch only 12 SLBM (Default quantity) from VLS - but not from torpedo tubes.

[cayman]

It nothing gives.

You can not launch the SLBM from Torpedo Tubes.

Even if you load 16 SLBM - really you can launch only 12 SLBM (Default quantity) from VLS - but not from torpedo tubes.

off course, that's why SLBM shouldn't waste the horizon tubes loadout.
just a detail fix, nothing more

[MSNemo]

For goldorak and all designer :)
http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php/topic,10890.0.html

[CrazyIvan]

For goldorak and all designer :)
http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php/topic,10890.0.html


Nice Pictures.


Tnx.

[goldorak]

For goldorak and all designer :)
http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php/topic,10890.0.html

Nice find Nemo. :D

[cayman]

Nice work in text.dll, "feet"<-->"meter" unit reverse fine

[CrazyIvan]

Russian Naval Symbols (Shevrons):

http://sammler.ru/index.php?showtopic=24710&st=0

[PJB]

The MPT-1UE the torp from the SS-N-27ASW rocket does not ping when searching. The usni and manual say its active/passive homing, the stallion torp says the same but you can hear and see it in active intercept. If this is not a bug then what is the range of the passive sonar for this torp pls. This was discovered in a mulit-player game and was tested with see truth on.

[cayman]

Is there any manual for Red October engine operation?

whenever I engadge ahead flank, "the Hydrodynamic propulsion system lost"

under 150m, no more than 25 kts, is that right?

[PJB]

The MPT-1UE the torp from the SS-N-27ASW rocket does not ping when searching. The usni and manual say its active/passive homing, the stallion torp says the same but you can hear and see it in active intercept. If this is not a bug then what is the range of the passive sonar for this torp pls. This was discovered in a mulit-player game and was tested with see truth on.

Oops upom further testing on a LAN Laptop to PC i discovered that pings are heard, just torp must be close to target for target to hear pings. Sry about first post. RA is the best mod ever.

[goldorak]

Is there any manual for Red October engine operation?

whenever I engadge ahead flank, "the Hydrodynamic propulsion system lost"

under 150m, no more than 25 kts, is that right?

No, try a lower threshold for speed.

[CrazyIvan]

Oops upom further testing on a LAN Laptop to PC i discovered that pings are heard, just torp must be close to target for target to hear pings. Sry about first post. RA is the best mod ever.


Torpedo should be also in acceptable depth.

If the target (OwnSub) does not get in a cone of a torpedo (both in horizontal, and in vertical) - that you nor can hear ping of a torpedo.

[goldorak]

Torpedo should be also in acceptable depth.

If the target (OwnSub) does not get in a cone of a torpedo (both in horizontal, and in vertical) - that you nor can hear ping of a torpedo.

Hi CrazyIvan,

What are the values for vertical and horizontal distance of torpedo cone ?
And is the value the same for all torpedoes ?

[CrazyIvan]

Hi CrazyIvan,

What are the values for vertical and horizontal distance of torpedo cone ?
And is the value the same for all torpedoes ?

Different.

Some of distinction are available.

see post #456 - about this aspect. (Page #12)

[Lau]

@ Goldorak & Modders

Ok I am talking with Nemo about creation of other units missing in the French fleet as well as revisiting performance and ammo load in French submarines. This will create a new data base in RA, my question is will Betasom agree to install this in order to play with MS?

If not then you will understand why I tried so much for the modders to revise Rubis and Amethyste parameters so we are able to play against other platforms in game. Yes we can play with other existent platforms in game, but same as Russian or US, we like to play with our flag colors ;)

My aim is that for international events/tournaments french team is really able to play with French platforms, therefore representing France.

This will bring new playable units as well as improved 3D models

- One French surface unit + hélicopter - based on OHP and MH60 interfaces
- One plain based on P3 interfaces
- and one SSBN based on LA interfaces (like done for Ohio)

If this project succeed I plan to add other units from the French fleet to the game.

We will need help with modding tools used by the RA modders and advice on how to do this (complete list of tools used by the team will be great so we can keep the good quality of work already done).

At the moment I am using DWedit, but it is not enough...

We can arrange conference call on TS with our Russian translator DD149 to move on with this French project.

I hope we can count on your help with this idea.

Greetings,

Lau

PS : Else perhaps RAmoders could create this for us so we can add it to the existing RAmod "dreaming has never been expensive, unless dreams become reality"

[CrazyIvan]

@ Goldorak & Modders

Ok I am talking with Nemo about creation of other units missing in the French fleet as well as revisiting performance and ammo load in French submarines. This will create a new data base in RA, my question is will Betasom agree to install this in order to play with MS?

If not then you will understand why I tried so much for the modders to revise Rubis and Amethyste parameters so we are able to play against other platforms in game. Yes we can play with other existent platforms in game, but same as Russian or US, we like to play with our flag colors ;)

My aim is that for international events/tournaments french team is really able to play with French platforms, therefore representing France.

This will bring new playable units as well as improved 3D models

- One French surface unit + hélicopter - based on OHP and MH60 interfaces
- One plain based on P3 interfaces
- and one SSBN based on LA interfaces (like done for Ohio)

If this project succeed I plan to add other units from the French fleet to the game.

We will need help with modding tools used by the RA modders and advice on how to do this (complete list of tools used by the team will be great so we can keep the good quality of work already done).

At the moment I am using DWedit, but it is not enough...

We can arrange conference call on TS with our Russian translator DD149 to move on with this French project.

