CMO v1.04 Update - Build 1147.40

[PaulWRoberts]

In practice, what "generation" of ground/ship-based radars are affected by the 30-degree limit? When do phased-array radars become common, and for whom?

Thanks!

[c3k]

Outstanding!

A great game keeps getting more refined and better and better.

Thanks.

[boogabooga]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

ORIGINAL: boogabooga
While I like the idea of radar vertical scan angle limitations, I'm not sure about the one size fits all 30 deg limit. Do you have information supporting a global 30 deg limit? I was under the impression that radars could be tilted quite a bit, as is modeled in the horizontal.

Currently it's the same for everyone. It may be expanded to individualized in the future if there is strong need for it (this would, however, probably require DB schema mods).

According to our sources, airborne radars (and other sensors e.g. IRSTs) are typically auto-stabilized in order to maintain a consistent picture during turns, climbs/dives etc. (except on extreme attitude change). While manual tilting is possible (e.g. in extreme snap-up/down engagements) it is not common because it can severely curtail general SA. We are of course open to sourced feedback on this, as usual.

Sure, but what if you are already tracking someone that goes 30 deg below you, wouldn't you steer the radar to maintain the track? Or on the other end, there are probably some non-steerable radars for which the 30 deg. scan limit is too generous.

However, when one works out the trig- from 36 000 ft, an enemy flying NOE has to get within 12nm or so to get underneath a +-30 deg search cone-basically point blank range for anything with a powerful radar in the first place- so really the issue is not so severe. It's a nice touch, anyway.

BTW, with the new model, I've noticed that AESA-equipped aircraft lose their targets when they crank, affecting BVR accuracy somewhat; one might consider reducing the crank angle by a few degrees.

[nkocevar]

Is anyone else having an issue where the Delete key doesn't delete a unit while in the scenario editor with this update?

[boogabooga]

Yes on the delete key.

Could you please explain this further:
FIXED: #13816: GUI QoL 11.4 Throttle and Altitude settings

Is there supposed to be a new hotkey for this?

[BDukes]

Sure, but what if you are already tracking someone that goes 30 deg below you, wouldn't you steer the radar to maintain the track? Or on the other end, there are probably some non-steerable radars for which the 30 deg. scan limit is too generous.

This is a good point. I think I'll be setting up high and low caps regardless.

Mike

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: boogabooga
BTW, with the new model, I've noticed that AESA-equipped aircraft lose their targets when they crank, affecting BVR accuracy somewhat; one might consider reducing the crank angle by a few degrees.

Thanks, it was also pointed by someone else and we have a tweak in place for the next update; aircraft with a PA will now crank less aggressively for this reason.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: nkocevar
Is anyone else having an issue where the Delete key doesn't delete a unit while in the scenario editor with this update?

Yes, it has been replicated and fixed for the next update.

[slimatwar]

The DELETE key also doesn't delete selected waypoint also.

[AKar]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AzNByM ... sp=sharing

To apply: Unzip to the CMO installation directory, overwriting as necessary (backup the existing Command.exe, just in case)

NOTE: This is a public beta. Standard disclaimers apply.


Build 1147.40 Release Notes (changes from Build 1147.39)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* NEW FEATURE: Radar vertical scan angle limitations. Radars can only look up/down to a maximum of 30 degrees. [...] There is an exception, however: Phased-array radars can scan upwards close to the vertical limit.

A noteworthy detail is that many phased arrays are installed at a downward angle to reduce the frontal radar cross section of the antenna. This results in the center axis of the possible scan 'cone' being pointed downwards. At the edge of the electrical scanning limits, the beamforming is subject to similar limitations on the effective aperture both in horizontal and vertical axes, further reducing the effectiveness of the extreme limits.

[AKar]

* NEW FEATURE: Radar vertical scan angle limitations. Radars can only look up/down to a maximum of 30 degrees. [...] There is an exception, however: Phased-array radars can scan upwards close to the vertical limit.

A noteworthy detail is that many phased arrays are installed at a downward angle to reduce the frontal radar cross section of the antenna. This results in the center axis of the possible scan 'cone' being pointed downwards. At the edge of the electrical scanning limits, the beamforming is subject to similar limitations on the effective aperture both in horizontal and vertical axes, further reducing the effectiveness of the extreme limits.

[cmanouser1]

Great to see some of my QoL ideas implemented! [&o]

OoB is definitely a step in the right direction, it also really needs a way to remove non "playable" units to remove clutter (buildings notably).

[jonpspri]

I'm loving the latest beta updates, but I'm wondering if the vertical scan angle limitation is impacting the AI using SARH missiles. I'm playing Hell's Highway on 1147.40 and 1147.42 -- I've noticed my F-16's are diving under the AA-10 Alamo's from the Fulcrums early in the scenario because the firing aircraft remain at 36000 ft while cranking. It may be necessary to adjust the cranking logic to dive the illuminating aircraft for SARH illuminating.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: jonpspri
I'm loving the latest beta updates, but I'm wondering if the vertical scan angle limitation is impacting the AI using SARH missiles. I'm playing Hell's Highway on 1147.40 and 1147.42 -- I've noticed my F-16's are diving under the AA-10 Alamo's from the Fulcrums early in the scenario because the firing aircraft remain at 36000 ft while cranking. It may be necessary to adjust the cranking logic to dive the illuminating aircraft for SARH illuminating.

That's an interesting point, but do we know for sure if the Fulcrums lose the Falcons because they are under the grazing angle limit or because of the increased ground clutter? Or perhaps because they are beaming?

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

ORIGINAL: jonpspri
I'm loving the latest beta updates, but I'm wondering if the vertical scan angle limitation is impacting the AI using SARH missiles. I'm playing Hell's Highway on 1147.40 and 1147.42 -- I've noticed my F-16's are diving under the AA-10 Alamo's from the Fulcrums early in the scenario because the firing aircraft remain at 36000 ft while cranking. It may be necessary to adjust the cranking logic to dive the illuminating aircraft for SARH illuminating.

That's an interesting point, but do we know for sure if the Fulcrums lose the Falcons because they are under the grazing angle limit or because of the increased ground clutter? Or perhaps because they are beaming?

If the illuminating aircraft aren't going down to look what does it matter. Maybe a match altitude if they are assigned a target?

Mike

[jonpspri]

I'll try to put a save game together to demonstrate. The behavior I'm seeing is definitely not beaming and the engagement is over water, so ground clutter is reduced (though could be a factor...).

[jonpspri]

As promised, I've attached some saved files.

First thing's first - it appears the AA-10 SARH missiles are missing because the Fulcrums never illuminate the targets, so I'm likely wrong about the look-down radar being a factor in illumination. Is there a reason the AI doesn't illuminate for the initial attack?

Hells Highway - 0.save : Flight Risk62 (2 Falcons) is about to engage Bogeys 167 and 168 (Fulcrums) near 10 deg E, 66 deg N.
Hells Highway - 1.save : The Bogeys fire the first of what will be 3 AA-10s at the Falcons.
Hells Highway - 2.save : Three AA-10s have passed the Falcons. The Fulcrums never illuminated the Falcons. The Falcons will now close.
Hells Highway - 3.save : A Fulcrum fires Missle 172 (the last AA-10). This time it illuminates the target Falcon. Notice the significant altitude distance at this time (Almost 35000 ft vertical vs 20000ish horizontal), but it appears the illumination does work for the missile.
Hells Highway - 4.save : Missile 172 just missed (only a 19% PH). Now the engagement devolves into a hairball.

All of these were saves from a playthrough on Build 1147.42.

I'm not sure I'm complaining, because my Falcons are regularly getting the better of the Fulcrums [8D] but I'm surprised the Fulcrums are not illuminating for their missile attacks. All thoughts welcome.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: jonpspri

As promised, I've attached some saved files.

First thing's first - it appears the AA-10 SARH missiles are missing because the Fulcrums never illuminate the targets, so I'm likely wrong about the look-down radar being a factor in illumination. Is there a reason the AI doesn't illuminate for the initial attack?

Hells Highway - 0.save : Flight Risk62 (2 Falcons) is about to engage Bogeys 167 and 168 (Fulcrums) near 10 deg E, 66 deg N.
Hells Highway - 1.save : The Bogeys fire the first of what will be 3 AA-10s at the Falcons.
Hells Highway - 2.save : Three AA-10s have passed the Falcons. The Fulcrums never illuminated the Falcons. The Falcons will now close.
Hells Highway - 3.save : A Fulcrum fires Missle 172 (the last AA-10). This time it illuminates the target Falcon. Notice the significant altitude distance at this time (Almost 35000 ft vertical vs 20000ish horizontal), but it appears the illumination does work for the missile.
Hells Highway - 4.save : Missile 172 just missed (only a 19% PH). Now the engagement devolves into a hairball.

All of these were saves from a playthrough on Build 1147.42.

I'm not sure I'm complaining, because my Falcons are regularly getting the better of the Fulcrums [8D] but I'm surprised the Fulcrums are not illuminating for their missile attacks. All thoughts welcome.

If easy, can you please open a new thread on this on the Tech Support forum? This will allow us to track & investigate much easier.

[jonpspri]

Done... https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5149589

[Dimitris]

Thanks!