Compound Collision Course Method

[Diopos]

Well it seems that autumn came early this year and it's raining "methods"
Here is another one!
Based on the "compound" collision course concept already mentioned here but extended so as to be easily implemented (graphically) in SH4.

The text describing the method is here.
Have a look at it and post a comment.
Considered W.I.P.

And BTW I don't claim that the method is original or novel in any way (I would REALLY be suprised if it was).

.

[Pisces]

This method certainly must work, in theory anyway. You have two situations (equations), with 2 unknowns in common. The more I look at diagram 3, the more I am reminded about the formula derivation of the 3-bearing method. It looks very similar, though is from a completely different setup. (see my 1st message in Nisgeis equal-bearing interval thread) Maybe the style of that derivation can help further with yours.

Whether you have enough time to establish 2 collision courses before the actual merge in praxis is something I am not sure of. Also, if you lag too much behind for stage 2, then your topspeed may not be adequate enough to keep up with the constant bearing required speed.

Damn, too many methods, not enough braincells that are fit to divide them over.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Pisces

...
Whether you have enough time to establish 2 collision courses before the actual merge in praxis is something I am not sure of. Also, if you lag too much behind for stage 2, then your topspeed may not be adequate enough to keep up with the constant bearing required speed.
....

Well, the in-game use remains to be seen. Since we are "blessed" with full sonar on the surface, you can contemplate using it even in "over the horizon situations" as part of your "shadowing" process. Another probable use is verifying the course and speed you have already estimated without the need to pop up the scope a mile from the flanking escort.

Handling the "lag phase" may well turn out to be the "make it or break it" part of the procedure...

Originally Posted by Pisces

...
Damn, too many methods, not enough braincells that are fit to divide them over.

Bahhh, you only need one! But a real fast one!!

.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Bahhh, you only need one! But a real fast one!!

It's the Navy, after that last liberty, it's TWO brain cells—but they're held together by a spirochete.

[JoeCorrado]

Doesn't it take FOUR brain cells to perform any type of trig function?

Is it cheating to use a 21st century calculator to do the math and just pretend like you have a math wiz doing the calculations for you, or is long hand absolutely required for the sake of realism?

K.I.S.S.

[razark]

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

Is it cheating to use a 21st century calculator to do the math and just pretend like you have a math wiz doing the calculations for you, or is long hand absolutely required for the sake of realism?

There's always an option between 21st century calculator and long hand. It's even an authentic method.

http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/s...lide-rule.html

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

Doesn't it take FOUR brain cells to perform any type of trig function?

Is it cheating to use a 21st century calculator to do the math and just pretend like you have a math wiz doing the calculations for you, or is long hand absolutely required for the sake of realism?

K.I.S.S.

It's a personal choice. But since it is usually much easier to just spin a wheel making numbers align, than it is to punching numbers (and risk starting over if you punch in the wrong one) on a calculator, I try to find a more authentic way. But yeah, when testing methods out I too use a calculator to make sure the intermediate steps are dead-accurate.

Solving something graphically is perfectly acceptable. But the drawing tools can induce major inaccuracy in certain situations. Like in this case, two relative bearings that are close together. The point where they cross could be a very slender 'X'. This would lead to a wildly changing intercept angle (W).

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

Doesn't it take FOUR brain cells to perform any type of trig function?

Is it cheating to use a 21st century calculator to do the math and just pretend like you have a math wiz doing the calculations for you, or is long hand absolutely required for the sake of realism?

K.I.S.S.

I would really like to hear how you'd solve the "problem" as stated and solved in CCCM with a 21st century calculator. No irony intended, I am really interested.


.