Ambiguity of visual contact.

[Polak2]

One thing in DW to me feels not quite right (or not fully understood) and that is ambiguity of visual surface contacts.
Perhaps if the contact is sensed from the deck of the own unit (and it is beyond visual range) then double positions of the contacts/targets are justifiable. But what if I send my helicopter right over the contact and how it is possible that it still remains ambiguous after fly over?
Is there a range at which the contacts are visible and ambiguity or double positions are present/absent. Is this something to do with the settings? How the visibility is modeled in this sim and what are they depend upon (weather, equipment used etc, etc)? Thank you.

[FPSchazly]

Yeah, I don't know. The ranges for visual contacts have always seemed buggy for me so I try to just keep it to bearing data only. Are you talking about buggy lookout visual contacts from like the Perry or a flying platform? Those are usually pretty accurate. Or are you talking link data?

[Polak2]

Are you talking about buggy lookout visual contacts from like the Perry or a flying platform?

This is precisely what I am talking about. It also rubs me as a "buggy" issue.
BTW thank you for reply and all videos you have made.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Polak2

One thing in DW to me feels not quite right (or not fully understood) and that is ambiguity of visual surface contacts.
Perhaps if the contact is sensed from the deck of the own unit (and it is beyond visual range) then double positions of the contacts/targets are justifiable. But what if I send my helicopter right over the contact and how it is possible that it still remains ambiguous after fly over?
Is there a range at which the contacts are visible and ambiguity or double positions are present/absent. Is this something to do with the settings? How the visibility is modeled in this sim and what are they depend upon (weather, equipment used etc, etc)? Thank you.

The way Sonalysts' engine works is that your contacts, regardless of sensor, show the position of a contact to the best possibility of all sensors used and take into account simulated human error in autocrew abilities. (Autocrew efficiency is around 80%). Even if a Seahawk does a flyby and visually confirms a track, there will still be a degree of error because all of the other sensors are being thrown into the mix. If a track is totally out to lunch, it is best to go to TMA and scrap the Master track and start from scratch. Once enough error is attached to the accumulated track, even a visual sighting from a platform on top of the track may not be enough to salvage the solution. The only way to have a flawless contact is to use the "Show Truth" function in the Nav map. There will always be some degree of error. However, whether that error is significant enough to ruin a shooting solution is debatable, especially with wire-guided torpedoes.

[Polak2]

The way Sonalysts' engine works is that your contacts, regardless of sensor, show the position of a contact to the best possibility of all sensors used and take into account simulated human error in autocrew abilities. (Autocrew efficiency is around 80%).

That explains well this little quirk.I am glad (or perhaps sorry too) that this was not something I could correct by different gameplay settings or sensors use. Thank you.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Originally Posted by Polak2

That explains well this little quirk.I am glad (or perhaps sorry too) that this was not something I could correct by different gameplay settings or sensors use. Thank you.

No problem.