[makman94]

Originally Posted by Aquelarrefox

Hi, no. I know that, I tray but is reality wrong model, in surveyor so I have made star and sun positioning by total station.

What i do, Is tracking by time and speed drawing the path. Iwhen I feel I can read star or sun position I use plotter tool to see it and make a mark, I select a zoom according to weaves and clouds. Boat is hide. All graphic calculator and tools from attack and calculation disc and paper.
Sometime I have to track over one and a half week

...wow...that is ,indead, a hard task mate ! can you make a mini tutorial showing your method ?

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

Most importantly - which GUI are you using? Is it your new one that is still in development?

yes it is but you can do what you see to most of sh3 uis (for sure you can at the allready released MaGuis)

Originally Posted by Aquelarrefox

Yes is prety. Purse add hitman disc, which is mod useful for calculation that old attack disc reverse. I'm taking about the disc with double external ring.

i have allready completed the front and 'back' side of the attack disc. which version you are talking about ? i have made the 'second version' of attack disc but designed it from scratch in order to be 100% accurate at readings (if it is the first version is not in my interest or tastes)

Originally Posted by B_K

Sorry I didnt' point it out good enough, but apart from historical issues, you did a great job of explaining Spiess TMA and finally naming it properly. I wish Dangerous Waters had manual plotting available... It could be great.

I am thinking that 'history' is not exactly what is written at specific times.To tell it in other words, i don't believe that becuase Spiess TMA was firstly officially presented (when?maybe at 1953?) means that nobody knew about it before. Maybe Spiess was ,indead, firstly appeared at that time (no disputing on this) but i am sure that there were many techniques developed (especially during war) that never written to public books or spoken.I am thinking that if something is not written to any book or diary,doesn't automatically means that is unknown. I ,also, believe that same story goes nowdays. I am talking generally here and not specific for Spiess.Thats why whenever i read the term 'historical' in methods i am always thinking that ,MAYBE,the best of them never published.
Anyway,thats the sense i have for the term 'history'.

My wish for DW too B_K The luck of manual ploting is a really missing feature

About Spiess now , in my opinion, this video is showing three great steps forward for the Spiess itself.
A(most important): is the great discovery by Kuikueg for locating the Spiess Line* (part 2:05 to 3:04 of video).Fast and simple to execute.
*At the original notes of Spiess,they are using two different rulers (representing two different speeds of target) and ,with correct placing, are locating the two points of Spiess Line.
B: at the original notes of Spiess Method,after locating the first exact position of target,they used a fifth bearing** for locating the target course line.The video shows (part 5:27 to 7:47) that this fifth bearing is not needed and solution can be found with only,the allready drawed,four bearings.Also,fast and simple to execute.
**At the original notes of Spiess,they are mentioning that ,if a fifth bearing is not availiable,they can repeat the same procedure but with bearings b2,b3 and b4 for locating one more Spiess Line for the first time observation so the intersection of this new Spiess Line with b1 will give one more exact position of target (at time of first oservation) so then they would be able to draw the target course line.
C: is the beauty of the geometrical solution (using only a clean ruler and a compass)

Originally Posted by B_K

As far as Spiess method is concerned, plotted course should be paralell to the axis of symmetry of the curve which is tangent to all bearing lines. It seems to be true here.

I haven't spent much time for stunding the parabola but i think that this is true only when your own course is a linear one.In this case the parabola is tangent to all bearings and the axis of parabola is ,indead,parallel to DRM.
In the other case that our course is not linear ,as in this video, the parabola is tangent to all Spiess Lines produced by the three bearings and i haven't searched if the axis of this parabola is still parallel to DRM (99,9% it is,i just haven't study it).You can't 'imagine' if this axis is parallel in the video as it is impossible to draw this parabola (only one Spiess Line is showing).

Originally Posted by B_K

Did you study what conditions (proportions of paralell and perpendicular speed components) should be met to make all bearing lines intersect in exactly one point (what are the conditions for speed and course of both vessels to be in pure lag LOS?)

No, i haven't searched about it.Such case looks to me like having more a threoritical interest than a practical. I mean that ,even if you manage to make the three bearings intersect to one point (which practically will be extremelly hard to achieve), what would be the advantage ?
If i understand you right , you are asking to solve a problem with knowing only the first two bearings (neither target course or speed or range) and with (after the second bearing) proper own speed adjustment to have ,at the time of third observation, a third bearing which pass through the intersection point of the two previous two bearings. right ? if yes, i think that such a problem is not solvable.