KJakker

I have been doing some more testing and I think I have managed to get the CIWS on WBS's CG-47 and CG-52 functioning fairly well. I have attached the tested Data files as well as variants for equipping each ship with the Block 0, Block1, or Block1B versions of the Phalanx. I have also included two gun data files to go along with the Block1 and Block1B and a basic Template for setting up Phalanx on a ship. Let me know how the CIWS of the modified CG-47 and CG-52 function in your testing. SF2 CIWS2.7z I am looking forward to the Kresta II and Ulyanovsk. Given what I can see in that video I am interested in seeing the data for the 57 mm AK-725. I think it could be useful in improving the effectiveness of naval Bofors 40mm and 57mm guns vs missiles. I was thinking something similar after playing around with the Kashtan in the INI files for awhile and finding out that as as Fubar512 said two gunner in control of a single mount is crazy. After that I was thinking you would have to create septate invisible missile launchers with their own pivots and gunners for the Kashtan. However your comment about "Gunner within a gunner" sounds like something else.

I decided to start this thread as a result of some testing thatI did after reading a post by combatace member colmac (Click here to read) aboutthe ineffectiveness of gun based CIWS on a community made ship, in this case WhiteBoySamurai’s resent Kirovpack. In my testing I noticed something odd. On a number of thirdparty ships the CIWS often fire’s just one or two burst at the first inboundASM missile and/or salvo and then refused to engage any coming in following it.In comparison on TW ships like the “OHPerry_82” and the “Spruance_82” this didnot happen. On those ships their CIWS guns continued to engage missile until theyhad no more targets or were overwhelmed. I have done some further testing and have managed to get theCIWS well on some ships. On others it is still only partly effective, engagingand then stopping and doing nothing as more missile are inbound. I think theburst length of the CIWS in relation to the rate of fire of the gun its mounts mightbe an important part of the solution but there is more to it than that. I have attached a test mission and DATA ini’s for variousships I have been experimenting on. Please take a look at how the stock TW Spruance_82handles the missile attack and then look at some of the other ships for comparisonand contrast. SF2 CIWS.7z

I noticed that in the Data.ini file. I have already modified the "CG-52 CG-52_DATA experimental1" of your "Ticonderoga class cruiser (86)" in accordance with how you set up the "DDG-177_DATA_EX" file and it worked perfectly. I will have to wait for you to update your Arleigh Burke-class as according to the OUT file it does not have the necessary pivots. On another note please take a look at the CWIS thread I will be posting a over in the Mods & Skinning Descussions forum. It might be of interest to you.

Just tested the experimental data ini and it is lethal. I think that you caught onto the an idea that occurred to me as well. Am I right in thinking that you created untextured, and therefor invisible, single arm missile launchers above the fore and aft VLS? I look forward to seeing this applied to your other ships.

The GunMinAltitude of the Kashtan is 5.0. This could mean that the harpoons might be coming in under their engagement level? Try changing the "GunMinAltitude=5.0" of the Kashtan mounts to "GunMinAltitude=0.0". Such a change would match how TK set up all of his CIWS gunners in SF2:NA.

You might still be using the March version of the cat extractor. Try downloading the April version. http://www.thirdwire...loads_tools.htm

Destroyed one Kirov class battlecuriser. The problem is that according to the mission log this is the result of just 3 hits from AGM-78D missiles.

I have been using a Hex editor to work around the lack of a .OUT file for finding the Mesh names. I found that the Exocet launchers for the Type22 are named Exocet1,Exocet02,Exocet03, and Exocet04. Also take a look at the aft FC radar and aft Seawolf launcher. They look like they may have some animation or mesh alignment issues.

Here is an update to the file above. I had a mesh name wrong for the aft launcher. It has been changed as well as some other minor adjustments. Update_Type22_data.7z

I read the comment about redoing the Type 22 Broadsword class frigate over in the "Modern Royal Navy ship update pack" thread. I thought the "Type22_data.ini" file that I have attached might be of use to you. It is very rough and in need of quite a bit if adjustment but it does have the aft Seawolf launcher working. Type22_data.7z

Excellent pictures, many that I have not seen before. Thank you for sharing the link.

