sonar readings are inconsistent

[CapnScurvy]

Yea, what I said. (Well, nearly to what I said. A couple of yards off, here or there.)

I'm wondering Double R if you used the same target ship in all the positions? Just curious.

Also, I'm wondering if the difference in the exact range and sonar has something to do with the angle of the targets. Are they presenting an A-Beam position (AoB 90 degrees) in all positions, or are they randomly angled? When I've set up my target tests I usually have them angled to give me as large a silhouette as possible, just to be consistent.

I know the sonar has the modded feature of not picking up the rear 60 degree arc (between 150 and 210 degree positions). Just wondering if having the sub face East would make a difference in the targets found range at the 305 degree position when facing West (when facing East, the same target should be found at the 125 degree position)?

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by CapnScurvy

Yea, what I said. (Well, nearly to what I said. A couple of yards off, here or there.)

I'm wondering Double R if you used the same target ship in all the positions? Just curious.

Also, I'm wondering if the difference in the exact range and sonar has something to do with the angle of the targets. Are they presenting an A-Beam position (AoB 90 degrees) in all positions, or are they randomly angled? When I've set up my target tests I usually have them angled to give me as large a silhouette as possible, just to be consistent.

I know the sonar has the modded feature of not picking up the rear 60 degree arc (between 150 and 210 degree positions). Just wondering if having the sub face East would make a difference in the targets found range at the 305 degree position when facing West (when facing East, the same target should be found at the 125 degree position)?

You must have been typing while I was testing! It was good to do the tests anyway.

My initial reaction was that the angle of the target was related to the error. But you know how initial reactions can be. After looking at the screenshots closely, it looks to me that because I used the compass for the distance measurements, and did it at the magnification where I could see target and sub at the same time, a one pixel error in positioning the circle would easily account for the errors in all cases. I believe that the sonar is perfect and my measurements, because I did not zoom in to precisely position the circle, were the variance.

The targets are at different AoBs. The differential pinging on the closest targets, which were the only ones subtending more than the exact bearing to MOT, showed the same range for bow, MOT and stern, even though the target was not at AoB 90. Important detail and good catch!

I'll rotate the sub and check out active sonar distance with the same target, but I'm just about positive that repeating the original with more precision on the measurement will result in the conclusion that the sonar is always exact distance for MOT regardless of angle subtended by the target or AoB, depressing as that is.....

Didn't one of say that nobody had ever complained about the sonar?

[CapnScurvy]

I understand. The ruler isn't very precise giving only 50 yard increments.

I know you should get a true distance reading if you run the test in Auto Targeting mode. The targets true AoB should show in the Attack Data Tool Aob Dial. The true range should show on the Position Keeper. That's usually how I checked my true range & AoB before going to manual targeting for checking the Stadimeter or Omnimeter.

I'm thinking the 3000 yard targets will produce good results with using Auto Targeting, but I'm not sure the game will produce a range for you out in the 7000 yard distance. I don't think it will.

As far as the AoB. It makes sense that it doesn't really matter what the target position is, least not with the sonar. Although the radar does have a parameter that is set for determining a spike depending on what size of profile the target is in. The sonar does not.





Yeah, who cares about the sonar?!