I hope we can count on your help with this idea.

Greetings,

Lau

PS : Else perhaps RAmoders could create this for us so we can add it to the existing RAmod "dreaming has never been expensive, unless dreams become reality"


Before to make of mod, (even on a basis DWX), you should be familiar with the mechanics this sim.
As does work code NavalSimEngine, other executed files.
And other many, many, features ( for example data, inaccessible to change, in DWEdit.)

Aspiration to make submarines Rubis and Amethyst it is ""better" than they are actually is interestingly probably only for you.
I already spoke you concerning torpedos F17. We have established such characteristics - which are available actually.
To you will not come in a head, that is possible for the player by the helicopter MH-60 engage against Air Carrier and to destroy him?
We have made so - that the designer missions should realize - what platform, is capable to resist to other platform.
I understand your desire to have French "Seawolf" similar Sub.
However tasks -RA- of addition, were a reconstruction of the most true condition of platforms by the current moment.
And if Rubis too loud, and the torpedos F 17 not too "long range" - in it are guilty not we, and those designers which have made this real arms.
However we shall return to our theme:
When that, I gave to the recommendation for Aaken, and on the basis of it by him was made Alfa Tau 3.
Unfortunately - we have no more time for training lessons.
Sorry.

[Lau]

Hi CrazyIvan,

First of all, thank you very much for your quick reply

Before to make of mod, (even on a basis DWX), you should be familiar with the mechanics this sim.
As does work code NavalSimEngine, other executed files.
And other many, many, features ( for example data, inaccessible to change, in DWEdit.)

We are working on this, we can understand that you have no time to help, perhaps there are other members of the community that can.


Aspiration to make submarines Rubis and Amethyst it is ""better" than they are actually is interestingly probably only for you.

Not only for me, for the french community and also to use the submarines you made for us. Also for the idea of having a French virtual navy in DW for international tournaments. For this project we have time and we will work every day to build this project. In fact we alredy started.

There is no plan to build an other RA, we will play with RA your RA, we just want to continue developping new units and use them in MP games. Basically finalise the french virtual navy that you greatly started.


I already spoke you concerning torpedos F17. We have established such characteristics - which are available actually.
To you will not come in a head, that is possible for the player by the helicopter MH-60 engage against Air Carrier and to destroy him?
We have made so - that the designer missions should realize - what platform, is capable to resist to other platform.
I understand your desire to have French "Seawolf" similar Sub.
However tasks -RA- of addition, were a reconstruction of the most true condition of platforms by the current moment.
And if Rubis too loud, and the torpedos F 17 not too "long range" - in it are guilty not we, and those designers which have made this real arms.


Yes you are right on this and we have no plans to add French Seawolf or improve Rubis thrust or F17 mod 2. On the other hand we would like to add more French units based on must true condition of platforms by current moment to finalise our virtual navy.

Please do not forget that you are simply guessing french sub parameter, according to enlisted staff in the french navy that are part of MilleSabord your guess is wrong in some points. So yes it is normal that we point it out. Now if you do not want to change this it is fine with us.


However we shall return to our theme:
When that, I gave to the recommendation for Aaken, and on the basis of it by him was made Alfa Tau 3.
Unfortunately - we have no more time for training lessons.
Sorry.

Perhaps this could change in the near future, please let us know. In the mean time we will try to advance with this project.

As said before, this is a formal request and we have no plans of creating a new mod based on all your hard work. We just want to continue developing our virtual navy in RAmod, same as you did for Russian fleet.

Thank you for your great mod !

Lau

[dyshman]

hi, Lau
as i understand, your team intends to add French units. what are they?
may be patrol aircraft Atlantic? what helix you'll add? what surface ships? Tourville or Cassard?
nobody forget that you have "enlisted staff", 45 knots speed of seawolf or 700 meters diving depth of Alfa really demonstrate his "good" lewel of knowledge. whats wrong with Rubis parameters in RA? all game characteristics are actually links to reality. see my old post about Rubis.
we also have professional advisors. we personally consulted with retired navy officer, who have served on Victor III, Akula and Oscar II as weapons officer.

[MSNemo]

I think Lau is just a bit too motivated to French units.

In fact his project is to mod french units for added later to RA
We know you do not have time to meet the requirements of each so we offered you the idea that we create ourselves French units to send them to you later for possible inclusion in RA.

Primarily we would like to add the ATL, Lynx, George Leygues.
Possibly a SSBN.

To return to the topic of Amethyst and Ruby.
The programming of Amethyste does not shock me
For Ruby it is more difficult because they have been redesigned to take the standard Amethyste.

[dd149]

I concur with Nemo,

We understand that you are busy with modifications and corrections in the core game engine and exe codes. The results are already impressive and all players can touch by themselves how better the game has become.

Our idea was to base on your core work and to try to add some more units, not to disturb you with unwanted distractions. The mods would be free for everybody to add in future obviously.

The units we want to add are already made clear by Nemo and Lau.

The job to get 3d models and to mod whatever has to be modded (DB and interfaces) would be ours entirely. This should be possible without interfering to the core (hopefully:42:).

Thanks for opening the exchange with us anyway and again thanks for the great improvements.

Can you tell us on which part you are now working?

DW has already become much better from the community efforts, and .we believe that we can maybe push it even further if all agree to share some development work, what is your idea on that?;):

[Lau]

hi, Lau
as i understand, your team intends to add French units. what are they?
may be patrol aircraft Atlantic? what helix you'll add? what surface ships? Tourville or Cassard?
nobody forget that you have "enlisted staff", 45 knots speed of seawolf or 700 meters diving depth of Alfa really demonstrate his "good" lewel of knowledge. whats wrong with Rubis parameters in RA? all game characteristics are actually links to reality. see my old post about Rubis.
we also have professional advisors. we personally consulted with retired navy officer, who have served on Victor III, Akula and Oscar II as weapons officer.

Hi Dyshman,

Yes you are correct our aim is extension of french fleet, same as you did for Russian fleet. Units as mentioned by Nemo.

This will be hard without your help, but in the same way you dreamed about RA before making it, we think of french fleet and we will do our best to build it, even sending you a box of french wine :)

With RA you have opened ways out of what seemed impossible, so here we are, also willing to have our fleet to play with french units during international tournaments. Any virtual fleet will dream of this, just because we love DW.

If you do not have the time to do this at least provide us with the basic information to accomplish this part of the development and once done integrate it in RA mod if you want. Or if you do not want to share, then perhaps a little help in adding these units with what ever values your professional advisors will suggest.

We have discussed our startreck story before, so lets not start again. You added Suffren for us and I am so happy that we can count on your help and the great mod that you have created. So our aim is not to say you are not doing your mod correctly, we know it is not easy to compile such an amount of information, so well done!

For us it will be a long process to get the know how to add the extra platforms of the french fleet, but if necessary we are ready to try. On the other hand for you it is an easy task as you already know the ins and outs of the DW Navalsymengine etc...

If you have no time to do this we can easely understand, thas all, very simple question.

We are a very active community and actively organising international challenges with other virtual fleets, the making of a french fleet with good game play will also benefit other virtual fleets as they will face new and different units, therefore making the game more interesting.

game play : what is the point in making french units that are too weak, nobody will use them. Yes you are right, museums are full of units that have no place in a modern warfare. Lets face it, it is hard to allways organise missions with old platforms, however a mix of bad, average and good platforms gives more choice and veriety of missions. So lets keep the fun in the game for the french team and other navies playing against us in friendly meetings.

did I say "thank you for your great mod" :bud:

Lau

[dyshman]

hi, Lau
of course, you are right. i'm partly agree with french community. we are respect your patriotic feelings, but main body of RA-team(who knows how to operate with .dll-files and navalsimengine: CrazyIvan, kpv974 and Jaf) made some platforms (like Victors I&II, Sturgeons and Harushio) hardly by my personal promise. i have started asking it more then year ago. personally I'm cant operate coding, and i can say, that I'm with some others man's, are "axillary staff" of RA-team. finding some information, consults, online-testing its our tasks.
CrazyIval told me that he bored to death with coding and making doctrines.
asking me to add new units is pointless gob. Ask CrazyIvan for it. May be, i repeat, MAY BE he will add it. probably he will consult you haw to make it later.(its only because "main body" bored to death with coding and troubleshooting)it only one reason why CrazyIvan do not want to do it NOW. lets them relax and enjoy playing :))) are you agree, i hope?
what about online-meetengs, lets one fine evening we or you community participate mutual "battles"? we usually use OpenVPN conecting, rare Hamachi. post here if you interests

[cayman]

hi, Lau
CrazyIval told me that he bored to death with coding and making doctrines.

1000% agree;) I just finish building XIA SSBN play unit(add on base DWX1.1), I'm exhausted. but thanks to the hardwork RA team have done, building new playable unit is faster and better than before.
only when you build the units and mess with those dll files all by yourself then you can understand how oustanding work the RA team have achieved, and how hard it is.
once again! bravo! RA team. I salute you
:pilot

[goldorak]

Frankly more players should realise that we are NOT entitled to anything.
After all we are enjoying a free mod, a very complex piece of software made over the course of several years by a team of talented coders/modders.
No one can criticise CrazyIvan or any other mod member because they don't want or don't feel like adding another playable unit. They do this as a hobby not as a full time job, full time paid job I mean. And even with all the critics, CrazyIvan and others have been quite forthcoming to the wishes of the different player communities. God know how many things I asked him to modify etc... :) And most of the time he has not turned a deaf ear.
But if he doesn't want to add new playables or doesn't want to write an extensive documentation on the inner working of RA, whatever his reasons are we must accept it and leave it at that.
There is no point in continuosly prodding him, it is kind of rude if you get my drift.

If some player communities are so invested in having a complete playable national navy modelled in RA then its time to take the challenge. Study the mod, learn to mod and hack the code etc... It takes time and commitment.
RA was not made in a day, and neither will the extensions that some communities are asking for.

[cayman]

XIA Class has 2 types actually. type 1, old one, the loudest nuke sub in the world; type 2, as 92G(G, meaning in chinese is improve).

so , I build 2 types of XIA class with different parameters: sound level; missile launch speed and depth limit;sonar;weapons;....etc, all base on reality and public knowledge

well, let the pictures speak
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xiag5.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xiag5.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xiag4.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xiag4.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xiag3.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xiag3.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xiag2.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xiag2.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xiag1.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xiag1.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xia5.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xia5.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xia4.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xia4.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xia3.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xia3.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xia2.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xia2.jpg)
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/th_xia1.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/caymanlee/DWX/Xia%20DWX/?action=view&current=xia1.jpg)

now, I'm hunting for good models for 093(SSN) 094(SSBN) YUAN class SONG class, it take times to build a navy. if you guys have useful resource, please feel free to enlight me

[Lau]

Frankly more players should realise that we are NOT entitled to anything.
After all we are enjoying a free mod, a very complex piece of software made over the course of several years by a team of talented coders/modders.
No one can criticise CrazyIvan or any other mod member because they don't want or don't feel like adding another playable unit. They do this as a hobby not as a full time job, full time paid job I mean. And even with all the critics, CrazyIvan and others have been quite forthcoming to the wishes of the different player communities. God know how many things I asked him to modify etc... :) And most of the time he has not turned a deaf ear.
But if he doesn't want to add new playables or doesn't want to write an extensive documentation on the inner working of RA, whatever his reasons are we must accept it and leave it at that.
There is no point in continuosly prodding him, it is kind of rude if you get my drift.

