Matrix Games Forums

[Deleted by Admins]

Phased array radars should have the 'Phased Array' flag set.

Maybe I had better turn my precognition off, this is getting embarrassing...

I do hope for a patch on the 15th September. So I can get on with some DB work.

ORIGINAL: BurntFingers

Phased array radars should have the 'Phased Array' flag set.

Maybe I had better turn my precognition off, this is getting embarrassing...

I do hope for a patch on the 15th September. So I can get on with some DB work.

The setting of the "phased array flag" is I assume being stressed here as anyone using the Reimer Editor before the current release would have found this flag unavailable in the RE. This has now been fixed and I think the point is well made as many people may not have known the flag existed let alone the requirement to use it within the new ECM modelling.

Cheers

Darren

[Deleted by Admins]

A few points raised so far that I don't have answers for yet. I'm pretty sure no one does, but somebody does at least have to ask the questions;-

1) Do both Jammer POut value and the distance from the ECM emitter to the listening radar have any effect on the scalar figure applied to the RCS of all possible targets?

Or is this scalar RCS idea just based on the distance from the possible targets to the radar?

2) Have they (the programmers) considered and made sure that the calculations are not rounded up or down artificially by limitations in the calculating mechanism, an effect usually just labelled "computer error" and rarely called "Wolf's Dust Effect".

Are the actual pure mathematical models calculated accurately enough? Don't just accept "yeah, sure". Ask them for figures for + and - accuracy.

And then test this mother to what it does and the programmers aren't bulling - not a question of whether it works or not, it's a question of how limited it is, and are those limits acceptable

All PCs have limitations. So do mathematical models.

I would hope you'll see if you can "thread the needle"t, and "peck the lobe".

IE, try and maintain an ECM aircraft at just above burn through range (thread the needle) so fighters aren't vectored.

Try and maintain optimum height (You have to adjust it manually, 10 metres at a time) to get an aircraft to stay below detectable radar horizon. This is called "pecking the lobe".

You've got the beta, I haven't.


Try adjusting Jammer Pout values and maintain distance (while loitering).

Try running all aircraft around in race track patterns.

Then perform all tests again with airborne radars to check them against ground radars.

It's gonna be at least 2 weeks before I can really comment on this (ie join the beta test).

(Incidentally, in real life pretty much an ESM sensor can pick up any ECM jammer "racket" (while stationary). This is why you have to keep jammers moving, to make it obscure EXACTLY where the jamming is coming from. Public data states that the secret of "auto triangulating in real time" was solved in the mid 80s but now I am beginning to ramble.)

If it turns out that ECM aircraft just cause radars to become shortsighted without any regard to the distance from the ECM platform to the radar... I think we have a problem.

If changing Jammer Pout causes no difference AND changing range from radar to ECM platform causes no difference.... again, I think we have a problem.

These are very fundamental issues that affect gameplay and AGSI want to be SURE that it makes for a better game, rather than just following Harpoon 5 conventions without them being tested.

[Deleted by Admins]

.

ORIGINAL: VCDH

No we currently are using the H4 paper rules ECM model. The application of a physics model to ECM would be very time consuming and be prohibitive on processor time. The engine would have to check for a change in the model every second of game time because platform movement is dynamically based on a 1 second movement rate.

That's just not true.

Are you telling me that Harpoon Pro isn't using the correct model either? Runs on exactly the same hardware.

System I'm using right now can do 100,000 FPU calcs per second. It's a heap of junk compared to a gaming computer built within the last 5 years.

.

ORIGINAL: VCDH
To be honest I haven't heard of the 'Wolf's Dust Effect' before so you have me at a loss.

Call it rounding error then. Using maths beyond the limits of the computer's arithmetic capability

ORIGINAL: VCDH

ECM range is slaved to the radar horizon in game. We are going to add a range ring to ECM at a later date but we have a spreadsheet for that.

[/quote]

AGSI will save an awful lot of messing about if they incorporated it now - and it would save processor cycles, because anything outside of that doesn't need to be altered for ECM.


Any radars beyond range - don't have to calculated.

ORIGINAL: VCDH



Actually modern ESM systems need to be accurate to within about 2 degrees or less to accurately be able to triangulate a jammer. Anything more than that and you only get a rough (and ambiguous) location via triangulation.

I'm not disagreeing.

I'm just unaware of any ESM system claimed less accurate than that manufactured since the mid 80s.

Bear in mind, to accurately triangulate the bearings have to be taken and analysed simultaneously.

That was the trick that was was accomplished. All hardware, no human intervention required.

ORIGINAL: BurntFingers
If it turns out that ECM aircraft just cause radars to become shortsighted without any regard to the distance from the ECM platform to the radar... I think we have a problem.

If changing Jammer Pout causes no difference AND changing range from radar to ECM platform causes no difference.... again, I think we have a problem.

These are very fundamental issues that affect gameplay and AGSI want to be SURE that it makes for a better game, rather than just following Harpoon 5 conventions without them being tested.

ORIGINAL: VCDH


Then you're probably gonna think we have a problem. We're using this system because it's more in line with H4 paper rules (which was part of the plan all along)

-

Not part of my plan.

I was told to wait for ANW, and not buy 3.6.

Finally, years later, it turns out that ANW is not as accurate as 3.6. And NEVER will be.

We don't have a problem with this. I have a problem with this.

Why isn't the correct method used for "Full Realism" setting at least?

ORIGINAL: VCDH


Personally I agree that it's overly simplistic but it's better IMHO than the old model which applied a rather twisted model that can actually assist in detection if you went below a certain range of settings, and blinded everything if it went above a certain range.

Later
D

Er... what exactly is wrong with the old method? Sounds a bit too much like Real Life, maybe?

Let me just add...

... it's best to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

But you can understand my disappointment.

Any chance of accepting a code frag that does the dirty work or has the ink dried on the Harpoon license?

EDIT: In English, if you could get the relevant code written in a low level (superquick) form, would AGSI be interested in having the method or do you definitely want to stick with this... compromised approach?

[Deleted by Admins]

My .02 is that I really like what they've done with ECM.  Why?  Because NO ONE KNOWS the true effect of ECM/ECCM and all the fancy mathematical "models" will never get around that.  I'd rather have something that produces accurate-seeming *results* rather than uses accurate-seeming *formulas*. 

Because those complex formulas are probably 110% BS anyway.  The current iteration of Harpoon4.1 does (IMHO) produce results which are fairly in-line with what little real-world info we have on such things, and that's about as good as it gets until we get some hard data (unlikely unless the Russians get frisky and launch some SS-N-22's at an Arleigh Burke or something).