ACTUV Scoring Structure

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by TerminatorSub

I Googled some info on optimal submarine search patterns and chose the following papers:

It seems the choices to sweep an area are spiral in, zig-zag, or random. I tried these different approaches.

That's really outside the scope of the ACTUV. The name of the game here is continuous trail. If you need to resort to area searches, you've already "lost." (Mission 1 notwithstanding)

In trailing the target, one can be aggressive (perhaps too much) or lay back a bit. In some of the platforms and scenarios, it is hard to get close enough to acquire a HF lock. That blind spot in the Triton that you mentioned in another post, and the speed limited HF in some cases are factors.

In the real life operations of the ACTUV, this may very well be true. And that's part of the frustration I'm expressing. I really can't fathom why SCS is effectively telling us that it's better to burn tons of gas sprinting around to maintain 300yd range on a contact that's constantly making radical course changes at 20 knots, backing off to reestablish MF contact once every 5 minutes, and sprinting like a madman to get HF back, when you could sit back at 1000yd maintaining MF contact running the diesels at 20 knots or less... probably much less if the target is maneuvering.

But the way this sim is set up, maintaining both MF and HF contact at all times is the tactically correct move, regardless of fuel consumption. And if you absolutely have to lose contact on one (which is how I feel about Triton mission 3, if you're interested), be aggressive and stay with the HF, because you're penalized 50% more for losing HF contact compared to MF.

[StevenLohr]

Molon Labe-First of all, congrtulations. Your scores are awesome. IRT your frustration: While I can't speak for DARPA, I suspect that they are trying to see what solutions that the "experts" (i.e., the subsim crowd) come up with IRT this problem. Over the past 60 years, Operations Analysis (OA) has established the "textbook" solution to the particular trailing problems we are simulating. However, we are being asked to act as a "Red Team" or an alternative analysis group. By evaluating our tactics, DARPA can verify the OA solution.
Additionally, the scenarios we are being given, while simple, are dynamic. The presence of merchant traffic, false contacts and Kamikaze merchants adds a dynamic that OA would have trouble quantifying, but the trained human brain can deal with fairly easily. How we deal with these problems in a dynamic environment gives the programers some insight into how to teach the ACTUV to act. Remember the original "Star Trek" episode where the computer scientist integrated some of his brain onto the computer? As a group, we are kind of doing the same the same thing, helping to train the ACTUV computer to act/react in a dynamic environment.
As an aside, I'm pleased that DARPA is thinking "outside the box" in this endeavor. It is an excellent idea to crowd-sourcing this portion. I would hope that they continue the experiment.

[Gargamel]

I think Steve has it right. IT's not about the tracking methods, as those are pretty cut and dry. Establish contact, don't lose it and get as good a contact as possible.

I think they are trying to see how the drone should react to other factors that aren't directly scored ingame. IE, avoiding merchant traffic. The higher scoring results will have successfully avoided traffic to not get the penalty, and they are trying to see how the better drivers avoid the contact while maintaining optimal contact. If the drone sees the target going for a back scratch manuever on a merchy, how should it react to stay on target and not collide?

What I still don't get though, is the array of sensors and platforms we're being given to work with. Are they seriously using our results to help decide which design bid to accept? Some of the designs are useless at the targets top speed, so throw that out. And then why can one design have uber-sensors, while others have them seemingly pointed in the wrong direction? Why can't they mix and match? If it's a power/size issue, then make the damn thing a bit bigger. I bet some solar panels, wind, and wave generators would work nicely on this thing, etc etc. If they have intentionally designed flaws into the drones to test our tactics, then why the redundancy?

Anyways, With my internet being as it is right now, I haven't been able to submit my results (different machine). I'm just glad I was able to contribute some statistical analysis to the project.

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

What I still don't get though, is the array of sensors and platforms we're being given to work with. Are they seriously using our results to help decide which design bid to accept? Some of the designs are useless at the targets top speed, so throw that out. And then why can one design have uber-sensors, while others have them seemingly pointed in the wrong direction? Why can't they mix and match? If it's a power/size issue, then make the damn thing a bit bigger. I bet some solar panels, wind, and wave generators would work nicely on this thing, etc etc. If they have intentionally designed flaws into the drones to test our tactics, then why the redundancy?

I've been wondering about that too. If Gator is fictitious, then I'd say the Remora and Shark designs are both very good. I like Shark a little bit more because of the higher MF speed and longer HF range. It's sonar is OP though, at least in the DW acoustic model anything beyond 4nmi is a waste. Seahorse is nice, but I'd rather have the speed of the others than omnidirectional MF sonar. Seahorse's best feature might be the elevation on the MF--although with its long-range HF sonar it's really necessary. Triton blows. It would rock, though, if it traded MF elevation with the Seahorse's. Short HF range should be paired with high elevation MF.