Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Just as with some ground units like tanks (example pictured) It would be real helpful to be able to set the weapon/ammo loud outs and amounts with naval vessels. Fuel too if it's even possible.

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Edited by killjoy73au
  • Like 3

 

image.png

  • killjoy73au changed the title to Set Naval Unit weapon/ammo states.
Posted

Yep +1, would be very useful to simulate prior engagements and to disable specific weapons entirely.

  • Like 2

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, 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, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, 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.

Posted
On 5/23/2024 at 8:42 AM, killjoy73au said:

Just as with some ground units like tanks (example pictured) It would be real helpful to be able to set the weapon/ammo loud outs and amounts with naval vessels. Fuel too if it's even possible.

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

We have problems here:

  • Land units ammo is very simplified, you cant add multiple ammo types or configure ammo by year released.
  • Ammo on Naval vessels has very complex, the example O.H. Perry...
    • Mk13 w/40 munitions, 36 SM1MR Blk VI (reach 40) , 4 Harpoon IB (Max). SAMs and SSM will type change by the years...
    • Missing torpedo launchers (Mk32 324mm TT w/3 Mk46 Mod 5) and changed type by the years.
    • More stuff missing.

For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF

Posted
36 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

We have problems here:

  • Land units ammo is very simplified, you cant add multiple ammo types or configure ammo by year released.
  • Ammo on Naval vessels has very complex, the example O.H. Perry...
    • Mk13 w/40 munitions, 36 SM1MR Blk VI (reach 40) , 4 Harpoon IB (Max). SAMs and SSM will type change by the years...
    • Missing torpedo launchers (Mk32 324mm TT w/3 Mk46 Mod 5) and changed type by the years.
    • More stuff missing.

Simple or not it doesn't hurt to hit the 5 stars and make ED take notice.

 

image.png

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:
  • Mk13 w/40 munitions, 36 SM1MR Blk VI (reach 40) , 4 Harpoon IB (Max). SAMs and SSM will type change by the years...
  • Missing torpedo launchers (Mk32 324mm TT w/3 Mk46 Mod 5) and changed type by the years.

Well, when you consider that ED's OHP is a hybrid of an early and mid 2000s version (Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B, Mk 234 Nulka, Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS but no STIR (which, for the latter 2, the absence/presence of one should entail the absence/presence of the other as the STIR is what provides illumination for the SM-1MR).

In that case, the RIM-66E-6 SM-1MR Block VIB (which is from the mid 1990s), the RGM-84D Harpoon Block IC or RGM-84G Harpoon Block ID and the Mk 46 Mod 5A(SW) torpedo.

But even then, DCS doesn't have the fidelity or modelling for their to really be much of a difference between variants, especially when it comes to AI AShMs and ASW torpedoes are non-functional.

Edited by Northstar98
SM-2MR -> SM-1MR (OHPs in USN service never had SM-2)

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, 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, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, 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.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Well, when you consider that ED's OHP is a hybrid of an early and mid 2000s version (Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B, Mk 234 Nulka, Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS but no STIR (which, for the latter 2, the absence/presence of one should entail the absence/presence of the other as the STIR is what provides illumination for the SM-1MR).

In that case, the RIM-66E-6 SM-2MR Block VIB (which is from the mid 1990s), the RGM-84D Harpoon Block IC or RGM-84G Harpoon Block ID and the Mk 46 Mod 5A(SW) torpedo.

But even then, DCS doesn't have the fidelity or modelling for their to really be much of a difference between variants, especially when it comes to AI AShMs and ASW torpedoes are non-functional.

I was put more updated info on the "Ship Overview" post. And have many "black holes" on AI Ship yet.

And yes, many DCS World ships has a mix of nosense.

Edited by Silver_Dragon

For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF

Posted
3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

And yes, many DCS World ships has a mix of nosense.

Yeah I think in this sense the devs were trying to go for the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than the an accurate representation of them (which for modern ships is hard to do because they're classified). That all being said, it shouldn't be that difficult to keep this as part of the game, and give the Mission Editors the ability to set the ships up in ways that make sense for the scenario. Each ship would still have a default loadout, this would be perfectly fine, but if someone wanted to, for example, simulate an earlier 'model' of the Perry, a couple sliders and a drop-down or two showing different weapon options and configurations should be relatively easy to do, especially since we now have that for the fuses on bombs (with some of the options changing the way the thing looks as well).

