COMMS EMCON and COMINT (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Pergite! -> COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/3/2013 5:11:21 PM)

Thank you for a really great game!

This type of grand endeavour tends to evolve over time and the few flaws I have encountered so far is to me of minor concern.

I am however curious on how the COMMS / DATA LINKS function in the game, and if there are any far reaching plans to expand this segment into something more painfully realistic? Since EMCON is a very vital tool in the game and of course IRL, incorporating COMMS into it as well would make a lot of sense. Few commercial games/simulations have made efforts in this area before:

In Harpoon (H3?) AFAIK the only way COMMS mattered was in regards to the command of subs. Given an order they would head of into the deep and only respond to new orders at set intervals. POA2 (Point of Attack 2) also had a very serious model of EW, with a breakup of every units communication and transmission in data bits that based on type of equipment, communication range and position of enemy ESM and ECM units calculated how much of the communication that arrived, and how much was intercepted and located. Without comms you could no longer know where your units where or their status. It offered a really good simulation on operating in a contested spectrum environment, and forced you to make decisions between good C3 (Command Control Communications) and the danger of getting your units detected by enemy radio locations assets. The game sadly had a lot of issues and was due to this at least for me nearly unplayable. It however excelled in what I described above. Other games have had more abstracted ways in calculated effects of EW vs C3.


Incorporating COMMS/DATALINKS into the EMCON, with effects on the detection SIGNATURE function could probably function in the same way as ELINT is handled now (same calculations / different values). The bigger problem would be to handle EMCOM restrictions in regards of degraded C3 as well as effects on the games OODA model and effects from enemy offensive ECM.


This is nothing that the game at the moment is lacking, it would however push the game even further in regards of realism.







Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/3/2013 9:42:44 PM)

I just took some time to make a couple of controlled tests and came to the conclusion that the current ELINT/ESM function is not working properly.

The advantage with ESM collection is that the platform can remain electronically silent and detect and analyse RADAR transmissions beyond the RADAR detection range because of the greater power of the transmitted electromagnetic pulse with respect to a reflected echo of that pulse.

I just tested this out and it does not work. A E-3 Sentry detects through RADAR airborne and shipborne intelligence and surveillance platforms utilizing dedicated ELINT sensors. This has nothing to do with sensor quality, this is about the laws of physics.

Pretty disappointing...

Edit:
The NATO E-3A seems to be especially good. I changed to the USAF version, and it offered a more reasonable ESM detection range (45nm advantage). It also seems that Surface platforms has difficulties in detecting air-search radars. Is the curving of the earth or antenna directivity involved in the current calculation or what governs that calculation?



Primarchx -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/3/2013 9:50:36 PM)

Tell me more, Pergite! The main place I have problems with ESM is that shipboard ESM doesn't have much of a 'cushion' for detecting threats over the horizon until that threat is there and can detect them. There's often some surface ducting or atmospheric bouncing that will propagate a signal to an ESM set before the emitter can get a coherent contact on them. In the air I find I get ESM spikes and can prosecute them in the way that I expect.

One upgrade I would like is an effective LOS tool, which would aid in determining sensor horizons in the complex 3d topography of Command.



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/3/2013 10:04:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx
One upgrade I would like is an effective LOS tool, which would aid in determining sensor horizons in the complex 3d topography of Command.


That would be a nice feature, but it would probably shoot the systems requirement through the roof.



Primarchx -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/3/2013 10:14:33 PM)

Not if it was an on-demand tool. The game is continually determining sensor horizons already, it's just not easily discernable to the player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pergite!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx
One upgrade I would like is an effective LOS tool, which would aid in determining sensor horizons in the complex 3d topography of Command.


That would be a nice feature, but it would probably shoot the systems requirement through the roof.





Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/3/2013 10:30:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Tell me more, Pergite! The main place I have problems with ESM is that shipboard ESM doesn't have much of a 'cushion' for detecting threats over the horizon until that threat is there and can detect them. There's often some surface ducting or atmospheric bouncing that will propagate a signal to an ESM set before the emitter can get a coherent contact on them. In the air I find I get ESM spikes and can prosecute them in the way that I expect.


When just considering power in the radar/ESM range equation a radar with a effective range of 100km (against a 1 sq m target) could be detected by ESM on over 500 times its radar range(probably alot more).

What makes these ranges impossible is the radar horizon. However the higher the ESM sensor gets, the further the range it will offer.

What also governs the probability of intercept by an ESM sensor is how many radar pulses that are required for the ESM system to make a detection. For example how large RF band the ESM system is scanning simultaneously etc. Regardless of this, a somewhat modern system would offer a considerable range advantage, even non airborne ESM.






Maromak -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/4/2013 1:23:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

One upgrade I would like is an effective LOS tool, which would aid in determining sensor horizons in the complex 3d topography of Command.


Perhaps Falcon View or GlobalMapper could be used for this. I have used both previously for LOS (Viewshed) analysis. Obviously more convenient if it were part of Command in some future upgrade than having to use a separate program. GlobalMapper can export Viewshed polygons as .kml and (I think) .shp files which may be compatible with Command as an overlay?? Convert to .png??



Primarchx -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/4/2013 1:51:58 AM)

LOS is a tricky beast in Command because it's not alway point of earth to point of earth. It might be an aircraft at 32,500' ASL to a ship's mast at 100' ASL, or two aircraft at 32,500' or an aircraft trying to avoid Radar LOS on the other side of a ridge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maromak


quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

One upgrade I would like is an effective LOS tool, which would aid in determining sensor horizons in the complex 3d topography of Command.


Perhaps Falcon View or GlobalMapper could be used for this. I have used both previously for LOS (Viewshed) analysis. Obviously more convenient if it were part of Command in some future upgrade than having to use a separate program. GlobalMapper can export Viewshed polygons as .kml and (I think) .shp files which may be compatible with Command as an overlay?? Convert to .png??




Maromak -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/4/2013 2:18:27 PM)

Good point. Don't know about recent versions of Falcon View but GlobalMapper allows the user to add AGL height values for the transmitter and receiver. Of course this depends on the resolution of the terrain data but good results are achievable with freely available data such as SRTM. The user can also enter the frequencies which will affect RF propagation.



Jakob Wedman -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/4/2013 2:45:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

I just took some time to make a couple of controlled tests and came to the conclusion that the current ELINT/ESM function is not working properly.

The advantage with ESM collection is that the platform can remain electronically silent and detect and analyse RADAR transmissions beyond the RADAR detection range because of the greater power of the transmitted electromagnetic pulse with respect to a reflected echo of that pulse.

I just tested this out and it does not work. A E-3 Sentry detects through RADAR airborne and shipborne intelligence and surveillance platforms utilizing dedicated ELINT sensors. This has nothing to do with sensor quality, this is about the laws of physics.

Pretty disappointing...

Edit:
The NATO E-3A seems to be especially good. I changed to the USAF version, and it offered a more reasonable ESM detection range (45nm advantage). It also seems that Surface platforms has difficulties in detecting air-search radars. Is the curving of the earth or antenna directivity involved in the current calculation or what governs that calculation?

Thanks Pergite!, I've added a new bug report/feature request [:)]



Dimitris -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/4/2013 6:59:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

I just took some time to make a couple of controlled tests and came to the conclusion that the current ELINT/ESM function is not working properly.

The advantage with ESM collection is that the platform can remain electronically silent and detect and analyse RADAR transmissions beyond the RADAR detection range because of the greater power of the transmitted electromagnetic pulse with respect to a reflected echo of that pulse.

I just tested this out and it does not work. A E-3 Sentry detects through RADAR airborne and shipborne intelligence and surveillance platforms utilizing dedicated ELINT sensors. This has nothing to do with sensor quality, this is about the laws of physics.

Pretty disappointing...

Edit:
The NATO E-3A seems to be especially good. I changed to the USAF version, and it offered a more reasonable ESM detection range (45nm advantage). It also seems that Surface platforms has difficulties in detecting air-search radars. Is the curving of the earth or antenna directivity involved in the current calculation or what governs that calculation?


Could you please post a save demonstrating this? We'll need to examine it to see if there is any special factor involved.

Thanks!



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/5/2013 10:27:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

I just took some time to make a couple of controlled tests and came to the conclusion that the current ELINT/ESM function is not working properly.

The advantage with ESM collection is that the platform can remain electronically silent and detect and analyse RADAR transmissions beyond the RADAR detection range because of the greater power of the transmitted electromagnetic pulse with respect to a reflected echo of that pulse.

I just tested this out and it does not work. A E-3 Sentry detects through RADAR airborne and shipborne intelligence and surveillance platforms utilizing dedicated ELINT sensors. This has nothing to do with sensor quality, this is about the laws of physics.

Pretty disappointing...

Edit:
The NATO E-3A seems to be especially good. I changed to the USAF version, and it offered a more reasonable ESM detection range (45nm advantage). It also seems that Surface platforms has difficulties in detecting air-search radars. Is the curving of the earth or antenna directivity involved in the current calculation or what governs that calculation?


Could you please post a save demonstrating this? We'll need to examine it to see if there is any special factor involved.

