Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaKev
What you ranting on about, I use the four or even more bearing method.
The first thing you quoted, yes the 1st 3 must be the same, however the last can be anytime, As long as you do the maths, to where the ship intercepts, the bearing at the time you choose.
You stated that you could predict where the ship was using original one sonar contact, I was responding, yes to a degree, but not with accuracy using hydrophone only.
I'm going to leave this conversation now, as I really don't think you understand or really want to understand what is being said. Maybe I am not saying it best, but the last quote any other ramblings or something like that, pisses me off.
You have been on for a month (this forum), I have watched you shouting about inabilities of the game (yes we all agree, has its limitations).
You asked So don't jump down others throats when they express their opinions.
So my friend, get on with it by yourself and happy hunting.
|
First of all, kiltsman, I'm not shouting. I think you're daft, but I'm not shouting.
Second, I remind you that I said, "...if using the Gruppenhorchgeräte, which is the very equipment my fine boat is equipped with, the signal input was accompanied by a potentiometer calibrated in ohms and a 270 degree scale. Upon detecting the ship my fine sonar guy can simply adjust the parallel potentiometer until the signal disappears and then announce an approximate range to target based on the ohm measurement..." I'd like to follow that up with a simple question: Do you know the meaning of the word approximate?
Third, I remind you that I said that as soon as I got the hydrophone contact I merely turned towards the signal and proceeded at flank speed until I got another contact. Using those two contacts I calculate "the target's heading to within a few degrees." I never said it was spot-on accurate, nor did I say that it gave me perfect range.
Next I said, "Once I get the ship spotted notification, I ask the watchman for the range and write it down." Assuming that you think that I think that the range of the GHG is God's gift to the universe, why would I ask the watchman for the range?!
Later I said, "I measure the distance to target down the gyroangle line, not the torpedo line. I use either the ruler or the compass tool to do so." As you can see, I do not rely on the GHG for range. I calculate it on the map.
Finally, when Pisces challenged me on how my crew determined the range I replied, "...let's say, for the sake of argument, that you decided to nix all of that, and you refused to use the ranges provided by your hydrophone officer, too. You were determined to do things the unrealistically hard way. Fine. Use the four bearings method."
In conclusion: I recommended using map updates and a ruler to determine range to target. When I was informed that some people don't use map updates, I suggested using the four bearings method. At no time, in no post, and in no way did I ever suggest that GHG ranges were perfect, good, or even equal to other in-game options. What I recommended was the four bearings method.
Now if you think the four bearings method is bad, for some reason, I'll be glad to debate the virtues of said method with you. If, however, you merely continue to insist that the GHG is not as reliable as I never said it was, then we're just wasting each other's time and that of the other readers. Let's just agree to
dejar la fiesta en paz and get on with our lives.