Matrix Games Forums

Hi all
in db viewer, mk1 eyeball has "altitude info" capability and can extract height of target. Is it real?! How human's eyes calcute height??[&:]

I don't know about you but I can sure tell the difference between a aircraft I can see at 1000ft vs 10,000ft vs 30,000, pretty clearly. Now I get your point that I can't tell the difference between 11.5k and 10k but it seems a reasonable enough allowance for the game mechanics that rely on it to function. Are you suggesting maybe there should be a mk2 eyeball that doesn't provide altitude information?

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

I don't know about you but I can sure tell the difference between a aircraft I can see at 1000ft vs 10,000ft vs 30,000, pretty clearly. Now I get your point that I can't tell the difference between 11.5k and 10k but it seems a reasonable enough allowance for the game mechanics that rely on it to function. Are you suggesting maybe there should be a mk2 eyeball that doesn't provide altitude information?

Thanks
sure u can differ 1000ft vs 10000ft,but not 1000ft vs 1010ft!!
But in game,Mk1 reports target's altitude exactly same as its real height,without any error!! It's certainly a bug

ORIGINAL: Theokarl1980

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

I don't know about you but I can sure tell the difference between a aircraft I can see at 1000ft vs 10,000ft vs 30,000, pretty clearly. Now I get your point that I can't tell the difference between 11.5k and 10k but it seems a reasonable enough allowance for the game mechanics that rely on it to function. Are you suggesting maybe there should be a mk2 eyeball that doesn't provide altitude information?

Thanks
sure u can differ 1000ft vs 10000ft,but not 1000ft vs 1010ft!!
But in game,Mk1 reports target's altitude exactly same as its real height,without any error!! It's certainly a bug

He's sure right about that.
Mk1 Eyeball should give us only low/medium/high results as far as altitude goes.

ORIGINAL: Theokarl1980

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

I don't know about you but I can sure tell the difference between a aircraft I can see at 1000ft vs 10,000ft vs 30,000, pretty clearly. Now I get your point that I can't tell the difference between 11.5k and 10k but it seems a reasonable enough allowance for the game mechanics that rely on it to function. Are you suggesting maybe there should be a mk2 eyeball that doesn't provide altitude information?

Thanks
sure u can differ 1000ft vs 10000ft,but not 1000ft vs 1010ft!!
But in game,Mk1 reports target's altitude exactly same as its real height,without any error!! It's certainly a bug

That's an abstraction of the current sensor system. A "bug" is when a piece of code is designed to do A but instead does B. Big difference.

Currently, the way contacts are described is that either the altitude/depth is unknown (e.g. a detection from a 2D air-search radar) or it is precisely known. We have an improvement for this planned (an intermediate "rough estimate" step, e.g. high/med/low altitude or shallow/intermediate/deep depth), but that will be a future addition, and it will require serious adaptations to AI logics.

(And to answer the "okay, when?" question: When we have nothing more immediate on our plate.).

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

ORIGINAL: Theokarl1980

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

I don't know about you but I can sure tell the difference between a aircraft I can see at 1000ft vs 10,000ft vs 30,000, pretty clearly. Now I get your point that I can't tell the difference between 11.5k and 10k but it seems a reasonable enough allowance for the game mechanics that rely on it to function. Are you suggesting maybe there should be a mk2 eyeball that doesn't provide altitude information?

Thanks
sure u can differ 1000ft vs 10000ft,but not 1000ft vs 1010ft!!
But in game,Mk1 reports target's altitude exactly same as its real height,without any error!! It's certainly a bug

That's an abstraction of the current sensor system. A "bug" is when a piece of code is designed to do A but instead does B. Big difference.

Currently, the way contacts are described is that either the altitude/depth is unknown (e.g. a detection from a 2D air-search radar) or it is precisely known. We have an improvement for this planned (an intermediate "rough estimate" step, e.g. high/med/low altitude or shallow/intermediate/deep depth), but that will be a future addition, and it will require serious adaptations to AI logics.

(And to answer the "okay, when?" question: When we have nothing more immediate on our plate.).

Thanks.

Thank you for the complete answer
U r right,that's not a bug
But still i have a question.u said there is 2 way for alt.;how about OECM operation?if an OECM pod act on a radar,if alt. that radar calcs has error?if not, so how is jamming will be effective in cmano!!

But still i have a question.u said there is 2 way for alt.;how about OECM operation?if an OECM pod act on a radar,if alt. that radar calcs has error?if not, so how is jamming will be effective in cmano!!

OECM (ie. noise jamming) acts by preventing the detection of units by flooding the original signal in noise. So it's not a question of introducing an error in the contact data; the point is to overwhelm the radar with noise and multiple false contacts. Because it is a distinct signal, noise-jamming can be detected (by ESM sets or home-on-jam capable weapons) and exploited.

DECM (deception jamming) does indeed introduce subtle errors in the tracking & fire-control radar data. This is done transparently (you don't control it) and has the practical effect of having a probability of spoofing an incoming weapon. Deception jamming cannot be passively detected because it emulates the original return signal.