beginner question on how to increase the target confidence level

[tirta]

Hi Guys,

I am a beginner to DW, since my last modern sub sim is janes 688,
and now I am rather overwhelmed with the complexity of DW.

Can somebody let me know how to increase the target confidence level to high?
I am playing with novice default setting with all autocrew on.
I am trying ASUW quick mission with 688,
my speed is 5 and my depth is above thermal layer,
I have changing courses several times to improve TMA,
however this does not seem to improve target confidence,
what did I do wrong?

How is the best way to learn this sim?
Is there any good tutorial?
Do you have any tips / guides for beginner?
Please advise.

[banryu79]

Originally Posted by tirta

Can somebody let me know how to increase the target confidence level to high?

I have changing courses several times to improve TMA,
however this does not seem to improve target confidence,
what did I do wrong?

The game/autocrew wil not tocuh the "Target Confidence" value of a contact.
It is there just for your exclusive use as a "reminder" of YOUR confidence about a target ID (not about its TMA solution quality).

So you are the one that have to set it accordingly to your confidence about target ID. The usual convention AFAIK is:
- Low if more than 2 possible IDs could match the contact.
- Med if exactly 2 possible IDs could match the contact.
- High if exactly 1 ID match the contact(you have IDed your contact).

[tirta]

thanks for the reply, banryu79.

so what is the easiest way to ID the target?
with sonar or with periscope?

[banryu79]

Originally Posted by tirta

thanks for the reply, banryu79.

so what is the easiest way to ID the target?
with sonar or with periscope?

Define "easiest way to ID a target" and I will able to respond
If your contact is a subsurface platform you cannot use the periscope to ID it, of course, nor his electronic emmission

Let's say it is a surface platform.
Which sensor array you use to ID it depends by the tactical situation you have in a given moment. Without discussionf tactical opportunieties, let's say the obvious things:

Periscope - if in range and you can see it you can take a photo with the scope, and then you can manipulate (AOB) and compare it with the patform database and find its class.

ESM - if the platform is emitting and you raise your ESM antenna you instantly have the exact bearing and its ID. The electronic signature is unique so no need to do any guesswork at all.

Sonar - if you can hear the patform on narrowband you can examine its acoustic signature. Depending on how well you hear it (range, acoustic conditions, strenght of signal) you will pick up one, two or more frequency components of its acoustic signature.
Then you can compare it (partial signature) with the acoustinc signature database and find how many profiles can match it. Many profiles? Clearly you have to do more guesswork/investigation/improve the signal... Two profiles only? You have a good ID estimation (Med confidence) and with an elimination process you can get just... One profile? High confidence, you know who they are.

Obviusly, the "sonar option" is not an instant "take away" as the Periscope or ESM are... so it requires more work on your part. For example: if you have intelligence data (info given to you in your mission briefing or in-mission communications) about it you can use it to eliminate some possibilities... If you can hear him on broadband you can use DEMON to obtain more info and again, eliminate some possibilities... and so on.


This is because in the vanilla game, many acoustic signatures are very similar to each other, and in order to uniquely ID a platform from its acoustic signature you have to pick up all its frequency components. I play with the LAWMI mod (that I strongly raccomend if one is interest in "realism"), and in this case the acoustic signature are "more" unique so usually I have to do less guesswork to isolate the candidate profiles to ID my contacs.

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by banryu79

Define "easiest way to ID a target" and I will able to respond
If your contact is a subsurface platform you cannot use the periscope to ID it, of course, nor his electronic emmission

Let's say it is a surface platform.
Which sensor array you use to ID it depends by the tactical situation you have in a given moment. Without discussionf tactical opportunieties, let's say the obvious things:

Periscope - if in range and you can see it you can take a photo with the scope, and then you can manipulate (AOB) and compare it with the patform database and find its class.

ESM - if the platform is emitting and you raise your ESM antenna you instantly have the exact bearing and its ID. The electronic signature is unique so no need to do any guesswork at all.

Sonar - if you can hear the patform on narrowband you can examine its acoustic signature. Depending on how well you hear it (range, acoustic conditions, strenght of signal) you will pick up one, two or more frequency components of its acoustic signature.
Then you can compare it (partial signature) with the acoustinc signature database and find how many profiles can match it. Many profiles? Clearly you have to do more guesswork/investigation/improve the signal... Two profiles only? You have a good ID estimation (Med confidence) and with an elimination process you can get just... One profile? High confidence, you know who they are.

Obviusly, the "sonar option" is not an instant "take away" as the Periscope or ESM are... so it requires more work on your part. For example: if you have intelligence data (info given to you in your mission briefing or in-mission communications) about it you can use it to eliminate some possibilities... If you can hear him on broadband you can use DEMON to obtain more info and again, eliminate some possibilities... and so on.


This is because in the vanilla game, many acoustic signatures are very similar to each other, and in order to uniquely ID a platform from its acoustic signature you have to pick up all its frequency components. I play with the LAWMI mod (that I strongly raccomend if one is interest in "realism"), and in this case the acoustic signature are "more" unique so usually I have to do less guesswork to isolate the candidate profiles to ID my contacs.

All great info, well done!

If you're close enough to a contact, you might be able to pick them up on both the towed array and the spherical/cylindrical. The towed array is much better at detecing low frequencies and the cylindrical is better at the high frequencies. So, using those two sensors, and assuming you're close enough, that's how you can pretty much nail down what a contact is with sonar.

However, this method can get tricky if there are a lot of contacts on your sonar as it can be difficult to tell if you're looking at one or multiple tracks on sonar between the towed and the spherical. This is because the towed and spherical are in physically different locations so they'll have different bearings to the contact.

[banryu79]

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

However, this method can get tricky if there are a lot of contacts on your sonar as it can be difficult to tell if you're looking at one or multiple tracks on sonar between the towed and the spherical. This is because the towed and spherical are in physically different locations so they'll have different bearings to the contact.

Mmm... I didn't thought about it (and didn't know it or read it before)
I'm not sure to have understand you well... Let's try with an example.
We are on course 000 and there is (Truth on) a single surface platform at general bearing 75... (Truth off now) and we pick it up on the towed array and also on the spherical array. Well, are you teling that we are picking it up in two sligthly different bearings (with respect to the two different sonar arrays)?

(Forgive me if the choosen 75° bearing is misleading because it doesn't fall inside the scanning range of one of the two sonsar array, I do not remeber the correct ranges ATM).