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:

The only way Luft to really understand the dbase is to change one thing and then test it many many times in different situations.

Why do you think SCX took so long. Thomas went through each sensor.

He'd mod a sensor and not the doctrine to see what happened.

Now if you have seen the SCX database you'll see the number of sensors.

Seriously if you want to make the mod really good you'll have to lock yourself away and test and test and test.

Molon I use auto TMA and haven't witnessed what you are saying. There has been many a times my TMA has gone off on a unit that has no sensor update. All my aircraft only have position updated on last known speed and direction.

Never have I seen helos or aircraft have their position updated to match that of truth. Hey and I'm not ebing awkward here just I know what I have seen too.

Well take a Ludger's DWEdit and look at the database and sensor values.
Comparing different sensors of known performance you can understand role of each parameter quite good, after some testing even better.
If you wanted deeper insight into DW sonar model, there is very detailed txt description of it made by Ludger and a tool for modders by Ludger too, called DW Analyzer, which simulates in-game sonar model very precisely. I used it to project and test the seekers and FFG active sonar, later confirming results by in-game testing. It rather complicated tool but gives good understanding how DW sonar model works (and actually easier than by just reading through txt description of used algorithms and formulas).
But I think it's a waste of time studying it now, because the active sonar model is bugged and gives totally unrealistic pefrformance currently, that's the reason we couldn't make proper active sonar seekers for torpedos which det range based on conditions and target strength. We did best we could with current bugged sonar model - n general it's still a hard number, det range is reduced only in few specific conditions (slow target under the layer with front or rear aspect).
But the active sonar model will be fixed in 1.02 and then we'll be able to make proper active sonar seeker modeling, so I suggest you that you study the sonar model after relase of 1.02 patch (probably updated version of Ludger's Analyzer will be available then), now it's waste of time as it's bugged and in practice for torp seekers it's a hard fixed number, only varying randomly in 10-20% range (so for 2000m seeker you can get det range of 2100m sometimes and 1800m sometimes for example).
Currently in 2.01 mod only in specific conditions vs small slow target front aspect under the layer torpedo seeker range can be reduced below those values. From theoretical analyses in Analyzer it it possible to miss a small target completly even with ADCAP in the least favourable conditions :-) but changes of such incident should be very low, many factors would have to be lowest possible simultaneously (target vsmall, speed close to zero , aspect VERY close to zero, tgt under layer, high sea state). And if you experienced such conditions you could overcome this by launching two torpedos and attacking target from two different aspects.

That's a shame, though, because it inhibits us from getting the kind of data from which real life tactics could be employed. One thing I liked about Harpoon, was that they were very upfront about how the radar and sonar aspects of the game worked.

And as for it being simplistic...

You'd probably be amazed at how simplistic the computer models used to make real recommendations to defense decision makers are. It's also interesting to see how accurate they are in spite of their simplicity, although some are more predictive than others and NOBODY actually claims their model is predictive. :-)

It's kind of funny really, that people build these wargames that supposedly have no predictive value, then make predictions based on them, and expect decision makers to believe them.

Gotta love the Washington game...

My boss said that Red Storm Rising by Microprose was the best submarine combat model ever built at that time. It explicitly took into account things that Pentagon planners hand waved their way through. Just the fact that THEY WERE THERE, in some kind of quantitative way was an advance over what was previously done.

DW and Harpoon are LIGHT YEARS more sophisticated than that, so... you'd probably be amazed at how useful commerically available wargames are in making estimates of performance even in the abscense of classified data, advanced sonar performance models, etc. because a lot of this stuff has such a huge uncertainty on it, that nailing down specific values is not always an easy thing to do anyway. It's good enough to be in the ballpark.

Combine that with the fact that a lot of "classified" data is extracted from unclassified sources, or else there exist public domain estimates of equilivent accuracy published by people like Janes. People who develop commercial wargames can potentially make really nice pieces of work.

The thing is, the tactic of developing a firing solution with a relatively large AOU, then firing multiple missiles into that AOU so that the area searched by the torpedos cover the largest possible fraction of that area, if not the entirety of it, is a perfectly good, and very effective tactic, so even if you gave the torpedoes a smaller sensor range, I'm not sure it's clear that that the situation would change very much. It just slows the process down a little more because to maintain the equivilent effectiveness, you'd need a smaller AOU, hence spend more time developing a firing solution. The SS-N-27 / Akula is a VERY effective weapons system, even with less capable torpedos on the missile.

Sorry i missed most of this post and what i am about to say has already been said but i gotta say it...

Turn Off Auto TMA!!!

