When will 19.01 post?

[strykerpsg]

I saw under administrative postings the fixes in 19.01 but haven't seen it posted yet. was just reading in some of the other threads someone was playing with 19.01. Any idea when it will be publicly available or is it posted somewhere I am not looking?

Thanks
Matt

[Mike D]

The update is done except for some tweaking. We're currently testing the 150+ scenarios and campaigns and making sure they work. When that's done we'll post. I'll have a better handle on the time frame in a few days.

[strykerpsg]

Thanks Mike.

[Saffron]

was just reading in some of the other threads someone was playing with 19.01.

That was probably me. Mike sent me the 19.01 "beta" to test some models that were causing CTDs. Since there is no "uninstall" feature with 19.01, I've been playing around with it rather than uninstall then reinstall the whole game.

[strykerpsg]

Just bumping for an update..........Bueller.....Bueller............... .

Matt

[Mike D]

Just bumping for an update..........Bueller.....Bueller............... .

Matt

Just waiting on all the scenario updates, several of us are 'real-world' busy.

[strykerpsg]

Man Mike, way to make me feel like an insignificant, whining nobody.............slinks away.........feeling at a loss for words now............kidding!

I am sure you are all busy, just love what you and your team does for the game and want to continue my non interactive lifestyle wth the updates is all. Anyway, a chance of a projected ETA at least?

Thanks
Matt

[Mike D]

Man Mike, way to make me feel like an insignificant, whining nobody.............slinks away.........feeling at a loss for words now............kidding!

I am sure you are all busy, just love what you and your team does for the game and want to continue my non interactive lifestyle wth the updates is all. Anyway, a chance of a projected ETA at least?

Thanks
Matt

LOL... Don't know, I'll check with my team members and see if I can get a rough date.

[Lancer]

In my experience, it used to be a matter of weeks since the project had quite a bit of people working on it, but it has since shrunk to a few today, Mike is possibly the only one with the reigns in the FC section. We're probably looking at Dec at earliest, Feb at latest.

[Mike D]

In my experience, it used to be a matter of weeks since the project had quite a bit of people working on it, but it has since shrunk to a few today, Mike is possibly the only one with the reigns in the FC section. We're probably looking at Dec at earliest, Feb at latest.

Not quite that long. 2-3 weeks or less I'm hoping.

Jessie, drop me an email....

[bradglover]

So any updates on when 19.01 will post? My F-14s keep getting creamed because the Phoenixs wont fire at max range lol.

[Mike D]

So any updates on when 19.01 will post? My F-14s keep getting creamed because the Phoenixs wont fire at max range lol.

Its essentially done but I had to rename a few units and that means that I have to test every scenario and replace the renamed units.

Hopefully I'll be done this weekend and we can get a build in the next week or two.

[strykerpsg]

Just bumping for a status check......anything? Thanks

Matt

[Mike D]

Just bumping for a status check......anything? Thanks

Matt

Life and the holidays are getting in the way. I'm looking for right after the first of the year, at least that's my goal.

[BlimpCommander]

On the bright side, that would give me enough time to finish my F-22 for inclusion into 19.01... right?

[The Warrior]

Hey. that will work for me. Looking forward to it.:D

[strykerpsg]

Did you manage to fix the sub detection issue? I have subs being detected immediately, to the point of deleting them from the scenarios because all hey can do is get off a snapshot before they are taken out.

[Saffron]

Looking forward to the FC patch. I haven't played the game in months because I feel the SAM missile issue makes the game unplayable.

AEGIS ships die as easily as PCFGs and a single Harrier was able to fly right up to a CVBG and drop iron bombs on a Tico class CG while the Tico emptied 80% of its missile magazine against that single Harrier and never hit it. It was eventually shot down with CIWS.

[Mike D]

I'm back from England so I'll be getting on 19.01 darn quick and see if we can get it out.

[Mike D]

Did you manage to fix the sub detection issue? I have subs being detected immediately, to the point of deleting them from the scenarios because all hey can do is get off a snapshot before they are taken out.

Haven't had a complaint about this that I remember. Give me more details.