Thanks!

I did a quick test scenario,

A NATO E-3A radiating fully on service altitude on closing heading to a group of intelligence platforms consisting of an US RC 135 Rivet Joint, The german Oste and russian Vishnya class ships.

The two airborne sensors picked up the AWAC well before radar range, and with their respective altitudes neglecting the radar horizon. This test was done out over the ocean. I had previously done the same thing in the baltic, and had then gotten a different result. I have however not been able to reproduce it.

The surface vessels are however a problem. The E3-A did the first detection of the surface ships with its radar at 07:56:13. The Oste did get an ESM track at 07:56:18. The active sensor beat the passive sensor with 5 seconds. If the yellow circle represents the radar horizon of the E3-A, then the Oste was 24nm within that horizon before the detection was made.

The Vishnya class failed to detect anything until the E3-A was within visual range. The class does on closer inspection lack any ELINT equipment, it however have a full suite of COMINT equipment, that obviously doesn't do anything particular at the moment.

I replaced the Oste with a 2012 Ticonderoga-class, and it managed basically the same range, although it was a few seconds faster than the dedicated intelligence ship. Its a bit taller, so the sensor should perhaps of this detect signals farther. I don't know how well this is modelled at the moment. I am also clueless on how the different "rankings" of ESM/ELINT equipment are modelled and what's the real difference between them.

I have attached the basic setup with the E-3A and the two AGI:s.




Der Zeitgeist -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 10:19:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
Could you please post a save demonstrating this? We'll need to examine it to see if there is any special factor involved.



The "special factor involved" is mostly the thousands of omissions in the current database for loadouts, sensors, equipment, engines, capabilities, probably because you built the database from the ground up, instead of falling back to data from DB2000 where current data was not available. I already demonstrated several cases where platforms were working in DB2000 and certain capabilities are now missing in DB3000.

The result is SDVs that don't have an engine, ELINT ships that can't pick up emissions, replenishment ships that can't replenish anything, mine layers that can't lay mines, nuclear bombers without nuclear bomb loadouts, EW aircraft that can't even identify radars, and I'm sure the list goes on...

There are dozens, maybe hundreds of platforms in there that are currently only placeholders, without any of the functions they are actually supposed to be used for.

I already asked this in another thread, but I'll ask again: How long do you think you will take to work on these thousands of errors, without giving us players a way to effectively communicate them to you?

Right now, the only way is complaining in the forums and hoping it gets picked up. [&:]






ExMachina -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 2:44:17 PM)

FWIW, I've only recently started playing around with CMANO in editor mode and am noticing similar idiosyncrasies with ESM implementation. For example, the range at which emitting units are detectable by others' ESM sets seems to rarely much further than that same unit's effective radar range--the effect is that my passive units pick up emitting enemy units only slightly before those enemy units are able to see me.



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 2:47:26 PM)

I have not in detailed scanned through the db for any inconsistencies. With the massive amount of data in it there will of course be some errors. My main issue which I tried to raise was that there seem to be something wrong with how ESM uses the radar range equation. Maybe choices where made to abstract some functions, but it would be good know where and what those abstractions are.




El Savior -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 3:44:12 PM)

I can confirm that there seems to be problems at least for (russian?) surface ships ESM-capabilities. I made test scenario with one Arley Burke and E-3 Sentry radars on.

On Russian side there was Tu-95 Bear - which indeed picked up radar signals before AWACS spotted it. But for signal ships SSV Okean and SSV Balzam they didn't pick up any signals. Okean was detected by E-3 two seconds BEFORE it detected enemy radar waves. Range was 259 nm.

For Arley Burke and Russian surface ships. SSV Balzam was detected by AN/SQR-19(v3) from 34 nm and identified from 31 nm. Balzam didn't spot any radar signals. Odd that it was identified even when Balzam radar was off. Balzam detected Arley Burke from 3 nm by Cage Pot (RWR Radar Warning). SSV Okean (radar off) was spotted from 34 nm by Arley Burkey (classified from 34 nm as AGI). Okean spotted Arley Burke by ESM from 8 nm. Test was made middle of the Atlantic ocean.



wodin -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 3:53:34 PM)

@Pergite..the recent POA2 patches have done alot to improve the game..TU is being extensively worked on aswell.



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 4:14:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: El Savior

I can confirm that there seems to be problems at least for (russian?) surface ships ESM-capabilities. I made test scenario with one Arley Burke and E-3 Sentry radars on.

