Dumb Question
 

OK.. so lesson learned .. new gaming PC does NOT mean latest and greatest DirectX

Installed / updated DirectX - fixed all my problems

Thanks!!!!

I think I've noted a slight error on the KM attack disc that's been there since it was originally made.

Looking at the speed ring on the ahistorical reverse side the location of the long mark to indicate 3.2 knots appears to be inaccurately scrunched up only 2 marks from 3.1 knots. Looking back at old copies of the printable disk shows the same discrepency, and you can see it in the images for the original Angriffsscheibe Handbuch from 2008.

I assume its an error since it doesn't seem in proportion to the rest of the log scale. Is it worth anyone's time to fix this? I dunno. :P

I am hazarding a guess that this is an intended feature . It is in fact the 3.14 mark. And you could use this as the number pi in some calculations. It is replicated on both distance and speed scales.

That is interesting and makes sense. Two thoughts. One, I think it would make more sense to include such a feature as a specially coloured mark to make it easier to scan past it when not used (and find it when desired). Two, on the meters scale it appears that the mark is additional to the 3100 and 3200 marks while on the knots scale the 3.2 knot mark is not emphasized and is level with the other lower marks.

I think the omission of the higher 3.2 mark is unintentional since there is no omission on the meters scale.

The 3.2 nautical mile mark is slightly higher than the small digit ones on my physical printed attackdisk. I think it was drawn with a purpose.

When I look closely at the print version yes I see it, but that subtle indicator doesn't appear to be on the Solution Solver version of it.

I think the fact that it was overlooked when the wheel was redone demonstrates the less than ideal way that's been indicated.

Very Impressive, Thank you
 

Great stuff mate, works like a charm. My lines where not perfect but they showed up within 100 yards from 9.4nm starting distance. I used the sonar tracking PDF.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tNW...dgjd95_iT/view
Superb. Highly recommended. 10/10 Kindest regards Paul.:Kaleun_Salute:

Disagreement in Hydrophone tool
 

Newcomer here... I can't get the results in my 2.3.3 Hydrophone tool to match what's in the examples.

Example:

Attachment 3089

Mine:

Attachment 3090

What am I doing wrong here? I've looked at my entered values and clicked send in various orders. I can't see the difference.

PS How to get the inline image to show inline at full size? Looked in the bbcode info for 'attach' nothing there. Also clicking opens a new tab with the thumbnail and when yu close that you see the full size overlay over the original image??? Sorry guys, like I said I am a newcomer.

There is nothing wrong with your result. The example is somehow in error. Maybe made before a bug was fixed.

The example shows an approaching target. But like your results, it is infact a receding target. Bearing differences of 7 between B1 and B2, and total bearing difference B3-B1 of 13 indicate an AOB of 117 at B1 and 130 at B3. Bearings are contracting, meaning it is going to the horizon. Your earned your dolphins. :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

When I click on the thumbnails it opens as a new tab in my browser showing the thumbnail again. When I close it, the original tab shows your images in a larger, properly readable preview screen. (in Chrome)

On the Hydrophone tool, thank you. I thought my result made sense. Reducing bearing change means receding target.

On the posting of images, I will move that discussion to Comments to SUBSIM Review which is the closest area to forum help topics I can find.

Newcomer here: Hydrophone plotter - I understand the mapping of the initial three bearings into the course of the target. How do I get the Range on Bearing 4? Let's say I have it set for 10 min intervals. Do I

1. Plot board - plot my own position with the predicted bearing 4
2. Move out briskly and change position for say 8 minutes
3. Stop
4. Take a new bearing and plot that to cross the predicted bearing 4, giving my range?
5. Measure the distance to the crossing along bearing 4 (not the one I just took).

Is that the meaning of "Range on Bearing 4"?

Yes, take 3 bearings from stationary position. Determine target course. Predict the 4th from stationary position. Move away from stationary position. (Often parallel course gets a nice crossing.) Take real 4th bearing from new vantage point and locate target at cross-bearing. All time intervals between bearings should be equal. So no 10,10,8. Then measure distance moved through bearings and triangulated position. Calculate speed based on interval.

(There are other 4 bearing methods that work in a different way and can be done moving all the time. See some PDFs in my lowest signature link. They have to be drawn manually on the map, Gutted's program doesn't work like that.)

@Pisces thank you for the info. I played with it in Tutorial mode last night and my results are mixed. I'm taking optical observations with the periscope for the bearings to make sure my bearing errors are minimal, yet out of 4 scenarios I got one perfect target course and speed, and three for which the course was way off. I need to figure out where the problem is (me being most likely, but taking those bearings is drop dead easy and I triple check them).

I saved the numbers and will plot them on the board today. I'll also look at your tools. I really need to be able to plot the convoy course and speed while under way. I hate the thought of guessing the AOB "by eye" and having the target course solves that problem the right way (I know they can zig so maybe I'm dreaming). It (under-way plotting) can be done on the plot table, but it's work-intensive and error prone, especially while playing solo. I'm not even ready to join a crew and get us sunk or cause misses ha ha.

I got the Four_bearings_method_revised_v2, Neuro.pdf. Thanks very very much. I have more to learn :-)

:Kaleun_Salute:

Be aware that these 3-4 bearing methods are time intensive. They work as long as you don't get spotted. And who knows, later in development convoys might change course when you don't expect it. Invalidating the work done. It's better to have something crude than have nothing at all. But without visual contact these bearing-methods are all you have.

Visual perception of AOB is recommended. I hated it myself in the beginning being a sucker for precision. But over the years learned to embrace it. Because it is the quickest and (with certain error) the most sure way to know what it actually is. Hazard to take a guess when looking at it, it costs nothing. And when you match it with information gathered later on you'll get beter at it. Specific angles can be quite accurate to perceive if you look at the details. (0, 90, 180) Start with a crude perception of AOB, then use that to move to a better position to ascertain those precise ones. All the while checking if all your estimations/measurements still hold up to the current state of affairs. (To stay with the Easter mindset :) ) Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

For another visual 'bearing' method you might want to consider the following thread in the SH3 section. It is based on historical logs and actual German doctrine: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...d.php?t=222377