To autocrew or not to autocrew, that is the question.

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by p7p8

<cut>

Most "toxic" in manual TMA is style of playing this guys who wanna resolve target solution as perfect as mathematical equation

Yep, that's why I was pointing out dual array/master contact needing only 2 or 3 "truth" hits to line up the last 2 or 3 corresponding ladder links and forget about the rest of the ladder and previous hits.

For clarification, by "truth" hits, I don't mean turning on Truth in game. I mean the intersection of both array bearings is a "true" reading where the bearings cross in regards to range.

[p7p8]

Originally Posted by Gray Lensman

Yep, that's why I was pointing out dual array/master contact needing only 2 or 3 "truth" hits to line up the last 2 or 3 corresponding ladder links and forget about the rest of the ladder and previous hits.

I disagree because previous legs are impotrant for better solutonas and predicting speed (even without DEMON work). Also merged contacts from different sensors gives you "not clear" picture.
I had in mind taht you needs some experience for estimating which legs/dots are important for good solution.



This screen is from my video.

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by p7p8

I disagree because previous legs are impotrant for better solutonas and predicting speed (even without DEMON work). Also merged contacts from different sensors gives you "not clear" picture.
I had in mind taht you needs some experience for estimating which legs/dots are important for good solution.

<cut>

edit> Nice tutorial video against a straight running surface ship. Your use of the Narrowband screen was great. I'd love to see one of your manual TMA videos against a maneuvering enemy sub at depth however. Do you have a YouTube channel? If so, could you link it?

Straight out of the RedBook pg 14

VI. TMA - TRACKING ON A DUAL ARRAY

1.6.1 For tracking targets on a dual array, the techniques to acquire an accurate solution discussed up to this point need not apply. A dual array contact, or master contact, represents truth at all times. As such, this is the most desirable of all the TMA techniques as it is an instantaneous, accurate solution and cannot be foiled by target zigs. It is still prudent to keep the target on your beam, in a lag line of sight, for evasion purposes (see Chapter 3: Tactics).

1.6.2 It doesn't matter how much your target zigs, you will always know exactly where he is by ensuring the two most recent tick marks of the ruler fall on the two most recent intersections of your dual array bearings. It is not imperative that you get the "straight dot stack" here, you know where he is at and you know his course, and thus his range, from the two most recent intersections of your dual array bearings. Just ensure that the two most recent tick marks of the ruler fall on the two most recent bearing lines; forcing the top two dots to be in a straight line on the zero error line.

1.6.3 Dual Array bearings are typically purple and white lines. The purple lines represent bearings that are being attained from your towed array and the white lines represent bearings being attained from your spherical array. Additionally, you can have dual array contact with your hull array and either your spherical or towed array - though rare. In fact, if your hull array holds the target, then your spherical and towed array most certainly hold the target as well, assuming you have the target exposed to these arrays. Thus, you could have a three array contact. Same principles still apply - where the bearing lines of the various arrays intersect is where the target was at the time those bearing lines were laid down. Refer to Figure 1.6.3 as an illustration.

See the RedBook pg 13 for the Figure 1.6.3 referred to above. It basically shows the dual array hits as a sequence of triangulations which when connected together form a pretty accurate solution based on just the last two or three hits of the TMA sequence.

The above makes perfect sense to me. Now what happens after Torps are in the water is a different discussion, but the TMA solution offered above by dual-array contacts on just the last two or three hits is perfectly valid.

[FPSchazly]

That Red Book quote with the two latest ticks is quite interesting, I may have to test that at some point. The towed array can have decent bearing error that produces a sloppy looking dot stack in the TMA, I can't imagine that the red book scenario would be true for that. Does anyone know if the towed array bearing error is a stock game thing or if RA added it? Regardless of whether the Red Book thing is correct or not, two points always make a straight line so I'm always skeptical of those kind of situations

To throw in my $0.02 to the original question, I like doing manual TMA as a "time killer" and it kind of makes the game like a puzzle game. Auto TMA is good for very busy areas or evading torpedoes.

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

That Red Book quote with the two latest ticks is quite interesting, I may have to test that at some point. The towed array can have decent bearing error that produces a sloppy looking dot stack in the TMA, I can't imagine that the red book scenario would be true for that. Does anyone know if the towed array bearing error is a stock game thing or if RA added it? Regardless of whether the Red Book thing is correct or not, two points always make a straight line so I'm always skeptical of those kind of situations

I guess it would depend on the amount of error.

More speed across the line of sight "generating a wider bearing fan" might mitigate this error for purposes of the above "last" 2 or 3 tick mark setups. Might be interesting to test it out against the game "truth" display to see how much error is present.

