Isn't the TMA a little too perfect?

[Shadriss]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

Consider that the dot stack shoes error between detected bearings and generated bearings. Our percentage is kind of like an inverse of that, and much easier to code.

Originally Posted by Destex

TMA algorithms produce all kinds of quantified parameters to indicate the accuracy of the solution. They should be referred to with suspicion, of course, but for a rather simplified game such as CW, I don't see anything drastically wrong with representing solution quality with percentage.

Originally Posted by banryu79

Exactly...

All fair enough... I look at it as the AO's estimate of the solution's accuracy. But that it's a percentage isn't the point - the point is that tying certain elements to that percentage (IE, plot tracking at 95%, course estimation at XX%, etc) is an issue.

At any point, I should have all three parameters - it's a solution. Not a good one (percentage applies here!), but a solution. It's the Captain's job to weigh all that's going on, how he feels about that solution, and attack when he's ready. Under this system (the CW one, to clarify), I feel like I have no choice but to wait to shoot on a 95% solution because it's the only one that provides me any feel for relative motion since I can't look at PBB data.

There are times when a bearings only shot is needed, I don't argue that point. But for any type of deliberate attack, this system almost forces you to wait longer than you might really need to.

[Julhelm]

You should get speed and course already at around 50%, with range being the final factor. There's no real provision for plotting 'wrong' solutions, so instead we assume that only data which your TMA team is confident about gets plotted.

If you remember the first two Silent Hunter games, they also used a 0-99% solution indication, where the solution for your torpedoes built up over time as you made sonar/radar/visual observations on the track. In those games though, the map was still the 'all or nothing' realtime plot. We just use the solution to drive the plot display instead and let you aim your weapons as you see fit.

[Shadriss]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

You should get speed and course already at around 50%, with range being the final factor. There's no real provision for plotting 'wrong' solutions, so instead we assume that only data which your TMA team is confident about gets plotted.

If you remember the first two Silent Hunter games, they also used a 0-99% solution indication, where the solution for your torpedoes built up over time as you made sonar/radar/visual observations on the track. In those games though, the map was still the 'all or nothing' realtime plot. We just use the solution to drive the plot display instead and let you aim your weapons as you see fit.

The problem then lies in the assumption - all data gets plotted regardless of confidence, simply because what you aren't confident about now may well turn out to have been correct all along. A solution has three parts, and you never pass along a solution without all three of them, no matter how you or your team may feel about individual portions of them. The Captain and the rest of the control team has to steer off of something, and a single data point on the plot that never moves doesn't cut it. Even a vector arrow indicating direction of motion would be a huge improvement. As it is now, it is very difficult to determine the difference between a lag and lead geometry in the early going, and the vector arrow would help in that.

Speed and Course may well show up in the data block in the corner at 50%, but I rarely look at that block because it SHOULD be represented on the plot in a quick visual reference for use in tactical decisions.

As to Silent Hunter games, I've only played the 4th and 5th (and still play them quite a bit). It's hard to compare the two, though, since the systems that drive the plots are very different, as you point out.

[banryu79]

Well... "possible course interval" could be indicated by drawing a "cone" rapresenting a continguos range of possible courses... until you have a 95% quality solution and you got an etremely narrow cone = a line/arrow.

But I do not know if it will improve the gameplay... Maybe a simple arrow plotted on the contact along the perpendicular of the LOB to just indicate if the bearing is drawing left or right could be useful?

[I think that if you are looking for the kind of feedback on sensor data that you describe in your post then Dangerous Waters comes to mind!]

[TigerDude]

I joined to participate in this discussion.

The TMA is way too easy and way too perfect. Real world contacts at max detection distances are tenuous, with not good bearings. Towed array bearings were always worse (and not clearly on one side off the ship vs the other).

A whole team worked on this. It was hard. The data was imperfect. And surface contacts were actually worse (non-intuitively). Fast moving, so less time to maneuver, and periscope observations are typically terrible (the difference in .2 divisions and .3 divisions is a 50% range error).

And active search torpedoes aren't the end-all solution. It's a big ocean.

[Shadriss]

Originally Posted by banryu79

[I think that if you are looking for the kind of feedback on sensor data that you describe in your post then Dangerous Waters comes to mind!]

DW isn't bad at all, actually. I was hoping that CW would be able to step into it's place, but it is obvious it was developed more as an 'arcadey' kind of game than a simulator. Not banging on it for that, please don't get me wrong. It's still fun, I just run into frustrations because I know what I should be seeing or getting from my 'operators' in the game, and they aren't there.

Chalk it up to actual knowledge getting in the way of simplified expression, if you will.

[Julhelm]

We definitely developed it as a throwback to the old-school style of sim we loved in the 80's and 90's.

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

We definitely developed it as a throwback to the old-school style of sim we loved in the 80's and 90's.

Oh yes! We can clearly see it by the CPU usage.

[banryu79]

Originally Posted by Shadriss

DW isn't bad at all, actually. I was hoping that CW would be able to step into it's place, but it is obvious it was developed more as an 'arcadey' kind of game than a simulator. Not banging on it for that, please don't get me wrong. It's still fun, I just run into frustrations because I know what I should be seeing or getting from my 'operators' in the game, and they aren't there.

Chalk it up to actual knowledge getting in the way of simplified expression, if you will.

Well, it always depends on the design of the game and in what it try to capture (what kind of gameplay it aims to deliver).
In this respect my opinion is that comparing DW with CW is like comparing apples with oranges because CW abstract/simplifies more from the "minutiae" of sensor data analysis and TMA procedures to deliver to the user a more "pre-digest tactical picture".

You still have to worry about ambient acustic conditions, enemy platform capabilities (with some nice values about your and their sensors capabilities somewhat updated to factor in the current realtimetactical situation), weapons capabilities and so on and so forth and condense everything to correctly perceive the risks, make informated guesses and finally take sound tactical decisions.

all of this without the difficult of multitasking of role you have in DW.
I bet the CW gameplay (I still haven't played it but I have both played RSR and DW) give you the feel of being the CO more than DW (where instead I sometimes have the feeling of being multiple peolpe or a single schizofrenic operator, lol).

Also, I think the user base for a game like CW is more ample than the one for DW.

They are two different games.

[Shadriss]

Originally Posted by banryu79

I bet the CW gameplay (I still haven't played it but I have both played RSR and DW) give you the feel of being the CO more than DW (where instead I sometimes have the feeling of being multiple peolpe or a single schizofrenic operator, lol).

I'm sure this is what they were shooting for, but I still think it could be done better, hence my statements. Everything I've talked about is available to the skipper - including a look at PBB, which CW doesn't provide, btw, and I haven't mentioned to this point because I understand those reasons far better than some of the others.

As the skipper, I should be able to look at the Plot, see what's around me, our best estimate of where they are going, how fast they are getting there, and how far from me they are... regardless of how 'good' we think the solution is. Solutions do not come in three-part packages - they are a whole. When I, as a RL Sonar Supervisor, pass out a solution to the Conn, I don't pass only Course and Speed if I don't have a feel for range. I pass my gut feel for a range based on a number of factors, and that's my solution.

In game terms, even if the solution percentage is crap, I should still be seeing my crew's best estimate for a contact's complete solution, not the piecemeal version we're getting in the current system. This would, additionally, address some of the 'too-perfect' feeling that currently exists. If you aren't sure that the solution as it's currently being plotted will not be jumping around as it's being worked on by the operators, you may be more reluctant to engage so soon, as an example. As it stands, if that contact is dropping dots on the plot, you know for certain-sure that's the truth, and can essentially fire at will.