How to use aobf or raobf?

[Pisces]

It will be not correct if the torpedo does not hit at the exact place where the vertical line is aimed at. This may not matter for short distances, as the target is long enough. But it will mater for more distance shots. Holding on to the wrong value is just giving false instructions. That is not-teaching.

And it is not just important for getting the torpedo to hit. If you calculated the speed of a target with this. And you want to predict where it is on the map X time later you will get the wrong spot using the value you suggest. Then it doesn't work.

[bstanko6]

I stand by what I said. It works at all distances. I’ve played using this calculation since SH3 came out,

I also wanna point out a very important factor that both of you guys are missing…

I never once in any of my videos, said that this is the correct tried, and true method. The methods I teach are to help people hit their targets. I’ve never once said that this is the only way to do it and it’s the only correct way to do it.

So now I ask you both to please be considerate, and stop bringing up how my methods are wrong whenever I or someone else recommends a video of mine to help another person. You have been doing that for a long time.

Now that it’s out there and people know it’s not the absolute correct solution, and you know my intent is to help people hit their targets, please stop saying my videos are wrong. You guys have your own videos and your own methods feel free to teach others those methods just please leave me alone. Thank you.

[derstosstrupp]

I made a comment on one of your YouTube videos, and then I pointed it out here. That’s twice. I have not been doing anything of the sort “for a long time”. Let’s be honest here.

If I see something mathematically incorrect, that is being taught, I will point it out. Normally, if I have an error in reasoning, and somebody points it out to me, I try to be gracious, and say, you know what, that makes sense, I was wrong. Thank you for pointing that out. I’ve even done so in my videos - somebody points an error out to me, and I will go back, make a redaction, and clarify. And then thank the person for pointing it out.

It’s not about getting hits or not getting hits. It’s about understanding what you are teaching, and not using figures the wrong way. And then people can decide for themselves what shortcuts they use - historically, that was using 2, or they could choose 1.8, or whatever they want I guess. But it’s up to you to teach it correctly (and maybe recommend a shortcut).

That’s all I will say, the proof is out there, what you choose to use is on you, but just know, 1.94.

[Pisces]

We are not saying that your method is false. It is exactly how you would determine the target speed. Just that the number applied in it is incorrect and having no basis in reality. (it's only partially correctly used, it is missing the application of another number to be correct: multiply by 3600 seconds, divide by 1852 meters) Otherwise it will lead to incorrect results when attempting to use it in more challenging circumstances. If you are willing to accept those losses then good for you. But it seems like a disservice to the students if they are not told how to get better odds for succes that is based on reality.

[Hooston]

We all seem to be better shots than most real submarine commanders. i think the game is missing a few "complicating factors"... So don't take it too seriously.

Wasn't it a British sub commander who said the angle off is always about 10 degrees? Let me see... a 40 knot torpedo at a 7 knot target at 90 degrees AOB - well waddayaknow? Saves a lot of messing about, especially if you have an eight torpedo salvo. Plus it means you get to go home much sooner. I've actually used this to fire using a hydrophone bearing on a target I couldn't see at all. Sure enough, a hit!

[Pisces]

Here is a bit of irony in your videos though. In this SH5 video about dead reckoning:


You use a table to get distance moved for 5 knots over 5 minutes. And say that you trust 'your dead reckoning' over that of the AI navigator. If you do the numbers in that table according to your 1.852 routine then you are clearly off from what the table gives you. So which method is right for the conversion?

771 meters divided by 5 minutes (300s) = 2.57 meters per second. Times 1.852 = 4.76 'knots'. Not 5 knots, which it should be!

Or for the larger value:
44415 meters over 45 minutes (2700 seconds)= 16.45 meters per second. Times 1.852 = 30.47 'knots'. Not 32 knots, which it should be!

See the contradiction?

In regards to the video itself. Yes, the plot of your boat on the map after the 5 minutes is off. But you also didn't move by exactly 5 knots. It shows you had 5.1 knots speed in the end. So naturally you are beyond your expectation. Also you eye-balled the time to be 12:16 when you stopped the time compression of 32x. So your reaction-time made you off by some part of a minute. With 32x time compression 1 minute zipps by in 2 seconds real time. Asside from the fact that you also let the game running at 1x speed while you explained what you were doing before showing the position. It may very well have a position error built in after you ask the navigator for a location. But there are other causes of error here too to explain it.

No, it's not due to the game itself, Silent Hunter 3, or 5 or Wolfpack. And it is NOT magic, or imaginary!. (referencing your latest car video) They are all calibrated to meters and seconds. It's operator error, that may or may not get lucky in circumstances. (Wolfpack did have a bit of time-slew with the stopwatch in the past. But that has been bugfixed years ago.