Jump to content

ASROC error?


Mgellis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Whenever I try to use ASROCs (e.g., RUR-5s) I cannot seem to get them to fire. Other torpedos work fine, but not the ASROCs. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong (or if they were just a lemon as far as the technology goes and malfunctioned all the time in real life) or if there is a database error, but I figured I should report it. Thanks.

 

Mark

 

ANW

HUD 4 v1.1 b10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found what's going on. ASROC has flag "limited to mount arc" enabled. It means that if your mount has a firing arc left on the ship, it won't fire at a contact right of the ship. Most efficient trick is to fire from the expected mount arc.

 

FG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found what's going on. ASROC has flag "limited to mount arc" enabled. It means that if your mount has a firing arc left on the ship, it won't fire at a contact right of the ship. Most efficient trick is to fire from the expected mount arc.

 

FG

 

Have you been able to get it to fire? I tried with a sample scenario...got a Reasoner within 3 miles a Ming, lined up the sub on my port bow (which is what the database says is the right arc), clicked the attack button (and the MK16 was the weapon that the AI auto-selected as the right one to use), and fired...and nothing happened. Later, when I attacked again, it was clear the first ASROC had not fired because I still had six in the mount (one selected to fire and five more available). Is there anything else that might be causing this to happen? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, I may have found what the issue is: early ASROC variants have no "far surface Probability of Kill" opposite to later. Corrected for HUD4 v1.11. Since it's a real issue, 1.11 will be released IMMEDIATELY after 3.11.

 

FG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Gunny sent me a couple of rough updates to test and I was finally able to get the ASROCs to fire (at least, on the four or five ships I tested) and this fix should be part of the next update (HUD-4 v1.12?) but I don't know when Gunny is going to release that. He may be trying to incorporate as many fixes, updates, new platforms, etc. as he can before he does that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be part of the last 1.11 update. I don't know when I'll send it.

 

FG

 

One minor quibble...I would recommend that whenever a change is made to the database that a new version number is created rather than simply updating the file. My concern is that simply updating the file could cause confusion as there will now be a couple of different versions of the database with the same number--scenarios might not get updated because people think they already have the right database and then will not be able to play the scenario. It isn't that hard to figure out what's wrong, of course, but it might create frustration for some players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My preference goes to changing number when big changes occur: 1.1 when the mine flag was added, 1.11 when official release came with a lot of corrections were brought, then next big thing, 1.12 will be when I'll have the new HUD4 signatures' calculation enforced for every platform.

 

FG

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be part of the last 1.11 update. I don't know when I'll send it.

 

FG

Gunny,

 

is it really a good idea to wait with an update so long when such a major flaw was detected? I´m no db guy thus I can´t say how much time this costs. But no-functioning weapons, be them Mavericks or ASROCs are a real show stopper. IMO those should be corrected with an own small release. The logical number for that would be 1.12; the next large update 1.20. These are the usual conventions when it comes to versions IIRC.

 

Just my 2c but why should anybody write an ASW scenario with ASROC armed US destroyers knowing they don´t work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be part of the last 1.11 update. I don't know when I'll send it.

 

FG

Gunny,

 

is it really a good idea to wait with an update so long when such a major flaw was detected? I´m no db guy thus I can´t say how much time this costs. But no-functioning weapons, be them Mavericks or ASROCs are a real show stopper. IMO those should be corrected with an own small release. The logical number for that would be 1.12; the next large update 1.20. These are the usual conventions when it comes to versions IIRC.

 

Just my 2c but why should anybody write an ASW scenario with ASROC armed US destroyers knowing they don´t work?

 

The biggest problem is when it is a surprise. Most ships with ASROC actually have other ASW weapons, so the failure of the ASROC usually does not render the destroyer helpless, although those extra 6 torpedoes are often a welcome addition to your firepower, especially if you are otherwise limited to four or six boxed torpedoes with no reloads. If you know the ASROC isn't available, though, you just plan around it, the way I imagine a real captain would plan around it if he knew he had a mechanical failure on his ship but had to go into action anyway.

 

I had actually been planning on just side-stepping the ASROCs by unloading them with the logistics control and adding a note in the scenario orders explaining that they were not available. That way people would have known they had to plan around that limitation. Now that the error looks like it has been resolved, I won't have to do that.

 

Personally, I think we should have a "call for database testers." It is a simple matter to set up a "test platforms" scenario and just run through the various weapons, etc. to see which ones work and which ones have issues. But there are a huge number of platforms and most of them are fine so it is easy to miss the ones that need corrections. Gunny will still have to make the corrections, as I think he is the only one who can actually edit the database, but if we had a group of people working through the platforms in a coordinated way, we'd be able to get more information to Gunny more quickly and more efficiently.

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...