688i vs Fast Attack
Sinistrati
OK, I went back to the (arguably) most realistic sub sim to date before
688i, Sierra's Fast Attack. Here are some things to look at.
1. The radio message screen in FA was much better. Larger, better
formatted, easier to read. No annoying scrolling on even small messages.
2. The submarine broadcast intercept was much tougher than just poking up
the antenna. You had a realistic broadcast window you had to get, which
meant depth excursions when you had to, not when it was convenient. The
long wire took a lot longer, and had more limited depth and speed
parameters. You could not use the broadcast to get quick, blow-by-blow
position data on mobile units, as sat recon had set periods and processing
time was allowed for. Your Tomahawk launch coordinates were broadcast
downloaded, so no launch codes without the intercept on-time. I think
this is all much more realistic than 688i's model. And it obviates the
classified data issue; somebody found it out, and I doubt Ken Williams is
in Leavenworth right now.
3. Fast Attack modeled both TB-16 and TB-23 towed arrays. Here we have
two identical ones, which is weird. Unless we can lose one to damage,
which will give us a spare. Still, it is not realistic. And again,
already been done (ABD), so the classification debate loses again.
4. Turn information (and this was really boring to get, so pay attention
:) )
Fast Attack 180 degree turn, 10 kts, 150 ft depth
62 seconds
Fast Attack 180 degree turn, 32 kts, 150 ft depth
62 seconds
(Something not right there)
688i 180 degree turn, 10 kts, 150 ft depth
30 seconds
688i 180 degree turn, 32 kts, 150 ft depth
30 seconds
(Nor here. Is there anywhere a
physics-based model in these things!?!?)
Fast Attack 100 foot dive 10 kts 16 seconds
Fast Attack 100 foot ascent 10 kts 16 seconds
688 100 foot dive 10 kts 32 seconds
688 100 foot ascent 10 kts 32 seconds
Althought it is easier to dive than climb, I assume you can "give it the
gas" on the ascent, and hence maintain similiar climbing and diving
speeds, as in a car on a hill. This might lead to cavitation in some
cases though? Anyone know?
Neither of these sets of figures look good, or physics-based. Yuck! What
the hell is the deal? I have a SU-27 Flanker sim that is so realistic
that, having seen a Flanker's cockpit at an airshow, I was able to have an
intelligent conversation with the pilot on ease of use. How hard can this
be, folks, with our own equipment? Janes????? What happened???
5. The weapons last step in firing from FA was SAFE/ARM, which is missing
here. Unsure which is realistic though.
6. FA had both TASM and TLAM on board, with both TLAM C & D modeled
differently. We have TLAM only (D, I think). FA allowed ripple-launching
of missiles; not so with 688i. I am sure the ripple launching must exist
in the real world; seems a too-use feature to leave out.
7. Torps in FA reported both when enabled, and when acquired. Neither is
given in 688i. Both audible and visible representations occurred. I am
sure the sonarman calling this out is realistic; I am less sure on the
visible representation on the screen.
8. The Harpoon can be doglegged with S and F courses in FA; not so in
688i. The real thing can do this; even Jane's says so <grin>.
9. Although a bit repetitive, the launch and destruction animations in FA
were much nicer than in 688i. Although perhaps not a realism issue, the
3D view seems much effort expended for little result.
10. FA limited to 10 decoys. 688i has both decoys and jammers, with
varying run depths, but they seem unlimited. Have I missed the limit in
the book?
11. Most bearings in FA are relative from ownship heading. Most in 688i
are true. I seem to get by the experts here that true are not mainly
used. Every older sub sim did it the other way, which for some things
(torpedo evasion) seemed easier. Don't know which is more realistic.
12. The fires on the surface and the periscope view in FA seemed nicer
than in 688i, though the stadimeter, LLTV, and photo capability of 688i is
much better. Sea states seemed nicer in FA.
13. FA had MUCH more voice interaction (too much, in some opinions).
Personally, I like orders being repeated, information being passed. It
SOUNDS like the CIC in a warship.
Now, 688i has some definite improvements over FA. WAY better sonar
modeling (lack of DEMON and narrowband KILLED that sim for me), better TMA
plotting, Radar, ESM target ID, lot's of others. But still, these realism
issues are really bringing it down for me.
And one last issue:
Where are the launch transients? Doors opening? Tubes flooding? They
supposedly can hear mine, as I am told to to this early. When do I get to
hear their's?
And why is the ocean so quiet? Where are the biologics? Ocean noises?
Tectonic sounds? Come on, spice it up.
