|
BurntFingers -> RE: Need advice on patching databases for 3.8 (7/23/2007 6:45:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: VCDH
ECM is a work in progress. Right now it adds (or removes, depending on the setting) interference that prevents detection from happening. Think of it as trying to talk when the radio is playing. Too loud and you can't hear anything, too low and you can't hear the radio while you're talking. We have to find a happy balance and it's so far eluding us. I would like to figure out a formula for it so we can simulate it on an excel sheet but all we can come up with right now is a specific range of values for a specific radar. If the ECM value is too high, it blinds everything, and if it's too low it actually gives the radar an assist with detection.
OK. So it's basically adding a noise factor to radar detect chances, the amount of noise being dependent on the range from OECM-radar and the level of ECM being the main values. Things like lobeshape, atmospherics and topological effects aren't modelled.
Now, are the flags which determine the types of radar affected (Pulse, Pulse Doppler, Continuous Wave etc) modelled? Should I set the flags for the radars?
Nobody seems to do this, and it strikes me that either (a) there is no game code to support it or (b) the type of radars affected by an ECM system is usually classified. You might get hearsay evidence but it's moot anyway. So should I bother?
quote:
ORIGINAL: VCDH
ESM is a little easier to understand but you have to also know the various types of ESM gear there are. There's COMINT/SIGINT, ESM, RWRs and DF gear. COMINT/SIGINT is by far the most sensititve but because ANW lacks the ability to home in on enemy comms then it's moot (for now). ESM is usually more sensitive and has a long range than RWRs. RWRs are usually set for a limited number of bands and are meant to provide warning only and no information.
Could this be part of the problem with the sub detecting everything by ESM bug? The code doesn't look at mast height (less than 1 metre, being attached to a periscope) or the fact that databases have subs with highly sensitive ESM detectors and not RWR detectors?
quote:
ORIGINAL: VCDH
Basically you'll have to play with the values until you get a detection range that you like. Start off with a generational type of model as opposed to sensor specific ones and that will give you an idea of how to proceed.
Like I said elsewhere, I took the values from DB2000 6.3. and got fairly convincing results modelling intercept/no intercept. Although I had to change some negative values to positive (deleted the minus sign) on many systems.
I've still got about 10,000 questions on modding dbs... but it seems like the only answer I'll get to most of them is "mess about with it until it works". So I'll do just that.
|
|
|
|
