RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support



Message

thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/8/2020 11:16:22 PM)

I have heard that water's chemical composition can have some impact on detectability through sonar. Is it just density caused by the chemical make up that causes that or is the actual chemical make up of the water?



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/9/2020 11:31:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I have heard that water's chemical composition can have some impact on detectability through sonar. Is it just density caused by the chemical make up that causes that or is the actual chemical make up of the water?


It's density. One of the biggest drivers for sonar detection ranges is transmission loss (TL). The value of the TL for a given combination of target/sensor depths depends on a lot of things. One of the most important things is the sound speed profile (SSP). That dictates how sound waves are refracted through the water column. The density of the water depends on temperature, pressure, and its chemical composition, primarily salinity. There's several empirical formulae for calculating the speed of sound at a given depth (pressure) based on temperature and salinity. Those are typically measured by expendable instruments such as an XBT.



thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/9/2020 12:30:57 PM)

That's probably more than I need to know. But thanks.



SeaQueen -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/10/2020 10:58:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

That's probably more than I need to know. But thanks.


I got more where that comes from, baby. ;-)




Dimitris -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/23/2020 4:34:40 PM)

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36885/how-warships-above-the-waves-hunt-for-enemy-submarines-down-below



c3k -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/24/2020 11:25:04 AM)

Nice article. Linking further: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33018/modern-submarine-torpedo-attacks-are-nothing-like-what-you-see-in-the-movies

I have not seen anything like the capabilities discussed in this article to appear to be in the game.

It could just be my lack of exposure.



thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (11/24/2020 11:32:18 AM)

Can you be more specific on which capabilities those would be? That's kind of vague. I see some things that happen or look like they happen, but others I'm not sure about.



Flankerk -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 1:56:16 PM)

I think hidden underneath all this there is a problem am afraid.

Just playing Arctic Tsunami under version 1147.14.

In essence I have manoeuvred an Astute towards a Russian group in sea state 2.
I am at shallow depth at 5 knots. The Russian have a Udaloy, a Sovremenny and a Kirov type.

Due to damage from air strikes the Russian are also at 5 knots.

We are in deep water but well within the CZ'z.

The Astute picks up the Russian ships at around 4 Nautical Miles direct path. However the Russians have a good detection and are firing at between 6 and 7 nautical miles. All pick up the Astute and all pick it up on Horse Jaw. None are on active.

My gut instinct is that there might be a potential problem with Horse Jaw detecting as if it was active when it isn't?

There is certainly an oddity in that they are capable of detecting the Astute class when it is unable to detect them?



thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 2:14:39 PM)

Thanks for the save. I'm sure the devs will take a look.



Flankerk -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 4:44:31 PM)

Attached should be a variation.

This is a save from the Seventh Battle, oner is from slightly further out one closer in.
Ignore the rest of it but a Los Angeles at 5 knots shallow is approaching a task group also at 5 knots centred on Gorshkov. This is off the coast of Cape Town.

Some aspects seem to work as expected. The LA tends to pick up a Sovremenny at around 12NM. (The only slight variation is why in my other example the Astute didn't detect. The Sovremenny does not seem to pick up the LA at all.

However at just under 9 NM Gorshkov detects the LA and commences firing. They do not go active.

And the detecting sensor you won't get any prizes for guessing :)

I don't know if any other sonars are a problem, and to be fair Horse Jaw might be a decent one, however on the face of it, this can detect at least some subs before they can counter detect and it certainly seems to stop a sub from getting into a position where it can itself attack.




thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 6:45:11 PM)

So played around with detection ranges.

* With the SSN straight ahead of the TAKR, detection is between 9 and 10 nm.
* With SSN offset about 10-15 degrees from the path of the TAKR, detection of the SSN drops to 4nm
* Below the layer on straight ahead, the TAKR almost never seems to detect the SSN.

I substituted a 1991 DDG Spruance to see what a peer ASW suite looks like. It detects the SSN about 9nm straight ahead and 4nm more than 10 degrees of the bow of the ship. Which is similar to the Horse Jaw. I am no expert in sonar and maybe they are all wrong, but the Horse Jaw seems to work comparably with an SQS on peer sonar suites. My gut says detection straight ahead might provide better detection, but I don't know if that's true in real life.



thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 6:47:53 PM)

btw, its not very helpful to put a technical issue inside another older longer thread that's not related to a specific issue. It makes it hard for the devs to keep track of issues they have to address.



BDukes -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 6:54:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

btw, its not very helpful to put a technical issue inside another older longer thread that's not related to a specific issue. It makes it hard for the devs to keep track of issues they have to address.


Watching thewood pick on one of the founding members of HHQ. Pop Corn grabbed.



Dimitris -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 9:01:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

btw, its not very helpful to put a technical issue inside another older longer thread that's not related to a specific issue. It makes it hard for the devs to keep track of issues they have to address.


Watching thewood pick on one of the founding members of HHQ. Pop Corn grabbed.

There's no need to pringle anyone like that. Steve is an adult and he can answer for himself if he feels offended by thewood1's remark.

Calm down.



Dimitris -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 9:04:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

So played around with detection ranges.

* With the SSN straight ahead of the TAKR, detection is between 9 and 10 nm.
* With SSN offset about 10-15 degrees from the path of the TAKR, detection of the SSN drops to 4nm
* Below the layer on straight ahead, the TAKR almost never seems to detect the SSN.

