[checking out USN 1941 Maneuvering Board Manual........]
Sure would be nice to come up with a better name than Case XI, but.......USN 1941 Maneuvering Board Manual Case XI it clearly is. We draw it differently on the nav map and in the Hydrophone tracker but it is the identical solution.

Diopos, you've just decided the name of the procedure. Hydrophone Tracker will retain its own name...:D
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...in_obvious.jpg

If no one has any objections I'll get to work as much as possible without being able to run SH4 until my video card comes back from RMA. Just got approval this morning. Tonight I'm switching to some ancient card I even forgot I had and hope to be able to run Windows afterwards... Wish me luck.

And yes, gutted, my pom-poms are out and ready! You guys work too hard not to have any recognition. Just look at the worthless 8010 thread with 6,461 reads so far compared with 361 for this one of tremendous value. If I can be part of evening the score and garnering some attention to an elegant, totally passive method that works, I'll work those pom-poms to death.
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a.../happy-091.gif

:wah:
:rotfl2:

Passive? Pom-Poms? Aren't we getting a bit kinky around here? :hmmm:

:DL

Seriously now, it is a worthy project.

:up:

.

We dont do it for recognition.

When we encounter a problem in life.. we solve it, share it, then move on to something else.

I understand that gutted. You aren't the slightest bit interested in self-promotion and that is as it should be. Let's call it division of labor.

Those who like to solve problems see the work as done when a problem is solved. Problems can be difficult and it's important to move on to the next one.

But in order for the solution to be good for anything in a practical sense it's important that people actually use the solution developed by that practical guy who's working on something else now.

That's where the pom-poms come in. You don't waste your time and I get to do what I do best while giving you the credit you earned. I know you don't care much about the credit but trying to steal it would result in quick reaction from you (all you'd have to do is ask one simple question about how it was done and I'd be done!). And you wouldn't release any more solutions knowing that someone else would grab the credit. I give you the credit because it's the right thing to do.

So look at me as the garbage man. You produce the garbage. I take it away, dress it up, wave those pom-poms and get people to eat it with a smile.:D

Dick O'Kane and John P Cromwell were game changers for SH4 players. Neither one of them would have seen the light of day without the help of gutted and aaronblood, along with Nisgeis and a long list of others.

I'm just PT Barnum. He didn't tame lions, train elephants, walk high wires, swing on the trapeze or get shot out of a cannon. He brought those who did in front of the world making them and us richer for it. Funny how clueless our pal greyrider was about what I do. His claims to the contrary just killed his credibility.

Good work must be recognised.
Good intentions must be acknowledged.
This has nothing to do with the person producing the work or the idea.
This has enerything to do with the people or community which "receives" it. If someone offers you a glass of water in the desert, the least you can do is say "thank you". No?

.

Well, that's the problem. There's no must to it. Much good work is forgotten before it is completed, doing no good for anyone. The doer is off doing something else and the work just dies. Maybe it is discovered later, but not always.

Don't forget that germ138 posted his instructions back in January, Hydrophone Tracker was posted April 5, this thread started June 10 and kind of languished until this month. I'm really late to the party, only noticing this thing several days ago while looking for an illustration of the difference between greyrider's 8010 garbage and a real targeting procedure.

It was a really close thing that this great technique could have had a dozen posts and been completely forgotten and used by no one.

So, to paraphrase Diopos:

Good work will only be recognized if someone recognizes that it is significant and popularizes it.

Good intentions will only be recognized by those aware that they exist.

Making sure that happens has nothing to do with making the person producing the work or idea "famous" or "high status." It is simply the right thing to do for the benefit of all.

Like it or not, in spite of Subsim SH4 forum's apparent state of good health, SH4 IS a desert, abandoned completely by the company who produced it and superceded by its pretender successor, which although it has some interesting features, has abandoned the very principle of a simulation. SH4 remains the premier submarine simulator in the world.

Welcome to the desert.

Care for a drink?

:D

.

Here are three ideas.

A. On the implementation of the method: To "collect" bearings #4, #5 and #6 you don't need a change of course and speed. You need to change your speed vector. One way of doing that, I think, is by maintaining you original course and changing your speed only. (Verify it please). An option the skipper must be aware of!

B. On the design of the method: Trying to implement the method on a maneuvering board I ran into the problem of the required time to conclude all of the required steps. I was sampling the bearings at a 12 minute intervals. The mercie crossed my "T" while I was still doing my geometry! :DL. This raises the possibility of including adjastable time steps between observations. There are instances where the bearings are adequately "resolved" from the previous ones so you can "speed up" data collection without degrading the quality of the solution. I think that the "official" method allows for it, too.

C. On the name of the method: :D:D:D. Bearing Tracker, Bearings Only Solver, Gutted's 6-Bearing Solver, etc,only to point out that the method is not somehow limited to hydrophone-work only.


.

I'd like to avoid the maneuvering board altogether, not because it doesn't work but because just about nobody understands the thing, while they have all worked with the nav map, where the solution works out just as well.

This way they can have two solutions working at the same time: the Hydrophone Tracker and plot. They'll serve as verification for each other. Because there is no maneuvering board in the game and because people who have learned to operate a quite difficult simulator will still resist something new, especially if it involves printing mobo charts and working out solutions with pen, paper and drawing tools they don't have.

To keep the solution as quickly solved as possible and continue to pass the credit around as much as possible I'd like to keep the four bearing method and use jerm138's procedure with as little change (and with his approval for any necessary changes) as possible.

Gotta go! I'll check in later!:up:

Theoretically correct, but it may not make enough of a difference to notice the change in relative motion (direction aswel as magnitude). If your change in speed is somewhat along the bearing then it won't show. (like in a position behind or infront)

The time periods are of arbitray duration, as long as they kept equal throughout (each set of 3 bearings). The bearings need to be sufficiently apart to not be drowned in measurement inaccuracy of 1 degree. 4 degrees between bearings with an uncertainty of 1 degree wide won't do. You can use a short time period initially to get a general indication of direction. But then need to use longer periods to gain accuracy. Doubling the time period allows you to re-use the measured bearings of the earlier crude attempt. Putting timestamps on the in-game map is not really possible, therefore a paper print maneuvering-board is more usefull here.

How quickly you close with the target depends alot on ownship course you choose, or really the resulting relative motion. The latter being something you don't know yet and actually are trying to find out. If the relative motion happends to be pointed roughly along the bearing then you close. If it is roughly perpendicular then you only drift the bearing with minimal range change. Knowing the target course early because you were close to motionless during the first 3 bearings helps alot here. But thinking you have to get it all done before the T-party ( ;) ) has started is rushing it imho. You can't even assume from the beginning that it was on a closing approach. You can only know that after the 3rd bearing is laid out on the map and it shows an increased bearing drift compared to the first 2 bearings. To conclude, it's tricky to determine where to go for the second leg, if you don't know where he is going. A lagging course by definition avoids a collision, and creates quickly changing bearings (eventually) but forces you to do an end-around. A leading course has the opposite features. I'd like to know where he is going first, before worrying about being in the right attack position. I expect the end-around maneuver as a given.

So what do you think would be an "adequate minimum difference" in consequent bearing measurements? About 7° maybe?

.

Yes, I usually let it drift 6 or 7 degrees between taking bearing 1 and 2. Then as many minutes as it took later, I take bearing 3 and figure out it's rough course. If I decide to stick with it, then wait double the amount of minutes to take another bearing for a more accurate course.

OK, I checked out that old video card and it was......an AGP card.:down: So it looks like I'm going dark for several days. See you when I get back online.

I'm still officially dark, working on my wife's laptop. My video card is on vacation in California and at least three days away. This is killing me:wah: