TMA Logic

[jenrick]

I'd also like something from the Dev's on how my AI crew constructs the TMA plot. I've done the usual things I would do to personally improve my plot (increase bearing rate, multiple course changes, etc), and gotten very minimal improvement in a solution. I've also simply driven straight at a contact, who was driving straight at me, and my solution went to 95% pretty fast. Both of these are not common occurrence's, I'd just like some guidance from the devs on how the AI constructs the TMA plot.

-Jenrick

[Julhelm]

Combination of bearing rates and signal strength. Generally it's a good idea to put the contact on the beam on a lag LOS. But distant or very quiet contacts may take a long time to TMA.

[jenrick]

So one thing I noticed just a minute or two ago.

I had the "sink the tender" mission. I had established contacts, identified them, an went to periscope depth to get a visual confirmation to maximize my solution. Came up, marked the three surface ships (got the 95% solution for each one), and then down scope. The wife asked me about something, and for maybe about 2 minutes I wasn't paying attention. When I looked back I was back to a 60% solution for all three at a radically different range (say the visual range was 20ky the new range was 35kyd or something similar). Additionally they targets headings had all changed.

I get sometimes tossing out the TMA and starting over, but doing that shortly after a visual? What is the AI protocol for that?

This seems to be an offshoot of what Adam106 is referring to in his post.

-Jenrick

[PL_Harpoon]

If a target makes a turn / change speed it can mess up TMA solutions.
On the other hand if you already knew it's exact position before I think it shouldn't suddenly change it's mind so drastically. But since I already know where they are and can deduce the rest I don't consider it that much of a problem.

[jenrick]

It's not so much an issue of weapons employment, I know where I'm gonna launch those TLAM's. To me it's just more of an issue of how the AI does the TMA. I have no issue with some heading changes and a bit (please note a bit, not 10kyd) of distance jumping if i have sketchy contacts.

"Fire control, lets call the distance to master 1 as 20,000 yards. Down scope."

"Sir, the plot says its gonna be closer to 19,000."

However what we have is:

"Fire control, lets call the distance to master 1 as 20,000 yards. Down scope."

"Sir, we just threw away the old plot and we're going with 42,000 yards."

It just reminds me of DW and SC's aTMA just trying every solution possible rather then using an actual methodology like a human does. In DW and SC it wasn't as big a deal, as you could always step in and do it. Here there's no option, you have to wait for the aTMA to catch up.

-Jenrick

[Julhelm]

It acts just like it did in Red Storm Rising.

[wathomas777]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

It acts just like it did in Red Storm Rising.

What he said.

In Cold Waters, TMA is not very accurately portrayed. Actual TMA is very accurately portrayed in both Sierra's FAST ATTACK, and The Sonalysts sims.

TMA is a pretty tedious process.

In reality, with all sensors in passive mode you can only get a bearing from which the sound arrives. As your target and own ship manuever, this bearing changes. TMA is done by taking a history of these bearings and estimating course and speed to the target

As you plot these bearing lines you began to notice a pattern. On a plot table, you begin to guess the target speed and course by comparing the plotted bearing lines with little rulers called speed strips. By rotating these strips and comparing them against the bearing lines, you begin to suss out a speed, course and range.

You can also maneuver your own ship to force the bearing lines to "cross". If the target has not changed course, these crossing lines can represent either a minimum range or maximum range which helps you bracket the target

An FT also does the same thing but he does it on the FC station. He can adjust speed, course and range settings on the computer to "stack dots" on the FC station. These dots represent the historical bearing lines on the chart. When the dots are lined up vertically with little or no deviation, it means it's a good solution. Only one course, speed and range will allow all the dots to stack properly.

The FT and people tracking on paper often "compare notes". The chart table will often ask the FT to enter "their solution" to see how it looks. We also chart the FT's solution to see if it makes sense on the charting paper.

Tracking a contact is truly a team effort with at least 4 people involved.

Now if only I could tell my Chief of the watch to make turns for so many knots and maintain a desired depth....yeah, that'd be great..... :-)