[WIP] aob tool-coming soon

Cool! Will there be a version for GWX ?

[Sharkley]

Originally Posted by Contact

Cool! Will there be a version for GWX ?

Good point, GWX 3.0 version will be a must.

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Contact

Cool! Will there be a version for GWX ?

the version for olc's gui will run with gwx,nygm,wac3....

[java`s revenge]

I am confused now.

I am using the olc gui. Thought that that is the realistic manner to
calculate aob. But now i see this tool....

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by java`s revenge

I am confused now.

I am using the olc gui. Thought that that is the realistic manner to
calculate aob. But now i see this tool....

True, the OLC Gui/U-jagd AOB finder is way more historical accurate since it is based on the actual optics used back then. I claim no historical accuracy AT ALL. I have no evidence it was used anywhere. (I do know it was used with Silent Hunter 1 ) I just consider it plausible that it was known at the time. The formula isn't rocketscience, but on the level of highschool math. Perhaps it is more likely used during the Cold War, with it's bigger emphasis on passive sonar use and technology allowing better bearing resolution. But personally it isn't a concern to me. I like it because it's a nifty slideruler thingy, and I know of no other reliable passive bearing-only solution. (it is possible to draw it out graphically, in 2 ways, but accuracy is dificult to attain.)

Other than that, the OLC Gui/Ujagd AOB finder works totally different anyway. There is no comparison really. OLC Gui/Ujagd-aob finder uses optical sizes to calculate range and AOB. Where this tool uses 3 passive bearings only in a strict interval (from whatever source), and only to determine AOB/'direction of relative motion'.

[Hitman]

The formula isn't rocketscience, but on the level of highschool math. Perhaps it is more likely used during the Cold War, with it's bigger emphasis on passive sonar use and technology allowing better bearing resolution. But personally it isn't a concern to me. I like it because it's a nifty slideruler thingy, and I know of no other reliable passive bearing-only solution.

Yes, for post-WW2 submarines whose main sensors are hydrophones it seems to be of great value. The only problem is that it requires you to stay at full stop for a long time until you have the three bearings, and that is something few commanders will like to do on a nuke, however for a diesel-electric it could prove to be a fantastic tool I will build it myself for the use with Dangerous Waters, as I'm a usual Kilo commander

[makman94]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Yes, for post-WW2 submarines whose main sensors are hydrophones it seems to be of great value. The only problem is that it requires you to stay at full stop for a long time until you have the three bearings, and that is something few commanders will like to do on a nuke, however for a diesel-electric it could prove to be a fantastic tool I will build it myself for the use with Dangerous Waters, as I'm a usual Kilo commander

this tool has another use Hitman, you can get some data while moving but i haven't study this part yet ! but above this ,it is very usefull.i tested in the game and is very comfortable (and acurate ) .imo,not so big deal the dead stop .you enjoy the...waiting for the third bearing !

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Yes, for post-WW2 submarines whose main sensors are hydrophones it seems to be of great value. The only problem is that it requires you to stay at full stop for a long time until you have the three bearings, and that is something few commanders will like to do on a nuke, however for a diesel-electric it could prove to be a fantastic tool I will build it myself for the use with Dangerous Waters, as I'm a usual Kilo commander

If you can move silent enough, motionless isn't a prerequisite. It just get's a bit more complicated to work out. And may test one's impatience even more. As you know with TMA, you need to move on a 2nd leg for a unique solution.

Here's a graphical method of determining the direction of relative motion while moving. Instead of this graphical procedure to determine the direction of the ZY-lines (solution steps 1-6), you could use my tool and think of those ZY-lines as being pointed in the direction of the target's course, imagining for the moment you stayed motionless. The AOB in the window of my tool, based on each set of 3 bearings, is the angle YZO in the drawings at each leg. To correct for ownship motion these ZY lines need to be copied/moved (while keeping it parallel to the original) to the tip of ownship's speed vector(r1, r2). Lines r1m and r2m are parallel to each associated ZY-lines in the maneuvering board image. These r1m and r2m lines are all the possible speed/course points of the target that one can deduce from just one leg. Where both intersect is the point of a unique target solution (speed and course vector).

http://files.filefront.com/bearingso.../fileinfo.html

The trouble with Sh3 uboats (or maybe WW2 in general) is that you often need to surface and flank to get meaningfull bearing drifts. But this complicates keeping a steady average speed between the 3 bearings. And the Sh3 sensorrange is relatively short.

P.S. For those that didn't quite inderstand what I meant with impatience: note the time intervals between bearings: hours!