| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JoGary(sco)
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 102
Location: Loch lomand, Scotland
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Is there anything stopping some one adding their own info to the USNI as long as they did not publish it ?
If so then couldnt you just add a word pad document with all the changes and helpfull info and if someone added it to the USNI then it woulodnt be your fault or SCS  \
Also you could format it so as to make it easier to add yourself. As long as you dont tell them how to or suggest it  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 1052
Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Solution:
Bring back the "wardroom" station from 688I. Go to the computer. On the computer, you'll find such things as "USNI reference", "Operating proceedures," and "[name of your section here]." Add whatever you want to your section, USNI shouldn't care! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoGary(sco)
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 102
Location: Loch lomand, Scotland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| can u explain it more Malon Labe. Never played 688 so u have lost me here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 1052
Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's just something that changed from 688I to SC. The reference and game status were accessible from a "station" that was basically the captian's quarters with a computer and a safe in it. The safe was for saving/loading ect. The computer showed the mission status, damage to the ship, and also had a Jane's reference section very much like the USNI reference we have now.
I think we should bring back this "station" and allow modders to put their reference items inside this "computer" but under a tab separate from the offical reference to prevent legal issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| skhval has been bought by the chinease but they rarely deploy them on any submarine due to the lack of electronic systems capible of handeling such advanced weapons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deathblow
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I've decided to return to this issue to see if I can modify the torpedo selection of the SW and 688i to add another torpedo type. Probably a Supercavitcator and a Half-Length Torpedo.
| MaHuJa wrote: | I suspect it may be as simple a matter as finding the correct offset, opening the correct file (probably the loadout dll) in a hex editor, and changing it. The "finding the correct offset" being the hard part of it.
This would, of course, show up as different interface files in multiplayer sessions.
At least for how big torpedo stores you have in 688i/seawolf/akula/kilo. What weapons one can carry (and/or what the interface calls them) may be editable as well, but the number of tubes and similar is worse.
Be advised: Distributing hacked interface files isn't so unlikely to raise the wages of the lawyers...
(Though I wouldn't be surprised if they would be forgiving of p3/mh60 calling mk46 mk54 as part of files included with the lwami mod, I'd want to clear it with them first anyway.) |
Anyone have any clue on how to find the correct offset in a hex editor? Looks like a needle in a haystack to me.  Help would be appreciated. I'm still determined to change weapons capacity and torp types.
On a related note. Anyone got any good info on the USN Half-length torpedo other developement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LuftWolf wrote: | | You can do it for non-playable submarines only. So you can add it to the launcher list for the 688i and SW, but only the AI versions of those submarines will be able to use them. You won't be able to select that weapon for yourself at the weapons loadout. |
Well, if he's really desperate, can't he just carefully edit the TASM entry - since supposedly they don't even HAVE TASMs anymore, so this is just realism.
He'd just have to remember he can't load his Squalls into the VLS tubes, and since the TASM may be heavily referenced, he may be spending a lot of time changing things about in the database, but in theory it should be possible, no?
A problem with hacking the 688 and Seawolf is that they have so few weapon slots.
| Quote: | | skhval has been bought by the chinease but they rarely deploy them on any submarine due to the lack of electronic systems capible of handeling such advanced weapons |
What electronic handling is required, may I ask. The Shkval is a straight runner, not wire guided. What does it need other than initial course, initial depth, and a torpedo tube strong enough it would take extra strain it produces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
skhval has a special firing sequence as its motor cannot be ignited inside the tube other wise it would blow to bits because of extreme pressure.
Skhval uses two types of electornic systems to fire and ignite one launches out the tube the other to ignite, the skhval has to be a fair distance from the front of the sub before it can start or it would melt the rubber tiles.
electronic systems of all kinds are classified but have you ever seen a picture where an akula has like these three prongs sticking up from the front of its hull?
thats one system to help the skhval and also helps the other sonar too. hull mounted sonar system external.
i have been on an akula well three actualy but never been on an akula 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kapitain wrote: | | i have been on an akula well three actualy but never been on an akula 2 |
You have been on ... three Akulas? Lucky you. Do they actually use the SSAZ sonar display rather than the waterfall or did you never get to see that part ... or that small detail is classified? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
my stepfather moved from st petersburg to murmansk earlier this year hence why i cant go this year again 
the sonar screens are almost true copies (even down to the cream colour) and they do use the SSAZ version of display however they are trying out waterful displays (have been for about 8 years now) but only gepard has it so im told.
i got to see weapons bay sonar radio conn everything forward of the reactor. on the oscar class should see how big they are on TV they look tichy but hell no ! stood next to one and **** they were big |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deathblow
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back to modifying the weapons capacity
| Quote: | | Well, if he's really desperate, can't he just carefully edit the TASM entry - since supposedly they don't even HAVE TASMs anymore, so this is just realism. |
I've thought of this with the Harpoon, modifying it to be a new torp, but for some reason, was a weapon has been assigned a entity type (torp, missile, sub, etc) it doesn't seems like its able to be reassigned a new entity type. Givining the Harpoon a torp doctrine, stats, and 3d mesh doesn't seem to work, does makes the missile act funny.  Not to mention that the interface is totally incorrect.....
btw, if they aren't using TASM then what are they using?
Last edited by Deathblow on Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
crappy harpoons TASM's are a good missile more so than the shipwreck and sunburn but it too lacks range speed and warhead to do major damage to a carrier or cruiser or even destroyer.
id rather go to sea with a gun than a pee shooter and thats what a harpoon is pee shooter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kapitain wrote: | | the sonar screens are almost true copies (even down to the cream colour) and they do use the SSAZ version of display however they are trying out waterful displays (have been for about 8 years now) but only gepard has it so im told. |
Interesting. One has to wonder why ... the FRAZ narrowband presentation is very good (makes one rely on the narrowband more than otherwise), but the SSAZ broadband is not as good for showing the effects of long integration, which degrades the usable sensitivity of the array (it can hear it, barely, but you can't see it).
And why is a Tomahawk a better weapon than the Shipwreck. Weight for weight it is superior (you can have 3-4 Tomahawks for the weight of a Shipwreck IIRC), but the Shipwreck flies faster and has a bigger warhead, and supposedly even has a jammer - a drone rather than a missile in a sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kapitan
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Posts: 5385
Location: essex england also st petersburg russia
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
when i ment on TASM i was meaning its more accurate its CEP is less than a shipwrech
true is the russian ASM missiles 10 years ahead of any other western achivement to date and true again is the fact they they are a bigger threat than america says |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deathblow
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Will you guys stop hijacking my thread :shifty: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
