You need great solution because the real max acquision range of UMGT-1 or MPT-1UE torpedo is about 1500m in good conditions, combine this with SUBROC drop error and you have to be really sure where the target is :).
Of course I'm talking aboutn real-life or modded game.
Reduced seeker range combined with launch transients and manual TMA limitations should be enaugh to reduce their usage, if not we may add random error in drop range and/or bearing to subroc doctrine.
Of course theoreticly you may try to launch many missiles to cover bigger area but I think more than two is unlikely in reality, there is very limited number of them on the board usually. Interesting proposition would be also to make limit of possible load of SUBROCs in non-written fair-play game rules...?

But in stock game acqision range of SUBROC torps is 4500m in all conditions combined with auto TMA, no missile launch transients and relatively long detection ranges is rather... uninteresting... :down:

The well tuned random error in TMA autocrew calculations is high priority patch suggestion I think. Probably was mentioned but maybe somone should refresh this in patch suggestions thread...

Beside this we could convince SCS to reduce by half seeker range of air-dropped torps and of course add missile launch transients (either a crew report or launch audible/visible on sonar) in 1.02 but both things can be done in mods so it's not so important as game-engine fix of too good auto TMA.

I seriously doubt you'll see this in patch. I might be wrong though.

If you hate auto TMA so much just turn it OFF.

Amizaur have you contacted Jamie to ask him to become beta tester BTW?

O.

Yeah I'm in but unfortunately have not much time now, this should improve after the weekend. And very limited testing is possible now with demo... Hard to test sonar model on that. But anyway I'm very happy with at least few things I checked :up: I'm curious if you can guess (or notice ;) ) the one that made me most joyfull ? :)

BTW everything I read lately suggest that Skhval is an anti-ship weapon. Possible to use as ASW only in original version with nuclear warhead...
For example some data revealed on MAKS 2005 in Moscow were about launch and run profile - both very shallow...

Well...heres my 10p's worth...subrocs seem fine to me with the following exeptions.

1) It is criminal, nay unforgiverble that a big old noisy rocket doesnt give off a transient to anyone. The Subroc should be a 'ok ive got him now weapon' not a 'hmmm maybe hes there' shot, If you fire one, everyone should know about it....

2) Auto tma....i couldnt care less that its bugged,that it cheats dont use it and insist that your opponent doesnt either, as one who strives to always play in manual tma the solution is simple.....TURN IT OFF, thats the best fix there is...

This problem will never be fixed, as your request suppose to determine different level of AI for TMA.
Where to stop, where to go ... for noobs, for regular, veteran ... impossible answer.

The solution is easy : use the MOD 2.01 (for subroc) and manual TMA, for the interest of game.
Games with manual TMA are WAY more interesting.
You have to assume your approximations and take lots of care when recording data with your sub (recording patterns).
With AC TMA, you just play to a wargame.
Without you enter the simulation.

You have to evaluate when you couldn't have accurate data.
Sometimes you couldn't determine the distance, and you will start to find yourself some tricks to evaluate a range.
here start the real commander job.
is not to only to say "engage" or not at an accurate target automatically calculated and displayed by computer that know the truth.

With shorter seeker range for ASW (and accurate distance) of the MOD 2.01 + manual TMA, your problem doesn't exist anymore.
Maybe it's only time to switch for you now.

I'm not sure that that's clear, and the thing is, it doesn't really take a whole lot of missiles. Depending on how much time you want to devote to TMA, the tactic is still valid. You just have to narrow down the AOU a little more. It's not necessarily unrealistic, either. What we HAVEN'T thrown into the mix is the effects of countermeasures and evasion. Then this gets a little more complicated. We're assuming a very naive player.

In my ideal world, the seeker range of a torpedo would depend on the sonar model. Maybe I'm too idealistic, though. My ideal sim probably doesn't run in real time. :-)

Seaqueen, I think you are missing the point.

It is not debatable that the ADCAP and the SS-N-16/27 use substantially different technology in terms of the quality of their seekers.

