Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_c2911
I start from the top of the notepad and work down. Id is first, then range, then AOB. Without that data speed is hard to determine using the in game controls without using 3:15 method. I noticed that the gyro angle didnt change when clicking the tick once after timing the target and gaining speed data. I realised that I was just accepting the speed and not the solution. I clicked the tick again and the gyro angle was altered. This is a bit controversial but I consider the 3:15 method cheating but then Im being hypocritical as I play with map contacts on too, which is also cheating a bit. I can plot perfect intercepts exactly 90' to the targets track. At the end of the day its whatever you feel comfortable with and you enjoy. Theres no fun in sitting there for ages searching for contacts and finally missing it all together. The important thing is that the built in method for gathering speed data doesnt work unless you are practically stationary where the 3:15 method still works at flank speed. I can understand why its so popular but I have missed everytime I tried it.
|
I have no idea why you, or anyone else, would think that the 3:14.4 method is cheating. I also don't understand why people say it's 3:15. Doesn't 3:14.4 round down to 3:14? Not that it really matters.
You should easily be able to use the three-bearing method to get the target's exact course, and if you get a fourth bearing, you'll know his exact range, too. From there it's simple to plot his speed by measuring two points 6:29 apart. Multiply the distance in kilometers by 5 to get the speed. For example, if the ship has covered 1.4 km then you'll know his speed is 7 knots.
Personally I have found the two-bearing method to be good enough. Even from a hydrophone, the two-bearing method gives a course and range that's close enough for government work. Range, generally speaking, has a negligible effect on torpedo solutions. It's only important for setting the spread angle on salvos.