View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 Posts: 1052 Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
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.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
OKO
Joined: 10 Jan 2002 Posts: 468 Location: Solar system, mainly on earth
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Molon Labe wrote: | I'm a little concerned that the torp mod might be effecting non wire-guided torps.
Yesterday, I was playing in the FFG with LW/Ami 3.0B and the torp mod over it; I was firing SVTT torps set to search at 800 feet, and they were doing their search patterns on the surface. |
oucch this is bad :shifty:
we need some test here
Molon Labe wrote: |
I also had a Mk54 travel 10nm to hit a Victor, but I think this is game-engine related. :doh: |
? MK50 have only 7 miles, but Mk 54 have a little more than 10 miles of range, so I don't see your point Molon ?
And I must congrats a lot Amizaur for this great improvment.
I didn't (had time to) tried it yet, but I will do soon.
This is a very very nice work ... even if Molon scare me with the problem of programmed depth at search pattern with unguided torps.
We need to dig that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Be real nice to have some further feedback reports from players who have (actualy) tried this mod. :hmm: |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 1872 Location: Free New York
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 1872 Location: Free New York
|
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
And because I have been too busy to edit the whole 16 pages of readme...
But there is a dual purpose. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Was holding off as the final seemed imminent. But got the message - its a 'chicken and egg' situation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
LW em on tests + screenies en route. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Amizaur
Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 549 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 . 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... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Amizaur
Joined: 22 Nov 2002 Posts: 549 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LuftWolf wrote: | I told amizaur about the problem, and I think he started making the same changes or something similiar for all his doctrines. |
BTW what problem ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LuftWolf
Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 1872 Location: Free New York
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
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: |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder whether anyone will be kind enough just to update us a little on progress. Thank you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fish
Joined: 21 Sep 2001 Posts: 2412 Location: Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bellman wrote: | 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: |
Hmm..just stumbled in, and to lazy to read the whole thread. But,... should it not be normal when a torp go's for a "old " decoy? When it find the decoy "before" it find the sub it should go fot the decoy. Of course it should deny the decoy when it acquired the sub first. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Molon Labe
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 Posts: 1052 Location: Bloomington, IN, USA
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bellman
Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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.
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 ?
Last edited by Bellman on Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:11 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|