JD
On 6 Jul 1997 19:14:14 GMT, sinis...@aol.com (Sinistrati) wrote:
>OK, I went back to the (arguably) most realistic sub sim to date before
>688i, Sierra's Fast Attack. Here are some things to look at.
Nice post. Why is it, I wonder, we are always left wishing that
"someone would only combine the good parts of sim X and sim Y..." <g>.
You'd think someone would look at sim X and ask "where did this fail
and where did this succeed?" before building sim Y.
Ah well... 688i just came out. The EA and the Sonalysts guys are here,
and there's a lot of *integrated* real world technical expertise and
"game play" expertise right here for them to make use of. Maybe
there's something yet that can be done?
Regards, JD
j...@ct1.nai.net
kb...@delphi.com
Steve Bartman
sinis...@aol.com (Sinistrati) wrote:
>2. The submarine broadcast intercept was much tougher than just poking up
>the antenna. You had a realistic broadcast window you had to get, which
>meant depth excursions when you had to, not when it was convenient. The
>long wire took a lot longer, and had more limited depth and speed
>parameters. You could not use the broadcast to get quick, blow-by-blow
>position data on mobile units, as sat recon had set periods and processing
>time was allowed for. Your Tomahawk launch coordinates were broadcast
>downloaded, so no launch codes without the intercept on-time. I think
>this is all much more realistic than 688i's model. And it obviates the
>classified data issue; somebody found it out, and I doubt Ken Williams is
>in Leavenworth right now.
If the broadcast was only available at set times, FA didn't get it
right. Further I will not say.
>Althought it is easier to dive than climb, I assume you can "give it the
>gas" on the ascent, and hence maintain similiar climbing and diving
>speeds, as in a car on a hill. This might lead to cavitation in some
>cases though? Anyone know?
Diving can be easier or harder than ascending depending on your trim.
I once did an initial dive out of refit with the boat 100,000 pounds
out of trim. We went down right smartly. <g> The EOOW will give you
the ordered bell--there isn't any interacive "gas" to adjust for angle
unless the OOD orders a particular speed maintained. The throttleman
can do it either way, you just have to tell him. Cavitation is
reported by Maneuvering, but doesn't stop unless the OOD takes
appropriate actions. The OOD is driving--no one else. The rest of the
boat works for him.
>Neither of these sets of figures look good, or physics-based. Yuck! What
>the hell is the deal? I have a SU-27 Flanker sim that is so realistic
>that, having seen a Flanker's cockpit at an airshow, I was able to have an
>intelligent conversation with the pilot on ease of use. How hard can this
>be, folks, with our own equipment? Janes????? What happened???
Flyers like to flap their jaws. Bubbleheads do not. There are aspects
of 688i performance the general public has no "right" to know. That
said, I think the turning and acceleration model could be improved
without giving away any secrets.
>6. FA had both TASM and TLAM on board, with both TLAM C & D modeled
>differently. We have TLAM only (D, I think).
I've been told by 688 torpedomen in sci.military.naval that the TASM
has been retired. You might double-check.
>8. The Harpoon can be doglegged with S and F courses in FA; not so in
>688i. The real thing can do this; even Jane's says so <grin>.
Agree. I'd like to have this too.
>11. Most bearings in FA are relative from ownship heading. Most in 688i
>are true. I seem to get by the experts here that true are not mainly
>used. Every older sub sim did it the other way, which for some things
>(torpedo evasion) seemed easier. Don't know which is more realistic.
Modern subs use true bearings almost exclusively. If FA used relative
that was a major glitch in the design. Relative is easier for newbies
to understand, but it's not realistic.
>12. The fires on the surface and the periscope view in FA seemed nicer
>than in 688i, though the stadimeter, LLTV, and photo capability of 688i is
>much better. Sea states seemed nicer in FA.
No skipper worthy of a 688 would hang around to watch a victim burn.
"Clear datum!" is engraved on the forehead of every nuke in the
command pipeline. If FA didn't have a stadimeter or freeze frame
capability then its periscope was more flawed than 688i's is by a weak
sea state model (which I agree with--big Atlantic rollers help hide a
scope.)
>13. FA had MUCH more voice interaction (too much, in some opinions).
>Personally, I like orders being repeated, information being passed. It
>SOUNDS like the CIC in a warship.
Subs repeat everything ad infinitum. A real control room during
maneuvers is loud and busy. Everything is repeated back, confirmed,
and completions are re-reported. Kind of important when the margin for
error is real small. 688i could have more for my tastes too. Probably
a design/production cost trade-off.
As an aside, submariners never say "close", they say "shut." "Close"
sounds like "blows", an evolution that is done rarely and could cause
havoc if done by mistake. Also, rarely "fire", but rather "shoot".
