To autocrew or not to autocrew, that is the question.
 

Do you autocrew any or all stations? I try to man the sonar to understand how to use it but the workload is just off the charts!

Also what does autocrewing fire control do? Autocrewing that station doesn't seem to do anything g.

The stations I don't auto crew are ESM and Radio. The radio shack belongs to ET's and RM's and, BTW, keep your hands off my freaking gear. :up:

In DW, you're playing as the OOD. That means you're over-seeing the watch standers in Control. You get to make the call when and how to maneuver the boat so those guys can do their job.

I'll turn off the sonar auto crew if I really want to nail down a contact early or I'll turn off the FT/tracking auto crew if a track is starting to turn sour but most of the time I let them do the heavy lifting.

In the end, it comes down to your style. :salute: Playing as a laid-back OOD on the mid watch and hanging out near the QMOW or FTOW is just as valid as playing like a micro manager who is bugging everyone to polish their sneakers and get a hair cut. :yeah:

First of all, whatever your understanding level and experience in the game permits you to do. Whatever your playstyle is.

The torpedo fire control autocrew should enter apropriate torpedo parameters. run-to-enable, floor and ceiling depths... that sort of thing. It really isn't the most complicated stuf you have to do. Prevent your torps from running in the floor and not enable after passing the contact. Search depth can help with popping the torpedo up to the other side of the layer and stay stealthy for a bit longer. (torpedo transit at the depth you fired them at) I'm not sure the firecontrol autocrew is really smart either.

I autocrew mostly the tedious tasks. Radar plotting and sonar intercept. TMA on the OH-Perry because it is just practically impossible to do it manually there. TMA on the subs in target rich environments only. But I do want to fiddle with that myself mostly. TMA Autocrew seems to cheat too much. It knows too much with too little information. So I autocrew it as little as possible. I'm not sure what autocrew the helo has, but I think I only let the mad/esm, radar and pilots autocrew.

Sonar autocrew in the subs basically only scan the bearings for contact and mark anything it comes across. Even if it is a false signal or your own noise. TMA autocrew drops it if it is a mirror contact. Generally the sonar crew spam many contact reports (that TMA dropped previously) and doesn't help clarity or situational awareness. Also, I find searching the faint signals, classifying and figuring out who's where on what array the fun part. So I do that manually.

AutoTMA is flawed per the RedBook in the download section here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...o=file&id=5187

In fact pg. 22, has a specific topic "IX. TMA - THE FLAWS OF AUTOTMA (aTMA).

It does work somewhat competently against strictly AI opponents, which if that's all you will ever play against, you will probably think that you're a great sub commander.

Playing against a live opponent that's reasonably competent in manual TMA and knows that you are relying on AutoTMA (aTMA) will probably result in your losing 9 times out of 10. He will use those known flaws against you and your sub's (aTMA) will NOT get a valid solution.

Ding! :D That isn't cheating, that's an exploit. :yeah:
There is no way I can pick up a weak contact before the auto crew unless I get lucky.

:Kaleun_Cheers:

That is the one reason to use it, INITIALLY. I totally suck at finding weak contacts on the waterfall. Might be due to some slight color blindness. Once it finds a bearing for you, take over manually, because from that point on, it's flawed in its' following TMA execution steps. See the Redbook referenced above.

Gray, I would argue that your auto TMA is only as good as the way you drive the boat.
:Kaleun_Cheers:

For example, if you hold the same course and speed during a two hour leg- of course you're going to get a crappy solution from TMA. TMA relies on how your bearing information changes over time. Many times, its up to you to force that change in the raw data. If you start out in a lag situation, change over to lead (or at least a different lag solution) and watch how smarter your auto crew gets. :D

Most players in discussion autocrew ON/OFF focus on sonar and TMA. For me most important is countermeasures setting: always manual. It allows you to launch Chaffs and Flares which is more effective than in auto mode.

As MP game host usually settings looks:

(Auto.manual means each player have controll over this setting independently)

TMA - auto/manual
Active intercept - auto/manual
ESM - auto/manual
Surf countermeasures - auto/manual
Link data - on/off
All rest - manual

Quick launch for weapon or helo - disabled
Quick repairs - disabled
Engage with menu (from map) - disabled
Show Dead Platforms - enabled


Discussion about auto TMA is usually conducted by people who play only with or only without it. Both settings have props and cons. Auto TMA very often gives you quite good range, course and speed of target in first solution. But after time error can be bigger and even solutions aren't somtimes updated correctly. It happens in more complex MP scenarios.
In my opinion best Auto TMA profits have players who knows how to play with manual TMA. They knows how important is changing course and speed own subamrine. Most "toxic" in manual TMA is style of playing this guys who wanna resolve target solution as perfect as mathematical equation :D

I'll stick to RedBook information. It does in fact suggest course changes every 10 minutes accompanied with Speed changes to screw up the opponents TMA (especially AutoTMA). Now, if you use those same course changes to keep your course relatively perpendicular to the target LOS, then you will also help your own TMA gather better raw data since you are maximizing speed "across the LOS".

Another thing the RedBook points out is that if you have a bearing on a target, he almost always will have one on you, even AutoTMA, or you should at least assume so.

This being a pretty good assumption, you really don't want to purposefully place your ownship in a LEAD situation in regards to your target. due to the advantage it gives his Torp weapons if he decides to solution fire or snapshot your bearing. Basically, it will take you much longer to evade/turn out of the torps' lead targeting course since you are heading into it already.

Besides, attempting TMA on a LEAD LOS on a "single array" is generally useless, read the RedBook to understand why.

Dual array is different. Once converted to a master contact it represents "truth" on the enemy solution, no matter LEAD or LAG. It only takes 2 such readings to determine a reasonably accurate solution, if the target does not change course or speed of course. Basically, the last two tick marks of the ruler placed on the intersecting dual/master "hits" gives you a pretty good solution without all the other dots lining up. A third "hit" (using the last 3 ticks of the ruler) pretty well eliminates "eyeball" error on the TMA display.

Yep, that's why I was pointing out dual array/master contact needing only 2 or 3 "truth" hits to line up the last 2 or 3 corresponding ladder links and forget about the rest of the ladder and previous hits.

For clarification, by "truth" hits, I don't mean turning on Truth in game. I mean the intersection of both array bearings is a "true" reading where the bearings cross in regards to range.

I disagree because previous legs are impotrant for better solutonas and predicting speed (even without DEMON work). Also merged contacts from different sensors gives you "not clear" picture.
I had in mind taht you needs some experience for estimating which legs/dots are important for good solution.

https://i.imgur.com/V5BB41L.png

This screen is from my video.

https://youtu.be/v01LWOWTjyM?t=24m30s

The red book is good, just trust me on this: I've had more real world experience with TMA (both underway and in attack trainers) than most folks would find rational or even sane. :doh: :D

TMA is tricky. You need to understand the theory, the geometry, and the math. You also have to realize that TMA is ALWAYS in the past. At best, it will always be an approximation to what's really going on. It doesn't really matter if you have a really expensive state-of-the-art sonar dome and processors when you're using them in a highly imperfect medium like an ocean.
At some point, you have to drop the textbooks and the theory and go with the "zen". :03:

Let me try a quick example to prove what I'm saying. Let's say you could plot a TMA solution that's so good you can dial in your contact to within 10 yards of where they really are, within one degree of their true course and within one knot of their true speed. Let's call that a perfect solution. :up:

What do you think is probably going to happen as soon as you launch that fish?




:yep:


Yep, that perfect solution is no longer perfect and your target will be doing everything they can to stop being a target before your fish goes active.

That's why its important to know the theory and geometry BUT its also important to recognized things like "windage" "ballparks" and "guess work". :D

Yeah, yeah, yeah.. I know. What the heck does this have to do with turning the auto crew off or on? :o

Recall that DW was based off a training program for midshipmen ("Harpoon"). Part of what Harpoon taught was how to maneuver a ship and launch weps. There was also another sneaky lesson: learn when to trust the enlisted crew. :yeah:

edit> Nice tutorial video against a straight running surface ship. Your use of the Narrowband screen was great. I'd love to see one of your manual TMA videos against a maneuvering enemy sub at depth however. Do you have a YouTube channel? If so, could you link it?

Straight out of the RedBook pg 14

See the RedBook pg 13 for the Figure 1.6.3 referred to above. It basically shows the dual array hits as a sequence of triangulations which when connected together form a pretty accurate solution based on just the last two or three hits of the TMA sequence.

The above makes perfect sense to me. Now what happens after Torps are in the water is a different discussion, but the TMA solution offered above by dual-array contacts on just the last two or three hits is perfectly valid.

That Red Book quote with the two latest ticks is quite interesting, I may have to test that at some point. The towed array can have decent bearing error that produces a sloppy looking dot stack in the TMA, I can't imagine that the red book scenario would be true for that. Does anyone know if the towed array bearing error is a stock game thing or if RA added it? Regardless of whether the Red Book thing is correct or not, two points always make a straight line so I'm always skeptical of those kind of situations :D

To throw in my $0.02 to the original question, I like doing manual TMA as a "time killer" and it kind of makes the game like a puzzle game. Auto TMA is good for very busy areas or evading torpedoes.

I guess it would depend on the amount of error.

More speed across the line of sight "generating a wider bearing fan" might mitigate this error for purposes of the above "last" 2 or 3 tick mark setups. Might be interesting to test it out against the game "truth" display to see how much error is present.

In regards to testing above, I've been trying to test the 2-3 tick method in a modified one on one scenario between 2 688i class subs, but trying to get a dual array contact on a 688i before it gets a shot off and necessitating evasion is extremely difficult. I had already tried a one on one 688i vs Akula, but the Akula missiles were a distraction then. Might have to change the test to 688i vs Victor I for dual array tracking purposes or go against a noisy surface ship to eliminate the "evasion distraction".

Agree.