I substituted a 1991 DDG Spruance to see what a peer ASW suite looks like. It detects the SSN about 9nm straight ahead and 4nm more than 10 degrees of the bow of the ship. Which is similar to the Horse Jaw. I am no expert in sonar and maybe they are all wrong, but the Horse Jaw seems to work comparably with an SQS on peer sonar suites. My gut says detection straight ahead might provide better detection, but I don't know if that's true in real life.


That's an interesting observation. I don't remember offhand any factor that would cause such a drastic difference between dead-ahead and off-boresight detections. Will need to dig into this a bit.



BDukes -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/9/2021 9:08:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: BDukes
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

btw, its not very helpful to put a technical issue inside another older longer thread that's not related to a specific issue. It makes it hard for the devs to keep track of issues they have to address.


Watching thewood pick on one of the founding members of HHQ. Pop Corn grabbed.

There's no need to pringle anyone like that. Steve is an adult and he can answer for himself if he feels offended by thewood1's remark.

Calm down.


I'm totally calm and ok. Interesting though that Paul, Mike and Rag are no longer around. Anybody notice? Its as if there was a great disturbance in the force. I miss those guys.



Flankerk -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/10/2021 1:55:13 PM)

Nah not offended. To be fair I did think about resurrecting the thread, however in effect its the same issue and I thought I'd found a solution.
(I'm not so sure now, i.e. the Russian Sonar's are getting the effect of active pinging when they aren't.)

Been retesting the same scenario but with a 2018 Astute class instead. I'd post a save but its precisely the same. The Astute picks up a Sovremenny and the TAKR at around 12NM.
The Sovremenny doesn't detect at all. The Gorshkov however does detect the Astute at just beyond 7.5 NM on Horse Jaw.

I had thought sound was primarily a circular effect like a pebble in a pond with the ripples evenly spread but I could very easily be wrong.

Of course the fact that the ahead zone seems to get a better return resurrects my active sonar theory!!

A detection on Horse Jaw at about 7 or 8 NM might be on the high side, however the sea state on the scn is NIL and all are doing 5 knots which might help throw things.

Must admit Seventh battle is one of my favourites :)




thewood1 -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (1/10/2021 2:11:49 PM)

Common sense would say you are correct on sound propagation. My thought wasn't that. My thought was orientation of the sensor. Maybe something is in the sonar model that makes the sonar sensor better at detecting from straight on. And I'm not talking real life, I am just talking in the game.

btw, I don't think it has anything to do with active. I turned active on and the detections were completely different. I think the key is that other platforms with different, but similar sonar platforms have the same result.



MH-60Deuce -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (3/2/2021 8:09:03 AM)

I wonder why you not stating this "calm down" messages towards your opinion butler thewood when he is insulting countless others for no reasons or derailing every serious discussion with nonsense.
 
Ah yes, because having circle jerk discussions is more convenient than to do professional research.

MOD EDIT: Let's try this again, without full-on rude this time, eh? Let's give it a go.



IainMcNeil -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (3/2/2021 10:10:44 AM)

This is a very passionate community but that's no excuse for deliberately winding each other up and being rude. Everyone please be patient and polite or we will lock this thread.



MH-60Deuce -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (3/3/2021 10:06:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MH-60Deuce

MOD EDIT: Let's try this again, without full-on douche this time, eh? Let's give it a go.

Letīs try this again with professionalism and developing a game based on solid research eh? Letīs give it a go. Or go ahead and censor posts again.

As requested, back to the topic:

There should be already enough evidence in this thread when it comes to the issues. Excuses like "submarines are given a deliberately easy time in real word ASW excercises" makes this even more a joke. Judging by the thread the biggest problem lies in the lack of subject knowledge and lack of willingness to conduct professional research when it comes to realistic sub ops by the CMO team. You canīt build a realistic sim by relying solely on your preferred opinion out of convenience, "my hairdresserīs pal thinks..." -facts-, and neglecting everything else.

Verdict:
Donīt get CMO if youīre looking for realistic submarine and anti-submarine operations, this game is simply not upholding to this standard.



Dimitris -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (3/3/2021 10:25:01 AM)

No worries, research and development into this matter has been ongoing. We've been talking with people whose identities and credentials are verifiable, and who understand they don't need to antagonize us (or question our "professionalism" - LOL) to get what they want.

It's just that trolls like you are not part of the process.



MH-60Deuce -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (3/3/2021 10:47:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

No worries, research and development into this matter has been ongoing. We've been talking with people whose identities and credentials are verifiable, and who understand they don't need to antagonize us (or question our "professionalism" - LOL) to get what they want.

It's just that trolls like you are not part of the process.

In your world asking for neutral and professional research which is not based on your fantasy or convenience might be a troll thing for most of us it isnīt. Thats fine I didnīt expect much more of you when I saw your instant and likely emotional-amped up reply flying in here.

To make things clear for all of here Dimitris offered me to assist the CMO team in getting the flawed CMO subsim fixed. I rejected him and told him that there is enough osint (free information) out there requiring little effort. Furthermore you donīt start by basing a sim on individual accounts only. Thats not how you do a research.

To make another thing absolutely clear, I never would even work together with you, not even for grand money. I used to work together with open-minded competent indivduals and canīt imagine to stand a single day with you being the complete opposite of these ideals.

The time you spent here with forum wars you could already invested into starting some proper subops research.



IainMcNeil -> RE: Submarines - Bit too underwhelming? (3/3/2021 11:07:04 AM)

This is a warning. You have been reminded of the need to be polite and ignored it. If you do not behave with respect for other members of the community and the team you will be banned.

We will only respond to comments and questions that are phrased in a polite and respectful manner.

I am locking this thread as a result.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625