[WAD / FIXED B998.7] Sonar issue

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

cato13
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: Sonar issue

Post by cato13 »

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"So the 4 nautical mile range for passive sonar is a joke"

Those are your words. I didn't sneak in and put them there. Also, you do understand convergence zones, right. Not saying 4nm range is right, but you just might be comparing apples and oranges with your sources.


Yeah but im talking about one single component of the game. The overall game obviously isnt a joke and i'l reserve judgement on the issue i have with it until the devs chip in with a comment.

i havent played any other scenarios in years but the first two ive tried with the expansion ive hit issues so yes im a little disappointed but im sure the issues will be resolved.

lets call it a truce, im not here to pick a fight with you, im here to report an issue which ive done.

im sure you would agree my sub should be hearing a military ship moving at high speed 1500 metres away yes? [:)]

thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Sonar issue

Post by thewood1 »

The devs have chipped in already.

The point I am making is coming in after being away for years and using hyperbole is only going to lead to angst on all sides is a very non-constructive approach to finding and solving problems.

btw, I don't necessarily agree. You have only given a very ambiguous source that has no mention of convergence zones and the devs and others have come back and stated that 4nm is a reasonable range for that specific sub with known issues in it sonar suite.

You came in applying a preconceived notion from other information you had. And you were pretty clear you would take no other answer. So that is where we end up. There are ways to present issues and look for answers other than calling someone's product a joke.
cato13
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: Sonar issue

Post by cato13 »

ORIGINAL: thewood1

The devs have chipped in already.

The point I am making is coming in after being away for years and using hyperbole is only going to lead to angst on all sides is a very non-constructive approach to finding and solving problems.

btw, I don't necessarily agree. You have only given a very ambiguous source that has no mention of convergence zones and the devs and others have come back and stated that 4nm is a reasonable range for that specific sub with known issues in it sonar suite.

You came in applying a preconceived notion from other information you had. And you were pretty clear you would take no other answer. So that is where we end up. There are ways to present issues and look for answers other than calling someone's product a joke.


Your gettin confused about what the actual issue is as detailed in the very first post. in the nautilus scenario which im looking at now and have posted the save, passive sonar simply DOESNT work at all on my pc.

Later on in the thread i queried whether the sonar values in general were on the short side, that WASNT the purpose of this thread though. [:)]

ps,

and i wasnt aware dimitris was a developer, i assumed he was just a forum moderator as thats what his title says.

User avatar
SSN754planker
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:48 pm

RE: Sonar issue

Post by SSN754planker »

Your gettin confused about what the actual issue is as detailed in the very first post. in the nautilus scenario which im looking at now and have posted the save, passive sonar simply DOESNT work at all on my pc

Have you tried loading this scenario in the Scenario Editor and replacing the Nautilus with maybe a 688 or other class of submarine? To test if passive sonar is working at all?
MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Sonar issue

Post by ultradave »

Just ran through the scenario. With Nautilus, I was able to detect civilian ships out to 13nm (four different ships), and classify them at about 2 miles. With the TG, I put myself in it's path, and was able to detect, and track the ships at about 1.5 to 2.0 nm. I classified them by using the periscope and then followed them on sonar as they passed by.

I didn't hear the TG at 13nm, presumably because I was running at 18 knots submerged to get into position and when I slowed down, I was right in front of them.

I put one torpedo in each Boston and Iowa as they passed, sprinted after them to get in position again, and again picked them up at between 1.5 and 2.0 nm, sank the Boston and put two more torpedoes into Iowa. In the process the Nautilus was damaged by an air dropped torpedo so I couldn't chase them any farther. To me this seems pretty realistic as to how I'd have to operate the Nautilus in a combat situation.

I'm not at all sure there is anything broken here. The AN/BRQ-2B is NOT a good passive sonar set. This might be about what you'd expect to get out of it. I did find one report of a US Navy exercise testing subs with varying signatures against quiet SSK's but all the good stuff about detection ranges was redacted. Nautilus is really noisy, making it difficult for it to hear anything over it's own noise.

Current subs are orders of magnitude quieter. And note that the signatures data in the game is an estimate, especially the newer the ship. Signatures is the most closely guarded classified info in the submarine world.
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
cato13
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: Sonar issue

Post by cato13 »

i loaded the scenario and added a los angeles sub and the sonar worked fine.