Posted
3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Yeah I think in this sense the devs were trying to go for the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than the an accurate representation of them

Maybe, but personally it's probably a lack of research - we have ships with the wrong guns, ships that fire the wrong missiles, ships that have the wrong radars and even a vessel that has the wrong name.

3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

which for modern ships is hard to do because they're classified

Not at all, nothing about this is classified in the slightest. You just have to do the research (and there's plenty enough online for it).

For example on the OHP: https://www.navysite.de/ffg/ffg7class.htm or paying a visit to seaforces.org and looking at the photos and the dates.

For another example, let's take a look at the Arleigh Burke: it has the 2 CIWS from the first 4 Flight IIAs with the 5"/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 (DDGs 81-84), yet it has the funnel design from DDG 89 onwards, liveries comprising the last 12 Flight IIAs, all 3 restarts and the first technology insertion but has the missile availability from 1990s - early 2000s Flight Is and IIs, which don't have hangars and have Harpoon.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, 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, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, 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.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Maybe, but personally it's probably a lack of research - we have ships with the wrong guns, ships that fire the wrong missiles, ships that have the wrong radars and even a vessel that has the wrong name.

Not at all, nothing about this is classified in the slightest. You just have to do the research (and there's plenty enough online for it).

For example on the OHP: https://www.navysite.de/ffg/ffg7class.htm or paying a visit to seaforces.org and looking at the photos and the dates.

For another example, let's take a look at the Arleigh Burke: it has the 2 CIWS from the first 4 Flight IIAs with the 5"/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 (DDGs 81-84), yet it has the funnel design from DDG 89 onwards, liveries comprising the last 12 Flight IIAs, all 3 restarts and the first technology insertion but has the missile availability from 1990s - early 2000s Flight Is and IIs, which don't have hangars and have Harpoon.

Has more easy make a "general" version, as @Northstar98 talked, the problem has been put the correct version on 3D model ship. I go to put on "my" post, all "arleigh Burke versions, to compare them...

  • Arleigh Burke (Done)
  • Ticonderoga (Done)

Others will update as required.

Edited by Silver_Dragon

For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF

Posted
2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Not at all, nothing about this is classified in the slightest. You just have to do the research (and there's plenty enough online for it).

I was talking about the systems between a modern vessel, and one from, for example WW2.

Case in point, if you want to know what kinds of systems a Fletcher-class destroyer had, the research cost is merely a plane ticket and an admissions ticket to USS Kidd, since she's a museum ship and (until recently, thanks to needing some work done) open to the general public. What the ships could do, how they performed, and even their exact interior layout is all public information.

Compare that to one of the newer Arliegh Burkes (the upcoming Flight IIIs specifically), or the Zumwalt-class. Being brand new ships, their actual capabilities are either speculative (IE, we know they have X because it's either advertised or visible, but the exact nature of them is unknown), or just straight up classified. Even their interior layout is likely to be classified. And with the weapons capability, it's typically something that's advertised by the Navy, but the exact number of weapons, and amount of ammo for them is going to be both kept close to the chest, or will vary depending on mission requirements.

Now, is there enough information to make the ship, and give it some capability in DCS? Oh yeah. But to get the ship to be properly simulated, the more modern ships just won't have enough information for that, thus, the best option for ED and other Devs is just to go with the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than try to model each one out. For example if they decided to make a Fletcher-Class Destroyer, a class that had about 175 ships built, the best option here would be a representation of the class as they appeared in WW2, and the best candidate for that would be USS Kidd as she's still in her WW2 configuration (albeit with one torpedo launcher missing as she was built for heavier AA work), and then pick one of the few that received the "FRAM" upgrades for an early-mid Cold War configuration.

Posted
14 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

We have problems here:

  • Land units ammo is very simplified, you cant add multiple ammo types or configure ammo by year released.
  • Ammo on Naval vessels has very complex, the example O.H. Perry...
    • Mk13 w/40 munitions, 36 SM1MR Blk VI (reach 40) , 4 Harpoon IB (Max). SAMs and SSM will type change by the years...
    • Missing torpedo launchers (Mk32 324mm TT w/3 Mk46 Mod 5) and changed type by the years.
    • More stuff missing.

All in favour of setting this stuff right 'sometime', but for the time being I feel the very system that works for ground units could be ported to the ships. After all, the sim does have to track what weapons any vessel has anyway? Just giving mission designers a little checkbox that enables/disables certain weapon systems (if ammo count isn't a thing for some reason) would help a lot and can't possibly be all that difficult, unless you want to tell me that the weapon employment of ships in DCS works fundamentally different from that in ground vehicles.

