Jump to content

ASW


toni

Recommended Posts

Hey ED,

I know its pretty early but can you tell us if you are thinking on implementing ASW to DCS World ?  Once the Viper and Apache got complete, other platforms would be very welcome, P-3 Orion, S-3A Viking, SH-2 Seasprite, SH-3 seaking, SH-70 seahawk.........

what you think about ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I'd love there to be a more fully fledged naval environment, including ASW, it's a heck of a lot of work.

Heck, even ASuW has a long way to go; from the AI, to the damage modelling, to sensor modelling, to the weapons, countermeasures and fire-control modelling, to the physics and even the graphics and assets themselves.

ASW has all of the same issues as above, but adding ASW weapons and sensors, possibly even some hydroacoustic modelling.

Then there's the fact that just about every ASW system is pretty highly classified/restricted, basic principles however aren't too difficult (though implementation is another matter).

 

That said, we do have some ASW platforms already (either dedicated to it or have the capability), just none of them have any ASW capability.

  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I don't see the classified nonsense holding anything back. Everybody can look up how sonar works. You don't need to know which integrated chips they use or how the FPGAs are programmed for the signal analysis or even how many hydrophones are in the spherical array of the Virginia SSN. If other sub sims can do it with open source data, I don't see a reason why DCS couldn't. I hear the navy got some new toys, too. P3 is out of service and replaced by the P8.

But I agree, we need ships fixed first. Some of the textures are appalling, damage modeling is non existent to visually present but nothing is actually affected. Countermeasures are not a thing at all. CIWS doesn't shoot bombs or rocket artillery CA controls are even more ridiculous than for tanks, you can't even pick the weapons they will use if you tell them that generic "shoot this" command.

Ships need a massive overhaul. By the time the blueprints for the navy's engine rooms and nuclear reactors are on github we might actually get a submarine or torpedo in DCS in some sort of working condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't see the classified nonsense holding anything back. Everybody can look up how sonar works. You don't need to know which integrated chips they use or how the FPGAs are programmed for the signal analysis or even how many hydrophones are in the spherical array of the Virginia SSN. If other sub sims can do it with open source data, I don't see a reason why DCS couldn't. I hear the navy got some new toys, too. P3 is out of service and replaced by the P8.

The issue is the accuracy eagle tries to go for.  I would love to see at least ai sub hunters. 

1 hour ago, FalcoGer said:

But I agree, we need ships fixed first. Some of the textures are appalling, damage modeling is non existent to visually present but nothing is actually affected. Countermeasures are not a thing at all. CIWS doesn't shoot bombs or rocket artillery CA controls are even more ridiculous than for tanks, you can't even pick the weapons they will use if you tell them that generic "shoot this" command.

Ships need a massive overhaul. By the time the blueprints for the navy's engine rooms and nuclear reactors are on github we might actually get a submarine or torpedo in DCS in some sort of working condition.

This is why I keep asking for a naval module. I think it would be the best way to get the overhaul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The issue is the accuracy eagle tries to go for.  I would love to see at least ai sub hunters. 

I disagree.

As long as you know the capabilities and what it's supposed to look like from the human perspective you can model it. You don't need to know exactly how it works. Look at IFF for example. Classified stuff. But we know what it looks like in the aircraft, how the aircraft employs it and we know the basic physics behind radios, antennas and the principles behind symmetric key encryption. There is no reason to know the details.

Same with jamming. I'm sure DCS's jamming modeling is nowhere near realistic. And yet we have some basic capabilities.

DCS's radar tech is sometimes ridiculous. The mig 29 can lock up something and everyone in a 180° cone in front of it gets a spike. People bring it up, but nothing is done. I guess it's "as intended" then?

