Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OKO
That's a good solution
but you can be more rude at start, as for the real thing ... as said Molon, the AI shouldn't be able to do a better solution than informations provided can give.
so, with 1 sensor (examples ...)
2 LOB => 150% of error
3 LOB => 100% of error
4 LOB => 50% of error
5 LOB => 25% of error
6 LOB => 7% of error
7 LOB and above => 2% of error
for a good solution you need 6 LOBs, excellent one from the 7th.
but this doesnt solve the fact the commander could manoeuver as need without any constrainst.
in other way, we couldn't penalize commander using good pattern, and as we couldn't check that ....
And this way they have to wait near the same time of manual players to have some good solutions.
I saw a script instruction named "solution".
I suppose this could be implemented, after further investigation about accuracy (that was just a drift), without noticeable problems by Sonalysts. But certainly not for the next release.
Of course, this consensus must be agreed by all, we don't gonna ask for something concerning few people.
But this change could allow manual & AC TMA on the same game
at this time, it's really unfair.
|
Right! I like your point about the manuevering in particular. The rate at which the solution improves needs to be dependent on how Ownship is manuevered. 7 lines while Ownship is stationary should still produce a crap solution. Half of the refining process will need to be changing ownship's contribution to the bearing rate. The last thing I would want to see is a "good" range solution being obtained on a parallel or lead course, or a "good" range solution being obtained with no DEMON data without extensive manuevering...etc.
It's worth noting that with SC, it was usually fair for manual and aTMA players to be in the same game. I think I saw one incredibly lucky aTMA ASROC shot in all my time playing against opponents using autocrew...