Some Thoughts on SSPs and What to Do About Them

SeaQueen · 12-17-05, 05:39 PM

Lately I've been thinking about the speed of sound in DW. As one who spends a lot of time staring at SSPs around the world, frequently, I find myself thinking, "that's not right," wondering if there was a better way to do it, or if there was a smarter way to accurately represent the behavior of sound speed in the sea.

CZ - there's always a surface duct too. In real life, that need not be the case.

Surface duct environments - the duct is FAR deeper than one would expect, or would be physical.

Bottom limited - isn't really bottom limited, but rather represents a shallow duct situation. In deeper bottom limited realms, this can look silly.

Frequently the speed of sound is also extrordinarily low. The problem is particularly bad in tropical or subtropical waters. The only SSPs that really represent a physical situation is the CZ environment or the bottom limited environment. I'm beginning to think that in all my scenarios, the best thing to do is to define the environment as a CZ, whether it's shallow or deep. The only problem I have with that, is that in the tropical and subtropical coastal waters where I like to create scenarios, the environment in real life is strongly bottom limited, so defining it as a CZ in the absence of a model that adjusts the sea surface temperature gradients by lattitude means that the relatively deep areas that would still be bottom limited would show a convergence zone.

Or maybe I'm just being nitpicky...

Molon Labe · 12-17-05, 07:18 PM

Not at all. The more realistic the SSPs, the better the simulation, especially not that the SSP has a very large effect on detection.

Bellman · 12-18-05, 06:32 PM

It is not clear to me what changes have been implemented to the SSP in 1.03. The layer appears more 'effective'
but how much of such noticeable change is distorted by LwAmi effects ? :hmm:

I have yet to read any earnest attempt at an assessment. One cant help but form the oppinion that, present
company excepted, there is a lot of Mumbo Jumbo from RL deployed or 'spun' into the game situation.
Much reportage is no better than 'Red sky at night - shepherds delight'........As it is almost impossible to setup
rigorous tests (RL or game) with controls and predictable or repeatable results. Proofs please !

If the SSP manifestations in-game are complex and real lets hear about it with some examples.

Please eradicate my cynicism and convince me that I am wrong. I will be eternaly gratefull. :hmm:
Sorry - did'nt mean to rant.

LuftWolf · 12-18-05, 07:47 PM

Quote:

The layer appears more 'effective'
but how much of such noticeable change is distorted by LwAmi effects

Well, the engine by its nature is designed to take values from the database and use them to calculate the performance and interaction of various objects in the simulator. Theoretically, the engine should function basically the same regardless of the database used, assuming the database has all valid parameters.

In my experience, the acoustics engine is functioning more or less the way it was intended that it function with and without the Mod (the mod needs to be adjusted somewhat now in order for it to function the way it probably should). The sonar modelling is never going to have the complexity of a that a commericial grade sound propagation model would have in terms of multipath tracing for each narrowband frequency from a single contact, so that means the layer effects are modelled such that it would make for acoustics that are close enough for good gameplay using real tactics.

Since I started playing with 1.03b I have really enjoyed my games a bit more because the acoustics now have to be judged in a more complex way and the acoustic conditions are sometimes difficult to judge. One time I had two lines on an opponent and he was over 30nm in a CV... not some may say this is not realistic for quiet subs but I don't know that. Now torpedoes can be fired above or under layers so that your opponent doesn't get a TIW call until the torpedo has enabled and gone deep or he has come shallow and you are degrees off the original bearing.

I think experience will show that all simplicifications for good reason aside, the new sonar model is great for gameplay and miles above what has been had previously.

Bellman · 12-19-05, 03:09 AM

LW I'm sure your right. - the modelling is both more compex and unpredictable. But in th absence of further
exposition or enlightment from SAS, much of what we have is subjective observation, and speculative induction
from RL. Like the deployment of cloud effects in a flight sim.- we can see some effects and sense others.
We can report stratification, and indicate visibility ranges, but it is living and endlessley changing.

More importantly to attempt the task of pinning the jelly to the blackboard, one requires many time dependent
observations. So whilst A,B and C platforms may each seperately observe in game SSP or layer effects,
no technicaly accurate report can be compiled without close integration of time related data.
Now I guess we are here for fun - not testing the SAS SSP model.

If experience confirms the claimed layer effects post Beta that will be an exciting real gameplay improvement.
The 'new' cloaking effects will fit neatly with the LwAmi sonar detection ranges allowing a more fun
stealth/lurking type game which I know a lot of us love.

But with 'short-sightedness' will there come a need for new hybrid UUVs with longer range torpedo type performance
and deployment characteristics ? Why must 'shut-down' mean terminate why cant we deploy a
UUV/Hybrid/torp and switch to 'sleep' mode ? :hmm:

Talking of which I am effectively AOL from the 21st until Feb 06, so will only be able occasionaly to raise the mast.

All the best.

SeaQueen · 12-19-05, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Since I started playing with 1.03b I have really enjoyed my games a bit more because the acoustics now have to be judged in a more complex way and the acoustic conditions are sometimes difficult to judge. One time I had two lines on an opponent and he was over 30nm in a CV... not some may say this is not realistic for quiet subs but I don't know that.

It might be realistic, it all depends. Convergence zones can give you an awful lot. Now... here's the catch, a convergence zone is not always especially useful. Suppose that you have good CZ range, but rotten direct path range. In that case, you could detect a target and begin closing on him 30NM out, but then he'll disappear and not reappear until you've almost banged into him!

