It's open to anyone who wants to have a look. My working theory is if someone can't bring themselves to post 'I'll test this', then they are unlikely to post any feedback ;).

Which measurement scale? I'm going to be making the 'Torpedo Track Angle' into 5 degree increments, instead of 10 degrees. Would that help?

I think the longest range shot that was successful was about 4,500 yards, any at longer range weren't succesful, the torpedo run is very long and any innacuracy is magnified. If you aren't sure of your data you should increase your spreads.

The spread calculator will give you the angular target length, so if you look at the value of 900 foot target length with a torpedo run of 3,000 yds, at a track angle of 90 degrees, it says the angular target length is 6 degrees. So if you did fire three torpedoes, a 100% coverage would be 3 degrees right, 0 degrees for MOT, 3 degrees right. But that would give you a situation where a slight error would make either of the 3 degree torpedoes miss. So, if you have a really good solution, go for a 75% spread to get hits along most of the length, with a bit of give. If you are less confident, use 100%, which will give you 2 out of 3 hits of your data is resonable. If your data is shaky, use more coverage, 150% or 200%.

Using a higher coverage, you'll get less hits for certain, but you are more likely to get some hits. I'm wondering if I should put in some sort of coverage calculator, so you don't have to work this stuff out.

I'm also considering removing the torpedo run lengths higher than 4,000 yds as it's probably not a good idea to be shooting at that range... Hmmm, I'll have a think about all this stuff. The feedback is great, as it makes me think.

Hitman gave me some good ideas as well.

One thing I forgot to mention in the PM (Now that I see this is being discussed in public): The vertical scale goes up to 1200 feet, but I don't think that any WW2 ships was that big. In my opinion you could limit it vertically to 800 feet, that's enough to get a good salvo at the Yamato. By doing that and also eliminating the lines for extreme ranges you could expand the table to a bigger size and allow for better precision and extra lines without cluttering it :up:

What format are you working with? tga, BMP? :hmm: I think I could put it in the game if you can provide a graphic in one of those formats.

Yes, I wondered about that myself, however the first version is a replica of what the Torsk has - and that goes up to 1,200 feet. You'd save a small amount of space by taking it down, but you'd still need the first part for the higher angle shots or shorter craft. Thinking about this made me spot a mistake and I need to check something :hmm:.

Corel Draw, as i can use it and it's vector graphics, so it can be easily scaled without messing it all up. It also produces very small PDF files :D

5 degrees would be better
 

Yes I think 5 degree gradient would be better. The problem I was talking about the game having was that the gradient there is 1 degree. You can adjust in between those gradients, however it only takes like an hour, and it isn't consistent. At 4000 yd even a 1 degree spread gets pretty large. I like it so far. I would say it has given me a 15% improvement outside 1500 yd, and about a 20 to 25 % improvement inside that range. I don't think I've improved alot outside 3000 yd but I'll keep trying.

I lack the necessary skills in maths to tell for sure, but I somehow think that the scales are not all completely correct :hmm:

The separation between some of the torpedo runs doesn't seem proportional (Even if it becomes shorter the longer the run).

Have you verified it mathematically, or is just a direct copy of Torsk's instrument? :-?

Nisgeis,

I can confirm that is is indeed possible to put this scale as a graphic in the in-game Attack Map :D

I did a quick test with positive results, but will need to tweak the position a bit.:rock:

I have it working as a fixed image, I suppose it could be done as draggable image, but I would need to learn how to do it :hmm:

Here is a sample:

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/4461/testcd0.th.jpghttp://img357.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

Yes, I did verify it, however... I made a very small error, the degrees along the top go 8, 9, 10, 12. Either I didn't put it in, or I accidentally deleted it. Funny how I never noticed. The 2,000 yds anmd below lines consequently a small amount out. I'll correct that.

That looks quite readable. I think though it would be better if it was larger and a pull out version. i don't know how to do it either :D .

Personally all I care about is the angular size of the target. Beyond that I can extrapolate and interpolate in my head to get "close enough" answers. We can get all hung up on that 4th significant figure and forget that our measurements are only accurate to 2 significant figures and our "accuracy" is absolutely meaningless.

So all I care about is to know that the target is between 3º and 4º wide. I can't shoot accurate to a half degree anyway!

Fair enough. Hitman's screendump made me even more curious on how to use this thing. Let me have a look at it please.

As for the math, the formula in your 1st message works if 2 torpedo's should hit at 1/3rds of the targets angular length on bow and stern side. I really need a description on how to use that table/graph to compare this with it. It makes little sense to me right now. Also, just to make sure we have the same terminology: trackangle= complement of AOB (=180-AOB) at hit-time?

That is the poinr
 

That is the point I was trying to make, Rockin Robbins said it much better than I. The tool as it is set up is fine. It is the game that makes it that 1 degree is the smallest gradient that can be used.

Yes, and another good reason for it is that SH4 does not auto-scale everything when changing resolutions. Thus, this graphic that looks relatively small at my 1400x1050 screen will cover nearly all the screen when running at 1024x768 :damn:

I've always used the formula from the submarine torpedo fire control manual 1953

It's basically the same as this, but it's very easy to do mentally once you've understood the components of the equation

Torpedo run (yards)/2000 x target length (feet)/100 x sine tta x %coverage/100

It's simple if you think about it

let's say you fire at 2000 yards, then the first part of the equation is 1

let's say you fire at 1000 yards, then the first part is 2

and that takes care of 90% of your firing situations

target length - if you don't know, say it's 500feet, which is a medium. 500/100=5, but wahtever it is you only have to round to the nearest 100 - you don't need hyperaccuracy.

if you don't know what sine 90 is, you should be back on automatic targetting, and let's face it, most shots are at about 90 degrees

coverage is simply how much of the target length do you want to consider - for example if the target is far away and zigging maybe you want a 200% or even 300% coverage, in which case guess what? multiply the end result by 2 or 3. Otherwise if you want a normal spread to simply cover the full length of thetarget, then 100%/100=1!

So for the most typical of all situations, aiming to 100% cover the target on a roughly 90 degree shot at a normal range of 2000 yards, at an average sized merchant, the solution is:

2000/2000 x 500/100 x 1 x 1
= 1x 5 x 1 x 1
=5 degrees

The graphical table above gives the value of 4.5 for this situation, which is, as you see, close enough. if you needed accuracy, you wouldn't be using spreads, would ya?

Now even if maths turns you off it's important to note the following - the result for both the calculation above AND the spread angle obtained by using this graphical device is the TOTAL spread angle - if your result is 5 degrees, and you want a stern, mot, bow spread, then the first torp will need a deflection of 2.5 degrees one way, the second 0 deflection, the third a 2.5 degree defelction the other way. - That is if you are using fleet boats.

The U-boat TDC will sort out spreads for you if you just input the total spread.

Hitman, can you make the white transparent so the black lines are actually on the attack map? That way the underlying part of the attack map would still be useful. Looks great and very readable!

Nisgeis, I like tha chart as is. I see no reason for more precision/confusion to be built into a chart that is designed to be read quickly without marking on it. In other words, it has to be usable strictly by inspection.

Nisgeis,

Been following this, looks good and nice addition. I think you have it where you want it for 99.9% of the customers.

Making it transparent is just a matter of adding an alpha channel to the TGA, but for it to look the best possible I need the original image in two layers format.

If it is a draggable item I don't think a transparent background is of big relevance, if it stays fixed then of course I will try to add it :yep:

Never mind the above, transparency done:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3...7539lh8.th.jpghttp://img151.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

That looks really great!

I don't think that making it draggable is possible with SH4, unless you attach it to the radio, gramaphone or stopwatch