[NOTIFIED] Database Error?? Sensor Max Ranges on Platform DB Pages
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2023 3:06 am
When looking at platforms in the DB, it's my understanding that when a sensor's Max Range entry has #1/#2nm, that that means #1 is the sensor's inherent solo-range and #2 is how far it can "see" if another sensor (either own-platform or friendly) tells it where to look.
In most cases #2 is larger than #1. For instance, Mk 1 Eyeball is 15/50nm. Makes sense. (Speaking of which, it doesn't have a DB entry but it is a hyperlink wherever it occurs. Intentional? Eyeball with binoculars has an entry.)
In some entries however, #2 is smaller than #1. That doesn't make sense to me. I'm suspecting values have been inverted. i.e. - #2/#1nm rather than #1/#2nm.
Examples:
For #1864 LA-610 TARPS Pod (IR+EO)
#453 KA-99 Panoramic Camera - 15/5nm (The sensor's own DB entry for Min/Max R says -/5nm)
#451 KS-87B Frame Camera - 12/5nm (The sensor's own DB entry for Min/Max R says -/5nm)
#455 AN/AAD-5/RS-720 - 10/5nm (The sensor's own DB entry for Min/Max R says -/10nm)
#1518 A-6E Intruder (U.S. - 1993)
#5785 IR Seeker - 25/10nm (The sensor's own DB entry for Min/Max R says -/10nm)
It's entirely possible if not likely that I'm misunderstanding something. If not ... Well, DB bug report.
In most cases #2 is larger than #1. For instance, Mk 1 Eyeball is 15/50nm. Makes sense. (Speaking of which, it doesn't have a DB entry but it is a hyperlink wherever it occurs. Intentional? Eyeball with binoculars has an entry.)
In some entries however, #2 is smaller than #1. That doesn't make sense to me. I'm suspecting values have been inverted. i.e. - #2/#1nm rather than #1/#2nm.
Examples:
For #1864 LA-610 TARPS Pod (IR+EO)
#453 KA-99 Panoramic Camera - 15/5nm (The sensor's own DB entry for Min/Max R says -/5nm)
#451 KS-87B Frame Camera - 12/5nm (The sensor's own DB entry for Min/Max R says -/5nm)
#455 AN/AAD-5/RS-720 - 10/5nm (The sensor's own DB entry for Min/Max R says -/10nm)
#1518 A-6E Intruder (U.S. - 1993)
#5785 IR Seeker - 25/10nm (The sensor's own DB entry for Min/Max R says -/10nm)
It's entirely possible if not likely that I'm misunderstanding something. If not ... Well, DB bug report.