target speed: the eighty-ten method

[tater]

This thread really isn't the place for any "real" information, but at the least the notion of a "closing" contact might well have been possible in ww2, no? Assuming attenuation and other factors related to transmission of sound through water stay relatively constant during the time frame from observation 1 to observation 2, might it have been possible to decide the target was closing simply based on signal strength increasing? This would just be a "closing" vs "receeding" distinction, nothing with the fidelity to get a range-rate.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Pisces

In all fairness, I think this is the thread that belongs to that image:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=87832

But this method relies on the hardcapped detection range to provide a specific location on a bearing line. And knowing a speed versus rpm table. Not my cup of tea because of the first 'cheat'. I can live with the second part, even though it isn't historically correct.

I can't live with the second part either. The entire method is just another gaming of the system, impossible to execute in a real submarine of the time. He assumes that the Kriegsmarine rented every ship in the Allied arsenal, both warship and merchant, took them one by one to Germany and conducted speed/RPM trials on each ship, presumably ensuring by black magic that they kept perfectly clean bottoms and undamaged propellers throughout their wartime careers. Hell, if they could rent 'em, why'd they bother giving them back so they had to sink them later? No, I can't live with that part easily. It makes a mockery of simulation.

And the max detection distance is just ridiculous. Sonar conditions are always identical with the same detection distance and the same width of listening cone? Well it is in the Silent Hunter games! Let's all just cheat. Then we can call it a legitimate plotting technique.

The next step is to call every other method, no matter when and how developed a bad copy of your method of cheating. And then you need a snazzy name: Trial and Terror!!!! Damn I'm a genius......

As gutted and others showed clearly, cheating is not necessary.

[greyrider]

it’s often a compliment when your opponents attack you, personal, or by yapping about your punctuation, spelling, grammer, It means they think you are dangerous,
and i do consider the opposition complimenting me with everything they post.
acceptance of 8010 by you would be dangerous to rr and dick okane method, he lends the name of a great skipper to something okane would laugh at,
to lend an air of authenticity to it, so funny!


but i do, in spite of my laughter, feel sorry for you people, (the opposition), you have some serious personal issues, as well as one of eyesight.


enough time has been wasted here tho,

its time for me to get off the crazy train,

for the opposition, i see that the lights are on, but theres nobody home.

i cant believe some of the things that have been said here, over the course of the tread, by the opposition, i know theres an incredible darkness overtaking the world,
but i would never have believed it would make itself so evident and manifest here,
their eyes see it, they know its true, but they continue to deny truth they see with their own eyes, thats incredible!
its really very serious, something to sit up and take notice of, and react to.

i feel sorry for you!
ole rockin, the chief bs, has you conned, bagged and tagged, he knows he cant do that with me,
but he does know he can with you.
to him , its all about image, and what he projects to you, this is the real basis for his stance, he wants to be worshipped, by you,
and im laughing, laughing ,laughing!

image means nothing to me, i dont care if im the most hated individual on the forum, that pleases me, that says im doing my job,

he wants you only to use his dick okane bs, that he derived from others, even if not from me, there were many others, beside me,
that wrote of manual targeting, long before he came on scene.
he doesnt want you to improve, he doesnt want you to try to improve your skills, this would kill his ego,

Bad greyrider! bad bad greyrider.

he says, "we are only using examples from the fire control manual, to prove 8010 bs, well thats where the formula comes from to,
i have yet to understand why there would be a contradiction.
there is none, yet he pleads to insist there is, hoping you will believe him, looking for safety in numbers.

to to funny!

you were my favorite toy here rockin! i had a rope around your neck, and i gave you plenty of slack, to post and post away,
knowing you would screw up, and then, when i felt like it, i pulled the rope tight, and watched your feet fly from underneath you,
and you go into a horizontal, choking, feet in the air, flat on your back to the ground, just like a dog chasing a ball that went to far
while tied to that rope, its smarted, and you felt it, then gingerly, you posted again, feeling your way back, remembering that jolt, until you got your confidence back,
and forgot about it, the rope got slack again, you posted,
only to have it happen again, and again.
i sat here rolling in laughter, your own words was the ammunition i used to do the pulling.

regarding the concept of 8010, or anything like it, by me or someone else,

i figure you should know that Real warriors will always try to improve themselves, because there’s always room for improvement! it’s a life long pursuit.
Real warriors want that edge, there is no substitute for victory, and it’s usually those who have the edge that wins,
As it says in the u-boat manual, "he who sees first has won"!

Back in my days in the 82nd, I heard it a different way, “he who gets there first, with the most, has won"!


I don’t want you for friends, I don’t even want you for countrymen, was it ben Franklin, or john Adams that said something similar?
the 8010, is tried and true, and on film.

so in Summing up the opposition in one sentence, then the tread can die for all i care!

"castles in the sand, fall into the sea, eventually"! j hendrix

[tater]

No, we show you a few triangles that satisfy all the required criteria—and are not right triangles, and you cannot answer a simple yes or no question about your "method."

You cannot answer because you've finally learned that there are two possible answers. You can admit error, or give the wrong answer. Either way you lose.

Instead, you claim victory in the face of obvious failure, then leave. LOL.

BTW, it's usually not a compliment to have your spelling or grammar corrected. If it is bad enough to get noticed by internet posters, it's likely pretty atrocious (given the fact that on this forum I see "your" misused more often than it is used correctly, among many other examples (not just you, probably the majority of posters)).

