Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare



Message

Aerohead -> Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/21/2006 7:17:20 AM)

Just a quick question ... I'm playing "Dawn Patrol" from the Norwegian side. I've detached two ships from the my main formation and have formed a semi-circle that has closed to within 14nm of the Soviet group. My two detached ships are at either end of the semi-circle, and the rest of the formation is in the center. When I select either of the two detached ships to launch Penguin Mk2 missiles at a Soviet target, the missiles upon launch seem to target the closest ship and will veer off to the side and nail it. Unfortunately, I am getting a number of freindly-fire kills because of this behavior. I'm expecting the missile to at least fly in the direction of the target I assigned to it, and not change course immediately upon launch! Am I doing something wrong here? Thank you for your help.



hermanhum -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/21/2006 7:24:01 AM)

Just a little confused trying to follow your description.  Do you have either a screenshot or saved game file you might be able to share?

To take a Screenshot, you can either go Grab Screen under the PC menu or else use Alt+F1.  The screenshot image should show up in c:\Screenshots folder.

Dang, looks like this will have to be reported to AGSI since it doesn't occur in the ANW folder.  You troublemaker.  [;)]



destruya -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/21/2006 10:49:16 AM)

Unfortunately, this "bug" is actually the game mimicking realism. The Penguin uses a passive IR terminal guidance system. If there's something in the way when the missile goes terminal, it'll track in on that target.

The missile SHOULD have a rudimentary IFF capability and know what the thermal signature of a friendly target is, but it might not be that well-detailed.



hermanhum -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/21/2006 12:05:05 PM)

I agree.

I was asking about the screenshot because he might be engaging a target located within a large area of uncertainty. If he has the target fully localized and pin-pointed, I think that Blue-on-Blue encounters are much less likely to occur.



Aerohead -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/21/2006 1:21:41 PM)

Thanks for getting back to me! Here are the screenshots I had taken. The first shot shows the engagement setup.

[image]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a134/GroverHead/Harpoon3ScreenShot1.jpg[/image]

My ships are just close enough to be able to launch a swarm of missiles at the Soviets. I was intending to launch Penguins from ship #1 at the Soviet ship #1, and likewise with #2, etc. Considering the angle of this engagement, I shouldn't have any other ships between my attacking ship and its target. Screenshot #2 shows the situation a few seconds after I launch my first missile.

[image]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a134/GroverHead/Harpoon3ScreenShot2.jpg[/image]

The missile is not headed towards the Soviet target, but instead has immediately locked onto a ship in my main formation and is closing in. Like Destruya, I was wondering about the behavior of the Penguin missile, but is the missile supposed to go terminal immediately upon launch? And, as I mentioned, I do not have any other ships between myself and the Soviet target.




jpkoester1 -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/21/2006 2:32:51 PM)

Hi there,

if you have a savegame from just before you fire the missile I would be interested in taking a look at it. You can send it to jpkoester@advancedgaming.biz

Cheers,
JP



Aerohead -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 12:26:43 AM)

Thanks for checking on this. I did try to do a BOL attack, but the Penguins are listed as "not BOL capable". I'm using the standard Harpoon3 database, BTW. I have a saved game right at the point of launch, so I'll play around with the scenario a bit more.



hermanhum -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 3:26:02 AM)

Way to go, Aerohead! [:)]

We are going to make a world-classed de-bugger out of you yet! [&o]



witpqs -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 5:17:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH


In the mean time I have a question into our programmer about this (he should get back to me later today) and I've narrowed the seeker viewing arc to cover only the front 90 degrees. I'll take a look at the other passive seekers in the ANW DB and see if I can prevent this from happening again.

Later
D



VCDH,

Are you doing this just for this scenario, or will you change the missle in the entire database? I am concerned that the change might be unrealistic. In my view the very best aspect of Harpoon is its approach to realism, hence my concern.



hermanhum -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 5:38:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

Right now I'm leaning towards the datalink idea beacuse, in the end, I would like to see missiles that work the way the player intends them to work. It would take only about an hour or so of work to catalogue the weapons and make the necessary changes in the ANW DB.


Won't a datalink for the Maverick or Penguin missiles allow the player to 'see' what the missile sees? In effect, creating a remote sensor platform via the missile?



witpqs -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 6:04:56 AM)

Your concerns about new players are why I asked if you were only making that change for the Dawn Patrol scenario. I do think we should find a way to help/accommodate new players and help them learn without total frustration.

However, changing the weapons from how they work in real life to how 'players want them to work' (I'm trying to quote you - maybe unsuccessfully!) takes Harpoon from a simulation to a more common game. There certainly is such a thing as playability (after all we are sitting at a computer, not signed-up and on board ship!), but what I look for in Harpoon is that things behave realistically while playability is delivered in the form of the user interface. And I do realize that the user interface could use a real nice upgrade.

When I was new to Harpoon (first version when first out - when was that???), I did find it very frustrating that many of my ships were in positions significantly different than where the TF marker showed them to be. No problem at long range from the enemy, but a real annoyance when closing - you wind up getting shot at when you think you are still out of range, etc. I still find that frustrating.

It had been a few years since I fired up Harpoon 3 before downloading the new version a couple of days ago. Very rusty, I played through Dawn Patrol. Yes, I killed one of my own ships with friendly fire, just like the new guy did!

In my opinion, the way to handle this is:

1) Fix the missle behavior (if any bugs - you seem to be saying there are). I am strongly in favor of 'realistic' behavior. It might make sense to have the 'virtual crew' be smart enough to make sure missles are set so they don't arm until past friendlies in the same formation (if realistic for the missle type). Friendly fire should not be impossible. Nor should it happen just because the interface doesn't allow the player to take the normal precautions that a real life crew would be taking as a matter of course.

