Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (Full Version)

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



Message


tango4 -> Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (4/11/2016 2:54:19 PM)

Hi guys,
I have some trouble understanding some radar angles displayed in game.

The example I have here is using this aircraft:
#2345 - Rafale M -- France (Navy), 2011-0, F3
using the latest DB.

Using Baloogan database viewer I can see that the RBE-2 Arc search angle is pretty narrow, something like the one of the RDY from the Mirage 2000-5 (#20 - Mirage 2000-5F -- France (Air Force), 2012-0, -)
Using the editor, I create a scenario adding just one Rafale and one Mirage 2000-5. Then I switch radars on.

The strange thing is that arcs displayed in game are totally different !
The one from the 2000-5 matches what I expected according to baloogan db viewer. The one from the rafale is really wide, exactly like the Engage Arc of the RBE2.

I really don't understand why ?

The idea I had was:
*The Rafale is equipped with a passive IRST (called OSF) which according to baloogan db has the same range as the radar (100Nm) in the IR channel, and has an Arc search angle that looks exactly like what I see inside command. But it is a passive sensor, so it should be diplayed all the time if that was the case, and when I turn the radar off, nothing is displayed. (And I guess passive sensors are never displayed, but not 100% sure).
*Or perhaps baloogan website is using an old Db and something has changed regarding the rafale ?

Another related question:
Is there any way of knowing sensor search angles from inside the game ? I could not find it in the feature request poll (only weapon engagement arc) but if it is not listed there, I would find it as a very nice addition.

Any help understanding that would be much appreciated !!

All the best.

Charles

PS: if my question is not clear do not hesitate to ask, I'll try my best to rephrase if necessary.




thewood1 -> RE: Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (4/11/2016 3:15:56 PM)

I'm not sure, but it might be the RBE-2 AESA capability gives a greater practical scan arc than what is listed as the straight ahead arc shows. Whereas the RDY as a mechanical scan's limits are hard limits. My guess at it.




thewood1 -> RE: Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (4/11/2016 3:16:48 PM)

btw, the amount of detail you gave in the question makes it very easy to understand what you are looking for...thanks.




ComDev -> RE: Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (4/11/2016 3:26:36 PM)

We widened the search angle for PESA and AESA radars in one of the latest databases, to reflect the fact that these radars scan and track simultaneously. So it seems Baloogan may not have updated his website to the latest database yet [8D]




ComDev -> RE: Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (4/11/2016 3:27:58 PM)

About in-game sensor arcs... only for active sensors and passive sonar.




tango4 -> RE: Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (4/11/2016 3:42:15 PM)

Thanks a lot to both of you for your supersonic answers !

Just regarding the second part of the question, could you please confirm that there is no way of knowing the sensor arc in the DB Viewer in game at the moment.
If it is not the case, do I need to put a message in the feature request topic to have a chance of getting that added to the list of requested features ?

Charles




ComDev -> RE: Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (4/11/2016 8:11:53 PM)

Correct, there is no way to see this currently.

Have added your request to our bug and feature request database [8D]

Thanks!




tango4 -> RE: Question regarding Radar Arcs and an issue with a specific example (4/11/2016 9:06:07 PM)

Once again, many thanks.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8945313