Also, seriously: torpedo, shmorpedo. It would be nice to have those, but for what is primarily a flight simulator their relevance is small enough that holding up QOL updates on the way ships work in DCS for the sake of implementing them properly is just plan weird.
Yes, ship missiles change by the years. But lets get real here: they don't really in DCS. Again, that would be nice in the future, but lets get a few small things down now?

Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2024 at 12:51 AM, Tank50us said:

Case in point, if you want to know what kinds of systems a Fletcher-class destroyer had

And we know what kind of systems the Arleigh Burke has, especially those relevant to DCS. We don't know all the relevant capabilities, but DCS is too simplistic for them to be relevant.

There's certainly nothing classified about the fact that from DDG 84 onwards, they only have the rear Phalanx at most (though some started out with none), RIM-162A ESSM has been in full operational capability since 2004, the RIM-174A ERAM achieved IOC in 2013 and went into full-rate production in 2015 and the RGM-109E TACTOM Block IV was introduced in 2006. Meanwhile, the absolute earliest the earliest Arleigh Burke livery in DCS is from 2007 and the earliest the latest Arleigh Burke livery we have is from 2018.

There's certainly nothing classified about how the Oliver Hazard Perry needs the STIR if it's to have Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS and there's plenty of photos showing that if one's gone, the other is gone.

There's also nothing classified about the fact that the SM-2MR isn't SARH, illuminating at launch - that's how SM-1MRs behave and that it's instead inertially guided with a command uplink (at least with Aegis) with SARH guidance only occuring in the terminal stage. While we don't know the exact rate-of-fire or how many missiles Aegis supports in the mid-course phase or when the changeover point from mid-course to terminal illumination is, that applies to the ships as they already are, regardless of whether they're a mashup of different variants or not. It would apply regardless of what variant(s) they choose, as it's an integral part of that class of ship that cannot be worked around short of choosing a different class altogether. Even taking a best-guess would be more more realistic than what we have now (it would certainly be higher fidelity at the very least).

On 5/25/2024 at 12:51 AM, Tank50us said:

And with the weapons capability, it's typically something that's advertised by the Navy, but the exact number of weapons, and amount of ammo for them is going to be both kept close to the chest, or will vary depending on mission requirements.

It does vary with mission requirements, but this knowledge isn't required for DCS as the Mk 41 VLS is modular and should allow players to configure them as required. And being able to set what the load should be is the whole point of this thread.

On 5/25/2024 at 12:51 AM, Tank50us said:

Now, is there enough information to make the ship, and give it some capability in DCS? Oh yeah. But to get the ship to be properly simulated, the more modern ships just won't have enough information for that, thus, the best option for ED and other Devs is just to go with the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than try to model each one out.

Even if I accept it to be true, the conclusion would be "don't do such modern vessels" rather than "do modern vessels but make them a hybrid" - all those Arleigh Burke variants that our one is a mashup of still have similar combat systems and similar radars. The problem is equally true for the hybrid, making a hybrid does exactly nothing to rectify or workaround this issue. All you've done is just make it even less coherent than it could've been.

As for things like DDG 51 Flight III, DDG 1000 and interior layouts, neither is really all that relevant for DCS. We don't have a Flight III, we're supposed to have a Flight IIA and we don't have a DDG 1000. Interior layouts you can make a case for with the damage model, but the damage model right now is so beyond simplified that even a purely generic and abstracted internal layout would be an improvement by orders of magnitude (and really, that's all that's really necessary).

On 5/25/2024 at 2:25 AM, Grimes said:

I'd just want it so I can remove anti-ship missiles from ships because the ROE settings are inadequate and AI will waste the things.

Definitely agree there, though I'd say this is the wrong way to go about solving this probably specifically (we really need the release quantity settings to work properly and a way of configuring what weapons and how many they should use against what targets, when firing at targets of opportunity and in self-defence (the WRA settings in C:MO is essentially a perfect example of how to go about this).

Edited by Northstar98
grammar, spelling
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, 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, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, 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.

Posted
On 5/25/2024 at 1:51 AM, Tank50us said:

I was talking about the systems between a modern vessel, and one from, for example WW2.

Case in point, if you want to know what kinds of systems a Fletcher-class destroyer had, the research cost is merely a plane ticket and an admissions ticket to USS Kidd, since she's a museum ship and (until recently, thanks to needing some work done) open to the general public. What the ships could do, how they performed, and even their exact interior layout is all public information.

Compare that to one of the newer Arliegh Burkes (the upcoming Flight IIIs specifically), or the Zumwalt-class. Being brand new ships, their actual capabilities are either speculative (IE, we know they have X because it's either advertised or visible, but the exact nature of them is unknown), or just straight up classified. Even their interior layout is likely to be classified. And with the weapons capability, it's typically something that's advertised by the Navy, but the exact number of weapons, and amount of ammo for them is going to be both kept close to the chest, or will vary depending on mission requirements.

Now, is there enough information to make the ship, and give it some capability in DCS? Oh yeah. But to get the ship to be properly simulated, the more modern ships just won't have enough information for that, thus, the best option for ED and other Devs is just to go with the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than try to model each one out. For example if they decided to make a Fletcher-Class Destroyer, a class that had about 175 ships built, the best option here would be a representation of the class as they appeared in WW2, and the best candidate for that would be USS Kidd as she's still in her WW2 configuration (albeit with one torpedo launcher missing as she was built for heavier AA work), and then pick one of the few that received the "FRAM" upgrades for an early-mid Cold War configuration.

I agree with what Northstar said - there is nothing classified about what weapon's systems go with which Arleigh Burke variant at a certain period in time.

This is what we are talking about, when critisising the "hodgepodge" nature of several ships in DCS - i.e. that a particular variant of a ship has armament/systems that are incorrect for it or/and combinations of them, that didn't exist at the same period in time. Whether this is down to poor research on the part of the developers or a case of trying to provide some sort of "abstract" version for all purposes(time frames) I cannot say, but I think we all know that neither would be acceptable for an aircraft 🙂 .

The inner workings and nitty gritty performance details of individual weapon's systems, for which secrecy could come into play would only be needed for simulatng them from an operator's point of view - i.e. player control. For an AI controlled unit(including aircraft) you only need general information about sensors/systems/compatible armament  and the basic performance stats published for them.

  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

The inner workings and nitty gritty performance details of individual weapon's systems, for which secrecy could come into play would only be needed for simulatng them from an operator's point of view - i.e. player control. For an AI controlled unit(including aircraft) you only need general information about sensors/systems/compatible armament  and the basic performance stats published for them.

To really hammer this home - it should be noted that regardless of which variant is chones, or if it's some combination merged into one vessel, this exact problem would apply just the same and there's no way around it, apart from choosing not to implement ships where data isn't available.

To an extent, certain things can (and will need to be) abstracted (especially as these are AI units we're talking about). We don't know for instance what the rate-of-fire of the Mk 41 is when firing SAMs, how many the Aegis system (and its various mods) can support in their mid-course phase or when exactly command + inertial guidance switches over to SARH, a guess (which for the first one, has already happened) would be far better than the current behaviour (which treats SM-2s like SM-1s - i.e. SARH, illuminating at launch, not flying optimised trajectories like the 5V55R and being PN from launch).

We do know that the SM-2s these ships have available are inertial w/ a command uplink in the midcourse phase and then switches over to SARH in the terminal phase (and we do know how many targets can have CWI directed at them at any one time, as this is determined by how many AN/SPG-62s a ship has) and that the M-5 also has a secondary IRH mode. A guess of say, 6-12 seconds before impact, switch over to SARH. That would be far better already than the current system.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, 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, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, 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.

Posted
2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

To really hammer this home - it should be noted that regardless of which variant is chones, or if it's some combination merged into one vessel, this exact problem would apply just the same and there's no way around it, apart from choosing not to implement ships where data isn't available.

Sure.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

To an extent, certain things can (and will need to be) abstracted (especially as these are AI units we're talking about). We don't know for instance what the rate-of-fire of the Mk 41 is when firing SAMs,

At the corner of my mind I remeber reading somewhere, that it was something like a 2 second interval - as I recall the source seemed credible, but not verifiable. 🙂

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

...how many the Aegis system (and its various mods) can support in their mid-course phase or when exactly command + inertial guidance switches over to SARH, a guess (which for the first one, has already happened) would be far better than the current behaviour (which treats SM-2s like SM-1s - i.e. SARH, illuminating at launch, not flying optimised trajectories like the 5V55R and being PN from launch).

