Jump to content

Torpedo acquisition range


CV32
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think the issue has been that, at times, you can drop directly on top of the sub in the zoomed-in unit window, and it still shows dropped at 2 miles sometimes, so the 'granularity' of the unit window does seem to matter in some cases. Maybe that's why the original fudges were there?

 

Possibly, though the original 'fudged' numbers appeared to be completely arbitrary, with no relationship whatsoever to real life values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think the issue has been that, at times, you can drop directly on top of the sub in the zoomed-in unit window, and it still shows dropped at 2 miles sometimes, so the 'granularity' of the unit window does seem to matter in some cases. Maybe that's why the original fudges were there?

 

Possibly, though the original 'fudged' numbers appeared to be completely arbitrary, with no relationship whatsoever to real life values.

 

Ok, so I took a look at the (0304) DB before I replaced it with 0401. The MU-90 that seems to be so reliable in the above posts has an acquisition range of 4000, as does the MKs 50 and 54. The sub-launched torps are wire-guided in the DB, so do they get some midcourse guidance from the subs, perhaps, or can you or Tony tell us the difference to the GE for those? On the other hand, the 46 Mod 2 that is the Asroc warhead only has a 1500 acquisition range, but it's going to get dropped in pretty close anyway. So, I'm off to test out the 401 DB, and see if it feels right.

 

Edit: by the way, is the Mk 44 supposed to be sub-type 'unknown'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: by the way, is the Mk 44 supposed to be sub-type 'unknown'?

 

Yeah, the 'unknown' flag means active only homing. Don't ask why they didn't just use 'active only' or some such.

 

Learn somethng new every day, I guess. :D

 

I ran a couple tests, and the feel is better. Only 250 yards difference, but I got 1 hit on 4 drops in one test, and only half of the torps ran off in other directions, instead of all 4, so that's a better deal. I'll see if the trend holds.

 

I did get a drop-on-top that still showed a 2-mile range, though. One comment on the 0-mile range still-weaving-around torps: usually when I see that, if you look at the depth, they're diving after the sub; i.e. they're shallow, and the sub is deeper. The 2-mile range one got an acquisition, though, while a close-in drop ran off the other way. Must have been a bad drop. Still, as i said, 2 out of 4 acquiring is definitely an improvement. (I was using MK 46 Mod5, 3750 in 0401)

 

So I guess the deal on the old DBs is that you once had a tool that would at least read them, but now it's gone, or no longer works? i.e. you had to have had such a tool to know what those ranges were. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess the deal on the old DBs is that you once had a tool that would at least read them, but now it's gone, or no longer works? i.e. you had to have had such a tool to know what those ranges were. :D

We have tools to read the EC2000 databases but not the older databases/battlesets other than using the debugger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm ... could it be that we're at a point where the to-hit percentages need to be adjusted? I personally have only upgraded as far as the first 'fudged' DB, and I'm quite happy with the acquisition rates I'm getting. Given the way that helos often seem to get loaded with fewer torps than they are capable of carrying these days, though, I wonder if in Real Life the torps hit more often than in-game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm ... could it be that we're at a point where the to-hit percentages need to be adjusted? I personally have only upgraded as far as the first 'fudged' DB, and I'm quite happy with the acquisition rates I'm getting. Given the way that helos often seem to get loaded with fewer torps than they are capable of carrying these days, though, I wonder if in Real Life the torps hit more often than in-game?

 

Airborne lightweight torpedoes don't have much of a track record in the modern era, with the Falklands conflict being the most well known example, and what is there, isn't terribly impressive.

 

There, Lynx helicopters dropped at least one Mk 46 on the Argentine submarine Santa Fe, without scoring a hit, despite a visual on the surfaced target.

 

They also apparently dropped numerous torpedoes on suspected submarine contacts in the vicinity of the Royal Navy task force, with at least one tracking the Nixie decoy towed by HMS Hermes rather than any submarine (if there ever was one).

 

The hit probabilities generally follow Harpoon4 data and are unlikely to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue has been that, at times, you can drop directly on top of the sub in the zoomed-in unit window, and it still shows dropped at 2 miles sometimes, so the 'granularity' of the unit window does seem to matter in some cases. Maybe that's why the original fudges were there?

My understanding is that the GE sees a much better resolution than the screen gives. I have usually dropped torpedoes from A/c manually as I thought I could do a better job but is this my problem because although (as others have said) you can have the image of your helo right over the sub, drop a torp and it is 2 mile from the target.... does this happen if the AI is allowed to manage the drop?? and so does it get better results?

When torps are dropped from fixed wings they have a 'shute don't they so as to hit the water at a reduced speed. How about from helos, do they normally drop from a hover or with say a 40 kt forward speed facing the target. Do the these torps have an initial programed course/ depth or do they need to get acquisition, ie what is their 'search' pattern between drop and acquisition? How well is the GE simulating this bit between drop and acquisition?

This is what I'm starting to wonder,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue has been that, at times, you can drop directly on top of the sub in the zoomed-in unit window, and it still shows dropped at 2 miles sometimes, so the 'granularity' of the unit window does seem to matter in some cases. Maybe that's why the original fudges were there?

