Hi makman,
after a loooong journey under water your findings about the radar arc are worth to reengage into the technical discussion
To say the first: From my own experience I can confirm your observation about the simulation of the radar arc. The absolutely precise bearing (within 1°) of the target is at the end of the arc, when the radar loses contact and the cone is turning clockwise, like in GWX. But shouldnīt this lead to the conclusion, that the radar arc is to be opened to the left (counterclockwise, beginning from the bearing angle?
Btw, there must be said that in stock game, the simulation of the radar signals are mirrored. Targets in the west (270°) are shown in the east (90°) and vice versa. But 0° stays 0° and 180° stays 180°, so one cannot observe this bug if the target ist straight ahead, like in the videos
This is an old bug, already found in 2005, and fixed in GWX an NYGM. Beyond, IIRC, the radar simulation turns clockwise by default, which means, that the hand wheel has to be turned counterclockwise to match the bearing ring behind the wheel. Thatīs the reason, why GWX had changed the orientation of the movement.
From the point of view of a "real" simulation, there are a few more things to mention:
The recommended turning rate by the BdU was 2 every minute, which means a sweeping periode of 30s. That was (is) a compromise between reliable recognition of objects (turning as slowly as possible) and a fast recognition (turning as fast as possible). E.g., if the FuMO is used as an air warning system (as it was in reality), an enemy plane, flying 200kn, which is around 100m/s, could approach 3000m within 30s but 5000m in 50s. Regarding the small maximum range of only 7 or 8 km of FuMO29 resp. FuMO30, the remaining time for an emergency dive was 40 to 50s, just enough to get away from the surface and to reach a certain depth under ideal circumstances. With a sweeping period of 50s, that minimum time will be reduced to 20 resp. 30 seconds, what is definitly too less time to reach a safe depth before the plane flies over. Of course, this is a worst case scenario, but if e.g. the signal was recognised with another delay for whatever reason, this could have had been the last contact to be made.
Another thing is: the original bearing precision of the different radar systems were around +/- 2 to 3°. The sweep arc is actually meant to describe this precision. In fact, with that way of determining the position, the "true" ingame bearing precision is 1°, much more precise than in reality.
Furthermore, you write that the radar "catches only the closest contact". Well, Iīm not sure, if this is correct. AFAIK, the Radar man reports every new contact, but only one time, AND if that contact had not been seen earlier by the bridge crew. Thatīs all what he does. But if you use the radar by your own, you can determine different targets by turning the antenna. The radar is even a kind of multi-aiming, which means that you can watch multiple signals on your display. But this works only if you use a narrow beam to get a more or less precise bearing. Without having experienced with your setting, I believe that with that huge radar arc of 50 degree, you wonīt be able to differentiate the bearings between several objects inside the cone.
The last thing is your new finding about the maximum elevation. If set to 360° as recommended, the signal gets stable without any interruption. This is a new finding at least for me and this is a huge improvement of quality. Buuuut, I believe the devs made this interruption with intent! Why? In real life, a submarine is the worst radar platform you can imagine. Not only leads the low height of the antenna to rather uncomfortable ranges. Then, at that time, the antenna was mounted fix to the tower or, later, to the elevating holder, but both coupled with the movement of the boat. Due to this, when in higher sea states, the antenna did not only scan the horizon, but also the sky or the bottom. During this up and down and shaking movement, an eventual contact was surely lost, or at least interrupted. IMHO thatīs the reason why the devs had put in that interruption: Because the radar should be rather insufficient. And yes, it was.
Nonetheless, with your finding, we maybe could make that interruption sea state dependent. To be honest, at the moment I have no idea to how to do this. So please continue with your SH3 experiments and research, it is always higly interesting to find out, how the game works and thus to find new means to improve its behaviour.
Btw, OT, I love your new environment, but this should be nothing new for you. I use it for many years. Go on makman and with the best greetings
Leitender