We do know that the SM-2s these ships have available are inertial w/ a command uplink in the midcourse phase and then switches over to SARH in the terminal phase (and we do know how many targets can have CWI directed at them at any one time, as this is determined by how many AN/SPG-62s a ship has) and that the M-5 also has a secondary IRH mode. A guess of say, 6-12 seconds before impact, switch over to SARH. That would be far better already than the current system.

I am afraid I cannot help you with this - US stuff isn't exactly my strong point. I know that the AEGIS system should be able to support more missiles in the air than it has illumination radars for, by timing and possibly splitting CW illumination between them initially. The AN/SPG-62 is a mechanically steered radar though, so I suspect it has more to do with ensuring target kill at optimal distance(i.e. controlling multiple missiles in the air for the same target) rather than splitting its attention between multiple targets.

Posted (edited)

As I put, on the Ship overview post

we know all capabilities (weapons, radars, sonars, datalinks) of all ships on DCS World, My data will put any capable ship from WW1 to actual without problems. And about "torpedoes" we have submarines, and has a matter of time with appears on some module WW2 unguied and guided torpedos, to attack ships and submarines. That will go to any module.

Examples F-6F5 Hellcat carried Mk13 torpedoe... (meanwhile, not used on combat), but if ED or M3 add torpedo bombers as  (and proper tactics) that will be necesary.

F6F-5 Hellcat Fighter
Man Rtng: 3.5/2.5 Damage Value: 16
Size: Small Bombsight: Manual

Sensors: 1944 - 150 F6F-3N night fighters with APS-6

Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Rng Cruise Full Power
Low: 160 325
Med: 180 355
High: -- 330
Ceiling: 11369 m Engine Type: RP
Cruise Range: 720 nm Int Fuel: 685 kg
Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
150 USG drop tank 410 kg 425 nm
100 USG drop tank 275 kg 285 nm
Universal 150 USG Drop Tank 370 kg* 385 nm*

Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1220/2270 kg
Off Guns: 6 M2 .50 cal. (1.8)
Escort Carrier Loadouts (max payload 1220 kg)
• 1 150 USG drop tank, 2 100 USG drop tank
• 2 500 lb or 1000 lb bombs, 1 150 USG drop tank
• 6 5” HVAR, 2 100 USG drop tank, 1 150 USG drop tank
• 6 5” HVAR, 2 500lb bombs, 1 150 USG drop tank
• 6 5” HVAR, 2 11.75” Tiny Tim rockets
• 6 5” HVAR, 3 250 lb or 500 lb bombs
• 3 250 lb or 500 lb bombs
Fleet Carrier Loadouts (max payload 2270 kg)
• Any escort carrier loadout
• 2 2000 lb bomb, 1 150 USG drop tank
• 1 Mk13 torpedo, 2 100 USG drop tank
• 6 5” HVAR, 2 2000 lb bomb, 1 150 USG drop tank
• 6 5” HVAR, 2 11.75” Tiny Tim rockets
• 6 5” HVAR, 1 Mk13 torpedo, 2 100 USG drop tank
Remarks: In Svc: Apr 44
• *The universal 150 USG drop tank was useable on any US Navy aircraft from July 1945 onward. On the Hellcat, however. it caused more drag than the Hellcat 150 USG tank. The universal tank’s actual fuel capacity is 410 kg, but for game purposes this is reduced to denote the extra drag from its poor installation on
Hellcat. Other aircraft had no drag issues with this drop tank. This is the only 150 USG droptank available starting in Jan 1947. 
• Mk13 torpedo was not used operationally due to testing taking longer than anticipated. All large Japanese ships were sunk by July 1945, when this weapon would have entered service. The F6F-5 could not carry bombs while carrying the torpedo.
• Due to their short deck length, the F6F-5 could not take off from escort carriers with a full 2270 kg payload.
• Note: Performance is based on aircraft with calibrated instruments. Most F6F Hellcat’s instruments understate the maximum speed. These erroneous speeds are still reported in most books.
• Very rarely carried bombs of sizes other than 1000 lb.
• Many, but not all, F6F-5N aircraft were fitted with 4 0.50 Cal M2

 

Edited by Silver_Dragon

For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

At the corner of my mind I remeber reading somewhere, that it was something like a 2 second interval - as I recall the source seemed credible, but not verifiable. 🙂

It's single-digit seconds for sure. But some figure is already used in DCS.

39 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

I am afraid I cannot help you with this - US stuff isn't exactly my strong point. I know that the AEGIS system should be able to support more missiles in the air than it has illumination radars for, by timing and possibly splitting CW illumination between them initially.

Yeah, definitely and I believe this is already the case in DCS (though as said previously, it treats them as illuminating at launch, which is not how SM-2s work, nor should be possible owing to the limited number of SPG-62s).

As for how targets are prioritised? Again, I don't know. DCS should be able to calculate an approximate time to impact, I'm not sure how rapidly AN/SPG-62s can be slewed and directed onto a different target, but I'm guessing fairly quick (let's call it ~30°/s) so we should be able to figure out how many missiles can be in the air while having enough separation for the AN/SPG-62s.

I realise this is guesswork and that, for good reason, is frowned upon here, but right now, this guesswork would be closer to reality than what's currently present. A best-guess for improving the fidelity is better than leaving it basic.

Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, 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, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, 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.

Posted (edited)

Meanwhile, has no a "real" source and not have "realistic" on DCS environment, I recomend check "Harpoon V" Wargame, with simulate propper naval warfare invironment.

Example of a Surface to Air Intercept (Akreig Burke vs Chinese missiles).

https://ndzpbem.wixsite.com/tom-harpoon/surface-to-air

Edited by Silver_Dragon

For Work/Gaming: 28" Philips 246E Monitor - Ryzen 7 1800X - 32 GB DDR4 - nVidia RTX1080 - SSD 860 EVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 1 TB / 860 QVO 2 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Warthog / TPR / MDF

Posted
5 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

The inner workings and nitty gritty performance details of individual weapon's systems, for which secrecy could come into play would only be needed for simulatng them from an operator's point of view - i.e. player control. For an AI controlled unit(including aircraft) you only need general information about sensors/systems/compatible armament  and the basic performance stats published for them.

Me pointing out the interior aspects was more to do with the fact that so much information on the Fletcher-class is available, we even know the fully deck layout. Obviously this would be great for a full simulation of the ship, but it would also be useful to know if you want to show the ship sinking properly depending on where it actually got hit. The same does apply even to modern ships as knowing what goes where means that you can have a more accurate damage model as well. An example would be if a Harpoon did a pop-up attack on a (for example) Udaloy-class, and hit directly amidships. Knowing where the engine room is, and knowing how far the Harpoon can 'punch through' can determine if that ship is going to shrug off the hit, or be disabled and dead in the water from a lack of power. The way ships weapons and ships are now is very simplistic, and ships can remain largely combat effective until that last HP is gone.

As for the bits on classification, I did acknowledge we know what systems are on various ships. That much is even advertised by the various Navies. What's classified is the more intricate details of those systems. Max range and any maneuvering can be surmised, but, like you said earlier, how many missiles a single Aegis system can direct, that information is classified. How much power the Arliegh Burkes engines can put out when at emergency power, that's classified. What OS the CIC runs... also classified but at least it's not Windows 😛

Posted
58 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Me pointing out the interior aspects was more to do with the fact that so much information on the Fletcher-class is available, we even know the fully deck layout. Obviously this would be great for a full simulation of the ship, but it would also be useful to know if you want to show the ship sinking properly depending on where it actually got hit. The same does apply even to modern ships as knowing what goes where means that you can have a more accurate damage model as well. An example would be if a Harpoon did a pop-up attack on a (for example) Udaloy-class, and hit directly amidships. Knowing where the engine room is, and knowing how far the Harpoon can 'punch through' can determine if that ship is going to shrug off the hit, or be disabled and dead in the water from a lack of power. The way ships weapons and ships are now is very simplistic, and ships can remain largely combat effective until that last HP is gone.

Yeah, but that can be generalised and abstracted, especially because we only really need to track critical compartments for damage modelling and hull compartments for sinking.

And usually things like engine spaces are directly below funnels.

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

As for the bits on classification, I did acknowledge we know what systems are on various ships. That much is even advertised by the various Navies. What's classified is the more intricate details of those systems. Max range and any maneuvering can be surmised, but, like you said earlier, how many missiles a single Aegis system can direct, that information is classified. How much power the Arliegh Burkes engines can put out when at emergency power, that's classified.

But this applies regardless of whether we have a hyrid of multiple variants combined into one, or a specific variant. The hybrid still has the Aegis system and the Mk 99 fire-control system. So all you're doing by making a hybrid is making them less coherent than they should be (the hybrid certainly isn't broadening capabilities - if anything it's doing the opposite, because it's armed like ships at least around a decade older).

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, 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, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, 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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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