[DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

[DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> [DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

[DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up - 5/8/2020 1:05:01 PM

MaxDemian

Posts: 22
Joined: 11/9/2015
Status: offline

Hello,

I fired up CMO for the first time, after long absence from CMANO and I noticed that the RCS of F-22 in the DB appears to have gone up. The frontal aspect RCS in X-band is now comparable to that of a cruise missile. That makes it about 10x worse than the F-35 value in the DB.

What is the reason for this change?

< Message edited by MaxDemian -- 5/8/2020 1:06:08 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: [DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up - 5/8/2020 3:31:10 PM

KnightHawk75

Posts: 1450
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline

How long a break?
I took a look at DBs from db450 (2016) to db483 (current), and they have not changed from -31.40 in the frontal aspect during this period of time for the f-22 (spot checking #333 and #691 and #1085), nor did I notice any of the other aspects change. Additionally looking at a few cruise missiles the signatures don't appear to be remotely similar, but then again I'd have to know which one(s) you're actually comparing (i eyeballed agm-158 series, kh101,aclm-86 series just as random samples).

Additionally the f-35(#287 example) frontal aspect x-band is -29.20 (.0012sqm), where as f-22 is -31.40 (.00072sqm) so I'm confused by the claim it's currently 10x worse than an f-35, when it's actually on the order of 40% better\smaller than an f-35 in the db.

(in reply to MaxDemian)

Post #: 2

RE: [DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up - 5/8/2020 4:38:43 PM

MaxDemian

Posts: 22
Joined: 11/9/2015
Status: offline

Hi.

I was looking at entry #2201 for the F-22. The frontal RCS at X-band is quoted as -10.36dBsm. This being marked as the 2019 Block 3.2B version, that's what I originally went with.

However, now that I took a look at the other F-22 entries in the DB, like entry #691 the frontal RCS at X-band there is -31.4 dBsm. This is in the range that I was expecting.

Is there something special about #2201 or is that an error in the DB?

(in reply to KnightHawk75)

Post #: 3

RE: [DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up - 5/8/2020 5:27:04 PM

KnightHawk75

Posts: 1450
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MaxDemian

Hi.

I was looking at entry #2201 for the F-22. The frontal RCS at X-band is quoted as -10.36dBsm. This being marked as the 2019 Block 3.2B version, that's what I originally went with.

However, now that I took a look at the other F-22 entries in the DB, like entry #691 the frontal RCS at X-band there is -31.4 dBsm. This is in the range that I was expecting.

Is there something special about #2201 or is that an error in the DB?

Hmm.
See the thing is inside the database #2201 is indeed still -31.4 HOWEVER you are dead-on that the DB viewer inside the game displays it as -10.36 for #2201. err.... I don't know what is up with that either because the actual DB has the right value. Excellent catch. I recently saw something similar where the fuel entry in the database for something did not match what was on screen in the database viewer (though what was in the database was what was used by the game). Can't think of anything that would cause that for this particular aircraft in the viewer, and it only displays it wrong when using db 481 or higher.

screens shot of discrepancy attached.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by KnightHawk75 -- 5/8/2020 5:47:29 PM >

(in reply to MaxDemian)

Post #: 4

RE: [DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up - 5/8/2020 6:05:47 PM

stilesw

Posts: 1497
Joined: 6/26/2014
From: Hansville, WA, USA
Status: offline

A thought. Possibly a numerical definition issue somewhere. We recently discovered that cargo values in ships were not being reported correctly in the DB viewer even though they were set up correctly in the database. Turned out that an integer value was being limited to 32767 (short integer). When the cap was removed (int 4) the values showed correctly in the viewer. Worth checking?

-WS

_____________________________

�There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.�

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)

(in reply to KnightHawk75)

Post #: 5

RE: [DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up - 5/8/2020 11:06:18 PM

KnightHawk75

Posts: 1450
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline

So I loaded a debugger and stepped though some of it.

The difference appears to be simply due to the way the internal db viewer operates, it sort of creates a fake instance of the aircraft to operate on while doing all it's queries and html generation for display. A by-product of doing that is it uses certain defaults\settings for the unit type. In the case of all the other F-22's, the last loudout in it's available loadouts are INTERNAL only loadouts, so no drop tanks. But in the case of #2201 the last is the long range SDB loudout. From what I can tell it always chooses the last one to assign to the unit for the purposes of the db viewer.

Now the DB viewer is smarter than I thought, and maybe smarter than it should be without more refinement, because using that loadout data it will then calculate off the baseline database numbers what the signature values should be based on the loadout's weapon profile similar to how the game would see it while it was actually in use. Different things effect different stuff in different ways. For example aircraft #2201 last loadout has drop tanks so it's running though the weapons loadout sees the drop tanks in the weapon record entries, and does some fancy calcs to add a penalty. #4858's last loadout for example is internal only sdb's, so it doesn't penalize because there are no drop tanks for example.

Also I noticed at the same time, things like throttle matter -sometimes. Default throttle used during my tests inside the db viewer seemed to be fullstop for an f-22 during the IR detection (but not during the others)...why idk, but fullstop in that case gets you 1.5x IR detection range increase in the db viewer for side and rear (but not front), if it defaulted to cruise or default it would use the actual number in the database 1x, if loitering it uses 85% of the value and at full\military 1.2x and flank\afterburner 1.5x. Just examples. Sensor pods in a loadout from what I can tell will also hit you.

IDK what exactly the right solution is in terms of what we want the DB viewer to show, I mean it would be freaking sweet if we could actually select a loadout and speed profile and see the values change but that's definitely an involved feature request even though the scaffolding appears to be in place vs just bug or tweak. Maybe for now the best approach is just not have the db viewer try to calculate beyond the baseline values? Basically just show what's in the database. It's just my opinion but I'd put more value in knowing the baseline at a glance vs some calculation based on what ever happens to be the last loadout and\or a fullstopped speed. Why fullstop speed incurs a IR detection penalty in the first place idk, but that's a separate ball of wax assuming it's not just something specific to the db viewer calcs.

< Message edited by KnightHawk75 -- 5/8/2020 11:09:53 PM >

(in reply to stilesw)

Post #: 6

RE: [DB Issue ] F-22 RCS went up - 5/8/2020 11:32:28 PM

MaxDemian

Posts: 22
Joined: 11/9/2015
Status: offline

That's an interesting conclusion! I was suspecting that these might be derived values (seeing how the rcs in sq m was recomputed as well), but this is far beyond what I was prepared to imagine.

As you say yourself, the potential in the db viewer could make for a very cool feature. Something like that would be a great boon for mission planning purposes.

(in reply to KnightHawk75)

Post #: 7