I don't think this is a thing that modders can 'code'. Sofar I haven't seen a mod that adds a different maptool than those that are allready in there. Or be able to make a user-interface image resize/stretch in realtime ingame by using the mouse. Such (map helper) tools seem to be built-in. It could ofcourse be a nice addition to SH5 though. But that's better suggested to the developers than the modder community.

But I can manage with a circle as a 3-point divider. You could ofcourse use multiple circles for increasingly large time intervals if you really need to project such a long path. The ultimate DIY solution is taking a piece of rubber band and draw equally spaced marks on it, and then stretch it on your screen. But I personally don't like such fit-and-fumble techniques. Just a bit of clever geometry tricks and the answer is there. Love that.

Hi!

impressive hydrophone hunt, nefeladamon!:up:

I still prefer the passive sonar only approach method proposed by joegrundman. I have rewritten it because I found some parts a little confusing.

The reason why I prefer it is basically you don't need to surface at all (if you are ahead enough of the target:03:) to get a good estimate of the target's position and course. Whereas your method involves surfaced flanking as a conditio sine qua non.

Please have a look at my rewrite, comments very much welcome!

http://www.filefront.com/14758805/Pa...revisited.pdf/
I this folder you will also find joegrundman's original guide and the altered rear side of the 1943 SACF, altered to show meters.

http://www.filefront.com/user/berobispo
happy hunting:arrgh!:

Uhm, I left my latin dictionary on the steps of the coloseum. Can you translate?

sorry, "conditio sine qua non" means "this is an absolut prerequisite"/"it definitely won't work until..."

literal translation:

"condition without none" I'll do something/Something will work

I wouldn't say that flanking is an absolute prerequisite for it to work. But you do need to move away from where you were listening. And in such a direction that makes both 4th bearinglines(the predicted one from the old location and the real one from the new location) intersect as perpedicular as possible. It depends if you are allready behind the target whether you need to flank to catch up with him and move in front. But you also do not need to get ahead of him to make this work. You could also sprint away in a lagging position to make those 4th bearings intersect clearly. It just means that you'll have to catch up and overtake later for sure. But with a good fix on his course and speed.

I must admit I have only lightly read through your technique in that pdf. And I can't seem to download it right now from filefront to better take a look at it. But what I remember from it was that you essentially make a submerged interception. Adjusting your course until the sound direction doesn't drift any more. Well, it does certainly work if you are ahead of him far enough. Or to say that more accurately, he must have a small AOB to make up for your slow speed. Which you have no way to tell. Also you never know when you are supposed to be on top of him. As you don't what his range is, or what the closure rate is. On top of that, you are draining your batteries. I wouldn't like to go into a fight with my batteries allready partially drained. You'l never know what friends the target has nearby. Personally I find that your way has too many unknowns and guesswork as a conditio sine qua non. ;)

-Yes, I agree. It will work when you are behind the target at the fourth bearing. But you must overtake him, which again means staying on the surface for quite some time.

-you find out pretty fast (<5 min) if you are ahead enough (i. e. AOB is small enough), if target is still gaining, you might consider surfacing and flanking for a little while and check if the AOB is small enough then. This way, time on the surface is reduced to the mininum. When finding at the fourth bearing that you are behind him, you need to go a much longer way

-read part 2 of the guide to see out that it is completly feasible to get a satisfactory range estimate in another 15 min (max). This way, you can decide whether going in submerged or surfaced or if you should reload steam or electric torpedoes for the upcoming dawn/sunset...

-on the contrary! keeping a constant bearing on the target lets you feel its pulse! You notice when he changes course, for example!

Ok, that is true. Any change in course would not be noticeable during the time it takes to take the bearings and move. And probably leaves you with the wrong solution as to his course and speed.

So I guess each method has it's pro's and cons. In the end it depends on which you can live with. And neither is garuanteed to work for sure.

But I'd love to re-read your document. But it isn't on filefront anymore. The link is dead.

Yes, as you say, each method has its advantages:DL, btw, I have updated the link:

http://www.filefront.com/14758805/Pa...revisited.pdf/

Damn, looks like I am going to have to take another page of notes, makes three now. All these smart people keep making these fancy vidios about how best to use all these toys and I think, "OOOOO I got to try that one out."

Befor I saw that I didn't think the hydrophone was much good to me, just a good tool for making a pre-scope check if there are any baddies about. Now I might actualy have to kill some thing with it. I also didn't know you could shoot from that deep, what is the maximum depth for shooting anyway?

Here is a great tool that use quite often! The developer has his own thread here on SubSim.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/down...do=file&id=648

Excellent tutorial mate, I am looking forward to try it out in practice. I have a question tough.

When you start drawing the first 3 bearing lines, what is the minimum difference in bearing between first two observations in order to start drawing the lines? To clear things out, your second observation after 5 minutes showed less than 10 degrees difference in bearing, so you waited another five, and then another five. So I guess it has to be at least 10 degrees difference between first two observations? Am I right?

I've worked with nefelodamon's method for some time now (thx again for the tutorial!).

still have problems with the drawing when the target's bearings change only slightly and the target is moving away. most of the time I then surface and try to get into a better (and nearer) position and start again with the readings.
I also do prefer a difference of more than 8° in the various readings, because it's easier to draw the lines and circles on the nav-map. if the target is closing to your position there's no problem to expand time for the different readings, imo.

Thank you for your reply!

hydrophone tracking
 

I usually wait a little longer to take the 3rd BL. Though I try my best to follow the guidelines on doing it this way, I usually wait until I have 7-9° interval between 1 and 2 BL's and 10° or more for the 3rd BL. That way seems to work pretty well. My guess is that I am 65% to 75% accurate on interception using Nefelodamon's tracking method. If the circle radius goes beyond the 3rd BL I have to wait longer to place the 3rd BL a little further along the circumference of the 20km circle. The only problematic situation is if the target is too close at the end of all the calculations once I have located my target along the 4th BL. It would seem that if your target is coming toward you at an angle at less than 10km from your position, your reaction time for proper set up and A0B is somewhat harried. Missed a few targets because of that. Especially if they're going 9kots or better.

Anyway...I really enjoy tracking this way now that I am using the Attack disk/speed calculator in the MaGui mod.

but the time-intervals taken for the four bearing-lines have to be the same, otherwise this method won't work, I suppose .....