Jammer penalty
-
Just spec’ing TWS or RWS isn’t enough…what scan width (20, 30, 60), how many bars, etc.?
.
on all possible azimuths and bar scans.
-
@Master:
on all possible azimuths and bar scans.
You should get something different for each…in reality.
-
i do, like i said above with regards to sweep rate, 2-3 miles earlier or later detection depending on azimuth (and bar scan)
-
Isnt there an aspect modifier to RCS though? Head on might be decreasing the listed RCS below what it shows, which would cause the disparity in detection range.
-
Isnt there an aspect modifier to RCS though? Head on might be decreasing the listed RCS below what it shows, which would cause the disparity in detection range.
Dont know if this is simulated in BMS, but all my tests are strictly head on to maintain jammer gimbal limits.
-
I had thought the RP5 manual reckoned it was simulated; seeing as it also reckons an IADS is simulated though, perhaps a more reliable source would be a team dev weighing in.
-
I am starting to suspect something here:
In all my tests vs the su27 he always burnsthrough at 22-23nm’s. This respects the burnthrough calculation provided by tbuc’s excel (the values within the excel are outdated, i use the bms editor ones). What happens when he locks up, is that he shoots vertically to about 36kft. We both start at 23kft and we remain that way until he locks me up. This happens literally ALL the time (ace ai).In order to anticipate this move, i set my antenna to cover the altitude that he climbs to. Now, based on burnthrough calculation i should see him at around 16nm’s, but i dont. Here is the interesting thing. Since i detect him at 13,5 i suspected that perhaps i suffer from the look down penalty although i am lower than him. I run the look down and jamming calculation and behold, i end up with 13,5nm’s. I try it again. same result. Try again and again. Same. The su-27 doesnt suffer from the lookdown penalty because he locked me when we where at the same altitude. But i am lower. I shouldnt suffer from it either. And yet, the value produced seem to indicate that i do. So i try a new thing, when we reach 22nm and i know that he locks and goes up i go up with him. Guess what? I burnthrough at JUST the calculated burnthrough range!! In conclusion: is it possible that the game has a “look up” penalty??? -
@Master:
i do, like i said above with regards to sweep rate, 2-3 miles earlier or later detection depending on azimuth (and bar scan)
It’s not so much rate, but time to complete bar from end to end and closing velocity that is the factor - how much absolute time is involved (and the geometry) as the two jets are closing. Longer the time, closer they get.
-
Someone else was talking about having a lookup penalty recently too. Possible bug maybe?
-
@Master:
I am starting to suspect something here:
In all my tests vs the su27 he always burnsthrough at 22-23nm’s. This respects the burnthrough calculation provided by tbuc’s excel (the values within the excel are outdated, i use the bms editor ones). What happens when he locks up, is that he shoots vertically to about 36kft. We both start at 23kft and we remain that way until he locks me up. This happens literally ALL the time (ace ai).In order to anticipate this move, i set my antenna to cover the altitude that he climbs to. Now, based on burnthrough calculation i should see him at around 16nm’s, but i dont. Here is the interesting thing. Since i detect him at 13,5 i suspected that perhaps i suffer from the look down penalty although i am lower than him. I run the look down and jamming calculation and behold, i end up with 13,5nm’s. I try it again. same result. Try again and again. Same. The su-27 doesnt suffer from the lookdown penalty because he locked me when we where at the same altitude. But i am lower. I shouldnt suffer from it either. And yet, the value produced seem to indicate that i do. So i try a new thing, when we reach 22nm and i know that he locks and goes up i go up with him. Guess what? I burnthrough at JUST the calculated burnthrough range!! In conclusion: is it possible that the game has a “look up” penalty???You may have hit on something - this sounds totally backwards in application…like it’s actually being applied as a “look up” penalty. But at least it’s on the sim’s numbers and could be an “easy” fix…in 3-4 weeks…
-
It’s not so much rate, but time to complete bar from end to end and closing velocity that is the factor - how much absolute time is involved (and the geometry) as the two jets are closing. Longer the time, closer they get.
semantics asides, it was amongst the first things i suspected.
-
Using minimum az/bar settings and using freeze to freeze the geometry would make the sanest tests.
-
Using minimum az/bar settings and using freeze to freeze the geometry would make the sanest tests.
freeze! now why didnt i think of that! Starting tests now…
-
Ok i think the picture is clear now: i tried having the enemy airplane unarmed and this prevented him from climbing or descending at all (ace ai). This time we burnthrough and detect each other precisely at the calculated ranges. (su27 locks at 22, i see him on scope in RWS with 10 azimuth and 1 bar scan at 22). All calculations done according to tbuc’s equation. I cross cheked this 5-6 times. I also tried flying the su-27 and the opponent the f-16cm b50. In acmi he lock at 22nm’s. Its clear to me that there is some sort of “look up” bug.
