[Pisces]

Originally Posted by Maky

I see what your getting at.
What I guess I'm failing to get at then is, would it be possible to mod the ruler to display 50m AND 100m AND 150m AND 200m AND 250m.
It may not matter to accuracy but I would prefer it this way.

Ok, so you actually mean those circles on the line (at 0.3 km, or 0.5, 0.8, 1.0 if it is longer). Those are meant to give a sense of length, not the actual length. But if the line is longer then the 0.3 and 0.8 won't show, but in regular steps of 0.5 or 1km. Sorry, afaik (as far as IS known) those routines are hardcoded. Nobody so far has been able to mod the way those lines (or the other tools) are printed on the map. Except maybe for finding their color in some datafile. But I'm not sure of that.

If the Watch officer for instance says range 1100m bearing 40, do you measure to 1.1km or 1.2km? if the actual range is 1190m it would be 1.2km because it is within "not more that 50m either side" like you say.
Or do you go with 1.1km where your now out by 90m.
Initially you don't know its 1190m so you have to guess.
This is just an example. I don't use the watch officer.

I would plot 1100m as a line of 1.1 length. To be totaly honest, I don't know for sure if the watchofficer rounds of his 'measured' range, or if he just truncates the lower digits to steps of 100m. But I do not plot at those short ranges, perhaps only in dire situations as dense fog. I would have plotted his course well before that at distances between 8 to 16km(GWX modification) while I am trying to overtake him on the surface at the edge of visibility. No need to get so close to plot it's path.

***update***
you did your last post as I was writing mine. I do get what your saying.
But what about when you trying to pin the enemy merchant on the NAV map at a fair distance to figure out its course?
If you get its range wrong on two observations won't you get its course wrong?

This is where time averaging comes into play. If the time between the plots is quite short then plotting inaccuracy (both bearing and range) and can lead to significant errors in course. The target has hardly moved forward, but seems to have stepped to the side a bit. Or the plotting error might even have placed it behind a past plot if it was large enough (like through manual periscope stadimeter). But if you wait longer before the 2nd plot is made, then the course error fades away with time. (Same position error, further away leads to a slender angle)

However, if you wait too long (extremely long actually) then there is the chance of a course change by the target. So the suggestion of averaging over multiple 3m15s periods is better in this case. You get to see more often where the target is. Sometimes you might get a plot that is way out of the rest. That could be mistake somewhere in the process. Blame it on Bernard sharpening your pencil causing it to break. Or it could be the first sign of a course change. So, be patient and await the next to see if it also falls out of place. If it doesn't repeat then you ignore the odd one and just fit a line through the rest as neatly as you can. When you know the target course (and speed) and where it is on the map in relation to you then you can set course to overtake and get to the attack location.

Anyhow, have you got any links to reading for showing me how 50m discrepancy don't matter in calculating a firing solution at a rage of 8km.
I'm not calling you a liar or picking trouble I would just greatly like to read more on this as I have a interest in it and you seem pretty knowledgeable on it.

No links. Just paying attention in math-class. I allways try to draw things out on paper. Making an imaginary target and see how his position changes (straigt line, constant speed, fixed time intervals) result in lines of bearing and range. Or in reverse: just taking 2 range/bearing values out of the blue and see what course and speed results from this. But I'll try to make another example drawing with the in-game map showing this tomorrow.