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by sergei

Quoted yet again for emphasis.
Please please please please please answer the above question.

does your drawing look like anything i posted from the sh4 mission editor?

doesnt look like it from my house, also does the one heading 90 degrees from your start point look like its closing? not from my house, looks likes its going away, next time, check my radar in the movie, next time read my post, if its not a 10, then you get up, move the sub , close on the target course, not the target, then turn in , to acquire 8010, i have said that more than once,

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Has no bearing on the thread or your method, but it states..

"Launders spotted another periscope. Lowering Venturer's, Launders correctly guessed that the other periscope belonged to his quarry. Slowly following U-864, Launders planned to attack the German u-boat when it surfaced."

Seems he made visual contact and followed it by scope enough to get into position to attack by sonar. That statement in fact is the problem with your method, he had to put himself on course to attack to start with and did so with a visual.

His attack why well planned, was more luck and theory....I've sunk many ships by sonar alone with no visuals at all, but it was estimate info at best.
Here he had visuals to start with...


I use to have some respect for you, but this constant silliness trying to just jest at people is silly.

Thread needs to be lock and deleted, it has no merit at all.

what did i say at the begining, this was not an 8010, what bearing it has is that tater and a few other try again as usual, saying you cant track by hydrophones, it has an arc, or whatever else he imagines, so that documentary has bearing, it also has bearing in showing what a submarine can do, with a capable skipper, with audacious tactics, and a very capable hydrophone operator, thats what bearing it has.

it has bearing also, in that a submarine could track, and kill another unseen target, why ami not surprised you would deny the truth of that?

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by razark

Can you post a link to the location you posted it?

By the way, what were the results of testing the mission posted in Post #221 that you asked someone to post for you?

havent seen it until now, i will let you know

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by tater

This thread really isn't the place for any "real" information, but at the least the notion of a "closing" contact might well have been possible in ww2, no? Assuming attenuation and other factors related to transmission of sound through water stay relatively constant during the time frame from observation 1 to observation 2, might it have been possible to decide the target was closing simply based on signal strength increasing? This would just be a "closing" vs "receeding" distinction, nothing with the fidelity to get a range-rate.

this guy isnt the person to go to with for real information, remember his initial post, about zig zagging?

if you watched the movie of HMS venturer, and u-864, clearly it says it was zig zagging, not only in a zig zag, but an underwater, unseen one, wasnt a problem for the venturer, which was exactly what i told him in the begining

[razark]

Originally Posted by greyrider

i have an idea, why dont one of you, the opposition, set up a mission, or you pick out a mission, of your choosing, of a closing target from the single missions, or any mission that has been made by someone else, hows that?

send it to me, and ill do the mission, and film it.

Originally Posted by Pisces

Here it is. It's JSGME ready. Just like yours it's a Subschool mission (SS10, US only).
...
http://www.filefront.com/17285812/RN..._Subschool.rar

Well? Did you forget something, or did you try it and realize how wrong you are?
EDIT: Ah, I see. You ignored it.


Off topic, I have a proof that equilateral triangles actually only have two angles!
1. The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
2. All angles of an equilateral triangle are the same.
3. Per the "greyrider triangle theorem", all triangle contain a right angle.
4. Because 2 and 3, all angels of an equilateral triangle are right angles.
5. 90 + 90 = 180.
Therefore, an equilateral triangle must have only two angles, because if it had three, the angles would add up to 270 degrees, and by 1, this is not possible.

[tomoose]

"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call.......... The Twilight Zone!"

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by tater

No, we show you a few triangles that satisfy all the required criteria—and are not right triangles, and you cannot answer a simple yes or no question about your "method."

You cannot answer because you've finally learned that there are two possible answers. You can admit error, or give the wrong answer. Either way you lose.

Instead, you claim victory in the face of obvious failure, then leave. LOL.

BTW, it's usually not a compliment to have your spelling or grammar corrected. If it is bad enough to get noticed by internet posters, it's likely pretty atrocious (given the fact that on this forum I see "your" misused more often than it is used correctly, among many other examples (not just you, probably the majority of posters)).

you showed me nothing but how confused you are

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by greyrider

you showed me nothing but how confused you are

they dont look anything like the drawings i put up from the editor, as usual, you add things i never did, putting words in my mouth i never said,

[greyrider]

Originally Posted by razark

Well? Did you forget something, or did you try it and realize how wrong you are?
EDIT: Ah, I see. You ignored it.


Off topic, I have a proof that equilateral triangles actually only have two angles!
1. The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
2. All angles of an equilateral triangle are the same.
3. Per the "greyrider triangle theorem", all triangle contain a right angle.
4. Because 2 and 3, all angels of an equilateral triangle are right angles.
5. 90 + 90 = 180.
Therefore, an equilateral triangle must have only two angles, because if it had three, the angles would add up to 270 degrees, and by 1, this is not possible.

i just downloaded it! thanks, ill try it and get back to you

[greyrider]

razark writes

"Therefore, an equilateral triangle must have only two angles"

2 angles? then it cant be a triangle now can it, tri means 3

[greyrider]

for the last five or six posts of mine, i have addressed people who have yet again, twisted things around to suit their pov, and not what i wrote.

im sure you will find a way to twist my replies around again, doesnt matter to me, the 8010 stands tried and true, its filmed, random, and done,
must be so hard to do that even a guy with an astrophysics decree cant do it

and what does a decree mean anyway, accept that some other moron, thinks your smart.

the world is full of people with a decree, in positions of leadership, and look at its shape,

i dont care what you people think of me, your funny