-
@Master:
Ok i think the picture is clear now: i tried having the enemy airplane unarmed and this prevented him from climbing or descending at all (ace ai). This time we burnthrough and detect each other precisely at the calculated ranges. (su27 locks at 22, i see him on scope in RWS with 10 azimuth and 1 bar scan at 22). All calculations done according to tbuc’s equation. I cross cheked this 5-6 times. I also tried flying the su-27 and the opponent the f-16cm b50. In acmi he lock at 22nm’s. Its clear to me that there is some sort of “look up” bug.
Nope. The jammer strength is still not omnidirectional as well as RCS…
-
According to rp5 manual the only RCS change based on aspect is a decrease by 0.75 of the nominal value but only in a head to tail situation.In head to head the rcs remains the same as stated in the database entry. Please elaborate on “The jammer strength is still not omnidirectional”. As i said before, we both keep each other within jammer gimbal limits.
-
@Master:
According to rp5 manual the only RCS change based on aspect is a decrease by 0.75 of the nominal value but only in a head to tail situation.In head to head the rcs remains the same as stated in the database entry. Please elaborate on “The jammer strength is still not omnidirectional”. As i said before, we both keep each other within jammer gimbal limits.
The ECM modifier according to RP5 is not the same accordingt to aspect. Yes, the total modifier of RCS is 0.75. But for God sake you are speaking about some percent “inaccuracy” as I can judge. I simply do not undertand what is your porblem. Believe me, I started to play and test DB in 2009. I have tested many things and such error never happened. In fact the radar modeling what seems to me literally just almost the same as was in SP3.
-
If i understand correctly you mean to say that if the opponent is higher or lower his jammng signal is stronger than head on and same altitude? My problem is this: Same altitude with the su-27 and you burnthrough and detect each other according to the correct equation. No problem here. Different altitudes and the burnthrough range drops to what is predicted based on the look down calculation. But it shouldnt because i am lower. Thats it. There may be an actual methodology error on my behalf but without testing we wont find it. If you have the time just run the same tests i did. Fly a b50 vs an su27, first time armed with ecm then unarmed with ecm. Check your acmi and tell me what you got.
Edit. Not some “percent inccuracy”. A whole 8-9 miles difference is the issue here. Same altitude, i burnthrough at 22. Different altitude i burnthough at 13-14
-
@Master:
If i understand correctly you mean to say that if the opponent is higher or lower his jammng signal is stronger than head on and same altitude? My problem is this: Same altitude with the su-27 and you burnthrough and detect each other according to the correct equation. No problem here. Different altitudes and the burnthrough range drops to what is predicted based on the look down calculation. But it shouldnt because i am lower. Thats it. There may be an actual methodology error on my behalf but without testing we wont find it. If you have the time just run the same tests i did. Fly a b50 vs an su27, first time armed with ecm then unarmed with ecm. Check your acmi and tell me what you got.
In Falcon if target is below at least 2.5 deg the look down range modifier acts on detecton range (as signal strenght) and as well as you experience the aspect modifier for ECM modfier.
If the target above the horizon is no look down modifier but ECM aspect modifier still playas.So checking if the target higher than you or if you are higher than target you should consider these and if you read carefully you can see that AC suffers from different modifiers. BTW rather analyze soooooooooooo deeply the cases you shoud rather enjoy that surprise randomness of the environment. In RL nothing is ever precise up to 0.000001 digit…
-
“if target is below at least 2.5 deg the look down range modifier acts on detecton range” That’s where i base my look down calculation. I cant find any aspect modifiers for ECM though,other than the widely known fact that if if the target is outside your jammers gimbals, he doesnt get jammed.However if he is in jammer gimbals (the azimuth and vertical gimbals are explained in rp5) then he constantly suffers from the jammer penaly his radar has. But this penalty is constant within the gimbal zone. It doesnt get stronger if he goes higher, if anything if he goes high enough to exceed 20 degrees then his jamming is weaker.
"BTW rather analyze soooooooooooo deeply the cases you shoud rather enjoy that surprise randomness of the environment. In RL nothing is ever precise up to 0.000001 digit… " Completely agree, but because this isnt the first time someone mentions a potential look up penalty and because this thing is bugging me since OF i decided to insist on it. It would really help if someone had the time to run those quick tests and see if he can reproduce it.