Ditto the ditto-ing. Greyrider, you must have the uncanny ability to be in the right place at the right time to find them like this. The only way I can think of that makes this happen is if you are on a chokepoint or moving along a frequently traveled enemy route. That's the way to get targets with near-bow AOB to you. Any by the looks of your position on the map that seems to be the case this time. I don't know which campaign mod you used but it seems likely. Coming out of the Celebes Sea in between the islands, going straight for the port on a course around 130 degrees. (at the time of detection you were on course 325-ish, the relative bearing-to-target being 330, so true bearing to target is 295-ish, The AOB eventually appears to be 10-20 ish port, suggesting course 130-ish)

Risky port/starboard AOB assesment

However you got lucky determining the direction of bearing drift. Your bow was pointed at the opposite side of the bearing compared to the direction of the AOB of the target. This is known as a lag-line-of-sight (sound), meaning you moved to a lagging position behind the target. This wasn't a problem if you were stationary, but you moved at 1/3rd or between 1 and 2 kts. Your lag angle of 30 degree means you effectively helped the target to drift the bearing to the left by adding 1 knot or so across the line of sight/sound. Instead you should have turned directly towards the target and put it on bearing 0, or come to a complete stop, before you determine if the bearing is moving either left or right. This way only the target is responsible for the bearing drift. Your lead or lag is eliminated.

How constant is constant bearing?
Ok, you start turning the target and put it on bearing 80. No problem here. Following, you take 1 and a halve minute to determine that the target bearing is stationary while you are moving 1.8 knots and leading with 80. Because the bearing report doesn't change during it you consider it constant. Too short!!!! Time for some numbers.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the target was approaching head-on to us. We are dead ahead of him. Our speed of 1.8 knots (at 80 degree lead, but might as wel be perpendicular) is then the single cause that could make the bearing drift. (I admit it would turn to the right, instead of to the left) But how quickly? This is dependent on range. I am not sure if your contacts.cfg file is different from stock SH4 but in mine a long contact is between 3km and 20 km, or 1.62nm and 10.8nm. At these ranges 1 degree of drift is 0.0283nm and 0.1885nm wide. The speed of 1.8 kts means 0.03 nm per minute. So it takes us between 1 minute (0.0283/0.03=0.94 for minimum long-range targets) and 6.28 minutes (0.1885/0.03=6.28 for max long-range targets) to notice 1 degree of drift. And the hydrophone doesn't get much sharper than that. So you couldn't have reasonably noticed the drift of a far-away target in 1 minute that happens to come headon to you.

Infact you notice this yourself during the later parts of the video. Although, from the opposite perspective. It takes ages for the target to catch up that approximate 1 degree bearing back to 80 degrees visually, while you are stationary.

If the target did indeed have an AOB near 10 degrees port and speed 12 knots, then the speed components across the line of sight/sound would be on par. And the slight difference would increase those minutes to show 1 degree drift immensely. More like taking hours than minutes. 12kts*sin(10)=2.08kts; difference with 1.8 kts= 0.28 kts, and that is 0.0047nm per minute. You do the math how long it takes to notice 1 degree of drift at the minimum and maximum long-range edges. Had it started out beyond long range it would take even longer to show. (I'll spill the answer: 6 minutes and 40 minutes respectively)

If the target was moving 12 knots and did infact have a considerably bigger AOB, contrary to your beliefs and in-line with the expectations of many poster in this thread, then it's considerable speed across the line of sight/sound would force the bearing to drift much stronger to the left. You would soon notice that the target drifts ahead of you, and you are not able to keep up at 1.8 kts. But this never happend in your situation. So let's ignore this possibility conveniently. :down:

Gee, this bearing isn't so constant at all!!!

First appears constant, then begins to move. Funny how that happens! So does the minute-hand on my watch!

Not caused by bad AOB, or too much submarine speed, but submarine moved directly infront of the target. Huh? The first 2 are po-tey-toes, the last one is a po-ta-tow.

If it is still not clear that that 10.3 knot figure is meaningless then I don't know what else to say. You're NOT capable of judging speed this way if the numbers clearly do not hold. Unless you like to fool yourself.

Missed oportunity to determine your average speed

Granted, this wasn't part of your method but suggested by me in my first response. So I'll just take this as an opportunity to explain my reasoning.