On Russian side there was Tu-95 Bear - which indeed picked up radar signals before AWACS spotted it. But for signal ships SSV Okean and SSV Balzam they didn't pick up any signals. Okean was detected by E-3 two seconds BEFORE it detected enemy radar waves. Range was 259 nm.

For Arley Burke and Russian surface ships. SSV Balzam was detected by AN/SQR-19(v3) from 34 nm and identified from 31 nm. Balzam didn't spot any radar signals. Odd that it was identified even when Balzam radar was off. Balzam detected Arley Burke from 3 nm by Cage Pot (RWR Radar Warning). SSV Okean (radar off) was spotted from 34 nm by Arley Burkey (classified from 34 nm as AGI). Okean spotted Arley Burke by ESM from 8 nm. Test was made middle of the Atlantic ocean.


Wait one second... Are you saying that the US platforms can ID a contact just through active sensors? That is pretty strange since in reality that is only possible with passive sensors, acoustic, optical or electromagnetic. I will try this when I get home.



El Savior -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 4:38:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
Are you saying that the US platforms can ID a contact just through active sensors? That is pretty strange since in reality that is only possible with passive sensors, acoustic, optical or electromagnetic. I will try this when I get home.


Indeed I did say that and this sounds like odd behavior. I will try to duplicate this. In my second try Balzam was identified like it should be from 7,5 nm by Mk1 Eyeball. Balzam didn't spot radar signals before it was spotted. In this second attempt I used E-2C Hawkey and SSV Balzam. Not sure why in my first test identification was made much further away. I'll try making same setup (already deleted test scenario..).

Edit: FOUND ANSWER: AN/SQR-19(v3)sensor is passive sonar, so identification was made by this! I used flank speed for Balzam so it makes sense. So the remaining problem is how ESM work on Russian side and radar picks up surface contacts before they receive ESM signals from radars.



Dimitris -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 5:40:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
Could you please post a save demonstrating this? We'll need to examine it to see if there is any special factor involved.



The "special factor involved" is mostly the thousands of omissions in the current database for loadouts, sensors, equipment, engines, capabilities, probably because you built the database from the ground up, instead of falling back to data from DB2000 where current data was not available. I already demonstrated several cases where platforms were working in DB2000 and certain capabilities are now missing in DB3000.

The result is SDVs that don't have an engine, ELINT ships that can't pick up emissions, replenishment ships that can't replenish anything, mine layers that can't lay mines, nuclear bombers without nuclear bomb loadouts, EW aircraft that can't even identify radars, and I'm sure the list goes on...

There are dozens, maybe hundreds of platforms in there that are currently only placeholders, without any of the functions they are actually supposed to be used for.

I already asked this in another thread, but I'll ask again: How long do you think you will take to work on these thousands of errors, without giving us players a way to effectively communicate them to you?

Right now, the only way is complaining in the forums and hoping it gets picked up. [&:]


Here is a non-helpful way:
"SDVs that don't have an engine, ELINT ships that can't pick up emissions, replenishment ships that can't replenish anything, mine layers that can't lay mines, nuclear bombers without nuclear bomb loadouts, EW aircraft that can't even identify radars, and I'm sure the list goes on..."

Here's a helpful way:
"SDV X123 (ID #567 in DB3000) is missing an engine.
ELINT ship X123 (ID #789 in CWDB) does not have the sensor XYZ which it carried in RL.
The 1982 variant of the Sacramento class (ID #987 in DB3000) is missing the "Refuel to starboard" flag."

Please do more of the latter and less of the former, since you obviously want to help us.

Thanks!



Dimitris -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 6:23:25 PM)

Here is a suggestion. Start a thread with DB problems on the Mods & Scens subforum and we'll make it sticky so that we can keep track of fixed & outstanding items.

Fair?



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 6:26:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn
Could you please post a save demonstrating this? We'll need to examine it to see if there is any special factor involved.



The "special factor involved" is mostly the thousands of omissions in the current database for loadouts, sensors, equipment, engines, capabilities, probably because you built the database from the ground up, instead of falling back to data from DB2000 where current data was not available. I already demonstrated several cases where platforms were working in DB2000 and certain capabilities are now missing in DB3000.

The result is SDVs that don't have an engine, ELINT ships that can't pick up emissions, replenishment ships that can't replenish anything, mine layers that can't lay mines, nuclear bombers without nuclear bomb loadouts, EW aircraft that can't even identify radars, and I'm sure the list goes on...

There are dozens, maybe hundreds of platforms in there that are currently only placeholders, without any of the functions they are actually supposed to be used for.

I already asked this in another thread, but I'll ask again: How long do you think you will take to work on these thousands of errors, without giving us players a way to effectively communicate them to you?

