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.

again, i have to laugh, wazoo? i remember wazoo, i did look at his stuff, like maybe 2 or 3 paragraphs, when i realized that i had been there and done that, i read no more, i commented of how he arranged it tho, i called it a masterpiece, not for substance, but for stlye, only one thing really caught my eye with wazoo, and that was as i was paging his tutorial, and i came across something he called a fast 90, so i began to read that, but after about two sentences , i dropped it, read no more, it was something i would do in sh2, so to be honest, wazoo never entered into my equation, because again, its elementry BS, and i believe he also made his measurments with map contacts on, which means a ship icon moving on the map, very realistic, you dont see enemy icons on my map, i have played 100 percent, since day 1 of sh3,

to continue on with rr BS, there was nothing i could do with filefront, they erased all my videos, torpedo data sheets, everything,
awhile ago, filefront went threw management change or something, and they cleared out alot of stuff on thier computers, they erased my things without my knowledge, and thats why subsim now has a download section, because filefront, eff'ed everybody,

so people at subsim stepped in, made a download section, that we all download from now, '

also, why would i ever read such amaturist writings, when i can read the real deals, i was taught navigation using FM 21-26, and i adapted lots of things from this manual into the game, now you can see where i am verses you rr, you read wazoo, i read FM 21-26,

its right here, i own this, now you can own it to

http://www.enlisted.info/field-manua...vigation.shtml

anything else rr?

This would work if the lead angle were 80 degrees and the AoB was indeed ten degrees, but it won't be in most cases. There is nothing that says that the relationship is always 80-10, as the lead angle does not influence the AoB (e.g. 80-10 doesn't become 70-20 if you change your course). This is where your method breaks down and you fail to intercept due to the low own speeds involved.

If the target always had a very low AoB then the speed wouldn't matter as your distance to track is going to be minimal already, so you are already sitting pretty with him coming to you and you don't need great speed. With higher AoBs the distance to track is much greater, consequently the bearing rate change is much higher and you will be unable to intercept at that low speed, as there will be much more ground to make up. This is made worse by higher speeds needing smaller AoBs to cause a failure to intercept at low speed.

did i say that Nisgeis, that the relationship is always the same in 8010?

i said that if, and the key word if, it can be held constant, thats the proof

this is what i thought, but believe me, its not personal

As I said, you haven't been clear in what you have said and as others have said, you haven't answered many of the specific questions that people asked to clear up what you did mean, so it's hard to determine what it is you actually meant when you posted. You seem to have missed off a key proof.

That's not proof at all. It can be held constant at other AoBs as well. Constant bearing is no proof that the AoB is 10, therefore you cannot derive any target speed information from your own speed, as you still don't know the AoB is 10 degeres. The only thing you can determine is if you can hold the bearing constant, then at some point you will collide with the target and therefore achieve an interception at some point. You still won't know what the target's course or speed is however.

If you have proof that constant bearing always means the AoB is ten degrees when the lead angle is 80 degrees, then I'd be pleased to see it.

And just to cool things down a bit, let's have a drink, :DL

This an example (diagram) of the the kind of trial and error procedure I use when I'm not in the mood for more proper nav work. As I said in a previus post, plenty of room for error. Also has some relevance with the ongoing discussion as to how far (or not) you can go while trying to keep a target at a constant bearing at larger than 10° AoBs.Link

Kinda funny really, when you see it plotted like that ...:yep:

.

Hung by his own noose. Let the body rot where it hangs. This guy is not only a phony, he's a BAD phony.

nisgeis, your one of the reasons im back here, i i read about your mod, and i wanted to use it, and have it installed, you and the guy that made the FM sonar mod, you both have brought me back to the game, these are the things i want to work with, and you have done an outstanding job, but i have to clear away some unfinished hydrophone work, your bringing to the game things that were not here before, im really grateful to you for that, and why i refuse, and dont even miss sh5. i want all us sonars and radars on my boat, like in the time it was introduced, and working like the real thing, or as you have done, your conpensation. its a beautiful thing, im going to eat, ill be back to answer your post

The irony of the thing is that if you're on an actual 8010 situation the ideal shot would be to pull a "Dick O'Kane" ...

:doh:

.

You can't do that because it's only a badly executed forgery of point and shoot, whatever that is.:D