The kind of real-life 'distance moved' dial or speed-log I was talking about is actually looking right at you in the face on that big 3d speed dial. Huge numbers showing nautical miles moved since some past datum. Unfortunately it doesn't work. This image is static. So use the ruler on the map as an alternative solution from the location where you started the steady bearing check. Or the end of the turn to get the target on 80 degrees initially.

You noticed that you drifted ahead of the target. And decide to wait while stationary until the target catches up with the 80 degree bearing. Which is about a degree away. Since the initial hydrophone bearing is crude to begin with, 1 degree wide, this is a bad kind of reference line to measure a distance of 1 degree from. Ideally for the sake of accuracy I would wanted to have drifted atleast 10 degrees ahead. Hence my earlier advice to move at higher speed than 2 knots.

Once the target caught up with the (80 degree) bearing line then you'd know with more confidence how much the line of sight/sound moved sideways during that time (on average), or the speed across the line of sight/sound that you both had in common. Hence the need to keep track of time, and the distance since you started the straight path. Since all points on the steady line of sight/sound during an intercept course move in the same direction (perpendicularly) at the same speed, including you and the target.

However, your course of action seemed to have been guessing the speed needed, and wait for it to catch up again. Atleast, I can't think of what made you choose one over the other numbers in that table. I see no method in this. It's trial an error. According to my method you could have known an empirical measure of the required speed after the first catchup with the bearing line. And could refine it as soon as you notice more residual drift. All the way until the target reached minimal firing distance. If you care to wait that long.

However, I would not have come to a halt and let the target pass infront of me to fire as you did. I would have to live with a sizable amount of gyro angle. Since I cannot determine the actual target speed, or it's course, without other means, I can't be sure which is the right bearing that makes an AOB of 90 degrees. It could be done visually, but neither did you make use of it's appearance. Instead I assume the target to remain on a constant bearing course with me (and rightly so, since it has been proven overtime), and imagine him as having a course perpendicular to the still steady bearing. His speed is what my speed is, provided the constant bearing is on our beam. If not, then multiply your speed by the sine of your leadangle.

I want the torpedo to collide with it, not me. So I set the periscope to the steady bearing. Set the AOB to 90 degrees at that bearing. Port or starboard ought to be evident now. Enter a 'best guess' or 'ball park' range in hope the gyroangle is corrected appropriately. Open the torpedo doors, and let it fly.

Why does it work? All the torpedo needed to know was how much that steady bearing line shifted sideways. We established that by our own movement. The TDC calculates a lead angle that keeps this speed component across the line of sight/sound the same, and puts every knot left over to close the distance, so along the line of sight/sound.

Similarly if you determined the speed well enough, but the target doesn't wan't to come close to you fast enough, you can take matters into your own hands. Like when it's having an actual AOB near 90 degrees (meaning it hardly closes distance at all), or is just very slow. Then you can increase speed and adjust your own lead angle according to keep the speed across the line of sight the same. new_leadangle=arcsin(speed_across/speed_submarine). Now you bring more of your own effort in closing the gap quickly. Your course is now different so the steady bearing is now not anymore along the same relative bearing. Instead you have to remember along which true bearing it was. And consider the drift along that. I know, this makes it trickier. But it is just a suggestion if you are impatient for a kill.

I'll end here now. It's getting way past bedtime. And actually I'm brainflushed right now. Looks like a huge extensive reply. I'm sorry if this is a too surgical dissection of your movie. Showing the flaws in it are meant to improve understanding, not bashing. And I passed for my driverslicense today, so I kinda feel on top of the world today.

:yeah:

How does your understanding of Japanese characters hold these days. Any idea on what they mean?

I have no japanese, lol. Cept enough to say thatnk you to the itamae.

Those are japanese zig-zag patterns.

The number in the circle is the leg (serial from the start). The angle numbers are obvious. The 1st (really the last, the Japanese read from right to left) labeled P and U (the pattern has different letters for port vs starboard patterns) has a 20° turn to port, then moves 5 minutes before turning 30° farther to port. Steams another 5 minutes (minute count is now shown as the "10"), then turns 40° starboard, then goes 5 more minutes (total now 15 minutes).

So it shows a 1 hour pattern with 12 legs of 5 minutes.

It's amazing to me that the SH series doesn't have zig-zagging. No, what they do when they detect you is NOT zig-zagging.

Pisces,
really good post there (and to be read more than once)!
This thread turned out to be really interesting after all :yep:.

Attaining and establishig collision courses to estimate or reafirm target speed and course via passive sensors can be a valid technique and maybe even the method of choice under certain conditions. But the 8010? ...