Right now, the only way is complaining in the forums and hoping it gets picked up. [&:]


Here is a non-helpful way:
"SDVs that don't have an engine, ELINT ships that can't pick up emissions, replenishment ships that can't replenish anything, mine layers that can't lay mines, nuclear bombers without nuclear bomb loadouts, EW aircraft that can't even identify radars, and I'm sure the list goes on..."

Here's a helpful way:
"SDV X123 (ID #567 in DB3000) is missing an engine.
ELINT ship X123 (ID #789 in CWDB) does not have the sensor XYZ which it carried in RL.
The 1982 variant of the Sacramento class (ID #987 in DB3000) is missing the "Refuel to starboard" flag."

Please do more of the latter and less of the former, since you obviously want to help us.

Thanks!


Regarding ESM, its pretty hard to know what's right and what's wrong without knowing how the function actually is modelled in the game. I for example have no clue of how an "AN/SLQ32" compares to a "Generic ESM [Average]" and an "ES-3701 Seawatch" differs from a "Generic ESM [Advanced] . What designs choices have the team made, and what parameters are you actually using when simulating ESM detections, classifications and ranges.




Command is outstanding is it is now, our critic just aims to make it even better.



Dimitris -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 6:33:49 PM)

We know the intention is good, and we want to make good use of all this energy.

It turns out a thread with this suggestion has already been created, so I moved it to the Mods & Scens subforum and stickied it: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3436106

Please post any DB problems there.

Thanks!



ExMachina -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 6:36:05 PM)

quote:

Regarding ESM, its pretty hard to know what's right and what's wrong without knowing how the function actually is modelled in the game.


Exactly. There are two issues in this thread--units lacking components (an obvious DB issue) and whether or not the sensor model is correct.

The sensor modeling questions raised here will not be addressed by database sticky.



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 6:50:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

I just took some time to make a couple of controlled tests and came to the conclusion that the current ELINT/ESM function is not working properly.

The advantage with ESM collection is that the platform can remain electronically silent and detect and analyse RADAR transmissions beyond the RADAR detection range because of the greater power of the transmitted electromagnetic pulse with respect to a reflected echo of that pulse.

I just tested this out and it does not work. A E-3 Sentry detects through RADAR airborne and shipborne intelligence and surveillance platforms utilizing dedicated ELINT sensors. This has nothing to do with sensor quality, this is about the laws of physics.

Pretty disappointing...

Edit:
The NATO E-3A seems to be especially good. I changed to the USAF version, and it offered a more reasonable ESM detection range (45nm advantage). It also seems that Surface platforms has difficulties in detecting air-search radars. Is the curving of the earth or antenna directivity involved in the current calculation or what governs that calculation?


Thank you for your beedback Pergite!

Just to be clear, you say the E-3 detects the ELINT aircraft before the ELINT aircraft detects the E-3?

Both the radar model and ESM model takes the power output into account, and the ESM systems use sensitivity (dB ref 1mW) and System Loss (dB) as input params.

Would be great if you could upload a scenario showing this, so that I can check the various sensors and possibly also do some debugging.

Thanks! [8D]



ComDev -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 6:53:48 PM)

Strike last, will test scen. Thanks [8D]



Pergite! -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 7:18:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emsoy

Strike last, will test scen. Thanks [8D]


Air to air radar/ESM seems to work fine. I were never able to reproduce the initial oddity. The scenario is just air to surface as described in the post.



Der Zeitgeist -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 7:48:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

Here is a suggestion. Start a thread with DB problems on the Mods & Scens subforum and we'll make it sticky so that we can keep track of fixed & outstanding items.

Fair?


I put up a spreadsheet to collect DB3000 issues here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhTk9byWTG-hdGJtTkY4QXNWRG4wLTlScjhjRXM0Qmc&usp=sharing

I also linked to this file in the thread that was stickied.



Dimitris -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 7:58:36 PM)

Thanks!



jpkoester1 -> RE: COMMS EMCON and COMINT (10/13/2013 7:58:49 PM)

The problem is probably related to radar horizon and LOS. Symptoms sound to me like ESM gear will only detect radar if it is above the horizon. This means that most powerfull radars will be able to detect enemies at the same range as ESM gear will be able to pick ip their radiation (i.e. when visual LOS is the limiting factor to active radar range it will also be the limiting factor for the ESM gear). I am no expert, but my laymans understanding is that ESM gear should probably be able to detect active radars that are below the horizon by a couple of degrees (ducting. etc...). Probably they should incur an accuracy penalty in these cases.

Not sure what the formula should be though.

Cheers,
JP



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.828125