TMA in Oliver Hazard Perry
 

Hi RA team,
Carrying out a mission with the Oliver Hazard Perry I noticed that the station TMA is still the previous versions. While Udaloy appears correctly the new station TMA.

Greetings,

I don't think the OHP was ever destined to have all the nice upgrades the Udaloy got. Active intercept for sonar and new tma station, etc...

I fully agree, OHP is an obsolete platform now, being given away by Us Navy for friendly but less affluent navies without the cash to buy modern vessels. We will have to beg for DDG1000 or LCS models (given the LCS problems I am not sure that it would fare much better than OHP, one direct hit even with a small torpedo would break its light alloy neck).;)

The OHP will be obsolete platform, but as a matter of gameplay it would be great for Multistation. We must also consider that the old station on the FFG TMA are unused by the players.

It is true that OHP is an interesting platform for multi station, but it needs some training to master its logic, as many players are more familiar with sub stations.:) In the French team there is a special training class for OHP due to its complexity.

Perhaps the original platform O.H.P. has a problem with multistation game.
Since all the attention paid to Udaloy - there are many claims.

However: detailed check O.H.P in MultiStation mode - will give the same results error.

Its kind of a strange argument to make.
In the game most people prefer the Udaloy because its more resistant, it has better sensors, its chance of survivability to missile attacks is greater and finally it has a manegeable tma station and a new active intercept (its quite an important sensor, and it has also a passive laser sensor that gives correct distance information, this last feature should be reassesed to only give bearing information).
So its not a matter of the OHP as being obsolete as it is a matter of the having more difficult stations to use. But the overall complexity is the same for the Udaloy or the OHP frigate.
This is why I agree with Invicible's argument that giving the OHP a modern TMA station would go a long way in making this specific station actually useful in game. And for balance purposes I would also like to see an active intercept station and a passive sensor to identify lasers as well.

RA already takes some artistic license for many units, updating the OHP wouldn't be a tragic thing to do, and would actually improve the units appeal.

O.H.Perry is, in the original and modded games, the most troubled unit for multistation: every time we tried to use it on multistation we got a CTD.
We have to try with Udaloy, but we are so biased by FFG behaviour that did not do that until now.

Anyway I think the O.H.Perry is not an obsolete unit from game point of view: using this vessel in ASW role without the presence of Udaloy is still a good solution, to not give too many power to the side with DDG.

Indeed DDG is really a powerful platform now, and its ASW role is so strong to give no chance to the opposite side.

Point taken, for playability sake;)

RA 1.3 feedback
 

A multi-player game with 11 players did not show any stability problem, one player had some issues with Udaloy missiles/torpedoes, but we will report it separately if clear enough. Almost all the players had the multi-station fix installed, but multi-station mode was not used in that game.
More Generally, CTDs are becoming quite random and difficult to track (maybe hardware issues?)
Satisfaction rate is very high in the French community, thanks to the team for your development work and rapid fixes for the reported issues.:)

General Request
 

In the next advancement of the RA mod (granted I know this would take time) but would it be possible to add a few more submarines, in particular the Astute Class, and maybe a few of the older styles, Romeo, and Foxtrot as playable class. The other submarine I would love to see appear is the fictional seaQuest DSV, granted some artistic variation would need to be taken, but being an old seaQuest fan, would love to see it happen.

AKQuinn, you really want to see playable Foxtrot of Romeo in the game? why? this "crappy" subs in comparison with modern subs. they didn't have modern torpedoes, sonars and other. in multiplayer games they are first candidates to be killed,there are no chances to win against nuclear subs and ffg's. some time ago crazyivan want to add Foxtrot playable but he deside not to add, cause he kneew obvious reasons, which i write earlier. what about astute, as i understand, mod-team guess to add it later. (but i'm not sure about current situation)

In my opinion there is no any reason to add more playable subs.
We have far enough and RA-Team spent a lot time to add new units and fix all the bugs.
If you want to play other submarines, go create your own. Its not that difficult. ;)

Being French and having got the Suffren class, we are not so much entitled to speak;), but I would agree that tutorials "how to add playable unit" and "how to manage/convert database parameters to suit RA physics corrections" for example would be great and would create a bridge for the whole community and it would make a lot of sense to have a common development base (no, I am not eying the new Lwami models :)).
So many improvement have already been achieved by the community that it seems good to allow for even more by having some "facilitation". Any comments?
RA team is the most skilled to remove bugs and correct shortcomings of the original game, let us not bother them too much with exotic units insertion. the game already has a lot of playables.

It is not hardcoded and we have improved the TLAM doctrine so that the missiles are now able to overcome almost any steep slopes, except for very sharp changes in elevation, which can not be overcome because the doctrine does not receive information about the height in front of the rocket.

Input Bearing line
 

Hi RA team,
Is there a way through modding, you can choose to display the line of the Bearing on the Navmap?

Superb:D

Error!
 

Hi,
I enclose a mission, where following the launch of UUM-125B "Sea Lance" SUBROC when entering the water, return to deskot with an error message.
The computer crash is not constant, But it always presents itself when the Subroc enter the water.
From what can it depend on?

Greetings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event Viewer (Win XP):
Faulting application dangerouswaters.exe, version 0.1.0.4, faulting module navalsimengine.dll, version 0.1.0.5, fault address 0x0003dc67.

Byte
0000: 6c 41 70 70 69 63 61 74 Applicat
0008: 6th 6f 69 20 46 61 69 6c ion Fail
0010: 75 72 65 20 20 64 61 ure 6th dan
0018: 6f 67 65 72 75 73 77 61 gerouswa
0020: 74 65 72 73 65 78 65 2nd ters.exe
0028: 20 30 2e 31 2e 30 2e 34 0.1.0.4
0030: 20 69 61 76 61 6th 20 6th in nava
0038: 6c 73 69 6d 65 67 69 6th lsimengi
0040: 6e 65 64 6c 6c 20 30 2nd ne.dll 0
0048: 2e 31 2e 30 2e 35 20 61 .1.0.5 a
0050: 6f 74 20 66 66 73 65 74 t offset
0058: 20 30 30 30 33 64 63 36 0003dc6
0060: 0D 0A 37 7 ..

Words
0000: 6c707041 74616369 6c696146 206e6f69
0010: 20657275 61777375 6f726567 6e616420
0020: 73726574 312e3020 6,578,652th 342e302e
0030: 69676e65 206e6920 6176616th 6d69736c
0040: 642e656e 30206c6c 302e312e 6120352nd
0050: 666f2074 74657366 30303020 36636433
0060: 0a0d37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mediafire.com/?l762ht7y528mm6x

[BUG] Kilo's engine back WARP speed
 

I do not know is someboby already noticed that the engine back flank on diesel-electric subs works too many fine: on a Kilo at surface depth with electric engine is possible to reach 16 knots and with diesel the WARP speed of 20 knots! :80:

It seems quite a cheat if used, compared with the maximum speed ahead of only 11 knots, and I really hope that this is not another hardcoded surprise by our dear SC developers. :52:

Please note that this bug affects the original game and all the other MODs available (AT3, LWAMI 3.10, etc...) :(

Waiting for your feedback, thanks in advance for help.

I recognized this problemon Type-212 as well.