I think an issue is the pace of ASW. I don't see how the usual DCS player enjoys flying around a P3 and pop a sonar buoy out the back every 10 minutes for hours on end. Possibly with some AI crewmember being on the headphones and staring at waterfalls for a subpar acoustics simulation. Maybe drop a torpedo every 5 hours of flying. Hunting submarines is slow business. Everything else in DCS is mostly fast paced action, but then again people are happy to fly the hercules for logistics, so what do I know. And I do enjoy staring at the waterfalls in DW and anticipate the new subsims being developed. I'd probably do that kind of stuff. But not as a pilot, that just sounds too boring.


Edited by FalcoGer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FalcoGer said:

I disagree.

As long as you know the capabilities and what it's supposed to look like from the human perspective you can model it. You don't need to know exactly how it works. Look at IFF for example. Classified stuff. But we know what it looks like in the aircraft, how the aircraft employs it and we know the basic physics behind radios, antennas and the principles behind symmetric key encryption. There is no reason to know the details.

Same with jamming. I'm sure DCS's jamming modeling is nowhere near realistic. And yet we have some basic capabilities.

IFF and ECM are both done by black boxes in DCS so we don't need a lot of details.  I don't expect to see an EA-6 module or even an EB-66 or F-105G module for a reason.  

1 hour ago, FalcoGer said:

I think an issue is the pace of ASW. I don't see how the usual DCS player enjoys flying around a P3 and pop a sonar buoy out the back every 10 minutes for hours on end. Possibly with some AI crewmember being on the headphones and staring at waterfalls for a subpar acoustics simulation. Maybe drop a torpedo every 5 hours of flying. Hunting submarines is slow business. Everything else in DCS is mostly fast paced action, but then again people are happy to fly the hercules for logistics, so what do I know. And I do enjoy staring at the waterfalls in DW and anticipate the new subsims being developed. I'd probably do that kind of stuff. But not as a pilot, that just sounds too boring.

I think the pace is a big issue as well.  Even if I am wrong about Eagle not getting enough information to do a sub-hunter, I think this would still be a main killer of any project. So if we ever see a flyable ASW aircraft they would be part of a helicopter module. As for planes, I could I think the S-3 or something similar would be a bigger seller than a P-3, and I expect a destroyer module would sell more than the S-3.  I am not sure if you need to do FF with a ship module, unless you want to have a multicrew with players taking a few key stations.  I'd love to see ED get some naval modules. I don't know what approach they would take. I could see them taking two paths.

The first would be  DCS: Fleet Ops- which is my suggested name for modern surface combat sim that covers a variety of classes. Though ideally if they did multiple classes per module, I would expect multiple modules dealing with different eras. 

the other approach I could see them take would be to model specific classes- in that case I think the the first module should be the Iowa-class battleships. They served off and on for 50 years, their service life saw a lot of changes in technology so DCS could set up rules on WWII and modern vessels.  

My fear with the fleet ops approach is you'll end up with something like Combined Arms which is the worst product in ED's line up. It has a lot of potiental but they neglect it. Then if they go the single class approach there is the fear that development would be too slow to actually improve the naval environment. So we'll have the best Iowa-class battleship sim ever and go up against an ancient AI Kirov-class battlecruiser. 

 


Edited by upyr1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2022 at 8:13 AM, Northstar98 said:

As much as I'd love there to be a more fully fledged naval environment, including ASW, it's a heck of a lot of work.

Heck, even ASuW has a long way to go; from the AI, to the damage modelling, to sensor modelling, to the weapons, countermeasures and fire-control modelling, to the physics and even the graphics and assets themselves.

ASW has all of the same issues as above, but adding ASW weapons and sensors, possibly even some hydroacoustic modelling.

Then there's the fact that just about every ASW system is pretty highly classified/restricted, basic principles however aren't too difficult (though implementation is another matter).

 

That said, we do have some ASW platforms already (either dedicated to it or have the capability), just none of them have any ASW capability.

Whether or not there is interest from the DCS community for an actual ASW module ED needs to at least improve the ASW for the AI. I think it isn't a priority for Eagle since DCS is really focued only on aircraft. Though this looks like another reason they need to do some ship modules. Heck even an avenger or wild cat with an esscort carrier would be an excuse to improve it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...