I never explained right what i was meaning. Yes the aTMA gets solutions quicker and doesnt use the TMA data to get it and so it could be called cheating. But once it gets it and you start to add more contacts then it only updated each contact one at a time. I have seen it taking 10min or more to update some contacts. With Manual TMA you can get the TMA when you need it. Right when your torps are near the target. With aTMA you have to wait till it goes through all the other contacs first. If you have a UUV out and there lots of torps in the water i have seen it taking 20min for a update on a target sub. So you could say manual TMA has a advantage here.
Also for FFG i dont mind the aTMA being used. :roll:
I dont know what is realistic or not i was just saying what i would like. Also it may be a simulation but i play it for fun not to train as a sub captain. :hmm: Dont get me wrong if it a choice between realistic or not i will choose the relistic option as long as it still fun. If it was not i wouldnt be playing it and i suspect most people here wouldnt either. Sometimes i think we get too hooked up in realism and forget the main reason we play DW. For Fun. :up:

100 % agree with you.

Here is an excerpt of Dangerous Waters Manual. Last pages of the FFG Chapter.

In here Sonalyst clearly states that Autocrew is by far lower than a human player on speed and quality and in some of the station even with A-Crew you are still required to perform task to complete the work.
I have the idea that A-Crew is designed to help the player to carry on with the workload especially on heavy workload maps with multiple threads.
I think all the confusion comes from the definition of Advanced settings or Novice Settings.
I would not accept a game where the host forces me to use A crew with no chance of manually using that station, however I want A crew to take care of the station while I am in other and I feel the manual of Sonalyst clearly goes on the same line.

I just want to say that OKO's settings are *perfect.* We obviously share the same philosophy about autocrew: that the trivial, mechanical tasks that some E-3 fresh out of A-school can do for us should be done by autocrew, but the stations requiring careful use and judgment should be done by the player.

I do have sympathy for the bitch of a TMA station the FFG drivers have, so I'm often willing to "compromise my principles" and live with FFG aTMA. When you've got a station that limits the range by the size of the "paper," forcing them to do manual is a bit cruel.


Oh, and Quick Launch is a BIG no-no. We (the mission designers) can start you off airborne, alert 5, alert 15, alert 30, or limp dicked; if we wanted a helo up quick in that mission we would have made effect to do so. Don't mess with us. :stare: :P

Almost too bad the mission maker cannot enforce a few options, but that's probably just as well.

What they can do, is give their recommendations in the mission description... Which is a rare thing.

Almost as rare as environmental conditions, such as operation area depths etc.

Forgive me for not having thoroughly read each and every post in this thread (which i will do) but I've been wanting to ask this question for a long time. If (as most of us including me contend) the "Otto" crew can't hold a candle to an experienced "manual" player, why then don't we leave it up to the player to decide what Otto handles and what the human handles?

Please tell me you're talking about things like sonar and NOT TMA?! :doh:

Mine include the conditions and depths. :up: But not settings, so let me just be absolutely clear:

Don't play my missions quick with launch on! If you do, I'll sell your children's organs to zoos for meat, and break into your houses at night and wreck up the place!

Don't worry ML, I'm referring to pretty much everything except aTMA. :up: