Maritime Pack Wanted

[Mike Force Team]

ED needs to create a Maritime Pack.  This add-in/module would give players the ability to integrate with their aircraft carriers and destroyers.  Additionally, ED should work on allowing players to better control their submarines.  Using a simplified interface, players can view opponents at periscope depth to fire torpedoes or ship-launched cruise missiles to attack hostile forces.  Additionally, add mine layers and minesweepers to lay sea mines or clear sea mines.  Even more so, add ship tenders and sub tenders.  For destroyers, give them the ability to use depth charges to attack submerged submarines.

[rkk01]

Would love to see more maritime assets - WW2 and mid to late Cold War 

But which countries / era / assets to choose…?

CW sub and ASW Ops are still (mostly) shrouded in secrecy

Even surface ship capabilities will be difficult to determine

(ETA - look for T45 and upgraded T23 anti-air capabilities and you’d probably conclude that being airborne was a bad plan…) and that’s just the limited open source info

Edited November 30, 2021 by rkk01

[Tank50us]

16 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Would love to see more maritime assets - WW2 and mid to late Cold War 

But which countries / era / assets to choose…?

CW sub and ASW Ops are still (mostly) shrouded in secrecy

Even surface ship capabilities will be difficult to determine

(ETA - look for T45 and upgraded T23 anti-air capabilities and you’d probably conclude that being airborne was a bad plan…) and that’s just the limited open source info

 

On the subject of ASW, the actual tactics are well known and documented, as are the tools used for specific tactics. The only thing really shrouded in secrecy about ASW is the actual acoustics of modern submarines, the properties of their hulls, and the exact workings of their sonars. However since Surface and Airborne ASW relies more on Active Sonar, this is all moot. The reason for this is because unless a surface ship is stopped, it'll never 'hear' a submarine over its own, very noisy, engines, and the same applies to helicopters with dipping sonar and air-dropped sonobouys from MPAs. On top of that, especially with the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, the equipment for passive sonar has to be very finely tuned, and is thus, very sensitive, and even with a parachute, the sudden stop will jar the equipment, and make getting a proper fix all the more difficult. Ergo, they rely on an active system as it's cheaper, and gives an exact fix on the Submarines position, allowing the torpedo to be properly set. This is especially important as most ASW equipped Helicopters have maybe two torpedoes at their disposal. So they gotta make those shots count.

As for the other equipment used in ASW, the only thing I can think of that's really super classified would be the Magnetic Anomaly Detectors, which detect the disturbances of the earths magnetic field that are associated with submarines, however they're not exactly known for getting an exact fix on the sub, but they can give the aircraft an idea where to drop a sonobouy, which in DCS can be represented by an AI WSO tuning the MAD equipment automatically, and giving the player(s) an idea where to drop the bouy. Or, if they're lacking bouys, and know that there's no possibility of a friendly submarine in the area, they could drop a torpedo to go on a 'fishing expedition'.

[Mike Force Team]

Using available information for anti-ship warfare, ED can start make the program or mod. When some features and functionalities are not clear, use one's understanding to create a "best guess" attempt. Then make necessary changes afterwards. 

I want to have more controllable submarines as well as mine layers and mine sweepers. The available controls for submarines are limited and hard to use.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Mike Force Team

[rkk01]

I was also thinking of the highly classified nature of the air defence suites - hence reference to the Type 45 and 23 ships

[Tank50us]

6 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

I was also thinking of the highly classified nature of the air defence suites - hence reference to the Type 45 and 23 ships

For that I say KIS. None of the ships in DCS have their full Air Defense Systems fully modeled, so I doubt we'd lose much by keep the ship-based Air Defense Systems to a simplified nature. That said, a more complex AI system to govern when a ship actually shoots would be nice.

[Mike Force Team]

Creative minds can use photos/videos of various ships/submarines available to the public to create systems.  It's just thought.

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

Creative minds can use photos/videos of various ships/submarines available to the public to create systems.  It's just thought.

