Advanced Torpedo Control Beta

Molon Labe · Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:25 am Post subject:

Well, it only replaced the torp.txt file...

so only changes in lw/ami to that doctrine should have been effected....

OKO · Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:37 am Post subject:

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724

Be real nice to have some further feedback reports from players who have (actualy) tried this mod. :hmm:

LuftWolf · Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 1872 Location: Free New York

If it is true that the wireguided mod is effecting non-wireguided torepdoes this is really no problem at all. :know:

Because, in the final version of the advanced control mod, it will be buried in the code for each individiual torpedo, since each torpedo will have its own doctrine.

So, for non-wg torpedoes, it simply won't be in the doctrine scripting. Thumbs Up

LuftWolf · Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 1872 Location: Free New York

BTW, everyone should be using LWAMI 3.00 Preview, if you don't mind (available at the CACD)... after all there IS a reason I released it ahead of time... so you guys could test it for me before the standard distribution goes around the world. Thumbs Up

And because I have been too busy to edit the whole 16 pages of readme... Embarassed

But there is a dual purpose. Argh

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724

Was holding off as the final seemed imminent. But got the message - its a 'chicken and egg' situation. Thumbs Up

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724

LW em on tests + screenies en route.

Amizaur · Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 549 Location: Poland

I can confirm that there IS in fact problem with AI torpedos - I forgot one command and torpedos after reaching RTE don't dive to search depth.
That's why I called it beta and demo Wink

. Already fixed on my comp. I have to look on the last thing reported by Bellman yet. To answer question - the counter of Enable and Preenable button is reset to zero after the other button is pressed, so if you press Preenable 3 times and then press enable, preenable counter is reset to zero. Same for enable, pressing preenable resets enable button counter.
I'll check the second problem and then relase fixed demo of this doctrine, but it's still only demo how it works because it has no other LwAmi mod features...

Amizaur · Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 549 Location: Poland

LuftWolf · Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 1872 Location: Free New York

The problem of the Homing variable not being properly reset to 0 which leads to them not starting to search properly after losing a track.

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724

The torps in LwAmi 3.0 Final (Beta) are taking the first bite from old cake - em and screenies just sent to LW

They are too easily suckered and go for relatively old CMs, are spoofed and then lose the target . :hmm:

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724

I wonder whether anyone will be kind enough just to update us a little on progress. Thank you.

Fish · Joined: 21 Sep 2001 Posts: 2412 Location: Netherlands

Molon Labe · Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject:

It has always been the case in DW--even in SC actually--that a torpedo can be decoyed if the sub maneuvers so that a decoy is between the torp and the sub, breaking the lock on the sub and causing the torp to chase the decoy instead. If this wasn't possible, once the torp had acquired the target you might was well stop playing. This applies with or without the LW/Ami mod.

In stock 1.03, and to a lesser degree in stock 1.01, I've seen torps turn away from the target to chase a decoy; I'm generally not happy about this. If it is happening, it should only be happening when the lock on the target sub is very tenous with respect to the torp's sensor in that acoustic environment, at that range, and at that aspect angle. Strangely, I don't see this happening much in modded play, where torp sensors are generally less-capable. I add this 2nd paragraph only because I don't have your replay, so I can't tell which of the two situations it is.

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724

I expect and find naturaly that a torp at say 2nm from ownship running perpendicular will be spoofed by
a cm left in its path. I do not expect that at under .75 nm with ownship acquired in similar circumstances
that it will do the same, with ownship merely maintaining a perpendicular course. (Details sent LW)

In SC we can agree surely that when the torp acquired ownship close-in a cm had to be left in the acquisition
cone with ownship turning out of the swing of the torps sonar leaving the torp sited only on the cm. Yep

Futhermore once the torp has been spoofed and has burnt through, the time delay before it restarts its search
pattern is quite critical. My impression is that now, tested as LwAmi but originating in vanilla (?), they are extremely lazy
at getting back to work. Is this just more dumbing-down ? Argh