ORIGINAL: ultradave

Just ran through the scenario. With Nautilus, I was able to detect civilian ships out to 13nm (four different ships), and classify them at about 2 miles. With the TG, I put myself in it's path, and was able to detect, and track the ships at about 1.5 to 2.0 nm. I classified them by using the periscope and then followed them on sonar as they passed by.

I didn't hear the TG at 13nm, presumably because I was running at 18 knots submerged to get into position and when I slowed down, I was right in front of them.

I put one torpedo in each Boston and Iowa as they passed, sprinted after them to get in position again, and again picked them up at between 1.5 and 2.0 nm, sank the Boston and put two more torpedoes into Iowa. In the process the Nautilus was damaged by an air dropped torpedo so I couldn't chase them any farther. To me this seems pretty realistic as to how I'd have to operate the Nautilus in a combat situation.

I'm not at all sure there is anything broken here. The AN/BRQ-2B is NOT a good passive sonar set. This might be about what you'd expect to get out of it. I did find one report of a US Navy exercise testing subs with varying signatures against quiet SSK's but all the good stuff about detection ranges was redacted. Nautilus is really noisy, making it difficult for it to hear anything over it's own noise.

Current subs are orders of magnitude quieter. And note that the signatures data in the game is an estimate, especially the newer the ship. Signatures is the most closely guarded classified info in the submarine world.

the only thing i can think off then is that either my game or my save game file is corrupted because in that save game on my pc the sonar simply doesnt work full stop.

im gonna re verify the steam game files and start the scenario again to see if i can replicate what youve just done.
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Sonar issue

Post by ultradave »

Mine is NOT steam, although I'm not sure why that would make a difference. Just another data point :-)
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
cato13
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: Sonar issue

Post by cato13 »

Im just trying to rule out all the possibilities for all the weird stuff ive seen since the expansion was released! [:)]
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Sonar issue

Post by thewood1 »

Quoting directly from you more detailed second post. This is what I am responding to. Juts because you seem to need clarification. Your statements in that post were pretty strong and not very productive.

"So the 4 nautical mile range for passive sonar is a joke. hell i even loaded up a 1980's scenario were the range is still only 40 nautical miles.

so as far as i can see it there are two issues here.

first issue is what ive described above. if a contact is within visual range it should be WELL within sonar range.

and the second issue is that sonar looks to be massively undervalued for all the subs in this game."

You have two issues...the orginal that the game isn't doing what you want, and the more detailed comments about the game's representation of sonar being a joke and the a massive issue with it. Am I right? Did you forget what you posted? Do you still think the sonar model is a joke? Are you maybe backing off that now?
cato13
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: Sonar issue

Post by cato13 »

one weird thing i would say about the steam version is that i couldnt find a way to add the new expansion to my current command install. after buying it, a new standalone silent service entry was added in my games list.

so i basically have two ways to access the expansion. through my main command install or through the standalone version.

ive been playing these new scenarios through my main command install, not sure if maybe this is causing the issues im experiencing.

Can any other steam users please confirm how they are accessing the new scenarios in the silent service expansion?

Lowlaner2012
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:18 pm

RE: Sonar issue

Post by Lowlaner2012 »

I tried the scenario with an added 688 attack sub, it detected the convoy at 33nm, oddly enough a destroyer, I think because it was doing 33 knots and was ahead of the main convoy....from what I can see passive is working ok :)

I am also playing Convoy 88 and have just had a Soviet SSN picked up by a passive only sonobuoy...

12:07:37 PM - 12:07:37 PM - New contact! Designated GOBLIN #41 - Detected by AN/SSQ-53B DIFAR #455 [Sensors: AN/SSQ-53B DIFAR] at 115deg - Estimated 15nm....

And the Sonobuoy narrowed it down to 2nm and identified it...

12:08:22 PM - 12:08:22 PM - Contact: SSGN #41 has been classified as: PLARK-675K Echo II - Determined as: Hostile (Classification by: AN/SSQ-53B DIFAR #455 [Sensor: AN/SSQ-53B DIFAR] at Estimated 2 nm)



User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Sonar issue

Post by ultradave »

You can do it either way. I play everything directly from Command and not through the standalone starters.
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
cato13
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: Sonar issue

Post by cato13 »

Ok ive done a full reinstall. this time i detected a sonobouy at extremely long range with sonar and that didnt happen last time so thats a positive.

still having the same issue with sonar though. ive uploaded another save with me being being within 2 miles of the whole task force moving at high speed and my sonar still cant detect them.

i guess im just struggling to grasp how bad the sonar on this sub is/was that it cant hear high speed warships at such a close range and when im moving a slow speed.

if this sonar is indeed working as designed and thats the way it was then fair enough.
Attachments
Gamechanger1956.zip
(84.35 KiB) Downloaded 3 times
User avatar
ExMachina
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:30 pm

RE: Sonar issue

Post by ExMachina »

I've now played this scenario enough to be convinced that there is a bug. However, I can't say where it is: it could be a bug particular to this sub/sonar combo or it could be a bug that is more general to the CMANO sonar model...or it could be both (which is what I suspect). Basically, what I suspect is that CMANO sonar model was developed and tested with more modern passive sonars in mind, and that it simply breaks when it tries to accomidate a severely hobbled sonar capabilities of the USS Nautaulus. While I still trust the CMANO sonar model for 99% of scenarios, it seems to not be workign realistically in this case...

cato13
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: scotland

RE: Sonar issue

Post by cato13 »

Yeah well the devs have been in touch so they can decide if there is an issue here. the general consensus here seems to be that the nautilus was a very noisy boat throughout its life span.

while that may be true id be astonished if it was so bad to the point that its passive sonar was effectively useless.
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Sonar issue

Post by ultradave »

Have you tried re-running that scenario with the other boat? It's a GUPPY with the same sonar set. Presumably creeping along on batteries, it would be a quieter submarine. Might be interesting to compare sonar performance between the two.

[edit] Actually my mistake - it has the next latest set with higher range. Also it's signature is significantly lower than that of the Nautilus.

It's counter-intuitive that Nautilus would be a lower capability sub when it comes to search (and ability to hide).
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
thewood1
Posts: 9106
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Sonar issue

Post by thewood1 »

You should grab the Cold War Subs book. It has a lot of interesting information on the post-war period to the nuke period. Its quite amazing the things we take fro granted now in sub technology. US sonar tech sure seemed like it was not as good as a lot of people assume. Its also interesting that older Diesel and Electric boats ended up being better sonar platforms than early nukes.
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Sonar issue

Post by ultradave »

There are good comparisons that can be made in the database. The Nautilus signature is 20-30 dB higher than the GUPPY II. That 30dB is going to degrade the performance of passive sonar. You have to be able to hear above the noise your own boat is radiating. db is a log10 function so the difference of 30 dB is really huge. (3000 times the radiated power!) It's no wonder in my test I got a torpedo dropped on my .... To be fair I was ignoring all else to work on the sonar stuff.

Modern SSK's are very, very quiet. They are as much as 60 dB lower than Nautilus and sonar performance correspondingly has increased greatly. SEAWOLF and VIRGINIA in the database are on par with the most modern SSK's, due to many advances in signature reduction.

I have a feeling that there are expectations that since the Nautilus is a nuclear powered sub that it's combat performance would be elevated as well as it's propulsion and endurance ability. That's my comment above about it being counter-intuitive.
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
Lowlaner2012
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:18 pm

RE: Sonar issue

Post by Lowlaner2012 »

Indeed I am reading Blind mans bluff, it says that the USS Lapon (SSN-661) a Sturgeon-class attack submarine needed to stay within 3000 to 5000 yards to follow a Yankee class missile boat without losing it....


Also according to another book (Red November) in the SOSUS experimental phase the range was only 100 miles and thats a very quiet passive sonar array...


Thanks
Dimitris
Posts: 14771
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

RE: Sonar issue

Post by Dimitris »

Okay, we had a chance to look at this in detail today.

thewood was essentially correct: It's because of masking. But it's a bit more subtle than that.

Three of the target ships (Eaton, Cony and Boston) are not detected because they are masked by the thunderous noise of the Iowa. If you had a sonar display of the Nautilus you would see a fairly wide, very bright line (or wedge if using a radar/ESM-style scope) down the bearing to the Iowa, which would hide the weaker lines of the other three ships. This works as designed.

However, the other three ships (Iowa, Samuel B. Roberts and John Paul Jones) are masked by the noise of distant neutral ships. This is also by design, but there is a bug present that allows even _very_ distant noisy ships to mask others much closer in. This is now fixed for the next update.

To see a "preview" of the fix, remove the side "Neutrals" from the scenario and observe how that changes the detectability of some of the target ships.

So, a combination of WAD and an actual case-specific bug.

Thanks for giving us the time to investigate and not knee-jerking into conclusions.
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”