Red Rodgers  

Вернуться   Red Rodgers > Запасная полоса > S.C.S. Dangerous Waters

Ответ
 
Опции темы Опции просмотра
Старый 13-12-2019, 23:03   #3061
CrazyIvan
Bugcatcher
 
Аватар для CrazyIvan
 
Регистрация: Nov 2008
Адрес: Russia Kursk City
Сообщений: 888
Exclamation

Version 1.49 has been deploy.
__________________
Only the dead have seen the end of the war.
CrazyIvan вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 14-12-2019, 14:48   #3062
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
Thank you for new version, i hope today we will play first MP session with DW community.
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 14-12-2019, 15:51   #3063
GL-ER
Aircraftsman
 
Регистрация: Aug 2019
Сообщений: 10
Grisha-V is Greate! But the save file with him does not load game (Hunginig up approx 75 percent).

Thanks a lot!

PS RA 1.49 was instaled at clean DW 1.04 with the new .ini file.
GL-ER вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 14-12-2019, 18:34   #3064
kyte
Северный флот
 
Аватар для kyte
 
Регистрация: Apr 2007
Адрес: Murmansk
Сообщений: 171
Good day!
The new mod is very interesting, great job!
However, faced with the fact that for the "Grisha-V" and for the "Rogov" does not load the Loadout page. The game stops working, crashes.

I have Windows 7, I play in window mode 1280x1024, 16 bit.
kyte вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 15-12-2019, 20:04   #3065
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
https://youtu.be/I9gMJFPRbrs

It works for me.

Win7 x64, window mode 1024x768 16 bit (video rescaled to 720p)


Btw Rogov weapon load screen is not recommended to click - read about it in USNI ownship information.
If you did it, delete from root folder:

592_1731_playername.lod




pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 15-12-2019, 20:24   #3066
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
I did test in 1280x1024 (only full screen) and it works.

I cannot test it in window mode in 1280x1024 because my monitor native resolution is 1600x900 and i cannot select weapon loadout screen.
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 20-12-2019, 21:23   #3067
kyte
Северный флот
 
Аватар для kyte
 
Регистрация: Apr 2007
Адрес: Murmansk
Сообщений: 171
Small bug report. In database we have no damaged or destroyed 3D-model for Norvegian diesel submarine Type 210. When this sub was killed, she was disappearing.
kyte вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 09-02-2020, 19:54   #3068
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
According to latest discussion on russian language forum 667АТ is interesting choice but im affraid nobody will play it in MP scenarios. Its still big and low maneuverable submarine in comparison to any SSN's from the years when Yankee Notch entered to service (88-91). Also main weapon are LAM's - not very often used in scenarios. This sub will be very easy prey for any western submarine.

Polls on VK shows russian community prefer to play ultra modern submarines - like Seawolf. But MP scenarios with ultra modern submarines are not fun to play - players prefers little older submarines because they have possibility to detect and kill enemy. Its really hard in battles Seawolf vs Akula III.

The same is with adding SS-N-21 Sampson to Sierra II. In my opinion its no needed because these missiles were ONLY LAM variant with conventional warheads.

All "shitstorm" is because some russian players things it was universal missile able to attack surface ships and land objects. I'ts not truth. Naval version was different than land version and submarine version was limited only to LAM role.

About Foggy morning scenario. It was designed only for 1 purpose. As simple scenario where players can test new platform added in latest RA release. It's because most of players cannot make simple missions in editor and they choose "quick mission" - most idiotic part of DW because all platforms starts too close to eachother and sometimes goals are not possible to complete (like kiling satellite)
But Foggy morning is still good designed. For example scenario informs player where he can use time compression and when he should back to normal time scale.
Adams is not easy for mission designers because most of ships are from later time. Even older submarines uses modern weapons (entered to service few years later than Adams DDG)
This mission is simple but not easy because enemy can launch 53-60M wakehoming torpedo with speed 70 kts from range far beyond Adams sonar can setect submarine in "normal mode".

