31-01-2011, 18:16 | #1401 |
Leading Aircraftsman
Регистрация: Nov 2010
Сообщений: 23
|
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, |
31-01-2011, 21:56 | #1402 | |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Dec 2008
Сообщений: 250
|
Цитата:
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... |
|
31-01-2011, 23:36 | #1403 |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Jan 2009
Адрес: North France
Сообщений: 155
|
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).
|
01-02-2011, 00:42 | #1404 |
Leading Aircraftsman
Регистрация: Nov 2010
Сообщений: 23
|
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.
|
01-02-2011, 01:32 | #1405 |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Jan 2009
Адрес: North France
Сообщений: 155
|
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.
|
01-02-2011, 01:51 | #1406 | |
Bugcatcher
Регистрация: Nov 2008
Адрес: Russia Kursk City
Сообщений: 1,018
|
Цитата:
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. |
|
01-02-2011, 09:27 | #1407 | |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Dec 2008
Сообщений: 250
|
Цитата:
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. |
|
01-02-2011, 11:37 | #1408 | |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Sep 2009
Адрес: Italy
Сообщений: 176
|
Цитата:
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. Последний раз редактировалось sertore; 01-02-2011 в 12:24. |
|
01-02-2011, 11:44 | #1409 |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Jan 2009
Адрес: North France
Сообщений: 155
|
Point taken, for playability sake
|
03-02-2011, 18:08 | #1410 |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Jan 2009
Адрес: North France
Сообщений: 155
|
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. |
04-02-2011, 20:46 | #1411 |
Aircraftsman
Регистрация: Feb 2011
Сообщений: 4
|
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.
|
05-02-2011, 12:44 | #1412 |
Senior Aircraftsman
Регистрация: May 2007
Адрес: minsk, Belarus
Сообщений: 36
|
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)
|
05-02-2011, 15:55 | #1413 |
Corporal
Регистрация: Oct 2010
Адрес: Bremen, Germany
Сообщений: 68
|
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. |
05-02-2011, 17:21 | #1414 | |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Jan 2009
Адрес: North France
Сообщений: 155
|
Цитата:
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. |
|
06-02-2011, 00:50 | #1415 |
БЧ-2
Регистрация: Nov 2008
Сообщений: 255
|
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.
|
06-02-2011, 00:51 | #1416 |
Leading Aircraftsman
Регистрация: Nov 2010
Сообщений: 23
|
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? Последний раз редактировалось Invicible; 06-02-2011 в 22:44. |
06-02-2011, 12:47 | #1417 | |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Jan 2009
Адрес: North France
Сообщений: 155
|
Цитата:
|
|
06-02-2011, 22:52 | #1418 |
Leading Aircraftsman
Регистрация: Nov 2010
Сообщений: 23
|
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 Последний раз редактировалось Invicible; 07-02-2011 в 01:40. |
06-02-2011, 23:57 | #1419 |
Sergeant
Регистрация: Sep 2009
Адрес: Italy
Сообщений: 176
|
[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!
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. 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. Последний раз редактировалось sertore; 07-02-2011 в 00:34. |
07-02-2011, 02:01 | #1420 |
Corporal
Регистрация: Oct 2010
Адрес: Bremen, Germany
Сообщений: 68
|
I recognized this problemon Type-212 as well.
|
Здесь присутствуют: 56 (пользователей: 0 , гостей: 56) | |
|
|