[FIXED B757.7] Passive sensor bug?

[Rory Noonan]

Good evening Devs,

I know you're busy with the release of 1.09, but I've noticed that ESM contacts in the new release are localised to a fairly precise location very quickly. In the attached save files a lone Fitter with ESM pod is airborne in the Raid on Khark Island scenario. If you run the scenario for a few minutes, EW radar and SAM emitters should be detected. On my machine they appear as an uncertainty area for approximately 2-5 seconds of game time before being narrowed down to a very precise location.

I'm not sure if this is a reflection of a form of TMA being automatically done by the AI, or a bug. Either way it seemed unusual so I thought I would report it. I've tried to isolate as many variables as possible by using a stock scenario and having only one unit airborne to detect the emissions.

Thanks for any light you can shed on this. I'm running build 757.2.

[mikmykWS]

Thanks for the report and the file. Added to our list of thing to look at.

Mike

[Rory Noonan]

This is actually more involved than I initially thought; it seems all passive sensors are allowing a precise fix on location within 5 or so seconds of detection.

It's made ASW scenarios very one sided, and IMO is most definitely a bug.

I re-installed Command and Northern Inferno to make sure nothing from the RC betas was messing with the program. I'm running 757.4 now.

In the attached save files, start time compression and you will see both sonar and ESM contacts be detected and localised precisely within about 5 seconds. I tried a variety of different platforms and sensors, all ESM and sonar systems seem to be affected.

Seems this may have been touched on here: tm.asp?m=3945864

[mikmykWS]

Thanks

Mike

[giantsquid]

I can actually report the same problem. Seen in different scenarios.
Thanks

Francesco

[sschnei244]

I am having the same issue. Example file attached.

Thanks

[Rory Noonan]

I'm relieved it's not just me.

[ljdramone]

I see the same problem with build 757.5. I set up a sample scenario with a Knox-class frigate and a Tu-142 Bear D, and created a support mission to fly a clockwise circle around the Knox's position at a range of about 75 nm. Set weather to thick clouds and heavy rain and time to night so no chance the Knox would have visual contact with the Bear. Assigned the Bear to the mission with radars on.

Started up, and after a few seconds I got the ESM contact with an uncertainty zone. 20 seconds later, the Knox had classified the Bear and showed its position with no uncertainty.

I ran for another couple of minutes, and the Tu-142's position was updated every 20 seconds though its datablock was never updated with a course or speed.

[giantsquid]

Yes, I had similar result with subs, doing ultra fast TMA with sonars even in build 757,5 in scenario Frozen War

[AlGrant]

Just had this in NI scenario 2.
Nimrod MR1 gets an ELINT hit on a 'Generic Navigation Radar' and takes 40 secs to classify it as a 23m Commercial Fishing Boat at 86nm with no uncertainty zone.

03:14:12 - Contact: SKUNK #35 has been classified as: Commercial Fishing Boat [23m] - Determined as: Neutral (Classification by: 206 Sqn #7 Nimrod MR.1 [Sensor: ARAR/ARAX] at Estimated 86 nm)
03:13:32 - New contact! Designated SKUNK #35 - Detected by 206 Sqn #7 Nimrod MR.1 [Sensors: ARAR/ARAX] at 329deg - Estimated 88nm

The Nimrod is 'Veteran' but that's pushing things for late 60's tech.

[Rory Noonan]

I'm holding off playing the NI scenarios until this gets sorted, I have a feeling that they're supposed to be a bit more challenging than they are currently due to this bug. I'm excited about playing them through when it's done though!

[Rory Noonan]

Have the Dev's been able to reproduce this problem?

[Dimitris]

This is an "interesting" bug, as it seems to happen only to some players. We're looking into it.

[Rory Noonan]

Thanks, I really appreciate it. It has really taken the fun out of CMANO. Given what you said about only some layers experiencing it I'll try it out on another computer and see if that makes a difference.

[Rory Noonan]

No dice unfortunately. Same problem on my other laptop.

[strykerpsg]

Hmmm, not to add fuel to the flame, but I noticed when I played Barents Sea Boomers in NI scenario #4, the only way I found the RU Boomers was the passive sensors would eventually process the contact from a submerged to a SSBN. My contacts never changed from yellow to red, verifying RU submarines. I tried turning my boats from head on to side flanks and still not very good resolution or determining class and side. I honestly haven't played many other sub scenarios so I can't say with certainty that this may have existed longer than the release of this patch.

For the record, not declaring it a bug, but I thought it odd that our two SSN, which sensors are on average, 75% better detection range than their RU counterparts. As stated before, this was my first true SSN scenario, all others prior were surface and air warfare. To add to this, one time I played the scenario, the Swiftsure crossed one of my paths, coming straight for my SSN. I thought it was a RU SSN, since it was type classified, though not class or side. Every time I changed from over to under the layer, it followed, matching speed and course though I never exceeded 5 knots. When it closed to within less than half a mile, it turned away. I saved the scenario for later review, noted it was the Swiftsure and it detected, classified and clarified who I was and resumed patrolling for the RU SSBNs. So, I think there is some truth to a potential issue with passive sensors or my playstyle with sub sensors is a bit off.

[Dimitris]

Fixed in Build 757.7: tm.asp?m=3958299

Thanks to everyone who pointed us to this. This was a real brain-buster.

[Rory Noonan]

Wow; thanks!

You guys really are an amazing team. Less than 7 days from report to resolution.

[Grondoval]

Amazing indeed!!! [:)]

Thank you devs!

[ljdramone]

Me too, ditto, et cetera. Amazing service and kudos to the dev team! [&o]