If some player communities are so invested in having a complete playable national navy modelled in RA then its time to take the challenge. Study the mod, learn to mod and hack the code etc... It takes time and commitment.
RA was not made in a day, and neither will the extensions that some communities are asking for.

Thank you Goldorak, but no need to defend RA team as no one is critisizing CrazyIvan or trying to be addamant on RA team, why should we do this ? We are just talking about future developments that we would like in RA mod so please cool down.

For the rest of your message I agree with you and we already are doing as much as we can to mod and create the rest of the french fleet. Also understand that as we speak the french community are playing every day and having fun with the RAmod, they play with many different platforms according to variety of scenarios. Sorry my messages did not reflect this as my part of the job is developping international events with other virtual navies and really think of completing a French virtual Navy. I do this for the french community and of curse for me. As Dyshman pointed out it is normal feeling he did the same and also you Goldorak and of curse we can wait, havent we already waited so long for RAmod, exchanging backwards and forwards messaged, perfecting the mod to this fantastic stage, so yes we fully support RAmod team and of curse they deserve to rest and yes we know we havent got any rights and have no intentions to have any. So no point in taking the conversation this way...

@Dyshman/Goldorak : We also play via IP so yes no problem to meet in a day of your convenience, let us know so we can check availability with other team members from the french team.

Lau

[cayman]

This will bring new playable units as well as improved 3D models

- One French surface unit + hélicopter - based on OHP and MH60 interfaces
- One plain based on P3 interfaces
- and one SSBN based on LA interfaces (like done for Ohio)

If this project succeed I plan to add other units from the French fleet to the game.


french friends, your plans is viable, my advice: one step at a time, building a new playable Sub would be an easier start. if you already have a detail-fine Le Triomphant SSBN 3D model(or any other subs), I could make it playable for you.

[Von Faust]

Hi, I have a problem with setting of TU-Bear air dropped torpedo.
With MPT-1UE (the torpedo control is similar Mk-50 air dropped torpedo correct ?) how can I set the value of FLOOR for example to 31000....21000... ?
The max value that I can insert is 13122.

It's possible to limit the maximum altitude and speed from which to launch the torpedoes or sonobuoys ? Launch from 10.000 meters at 620 knot is not too real ;-))))

Thank You !!!

[dd149]

french friends, your plans is viable, my advice: one step at a time, building a new playable Sub would be an easier start. if you already have a detail-fine Le Triomphant SSBN 3D model(or any other subs), I could make it playable for you.
We have a decent lodel available of LE Triomphant, made by TLam Strike:D

[dd149]

XIA Class has 2 types actually. type 1, old one, the loudest nuke sub in the world; type 2, as 92G(G, meaning in chinese is improve).

so , I build 2 types of XIA class with different parameters: sound level; missile launch speed and depth limit;sonar;weapons;....etc, all base on reality and public knowledge



now, I'm hunting for good models for 093(SSN) 094(SSBN) YUAN class SONG class, it take times to build a navy. if you guys have useful resource, please feel free to enlight me
Did you try to contact Tlam Strike in the Subsim forums? I guess he has developed some of these. I can ask him if you are note registered there.

[cayman]

We have a decent lodel available of LE Triomphant, made by TLam Strike:D

the one in LWAMI3.10 or something else ? have pictures?

[dd149]

the one in LWAMI3.10 or something else ? have pictures?
He did it for us but I am not sure if he also used it for Lwami 3.10? I will ask him.

[cayman]

He did it for us but I am not sure if he also used it for Lwami 3.10? I will ask him.

as I can see, this model isn't in the LWAMI3.10, the one now in LWAMI3.10 is the old one back to the SCX age. this new 3D modle style is somekind like the new Asute in LWAMI3.10, painting is nice, the the 3D structure is not as good as the old one. 3D model is not just for eye candy, its structure parameters are actually maters to the database setup and some dll files editing like: Masts, snorkel depth, SAM launching position.... I suggest you guys build a better and accurate 3D model, like the 3D models that Jaf have built. if you want to base on 688I interface, a best 3D model should have the exact same names of those animate parts of tubes in 688I 3D model

but if all of you,my french friends are agree to use this one, fine by me. I would build it anyway

[dyshman]

cayman, why you have choose Xia SSBN to make it playable? why not Han SSN or Shang-093? this platform is dead during on-line and off-line games. no one wants to "die" within 5 minutes term. or not? :)

[goldorak]

cayman, why you have choose Xia SSBN to make it playable? why not Han SSN or Shang-093? this platform is dead during on-line and off-line games. no one wants to "die" within 5 minutes term. or not? :)

It depends. It would be pretty sad if the only playable subs in RA were the most modern ones. The Xia has its place, and you can design missions in the southeast asia where for instance Australians and Japanese go against the Cinese. Why do we have to put the Russians and Americans in everywhere ? :P
Just some time ago, the french designed a very interesting multiplayer mission were the blue side mostly composed of seawolfs, 688 and perry frigates (they were using lwami) went against a cinese force, surface and subsurface. The endgame was to deny 3 cinese SSBN entry to the south cinese sea. Imagine if instead of the americans they had used collins and harushios, and the opfor kilos and xia ? :bud: It would have made for an exciting mission.
I think its nice to have units that span several decades. It gives mission designers more creative freedom. I mean if people play on Kilos why not on Xias ?