New platforms are always nice gift for players but if i could choose more important to me is eliminating bugs - mostly made by sonalysts.
So when Ivan asked me about adding polish Perry i convinced him its not needed. Also i wasn't initioator of adding latest new platforms. i was sure it will be only Adams. I was surprised with Rogov and Grisha.

Rogov still waits for MP scenario. Grisha is used in Polyarny morning Tea - very liked by community scenario for 5 players.
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 10-02-2020, 13:28   #3069
Рыба
Corporal
 
Аватар для Рыба
 
Регистрация: Mar 2011
Сообщений: 72
Цитата:
Сообщение от pepe Посмотреть сообщение
The same is with adding SS-N-21 Sampson to Sierra II. In my opinion its no needed because these missiles were ONLY LAM variant with conventional warheads.

All "shitstorm" is because some russian players things it was universal missile able to attack surface ships and land objects. I'ts not truth. Naval version was different than land version and submarine version was limited only to LAM role.
Of course, only the LAM version of the missile to attack ground targets, so add it, and you can do LAM missions. In reality, the missile had a 200 kT warhead and could attack ground targets and large warships (for example, in a port parking lot, etc.). I can’t imagine how some players can use a LAM rocket on a moving target (however, these perversions are their problem).
Рыба вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 10-02-2020, 22:06   #3070
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
Цитата:
Сообщение от Рыба Посмотреть сообщение
In reality, the missile had a 200 kT warhead
Not submarine versions. All were only conventional warheads.

Btw you have many other submarines capable for LAM strike - why you think it is so much needed on sierra?
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 10-02-2020, 22:42   #3071
Рыба
Corporal
 
Аватар для Рыба
 
Регистрация: Mar 2011
Сообщений: 72
Цитата:
Сообщение от pepe Посмотреть сообщение
Not submarine versions. All were only conventional warheads.

Btw you have many other submarines capable for LAM strike - why you think it is so much needed on sierra?
Submarine version have only nuclear warhead. I want have realistic loadout.
Рыба вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 10-02-2020, 22:47   #3072
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
Nope - you have wrong information. Any sources?
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 10-02-2020, 23:26   #3073
Рыба
Corporal
 
Аватар для Рыба
 
Регистрация: Mar 2011
Сообщений: 72
Цитата:
Сообщение от pepe Посмотреть сообщение
Nope - you have wrong information. Any sources?
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-697.html

"Types of warheads:
- nuclear, with a capacity of 200 kt - the main type of warhead.

- explosive - according to Western data, it was developed and, possibly, installed on missiles placed on boats (unlikely)."

"Носители (Rocket carriers):
- ПЛ пр.633РВ - опытовая ПЛ разработки КБ "Малахит" (главный конструктор Р.А.Шмаков) для испытания ракет и торпед калибров 533 и 650 мм.

На буксире ПЛ ПЗС-50 (ранее - С-49) пр.633РВ Черноморского флота. Севастополь, 2 апреля 2007 г. (фото - Дмитрий Стогний, http://forums.airbase.ru).

- ПЛ пр.633КС - опытовая ПЛ для испытания КР "Гранат", разработка проекта опытовой ПЛ - СПМБМ "Малахит" (главный конструктор Р.А.Шмаков, технический проект - 1977 г.). ПЛ С-128 переоборудована в 1978 г. на Севастопольском морском заводе - установлены два носовых торпедных аппарата - пусковые установки калибра 533 мм. Первый пуск КР "Гранат" произведен 21 сентября 1979 г. В период 1979-1980 г.г. произведено всего 6 пусков КР "Гранат".


Модель ПЛ пр.633КС в музее ЦКБ "Малахит" (фото http://pilot.strizhi.info)

- ПЛА пр.671РТМ - VICTOR-III - ракета принята на вооружение ПЛА проекта 31 декабря 1983 г. (в апреле 1984 г. по др.данным). Испытания комплекса проходили на ПЛА К-254 пр.671РТМ на Белом море.


