RE: Problem

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Problem

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> Harpoon 3 ANW Support >> RE: Problem

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Problem - 2/16/2010 7:38:00 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Here's a little further into the test.

The Sonobuoys you're looking at are all SSQ-41 - LOFAR buoys (except at top left). The difference in the range rings is due to a difference in Sea State from 0 to 1 you're looking at a map over 60nm (111km) across and weather conditions can easily vary over such distances.

It's readily observed that displayed range rings (50% detection band) directly affect the spacings assigned to the sonobuoy drop points. So it's a variable based on Passive sonar sensitivity and the effect of Sea State on how that value generates the sonar range bands we can display. Clear as mud?

Cheers

Darren

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

*******************************************
Editor HUD-II/HUD3 Harpoon Databases

http://www.taitennek.com/hud3-db/hud3-index.htm

Development Team H3ANW v3.8, v3.9, v3.10 & v3.10.1
*******************************************

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 31

Problem - 2/16/2010 7:40:49 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Sorry wrong value quoted. Check the passive sonar sensitivities of those two sonobuoy types in your test. I bet they are very close i.e one might be -30 the other -31 or -32 or even identical.

Behavior is confirmed. Sensor sensitivity does affect separation of sonobuoy deployment. The two sonobuoys originally selected were insufficiently dissimilar to show the effect.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 32

RE: Problem - 2/16/2010 11:31:28 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Thanks Herman,

I might do more work on it soon, will need to speak to Russell about some of the latest sonar mods before I spend any time on it.

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 33

RE: Problem - 2/17/2010 5:55:17 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Sonobuoys are spaced according to their calculated detection range with a 50% chance of detection against a 100 dB target. The usual factors for sonar detection apply. A minimum of 1 nm is used and if the range is less than 3 nm it will double the value used for sonobuoy line spacing.

The point that bothers me is the laying of multiple sonobuoys on one point. I'll look into this further.

Thanks,

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 34

Problem - 2/17/2010 6:05:11 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Sonobuoys are spaced according to their calculated detection range with a 50% chance of detection against a 100 dB target.

Is this calculated detection range based upon the passive detection value from the sensor annex or does it use the Max Range value from that same sensor annex?

Does the Max Range field play any role, now?

_____________________________

(in reply to rsharp@advancedgamin)

Post #: 35

RE: Problem - 2/17/2010 6:43:05 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Sonobuoys are spaced according to their calculated detection range with a 50% chance of detection against a 100 dB target.

Is this calculated detection range based upon the passive detection value from the sensor annex or does it use the Max Range value from that same sensor annex?

Does the Max Range field play any role, now?

It's based on the sensor's passive input (sensitivity) value, that shows up from the test we did a day or so back doesn't it?

The "max range" value is informative only.

Case in point being the ability to add fuel that would allow a missile to travel past the stated "informative value" Maximum range of the missile. Eg Max range 20nm using say 40secs of fuel, adding another 10 secs would give the missile a max range of 25nm. Not adjusting the information field just means you're having, "a lend" of the DB user. Of course you won't be able to launch until you're 20nm away from the target, but the missile will fly for 25nm...

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 36

Question - 2/17/2010 9:21:01 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

The "max range" value is informative only.

That has always been the case with H2 and H3. I am seeking AGSI confirmation that this has not changed and that the field remains purely cosmetic with respect to game calculations.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 37

RE: Question - 2/17/2010 9:48:19 PM

rsharp@advancedgamin

Posts: 430
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline

Confirmed.

_____________________________

Russell
Advanced Gaming Systems
Home of Computer Harpoon

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 38