"Fire" is reserved for the real thing.
>
>Now, 688i has some definite improvements over FA. WAY better sonar
>modeling (lack of DEMON and narrowband KILLED that sim for me),
How could you even do a 688 sim without narrowband? It's what makes a
sub sonar what it is. If FA didn't have it I'm glad I saved my money.
better TMA
>plotting, Radar, ESM target ID, lot's of others. But still, these realism
>issues are really bringing it down for me.
>
>And one last issue:
>
>Where are the launch transients? Doors opening? Tubes flooding? They
>supposedly can hear mine, as I am told to to this early. When do I get to
>hear their's?
I haven't yet either, but I haven't bought any of the new gear
(invested all my points in my people.) Do the improved bow and towed
arrays give better transient detection?
>And why is the ocean so quiet? Where are the biologics? Ocean noises?
>Tectonic sounds? Come on, spice it up.
There are whales in the northern scenarios at least, and I'm told
shrimp as well (haven't heard those yet.) There is constant flow noise
on the speakers that sounds good to me (a little less "burbling" than
I remember but very good.) Tectonic sounds are mostly a figment of
techno-thriller writer's imaginaitions--not saying they don't happen
but rare. Shrimp OTOH are constant, in the Atlantic at least.
Steve
Robin J. Lee
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 Sinis...@aol.com wrote:
Good points. Fast Attack, as a systems simulator, was underrated, in my
opinion. A few comments:
> 2. The submarine broadcast intercept was much tougher than just poking up
> the antenna. You had a realistic broadcast window you had to get, which
> meant depth excursions when you had to, not when it was convenient.
> The long wire took a lot longer, and had more limited depth and speed
> parameters. You could not use the broadcast to get quick, blow-by-blow
> position data on mobile units, as sat recon had set periods and
> processing time was allowed for.
I agree, although this seems to be a function of scenario design rather
than of the simulation module. Properly written scenarios would filter
the intelligence appropriately.
> Your Tomahawk launch coordinates were broadcast downloaded, so no
> launch codes without the intercept on-time. I think this is all much more
> realistic than 688i's model.
I obviously don't know, but I doubt that the communication of launch data
would be that window-limited. TLAM strikes are not part of a game; if
the submarine was late getting on to station (i.e. didn't acknowledge the
scheduled broadcast with a burst transmission) I very much doubt that the
fleet staff would hang out the "CLOSED" sign and stubbornly refuse to
tell the SSN when it got there. The point, after all, is not to
antagonize the sub skipper, but to get the missiles on target!
But once again, this can be adequately simulated through the use of
scenario rules -- i.e. get to point X and stick the antenna up by 1600.
Failure to do so means a failure of the mission.
> ...And again, already been done (ABD), so the classification debate
> loses again.
Far from it. Suppose I have access to classified details and you do
not. You are free to speculate publicly as you like, even claim that it
is informed speculation, and get consultants who used to know to back you
up. I am still forbidden from even mentioning the subject. The problem
is in the source, not in the data.
Does it make sense? Not always. But that's a matter of the predominant
security system in military circles, not one of game design.
> 5. The weapons last step in firing from FA was SAFE/ARM, which is missing
> here. Unsure which is realistic though.
This is simulated with the training/tactical key position in 688(I). It
defaults to on.
> 6. FA had both TASM and TLAM on board, with both TLAM C & D modeled
> differently. We have TLAM only (D, I think). FA allowed
> ripple-launching of missiles; not so with 688i. I am sure the ripple
> launching must exist in the real world; seems a too-use feature to
> leave out.
As I've observed before, TASM is no longer in use. You will note that in
FA, it was *impossible* to fire TASMs since there was no way to
cross-link ownship tactical targeting data to the VLS tubes. In effect,
you could only point your Tomahawks at fixed targets. (Part of the
reason TASM was withdrawn, as I understand it, was the lack of reliable
OTH targeting systems. Here the Russians seem to have one on us with
their Oscar/SS-N-19 pairing, but I'm just speculating.)
The TLAMs modeled in 688(I) seem to be hybrid C/Ds -- all fixed targets
are hit with the same kind of missile, whether they are point targets
(requiring the HE warhead) or area targets (for which the D's submunition
load would be more appropriate).
> 9. Although a bit repetitive, the launch and destruction animations in FA
> were much nicer than in 688i. Although perhaps not a realism issue,
> the 3D view seems much effort expended for little result.
I agree; the 3D view is something I never use and I actually would have
liked a switch to disable it, so that I could save the load time. On the
other hand, I found that the animations in FA disrupted the gameflow --
and turning them off often would *also* remove the impact sounds, which I
found annoying.
> 11. Most bearings in FA are relative from ownship heading. Most in
> 688i are true. I seem to get by the experts here that true are not
> mainly used. Every older sub sim did it the other way, which for some
> things (torpedo evasion) seemed easier. Don't know which is more
> realistic.
If I understood Steve Bartman's comments over in *.naval correctly, he
said that in modern usage, true bearings are the rule, with a possible
exception being the readings from the WLR-9 (which would include torpedo
evasion). Since visual approaches are almost never done and weapons
employment is less angle-dependent than was in the case in WWII, this
appears to make a lot of sense.
> Now, 688i has some definite improvements over FA. WAY better sonar
> modeling (lack of DEMON and narrowband KILLED that sim for me), better
> TMA plotting, Radar, ESM target ID, lot's of others. But still, these
> realism issues are really bringing it down for me.
I liked FA, too, but couldn't get over the real killer problems: a fixed
three-hour time limit for all missions, absence of any blade count
indication (which made manual TMA next to impossible), radar model that
was an afterthought (no surface search radar and nothing other than a
light for ESM), brain-dead AI, poor conceptual depiction of the
relationship between the dot-stacker and the TMA plot, missing torpedo
features, severely limited mission variety -- and worst of all, no
mission editor to fix the gameplay problems that could be fixed by the
player.
> Where are the launch transients? Doors opening? Tubes flooding? They
> supposedly can hear mine, as I am told to to this early. When do I get to
> hear their's?
Good question. Might be abstracted into the general contact signal
strength, though I agree it would be much, much nicer to have discrete
sonarman calls for recognizable "events." I'd very much like to see this
in the patch.
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Robin J. Lee amr...@netcom.com
Vulture's Row Worldwide Web Page URL: http://www.webcom.com/amraam/
Mikey102
Hiya Sinistrati...
I could never get Fast Attack to run long enough to get a real career
going... It always dumped me out of the game
at random times... 5 mins... 15 minutes... 2 hrs... At least 688[i] runs
smoothly... not a hiccup yet...
But I think you've given a good assessment and comparison of the two
sims... and, for the most part, I have to agree
with you when you say lets spice it up a bit.
My major complaint about both of em though, is the feeling of being aboard
a sub isnt there...
--Mike
Mikey102
Hiya Steve...
>> Flyers like to flap their jaws. Bubbleheads do not <<
OK Steve..... NOW YOUVE REALLY DECLARED WWIII :)
I think that there are still a few things that Chuck Yeager hasnt told Yogi
Kaufman about
the Stealth Bombers' ECM systems...
--Mike
Richard Pick
> >688i, Sierra's Fast Attack. Here are some things to look at.
>
> "someone would only combine the good parts of sim X and sim Y..." <g>.
> You'd think someone would look at sim X and ask "where did this fail
> and where did this succeed?" before building sim Y.
>
> Ah well... 688i just came out. The EA and the Sonalysts guys are here,
> and there's a lot of *integrated* real world technical expertise and
> "game play" expertise right here for them to make use of. Maybe
> there's something yet that can be done?
>
> Regards, JD
> j...@ct1.nai.net
> kb...@delphi.com
Maybe, but frankly I'd rather go back to RSR or Fast Attack
rather than buying 688i II patched with added 3dx :)
Best, Dick
Paul Grace
There is an earthquake sound effect in certain regions.
da...@iu.com
In article <01bc8b49$b01d1260$99d5999f@pgrace_rmt2.ea.com>,
> > shrimp as well (haven't heard those yet.) There is constant flow noise
> > on the speakers that sounds good to me (a little less "burbling" than
> > I remember but very good.) Tectonic sounds are mostly a figment of
> > techno-thriller writer's imaginaitions--not saying they don't happen
> > but rare. Shrimp OTOH are constant, in the Atlantic at least.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
Steve,
I've had shrimp contacts constantly! Actually, it's fairly interesting
although quite a nuisance and a little confusing when trying to isolate
single contacts in all the clutter... My, the ocean is a noisy place!
Thru the hydrophones in 688i the shrimp sound like sizzling bacon with
occasional pop-pop-pops thrown in... I usually track shrimp contacts (if
the environment is not too crowded) just to make sure my solution comes
out as <2 knots... I can never be sure if the AI is smart enough to use
them as "cover" I had one foxtrot who appeared as a double peak on the
narrow band and s-l-o-w-l-y emerged from behind the shrimp cloud, would
have missed it if I hadn't been finnagling with that one contact for a
good while :)
Just my $0.02 worth :)
David Obando
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet