TMA Logic

[jmr]

4 people for one contact. I bet it gets super crazy in a high contact density are like a shipping lane near a busy port.

[wathomas777]

Originally Posted by jmr

4 people for one contact. I bet it gets super crazy in a high contact density are like a shipping lane near a busy port.

Yes it's crazy. But you always work on your closest contacts. And once you nail the solution for a contact, then you don't have to pay him much mind anymore, until he changes course or speed.

But yes, it is organized chaos. I'm pretty sure that it's a bit different now. Computers can probably do all the manual stuff pretty easily now.

But back in the 80's that's how it was done.

The shocking thing was I expected 688's to be marvels of modern technology, only to find out our laptop computers were more powerful than the ones running our fire control stations.

[jenrick]

wathomas777:

I know that both CW and RSR don't simulate TMA accurately. My only major issue is that sometimes it seems to provide very fast TMA (even with the fast pace of gameplay) compared to what I would expect based on the geometry. I am basing this off of a lot of time in DW (though I did just get Fast Attack of Ebay, great game!) which I know certainly doesn't mean much compared to real world experience. I don't have any problem with the TMA plot taking a while even when doing the right things (reasonably high bearing rate delta, lagging the target to help with the first, etc), that's just gonna happen sometimes. Maybe the other skipper is really good and doing all kinds of things to mess up the plot. However sometimes it will seem to jump from 40% or so to 95% for no apparent reason, or counter intuitively. As I mentioned I had one engagement where I turned head onto the target, and as far as I could tell they did the same. Several non time compressed seconds later, I have a 95% solution off a situation that as far as I know should have just given me a bearing an no useful information regarding range.

The other part of what I would like to see changed, is how the tac map and solution sometimes jumps a large distance even when a pretty solid datum was given to use as the basis. Visually ID'ing a ship and ranging it with a laser range finder, gives bearing and range. I'd think in the real world you'd at least be able to put an X on the plot with where the heck he is right now, and then start working. Where I see it the most often, is when I have a real shaky contact, and I visually ID and range them well before I have anything close to a solution. The tac map will display their current true position, while the scope is up. The second you go scope down, they will immediately go back to an guesstimated position, that may be 5-10kyd off from where they were plotted just seconds prior. I have no issue with the solution degrading, potentially rapidly, and that fix getting less and less useful over time (based on target speed, etc). However to have that data point of a true location immediately go out the window is... vexing.

-Jenrick

[wathomas777]

Originally Posted by jenrick

wathomas777:

I know that both CW and RSR don't simulate TMA accurately. My only major issue is that sometimes it seems to provide very fast TMA (even with the fast pace of gameplay) compared to what I would expect based on the geometry. I am basing this off of a lot of time in DW (though I did just get Fast Attack of Ebay, great game!) which I know certainly doesn't mean much compared to real world experience. I don't have any problem with the TMA plot taking a while even when doing the right things (reasonably high bearing rate delta, lagging the target to help with the first, etc), that's just gonna happen sometimes. Maybe the other skipper is really good and doing all kinds of things to mess up the plot. However sometimes it will seem to jump from 40% or so to 95% for no apparent reason, or counter intuitively. As I mentioned I had one engagement where I turned head onto the target, and as far as I could tell they did the same. Several non time compressed seconds later, I have a 95% solution off a situation that as far as I know should have just given me a bearing an no useful information regarding range.

The other part of what I would like to see changed, is how the tac map and solution sometimes jumps a large distance even when a pretty solid datum was given to use as the basis. Visually ID'ing a ship and ranging it with a laser range finder, gives bearing and range. I'd think in the real world you'd at least be able to put an X on the plot with where the heck he is right now, and then start working. Where I see it the most often, is when I have a real shaky contact, and I visually ID and range them well before I have anything close to a solution. The tac map will display their current true position, while the scope is up. The second you go scope down, they will immediately go back to an guesstimated position, that may be 5-10kyd off from where they were plotted just seconds prior. I have no issue with the solution degrading, potentially rapidly, and that fix getting less and less useful over time (based on target speed, etc). However to have that data point of a true location immediately go out the window is... vexing.

-Jenrick

You are 100% correct. CW doesn't do a good job integrating solid data into the solution. RSR was better at it. Also the game does accelerate TMA to keep the action moving. Plotting dots was long and tedious. Sub warfare was always 99% boredom followed by 1% sheer terror.

I absolutely loved fast attack, but it had a 2 hour cap on each mission. You could easily spend 3/4 of that time getting a good solution. This became a fatal flaw, especially on the TLAM missions where flight time was significant. To get to your launch point you had to manuever in such a way to endanger the ship and if you hit 2 hours, even if you had birds in the air, you failed.

And the worst part, was it wasn't even something stupid like ("x" is going to be gone in 2 hours) it was simply that was a built in artifical wall.

My personal feelings are as such.

RSR was the best overall game in my opinion. It was not a good "systems" simulator, but it nailed it as a "tactics" simulation and I know quite a few sub drivers on my boat who used it to brush up on their tactics as to where to put own ship to maximize effectiveness.

My perfect subsim would be the authenticity of the displays and systems modelling shown in Fast Attack, with the playability of RSR/CW.

However, if CW simply rises to the level of a graphically superior version of RSR, I'd be fine with that as well. it's really close right now. A few more tweaks and I think we'll get there.

Call me old fashioned but I hate 3d view. It's something that you never had the advantage of. I'd love to disable completely and have your 2D view (plot) be default view. I'd also like the event camera to interrupt 2d view momentarily to see your kill or miss and then go back to main plot. That's what RSR did and yes it was inaccurate, but it was OK for playability

However I know that too many people love to camera out from the sub so 3d is here to stay. But it would be nice if it weren't default and if it didn't take 95% of screen.

[Ansgar Burkhard]

Originally Posted by wathomas777

Yes it's crazy. But you always work on your closest contacts. And once you nail the solution for a contact, then you don't have to pay him much mind anymore, until he changes course or speed.

But yes, it is organized chaos. I'm pretty sure that it's a bit different now. Computers can probably do all the manual stuff pretty easily now.

But back in the 80's that's how it was done.

The shocking thing was I expected 688's to be marvels of modern technology, only to find out our laptop computers were more powerful than the ones running our fire control stations.

Hehe. There is a reason the military is using more and more COTS in their platforms (F-15, Virginia class submarines, M1 tanks). Especially in this day and age of cyber resilience it is super important.
For instance, a smartphone will have more computing power than the F-22 computers. Sure they are super specialised but if you want to DDOS a military craft it doesn't take too much.

It is a combination of open technology (as in there are international conferences and It is discussed publicaly) in the civilian sector and the vast amounts of money spent on said technology. Last year alone, more money was spent in the gaming computer market (gaming peripherals like, certain CPUs, GPUs and soundcard for some reason) than tge entire UK defense budget. If you look at computing market and smartphone market combined you get almost as much as the global defense budget. New times... And these big ticket military purchases take time to build and be deployed. For instance, the new dreadnoughts form the Royal Navy are 2006 tech. By the time they are deployed it will be the 2030s and they are to remain in service until 2070 or so. Can you imagine using a computer from 2006 nowadays? I have a work laptop from 2009 (ThinkPad W510) and CW is one of the few games I can play in it. If I need to process satellite images in it it takes ages and it is generally not the fastest at doing anything (still runs though).

Anyway, found your remark interesting and kind of turned into a rant...

[wathomas777]

Originally Posted by Ansgar Burkhard

Hehe. There is a reason the military is using more and more COTS in their platforms (F-15, Virginia class submarines, M1 tanks). Especially in this day and age of cyber resilience it is super important.
For instance, a smartphone will have more computing power than the F-22 computers. Sure they are super specialised but if you want to DDOS a military craft it doesn't take too much.

It is a combination of open technology (as in there are international conferences and It is discussed publicaly) in the civilian sector and the vast amounts of money spent on said technology. Last year alone, more money was spent in the gaming computer market (gaming peripherals like, certain CPUs, GPUs and soundcard for some reason) than tge entire UK defense budget. If you look at computing market and smartphone market combined you get almost as much as the global defense budget. New times... And these big ticket military purchases take time to build and be deployed. For instance, the new dreadnoughts form the Royal Navy are 2006 tech. By the time they are deployed it will be the 2030s and they are to remain in service until 2070 or so. Can you imagine using a computer from 2006 nowadays? I have a work laptop from 2009 (ThinkPad W510) and CW is one of the few games I can play in it. If I need to process satellite images in it it takes ages and it is generally not the fastest at doing anything (still runs though).

Anyway, found your remark interesting and kind of turned into a rant...

Yeah, considering that 688's were designed in the early 70's I should have figured as much.

One of the big criticisms against the film Hunt for Red October was how "modern" the 688 was. All the stuff was in the right location, but really "sexed up" technologically speaking.

During an interview one of the producers said that they toured a 688 and at first they were going to duplicate it exactly, but after seeing how "old" everything looked they figured no one would buy that our first line subs had such ancient tech, so they sexed it up with color displays and digital readouts.

I laughed because that was my first thought as well.