Manaual TDC - a new method

[geezerjo09]

Hummmmm, I can't blame you guys for being over-polite and i'm happy you are, but you seem to be more happy to wish me luck aboard than to discuss this new method, that would make me happy(i worked really hard on this). Have any of you guys tried it? Anyone having problems with it? Simply can't understand it? Or do you have Suggestions to make it easier/more accurate? Or, do most of you use automatic tdc?

I loved making this thing and im currently working on a way to use it while on the move, but if theres no interst in it and your not even thinking about using it, i wont go through all the work. I'm not complainning here i'm just wondering if your posting here cause your so used to watching the forums and posting that its like a reflex, or if you actually read whats written. Anyways i'm on board, might as well give my two cents.

Pray God, but keep swimming.

[melnibonian]

Your method seems fine. I haven't tried it but I will give it a shot at some point and come back to you. As far as your explanations it doesn't seem too complex, although I can understand people getting a bit scared about the trigonometry (not that it's difficult but people are affraid of numbers and functions).

Most people do play on auto targeting as it's faster and simple. There are some who play with manual but I don't know how many they are.

Anyhow welcome and enjoy your stay

[_Seth_]

Originally Posted by geezerjo09

Hummmmm, I can't blame you guys for being over-polite and i'm happy you are, but you seem to be more happy to wish me luck aboard than to discuss this new method, that would make me happy(i worked really hard on this). Have any of you guys tried it? Anyone having problems with it? Simply can't understand it? Or do you have Suggestions to make it easier/more accurate? Or, do most of you use automatic tdc?

I loved making this thing and im currently working on a way to use it while on the move, but if theres no interst in it and your not even thinking about using it, i wont go through all the work. I'm not complainning here i'm just wondering if your posting here cause your so used to watching the forums and posting that its like a reflex, or if you actually read whats written. Anyways i'm on board, might as well give my two cents.

Pray God, but keep swimming.

Im sure this is an excellent method, but im not very good in such mathematics...

[melnibonian]

Originally Posted by _Seth_

Im sure this is an excellent method, but im not very good in such mathematics...

You're not the only one Seth. I'm sure most of my students will find it 'overwhelming' and it's really simple

[don1reed]

Welcome aboard, geezerjo09. Great work on your method; however, check out the "Sticky" above re Newbie guide. See Wazoo's manual charting and Dantenoc's how to.

The concept of manual targeting is the KISS formula. Although your method eventually solves the course and speed problems the Newbie guide will explain how to do it faster and simpler.

All the best,

[Monocell]

Originally Posted by don1reed

The concept of manual targeting is the KISS formula. Although your method eventually solves the course and speed problems the Newbie guide will explain how to do it faster and simpler.

I belive the point of it wasn't speed but accuracy. If you dont have to rely on a graphical solution you can potentially get greater accuracy.

@geezerjo09: If you want do discuss:

Wouldn't it be easier to skip the calculation of the uneccessary part of the second triangle. (ie the 64degree angle on your image) and instead calculate the targets traveled distance with 8.2/sin(26)?

[geezerjo09]

Originally Posted by Monocell

I belive the point of it wasn't speed but accuracy. If you dont have to rely on a graphical solution you can potentially get greater accuracy.

@geezerjo09: If you want do discuss:

Wouldn't it be easier to skip the calculation of the uneccessary part of the second triangle. (ie the 64degree angle on your image) and instead calculate the targets traveled distance with 8.2/sin(26)?

Well the calculation for the 64 degree IS useless in a way, but 180-(90+26)=64 is not what I would cal a difficult calculation.

[Monocell]

Originally Posted by geezerjo09

Well the calculation for the 64 degree IS useless in a way, but 180-(90+26)=64 is not what I would cal a difficult calculation.

Agreed, but that was the only thing I could find to nitpick on.

I belive the 56 degree angle is useless in the same way.

I feel this is like "The Emperor's New Clothes" but maybe I'm completely missing the point. So you determine the target's course - but then what do you do with that info. I reckon I'm getting better at manual targeting (in fact, pretty darn good), using my own modified version of what's in the Wiki and Wazoo's method - but how do you use the info that comes from this approach??

[Monocell]

You determine both speed and course, wich is the same things you determine if you use Wazoo's manual I belive?


Like I said before, I prefer to plot, but this method is certainly valid as well.

Originally Posted by Monocell

You determine both speed and course, wich is the same things you determine if you use Wazoo's manual I belive?


Like I said before, I prefer to plot, but this method is certainly valid as well.

Well - it's late in the evening here, so I'll have another glass of vin and retire to ponder on this.

[don1reed]

Originally Posted by Monocell

I belive the point of it wasn't speed but accuracy. If you dont have to rely on a graphical solution you can potentially get greater accuracy.

@geezerjo09: If you want do discuss:

Wouldn't it be easier to skip the calculation of the uneccessary part of the second triangle. (ie the 64degree angle on your image) and instead calculate the targets traveled distance with 8.2/sin(26)?

@Monocell:

Actually, the point is both speed and accuracy.
Manual targeting has been around for a very long time. The military KISS formula is: Keep It Simple, Stupid. We don't have to get wrapped around the axel over this, and, it isn't necessary to re-invent the wheel. The skippers of the time period used a quick and simple representation of a maneuvering board of one design or another to take into account both vessels moving. Submerged submarines of the period continue to move to keep from sinking (that neutral buoyancy thing), so, even though this "NEW" method is interesting, skippers of the period didn't have benefit of a pause-button while doing the math.

...that said, as subsim players, we all enjoy any method that works and helps us sink ships, including the time honored, traditional methods as well as the "new".

All the best,

[Monocell]

Originally Posted by don1reed

Actually, the point is both speed and accuracy.
Manual targeting has been around for a very long time. The military KISS formula is: Keep It Simple, Stupid. We don't have to get wrapped around the axel over this, and, it isn't necessary to re-invent the wheel. The skippers of the time period used a quick and simple representation of a maneuvering board of one design or another to take into account both vessels moving. Submerged submarines of the period continue to move to keep from sinking (that neutral buoyancy thing), so, even though this "NEW" method is interesting, skippers of the period didn't have benefit of a pause-button while doing the math.

You are preaching to the choir friend. For me plotting the normal way seems superior for numerous reasons. However, if you want to find a reason for doing it this way then the added accuracy of not relying on graphics would be one.

[don1reed]

Well, its kind of like the eternal battle of which is more accurate, Geometry or Trig?

[don1reed]

@ geezerjo09:

Here's a mathematical method of determining course and speed with both vessels moving.