I often use the "keep him at bearing 90°" empirical approach to get an approximation on target course or just plain get perpendicular and in front of the target. And many a times have "lost" the target, thinking I was trying to bring the AoB to 0° while it was actually in the ~90° area. When trying to "keep them" at a constant bearing you compensate for both speed and course to stabilise the bearing, not only speed.


.

ok napoleon , what? are you freaking kidding me? dick okane? your funny ! you want credit from something that isnt yours soooooooooooooooo bad, its killing you isnt it?

i told you, i dont read your things, haver not and will not, your dick o kane, is a step child of p and s

the only good tactic you come up with is how to carry and stow a c-bag on board,
thats all i could trust you for.

uhmm greyrider,
can you forget RRobbins for a while and try to answer/comment at what other posters (besides RR) have said about 8010? Yes, people have been critical to what you propose, and have raised very specific questions. Please focus on that for a moment. It's the method we are questioning, not you!

This thread has brought up very interesting aspects of the game.

Hope it won't also bring up the lesser interesting aspect of us ... :hmmm:


,

God knows ive ignored alot on this tread, someone says something, i have ignored it, and continue to drive on, show more, im figuring the people here have some intelligence, and sooner or later they ll see it, but it seems im getting no where , so im about to abandon the post,
not the method, ill use it, i know its value.

I'm sorry you feel like that, but some of us asked very specific things (myself included). Did you read Pisces last post? The man obviously watched your vids and took the time to write a very detailed post. Doesn't he (and the rest of us for that matter) deserve some kind of answer on what he wrote?


,

ill try to help out, but think again for a minute about what you said about simpler ways. radar is simpler, but can you use radar when aircraft are present, lots of convoys had aircover, especially when passing japanese held islands, after moving away from that base, aircover for the convoy would be handed off to another enemy held base, thats what they mean when thaey say mutual supporting bases. this game is not even close when it comes to air cover, and the altantiic was covered by planes, so could you use radar in that imvironment? i wont! so now what do you have to acquire target information?

how could tarawa and saipan be mutual supporting? certainly not with rifles and genades, how could okinawa and iwo jima be mutually supporting? these bases were hundred of miles awawy from each other.

you can read accounts of lionfish on her first and second patrol, thats all they found was planes, when they had contact with aircraft, they went down and stayed down, trying to figure out what they could do, what tactic they could use in order to still be an effective combat unit.

in the meantime, while staying down, and trying to figure tactics out, they were ineffective as a combat unit, for the most part, they did get a japanese sub tho, and a schooner.

i dont want to be ineffective, my scopes can be blown away, my tdc could be damaged and useless, radar junk from damage, my active sonar can be junk, but i can still be an effective combat unit, killing, taking out ships, with or without aircraft present, as long as my hydrophones are working, when thier gone, then ill go home for repair.

what i do is try to maintain the submarines invisibility, for surprise and survival, not bad things to consider, considering the subs weaknesses.

as of now, i consider myself one up on everyone here, if im the only one using 8010, im not trying to throw my chest out, and think im better than anyone else, but i always keep an open mind in sub warfare, because theres always room to learn. one that refuses to learn have the same mindset as the idiots that commanded the sub force at the begining, or the people who refused to believe that the torpedoes were junk

reread every thing, watch the movie again, remember there are two kinds of closing targets, ones you can engage, ones you cant, the ones you cant get to will change bearing faster than the ones that you can engage, they will have a larger aob, and they will be at very long ranges, impossible to keep constant and track down.

concider birds of prey, do they get the prey evrytime they attack?

but, if you find you cant get to your target without getting on the surface, and moving to another position, thats good to, ill do that, if i really want the target, then when you go down after moving, just realign to 8010.



i mentioned i chased 2 convoys that were not engageable, but only because i wanted to get proof, so i went after anything that moved, i get the proof, like i did twice, then i can move on from proving something, and into other things.
as long as people are keeping me in proving mode, the longer i will have to stay in proving mode. it works!

ill keep working with you amistaed, of all the people who posted here, your mind is the only one opened, it might just be you and me

i have time today, im doing the best i can, hold on

That answers a lot (almost all) of the questions.

I didn't know who you were when I and others who have been named and with whom I am unreserved about sharing credit with originated Dick O'Kane and the others. Everyone knows that and I don't have anything to prove to you.

We have asked specific questions and received no answers because you HAVE no answers.

How do you measure the AoB of 10º? You don't. In none of your posts, in none of your too many videos have you EVER derived an AoB. Not once. And never have you provided an explanation of how you get that 10º AoB. You just miraculously snatch it out of the air every time and gesticulate wildly as if you were some kind of genius that none of us simpletons can understand. We understand what is happening.

How do you get the target speed? You don't because it's based on an AoB that you don't know. You only hit because you are so darned close to the target that an eyeball lead is all you need. I also watched your last movie, every last second of it and noticed that there was no 8010 there at all, just a visual approach with a 20 minute plus periscope exposure for stealth. Then you did a constant bearing attack with the speed calculated (OK, not even calculated) wrongly as evidenced by the fact that both torpedoes hit halfway toward the bow forward from where they were aimed. If I took the time to time the length of the torpedo run I could derive the exact error you had there. I'm not going to do that.

You continually brag about some point and shoot method, undefined, undescribed, unknown, unused by anyone. Never in all my years of Subsim membership have I read of any person using that technique or seen any third party reference to it. Yet somehow all the methods I teach are claimed to be based on it. The sound you hear is the community laughing at you. They know better.

Greyrider, braggin is not teaching. Techniques that are not taught properly benefit no one. Not one Subsim member can derive any benefit from a technique which cannot be executed according to instructions.

Fake instructions for a bogus technique should be harmless. But they are not. There are dozens of new players every day without the ability to evaluate chicanery, who rely on what they find at Subsim to learn how to play Silent Hunter. When they encounter snake oil and it does nothing to help them, there is a real danger that they will conclude the problem is their inability to understand the game. They have a high likelihood of quitting because they were tricked into trying a fraud. So like James the Amazing Randi I call fraud. You can't bend those spoons with your mind, you are just performing a vacuous, unentertaining, unresponsive to legitimate questions conniption fit of conspicuous foolishness.

I invite anyone with doubts to research my work here at Subsim. Tour the Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks thread. See that I do not claim origination of every technique in the known universe, that I continually and consistently share credit with those who are worthy of the credit, mentioning them without prompting every time I have the opportunity, not just if someone specifically asks. Notice that you do not share credit because you have contributed nothing to the family of constant bearing techniques in that thread which dominate Silent Hunter 3 and 4. Notice that I always, for several years, have asked others to contribute their methods and emphasized that no one method is the best in every circumstance. Notice that when someone points out something I have wrong or have not explained clearly that I immediately thank them fix the problem and credit them from then on for improving people's understanding of how to shoot a torpedo in the Silent Hunter games.

Based on four years of easily verified records, your claims expose themselves as insanity. Someone who knows the truth says it. Someone who does not know the truth hides that fact by doing the exact same things you are doing here. How many times have you sidestepped a laundry list of legitimate questions? What reasonable conclusion will EVERYONE make from that misdirection? When a magician does it, it is entertaining because the audience is in on the joke. Here it is just pathetic.

interesting tater, that you brought up ziz zag.

now since you brought it up, we would like to know what your take on this is, i would definitely like to know your take on this.

i have the answer, but i want to hear yours, because as far as i can see, you tried to put a torpedo midship into 8010 with your post.

spot light on you now, when you answer, then i will answer.

also, i posted a long time ago, with pictures, a zig zagging warship convoy, where i took out a cv, again by point and shoot, 8010 wasnt known to me at the time. so my post history will answer, the statement you posted. but i still have the answer, and ill be waiting for you to post your take.

Well, you admit you do have to get into the correct position before using your method.

Still, sounds like you're doing things backwards, using the harder tactics first. Sure, if my radar is out, visuals not possible, periscope destroyed, I would use only passive sonar, but those are the better tools. All of these I would be using to get into position if I were to use 8010, but then why quit using the better tools after you get into position. I would say 90% of my targets are not coming directly at me enough to just dive at the bearings you require, so why quit using the better tools that got you to the spot.

Do you actually use this only method? That's fine, but why limit yourself to such a low percentage of targets.

Also, if so much of my equipment is damaged that passive sonar is all I have left, usually the sub is damaged enough that I'm heading home.

Planes never stopped WW2 skippers from running on the surface to get into position if they could. Dive as needed, then surface. No doubt planes can be a problem, but why they're more in the game than real war, they are rather predictable and easy to deal with. However, later war in Formosa planes can be many and deadly, most convoys have several and they can drop deep charges. So I may attack using sonar.

I have chased large TF going 19 kts away zigging for over 1000nm's to get into position to shoot, slowly gaining. To me that's the fun of the game. I'm not gonna let anything go by that I can attack.

The other issue, more with mods like TMO, unless you have perfect hunting, high winds, fog, ect...you'll be dang lucky to pull off an attack before getting found. Many times you're caught before you want to shoot and all factors change and a new setup is required.

Again, this is a game. The best methods in the end will be those that players can use to be successful shooters, simple, quick and accurate.
We all want as many methods of shooting possible for every situation.
Are you there yet....I don't think so as Pisces points out. Still, you've opened up some possible ideas, so I hope this doesn't turn into just a war of words.

You gave some helpful tips I never thought of about sonar and convoys that I've combined more with other tactics. I'll explain later.

laughing laughing laughing:D,

you didnt know me? you became a member in mar 2007, i became a member in april 2005, and the first thing i posted back then was the sound trainer, with harms way, and capt nautilas, in 2005, 2 years before you came on scene. as far as knowing someone, i think its the other way around, i didnt know you

point and shoot was out before you even became a member, that will be in sh3 forums

i have also been a member of wolfpack league, which is a part of subsim.com, 3 or four months before sh2 was released, ive been around a long time.

you should check dates, before posting, these expose you, its not a brag rr, its finally being fed up with an imposter

another point, p and s works with both german subs, and american subs, i believe your dick okane bs, works only with us subs

My take on what?

My point was that in RL, ships would not obligingly move at a constant rate of speed and direction for that long.

As an aside, making this some sort of personal thing doesn't really make me want to bother with this thread, frankly. Who posted what, when doesn't concern me in the least. I certainly know next to nothing about what happened on SH3 forums (except a few forays to ask questions regarding technical matters for modding).

Most people here will head straight for a target, to determine which direction the target is going, then put themselves onto a normal approach course, in order to give them the best chance of catching the target, then start working on the plotting. When that's done you can adjust your course to suit to put you on an optimum approach course.

This attack method is well known and makes sense.

What you've done is taken a very good way of attacking a ship, renamed it, crippled it by diving and reducing speed to one third your maximum whilst trying to maintain a collision course, made erroneous claims that this method can be used to calculate speed and AoB (of ten degrees), then explained the whole thing quite badly.

As far as I am aware, the Dick O'Kane is the same basic technique as the fast 90, just modified slightly to accommodate the difference between the German and American targeting systems.
Therefore the technique itself is valid regardless of what type of boat you are in.

And reducing the argument to name calling and accusations convinces no-one of the validity of the 8010.

If you could please answer some of the questions asked of the 8010, rather than get into a willy waving contest about who has been the longest member? (eh, nudge nudge wink wink :03:)

To Nisgeis' reply I would add that you are depleting precious battery charge, endangering your boat and crew unnecessarily. Bad technique. Inadequate explanation. No help for even a single Subsim member. This stuff is madness personified.

If you want to know how to maneuver into attack position, forget 8010. Just read the Submarine Torpedo Fire Control Manual and follow the seventy year-old instructions. The authors had no idea who greyrider or I are but they copied point and shoot and were third rate plagiarists.:D:D:D

By the way, the true father of all constant bearing attack procedures was Wazoo, not greyrider, who garnered no references, posts of gratitude or continuation of any work he ever performed. In 2005, Wazoo laid out a brilliantly explained, completely falsifiable set of instructions on how to execute a constant bearing attack from a U-Boat in his Wazoo's Manual Charting & Targeting Tutorial [v 2.3]. It has never been improved for U-Boats. However the differing equipment in American submarines meant that methods had to be adapted to their unique capabilities and limitations, just as Wazoo's methods were distinct to U-Boat TDC and periscope equipment. The underlying concepts were equally applicable to any submarine and greyrider is being facetious when he claims that they do not. He is distracting you with one hand while he performs mischief with the other. Then he claims preposterously that he has proved that Dick O'Kane, John P Cromwell and vector analysis, containing all the work of aaronblood, gutted, WernerSobe, Nisgeis, tater, Rocks n Shoals, Wazoo, Tale, Ducimus, The US Navy, the Kriegsmarine (edit: darn! I forgot hitman! there may be others to be inserted later) but not greyrider are inferior, bad copies of a technique nobody uses and nobody has even heard of.

If point and shoot is anything, and there is no evidence that it is used by a single person other than greyrider himself, it is nothing but a poorly executed analog of Wazoo's great work. If you can slug through Wazoo's finely detailed explanation and procedure, you can do the equivalent of the Dick O'Kane attack and the vector analysis attack in a U-Boat. You don't need point and shoot or 8010. They are irrelevant. If they really work they are so poorly explained that they cannot be executed by anyone but greyrider. That is why there are no posts quoting his work or thanking him for saving their investment in a Silent Hunter game.

By the way, if there were any there there, I would be the first to jump in, properly explain the procedure and make sure that everyone could understand how to use it themselves. And I'd do it using greyrider's name front and center to make sure he got all the credit. Unfortunately, there is nothing to explain. All he has is a rudimentary technique for establishing a collision course by passive sonar. Over the weekend I made a video to explain it and discarded it as a waste of time. It's not worth putting up with the inevitable criticism that I was trying to steal greyrider's idea.

Greyrider's done this hocus pocus song and dance before. Check this out. I THOUGHT this all seemed a bit familiar... Don't bother looking for his instructional videos. They don't exist. I'm still checking further back in his illustrious history to discover how I've done nothing but copy his original brilliance.

Well it seems greyrider is chasing his old chimera from February of 2009 when he also claimed to telepathically know the course of a distant target by passive sonar only. Notice how much rope I gave him at that time before he finally just flamed out, having run out of fuel. In fact, there is no way to establish the course or AoB of a target by passive sonar alone from long distance.

And here he is in 2007 claiming that if you put a target on an 80º bearing that automatically means he must (mind control?) cross your course at a 90º angle......yawn! Here's the post:
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...reenshot93.jpg

how do i get target speed and aob in 8010, heres how, before i made the test mission for 8010, i sat down with my calculator,
with the formula,
target speed = ss X sin la / sin aob
i had an idea, i have seen it hundreds of times in game , the angle on the targets bow, as it came over the horizon, while playing the game,
i could see how small it was, i set up a test mission using sh editor, it was almost the same as the test mission for 8010,
with my gta 5-2-12, department of the army coordinate scale and protractor, i measured the aob of the target in the map area of the editor,
r to sub with la of 80.
and i found it to be 10 degrees, this is not new, i wrote about it amost 2 years ago in tread, TARGET SPEED, SEARCHING FOR THE MAGIC BULLET.
once i found that out, i new that variable could be changed to a constant, if the proportions of the triangle could be kept constant.
it doesnt have to be held constant forever, the torpedo fire control manual would like it to be held constant for 2 or 3 minutes, and as far as the tfcm is concerned,
the average submarine speed that holds the target contant over 2 to 3 minutes is good enough, it states this clearly, and the pic i posted of its diagram here clearly shows that
so now, i began to plug in numbers for submarine speed to the formula, starting at 1/2 knot submarine speed, with 80 la, and 10 degree aob, the lead angle and aob numbers i would kept constant, the only thing that would change would be submarine speed,
which i increased by tenths, because i wanted to make a chart for target speeds, in an 8010 angular setup, of submarine speed to target speed.
then i would put that chart in the cic mod, and use it.
i filled in the chart to cover target speeds from 2 knots to 24 knots, that covers most target speeds in sh4.
now with a chart made, and a mission made, its time to test the theory, not from out of my hat, but from mearsurments, using the same protractor i used to land navigate, and call for and adjust indirect fire in the army.
the aob trainer is something i made from my experience in map reading and land navigation, and most things i talk about here have been grounded in military service, and what i have been taught by them.
by using the calculator and formula, i found that for every tenth of a knot of submarine speed, in 8010, produces a target speed that increases to a half knot, sometimes 6/10 of a knot.
so with a mission, a formula and an idea, 8010 was born.
i have proved it twice, i have explained this more than once, and if you cant understand it, if you cant believe the movies, these are your problems, not mine, im not responsible for anyones inability to learn,
if someone wants to learn and i can help them, ill go all out for that person, if someone is gonna spit at me, they better be able to run fast, i might turn the other cheek, but i can only do it for so long.
if someone wants to use the easy way, i say go for it, play the game the way you like, but dont tread on something you cant understand, it says more about you than it does about the method.
im like tired of defending 8010, it works, i proved it twice, no need to prove any more, but i probably will.
and for those that think that you cant get target speed from angular arrangments, then page 56 of the maneuvering board manual will blow you away,
because it states and shows how you can not only get target speed from bearings only, but course and position.