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

[Pirate]

I use all auto-crew!
I'm the Captain, god dammit!!!

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

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

Developers exploiting the use of game internal state-variables that you do not have is cheating!

Auto-TMA doesn't detect (weak) contacts at all. (Sonar and ESM autocrew detects). My problem with it is it knows through divine (developer-) intelligence without you changing course that the mirror contact on the Towed Array doesn't have an actual soundsource. It is dropped immediately. And it seems to know the target course from a few lines of bearing before you even made a turn to alter the relative motion between you and the contact. Clearly Auto-TMA knows things it shouldn't.

[p7p8]

Originally Posted by Gray Lensman

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?

Thx but it wasn't straight running surface ship. This ship has made turn couple minutes ago.
I have YT channel but im not experienced video maker

My DW playlist

BTW Red book was writen to Sub Command. This game had much easier TMA because legs were always exactly where they should to be. In DW (with RA mod) situation is little bit different.

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.

Now you know what to do and how to do so... please show me this on my previous screenshot



You have above dual and even triple sensor legs on one tracked target

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by p7p8

BTW Red book was writen to Sub Command. This game had much easier TMA because legs were always exactly where they should to be. In DW (with RA mod) situation is little bit different.

I think we have our answer.

[p7p8]

I just made scenario for TMA training in "real" mission. Main feature is that primary target all the time makes low random course changes.

This scenario probably will be very easy with auto TMA

This is video from my game:



Link to scenario is description (under video)

P.S. I forgot to uncheck "read only" from replay.dat file so this video haven't replay at end

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

I think we have our answer.

Of course it is dated being written during Sub Command, but the principles are still valid regarding master contacts. The DW towed array "bearing errors" will just cause a little more uncertainty to the solution probably meaning 3 or more such hits will be necessary. I am also using RW 1.44.

O.T. How the heck do posters insert images on this site? or more precisely, what site do they use to provide the url link asked for when you click "insert image"?

[p7p8]

Subsim is user "un-friendly" in this case

Try ro use external images host services like imgur or similar.

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by p7p8

I just made scenario for TMA training in "real" mission. Main feature is that primary target all the time makes low random course changes.

This scenario probably will be very easy with auto TMA

This is video from my game:

<cut>

Link to scenario is description (under video)

P.S. I forgot to uncheck "read only" from replay.dat file so this video haven't replay at end

Enjoyable and informative video, BUT it still doesn't actually disprove the validity of the earlier discussed technique of using the last 2 or 3 master contact hits.

Admitedly, this will be hard to show, but since conditions change between the time of the weapon release and the actual Torp target acquisition (all that being variable), I'm more interested in the immediate TMA solution (Bearing, Speed, Course and Range) that you utilized for weapon firing (not the Torp settings), compared to the instantaneous "Show Truth" information (Bearing, Speed, Course and Range). Especially if you can manage to just use the last 2 or 3 master contact hits to get the immediate TMA solution.

Originally Posted by p7p8

Subsim is user "un-friendly" in this case

Try ro use external images host services like imgur or similar.

Thanks. Here's Figure 1.6.3 of the RedBook that I was referring to earlier.

Figure 1.6.3 Depicts a dual array contact on target in lead LOS. Note that no matter what the LOS, or what the target is doing, a dual array contact always represents truth. Also note that the same solution would be attained with only two sets of bearing lines instead of the three sets that are present.

Now with the discussion deviating to the inaccuracy of the towed array introduced in DW vice SubSim. It would be interesting to prove or disprove the validity of the dual contact accuracy vs the longer TMA solutions that your videos are showing. I would believe that more than likely three sets may actually be required now in DW due to the induced towed array error.

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Pisces

Developers exploiting the use of game internal state-variables that you do not have is cheating!

Wellllllll............ Um.

This might get me shot at dawn, but there was a way back in the old days to perk up that waterfall display. I'm pretty sure everyone in the old community knew about it, but if you had a CRT monitor all you had to do was crank up the gamma slider on the monitor and you'd gain some dB in the waterfall. It looked nasty and you wouldn't gain much but the data was there.

And yeah, of course I tried it on a flat screen but you can't see it anymore. LCD and LED monitors don't process brightness and gamma like the old CRTs.

[p7p8]

The truth is: most players doesn't know how to use manual TMA. So if you wanna play more than once in 2 month, you should give a choice.

Auto TMA isn't perfect. Its true that computer use "mystical knowledge" for predicting course and speed but in other hand, auto TMA very often gives you:
- too big error for contacts tracked long time.
- dont updates solutions (even with strong SNR)
- first solution can be very accurate 50%
- first solution can be terrible unaccurate 50%

In my opinion players should learn how to play with auto TMA. Its like "area of enemy presence" in Harpoon games on CMANO. Game draws you large figure where is enemy ship. In DW auto TMA players should have in mind "virtual area" just like in Harpoon or CMANO.