My experience with looking at real life data on submarines has lead me to believe that even in good acoustic situations, they frequently bumble through the ocean, dazed and confused. If you could see the differences sometimes between what is ACTUALLY happening and what they THINK is happening, you'd laugh. It really is funny.

Fish · 12-19-05, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "LuftWolf

Now torpedoes can be fired above or under layers so that your opponent doesn't get a TIW call until the torpedo has enabled and gone deep or he has come shallow and you are degrees off the original bearing.

LuftWolf, I have to disagree here.
In my tests (LAN), you get a TIW warning even when the torp is still other side of the layer. The range comes in here, for example a torp launched at 12 nm other side layer: No TIW. Later when the torp was at 8 nm from the other sub A TIW warning was given. The torp was still other side layer. So it depends on the distance and the strength og the layer I think.

LuftWolf · 12-19-05, 11:04 AM

Fish it really does all depend on the acoustic conditions. I've come shallow and got TIW's very close aboard.

It seems that the calls are somehow based on detection thresholds now, so if you lower the threshold you will delay the TIW until the torpedo is closer.

The fact that the layer has ANY effect at all now on torpedo detection and TIW calls is enough to cause us to reevaluate tactics in this light, given that previously it was more or less absent as an effect from the game.

12-17-05, 05:39 PM	#1
SeaQueen Naval Royalty Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 1,185 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Some Thoughts on SSPs and What to Do About Them Lately I've been thinking about the speed of sound in DW. As one who spends a lot of time staring at SSPs around the world, frequently, I find myself thinking, "that's not right," wondering if there was a better way to do it, or if there was a smarter way to accurately represent the behavior of sound speed in the sea. CZ - there's always a surface duct too. In real life, that need not be the case. Surface duct environments - the duct is FAR deeper than one would expect, or would be physical. Bottom limited - isn't really bottom limited, but rather represents a shallow duct situation. In deeper bottom limited realms, this can look silly. Frequently the speed of sound is also extrordinarily low. The problem is particularly bad in tropical or subtropical waters. The only SSPs that really represent a physical situation is the CZ environment or the bottom limited environment. I'm beginning to think that in all my scenarios, the best thing to do is to define the environment as a CZ, whether it's shallow or deep. The only problem I have with that, is that in the tropical and subtropical coastal waters where I like to create scenarios, the environment in real life is strongly bottom limited, so defining it as a CZ in the absence of a model that adjusts the sea surface temperature gradients by lattitude means that the relatively deep areas that would still be bottom limited would show a convergence zone. Or maybe I'm just being nitpicky...

12-18-05, 06:32 PM	#3
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	It is not clear to me what changes have been implemented to the SSP in 1.03. The layer appears more 'effective' but how much of such noticeable change is distorted by LwAmi effects ? :hmm: I have yet to read any earnest attempt at an assessment. One cant help but form the oppinion that, present company excepted, there is a lot of Mumbo Jumbo from RL deployed or 'spun' into the game situation. Much reportage is no better than 'Red sky at night - shepherds delight'........As it is almost impossible to setup rigorous tests (RL or game) with controls and predictable or repeatable results. Proofs please ! If the SSP manifestations in-game are complex and real lets hear about it with some examples. Please eradicate my cynicism and convince me that I am wrong. I will be eternaly gratefull. :hmm: Sorry - did'nt mean to rant. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

12-19-05, 03:09 AM	#5
Bellman Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,945 Downloads: 220 Uploads: 0	LW I'm sure your right. - the modelling is both more compex and unpredictable. But in th absence of further exposition or enlightment from SAS, much of what we have is subjective observation, and speculative induction from RL. Like the deployment of cloud effects in a flight sim.- we can see some effects and sense others. We can report stratification, and indicate visibility ranges, but it is living and endlessley changing. More importantly to attempt the task of pinning the jelly to the blackboard, one requires many time dependent observations. So whilst A,B and C platforms may each seperately observe in game SSP or layer effects, no technicaly accurate report can be compiled without close integration of time related data. Now I guess we are here for fun - not testing the SAS SSP model. If experience confirms the claimed layer effects post Beta that will be an exciting real gameplay improvement. The 'new' cloaking effects will fit neatly with the LwAmi sonar detection ranges allowing a more fun stealth/lurking type game which I know a lot of us love. But with 'short-sightedness' will there come a need for new hybrid UUVs with longer range torpedo type performance and deployment characteristics ? Why must 'shut-down' mean terminate why cant we deploy a UUV/Hybrid/torp and switch to 'sleep' mode ? :hmm: Talking of which I am effectively AOL from the 21st until Feb 06, so will only be able occasionaly to raise the mast. All the best. __________________ Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

12-19-05, 11:04 AM	#8
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Fish it really does all depend on the acoustic conditions. I've come shallow and got TIW's very close aboard. It seems that the calls are somehow based on detection thresholds now, so if you lower the threshold you will delay the TIW until the torpedo is closer. The fact that the layer has ANY effect at all now on torpedo detection and TIW calls is enough to cause us to reevaluate tactics in this light, given that previously it was more or less absent as an effect from the game. __________________ LW

12-17-05, 07:18 PM	#2
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	Not at all. The more realistic the SSPs, the better the simulation, especially not that the SSP has a very large effect on detection.