There's a bit more to it than that. You can't tell from those pictures or videos exactly how the systems are supposed to work, you need documentation that tells you "Button X does Y". Sure, you can poke your head in a cockpit, and identify what does what by the labels, but can you tell how those systems are supposed to work based on that? No. Sure, a battery switch is a no brainer, but what about an INS knob in the Viper? Or any number of switches and knobs that have multiple functions? Without the documentation to tell you what those functions are, you're kinda hosed.

[upyr1]

On 11/29/2021 at 5:29 PM, Mike Force Team said:

ED needs to create a Maritime Pack.  This add-in/module would give players the ability to integrate with their aircraft carriers and destroyers.  Additionally, ED should work on allowing players to better control their submarines.  Using a simplified interface, players can view opponents at periscope depth to fire torpedoes or ship-launched cruise missiles to attack hostile forces.  Additionally, add mine layers and minesweepers to lay sea mines or clear sea mines.  Even more so, add ship tenders and sub tenders.  For destroyers, give them the ability to use depth charges to attack submerged submarines.

Agreed we need some playable naval modules. I figure the best path to go would be a handful of modules focusing on era, theaters and ship types. 

 

[upyr1]

11 hours ago, Mike Force Team said:

Creative minds can use photos/videos of various ships/submarines available to the public to create systems.  It's just thought.

10 hours ago, Tank50us said:

There's a bit more to it than that. You can't tell from those pictures or videos exactly how the systems are supposed to work, you need documentation that tells you "Button X does Y". Sure, you can poke your head in a cockpit, and identify what does what by the labels, but can you tell how those systems are supposed to work based on that? No. Sure, a battery switch is a no brainer, but what about an INS knob in the Viper? Or any number of switches and knobs that have multiple functions? Without the documentation to tell you what those functions are, you're kinda hosed.

One idea that has been suggested and could be a good workaround would be to model things from the perspective of the captain so you don't need to micromanage the systems

[upyr1]

23 hours ago, Tank50us said:

For that I say KIS. None of the ships in DCS have their full Air Defense Systems fully modeled, so I doubt we'd lose much by keep the ship-based Air Defense Systems to a simplified nature. That said, a more complex AI system to govern when a ship actually shoots would be nice.

 

Unless we get some sort of bridge commander type multi-player I simply don't see any point to trying to do a full fidelity ship. In the real world, the captain commands the ship and the crew handles the details of operating the systems. The next thing Eagle will need to think about, is how many naval modules and how many classes per module? I figure the best approach would be to do modules based on theater , era and type. 

 

[Mike Force Team]

We know ED has a SDK. Perhaps you can create ships, but have to use ED's software. 

[cfrag]

Ahem. Not even the most basic physics modelling works for ships in DCS. They don't float (displacement isn't modelled) so they don't sink unless a special animation is played. A carrier can accelerate to 30 knots in under a minute (10 seconds?), and turn on a dime. There's currently so much wrong with ship modelling that I feel that rather than exacerbating the issue with another botch job a la CA, let's lay a good naval sim foundation first, and then see what options we have. I haven't tried in over a year, but is it still possible in CA to drive a Leo downhill at 170 km/h and have it stop dead in its track when it touches a slender 5 inch birch tree? Do we really want something as preposterous as that for navies? Then we might as well add Nick Fury's flying carrier from "Avengers".

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by cfrag

[Boosterdog]

15 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Then we might as well add Nick Fury's flying carrier from "Avengers".

Im no expert in carrier design but does anyone else see a flaw in the location of the huge rotors of certain death directly in front of the landing deck at right about where a overshooting/underpowered pilot would eject? 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Boosterdog

[Tank50us]

17 minutes ago, cfrag said:

A carrier can accelerate to 30 knots in under a minute (10 seconds?), and turn on a dime.

I've seen some footage of our carriers during their sea trials, and you'd be surprised how fast a pair of nuclear reactors can oomph a 90,000t warship from 0 to 35kts. Same applies to the Burkes. Here's a video of one performing evasive maneuvers, and it's quite impressive at how tight that turning radius is, and how quick it can get up to speed.

 

[cfrag]

49 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

you'd be surprised how fast a pair of nuclear reactors can oomph a 90,000t warship from 0 to 35kts

While I know that carriers and other ships are capable of really impressive feats, I don't think they can perform a 0-30 knots acceleration in some 100 seconds (I just timed it: In DCS the Truman linearly increases speed by 1 km/h every 1.7 seconds until it hits 55 km/h).  

That (really great, thank you!) footage you provided also shows another big shortcoming: ships in DCS don't roll nor lean (that's one impressive sight in the video - just thinking about the forces at play here boggles the mind). I want that in ships, as it makes ship landings by helicopters(!) and planes a much greater accomplishment. So let's hope ED improves ship modelling at some point in the future.

Edited December 6, 2021 by cfrag

[Boosterdog]

27 minutes ago, cfrag said:

That (really great, thank you!) footage you provided also shows another big shortcoming: 

 

And wakes or lack therefore

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

That (really great, thank you!) footage you provided also shows another big shortcoming: ships in DCS don't roll nor lean (that's one impressive sight in the video - just thinking about the forces at play here boggles the mind).

I want that in ships, as it makes ship landings by helicopters(!) and planes a much greater accomplishment. So let's hope ED improves ship modelling at some point in the future.

They actually do, but with small craft moving at very high speeds, it's kinda fudged and they roll progressively in steps rather than 1 continuous motion.

The rest of the physics though is spot on, the ship physics models seem pretty crude and acceleration/deceleration rates don't seem realistic at all, at least for some ships. There's also no bouyancy model, and sinkings are just the same prescripted animation, regardless of where the ship was hit and by what.

But this is far from the list of issues with the naval environment and naval units, from sensors, weapons, damage models, graphics and missing functionality, hell even getting the variant straight (both the OHP and Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA are somewhat hybrids of various fits mashed into 1).

[Tank50us]

41 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

They actually do, but with small craft moving at very high speeds, it's kinda fudged and they roll progressively in steps rather than 1 continuous motion.

The rest of the physics though is spot on, the ship physics models seem pretty crude and acceleration/deceleration rates don't seem realistic at all, at least for some ships. There's also no bouyancy model, and sinkings are just the same prescripted animation, regardless of where the ship was hit and by what.

But this is far from the list of issues with the naval environment and naval units, from sensors, weapons, damage models, graphics and missing functionality, hell even getting the variant straight (both the OHP and Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA are somewhat hybrids of various fits mashed into 1).

I mean, accurate ship sinking isn't exactly an easy thing to model in a sim. For one that will require accurate simulation of the water, and accurate simulation of the deck layouts. Most games get around this by having a host of animations that can play under certain conditions, but with DCS having fairly simple damage models for ships and tanks, it really limits what can be done. An easy way to fix that would be to break the ship into about 14 hull sections: Six sections below the water line, six above, and two for the super structure. When any of those parts reach zero HP, the ship is considered either 'Mission Killed' (in which case the ship stays above the water line, and returns to it's 'start' position), or 'sunk' (the ship begins to sink) depending on which sections reach 0 health.

As well as the hull sections you'd need assorted modules that can also result in the ship being destroyed or disabled if they reach zero health. Examples would be a ships magazines, which as Hood and Arizona demonstrated can go up quite spectacularly when 2,000lbs of HE goes off in them. You'd also have the bridge, which will result in the ship being forced out of the area or becoming dead in the water. A ships fuel tanks or engines can be damaged or destroyed, resulting in the ship coming to a slow halt and going adrift... or becoming an inferno. And of course you'd have the keel, which if that goes, the ship will sink.... it's just a question of how long will the ship remain looking like a ship before it's ripped in half.

At first it seems complex, but it's actually a very simplistic way of doing things, but it looks and feels realistic to the players as they watch the ship go down.

[cfrag]

It's not so much about the sinking animations - it's the general behavior how ships float (buoyancy and displacement) and behave in a fluid. When ships take on water and start listing, when they get hit by cross waves and wind, how ships pitch and yaw on waves, how currents influence their path, how two ships moving close to each other generate a Bernoulli effect that drags then even closer etc. Those are fundamental fluid dynamics without which any ship simulation is as pointless as a plane sim without a good flight model. I'm not saying I don't want that - the exact opposite, as this is a whish list item. I'm saying that if ED want to develop a naval sim that's worthy of that name, it'll require significant investment.  

Edited December 6, 2021 by cfrag

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, cfrag said:

Ahem. Not even the most basic physics modelling works for ships in DCS. They don't float (displacement isn't modelled) so they don't sink unless a special animation is played. A carrier can accelerate to 30 knots in under a minute (10 seconds?), and turn on a dime. There's currently so much wrong with ship modelling that I feel that rather than exacerbating the issue with another botch job a la CA, let's lay a good naval sim foundation first, and then see what options we have. I haven't tried in over a year, but is it still possible in CA to drive a Leo downhill at 170 km/h and have it stop dead in its track when it touches a slender 5 inch birch tree? Do we really want something as preposterous as that for navies? Then we might as well add Nick Fury's flying carrier from "Avengers".

 

 

There is a lot Eagle needs to do to fix the Naval environment and I honestly think the best way to see them fixed is to have Naval modules. Right now it isn't a priority 

[Tank50us]

41 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

There is a lot Eagle needs to do to fix the Naval environment and I honestly think the best way to see them fixed is to have Naval modules. Right now it isn't a priority 

Hey at least the idea I presented above has some merit, since it already exists within the game proper anyway.

[upyr1]

On 12/6/2021 at 10:24 AM, Tank50us said:

Hey at least the idea I presented above has some merit, since it already exists within the game proper anyway.

I think you have some good ideas, but I also think some naval modules would be cool. Especially if we get some battleships

[FlankerKiller]

I see a lot of good ideas in this thread. Honestly I too dream of having the Dangerous Waters experience in DCS, and I'm pretty sure ED dose as well. But there are limits and resources are finite. Before we go crazy with new units we need to have all the current units brought up to the same standard. Then we need some kind of AI in the ships. Something with offensive and defensive capability. Ships need to set there own attack courses, have some basic tactics, turn to expose defensive weapons, and carriers turn into the wind for launch and recovery. Maybe even have them run if out matched. This would go miles to making the navel side of DCS more immersive. As for player control, I would make some kind of fleet commander game and link it to the Super Carrier. Set up an RTS game type interface that is optimized for the navel ops. This would also allow additional features to be implemented as they are developed. Such as ASW such a setup could be really engaging to play once the dynamic campaign becomes a thing. And since you can dive into a naval unit, AKA The Hornet you already have that first person aspect baked in.

 

[upyr1]

23 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

I see a lot of good ideas in this thread. Honestly I too dream of having the Dangerous Waters experience in DCS, and I'm pretty sure ED dose as well. But there are limits and resources are finite. Before we go crazy with new units we need to have all the current units brought up to the same standard. Then we need some kind of AI in the ships. Something with offensive and defensive capability. Ships need to set there own attack courses, have some basic tactics, turn to expose defensive weapons, and carriers turn into the wind for launch and recovery. Maybe even have them run if out matched. This would go miles to making the navel side of DCS more immersive. As for player control, I would make some kind of fleet commander game and link it to the Super Carrier. Set up an RTS game type interface that is optimized for the navel ops. This would also allow additional features to be implemented as they are developed. Such as ASW such a setup could be really engaging to play once the dynamic campaign becomes a thing. And since you can dive into a naval unit, AKA The Hornet you already have that first person aspect baked in.

 

Eagle has a lot of work to do and finite resources. So as I keep saying it is important for eagle to figure out if selling a new module will help increase the resources.