2) Change the interface to better show a group (TF) layout. A short term alternative is to automatically open (if not already open) up a window (I forget the proper names - still rusty) that shows the individual ships in a TF whenever that TF is selected. That would serve as a reminder and make it easier to select single ships and issue fire orders.

3) Of course, modify the tutorial to account for #2 and deal with this genuine sore point for new players.

Thanks for laying this out and asking for opinions.



witpqs -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 6:07:13 AM)

By the way, I'm fine with the idea of datalinks - if the real versions of the weapons have them!



Aerohead -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 6:32:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

Seeker heads in game work in two different ways, both based on speed. Their activation point will be either 5nm from the target, or the distance flown based on 15 seconds of movement, whichever is faster. This means that the weapon has to be travelling faster than 1200kts before there is a change in the seeker activation point.

Penguin travels at 528 knots in the ANW DB. It's passive IR seeker will pick up the closest target to it, whether it's a flaming wreck (which has happened to me in the past) or your own ships.



If I read the statement above correctly, then should the Penguin seeker activate when it is 5nm from its target?
I'm pretty sure that I do not have any of my ships between the ship launching the missile and the Soviet target. I am aware of the formation editor and how ships can seem "hidden" on the screen when part of a formation. When the missile hits another of my ships, that ship is detached from the formation and appears in the main window. The screenshot below shows the ship which launched the missile, it's intended target, and the friendly-fire casualty. The intended target is ~15nm away from the missile-launching ship.

[image]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a134/GroverHead/Harpoon3ScreenShot3.jpg[/image]

As I mentioned, I do have my test case saved at the point of missile launch, so if anyone would like to take a look at it I can send it via e-mail.

I agree with the suggestions witpqs offered regarding how to handle this ... realism is the best way to go.

BTW, I'm not a new guy to Harpoon. I've been playing on and off since I bought the 5.25" version back in 1990 or so. The missile behavior just struck me as a bit peculiar since the missile veers off 30-40 degrees from its intended flight path immediately upon launch.



destruya -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 6:38:10 AM)

Speaking of another missile, don't forget in the scenarios that involve the Sparrows that you have to keep a nose-on perspective to the target when firing, and keep it locked for the duration.

Also, FAS might shed some light on why it pulls a curveball launch:

The Penguin missile has an indirect flight path to target. It is also operated in "fire-and-forget" mode to allow multiple target acqusition.



hermanhum -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 7:14:22 AM)

I have been monkeying around with the situation reported by Aerohead and think that there might be some useful results.

Currently, the sensor on the Penguin missiles have a range of 5nm and sensitivity rating of -650.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but in H3.6.3, the range of the sensors was immaterial since the only pertinent value was the sensitivity. Also, in 3.6.3, when a weapon was launched, the sensor on the weapon would not activate until it reached the 'activation point'.

Can you confirm that in ANW:

1) The weapon sensor is active throughout its flight?
2) Sensor range value actually limits the sensor?

I thought that the sensor was the problem because I had a hunch that once it was fired, it could not see its given target (15nm away). Since the sensor is 'live' througout its flight, it would track the first target available. Because the Goteborg was the largest vessel around, it was the most likely candidate.

So, I played around with the Sensor values for the ANWDb. I increased it to -2650. Now, instead of tracking the Goteborg, the missiles would kill the other Hugin boats.

I then changed the Range value to 25nm and the sensitivity value to -22650 and the things now work just fine. I don't know what the best values might be, but I think that this methodology leads to a better solution since there is no datalinkage back to the launching ship. Also, this might help for those missiles that can be fired BOL. With a datalinkage on a weapon, it is IMPOSSIBLE for that weapon to ever strike a friendly unit. In the modern age of warfare, the LACK of blue-on-blue would be unrealistic, IMO.

I hope that these observations help in your decision.



witpqs -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/22/2006 11:55:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aerohead

BTW, I'm not a new guy to Harpoon. I've been playing on and off since I bought the 5.25" version back in 1990 or so.


Yeah, that's the one! [:D]

Sorry, I assumed from from your first post that you were new to Harpoon.



HaroldHutchi -> RE: Question about missile behavior in "Dawn Patrol" scenario (6/24/2006 2:02:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VCDH

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Are you doing this just for this scenario, or will you change the missle in the entire database? I am concerned that the change might be unrealistic. In my view the very best aspect of Harpoon is its approach to realism, hence my concern.


At the moment I'm thinking about it.

The problem here is realism vs. functionality. If we go with realism we are faced with a committment by the player to manoeuver beyond his sunken ships to get a clear shot at the bad guys. For experienced players this really isn't going to be an issue. However, it will present a variety of problems for new players, since they initially start out without the technical knowledge that many advanced players have. In fact, due to the wide variety of playing types, some of them may never get that knowledge as they are just not that 'into' the game.

Finally I've received reports that the same problems are happening to missiles with EO and IR seekers. So I may have to move on it regardless.

Right now I'm leaning towards the datalink idea beacuse, in the end, I would like to see missiles that work the way the player intends them to work. It would take only about an hour or so of work to catalogue the weapons and make the necessary changes in the ANW DB.

If anyone has any opinions on this I'd like to hear them prior to committing to any changes.

Later
D



I'd think the datalink could kill the "friendly fire" issue - although when I play, I usually have an "auto datalink" feature on at minimum.

Perhaps the best solution is a second ANW DB - the current one stays as is, the second one would have the datalinks. Call it the BDB - Beginner's Database - or something else.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375