[dyshman]

not, i mean that using playable Han or Shang gives to designers more freedom to create more interesting missions than Xia-s.
why only american and russian units? RA has british, german, australian, iranian subs. to our pleasure)))

[goldorak]

not, i mean that using playable Han or Shang gives to designers more freedom to create more interesting missions than Xia-s.


Why not ? ^_^ Yes playing a SSBN is not exactly a thrilling proposition, but you can always make stalking missions, or doomsday scenarios.


why only american and russian units? RA has british, german, australian, iranian subs. to our pleasure)))

You know what I mean. Its a simple observation that in RA over 50% of all playable units are russian and american. The reasons for this are obvious, nontheless other minor navies are underrepresented.
To me its not so much having lots and lots of modern units as having more "classic" cold war era units. Just from the russian side I'd love to see the sierras, the foxtrots, the novembers etc... The soviet navy produced such a staggering amount of diverse models during the cold war, some of that goodness I would like to see in the mod as playables. And of course the same thing for the american side, although they made less models overall.
As for the other navies, their role during the cold war was pretty much insignificant.

[dd149]

as I can see, this model isn't in the LWAMI3.10, the one now in LWAMI3.10 is the old one back to the SCX age. this new 3D modle style is somekind like the new Asute in LWAMI3.10, painting is nice, the the 3D structure is not as good as the old one. 3D model is not just for eye candy, its structure parameters are actually maters to the database setup and some dll files editing like: Masts, snorkel depth, SAM launching position.... I suggest you guys build a better and accurate 3D model, like the 3D models that Jaf have built. if you want to base on 688I interface, a best 3D model should have the exact same names of those animate parts of tubes in 688I 3D model

but if all of you,my french friends are agree to use this one, fine by me. I would build it anyway

I am consulting with our friends. Could you give us maybe some more specific corrections that you would like to be in the model?

[cayman]

cayman, why you have choose Xia SSBN to make it playable? why not Han SSN or Shang-093? this platform is dead during on-line and off-line games. no one wants to "die" within 5 minutes term. or not? :)

frankly, the main reason is I don't have good models for those Subs

for a public game play concern, Xia, the loudest SSBN ever, surely have its place, if you can drive a Xia to run away from the SSN21 hunting, isn't that funny micracle? that must be quite a challenge

for a personal level, of course, I would like to build 093 Shang SSN and 094 Jin SSBN, I've already prepare the exact weapons and sensors for them, now, what I should do is : chase Jaf's favor to build them:80:

[cayman]

I am consulting with our friends. Could you give us maybe some more specific corrections that you would like to be in the model?

casue the parameters in 3D model is actually base on real thing with certain scale, so only one standard: the model looks as good as the real sub.
like the SSN21 model in DWX1.1, that's the most accurate model ever in DW,, looks better, and work better in simulation(especially when it float to snorkel depth..etc) than the original one

the old model of Le Trio(in the SCX, now in LWAMI3.10) would be better choice for correction, I think you can ask Jaf for suggestion, he make those best models, including Suffren

[Alexey79]

Вопрос ко всем людям уважающим DW и DWX+RA. Есть ли сервера для DWX+RA? Если есть то укажите какие. Если нет то укажите дни, время и IP хоста чтобы присоединиться. Время указывайте желательно московское. Могу только на российских подлодках, другой техникой не владею.

[CrazyIvan]

Вопрос ко всем людям уважающим DW и DWX+RA. Есть ли сервера для DWX+RA? Если есть то укажите какие. Если нет то укажите дни, время и IP хоста чтобы присоединиться. Время указывайте желательно московское. Могу только на российских подлодках, другой техникой не владею.

This is worldwide discussion.

We ask to observe the standard language of dialogue - English.:168:

[dd149]

This is worldwide discussion.

We ask to observe the standard language of dialogue - English.:168:

Thanks for those of us, who are not really fluent in russian;)

[cayman]

Project 885
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_4312438_1.html

It's time for RA team to considering " Borey and Graney " :bud:
they are huge and the real dangerous animals in 21st century

[dd149]

Project 885
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_4312438_1.html

It's time for RA team to considering " Borey and Graney " :bud:
they are huge and the real dangerous animals in 21st century

Agreed:bud:

[dd149]

And why not some quiet and stealthy midget submarines to be used in "Land of morning calm" scenarios.;)

[cayman]

And why not some quiet and stealthy midget submarines to be used in "Land of morning calm" scenarios.;)

I think LWAMI3.10 mod just develop a lot of midget subs to do that

[dd149]

I think LWAMI3.10 mod just develop a lot of midget subs to do that

True, but they are not playable.

[sertore]

Dear RA modders, here is a multiplayer mission that we played yesterday night, experiencing some queer and not understandable behaviours.