It spoils the fun of the dive. If you dont want to do the tma your self get someone to ride along with you in platform and handle the tma. Thats what the guys i dive with do. ;)

You're totally right, playing on manual is so much better...BUT there aren't many players that can handle it so it's hard to get a manual TMA game. The bottom line is that aTMA is used in most games, and because SCS made it a cheat instead of an assistant (as autocrew in previous games were) they have created an enormous balance and realism problem. The fact that it can be turned off doesn't create an excuse...

At least with sub command you could do manual in an aTMA dive and not be at an extreme disadvantage, because aTMA then wasn't a cheat...but now, we're pretty much stuck with it unless we're lucky enough to get a dive with all elite players.

IMHO players should perfect tma in sp then join us veterans in mp.

Thats how i did it (In SC) perfected it there then when dw came out moved to MP. Otto can go back to basic remove it from game i say. Untill then make sure that theres a nice honest host who keeps Otto turned off and have real fun trying to find your opponent before wasting missiles and the like on them.

Go Molon tell em all. Keep Auto Off. :smug:

I'm really happy people who stopped using it (or maybe never used for some) says how it's MUCH MORE interesting to play without AC TMA.

TMA are NOT difficult.
There only basic rules to respect to make a GREAT one (very accurate) on DW.
The main difference beetween SC and DW on this point is on DW, you must use recording patterns, when you could do whatever you want on SC to record LOBs.
I already mentionned this around 10 times on forum, but will do one more time :

during the data collection, just don't =>
- change speed
- change depth
- change course.
be at least at 7 knts minimum if you use the towed array, no minimal speed on all other sonars.
thats all, but all that.

the easiest way to make a TMA on a TA only is to wait 3 LOB, then changing course for 30 to 90°, and record 3 more LOBs
because you turned during record pattern, you will have so : 3 good LOBs, 1 (maybe 2) corrupted LOBs (during the turn) and then 3 more good LOBS.

just align the 3 first good LOB and the 3 second good LOBs on the center line of the dot stack to have an EXACT line, not a curve.
If you have a curve, you miss the distance, this 6 LOB must be ABSOLUTLY on a same line, easy to see if you change the ruler distance, from farther to shorter distance, you will see a curve in one way, then a line, then a curve in the other way =>
the right distance is the line beetween the 2 curves.
If you proceed that way, TMA with TA only are easy to make in less than 10 minutes of record, and only one minute of work on TMA station, on whatever plateform (even KILO).
2 X 3 LOB is the ABSOLUTE minimum
but 2 X 4 is really much more confortable to do.
Don't remember to NOT USE the corrupted LOBs you recorded during the turn, just concentrate to align the 1st and the second series of good LOB.

You don't need to waste your time on TMA station as long as you don't have enough informations, so just don't waste your time to try impossible TMA (because of to few informations) before it is the time to do it : this is far the most common mistake that makes believe to people TMA is hard when it is not =>
NOBODY can make a TMA with insufficient data, so just DON'T TRY IT, and wait for the right time, you will need only 1 minute for a TMA on target if you do it IN TIMES.
If your obstination conduct you to try a TMA each new LOB, you will lost time, accuracy and confidence in your capacity to make it.
So WAIT THE RIGHT TIME TO MAKE IT.
this is simply the most important statment on this subject ....

Using AC TMA, whether it's cheating or not (and it is on DW) is anyway the best way to kill the most important and interesting part of the game : building YOURSELF your situational awarness.
With AC TMA, this game is only a wargame. Without, it become a real simulation. If you let the AC doing all the interesting job for you, what will be games : just a pressing button contest ?
Making your own TMA, will also give more interesting games, because error will occurs, on both sides, and as you know that, you need to improve your tactical skill to limit the error factor, in some word you will learn as a real commander instead to play as a wargamer.

Welcome to a new world :lol:

Well, there is one problem, new cadets mostly have no idea about manual TMA, they are glad they shoot a torp in the right direction.
They are sharkfood already after they enter a fleet.
Also a lot of the more experienced players, have difficulties to follow all whats on there screen, bio's, neutrals etcetera.
When we, the Seawolves, play without the possibility to use auto TMA, 80 % will be excluded from gameplay.
But I am aware of the auto TMA cheat and hope that will be fixed in the 102 patch.
I am sure, OKO, being one of the beta testers, will hammer on that problem if it still exists, as I will do.

Yes I would prefer that the AC TMA would be fixed instead on using manual all the time. I think I know how to use Manual TMA (I think) but the thing with the FFG (which is the platform I am using 90% of the time) is that it is pretty hard to manage the TMA with the configuration right now, with the behaviour on the surface (a lot more and I mean a lot more that underwater, and the fact that I am using the FFG as being a captain/TAO and not as a multi operator.

Just my 2 cents as a Ship warfighter