In regards to testing above, I've been trying to test the 2-3 tick method in a modified one on one scenario between 2 688i class subs, but trying to get a dual array contact on a 688i before it gets a shot off and necessitating evasion is extremely difficult. I had already tried a one on one 688i vs Akula, but the Akula missiles were a distraction then. Might have to change the test to 688i vs Victor I for dual array tracking purposes or go against a noisy surface ship to eliminate the "evasion distraction".

To throw in my $0.02 to the original question, I like doing manual TMA as a "time killer" and it kind of makes the game like a puzzle game. Auto TMA is good for very busy areas or evading torpedoes.

Agree.

[Pirate]

I use all auto-crew!
I'm the Captain, god dammit!!!

[p7p8]

Originally Posted by Gray Lensman

edit> Nice tutorial video against a straight running surface ship. Your use of the Narrowband screen was great. I'd love to see one of your manual TMA videos against a maneuvering enemy sub at depth however. Do you have a YouTube channel? If so, could you link it?

Thx but it wasn't straight running surface ship. This ship has made turn couple minutes ago.
I have YT channel but im not experienced video maker

My DW playlist

BTW Red book was writen to Sub Command. This game had much easier TMA because legs were always exactly where they should to be. In DW (with RA mod) situation is little bit different.

See the RedBook pg 13 for the Figure 1.6.3 referred to above. It basically shows the dual array hits as a sequence of triangulations which when connected together form a pretty accurate solution based on just the last two or three hits of the TMA sequence.

The above makes perfect sense to me. Now what happens after Torps are in the water is a different discussion, but the TMA solution offered above by dual-array contacts on just the last two or three hits is perfectly valid.

Now you know what to do and how to do so... please show me this on my previous screenshot



You have above dual and even triple sensor legs on one tracked target

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by p7p8

BTW Red book was writen to Sub Command. This game had much easier TMA because legs were always exactly where they should to be. In DW (with RA mod) situation is little bit different.

I think we have our answer.

[p7p8]

I just made scenario for TMA training in "real" mission. Main feature is that primary target all the time makes low random course changes.

This scenario probably will be very easy with auto TMA

This is video from my game:



Link to scenario is description (under video)

P.S. I forgot to uncheck "read only" from replay.dat file so this video haven't replay at end

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by p7p8

I just made scenario for TMA training in "real" mission. Main feature is that primary target all the time makes low random course changes.

This scenario probably will be very easy with auto TMA

This is video from my game:

<cut>

Link to scenario is description (under video)

P.S. I forgot to uncheck "read only" from replay.dat file so this video haven't replay at end

Enjoyable and informative video, BUT it still doesn't actually disprove the validity of the earlier discussed technique of using the last 2 or 3 master contact hits.

Admitedly, this will be hard to show, but since conditions change between the time of the weapon release and the actual Torp target acquisition (all that being variable), I'm more interested in the immediate TMA solution (Bearing, Speed, Course and Range) that you utilized for weapon firing (not the Torp settings), compared to the instantaneous "Show Truth" information (Bearing, Speed, Course and Range). Especially if you can manage to just use the last 2 or 3 master contact hits to get the immediate TMA solution.

Originally Posted by p7p8

Subsim is user "un-friendly" in this case

Try ro use external images host services like imgur or similar.

Thanks. Here's Figure 1.6.3 of the RedBook that I was referring to earlier.

Figure 1.6.3 Depicts a dual array contact on target in lead LOS. Note that no matter what the LOS, or what the target is doing, a dual array contact always represents truth. Also note that the same solution would be attained with only two sets of bearing lines instead of the three sets that are present.

Now with the discussion deviating to the inaccuracy of the towed array introduced in DW vice SubSim. It would be interesting to prove or disprove the validity of the dual contact accuracy vs the longer TMA solutions that your videos are showing. I would believe that more than likely three sets may actually be required now in DW due to the induced towed array error.

[Gray Lensman]

Originally Posted by FPSchazly

I think we have our answer.

Of course it is dated being written during Sub Command, but the principles are still valid regarding master contacts. The DW towed array "bearing errors" will just cause a little more uncertainty to the solution probably meaning 3 or more such hits will be necessary. I am also using RW 1.44.

O.T. How the heck do posters insert images on this site? or more precisely, what site do they use to provide the url link asked for when you click "insert image"?

[p7p8]

Subsim is user "un-friendly" in this case

Try ro use external images host services like imgur or similar.

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by p7p8

...This game had much easier TMA because legs were always exactly where they should to be. In DW (with RA mod) situation is little bit different....

You have above dual and even triple sensor legs on one tracked target

p7p8, be aware that you may have some missunderstanding of the word "leg" commonly used when talking about TMA (or navigation in general). Often a "leg" in navigation refers to the path of a contact between course (or speed) changes or between waypoints. You seem to mean lines of bearings with "(sensor) legs". That is a significant difference you need to be aware of.