[OKO]

The main problem, to my eyes, is even if you change the parameters as you mentionned, people using AC TMA will still rely on it.

but to come to your arguments :
I'd like also that people using AC must also REALLY need to do a real commander job => positionning their ship in the correct attitude and doesn't change vector of the ship during data collection.

This is a VERY important thing, because not only you have the gap of the AC "eye of god", but also, with it, you can do whatever you want with your ship, turning, changing depth, speed, collecting data at 1 knts ....
This is the second gap, and this one also have to be solved.

If you compare a commander, compelled to manage with "listening" pattern, with the obligation to find time to do this and to plan this during the mission, depending on what happen, with a commander able to do absolutly what he want with the sub without any consequences on the data corruption, you will find the first one learn the real job when the second one learn to abuse of irrealistic patterns.

I'm sorry but if I know my opponent will do a manual TMA when I can have the AC, i know the best thing to do is just to change course and speed every 2 minutes to kill his solution without alterating mines.
One poor guy have all the difficult stuff when the second one can do what he want.
really not fair isn't it ?

So, to conclude my argue, I will also ask a modification on AC TMA

=> to not include in the TMA process supposed corrupted LOBs, this mean :

- LOBs from TA recorded when a speed change occured from the last one

- LOBs from TA recorded when the TA snake on the sonar screen after a depth change

- LOBs from TA recorded when the TA snake on the sonar screen after a course change

- LOBs from TA recorded when the speed was under 7 knts

supposing, of course, the AC is always able to determine corrupted LOBs (even if you need brain work here on manual TMA ...).

On this conditions, AC user will have the same restriction as the non user.
Not only it's more fair, but it also compel the commander to do real patterns, and not exotic ones.
I'm not talking about veteran using AC, they know about patterns and tactics.
But a noob starting with an "always forgiven" AC TMA will not learn anything about the real job.

Now, about the error effect you mentionned, I think it's a very difficult point.
why accurate, why inaccurate ... that is the question
You know, as me, even trained people could make huge range error in difficult conditions.
what is difficult conditions ? so many ... it's impossible to quote them all.
depending on layers, SNR, relief, stress ...
So why 10 % of error when on manual you could do only 2% and why 15% when you could have done 100% manually ... ?

But 10% seems to be a good average
If you have this 10%, coupled with above mentionned constraints, THEN this will be quite balanced (some times, manual will be better, sometimes worst).

I think manual TMA is to be prefered because of all things depending on it.
It's not only a station, but all about the situationnal awarness you built with that, the real conduct of the ship ... and the most realistic point of view from the commander, with real uncertainties and not only certitudes.
And here you always learn.
Learn a job quite close to the real thing, not only to displace pawn on the field, but also to take decision with partial informations, and that's the most sexy part, with an infinite learning curve ...

I don't think any AC, so sophisticated you could made, could replace the interest to make it manually, for all these reasons.

The best way to see that is on multiplayer matches.