[strykerpsg]

Hey Mike,

Happy New Year first and foremost! Next, I was playing and modified the Baltic Suprise scenario and replaced the German 206(?) with their AIP 212 boats. As I understand it, these boats are literally black holes of silence so wanted to put them in direct path of the oncoming Soviet fleet. Anyway, random placement is in effect and no matter where placed, they are always detected. I then placed a Virginia and Seawolf into the fray, but just next to the northeastern edge of the BLUFOR minefield already emplaced in the scenario; Soviet still about 10-20 miles away and they too get detected. I have changed the ocena bottom conditions from rock to mud and even changed the sea state from 1-4 and all of my northern subs get hammered by the Soviet ASROC and Kamovs helos. So, I understand the Baltic is shallow, but all three subs are state of the art and would venture to say the 212 boat being the best and they do not survive beyond about 10 minutes of play. I have also played more blue water scenarios and notice the same issues, immediate detection of my components and the REDFOR unleash quite the salvo prior to detection at usually close range. Perhaps I am an oddity, but plan on doing a new install once you release 19.01, which might be released this month, perhaps? :D

Anyway, I hope it is just me doing something wrong or the right condtions for detection, but then it isn't the same for REDFOR units. Thank you truly for your great work, shows quite a dedication. Any thoughts of just creating say Harpoon 4 and selling it? You've already got quite the database going.

Matt

[Mike D]

Hey Mike,

Happy New Year first and foremost! Next, I was playing and modified the Baltic Suprise scenario and replaced the German 206(?) with their AIP 212 boats. As I understand it, these boats are literally black holes of silence so wanted to put them in direct path of the oncoming Soviet fleet. Anyway, random placement is in effect and no matter where placed, they are always detected. I then placed a Virginia and Seawolf into the fray, but just next to the northeastern edge of the BLUFOR minefield already emplaced in the scenario; Soviet still about 10-20 miles away and they too get detected. I have changed the ocena bottom conditions from rock to mud and even changed the sea state from 1-4 and all of my northern subs get hammered by the Soviet ASROC and Kamovs helos. So, I understand the Baltic is shallow, but all three subs are state of the art and would venture to say the 212 boat being the best and they do not survive beyond about 10 minutes of play. I have also played more blue water scenarios and notice the same issues, immediate detection of my components and the REDFOR unleash quite the salvo prior to detection at usually close range. Perhaps I am an oddity, but plan on doing a new install once you release 19.01, which might be released this month, perhaps? :D

Matt

Was the detection by active or passive sonar on the ships.

[strykerpsg]

I am unsure, but my northern 212 usually starts within 5-10 miles at game start and immediately a salvo of torpedoes are launched at me. Again, my more southern subs, another 212 and a Virginia are closest 10 miles, but usually about 20miles and get prosecuted immediately by the nearest combatant with either an ASROC launch and/or helo launch. I will be more then happy to email you the scenario.

[Mike D]

I am unsure, but my northern 212 usually starts within 5-10 miles at game start and immediately a salvo of torpedoes are launched at me. Again, my more southern subs, another 212 and a Virginia are closest 10 miles, but usually about 20miles and get prosecuted immediately by the nearest combatant with either an ASROC launch and/or helo launch. I will be more then happy to email you the scenario.

There is a basic bug that drives me crazy in the FC game engine. No matter how quiet a sub is passive sonar will eventually be able to hear it. This is even true for mines. I've tried as hard as I can to do "work arounds" for this and I's better but still, totally silent subs can be detected at longer ranges then I think realistic. This is something I hope is better in 19.01 but we are just going to have to keep playing with it to see if we can get it better.

[strykerpsg]

Thanks Mike, BTW, ETA perhaps on the release of 19.01?

Matt

[steel_selachian]

I've tried fixing that on my own in the database by chopping the sound levels on the subs to ridiculously low levels - the bug becomes a real problem when facing off against AI subs with Starfish or Stallion SUBROCs. I was ferreting out a boomer bastion with a Seawolf doing 2 kts at 800 feet and the Severodvinsk detected me at 50,000 yards and dropped two Starfish right on my head. I'm thinking that at best the Seawolf shouldn't be able to hear a Severodvinsk or an Akula-II at anything over 12,000 yards and even the most advanced sub would be lucky to pick up a Seawolf or a Virginia at 5,000.

Right now I'm testing it out with the Seawolf and Viginia's sound levels chopped back to 0.01, which seems to allow them to at least remain undetected until they launch torpedoes. Figure based on available info and speculation, we can rank the noise levels of some modern subs in the game:

Chunk of solidified silence: Seawolf, Virginia, Ohio, Astute, Vanguard, top-line SSKs (Victoria, Type 212, etc)
Extremely quiet: 688i, Trafalgar, Severodvinsk, Akula-II, older SSK designs (Kilo, Type 209, etc.)
Quiet: Flight-I Los Angeles, Akula-I, Sierra
Slightly noisier: Sturgeon, Swiftsure, Victor-III, Typhoon, Delta-IV, Oscar-II

Maybe work this up until you get to something like a November or Echo that should, by comparison, sound like a herd of elephants on the move. But the way I have it set up, the first four categories go 0.01, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 in the database (I've got some subs scattered around those reference points). With that, I'm still getting a contact bearing on an Oscar-II making 5 kts at 500 feet with the towed array on a Halifax (2005) FFG at about 30,000 yards, which is probably still a lot farther away than I'd get one in reality. I'm going to keep experimenting with a couple different scenarios.

[steel_selachian]

Made some more changes by checking off "thermal layer" and "platform noise" in the db on some of the passive sonars. Tested those in a scenario involving 1 Akula-I, 1 Improved Akula, and 1 Oscar-II moving through areas patrolled by a Los Angeles, a Virginia, and a 688i respectively. The Russian boats were moving at 5 kts and the American subs started out crawling at 2 kts. Also had three Kilos closing in on a SAG composed of 1 Flight-IIA Burke DDG, 1 VLS Ticonderoga, and 1 Flight-I Burke. Environmental conditions were Surface Duct over a rock bottom in the Sea of Japan. All units were using passive sonar only.

The results I got for US versus Russian SSNs was pretty realistic - I had faint and inexact tracks at what the subs thought was about 5-10,000 yards and later proved to be more on the order of 10-15,000 yards. I had to maneuver the US SSNs to stay in tracking range and maintain the contacts, and evidently the Russians never heard them until the ADCAPs came screaming at them. Given that I was trying to simulate a peacetime ROE on the US side, it was pretty nerve-wracking to be well within range of the Russian torpedoes and occasionally lose the contacts.

However, neither the Kilos nor the surface ships detected each other, even though on the replay I saw that the Flight-IIA Burke had just about run right over one of the Kilos at 20 knots (Kilo was creeping along at 3 kts, I think the start depth was probably 300 feet). So I may have to check on that.

[Saffron]

Any ETA on the patch?

[Mike D]

Any ETA on the patch?

Pretty much wrapped up now. I found a major bug this weekend, the db editor unset the in-flight refueling setting for about 60% of the aircraft. I got this fixed and I'm now down to doing some random testing. I hope to have it off to get an installer built Friday or Saturday, takes about a week to build the installer and run some tests on it.

So say a week and a half.

Drop me an email directly and I'll get you a pre-release version to test and play with.

[Saffron]

Okay sent you an email at your addy listed in your profile.

[Mike D]

Okay sent you an email at your addy listed in your profile.

Got it, I'll get back to you tonight.

[strykerpsg]

Steel, will your sub acoustics be included in the 19.01 release? If not, can you post how you modified the db so I can use subs again? Thanks

[steel_selachian]

No, they won't be in 19.01 - I was just playing around with that myself to see the effects of a couple tweaks, and I'm not connected with the NWP team. You can download the Fleet Command Database Editor to modify database entries - I've used it to do quieting edits, change up the weapons loadouts on ships and aircraft, and other tweaks. It's one of those things that you have to be careful with, though - it's possible to screw up the db or make units insanely unrealistic in the process.

I still have to go back and check why those Kilos missed my SAG in that one scenario - Russian passive sonars might be crap, but I think a gas-turbine vessel charging overhead at 20 knots should be pretty audible.

[strykerpsg]

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps it was the ESM contacts the bombers were picking up bug that has been corrected in the upcoming 19.01 that is the fix. I'll keep myfingers crossed. Now, if Mike would just release the hounds......it's Saturday, at least where I am......

[Saffron]

Well I've played 4 games now with the beta ... so far, no problems, and I'm glad the SAM issue was fixed. ;)

[Mike D]

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps it was the ESM contacts the bombers were picking up bug that has been corrected in the upcoming 19.01 that is the fix. I'll keep myfingers crossed. Now, if Mike would just release the hounds......it's Saturday, at least where I am......

Everything is finished on my end. I have sent off the files to another team member who is going to build the installer. We'll need to test the installer so it won't be long now.

[steel_selachian]

A good way to check scenarios is to go into the Mission Editor, switch the player side, and save it as a new mission. Then you should be able to see how the Russian units are picking up your subs.

[Saffron]

Two things I've noticed with 19.01.

After playing about 15 different engagements, never using the same nation twice, I've noticed that gun fire against missiles seems devastatingly accurate. Most of my battles have ended up becoming gunnery knife fights ... and my older, more heavily gunned ships are my strongest offensive units since nary a missile ever gets through.

The second problem (and perhaps a partial cause of the first problem) is that all SSMs have really quirky behavior. A large number of them will be listed as "Engaging track XXXX" and will change course as if it has locked onto the target, but will actually home in on a spot of ocean near the target ship and fails to hit. This seems to affect all sea-skimming SSMs regardless of type or nationality. This happens even when targets are being visually eyeballed by hovering helos.

I didn't report this right away because I assumed perhaps chaff and spoofing has gotten better (before, missiles hit almost 100% of the time) ... but now, between the gunnery and frequent misses, guns have become the primary offensive weapon. In one fight, I had 5 different ships fire on a mission killed target (90% damaged) that was visually detected. The missiles were of several different types (MM38, MM40, RGM-84C) and fired from different angles. Every single one reported it was engaging the target but each one veered to the side of the target and missed.

[Mike D]

Two things I've noticed with 19.01.

After playing about 15 different engagements, never using the same nation twice, I've noticed that gun fire against missiles seems devastatingly accurate. Most of my battles have ended up becoming gunnery knife fights ... and my older, more heavily gunned ships are my strongest offensive units since nary a missile ever gets through.

Some of the CIWS were uprated due to newer information and several of the anti-ship missiles had their RCS changed (some higher and some lower). Other then that nothing should have changed.


The second problem (and perhaps a partial cause of the first problem) is that all SSMs have really quirky behavior. A large number of them will be listed as "Engaging track XXXX" and will change course as if it has locked onto the target, but will actually home in on a spot of ocean near the target ship and fails to hit. This seems to affect all sea-skimming SSMs regardless of type or nationality. This happens even when targets are being visually eyeballed by hovering helos.

The ECM on a lot of ships were upgraded but this shouldn't make a massive change.


I didn't report this right away because I assumed perhaps chaff and spoofing has gotten better (before, missiles hit almost 100% of the time) ... but now, between the gunnery and frequent misses, guns have become the primary offensive weapon. In one fight, I had 5 different ships fire on a mission killed target (90% damaged) that was visually detected. The missiles were of several different types (MM38, MM40, RGM-84C) and fired from different angles. Every single one reported it was engaging the target but each one veered to the side of the target and missed.

I don't know the ships you used but firing any of those missiles against a more modern ship, say 1980's upgraded or newer, or against any of the larger Russian ships will likely not result in a hit. Unless you use jamming, ARM's, or massed attack. The ECM/CM, SAM's and CIWS are very effective against these slower missiles, especially if they are fired in singles or pairs only.

Since I haven't set up a 19.01 bug thread yet e-mail your info and be specific as possible with the details.

[Saffron]

I'll play a few more games and keep careful track of which ships are firing which missiles at which targets if I start to see a lot of misses, then get back to you.

[carmenara]

I must say, incredible job getting 19.01 out the door this fast! Thank you