There are still some issue with SSM's and SAM's on the same ship that need to be resolved. However multiple missile types are possible on the same ship. The Third Wire Kiev for example has two SA-N-3 launchers and two SA-N-4 launchers all of which will engage aircraft.

It is not unsinkable. I sunk her with a salvo of Harpoon missiles.

Did anyone else catch this error in bold below? USS Texas (CGN-39) was a Virginia-class cruiser not a California-class. I think we could use a Virginia-class cruiser to rectify this situation. From "CAMPAIGNNA1_DATA.INI". [NavalUnit001] UnitName=Nimitz Carrier Group ForceID=1 Nation=USN RandomChance=100 MaxObjects=7 Experience=100 Morale=100 Supply=100 Intelligence=0 StartPosition=225000.0,212000.0 ObjectivePosition=560000.0,380000.0 HomePortPosition=0.0,200000.0 Ship[01].Type=CVN-68 Ship[01].Name=USS Nimitz Ship[01].Number=78 Ship[01].Texture=USNGrey1 Ship[02].Type=CGN-36 Ship[02].Name=USS California Ship[02].Number=36 Ship[02].Texture=USNGrey1 Ship[03].Type=CGN-36 Ship[03].Name=USS Texas Ship[03].Number=39 Ship[03].Texture=USNGrey1 Ship[04].Type=Spruance Ship[04].Name=USS Caron Ship[04].Number=970 Ship[04].Texture=USNGrey1 Ship[05].Type=Spruance Ship[05].Name=USS Comte de Grasse Ship[05].Number=974 Ship[05].Texture=USNGrey1 Ship[06].Type=Spruance Ship[06].Name=USS John Rodgers Ship[06].Number=983 Ship[06].Texture=USNGrey1 Ship[07].Type=Spruance Ship[07].Name=USS Peterson Ship[07].Number=969 Ship[07].Texture=USNGrey1

Is it possible the equip ships with the kind of ECM, Chaff, and Flares that they actually carry?

What is the issue? Edit: Also go and get the patch. It fixes some reported issues. http://www.wcsaga.com/downloads/files/download/patches-darkest-dawn-1-1-0-7822-setup-exe.html

Are all three Seacat launchers working on that Leander batch 2?

I have been looking the the ".OUT" files for some of the existing ships and I thing that it is going to take more that INI editing to get all launchers on a number of them working. They just do not have the necessary components or structure to link a launcher to. For example the HMS Antrim's two Seacat launchers.

Here, try this test scenario. It is not realistic but it is a ship launching SSM's using the new system.

Here you go. http://combatace.com/files/file/11802-unified-effects-pack-10/ http://combatace.com/files/file/11803-unified-effects-pack-10-muzzle-flashes-fix/

I wonder why the main Weapon System on ground objects uses Surface to Surface missile against aircraft? I have not see a fighter try and launch an air to ground weapon against a aircraft in flight.

That is funny. But also partly the truth. My last cat us like that to my dog. On the other hand my old dog would not put up with the cats if the messed with her. I am going to have to show this picture to my grandmother however as she is a cat person.

I still think that some of the ships with only on launcher should still be updated in certain instances, for example if the ship had the ability to control multiple missile despite only having one launcher, due to the new "MaxMissilesInAir=X" entry. As for the Iowa's, What about arming their MK141 Quad Canister launchers for the Harpoon missiles so that they have their 16 Harpoons in addition to the 32 Tomahawks?

Be sure to go to the Campaign room and select the Prologue first. It is five missions long and will walk you through most of the controls as well as fill in some background on the main campaign.

I am not sure if I get what you mean. The key issue to keep in mind is that in space there is not real sense of motion due to lack of references. Also, in universe, Blackout and Redout are not an issue do to inertial compensation technology. Still take a look at the game play trailer below.