Expermiting with Scope SH4

[Barkerov]

gumbeauregard. mate.
Along with target speed and torpedo speed, you also need to know which direction the target is going.

[gumbeauregard]

Originally Posted by Barkerov

gumbeauregard. mate.
Along with target speed and torpedo speed, you also need to know which direction the target is going.

I won't disagree

[Rockin Robbins]

In order for trigonometry to work, the geometery must be right. Your method doesn't constrain the geometry at all. Trig only works for triangles which contain a right angle. As you can see by this diagram, built on your foundational statement that you only need two parameters, target speed and torpedo speed, your method will only work once in a great while, missing the vast majority of intstances in which it is employed.

Remember, when the two arrowheads meet, there is a boom. When they do not there is no boom:


Your main impediment is your focus on the fantasy that I don't understand your great intellectual breakthrough. First of all I started with this method handed to me by another Subsim member back in 2008, tables and everything. However, his tables were better. There's nothing new here, even after you fix your instructions. Fantasy can be motivating, and it can be an impediment. In this case it separates you from being of any use at all to Subsim members.

You can easily see how he can set up 100 scenarios where the enemy course is 90 degrees from him and sink every one in a blockbuster You Tube video. He wouldn't have to mention the fake setup at all and he would hit every time proving.......nothing. Anybody can do that and frequently they do on You Tube.

Now that I've handed you the solution you can fix your method. Thank me.

At best, G's targeting method is just an observation.

[gumbeauregard]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

In order for trigonometry to work, the geometery must be right. Your method doesn't constrain the geometry at all. Trig only works for triangles which contain a right angle. As you can see by this diagram, built on your foundational statement that you only need two parameters, target speed and torpedo speed, your method will only work once in a great while, missing the vast majority of intstances in which it is employed.

Remember, when the two arrowheads meet, there is a boom. When they do not there is no boom:


Your main impediment is your focus on the fantasy that I don't understand your great intellectual breakthrough. First of all I started with this method handed to me by another Subsim member back in 2008, tables and everything. However, his tables were better. There's nothing new here, even after you fix your instructions. Fantasy can be motivating, and it can be an impediment. In this case it separates you from being of any use at all to Subsim members.

You can easily see how he can set up 100 scenarios where the enemy course is 90 degrees from him and sink every one in a blockbuster You Tube video. He wouldn't have to mention the fake setup at all and he would hit every time proving.......nothing. Anybody can do that and frequently they do on You Tube.

Now that I've handed you the solution you can fix your method. Thank me.

In your desperate quest to avoid learning from others you have truly embarrassed yourself.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by gumbeauregard

In your desperate quest to avoid learning from others you have truly embarrassed yourself.

You really are a great comedian. How about defending your position? Personal attack is not the same as not being totally wrong. You are totally wrong. Fix it.

By the way, you are not teaching something badly that Corey Harwell didn't teach very well nine years ago and which I knew before you ever thought about the method. If I learned, and I did, it was from Corey. Refining his method led to the even better Dick O'Kane method and later to the more flexible Vector Analysis Method. Graphical solutions beat numeric solutions every time. They're quicker and self-validating. The first step in eliminating 100% predictable human errors is to ditch the tables and calculations completely.

Now fix your method so, defective as it is, it can actually be used by someone not fudging the game setup so it automatically works, while everyone working in the dynamic game environment misses on 90% of their shots! My graphical representation of the consequences of your foundational statement shows inarguably that is perfectly true and every person reading this thread knows I am correct. I am decidedly not embarrassed.

[Rockin Robbins]

Gutted also sent me this, which explains graphically, in a way that is entirely self-validating, why a zero gyro shot can totally disregard range so far as the torpedo will run long enough to hit the target. It's brilliant and he deserves a shout-out, nine years later!

So there you have it from Gutted in 2009, the explanation with no words of how a zero gyro shot results in a boom regardless of range because as range opens up your lead automatically increases as well as you fire then the ship crosses the wire.

Also note a really cool thing: if you're shooting at a formation which is line abreast with a constant bearing technique and a zero gyro, you automatically fire at the further ship first then in order down the line. Note, however that all the booms happen simultaneously! It's quite useful.

Gutted also had a superior version of your chart that was a bit less error prone, but still bad enough that I decided to abandon it for the Dick O'Kane method. Remember, part of making an attack method more deadly is to mitigate inevitable human error. Errors picking numbers on two dimensional charts and mathematical errors are public enemy one and two. Get rid of them all and you more than double the effectiveness of the technique.

Stuck on board, with terrible things being said about it, some of them fully justified, is a satan-possesed instrument called the Torpedo Data Computer. Because of problems with properly using the stadimeter and inaccuracies in our ship recognition manual, people have cursed at the TDC a lot. You love to brag that you don't use it.

Well, there are things the TDC does extraordinarily well. First, it never makes a mistake regarding the speed of the selected torpedo. In fact you can select a Mark 10 if you want and the TDC just slaps the correct numbers in all its calculations without a fuss. It effectively eliminates inevitable human error in working out a solution for the wrong speed torpedo. You have done that by requiring the use of only one speed. Is it daytime? Would a Mark 18 make sense. Sucks to be you because the gumbeauragard method forbids it. Dick O'Kane method doesn't care what torpedo you use.

The second thing the TDC does really well is compute precise gyro angles. You don't need a table, you don't need a calculator, you need nothing outside the game itself. If you enter enemy course, speed and a range the TDC sets the angle and no charts, no trig tables, no real world computers or devices need apply. Everything gets done in the game. Now, in the decision to use the TDC, the Dick O'Kane method sacrifices the option of getting a perfect zero gyro shot unless you have extraordinary luck.

But the rule of thumb to pick a lead angle of 10 degrees for target speed of 10 knots and under and a lead angle of 15 degrees for greater, guarantees your gyro angle will be much less than 10 degrees. Gyro angles of 20 degrees or less in both directions from zero are considered straight shooting and range is inconsequential. You might have a 20' difference in where the torpedo strikes the target but it will still effectively go boom.

The point is that the Dick O'Kane method uses no guessing. The torpedo is aimed PRECISELY for your aim point on the target. It isn't a perfect zero gyro shot and that is entirely non-consequential. It is an intentional part of the technique. Not having a perfect zero gyro shot plus a dollar will not buy you coffee and the Seven-Eleven.

Central to evaluating the effectiveness of an attack method are two things: understanding its error envelope and understanding its versatility and adaptability.

The error envelope of a properly constructed gumbeauregard method is large. Picking the wrong number off the chart certainly results in a miss. Picking the wrong number is going to happen a percentage of the time. The error envelope of a Dick O'Kane attack is small. We're eliminating math and 2 dimensional charts by entering two numbers into the TDC as much as a half hour before we shoot. We have plenty of time to check the solution with the attack map and all we're worried about is positioning the boat so that we're at right angles to the target track and he has not yet crossed the wire. At that point, the only operations left are opening the torpedo tubes and shooting. EVERYTHING error prone is set up at leisure and checked, repeatedly if necessary, long before time pressure is a factor. The instructions of the Dick O'Kane are complete with no steps left out and each step easily understandable. My cat can shoot torpedoes with that method.

And the gumbearegard method is not flexible. If you find out the enemy is on another course than what the method requires (remember you don't check that in his method) there's no fallback. You MUST reposition your boat to get a boom. That takes time. And the method leaves your entirely abandoned when you don't have the precious right angle the trigonometry requires. Contrast that with the vector analysis attack, which combines the error mitigation features of the Dick O'Kane attack with the absolute flexibility of not caring what the angle the target track is with owncourse. So we're contrasting an attack which, unannounced, absolutely requires a course 90 degrees from the target track and uses guaranteed human error trig tables to an attack which requires no tools outside the game, is graphically self-validating and which can be changed in an instant to yield a new solution when situations change. No boat repositioning necessary, perfect zero gyro shot and works all the time, not a small minority of the time.

So is beauregard Apostle of the New Way? Properly framed, and presently it is not, it is A way. For lovers of precision for its own sake and not for its effectiveness it might be an appealing way. But it has problems because predictable, inevitable human errors and lack of flexibility hamper its effectiveness.

Here's Gutted's lead angle chart from 2009, much easier to use and less error prone than gumbeauregards, but still not as effective in error mitigation as the Dick O'Kane method.



Note that his formula is not retarded, it's in spreadsheet language.

[gumbeauregard]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Gutted also sent me this, which explains graphically, in a way that is entirely self-validating, why a zero gyro shot can totally disregard range so far as the torpedo will run long enough to hit the target. It's brilliant and he deserves a shout-out, nine years later!

So there you have it signed, dated, from Gutted, the explanation with no words of how a zero gyro shot results in a boom regardless of range because as range opens up your lead automatically increases as well as you fire then the ship crosses the wire.

So now you realize I am right because you found someone else who confirms what I said?

Range doesn't matter when shooting with zero gyro angle if you precisely calculate target speed and torpedo speed.

You now appear to be arguing about date of discovery. I never claimed to have invented trigonometry or this firing method. The credit for those things stretch back a few thousand years in one case and over a hundred in the other.

However, I did work all of this out for myself when SH4 was brand new software and firing in manual mode was very buggy.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by gumbeauregard

So now you realize I am right because you found someone else who confirms what I said?

Range doesn't matter when shooting with zero gyro angle if you precisely calculate target speed and torpedo speed.

You STILL don't get it. You also need that completely unspecified perfect 90 degree angle to the target track. Trigonometry ONLY WORKS for a right triangle. Leave that crucial piece of information out and precise target speed and torpedo speed alone won't hit the broad side of Hawaii! Buy a vowell and have Corey Harwell explain the situation to you.

Your inability to understand perfectly illustrates why I pick graphical solutions every time over numerical solutions. Inappropriate use of trigonometry, inappropriate use of apparent precision in carrying out calculations to four decimal places, and the inherent lack of error checking in numerical calculations and charts are just unnecessary. Calculations all have unstated preconditions for their validity. Those are not obvious when you are just working the numbers.

Graphical solutions are self-correcting. Put a starboard AoB in there instead of port and it's immediately obvious that you've made a mistake. That's why the attack map is a crucial step in setting up an attack. Just work the numbers and the error is undetected until the torpedo goes somewhere completely different than where you intended. Even if your calculations and table lookups are correct you can't tell when they are inappropriately applied.

Now defend your position that all you need is target speed and torpedo speed to make a valid solution (I've already snuffed that one), fix your method so it works, or go away.

[gumbeauregard]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

You STILL don't get it. You also need that completely unspecified perfect 90 degree angle to the target track. Trigonometry ONLY WORKS for a right triangle. Leave that crucial piece of information out and precise target speed and torpedo speed alone won't hit the broad side of Hawaii! Rent a set of eyes if necessary and have Corey Harwell explain the situation to you.

Your inability to understand perfectly illustrates why I pick graphical solutions every time over numerical solutions. Inappropriate use of trigonometry, inappropriate use of apparent precision in carrying out calculations to four decimal places, and the inherent lack of error checking in numerical calculations and charts are just unnecessary. Calculations all have unstated preconditions for their validity. Those are not obvious when you are just working the numbers.

Graphical solutions are self-correcting. Put a starboard AoB in there instead of port and it's immediately obvious that you've made a mistake. That's why the attack map is a crucial step in setting up an attack. Just work the numbers and the error is undetected until the torpedo goes somewhere completely different than where you intended. Even if your calculations and table lookups are correct you can't tell when they are inappropriately applied.

Now defend your position that all you need is target speed and torpedo speed to make a valid solution (I've already snuffed that one), fix your method so it works, or go away.

You do not need a precise 90 degree AOB, which a clear understanding of the firing geometry makes plainly obvious. In fact the ideal torpedo track angle is between 100 and 120 degrees as shown on this convenient Wikipedia chart. (Valid only for 46 knot torpedoes)



A understanding of the math involved allows zero gyro angle shots with ANY target AOB. One need only reduce the 90 AOB bearing by the appropriate amount for the AOB situation.

25% reduction for 60 degrees

50% for 40 degrees

75% for 18 degrees.

I still haven't seen your video demonstration of hitting a 27 knot target at 8000 yards with four consecutive torpedoes.

I can see why you are reluctant to post it. It seems you are prone to errors and reluctant to use any method that requires you to accurately determine precise values under pressure.

PS I think it is hilarious that the method you posted by Gutted and mine are identical and in your haste to be "right" you can't even see that.