Identification via ESM

[N00be]

Hey!

I have a silly question once more

When I use ESM to identify a target while driving the 688i, I always get the proper target displayed under "source". But when you use one of the new plattforms, like the FFG, you get a list of several possible targets. Is this a redundant interface from the 688HK game, or is it on purpose? Is it like that in real life?
Just wondering...


cheers

[Beer]

Real life some emitters are common to different platforms.
The different platforms you are seeing from the ESM station are the platforms that have the type emission you are seeing installed on them.

You can/should be able to narrow it exactly which platform it is based on Acoustic or Visual data from you or an allied platform. Or even for that matter intelligence from a briefing saying say a Krivak or a Slava (or whatever you are hunting) are in the area.

Cheers
Beer

[N00be]

Thanx for reply!

Originally Posted by Beer

Real life some emitters are common to different platforms.
The different platforms you are seeing from the ESM station are the platforms that have the type emission you are seeing installed on them.

But why does the 688 ignore this fact and always displays the correct plattform?

[OneShot]

Actually it prolly doesnt always display the right plattform. It displays only the first entry for that particular ESM Source, and unlike in most of the other plattforms, you cant scroll down the list, nor select something else. Tho in most of the cases it will be the right one.

[MaHuJa]

The old subs' esm always give the right answer.

Why?

Don't ask me...

[Molon Labe]

Originally Posted by OneShot

Actually it prolly doesnt always display the right plattform. It displays only the first entry for that particular ESM Source, and unlike in most of the other plattforms, you cant scroll down the list, nor select something else. Tho in most of the cases it will be the right one.

Nope, you're wrong buddy. Sub ESM is always on the money.

Why? Probably because the Source-classification routine is new and they didn't want to go back and add it to the subs. Maybe they'll go back and enhance the station someday...

[timmyg00]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Nope, you're wrong buddy. Sub ESM is always on the money.

Why? Probably because the Source-classification routine is new and they didn't want to go back and add it to the subs. Maybe they'll go back and enhance the station someday...

Absolutely correct...

TG

[Apocal]

I wish ES evaluations were handled more like narrowband sonar is, with the player or autocrew having to compare carrier frequency, pulse repetition frequency, power, type (pulsed or CW), scan rate, etc. with known emitters in the library and possibly having neutral, friendly or even ownship emissions screw up the process.

[LuftWolf]

SCS has said that detailed radar modelling isn't something they are particularly interested in including in detail, for a number of very good and justifiable reasons that relate to simulation and programming complexity and, most importantly, gameplay, but what you have suggested is a really good idea.

However, it would require a major restructuring of the database aside from significant changes to the interface and engine... so it's not likely to happen. Sorry.

But after all, they are called SONAlysis, and not RADAlysis. :rotfl:

So, I'll give them a solid pass on this one...

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

SCS has said that detailed radar modelling isn't something they are particularly interested in including in detail, for a number of very good and justifiable reasons that relate to simulation and programming complexity and, most importantly, gameplay, but what you have suggested is a really good idea.

However, it would require a major restructuring of the database aside from significant changes to the interface and engine... so it's not likely to happen. Sorry.

But after all, they are called SONAlysis, and not RADAlysis. :rotfl:

Bummer.

Guess I'll have to wait for the "Great One" before seeing an accurate RF model in a naval sim. I'm no programmer, so take this with a grain of salt, but I can't see a reason why modelling the RF spectrum would be more complex or difficult than the (admittedly excellent) acoustic model. Many of the same factors affect both spectrums in the same way, only acoustic is a bit more extreme, being 1000X denser than air.

But once again, take it with a grain of salt, I work on radar (Mk. 95) on a daily basis so DW is like my job, only with the boring, crappy parts cut out.

[MaHuJa]

Part of the reason the RF spectrum is as such lies in the fact that the current SND spectrum (just to create a fancy name...) is greatly simplified. Still great, it's not that...

I know that in reality, some cases tonal strength increase/decrease with a number of things, from time to speed to rudder position, instead of "generic signal strength/frequency" only, as well as a shift in frequency depending on similar things, tonals corresponding to certain actions (such as retrieving wires/TAs) etc etc.


But then, I guess it's just as well that we don't have to be qualified for the real thing to play

-~~~

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by Apocal

I wish ES evaluations were handled more like narrowband sonar is, with the player or autocrew having to compare carrier frequency, pulse repetition frequency, power, type (pulsed or CW), scan rate, etc. with known emitters in the library and possibly having neutral, friendly or even ownship emissions screw up the process.

I only work with merchant ship radars, and I know that for the very same set, at least three of these parameters can change from set to set, in different situation, depanding on age, wind condition, and freaking user input. With many sets having three different PRR setting, and sometime two different scan rate available from the manufacturer, the emitted power varying with the age of the set (Damn whistlin' magnetrons are great to give a bridge crew a headache), and scan rate being affected by wind forces (Cause they don't all have scanner domes)...

Yeah, I'd say it'd turn off casual gamers. :-D It'd turn ME off, darnit.

Although I'd enjoy having access to more radar setting and option. ARPA would be fun to have

[Apocal]

Originally Posted by Etienne

I only work with merchant ship radars, and I know that for the very same set, at least three of these parameters can change from set to set, in different situation, depanding on age, wind condition, and freaking user input. With many sets having three different PRR setting, and sometime two different scan rate available from the manufacturer, the emitted power varying with the age of the set (Damn whistlin' magnetrons are great to give a bridge crew a headache), and scan rate being affected by wind forces (Cause they don't all have scanner domes)...

Furuno? Only got to play with ours for a few minutes, so I didn't notice all those nifty features, but yeah, I'm sure the degree of variation possible within a single emitter would make some people incredibly irate.

Yeah, I'd say it'd turn off casual gamers. :-D It'd turn ME off, darnit.

People said the same thing about realistic sonar in naval sims before...

Although I'd enjoy having access to more radar setting and option. ARPA would be fun to have

The long range mode of my SPS-49 would be nice. That and actual jamming capability on my SLQ-32.