My understanding is that the GE sees a much better resolution than the screen gives. I have usually dropped torpedoes from A/c manually as I thought I could do a better job but is this my problem because although (as others have said) you can have the image of your helo right over the sub, drop a torp and it is 2 mile from the target.... does this happen if the AI is allowed to manage the drop?? and so does it get better results?

When torps are dropped from fixed wings they have a 'shute don't they so as to hit the water at a reduced speed. How about from helos, do they normally drop from a hover or with say a 40 kt forward speed facing the target. Do the these torps have an initial programed course/ depth or do they need to get acquisition, ie what is their 'search' pattern between drop and acquisition? How well is the GE simulating this bit between drop and acquisition?

This is what I'm starting to wonder,

 

I was playing around earlier running some subs myself, and I could wriggle away from torps fairly easily dropped by the AI, so the 'lower fudging' may be hurting the AI's ability to hurt subs with air-dropped torps. Not sure yet, but something to be thinking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was playing around earlier running some subs myself, and I could wriggle away from torps fairly easily dropped by the AI, so the 'lower fudging' may be hurting the AI's ability to hurt subs with air-dropped torps. Not sure yet, but something to be thinking about.

 

Yes, that's my principal concern in making the 'fudge' just big enough to be workable in most circumstances. I don't mind making the player work a bit harder to make sure he has a solid contact and drops in close. ;)

 

Two other points:

1. I am not concerned about the ASW standoff weapons; they already have an uncanny ability to drop their payload very close to the target.

2. Keep in mind that since HCE does not model acoustic decoys or countermeasures, I also don't mind making submarines a difficult target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was playing around earlier running some subs myself, and I could wriggle away from torps fairly easily dropped by the AI, so the 'lower fudging' may be hurting the AI's ability to hurt subs with air-dropped torps. Not sure yet, but something to be thinking about.

 

Yes, that's my principal concern in making the 'fudge' just big enough to be workable in most circumstances. I don't mind making the player work a bit harder to make sure he has a solid contact and drops in close. ;)

 

Two other points:

1. I am not concerned about the ASW standoff weapons; they already have an uncanny ability to drop their payload very close to the target.

2. Keep in mind that since HCE does not model acoustic decoys or countermeasures, I also don't mind making submarines a difficult target.

The 'extra fudge' in hcdb-110401 certainly seems to have greatly increased the frequency of getting and maintaining acquisition in all of the torpedos I previouls testedeg stingrays now getting about 1 in four hit and 3 in four maintaining acquistition (Thanks to peoples input I'm gauging a maintained acquistion as the time to target going down to 0:00 and the torpedo diving for the target).

I have also looked at the granuality, I'll call a visual unit the smallest movement you can get on the screen, (I was using full magnification in the unit window with the unit window about 40% of the total Window's window).

Using the torpedoe's speed and time to target, as well as the units' co-ordinates (given down the bottom of the unit window when you select units) it appears that a torpedo approaching its target jumps in one visual unit from being separate to being visually right over the target somewhere between 0.75 and 1.25 NM. That is even if you micro manage your helo to visually be right over the sub it might be as much as 1.25 mile off target. With previous settings this is around the range that people have been reporting as critical.

While so far I think Brads latest fudge is looking good it seems to me that we couldn't have previously relied upon micro management because we just didn't have a fine enough visual scale.

Also if you leave the helo under AI control it often wants to drop on an uncertain fix and will drop (it appears) any where out to about the max range of the torpedo in question, so leaving it to the AI is near hopeless.

Therefore it seems to me that if a long term solution was wanted without the fudge it would require either a much more rigorous AI routine and/or an ability to get visual granuality down to about .25 nm.

Intereted to see how others are finding the last fudge and from the quoted observations I guess we need to look at other torpedo activities to make sure it isn't too fudged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also if you leave the helo under AI control it often wants to drop on an uncertain fix and will drop (it appears) any where out to about the max range of the torpedo in question, so leaving it to the AI is near hopeless. Therefore it seems to me that if a long term solution was wanted without the fudge it would require either a much more rigorous AI routine and/or an ability to get visual granuality down to about .25 nm.

 

We've (myself and Tony) have already talked about that to some extent and if changes are made, it will likely be in the way that AI handles a torpedo attack rather than any fundamental, underlying changes to the way in which distances are displayed on the map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also if you leave the helo under AI control it often wants to drop on an uncertain fix and will drop (it appears) any where out to about the max range of the torpedo in question, so leaving it to the AI is near hopeless. Therefore it seems to me that if a long term solution was wanted without the fudge it would require either a much more rigorous AI routine and/or an ability to get visual granuality down to about .25 nm.

 

We've (myself and Tony) have already talked about that to some extent and if changes are made, it will likely be in the way that AI handles a torpedo attack rather than any fundamental, underlying changes to the way in which distances are displayed on the map.

That sounds good to me as I assume it will improve the realism of the AI's side in this matter, as is the player can easily side step a futile allocation of precious torps but old 'dummy' I assume is just throwing them away.

It would also take the load of those who like to concentrate more on the big picture.

I can't wait (hehe I guess it won't be tomorrow though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...