The Hunt: An illustrated example of how to sink a ship

[niteflier]

Just looked at the date: Feb 2006

Any place else to get the pdf.file?

[niteflier]

I'll check my Adobe Reader; Thanks for the help

[kylania]

Originally Posted by niteflier

Just looked at the date: Feb 2006

Any place else to get the pdf.file?

I'll check when I get home. I know I have copies of the FLV videos he had for this, I should still have the PDF.

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by niteflier

Just looked at the date: Feb 2006

Any place else to get the pdf.file?

There is nothing wrong with the link to the pdf in the 1st message. I can download it without a problem.

[Pisces]

Originally Posted by niteflier

When I click on the pdf version "here", It takes me to the freenet site.... but it doesnt do anything;no response;no pdf download.

Has the Adobe file been deleted? Any info appreciated!! Ken

No, the link works for me perfectly. I used Opera 9.27 and it asked if wanted to save that file or open it using the apropriate application (Adobe). Both worked. My IE 6.0 showed the file using the plugin for viewing pdf's.

You may want to check if your Adobe/pdf-viewer is in working order.

[rfxcasey]

Originally Posted by Dantenoc

<Edit: PDF version here - Gizzmoe>


So you draw a circle, centered at the end of the ruler measurement you did in step 3, with a radius of 160 mks... why 160 mks? because in step three you chose to represent each knot by 10 mks, remember? (If in step three you'de had measured 6 kms for the 6 knots you would now be drawing a circle radius of 16 kms for 16 knots, and so on). Let's look at your circle

Does he mean kms? what is an mks? Someone needs to fix that.

[Pisces]

Yes, he must mean kilometers (kms). Though I've never used it in plural like that before. It's allways km, whether it's just one, or a gazillion. Definately wrong in a physical sense since it could mean 'kilometer-seconds'. Which could be some kind unit of a relativistic/Einstein concept of space-time. But I'm sure Dantenoc didn't go there.

[WilyPete]

Originally Posted by Pisces

Yes, he must mean kilometers (kms). Though I've never used it in plural like that before. It's allways km, whether it's just one, or a gazillion. Definately wrong in a physical sense since it could mean 'kilometer-seconds'. Which could be some kind unit of a relativistic/Einstein concept of space-time. But I'm sure Dantenoc didn't go there.

In official English, "kilometres" should always be abreviated to: "kms". There is a "kilometres per second" notation and that is: "km/s". So he's right in using "kms" to denote kilometres.

[RoaldLarsen]

Originally Posted by WilyPete

In official English, "kilometres" should always be abreviated to: "kms". There is a "kilometres per second" notation and that is: "km/s". So he's right in using "kms" to denote kilometres.

In fact, he is wrong. According to "The International System of Units (SI)" 8th edtion, 2006, published by
Organisation Intergouvernementale de la Convention du Mètre, in other words, according to the official standard:

Unit symbols are mathematical entities and not abbreviations. Therefore, they are not followed by a period except at the end of a sentence, and one must neither use the plural nor mix unit symbols and unit names within one expression, since names are not mathematical entities.

(empahsis added)

So in official English, "kilometres" should always be written either as "kilometres", or "km", never as "kms".

[Spunky48]

I understand all but step 4.

So you draw a circle, centered at the end of the ruler measurement you did in step 3, with a radius of 160 mks... why 160 mks? because in step three you chose to represent each knot by 10 mks, remember? (If in step three you'de had measured 6 kms for the 6 knots you would now be drawing a circle radius of 16 kms for 16 knots, and so on).

At what point did I choose to represent each knot by 10 mks? I don't understand how this works. My brother said it has to do with scale and tried to explain it to me, but I didn't get it.

Edit: Figured it out. I'm somehow doing it halfassedly, don't really know how to be precise with it, but it works, sort of.

[Pisces]

You could have done it with a scale of 1km for every knot. But that becomes a tiny drawing. Or 100 km for every knot. But then it may be too big so you loose oversight on the map. But other scalefactors require multiplication of numbers. 10 km per 1 knot is just moving over the decimal point and still reasonably in scale with the actual distance to your victim.

[Gangrene]

I use a MUCH SIMPLER way to plot an intercept, it's easier and very accurate... Stock game... You are given the location, angle, and "rough speed".

1. Draw the path: There is a tail on the mark, draw a line from the tip of the tail through the ship and far off ahead of it. You can pull the line far ahead and still adjust the line to match the direction as close as you can. If you want to be exact or not do any math you can draw a second line from the actual point of the ship and not the tail... then delete the original line to get it out of the way.

2. Now draw a line from your sub to their ships original location, DON'T click it(lock it in), just mentally note the distance, then start adjusting the line along the path until the two distances match.

Now, if you travel there at the same speed you would both hit that spot at the same time.

3. Simply adjust one or more factors to insure you arrive before them.
3a. You can travel to that location at a faster speed. Assume 6-7.. Go 8-9 knots... for example.
3b. measure the distance so theirs is a little longer than yours. So maybe your line intersects at 25km on their line and 21km on your line. If you travel at the same speed you'll arrive at that point and their ship should be about 4km away... depending on your skills and their speed you should be able to adjust your position and calculate your solution in plenty of time.

Expand your skills: As you do this over and over again you'll get better at it. and you can adjust more factors like... if you think they are traveling 6 knots and you want to travel at 12. Simply have your ship double the distance they travel and you should arrive at the same place, same time(This is useful for distant ships where you are going to have to out distance them to intercept). Eventually you'll be able to adjust your angle and speed(together) and be confident with your math in your head.

And there you have it! No angles, no trigonometry, etc... simple as it gets, JUST TWO LINES and look at their lengths.

That's just getting to the ship... I have other techniques I use to put it down.

Does that help anybody?

[Pisces]

You are doing basically the same. So I wouldn't call this more simpler. The described method are systematic steps that you can make a routine. Whereas yours is more (gu)estimating the proper intercept location. Whatever works for you.

[sharkbit]

Mods:

This thread should be a stickie. One of the best on intercepting ships. People can learn a lot of basics from this. Plus, there is the link to Wasserman's manual targeting tutorial.
Thanks.

[JHuschke]

Haha I'm printing this out.. :P