Recapping our feelings:

the Akula at 50m and speed 6knots, was detected by the Akula 2, at depth 505m with layer at 280m, from more than 10nm with all sonars (and viceversa)
the Akula 2, at the same navigation conditions, heard the Harushio sailing at 3knots at more than 20nm
sometime, during the game and without any apparent reason, all the sensors were blinded for few minutes, and was not possible detect other units even if located at less than 1nm of distance


This is not the first time that we experienced the stellar sensitivity of sonars with the new version of RA 1.1 MOD: maybe the environmental conditions have an unexpected impact on sonar performance? Or did you changed the sonars sensitivity for gameplay reasons?

Can you please check and let us know your impressions?

Thanks in advance for support,
Sertore

PS: to let the scenario playable in single player you have to edit it moving the units of side 0 more far from the AO: I did not do it to avoid to change something, possibly wrong, in original file played.

[CrazyIvan]

Dear RA modders, here is a multiplayer mission that we played yesterday night, experiencing some queer and not understandable behaviours.


Recapping our feelings:

the Akula at 50m and speed 6knots, was detected by the Akula 2, at depth 505m with layer at 280m, from more than 10nm with all sonars (and viceversa)
the Akula 2, at the same navigation conditions, heard the Harushio sailing at 3knots at more than 20nm
sometime, during the game and without any apparent reason, all the sensors were blinded for few minutes, and was not possible detect other units even if located at less than 1nm of distance

This is not the first time that we experienced the stellar sensitivity of sonars with the new version of RA 1.1 MOD: maybe the environmental conditions have an unexpected impact on sonar performance? Or did you changed the sonars sensitivity for gameplay reasons?

Can you please check and let us know your impressions?

Thanks in advance for support,
Sertore

PS: to let the scenario playable in single player you have to edit it moving the units of side 0 more far from the AO: I did not do it to avoid to change something, possibly wrong, in original file played.

To: Sertore
>>sometime, during the game and without any apparent reason, all the sensors were blinded for few minutes, and was not possible detect other units even if located at less than 1nm of distance.

Probably, after explosion, part of contacts - washout from sensors.

Because of large distance - you can not receive the message " Conn, Sonar: Loud Explosion on the bearing XXX ", however, contact can be short-term is lost from sonar the control.

Check up this condition - any platforms at the moment (or before) washout sonars were blown up?


You write - >>> the Akula at 50m and speed 6knots, was detected by the Akula 2, at depth 505m with layer at 280m, from more than 10nm with all sonars (and viceversa)<<<


In test mission - I do not see such conditions.

What there it is necessary to look ?

[sertore]

Thanks for prompt reply.

About blinds of sonars we already supposed an explosion of something similar that did the washout the sensors: I am not able to reproduce the context to simulate the absence of sensitivity without any big sound before, but we will try to better report any further anomalous behaviour of this type.

About the mission I did a slightly change to let you able to see the enemy units (sorry for that, I miss you are not able to see anything with the original version of mission; please choose Akula II): I have to say that I tried to reproduce the extraordinary sensitivity of sonars in single player without success, but surely you can see the bad bug related to the mirror contact present on also conformal or spheric array on Akula II.
In any case you can check that the layer is not so hard like in the past (look at signature of Los Angeles, always present even if on surface and you are hundreds of feets under the layer).

I will try again, but I do not want that the change of sensitivity of sonars happens just during multiplayer games, when I am absolutely sure about the presence of queer sonars behaviour: maybe can you try the mission in multiplayer too?

Thanks for patient and continuos help.

EDIT: talking with Goldorak at Betasom, that participated to a multiplayer of our the last week, he confirmed me that was able to detect a Kilo at lower speed (<5knots) using the TA of a Seawolf from about 28nm; in the same game session I was able to detect an DE 212 (sailing no more than 15knots) using the conformal sonar of a Kilo Improved Klub from more than 20nm, and an IT 212 at 3knots at the same distance.
The issue seems to be finally related to the multiplayer environment and not reproducible in a single player mission.
Hope this help anyway to investigate about the problem.

EDIT2: Von Faust suggested a possible explanation of sonar washout: is it possible that the active ping of near sonobuoys can blind the sonar screens for few minutes? Unfortunately, about the improved sonar sensitivity, he confirmed that in single player everything works fine: again, seems that the issue is present in multiplayer session only.

[CrazyIvan]

OK - I understand concerning a sonars problem in the MULTIPLAYER.

However I can not say yet now - whether we can check up multiplay game through debbuger to copying noise signatures and other data, necessary for investigation this problem.

You played these missions on the original 104 versions, or LWAMi mod?

It is necessary to understand - is stock a problem, or introduced bug during modification game.

[goldorak]

OK - I understand concerning a sonars problem in the MULTIPLAYER.

However I can not say yet now - whether we can check up multiplay game through debbuger to copying noise signatures and other data, necessary for investigation this problem.

You played these missions on the original 104 versions, or LWAMi mod?

It is necessary to understand - is stock a problem, or introduced bug during modification game.

The missions sertore is refering to, the one played yesterday and the one played last week when I participated were both played with RA 1.1 final.

[sertore]

OK - I understand concerning a sonars problem in the MULTIPLAYER.

However I can not say yet now - whether we can check up multiplay game through debbuger to copying noise signatures and other data, necessary for investigation this problem.

You played these missions on the original 104 versions, or LWAMi mod?