ПЛА К-254 пр.671РТМ с дополнительным торпедным аппаратом для испытаний КРБД 3М-10 "Гранат" (http://www.atrinaflot.narod.ru).

- ПЛАРК пр.667АТ "Груша" - YANKEE NOTCH - переоборудованная ПЛАРБ пр.667АУ с установкой отсека с 2 группами по 4 ТА расположенными под углом к диаметральной плоскости. Общий боезапас - 32 КР, в т.ч. 8 КР в торпедных аппаратах.


Носитель ракет 3М-10 "Гранат" - ПЛАРК пр.667АТ - YANKEE NOTCH (фото - US DoD, http://militaryphotos.net).

- ПЛА пр.971 - AKULA - первые пуски КРБД 3М-10 "Гранат" с головной ПЛА пр.971 К-284 проведены в январе 1987 г. на Тихом океане. Испытания вооружения завершены только в 1988 г.


Одна из первых фотографий ПЛА пр.971 AKULA (вероятно, К-284 "Акула") опубликованная в западных СМИ (Soviet Military Power 1987. США. 1987 г.)

- ПЛА пр.945 - SIERRA / пр.945А - SIERRA-II - ударные ракетно-торпедные ПЛА.

- ПЛАРК пр.885 - YASEN - ударная ПЛА оборудованная универсальной ПУ вертикального пуска. При начале проектирования предполагалось применение в т.ч. и КРБД "Гранат"."
.................................................. .......

Источники:
Асанин В. Ракеты отечественного флота. (источник).
"Государственный Центральный Морской полигон. 50 лет". Документальный фильм, 2004 г.
РК-55 Рельеф - SSC-X-4 SLINGSHOT. 2012 г.
Широкорад А.Б. Огненный меч Российского флота. М., Яуза, Эксмо, 2004 г.
Штурм глубины. Сайт http://www.deepstorm.ru/, 2012 г.
RK-55. Сайт http://en.wikipedia.org, 2012 г.

Sorry for the incomplete translation
Рыба вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 10-02-2020, 23:49   #3074
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
You don't understand 1 important thing.
SS-N-21 “Sampson” (RK-55) was with 200KT nuclear warhead or 410 kg HE - no doubt about it. But it doesn't means all versions were on submarines.

This missile entered service in 1984. But in 1987 all submarine versions were convetred to HE only. And Sierra II entered service in... 26 December 1990.

You wrote:
Цитата:
Submarine version have only nuclear warhead. I want have realistic loadout.
but your sources doesn't confirms that. Your sources only confirms there were nuke and conventional warheads. And list of "rocket carriers" doesn't show which version of this missile was onboard.

And i remind you - all discussion was about Sierra II, which entered to service after conversion all warheads (for submarines) to conventional HE


Nuke variant was mainly on land mobile platform.


------------------------
In my opinion fact that in RA sierra II haven't Sampson missiles is not problem because:
1. LAM missiles in MP battles are very rare used. 95% MP missions haven't reason for loading LAM's
2. In single player mission for Land strike attack you can use Akula or Victor submarines. And land strike missions are mostly very boring to me.
3. Sierra II in RA is mainly Hunter-killer submarine - no need land attack missiles.

Последний раз редактировалось pepe; 11-02-2020 в 00:04.
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 11-02-2020, 00:29   #3075
Рыба
Corporal
 
Аватар для Рыба
 
Регистрация: Mar 2011
Сообщений: 72
Цитата:
This missile entered service in 1984. But in 1987 all submarine versions were convetred to HE only.
Source please.


Well, I'm interested in LAM missions, including, I like to play single player. I understand that I can choose Akula or Victor, but what if I want to choose Sierra?)). Sierra was created during the Soviet era and it was supposed to use these missiles in particular.

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/nep5text.htm :
"The subsonic SS-N-21 Sampson, a 1,600 nautical mile (3,000
kilometer) range missile similar to the U.S. Tomahawk, was first
deployed in late 1987. It is fired from Akula, Sierra, Victor
III, and converted Yankee Notch class SSNs. It is estimated
that some 30 submarines (four Akula, two Sierra, 23 Victor III,
and one Yankee Notch) are capable of delivering the SS-N-21.
These submarines carry an estimated 136 SS-N-21s.

The SS-N-21 despite being declared operational in late 1987,
may still not be widely deployed. In March 1990, the U.S. Navy
described the "recent completion of a two year improvement
program for the SS-N-21 land attack cruise missile, which
probably focused on improving the SLCM's guidance/propulsion
systems." The missile is thought to be in full scale
production."
Рыба вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 11-02-2020, 00:37   #3076
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/ss-n-21/

..and many other. As i wrote - your sources doesn't confirms nuke version was on Sierra II

Цитата:
I understand that I can choose Akula or Victor, but what if I want to choose Sierra?
So you have problem because its not available. Also Sierra is very similar sub to Akula - i don't understand why you cannot use Akula for LAM scenarios.
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 11-02-2020, 00:52   #3077
Рыба
Corporal
 
Аватар для Рыба
 
Регистрация: Mar 2011
Сообщений: 72
Цитата:
Сообщение от pepe Посмотреть сообщение
https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/ss-n-21/

..and many other. As i wrote - your sources doesn't confirms nuke version was on Sierra II



So you have problem because its not available. Also Sierra is very similar sub to Akula - i don't understand why you cannot use Akula for LAM scenarios.
This is not the point, but whether the rocket was on the Sierra or not, and if it was involved in it, then I think it should be in the game.
Yes, I know your source. Above, I cited a source where it was indicated that the equipped warhead was nuclear, and the existence HE-version is indicated only in the Western press and is doubtful.
Thanks for the interesting discussion, for today I have finished. The topic is complex and practically unprovable because of its high secrecy.
Рыба вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 11-02-2020, 01:40   #3078
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
Ok, let's check your source:

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/nep5text.htm

Цитата:
The Soviet Navy deploys seven different types of nuclear-
capable sea-launched cruise and anti-ship missiles: the SS-N-3
Shaddock/Sepal, the SS-N-7 Starbright, the SS-N-9 Siren, the SS-
N-12 Sandbox, the SS-N-19 Shipwreck, the SS-N-21 Sampson, and the
SS-N-22 Sunburn. With the exception of the SS-N-21, all of these
SLCMs are thought to be dual-capable, i.e., they can carry either
a conventional or nuclear warhead.
It doesn't means all missiles were with nuclear warheads. it only means it was possible to use conventional or nuke warheads.

Цитата:
It is estimated that some 30 submarines (four Akula, two Sierra, 23 Victor III, and one Yankee Notch) are capable of delivering the SS-N-21.
It's still doesn't prove SS-N-21 carried by these submarines were nukes. It only means these submarines can carry this missile - nothing less, nothing more.

Цитата:
The SS-N-21 despite being declared operational in late 1987,
may still not be widely deployed. In March 1990, the U.S. Navy
described the "recent completion of a two year improvement
program for the SS-N-21 land attack cruise missile, which
probably focused on improving the SLCM's guidance/propulsion
systems." The missile is thought to be in full scale
production.
It means in 1990 Sampson missile was still under developement - and i remind you about INF Treaty from 1987. It's 3 years after Soviet Union declared not to use nukes on this kind/range missiles!

Btw i didn't answer you in previous post, because you add link and fragments of text after my post.

Цитата:
I cited a source where it was indicated that the equipped warhead was nuclear
Where exactly is it confirmed? You only showed sources confirmed 2 versions and list of submarines carreied this missiles - but without any single information about version of warhead.

Also you wrote (but you edited this) Sierra was first before Akula - which is correct - but it was ONLY 3 months! And of course if you wish to launch Sampson LAM from older sub, you can take Victor III.

Цитата:
existence HE-version is indicated only in the Western press and is doubtful
I't not only in West press confirmed but also in East press. You didn't proved this submarine missiles were nuclear. You only proved Sampson missiles were on some submarines - nothing more.

Also you showed it were only two Sierras. Its little strange because it means only Sierra II (Nizhniy Novgorod, Pskov) or Sierra I (Carp, Kostroma) were equiped with Sampsons. In my opinion it were Sierra II.

Цитата:
The topic is complex and practically unprovable because of its high secrecy
No, it's problematic only bacause you make wrong conclusions from sources.

edit:

Let me explain why you are wrong. From the same source i take part about USN nuclear capable warships:

Цитата:
Table 7: U.S. Nuclear-Capable Warships and Submarines (June 1990)

Type Number Nuclear Weapons

Ballistic Missile 33 Poseidon, Trident I,
Submarines Trident II

Attack Submarines 50 Tomahawk SLCMs

Aircraft Carriers 12 Bombs and Depth Bombs

Battleships 4 Tomahawk SLCMs

Cruisers 16 Tomahawk SLCMs

Destroyers 16 Tomahawk SLCMs
As you see on some warships nuclear capable weapon is Tomahawk.
But it doesn't means all tomahawks were with nuke warheads. It means these platforms were capable to use nuclear versions.
Also it doesn't means every SSN, Battleships or Cruisers had nuclear warheads onboard.

Is it clean?

Последний раз редактировалось pepe; 11-02-2020 в 01:53. Причина: adding example from USN
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 18-02-2020, 22:38   #3079
Рыба
Corporal
 
Аватар для Рыба
 
Регистрация: Mar 2011
Сообщений: 72
Цитата:
Сообщение от pepe Посмотреть сообщение
No, it's problematic only bacause you make wrong conclusions from sources.
The point is not even whether the conventional warhead of this missile was, from the point of view of any design engineer, why not. The point here is rather in the military doctrine of the USSR. Well, for whom would these boats use a conventional missile warhead? If these missiles were fired at US / NATO facilities, they would be nuclear. The thing is that this was not. This missile was designed to prevent this, an additional deterrence argument, in addition to ballistic missiles. And to shoot American cities and bases with conventional missiles when an atomic war is probably already underway, well, it's like throwing stones at a tank, the effect is equally useless.
Рыба вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Старый 19-02-2020, 18:20   #3080
pepe
Sergeant
 
Аватар для pepe
 
Регистрация: Jul 2016
Сообщений: 229
DW was NOT designed to simulate full scale conflict and game engine is NOT stabile when scenario has too many AI warships. Also LAM nuke missiles were NOT able in real world to attack not static objects.
This should you wake up from your nuke dreaming

Also for players it doesn't matter land strike was nuclear or conventional because player cannot see any difference. So if you so badly need to simulate nuclear land strike just use script for information: "this explosion was nuclear"

You can make by script visible explosion effects like smoke etc - much better than nuke one


Цитата:
The point here is rather in the military doctrine of the USSR
But this doctrine was changed for both sides because USA also had nuclear Tomahawks, ASROC's, SUBROC's and torpedoes. So adding nuke weapon for 1 side should also add it to side 2. But this is pointless because DW is game on tactical - not strategic level.

Also using nuke weapon could escalate conflict to full world war - and this wouldn't be good choice for any side. Fortunatelly President of USA and "Heads" on Kreml knew that - funny only you have big problems with understanding so simple things.
pepe вне форума   Ответить с цитированием
Ответ


Здесь присутствуют: 1 (пользователей: 0 , гостей: 1)
 
Опции темы
Опции просмотра

Ваши права в разделе
Вы не можете создавать новые темы
Вы не можете отвечать в темах
Вы не можете прикреплять вложения
Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения

BB коды Вкл.
Смайлы Вкл.
[IMG] код Вкл.
HTML код Выкл.

Быстрый переход


Часовой пояс GMT +4, время: 22:49.


Red Rodgers official site. Powered by TraFFa. ©2000 - 2020, Red Rodgers
vBulletin Version 3.8.12 by vBS. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Перевод: zCarot