That doesn't fly at all. First of all it's a constant error and it would look just like the days when they used to fudge GPS coordinates. It was no problem. Just work from a known position, get the GPS coords for that day and there's your correction factor. All measurements after that were as accurate as the equipment could furnish.
Also consider that for a sub with radar, the position found was within 30 yards of reality whether it was 100' away or 20 miles away. That is much more accurate than your fudger, so the idea dies right there.
For a sub with radar equipped, plotted positions reflect the information available at the time. For visual observation, no constant error is going to cut the cheese.
To replicate the real situation we would have to come up with an error envelope for each method. Radar, for instance would have a linear error envelope of +-15 yards. Visual might have an error envelope of +-20%. Sonar, +-5%, go on down the line.
The way a game machine should plot the position would be to pick a random number within the error envelope using whatever calculations are necessary, and then plot the computed position. Note that with visual observations (this is the most easily understood but would apply to all measurement methods) the bearing measured would have a very tight error envelope because it would be very accurate, while the range measurement might be +-30%.
Given a bearing error range of +-.5º and a range error envelope of +-15%, you would take a stadimeter reading. The game would pick a random number between +.5º and -5º and add the result to the measured bearing. Then it would take pick a random percentage between 15% and -15%, add that to 100% then multiply by the measured range.
The calculated range and bearing would be plotted.
Short of such a procedure any corrective measures we apply introduce more problems than solutions.
|