It is necessary to understand - is stock a problem, or introduced bug during modification game.
As far as I know, we did not see this type of issue before, even on the first version of RA 1.1, where we found rather the sonar sensitivity a little poor: this is why my first question was - "Did you change the sonars sensitivity for gameplay reasons?".

At the moment we are confident that this type of issue was introduced by the last version of RA 1.1, the newest one, while the old ones work fine, like the stock game patched 1.04 and the LWAMI modded game.

We will perform some tries, playing the same mission with the previous version of RA 1.1, letting you know the result.

Thanks.

[cayman]

to CrazyIvan
AIP subs engine shift mechanism?
In Collins type 212...cause you use Akula shipcontrol interface, can't find a shift button between the diesel engine and the electric engine, so , how is it works?

[dd149]

We understand the the sound model was substantially changed for the last version of RA 1.1., but why should it only affect multiplayer games, another bug in the navsimengine?

[whiskey111]

I'm trying to download the mod but server dosn't response at all. Is there any alternative source of downloading ?

[dd149]

I'm trying to download the mod but server dosn't response at all. Is there any alternative source of downloading ?
It seems to be working on my end, do you have firewall, provider restrictions to access it?

[PJB]

Error found in manual it says W55 warhead is 500KG TNT. After looking in DB it has a weapons range of 500000. I looked in net and discovered that the W55 warhead is a nuke. No big error just that in Seawolves Virtual Navy we have a no nuke policy unless authorized( like in real life). The UUM-44 is now on our nuke list. Maybe a future manual fix. Still a great mod you guys have. Also been reading that many multi player matches are happening. Maybe someone is up to the challange to take on the seawolves in a friendly little war. Also one of our members has made and installer that installs RA so that it is JGSME friendly.

CAPT PJB
FC 6th Fleet SVN

[CrazyIvan]

Error found in manual it says W55 warhead is 500KG TNT. After looking in DB it has a weapons range of 500000. I looked in net and discovered that the W55 warhead is a nuke. No big error just that in Seawolves Virtual Navy we have a no nuke policy unless authorized( like in real life). The UUM-44 is now on our nuke list. Maybe a future manual fix. Still a great mod you guys have. Also been reading that many multi player matches are happening. Maybe someone is up to the challange to take on the seawolves in a friendly little war. Also one of our members has made and installer that installs RA so that it is JGSME friendly.

CAPT PJB
FC 6th Fleet SVN

From "!DWX_RA_1_1_OPFOR_INFO.TXT" document (attached in RA mod Archive) :

The database is edited specially.
As the hard coded physics of game works incorrectly, some inputs in a database were specially edited. That that you see in a Database - not mistakes.

[PJB]

From "!DWX_RA_1_1_OPFOR_INFO.TXT" document (attached in RA mod Archive) :

The database is edited specially.
As the hard coded physics of game works incorrectly, some inputs in a database were specially edited. That that you see in a Database - not mistakes.

DB is correct i just meant the manual says the warhead is 500 kg TNT but it is 5 KT nuke. It works correctly in game just at SVN we dont allow nukes unless in mission and 1 player found this weapon very good, too good for 500 kg TNT. So i checked DB and discovered it is nuke weapon. Maybe fix for manual at some later time. Not a real bug just thought you might want to know this.

[CrazyIvan]

DB is correct i just meant the manual says the warhead is 500 kg TNT but it is 5 KT nuke. It works correctly in game just at SVN we dont allow nukes unless in mission and 1 player found this weapon very good, too good for 500 kg TNT. So i checked DB and discovered it is nuke weapon. Maybe fix for manual at some later time. Not a real bug just thought you might want to know this.


No. Many types of the weapon are used conventional warheads -SS-N-21 Sampson, AS-15 Kent (Kh-65 ALCM) UUM-44, etc.etc.
And Tomahawk (TLAM) - is capable to carry nuclear payload. But it is not established in the game purposes.

[whiskey111]

-dd149-
Maybe provider restrictions. Any chance to upload it on rapidshare or something like this ?

[cayman]

MPUAV, US NAVY really work on something
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/how/stories/cormorant.html

[sertore]

We tried to play again the test mission I sent you yesterday: apart for a CTD due to a simnavalengine error, already happened in the past for which I am waiting more details from who hosted the game, I can confirm that the role of layer is really downgraded.
The Akula II under the layer is able to hear all the 5 frequencies on TA of a 688 FLTIII at surface at 5knots, and at least 2 frequencies on conformal (the 2 submarine were at 5nm one from other).

No more news about high sonar range due to the stated CTD: I will send you the error detail as soon as I will receive it.

EDIT: here is the stack trace for yesterday CTD, got just after the hit of our AOR by a missile launched by the naval unit appeared after Tu-Bear approaching in the mission I sent you:

Applicazione che ha provocato l'errore dangerouswaters.exe, versione 0.1.0.4
modulo che ha provocato l'errore navalsimengine.dll, versione 0.1.0.5, indirizzo errore 0x0003ab1b.

0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74 Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 64 61 6e ure dan
0018: 67 65 72 6f 75 73 77 61 gerouswa
0020: 74 65 72 73 2e 65 78 65 ters.exe
0028: 20 30 2e 31 2e 30 2e 34 0.1.0.4
0030: 20 69 6e 20 6e 61 76 61 in nava
0038: 6c 73 69 6d 65 6e 67 69 lsimengi
0040: 6e 65 2e 64 6c 6c 20 30 ne.dll 0
0048: 2e 31 2e 30 2e 35 20 61 .1.0.5 a
0050: 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65 74 t offset
0058: 20 30 30 30 33 61 62 31 0003ab1
0060: 62 0d 0a b..