The game models their seekers as being *exactly the same*.

Yes, the sonar model should determine the in-game detection range *for the same torpedo seeker across different acoustic conditions* but the database NEEDS to model the difference in quality *between torpedos* in order for the game to: model reality and play in a balanced manner.

I don't think so, because I've agreed with everything you've said.
:-)

I'm confused about where the detection range you quoted comes from, though. From the conversation, I'm under the impression that it's a just hard number, in the database somewhere. I wish I knew more about the database and the sonar model. Is it that all the torpedos have the same source level or something? Is there a place where I can learn how the sonar model works?

In the standard database:

The detection range for the generic active torpedo sensor (assigned to all active torpedos) is hard set at 4500m and the sensitivity of that seeker is set such that, for all acoustic conditions (high sea, bottom limited, across layer, etc.) the detection will ALWAYS occur at that range.

For contrast, in the LWAMI mod:

We have created about 15 unique seekers with varying ranges AND we have reduced the sensitivity of the seekers so that acoustic conditions (especially layers, sea state, and acoustic environment type) and target parameters will greatly influence the ability of the seekers, meaning that the detections won't always occur at those hardset maximum ranges.

The database works on both the principle of hard set maximum ranges, and curves off of that max range based on the acoustic engine and the sensitivity of the sensor, which provides the third variable in the log scale of sound level at the sensor surface (or put another way, the degree to which the sensor can amplify signal contacts over background noise).

This is actually really interesting because something I've wanted to do for a while, is create a little spreadsheet where I could make estimates of sweep widths, MDRs, etc. from which I could make more informed decisions tactically. Is there somewhere I could learn about how the sonar model and the database work?

Well, I've been procrastinating on creating something similar to that for each of the sensors we've added in the game, primarily because I'm not even sure how to standardize such a thing to present it in a meaningful way. :oops: :cry:

I'm not really sure about what the best way to learn about the sonar model and the acoustics engine would be.

Amizaur and I have simply been playing around with the database enough to have a good feel for it, but actually there is considerable disagreement in the modding community about what is actually going on "under the hood" and what the database values mean.

This is all very much a work in progress from the standpoint of trying to get a working knowledge-base, and the culture of secrecy inhereted from SC, although thawing slightly in DW, doesn't help much.

My best suggestion is to create various test scenarios and start messing with database values and see how object behavior changes in game. The easiest way to do this is with torpedos or playable sonar sensors.

As someone with formal training in acoustics, you'll probably find that it is simplier than you would expect in terms of how many values in the database actually have a meaningful impact on sensor performance.

Circling around while monitoring buoys, doing MAD runs, perhaps on approach for a torpedo shot.... It's not accurate because the solution is still valid. It's accurate because the solution was updated because aTMA chooses a solution "within some parameters," in other words, it relies on the Truth. Once the solution varies enough from the truth that its outside of the allowable parameters (apparently) it updates, even though no new data has been provided.

I had long suspected that aTMA was using data other than the bearing lines and possibly DEMON data in creating a solution; this behavior--the updating of ESM contacts while submerged and the updating of sub contacts behind terrain--confirmed that suspicion.

I agree that you don't need a "perfect" solution to fire, but I really don't see what that has to do with the problems causing the SS-N-27 ASW to dominate the game. If anything, such a belief on the part of players commutes the problem...

Getting a perfect solution or an imperfect solution still takes time. The problem is that TMA will only get you a working solution after two legs (~8 minutes), with dead on solutions only after about 15 minutes assuming no course/speed changes by the target. Auto TMA is good enough to shoot in 2 minutes and dead on in 6-8.

LuftWolf wrote

Or, in a MP dive with 4 players, two with Seawolf and the two others with Akula, it is quite usual that the Akulas will die first, usually at the beginning of the dive. They just kill each other, since with their sensors, they don't detect Seawolf but the other Akula, then shooting straight away a volley of missiles at each other, scoring two deaths. When this happens once, it is OK for me, but when you get the same result four times in two days, you begin to wonder that something is not right. :hmm: