It wasn't my cylindrical or hull sharing the TA info. I was using the TA only (the contact isn't even really showing up on the TA so how could it be showing on the others) and this happens, a wedge, out of nowhere, and when I check (Show Truth) it correlates with the bearing of the target.

So that was on the Akula?

If it was showing up at all on the TA, then it would carry over to the other sensors.

Edit: Are you sure you have your gamma set correctly? If not, contacts can often showup and you just can't see them because your screen contrast isn't set correctly.

I understand ther is contact tracked on broadband, and you get classification on narrowband even though there is nothing visible on NB yet ? Well I think it's wrong... if contact is tracked broadband only, then there is broadband noise only (for example very modern sub and flow noise without doscrete lines of machinery) received which is not enough for classification... you need discrete lines for classiffication so something visible on NB... AFAIK...

It's EXACTLY wha I would like to see in DW, for both passive and active sonars !! :-) The "system" doesn't "know" if there is contact or not, in other case the operator would be unneeded :-D. So it should give a mark everywhere where you set it. It's a player's problem that if he's clicking everywhere, he get's false contacts everywhere ! :-P This would right away eliminate "marking cheats" on both active and passive sonars and forced player to be sure that he's marking a contact (read, he really sees something there). Of course "empty" contacts would not update because they would not be tracked by autotrackers...

The funny thing is, by merging multiple times, this could actually create the benefit of a workaround for those cases when you try to mark a contact but nothing happens. :D

<< a) It probably has something to do with my crappy sonar display ... again - there is something very weak out there. Ah well, at least my headphones / noise spectral analyzer is better than my displays.
b) It is a bug. Somehow, Sonalysts, who brought us this fine simulation, had misaligned the computer and display detection theresholds... and showing me something I have no right to see.

How will he know the difference? You can only (at least in my experience) get this quirk occasionally in a real game. He's probably going to conclude he got lucky and picked up some kind of microsignal - didn't Sonalysts say something about improving the sonar model after all; which means more quirks, right? It is just the inverse of my stupid actve sonar not picking up a clear return at 5000 yards, no? >>>>

the above is a good post. thinks things thru ,plays devils advocate, keeps an open mind to possibilities, its too bad more of you arent as wise.

personally
a) there are times i cannot mark clear contacts until having clicked on them repeatedly for a few minutes. why ? i dunno. um, if there are visible contacts that i cannot mark it is merely "equally" odd that there marked contacts i cannot see. no more no less.
b) LW noted there there are some gamma issues that could prevent some people from seeing some contacts.
c) so if i happen to click around and happen to get a contact maybe im supposed to see it and for some reason just cant. how am i to know ?
d) i have even noticed the autocrew mark something i cannot see in russian subs. this supports maybe sumthing about my gamma settings is preventing me from seeing something and/or that i am supposed to click around.
e) i noticed these oddities a while ago and checked the 1.03 documentation which states clearly that this problem has been fixed - so once again the expectation that i am SUPPOSED to see these contacts and for some reason just cannot is again supported.
f) how can yall spend so much time slamming people for abusing a cheat if tlam and oko only just clearly determined there's still a bug ?

no one can be abusing a known cheat until the public is actually informed there is a bug. duh ?

simple temporary solution is to avoid kilos altogether in multi.

a few of you really need to take your periscope out of your icehole now and again.

I mentioned this months ago. No one listened or cared. So don’t say I just discovered this… :know:

...no one listens to little old TLAM… :roll:

<< I mentioned this months ago. No one listened or cared. So don’t say I just discovered this >>

i take you at your word sir.

however until this thread i have not personally noticed any mention of it in the 2 plus months i've been perusing this board. some people might wish to consider that others may be underinformed before leaping to burn them at the stake.

Edit: Quote attribution corrected

Bingo.

The same problem can be seen between the sphere sonars on broadband, only in reverse of the kilo issue.

From an architectural perspective, the reason this would happen, in the large majority of cases, is because DW uses multiple data and code pathways to carry information back and forth from the database, sim engine, and interface... not that I'm a programmer, so I'm using the best terminology I have from neurophysiology. :know: :88)

So, in other words, the same code that controls the visual display, is not necessarily related in any way to the code that controls the trackers beyond the fact they are taking the same platform data from the database.

You can observe this most clearly when considering the difference between how the AI and autocrew handle detections, and how the player has to handle detections, as well as TMA.

My best guess is that the .dll files are not always sync-ed together and with the NavalSimEngine the way they should be, making the interface a bit off of the actual engine performance.

Cheers,
David

Kazuaki Shimazaki II wrote that fine post - :up:
i just agreed with it and added my perspective.

i dont see how the hysteria some other people insist on generating can ever be beneficial. it only results in less people bothering to participate because every time they sink someone or get sunk
the accusations fly like a hummingbird on crack.

Regarding the original post, the other player sounds like a bit of a jerk. I'd put them on the Do Not Play list pretty fast.

I've always preferred the "track everywhere" implementation. Makes more sense to me and improves gameplay (which I think is most important). Perhaps a little random walk for the blip so that it looks believable, ostensibly because the tracker is really following some phantom pattern.

It should be an option, though (Easy tracking, on/off), because unless something's changed in awhile there are often times when you can't lock a track right away, and it would be confusing and equally annoying if you couldn't be sure whether you had a track on that cruise ship or not (though loud contacts would come through DEMON). The click thing is more of a multiplay issue.

Or, since most of the other arrays are fine, Sonalysts could simply catch all the quirks. They're always SO close.

I wish I had more time to read all the posts here, as I find a lot of usefull information here. In regards to this thread on cheating, it is something that always be with us, regardless of the game. As stated, it is human nature for many to use and advantage they can, especially in "competition", and some take that farther into all out cheating.
In my many years playing sub games, I have played with many good people, and also some cheaters. The big problem is that no matter how good the game, how good the designers, bugs will always creep in. So although we would all love to elliminate cheating completly, it will always be with us. The other really big problem is the fact that no matter how blatent the cheat is, there will ALWAYS be resonable doubt, and this make "marking or banning" cheaters hard without wrongly accusing players and spiraling into the "paranoid witch hunt".
My personal views on cheating is this, regardless of if someone posts the name of a known cheater, when you play a person a few times you can spot them. You may not be able to prove it, but you know that they are. In my time I have played with many cheats, and sometimes STILL DO. I find it a great challenge to occationally play a cheater to see if I can beat him even with the advantage. I remember playing one person in 688, who was torp stearing in 3D. He had his weapons aquire and I would shake them (we were on seperate sides of an island) and this would repeat (he was dead at this time). After shaking torps 6 or seven times they finally died, and I tell you the feeling was better than wining the final WAR dive when both sides are dead locked lol.

I guess what I'm saying is that we all play to have fun, and can usually spot the cheats. Then we can decide who we do and dont play. I must also say I feel very sorry for these cheats, as there is nothing more pathetic than seeing a "killer" stats drop to that of a cadet when a patch is put in place (like the 688 3D patch). Then just looking at the scores makes them all stand out like a sore thumb lol.

Anyways, I really enjoy reading the posts here, and if I ever get lucky I will get more free time to stay in touch with them (I hate how RL works messes up my fun time lol).

Take care all <S>

FADM Stern GNSF