TMA: auto or do-it-yourself ?

[Nexus7]

Yeah i know, i might look like the "polls freak" but hey... i consider this an excellent and quick method to yeld statistics witch should help focusing for developments & maybe patches too... and since i care about subs only please respond sub related.

So here the pool:

[sonar732]

I'm still not that good with TMA..hence why I sit on sonar with headphones on..."sonar sup...transient bearing 325...classify as....singing???" :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

cant work TMA so let some other mug do it for me

[Bellman]

Good question. :)

As you know you could'nt rely on auto TMA in SC so my modus was struggle to acquire Manual TMA
skills in SP and use refined Auto TMA in MP. IMO the balance of helpful but not 'god-like' auto TMA was perfect. :know:

In DW Auto TMA is just too good as SA pitch for the 'gamers' (?) I still try to use manual in SP.
Often there is just too much to do so you switch it on for a 'prop'.

I cannot yet access MP. but hope there will be others there who will compete sub v sub on Manual. :up:

I guess the problem is that now we have lost the 'ideal' half-way house postion. :yep:

[UglyMowgli]

All the interrest in SC and DW is the manual handling of station (except for active intercept!).

For the TMA, you can do faster and more precise firing solution in manual than IA.

And manual TMA is not difficult to learn, in 30 min you can learn how to do it and you get real pleasure when you make a TMA with an error less than 500 yards, I recognise I had a good teacher (Oko to name it!).

[Nexus7]

I play DW MP modus only. Whyle i found the aTMA in SC quite accurate, the aTMA in DW takes to long to update solutions to me.

While in SC the manual TMA was a struggle with the contacts pop-down list, making it a self-torture in case of many contacts, this bug has now been fixed (there are others new :-? )

But apart the aspect of the precision of the solution, there is a much more important (IMO) aspect.

With all already set on manual, I personally consider the realism of the dive dramatically raised again (by at least a factor 3 or 4) when I use manual TMA.

This is the only way i found to study my contact's attitude (in MP): it allows me to follow and eventually understand opponent's maneuvers, and on the long term, even predict his future maneuvers :rock: ... so to say sneak into opponent's mind :o

Also, it is only with mTMA that i come to use ALL the instrumentation aboard, because I am now working with the data "in the hands" and i know what i need much better :D

Yah... I like that a lot ;)

[Syxx_Killer]

I could do manual TMA, but I haven't done it in a while so I am VERY rusty. It was kind of fun to do. It would probably be good to do the training mission again in Sub Command. Is there a way to import a mission from SC to DW without installing SC?

[Bellman]

It has been said that Manual TMA is an art which is easy to .learn. but hard to completely master. :know:

Yep - Nexus7 you are right about that B awful SC process of trying to select a contact at the bottom of the list. :damn: :damn:

Through my rose-tinted spectacles looking at the past wonders of SC I had forgotten the shere frustration
of the way those contacts slipped away as you tried to select them. :down: :down:

:lol: I thought it was just me. :rotfl:

Another thing, as someone relatively new to DW, am I imagining it or does more info. now persist, compared with SC,
after one has washed-out at speed ? :-?

[Ula Jolly]

In the rare cases that I need to do anything but fire and run, and use DEMON, I manually refine the TMA. 97% of the time, it's automatic. :D

[SquidB]

Manual all the way...makes life difficult but then if it were so easy would we be playing this sim at all?

[MaHuJa]

There's an option lacking.

4) I would use manual but for bugs etc.


(and I include the ESP autotma in that, too)

[Fandango]

It really depends on what's out there...some missions are VERY busy with ship traffic and really a bit too demandy...

Better to focus on other stations and give the TMA to the crew...that's what they's paid for, right?... ;)

[ShadowWulf]

I would like to one day refine TMA manualy. Yet I have tried learning TMA and have a basic idea of how it works yet i never get accurate TMA solutions and am far beter off letting the computer work it with its 80% or so accuracy. Also gives more time for watching sonar, preping firing solutions, etc.

[Wim Libaers]

Manual. I won't claim to be very good at it, but my solutions are usually adequate to get a torpedo in range of a target (and it often happens to be the intended target).

The only problem I have is when TSHTF and everyone suddenly starts to move and shoot wildly in all directions for some reason (surely completely unrelated to a barrage of TASMs or ADCAPs in the recent past), there is a lot of stuff to do and sometimes I forget to keep something updated, only to have a Sovremenny zip right past me at flank speed (no, it was not an attack run, he didn't even detect me, I think he merely panicked and coincidentally came close). For situations like these (when there are large errors on the solutions), I think it would be useful to have an option making the map revert to bearing lines for contacts.

On the FFG, I use auto TMA, of course. That ruler is too frustrating to work with.

[Molon Labe]

Since the auto TMA cheats, not using it puts you at a severe disadvantage. I try to find manual TMA matches when I can, but they're pretty rare.

[Nexus7]

Since i am pretty much drunk, i feel OK to post one :up:

TMA is an ART (art) and while attendig ASAT i got skilled at it just in face of a war i preferred to go the "secure" way.

That yelded a distingushed servie medal within Seawolves, but yet it was not the simulator being played :nope:

To pretend to understand TMA in 30 minutes is ridicolous... you can manage to have a straight dot set on the T but that won't be a good solution many times...

That's my personal point of view and was also underlined during instruction...

A straight dots solution might not be the good solution. The good thing in doing it manually, and properly... course changes, speed changes ecc. ecc. is that you will have a firing solution... and if something else is close to your target, you will be able to hit the right contact.

[Nexus7]

I must admit the pool answers i set available are sort of limiting.

While you can do well with manual TMA in single games... that's gonna be another thing in MP games.

The statistical value of my pool goes herewith to nearly zero :88)

[Ultraboy]

Always played manual TMA from day one, kinda thought I was cheating myself by letting the auto-crew do it. Having said that, for a very long time I was really terrible at it. But after setting up a few practice missions and reading some of the many available guides, I got better. Now that I've started playing again, in SC single player, I've found I wait 'til I've got contact on both towed and bow/hull arrays whenever possible. Then I can run perpendicular to the target and triangulate the exact range more or less. That comes in really handy when they're evading while you're trying to steer a torpedo at them. :D

Of course, I'm not telling the gurus here anything they don't already know... but for the newer players, if you haven't already skimmed through the guides that are available (at Subguru.com I believe) then do so immediately. A little reading can go a long way to making either SC or DW much more enjoyable.



P.S. Ordering DW tomorrow!

[NefariousKoel]

I tend to leave it on auto unless things aren't happening too fast. I'd much rather do it myself as I can be more sure of the solution, but if there are many tracks or if things are generally busy, I just leave it to auto and cross my fingers.

Running sonar, ESM, weapons takes precedence over TMA.

[mike_espo]

Auto all the way :up: I would think in RL that the computer would do it anyway.... :up:

[Bellman]

Selection of the 'right' manual inputs to an auto system is a good gameing hook and 'realistic.'

In Falcon4, for example, the air to air radar is fully automated but the pilot selects beam width and search elevation range.
Vital, realistic, and fun, as you focus your 'torch.' I dont claim that the two are fully comparable.

Perhaps following flight sim proceedures a choice of 'Simplified' (full auto) , semi-auto or full manual TMA would be attractive ? :up:

[Wim Libaers]

Selection of the 'right' manual inputs to an auto system is a good gameing hook and 'realistic.'

In Falcon4, for example, the air to air radar is fully automated but the pilot selects beam width and search elevation range.
Vital, realistic, and fun, as you focus your 'torch.' I dont claim that the two are fully comparable.

Perhaps following flight sim proceedures a choice of 'Simplified' (full auto) , semi-auto or full manual TMA would be attractive ? :up:

It's hard to compare the two as the radar is active. If you pop up you radar mast or use active sonar all the time, that will considerably simplify TMA, but we obviously don't like to do that.

If you want to approximate the passive sonar situation in F4, try getting position information on enemies while only using the RWR.

[Nexus7]

Auto all the way :up: I would think in RL that the computer would do it anyway.... :up:

I seriously doubt, no i am certain that in RL the puter doesnt do that.

Instead, there's people that will request ownship maneuvers and put the ruler in the bearing lines manually :lol:

[Bellman]

:sunny:

Yes Wim thats a good comparison, but not quite what I had in mind.

We are talking manual or auto TMA here and all I was saying is that SC auto TMA (which had'nt got ESP like in DW)
required manual inputs. Those manual inputs required a degree of skill and interpretation.
A halfway-house between full auto and full manual.

As for Falcon 4 ' I dont claim that the two are fully comparable ' merely that there may be a need for the sort of
choice that F4 provides in the automation of radar egs :-
Easy Mode - Fully automated (god's eye view)
Simplified Mode - Halfway house - finds targets quicker than RM -
Realistic Mode. - Closely simulates the AA/APG-68 Block 60 radar in the F16-C
(Requires manual inputs as described earlier post)

So we discuss the level of automation of a system.

RWR ( Radar Warning Receiver) is fully automated and the only manual input required are overides of
threat selection/priorities/Naval/unknown and Target Separation. Mere selectors/filters.

To spin off to your point - I do agree that the RWR, or azimuth indicator, is an excellent comparison with
passive sonar but the RWR ' tonals' were a lot simpler to sort, for my battered ears anyways. :)

[Nexus7]

I prefer to rely vital information to an human "interface".

When you have to understand the "way to behave" of something, AI isnt just supposed to be able to as an human brain is.

[Bellman]

:) Yes I'm with you there - thats my preference. AI usualy is currently pretty stupid - that is changing.

The simulation has to account for many skill levels - at present we have two options, full auto or full manual.
To cater for all players, I would like to see, like F4, an intermediate 'simplified' TMA, part auto part manual.
SC 's inadequate auto TMA needing the players intervention, nearly achieved this requirement. :up:

[DivingWind]

TMA is hard! FFG TMA is impossible!

[MaHuJa]

In terms of mathematically possible solutions, a computer can go through all of these quite quickly (such as to find that there has must have been a maneuver since this line, because that line (and maybe those before?) fits nothing - of course excluding lines from a bent towed array)

But when there are several possibilities (as there usually is), a human should be selecting which one to go with.


My best results with FFG TMA have been a target (that would have fired on me a long time ago, because it had to be that close to be within range of the lines) that ended up being 500yds or so behind its real position. That's not something I could adjust.
(Once line lenghts are extendable, longest range (max unzoom) on the drawing is increased, and the offset bug fixed, I'll be available as FFG TMA guy)

...hey, will halifax plots ever be available...?[i]

I'd really like to see the "line wipe" function in the subs tma, though. Removing bogus lines would help a bit.

[Wim Libaers]

I'd really like to see the "line wipe" function in the subs tma, though. Removing bogus lines would help a bit.[/i]

Is the function to select history time (right click on TMA plot) not useful for that?

[Nexus7]

But when there are several possibilities (as there usually is), a human should be selecting which one to go with.



The human woudln't be selecting wich one to go with like it was a brothel... the TMA operator would know witch one to go with, as he built his solution, step by step...

[Nydrre]

First of all I'ld like to say that Subguru's manuals helped me understand TMA better. The game manual left me confused on lead/ lag situations. The more you practice TMA the more you will pick up on how it works. You might be confused at first but practicing will let everything fall into place.

Secondly I have just started to practice using TMA. So far I have rerun the Kilo demo mission, and combined with the manual programming of the torpedos came up with a better firing solution than I did with auto TMA. I used autocrew TMA at first, then went manual and came up with my own solution by locking in the speed from the DEMON display.

TMA gives you much more insight to whats going on in a given situation. It is the accumulation of all your sensor data. Putting that sensor data together gives you better insight into whats happening on the nav map, and using TMA gives you a better insight into whats happening with your sensors. It also allows you to focus on the target you are after. If you want to instinctively know whats really going on you should at least know how TMA works.

I think it is important to manually use all of the stations, but this can be hard to do especially in a fast moving situation. I look forward to playing MP where I can work the same platform as someone else. Soon I'll be looking for MP where TMA autocrew is not an option.

I haven't voted yet, but most likely I will end up using TMA manually in conjunction with manual presetting of the weapons. TMA autocrew may be useful for an initial solution, but in the end I think its better to use your own.

Using TMA also provides you with insight into tactics and how to manuever to get the most out of your sensors.

[Bellman]

:sunny: Well said !

[MaHuJa]

I'd really like to see the "line wipe" function in the subs tma, though. Removing bogus lines would help a bit.[/i]

Is the function to select history time (right click on TMA plot) not useful for that?

Sure, if you're willing to lose the entire previous leg's worth of data - AND it is far enough back in time to remove it.

(Do you get which lines I'm talking about?)

[Zerogreat]

I use TMA on manual. It seems to me that when using it on auto, i am missing big part of the fun :hmm: Last time when i used auto TMA was in Jane's 688(I) Hunter/Killer :)

[SquidB]

I seriously think that people should use Manual TMA in multiplayer.

The Auto crew are just too good, and its a major part of the sim, I know it can get busy, but just priorities the contacts you need to.

TMA can be terribly hard, but also rewarding when you do get it right. :up:

[Nexus7]

[quote="SquidB"]
TMA can be terribly hard, but also rewarding when you do get it right. :up:[/quote

]

As said durind ASAT, TMA is an art. As such, you need to pracice it, in order to, maybe, master it... one day.

When you master this art you're supposed to go a step up, or even two (OK, a few steps).

To those that pretend to learn TMA in 30 minutes... that's plain overestimating yourselves... or your instructor...

What do you do if the contact changes course and speed? Frequently? Assuming you have a single array contact ?

Practice makes the master... but also a good instructor is necessary.

[PeriscopeDepth]

In DW, I use auto TMA. But I'm curious about manual TMA. I do manual TMA when playing SHI, plotting from radar and the occasional periscope bearing only plot (though if it's close enough to see I normally don't bother with plotting, just visually estimate AOB and range. speed can be tricky though). It's a pretty simple process here, just plot bearing and range, account for ownship movement, and connect the dots and use simple math to get target speed after you measure his course. Then plot an intercept.

I'm assuming you guys plot with pencil and paper in DW also? Or can you do everything from the TMA screen? If you do plot with paper and are going off of sonar bearings only, do you guys mathematically determine the range (I remember seeing formulas for this before, way back in the SC forum) or guestimate? Maybe I'll give manual TMA in DW a whirl.

[MarkShot]

I am actually playing SC and SC/SCXIIc/SCU. However, I wish there was the following buttons available:

TMA ALL AUTOCREW: ON/OFF

TMA THIS AUTOCREW: ON/OFF

Meaning it would be nice to be able leave autocrew handling non-critical contacts while you manually focused your TMA efforts on nearby threat like a sub. Thus, you could set a default mode for ALL and also select particular contacts for the autocrew to leave alone.

[MarkShot]

One question: The TMA autocrew cheats when it comes to towed arrays, right? I mean even with no other sensor contact or turns, the autocrew always manages to determine the actual from the false contact.

On the negative side, TMA autocrew fails to use DEMON or WAA. So, for initial contacts and contacts that are varying speed/course, the autocrew is more likely to be completely thrown. It has also been my impression that the delayed turning of the TA also seems to confuse the autocrew for a number of minutes.

[Nexus7]

I am actually playing SC and SC/SCXIIc/SCU. However, I wish there was the following buttons available:

TMA ALL AUTOCREW: ON/OFF

TMA THIS AUTOCREW: ON/OFF

Meaning it would be nice to be able leave autocrew handling non-critical contacts while you manually focused your TMA efforts on nearby threat like a sub. Thus, you could set a default mode for ALL and also select particular contacts for the autocrew to leave alone.

I agree. Unlike SC, DW provides a switch button aTMA ON/OFF, but applies for all contacts...

[Bellman]

MarkShot wrote-

''Meaning it would be nice to be able leave autocrew handling non-critical contacts while you manually focused
your TMA efforts on earby threat like a sub. Thus, you could set a default mode for ALL nd also select particular
contacts for the autocrew to leave alone.''

Good suggestion - a great focus - worth putting forward to SA. :rock:

[Molon Labe]

One question: The TMA autocrew cheats when it comes to towed arrays, right? I mean even with no other sensor contact or turns, the autocrew always manages to determine the actual from the false contact.

On the negative side, TMA autocrew fails to use DEMON or WAA. So, for initial contacts and contacts that are varying speed/course, the autocrew is more likely to be completely thrown. It has also been my impression that the delayed turning of the TA also seems to confuse the autocrew for a number of minutes.

There's no need for the autoTMA to use WAA or DEMON, since it chooses a solution "within a certain threshold." It will have range and speed long before it is geometrically possible.

Turning the TA takes a few minutes. The AutoTMA ignores the lines generated during the turn, as it should since they are useless.

[Wim Libaers]

I'd really like to see the "line wipe" function in the subs tma, though. Removing bogus lines would help a bit.[/i]

Is the function to select history time (right click on TMA plot) not useful for that?

Sure, if you're willing to lose the entire previous leg's worth of data - AND it is far enough back in time to remove it.

(Do you get which lines I'm talking about?)

Ah, I guess you want to remove individual lines that are wrong for some reason. I was thinking of removing lots of lines, for example after some radical manuevering by the target.