SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Pisces · 02-26-09, 09:33 AM

About the manual text:

I had some trouble following "the Action".

In the AOB image:

at the end of page 3 you have the red and green circles. I understand the calculations in the text, it makes sense. But that is what you want to do with the tool, right? Not do it on a piece of paper by hand. The position of the green mark makes no sense. I guess you've placed it near the wrong mark/curve. I understand that the 7-degree curve (red mark shown through the gap) ends up just under the 5 mark (4.9 degrees corrected fov ) on the linear scale because of the 45degree AOB correction. But then you want to divide by 2.75 degrees (observed FOV) by looking on that same linear scale at 2.75. But the green circle comes out at at curve mark of roughly 4 degrees. You don't mention that number in the true-range calculation, so it makes no sense to me. What does make sense to me is to locate the 2.75 degree CURVE (in the dark blue area, 1 quarter below the 3rd black curve) and see it line up 'neatly' to the 1.8 mark on the linear scale (below "fishboat (1.4)" and "fishboat(1.1)"). Hey, what was your calculated range? Was it 1.78nm?

Closest range:

What's up with the 2nm line you mention on p4? Just to show where 1.8 is roughly at? Ok, 1.3 on the linear range scale is roughly opposite the 1.8 (invisible guestimated) curve. Perhaps you should add some intermediate curve with dashed lines or something. It's a bit tricky to read off. Actually all curves could use a few extra (less conspicuous) intermediate curves.

True Time / Ship speed :

I'm afraid this makes the least sense. The calculation seems like alien-math. Time (7 seconds measured) divided by range (1.78nm) is another form of time (3.9 seconds). That 3.9 must be some abstract form of speed, it cannot be true seconds in a physical sense. That aside, I cannot find those 23.5 or 22 knots in the image anywhere near the 3.9 value or 7 seconds. The red circle is near the 4th curve, but then what? It's opposite 3.6-ish, which seems meaningless. I suspect there is something seriously wrong with your reasoning here.

[edit]If the curves are supposed to be increasing inwards I can roughly see the 1.8nm value (as an intermediate mark of the curve) is opposite to 22.5-ish knots (linear scale), but the image in the pdf is too much clipped in that area to be sure. Is that what is intended?

I don't mean to be negative or put your work down. But you asked for constructive critisism. And this is what I make of it. I like different ways to look at this manual targeting issue, so please press on with it.

02-26-09, 09:33 AM	#11
Pisces Silent Hunter Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: AN9771 Posts: 4,904 Downloads: 304 Uploads: 0	About the manual text: I had some trouble following "the Action". In the AOB image: at the end of page 3 you have the red and green circles. I understand the calculations in the text, it makes sense. But that is what you want to do with the tool, right? Not do it on a piece of paper by hand. The position of the green mark makes no sense. I guess you've placed it near the wrong mark/curve. I understand that the 7-degree curve (red mark shown through the gap) ends up just under the 5 mark (4.9 degrees corrected fov ) on the linear scale because of the 45degree AOB correction. But then you want to divide by 2.75 degrees (observed FOV) by looking on that same linear scale at 2.75. But the green circle comes out at at curve mark of roughly 4 degrees. You don't mention that number in the true-range calculation, so it makes no sense to me. What does make sense to me is to locate the 2.75 degree CURVE (in the dark blue area, 1 quarter below the 3rd black curve) and see it line up 'neatly' to the 1.8 mark on the linear scale (below "fishboat (1.4)" and "fishboat(1.1)"). Hey, what was your calculated range? Was it 1.78nm? Closest range: What's up with the 2nm line you mention on p4? Just to show where 1.8 is roughly at? Ok, 1.3 on the linear range scale is roughly opposite the 1.8 (invisible guestimated) curve. Perhaps you should add some intermediate curve with dashed lines or something. It's a bit tricky to read off. Actually all curves could use a few extra (less conspicuous) intermediate curves. True Time / Ship speed : I'm afraid this makes the least sense. The calculation seems like alien-math. Time (7 seconds measured) divided by range (1.78nm) is another form of time (3.9 seconds). That 3.9 must be some abstract form of speed, it cannot be true seconds in a physical sense. That aside, I cannot find those 23.5 or 22 knots in the image anywhere near the 3.9 value or 7 seconds. The red circle is near the 4th curve, but then what? It's opposite 3.6-ish, which seems meaningless. I suspect there is something seriously wrong with your reasoning here. [edit]If the curves are supposed to be increasing inwards I can roughly see the 1.8nm value (as an intermediate mark of the curve) is opposite to 22.5-ish knots (linear scale), but the image in the pdf is too much clipped in that area to be sure. Is that what is intended? I don't mean to be negative or put your work down. But you asked for constructive critisism. And this is what I make of it. I like different ways to look at this manual targeting issue, so please press on with it. Last edited by Pisces; 02-26-09 at 10:55 AM.