Now with the discussion deviating to the inaccuracy of the towed array introduced in DW vice SubSim. It would be interesting to prove or disprove the validity of the dual contact accuracy vs the longer TMA solutions that your videos are showing. I would believe that more than likely three sets may actually be required now in DW due to the induced towed array error.

Ok I will try to make video which will show how much this "trick" was effective only in SC (and 688 H/K). But i think you should have more wider perspective on TMA work. Of course merging contacts from different sensors in one Master gives you more informations. But not in that way as you think (not via crossing lines as 100% location of target). I have observe that many players are focusing on dots like students on mathematical riddle
Its wrong! You should have more resoluteness in TMA work. When i see screens on subsim where someone tries to cross lines in one point and speed of his sub is only 1-3 kts i know - he do it wrong.

BTW im not TMA specialist. My games are in 99% with auto TMA. I just know how it works - not only from "red/blue books" but mainly from single player testing in DW.

I think FPSchazly is much better in TMA because he likes this work - I dont :P

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by p7p8

The truth is: most players doesn't know how to use manual TMA. So if you wanna play more than once in 2 month, you should give a choice.

Auto TMA isn't perfect. Its true that computer use "mystical knowledge" for predicting course and speed but in other hand, auto TMA very often gives you:
- too big error for contacts tracked long time.
- dont updates solutions (even with strong SNR)
- first solution can be very accurate 50%
- first solution can be terrible unaccurate 50%

In my opinion players should learn how to play with auto TMA. Its like "area of enemy presence" in Harpoon games on CMANO. Game draws you large figure where is enemy ship. In DW auto TMA players should have in mind "virtual area" just like in Harpoon or CMANO.

Thing is, if I wanted to play like that, I would have bought Cold Waters, but I prefer the technical challenge of playing with mostly manual TMA. Obviously, the only way to learn it is to practice, practice, practice.

O.T. > I have all the time in the world since I'm retired now. (Literally, 12+ hours each day) It's definitely fun and interesting to me, since 45 years ago I was a young sailor on a U.S. DDG (USS Lawrence DDG-4 to be specific). A few years later, I was stationed at Charleston, S.C. Weapons station servicing Boomers on the USS Hunley AS-31. (1976-1977 I believe) I got to know a lot of Boomer crew members and had several of them for neighbors in military housing on the base.

Ok I will try to make video which will show how much this "trick" was effective only in SC (and 688 H/K). But i think you should have more wider perspective on TMA work. Of course merging contacts from different sensors in one Master gives you more informations. But not in that way as you think (not via crossing lines as 100% location of target). I have observe that many players are focusing on dots like students on mathematical riddle
Its wrong! You should have more resoluteness in TMA work. When i see screens on subsim where someone tries to cross lines in one point and speed of his sub is only 1-3 kts i know - he do it wrong.

I try to work with 10 knots across the LOS preferably in a LAG situation to increase the bearing fan. The only time I'm slower than that is near the surface.

BTW im not TMA specialist. My games are in 99% with auto TMA. I just know how it works - not only from "red/blue books" but mainly from single player testing in DW.

I think FPSchazly is much better in TMA because he likes this work - I dont :P

Actually, you're both pretty good, though you could add some voice to your videos for improvement. I have both you and FPSchazly's YouTube channels bookmarked for reference.

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by p7p8

...This game had much easier TMA because legs were always exactly where they should to be. In DW (with RA mod) situation is little bit different....

You have above dual and even triple sensor legs on one tracked target

p7p8, be aware that you may have some missunderstanding of the word "leg" commonly used when talking about TMA (or navigation in general). Often a "leg" in navigation refers to the path of a contact between course (or speed) changes or between waypoints. You seem to mean lines of bearings with "(sensor) legs". That is a significant difference you need to be aware of.

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

Wellllllll............ Um.

This might get me shot at dawn, but there was a way back in the old days to perk up that waterfall display. I'm pretty sure everyone in the old community knew about it, but if you had a CRT monitor all you had to do was crank up the gamma slider on the monitor and you'd gain some dB in the waterfall. It looked nasty and you wouldn't gain much but the data was there.

And yeah, of course I tried it on a flat screen but you can't see it anymore. LCD and LED monitors don't process brightness and gamma like the old CRTs.

We seem to be talking about 2 totally different things. Me: contact solutions, You: signal strength.

[p7p8]

@Pisces, you have right. I had in mind line between sensor and tracked contact

Thanks