| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
 LW - Thanks for your quick 'wire-float.'
Sorry you are still at sea and hope to see you back in port soon.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 1724
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
LwAmi Preview released - Am I right in seeing that TorpHoming in Doctrinal Updates dated 11th Dec,
tested in 3.0 Beta - has now in Preview, reverted to the 11th Sept doc ?
Not clear how the final patch 1.03 torp issues impinge on the LwAmi 'working issues'.
Probably been posted up somewhere and I missed it. :hmm:
I am running Preview but this field testing is just like a mugs guessing game. :huh:
Guys you go find what you think we've done !! See if you can pin a tale on the donkey ! 
Anyways, spleen aside,  I guess before ,I turn spectator,I tested the torps (MK 48s) again and nice   \
The 'old cake eaters have gone pickey 'again'...............now its 'Captains wifes Madeira.................
They bite on fresh CMs'again' - and are much harder to spoof -
Noticed a strange thing though - sure I wasnt hearing things because the first 48 I redirected
back started increased pinging at 1.6 nm. Great, I thought, the lads have fixed that one then !!
But then every other one did'nt. :hmm:
Last edited by Bellman on Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:28 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barleyman
Joined: 07 Jul 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now there's the dilemma.. Should I slap advanced torpedo doctrine on top of 3.00 preview? Or not?
1.03 patch states new depths for sonobuyous. However, Amiz 3.00B gives slightly different values. So which one is correct when you put 3.00B over 1.03? Dicass deep is 800ft or 600ft? Vlad shallow 600 or 800?
I quess most of the time it does not matter as I've not seen thermal layer that deep.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bellman wrote: | LwAmi Preview released - Am I right in seeing that TorpHoming in Doctrinal Updates dated 11th Dec,
tested in 3.0 Beta - has now in Preview, reverted to the 11th Sept doc ? |
Yes, I did revert the file, as the change I made in the 3.00B update did not matter for fixing the problem.
| Barleyman wrote: | | Now there's the dilemma.. Should I slap advanced torpedo doctrine on top of 3.00 preview? Or not? |
The Advanced Doctrine is a demonstrator of scripting technology, and may cause some errors because it is not fully integrated into the mod. I believe Amizaur is going to include such features into his complete doctrine-level remake of all the playable torpedoes, when it is ready, hopefully for LWAMI 3.01.
| Barleyman wrote: | | ]1.03 patch states new depths for sonobuyous. However, Amiz 3.00B gives slightly different values. So which one is correct when you put 3.00B over 1.03? Dicass deep is 800ft or 600ft? Vlad shallow 600 or 800? |
After a long discussion with SCS and some members of the community, Jamie came up with these new figures for DW 1.03, and we all pretty much decided that his numbers are the best, so the Mod now uses stock DW 1.03 numbers, which are:
DIFAR 90/400ft (as before)
DICASS 90/800ft
VLAD 600/1200ft
I hope you are enjoying LWAMI 3.00 Preview.
Cheers,
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do the SS-N-2s have a command guide option now? I saw some Styx missiles get shot then vear their course (before enabling) twards me and then fip on their seekers and home in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
We haven't changed anything with the missiles in general for LWAMI 3.00 like what you are describing.
It's most likely that the missiles enabled just as you were on the boundary of their seeker cones and they turned towards you only after they got a NewTrack for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XabbaRus
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 6949
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So has the latest version been released? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuftWolf wrote: | We haven't changed anything with the missiles in general for LWAMI 3.00 like what you are describing.
It's most likely that the missiles enabled just as you were on the boundary of their seeker cones and they turned towards you only after they got a NewTrack for you. |
The missile did a 70-80 degree turn! Thats some seeker cone! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TLAM Strike wrote: | | LuftWolf wrote: | We haven't changed anything with the missiles in general for LWAMI 3.00 like what you are describing.
It's most likely that the missiles enabled just as you were on the boundary of their seeker cones and they turned towards you only after they got a NewTrack for you. |
The missile did a 70-80 degree turn! Thats some seeker cone! |
I dunno what to say, but it's not from anything we did! :doh:
Xabba, LWAMI 3.00 Preview available at the CADC is the latest version, and it lacks only the rewrite for the readme and one or two very minor changes in the database. I will do more as my RL allows.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
XabbaRus
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 6949
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cool, you get my PM re SSBNs firing missiles? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 1052
Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Would it be possible to add the Ohio-Florida to the mod as SSGN's with craploads of TLAMs in the DB? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 1872
Location: Free New York
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is definately in the cards to have the Ohio SSBN converted to SSGN.
I am going to make the change once in the database, so I have to look at Xabba's new Ohio SSGN model so I make sure I get the position of the launchers correct.
Also, I am going to equip the Ohio's with TASM's not TLAM's, unless anyone has any major objections.
BTW, does the AI use TLAM's and other land attack missile effectively? I can't recall ever seeing the AI engage a land target on its own with land attack missiles... then again, it's been a long time since I sat down with DW to actually play a single player mission.   :doh: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sonar732
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 1358
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LuftWolf wrote: |
Also, I am going to equip the Ohio's with TASM's not TLAM's, unless anyone has any major objections.
BTW, does the AI use TLAM's and other land attack missile effectively? I can't recall ever seeing the AI engage a land target on its own with land attack missiles... then again, it's been a long time since I sat down with DW to actually play a single player mission. :doh: |
I have an objection to the TASM's. I wouldn't have a problem with the ability to choose either TASM or TLAM like the 688i's. The true mission for the new Ohio class SSGN is for TLAM and special forces deployment.
Does Bills' Red Storm Rising campaign use AI TLAM launch and then follow the Boston to safer waters? I haven't played it yet myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 1052
Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sonar732 wrote: | | LuftWolf wrote: |
Also, I am going to equip the Ohio's with TASM's not TLAM's, unless anyone has any major objections.
BTW, does the AI use TLAM's and other land attack missile effectively? I can't recall ever seeing the AI engage a land target on its own with land attack missiles... then again, it's been a long time since I sat down with DW to actually play a single player mission. :doh: |
I have an objection to the TASM's. I wouldn't have a problem with the ability to choose either TASM or TLAM like the 688i's. The true mission for the new Ohio class SSGN is for TLAM and special forces deployment.
Does Bills' Red Storm Rising campaign use AI TLAM launch and then follow the Boston to safer waters? I haven't played it yet myself. |
LW, yes, the AI will fire TLAMs at known land targets. I don't really "object," but I did have a reason for asking for TLAMs instead; part of it is sonar's objection above, the other part is simply that even if we wanted a TASM shooter, the missiles are generally ineffective.
RSR includes a TLAM strike in which a player controlled and two AI subs fire TLAMs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
