IRON NESTField Notes

Troubleshooting

Why don't my triangulation lines meet?

A huge systematic miss points to a different first check than bearing lines that only miss each other slightly or range circles that leave two candidates.

Quick answer

First separate a large origin error from a small precision or geometry error. For a huge miss, verify that the Nest marker and firing origin are current. For a near-intersection, do not treat displayed reports as infinitely precise: historical Demo-era evidence includes a case where approximately 93.8° appeared as 94°. Two range circles can legitimately produce two valid intersections. If the target geometry looks right but the shot still misses, check the firing-solution setup separately.

Diagnostic model corroboratedCurrent-build limitsChecked Aug 13, 2026

The large-error versus small-error diagnostic is supported, while exact current rounding, origin precision, and internal coordinate behavior remain unresolved.

Version context: Historical empirical precision evidence and patch-aware diagnostics; exact version 1.0 (1618) model unresolved

Still uncertain

  • Exact version 1.0 (1618) bearing and distance rounding
  • Exact Nest position distribution inside the displayed map cell
  • Maximum current origin error and internal coordinate precision
  • Current mission-specific causes of every large systematic miss

Evidence and verification context

  • Historical empirical bearing case: A Demo-era case reconstructed approximately 93.8° where the report displayed 94°. It supports limited displayed precision in that case, not a universal current rule.
  • Historical stale-origin reports and official Patch #3: Historical evidence supports stale origin as a cause of large misses; Patch #3 later fixed some turret position and movement reset problems, so older reports are not treated as the only 1618 cause.
  • Circle-intersection geometry: Two reported distances can mathematically leave two valid intersections; the current game-specific next observation is not hardcoded here.

The diagnostic model is corroborated, but precision examples are partly historical. This page does not claim the exact version 1.0 (1618) bearing-rounding algorithm, Nest-origin distribution, maximum metre error, internal coordinate precision, or that every large miss has one cause.

Start with the size of the error

  1. Classify the miss

    Treat a kilometre-scale systematic miss as an origin/setup problem first; treat lines that nearly meet as a precision/geometry problem first.

  2. Verify the firing origin

    Check whether the Nest moved, whether its map marker is current, and whether the firing solution was calculated before that origin changed.

  3. Preserve measurement uncertainty

    Do not force near-crossing lines into an invented exact point or assume the displayed bearing has infinite precision.

  4. Add an independent constraint

    When two range circles or mixed geometry leave multiple candidates, use another bearing, range, or reconnaissance observation to distinguish them.

  5. Separate targeting from firing setup

    If the candidate target looks sound, recheck the firing origin, range measurement, and copied firing data before blaming triangulation.

Still stuck?

My shots are off by kilometres

Check the current Nest/firing origin first: did it move, is the map marker stale, or are you reusing a pre-move firing solution? Historical evidence supports stale origin as one cause of large misses, but Patch #3 fixed some turret position and movement reset problems, so it is not presented as the only current cause.

My bearing lines almost meet but do not cross exactly

Treat the displayed values as reported measurements, not infinite precision. In one historical Demo-era case, a reconstructed bearing of about 93.8° appeared as 94°. This does not establish a universal rounding rule for version 1.0 (1618).

Two distance circles give me two possible targets

That is not automatically a plotting mistake. Two circles can legitimately cross at two points, and both satisfy those two distances. Add another independent observation or reconnaissance constraint.

The target point looks correct but the shot still misses

Separate target-location geometry from firing-solution setup. Recheck the firing origin, range measurement, and copied firing data before assuming the triangulation is wrong.

Common mistakes

  • Debugging small bearing precision before checking a clearly stale or wrong firing origin.
  • Treating the historical 93.8° to 94° case as a universal current rounding rule.
  • Assuming two range reports must always resolve to one unique target.
  • Calling a near-intersection a game bug without separating precision, geometry, and setup errors.
Why this works

This diagnostic combines corroborated but differently scoped evidence: historical stale-origin reports for large systematic misses, one Demo-era empirical bearing example for limited display precision, deterministic circle-intersection geometry, and the general separation between locating a target and calculating a firing solution. It does not reconstruct the current internal precision model.