Problem with Cromwell attack method

[timmyg00]

Hi folks,

I just started trying to use the Cromwell method. I have watched the tutorial and am using the crib sheet. I thought i was performing all of the actions in the correct order. However, when i view the attack map, the torpedo track shows a huge gyro angle away from the direction of the target. Has anyone else had this problem or something similar?

Thanks,

TG

[Deephunter]

The angle is proportional to the target speed. If it angles a lot it's because the target is really haulin'....

[magic452]

A couple of thoughts here.
When you input data are you clicking the send to TDC button for each input?

The game won't send a good bearing unless there is a range to go with it,
pull the range triangle down to some range then point the scope to your lead angle and send to TDC Do not turn on the PK!

Your torpedo should have almost no gyro angle, 10 or 15°.

Magic

[timmyg00]

Thanks guys...

Target speed is low, and i input in the following order... speed (click-click), AOB (45-lead angle) (click-click), bearing/minrange (click-click). This is the same procedure shown in the video and the crib card.

Doesn't matter though, i have a workaround. I just zero out all the TDC settings so that the attack map shows a zero-gyro angle for my shot, and then shoot when the target gets to my desired lead angle. Works great so far.

-TG

[itsthewoo]

Assuming you're doing the Cromwell method as written (i.e. 45 degree relative course angle), then you should be doing an AoB of about 35 degrees rather than 45, as you'll be firing pistols when they have an AoB of that amount.

[timmyg00]

Assuming you're doing the Cromwell method as written (i.e. 45 degree relative course angle), then you should be doing an AoB of about 35 degrees rather than 45, as you'll be firing pistols when they have an AoB of that amount.
Thanks, I wrote that to read "45 minus lead angle".

I now use the Solution Solver (thanks Gutted!) to get a more accurate firing bearing for the Cromwell method. Works great so far.

-TG

[bebop]

Assuming you're doing the Cromwell method as written (i.e. 45 degree relative course angle), then you should be doing an AoB of about 35 degrees rather than 45, as you'll be firing pistols when they have an AoB of that amount.


Can I come in here?

Correct me if Im wrong, so it should be subtracted since the angle is steeper as we are sending the data?

Thanks

Regards

[Rockin Robbins]

Ok, here's the thing. You are approaching from 45° from the target's course. In order for him to have an AOB of 45° he would have to be right in front of you, bearing zero. Although that would only give you a gyro angle of 10° or so, the whole premise of constant bearing attacks is to minimize gyro angles.

Let's just use an example where he is traveling from left to right with respect to us. In order to do that we'll shoot when he is about 10° before being straight ahead, bearing 350. To calculate the AoB you subtract that 10° from 45° to get your TDC setting of 35°. There is no more accurate way to set it, that's the correct number no matter what tool you use.

Now just because you shot 10° before he bore zero doesn't mean necessarily that your torpedo is going straight up the zero line. That's where people get their brains sprained when thinking about the John P Cromwell or Dick O'Kane methods. The fact is, with both methods we don't know exactly what that torpedo gyro angle is going to be.

We don't have to because we're going to use the TDC to aim the torpedo for us and it will set the exact angle. It might be a couple of degrees one way or the other from zero, depending on target speed.

So now we have the AoB at 35° and it's starboard, because we are looking at the starboard side of the target. We presumably already have the target speed, so we enter that. And for a range, we need something, although it isn't very important what it is. I just pull the sight triangle down to render something like 1400 yards. The TDC has a brain fart when the range is zero.

Make sure you press the send info to TDC button after every entry. Now all you have to do is set your scope at the 350 bearing and wait for the target to cross the wire. Shoot as the juicy parts are in the crosshair.

You can check the attack map to see if you've made any stupid mistakes, typically entering a port AoB when you mean starboard. In this case (what a coincidence!) the TDC will think the target is traveling from right to left. It will aim way left of the target. You KNOW that the angle has to be to the right of where the target is now in order to lead it properly. A quick look at the attack map will prevent a lot of embarrassment.

The John P Cromwell method is just as accurate as any fancier method. Difficulty does not translate into better accuracy. The solutions rendered by John P Cromwell are correct and will result in a torpedo striking the part of the target you aim for if your inputs are correct. That makes it exactly as accurate as Solution Solver, Hunt and Peck (made that one up), conventional position keeper targeting or using angle solver charts.

In practice the Cromwell and O'Kane methods will be more accurate than other methods because they are extremely simplified techniques that reduce the number of steps, and hence the number of chances to screw the pooch, as far as possible. Each step necessary to perform a procedure is an opportunity for error. Fewer steps means fewer errors.

[Nisgeis]

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure the gyro angle is zero, you don't use the TDC at all and you just shoot when the target reaches the firing point.

[Rockin Robbins]

IF you are using the Vector Analysis fork of John P Cromwell, you are correct. That works by freezing the gyro angle at zero and reverse engineering the firing bearing. You won't get a firing bearing of exactly 350 in my example above, if you use Vector Analysis.

I was presupposing the rule of thumb (for lack of a better word) fork of the John P Cromwell method which freezes the aiming angle and lets the TDC calculate the gyro angle, which most likely won't be exactly zero.

Actually nobody in the early part of the thread was talking about the Vector Analysis method, which Nisgeis introduced by the way, and they should. It accomplishes everything the solution solver does but requires no tools but what are found in SH4. You don't have to alt-tab out of the game (freezing time in the process) to another application to do Vector Analysis. It's quicker, can be done in real time and does exactly the same thing as Solution Solver.

And again, Vector Analysis also uses fewer steps, so it also introduces fewer opportunities for error to creep into your solution. Vector analysis is also self-correcting! Because it is a scale drawing of the attack, just looking at it validates the solution as correct. That self-validation is unique to Vector Analysis. No other method can claim that.

[Urge]

RR wrote...You don't have to alt-tab out of the game (freezing time in the process)

So, if you are playing the game on, for instance, your desktop computer and you had a laptop next to it then you could use solution solver or mobo or whatever on the laptop and not ruin the immersion factor(in my opinion) as it would be like the plotting party doing their thing. Unless this was a crisis(maybe even then) you should have ample time to set everything up without freezing the game. RR always points out how leisurely this process is in his videos. I haven't actually done this but I am just coming back to SH4 (bizarre, untimely death of my gaming computer a while ago*) and previously I didn't have a laptop but I got a dead one from a friend and resurrected it. I just started a new career (God, I missed this game) and I think I'm going to try this.

Urge

* I will NEVER again buy a CPU fan with the push and twist connectors. Backplates and bolts for me.

[Rockin Robbins]

OOOOOO! Two computers could be really cool. Or a multi monitor setup so you never have to leave the SH4 screen.

@Urge, your computer must not have had software that slows down or shuts off the computer before it incinerates? I have that and it STILL didn't help. It was my video card wanting to detonate. I had smoke and everything! It was pretty exciting for a few minutes. The fan on my video card seized up and EVGA honored their warranty, sending me back a claimed identical card with updated cooling system that is really awesome! Now my video runs cooler than my CPU. EVGA rocks!

[Urge]

RR wrote...Urge, your computer must not have had software that slows down or shuts off the computer before it incinerates?

O Yeah, now you got me, what is this software I've never heard of? Me want! My CPU fan had those push and turn connectors and one of the plastic pieces broke lifting the fan off of the CPU. This is almost instant death (what, like maybe 5-10 seconds before you cook at least the CPU if not the MOBO). That software probably wouldn't have helped me but I can definitely see a place for it on every computer I own.I never even owned a laptop before but this dead laptop I was given had a bad MOBO and I found one cheap in Hong Kong with free shipping! Two years later and it's still working great.
Urge

[Rockin Robbins]

My AMD microprocessor has that built in and it automatically works as long as it's enabled in BIOS. Laptops get really hot sometimes so most of those also have this feature that slows down or shuts down the computer when it's in danger of ignition.

Many motherboards have Cool & Quiet features that throttle your fans and microprocessor as needed to avoid damage. I'll give you specifics when I get home and have access to the thing.