This is an usual message that we get in case of CTD: hope can help in discover something possible wrong.
Thanks in advance for any help or suggestion.

[CrazyIvan]

We tried to play again the test mission I sent you yesterday: apart for a CTD due to a simnavalengine error, already happened in the past for which I am waiting more details from who hosted the game, I can confirm that the role of layer is really downgraded.
The Akula II under the layer is able to hear all the 5 frequencies on TA of a 688 FLTIII at surface at 5knots, and at least 2 frequencies on conformal (the 2 submarine were at 5nm one from other).

No more news about high sonar range due to the stated CTD: I will send you the error detail as soon as I will receive it.

EDIT: here is the stack trace for yesterday CTD, got just after the hit of our AOR by a missile launched by the naval unit appeared after Tu-Bear approaching in the mission I sent you:

Applicazione che ha provocato l'errore dangerouswaters.exe, versione 0.1.0.4
modulo che ha provocato l'errore navalsimengine.dll, versione 0.1.0.5, indirizzo errore 0x0003ab1b.

0000: 41 70 70 6c 69 63 61 74 Applicat
0008: 69 6f 6e 20 46 61 69 6c ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 64 61 6e ure dan
0018: 67 65 72 6f 75 73 77 61 gerouswa
0020: 74 65 72 73 2e 65 78 65 ters.exe
0028: 20 30 2e 31 2e 30 2e 34 0.1.0.4
0030: 20 69 6e 20 6e 61 76 61 in nava
0038: 6c 73 69 6d 65 6e 67 69 lsimengi
0040: 6e 65 2e 64 6c 6c 20 30 ne.dll 0
0048: 2e 31 2e 30 2e 35 20 61 .1.0.5 a
0050: 74 20 6f 66 66 73 65 74 t offset
0058: 20 30 30 30 33 61 62 31 0003ab1
0060: 62 0d 0a b..

This is an usual message that we get in case of CTD: hope can help in discover something possible wrong.
Thanks in advance for any help or suggestion.


I can not receive such CTD.
In the given mission - AOT is destroyed (killed) by a SSM-1B missile. CTD - does not occur.

Further - I blocked generation of the Japanese ship from group, and killed
AOT from a Bear with Yakhont or Kh-65.
Any CTD I do not receive.


As it is absolutely not clear - you do not write, from which missile type occurs CTD.
Who on whom shoots?

Probably following the patch will correct it - as I use the doctrines and database made for coming updating.

[sertore]

I can not receive such CTD.
In the given mission - AOT is destroyed (killed) by a SSM-1B missile. CTD - does not occur.

Further - I blocked generation of the Japanese ship from group, and killed
AOT from a Bear with Yakhont or Kh-65.
Any CTD I do not receive.


As it is absolutely not clear - you do not write, from which missile type occurs CTD.
Who on whom shoots?

Probably following the patch will correct it - as I use the doctrines and database made for coming updating.

After your checks, reinstalled the game from scratch, original + patch 1.04, RA 1.1 FINAL then, replayed mission and no CTD occured: probably corrupted installation on host happened.

Therefore, in tonight mission an Akula II at 8knots heard on TA with 2 frequencies a Lada at 4knots at more than 20nm, under the layer both: if one of units, Akula or Lada, cross the layer contacts correctly disappeared.

Is it correct a so high sonar sensitivity?

Find attached the mission: focus your attention on Akula II and Lada only, hoping to get inital positions more or less at 20nm one to the other (try sometimes or edit mission to get the desidered initial position).

Please let me know if I can do something to help you in reproducing extraordinary sonar sensitivity.

Obviously I mean all in multiplayer session only, single player works fine: after some tests, it seems to us that the SS and the SSK in multiplayer makes a lot of noise as soon as you start the engine, even if just at 1 or 2 knots... but this is just a feeling, maybe totally wrong.

Thanks.

[suBB]

After your checks, reinstalled the game from scratch, original + patch 1.04, RA 1.1 FINAL then, replayed mission and no CTD occured: probably corrupted installation on host happened.

Therefore, in tonight mission an Akula II at 8knots heard on TA with 2 frequencies a Lada at 4knots at more than 20nm, under the layer both: if one of units, Akula or Lada, cross the layer contacts correctly disappeared.

Is it correct a so high sonar sensitivity?

Find attached the mission: focus your attention on Akula II and Lada only, hoping to get inital positions more or less at 20nm one to the other (try sometimes or edit mission to get the desidered initial position).

Please let me know if I can do something to help you in reproducing extraordinary sonar sensitivity.

Obviously I mean all in multiplayer session only, single player works fine: after some tests, it seems to us that the SS and the SSK in multiplayer makes a lot of noise as soon as you start the engine, even if just at 1 or 2 knots... but this is just a feeling, maybe totally wrong.

Thanks.

Hey,

1st off, want to say thanks to Crazy Ivan and RA team for such an incredible mod. I've yet to play it due to a busy schedule, but I trust Crazy Ivan and Team for quality product.

2nd.. regarding detection ranges, your SSP & bottom type affects how well / poor passive and active detection are made. Good chance is what you are seeing is normal, and you are using a bottom limited SSP, where really there isn't anywhere a submarine can hide(no layer); nothing to do with the mod itself.

If you want the affects of a layer, then choose either Convergence zone or surface duct SSP. If not, then use bottom limited.

enjoy

suBB