Isn't the TMA a little too perfect?

[shipkiller1]

Passive TMA can be a hard thing to do, but it is nothing but a geometry problem. Sometimes with very little data.

When you first pick up a contact, the first thing that is determined is the bearing rate and direction of relative motion. If tactically feasible, you change course across the Line of Site (LOS) and you try to drive the bearing rate. The first one or two OS maneuvers nails down the range to a very good 'ball park' figure, to something that will be 'tuned' over time. The next maneuvers nail down the Target Course (Ct) and Target Speed (Dmht). Sonar can help a great deal if they can pickup some specific target parameters. On a surface contact, this is almost always the case. Dmht is easy with a surface contact. Historical operational data helps keep it in the ball park if you do not have the aural clues...

Solution accuracy is determined after each course change. Does the expected incoming bearing match the solution? but more important, does the bearing rate match?? If not, then you have to adjust your solution for a better fit. This is why on a quiet contact, you may take a couple of hours to get a firing solution and put the boat into the proper firing position.

The problem with bearing data accuracy depends on the frequency of the incoming energy. The higher the frequency, the smaller the beam-width (more accurate), conversely, the lower the freq, the larger the beam-width so there is lots of bearing inaccuracies. This has a lot to do with sonar system design and we will not get into this at all.

The 1.05b update incorporated your submerged contacts counter firing... This is more like real life... so, you have to think about your firing position with respect to evading incoming fire. You may have to evade and re-position OS to press the engagement.

I personally like not having to do any hardcore TMA like you did in the 688i game. That game was just not realistic to do. Oh, it was somewhat realistic but 688i was essentially boring... you spent a long time doing TMA and all the other things that had to be performed. In real life, you had 30 people doing all those things but in 688i, it was all you... You got rushed, you missed stuff.

I think Cold Waters is much more enjoyable..

[stormrider_sp]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

Passive TMA can be a hard thing to do, but it is nothing but a geometry problem. Sometimes with very little data.

When you first pick up a contact, the first thing that is determined is the bearing rate and direction of relative motion. If tactically feasible, you change course across the Line of Site (LOS) and you try to drive the bearing rate. The first one or two OS maneuvers nails down the range to a very good 'ball park' figure, to something that will be 'tuned' over time. The next maneuvers nail down the Target Course (Ct) and Target Speed (Dmht). Sonar can help a great deal if they can pickup some specific target parameters. On a surface contact, this is almost always the case. Dmht is easy with a surface contact. Historical operational data helps keep it in the ball park if you do not have the aural clues...

Solution accuracy is determined after each course change. Does the expected incoming bearing match the solution? but more important, does the bearing rate match?? If not, then you have to adjust your solution for a better fit. This is why on a quiet contact, you may take a couple of hours to get a firing solution and put the boat into the proper firing position.

The problem with bearing data accuracy depends on the frequency of the incoming energy. The higher the frequency, the smaller the beam-width (more accurate), conversely, the lower the freq, the larger the beam-width so there is lots of bearing inaccuracies. This has a lot to do with sonar system design and we will not get into this at all.

The 1.05b update incorporated your submerged contacts counter firing... This is more like real life... so, you have to think about your firing position with respect to evading incoming fire. You may have to evade and re-position OS to press the engagement.

I personally like not having to do any hardcore TMA like you did in the 688i game. That game was just not realistic to do. Oh, it was somewhat realistic but 688i was essentially boring... you spent a long time doing TMA and all the other things that had to be performed. In real life, you had 30 people doing all those things but in 688i, it was all you... You got rushed, you missed stuff.

I think Cold Waters is much more enjoyable..

As far as I remember, one could automate some of the stations in 688i and still get along well with it. For me, personally, I enjoyed a lot more doing this trigonometry problems, handling the sonar station and torpedo setup than driving the boat in 3d with WASDQZ and firing and controlling torpedoes visually.

[shipkiller1]

Change your course by at least 60 degrees and attempt to cross the
track’s bearing. When determining firing solutions, you should
change course every 10-12 minutes.
After changing course, your sensors are in a new location and, thus,
detect the track from a different bearing. An accurate firing solution is not
affected by your change in course, as your sensors detect the track from
the anticipated bearing. An inaccurate firing solution, however, causes all
new dots to be out of alignment.

Shadriss, I hope you got as big a laugh on this proverbial BULL**** has I did... What a load of crap...

[Shadriss]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

Shadriss, I hope you got as big a laugh on this proverbial BULL**** has I did... What a load of crap...

Oh, yes. Yes indeed. It's just right enough to deceive the folks who know nothing, and wrong enough to completely screw you over entirely.

TMA may be a complex geometry/trigonometry problem, but it's still simple enough that it could be modeled relatively accurately in the game, yet it isn't... not to the degree it should be, anyhow. The ranges jumping all over the place is one example, but another is the way that it gives no idea of relative motion prior to getting the 95% solution (the WHA?!?!). BRGRT is the first and possibly the most important fire control parameter determined (well, second... you know which one I'm talking about, Shipkiller1...), and to not have the vital and valuable information that it presents is just plain silly.

We drive off of BRGRT, for heaven's sake... to not have it is almost as much a handcuff as the lack of fine speed control.

As an aside, Shipkiller... thanks for using the old school FC terminology - they changed it back around 2000, and I STILL have a hard time using it, even though it SEEMS more intuitive.

[shipkiller1]

Originally Posted by Shadriss

Oh, yes. Yes indeed. It's just right enough to deceive the folks who know nothing, and wrong enough to completely screw you over entirely.

TMA may be a complex geometry/trigonometry problem, but it's still simple enough that it could be modeled relatively accurately in the game, yet it isn't... not to the degree it should be, anyhow. The ranges jumping all over the place is one example, but another is the way that it gives no idea of relative motion prior to getting the 95% solution (the WHA?!?!). BRGRT is the first and possibly the most important fire control parameter determined (well, second... you know which one I'm talking about, Shipkiller1...), and to not have the vital and valuable information that it presents is just plain silly.

We drive off of BRGRT, for heaven's sake... to not have it is almost as much a handcuff as the lack of fine speed control.

As an aside, Shipkiller... thanks for using the old school FC terminology - they changed it back around 2000, and I STILL have a hard time using it, even though it SEEMS more intuitive.

The reason it was changed, I **** you not, was because the newer crop of Officers could not remember the 'old and antiqated' terms. Terms that have been around for 60 years and us 'dumb ass' enlisted men could figure out pretty quickly.

BYG-1 TI04 (APB-05) was the big change.

[Shadriss]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

The reason it was changed, I **** you not, was because the newer crop of Officers could not remember the 'old and antiqated' terms. Terms that have been around for 60 years and us 'dumb ass' enlisted men could figure out pretty quickly.

BYG-1 TI04 (APB-05) was the big change.

I was close than. I figured some Admiral somewhere was trying to justify his paycheck. Close enough. They made PERFECT sense... you just had to not be a moron or too proud to ASK the professionals... by which I mean the Enlisted.