SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
04-20-07, 05:11 PM | #91 | |||
Sea Lord
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Martin de los Andes, Neuquen, , Argentina.
Posts: 1,962
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0
|
[quote=akdavis] The performance statistics were posted earlier in the thread:
Quote:
May be due to my bad english. Quote:
Let me to expose my point.... with more precise numbers. In example : Quote:
This is 37.020m range flying at 333m height. With that data.... Then at minimun range... we can say 2500m It will be 22.5 meters, about 74 feet. And with that data, a masive 65 meters battleship, will enter the beam at 7226 meters. At 7226 meters a battleship will put it mast top into the SD beam, it is about 3.9 nm, about 4 nm, and .... Then... Is there an eco....? I think so yes... Then.... Are we right when i look for to completelly eliminate the surface contacts ? I think so, at very near range, land and big ship must be present. And small ship at shorter range of course. At longer range we will not have surface contacts, but at range under 4 nm we must to have the bigger ships contacts. Sorry if i cant explain better, my english is no good. May be i am wrong but i think so when a big ship or a mountain enter into the beam of the SD we must to have a peak... |
|||
04-20-07, 05:32 PM | #92 |
Samurai Navy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 597
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
The land contact ranges may suggest a beam angle, but the large/small air contacts do not. A large air contact is detectable at a longer range simply because it has a larger surface area (or more accurately, a larger radar cross section).
__________________
-AKD Last edited by akdavis; 04-21-07 at 10:18 AM. |
04-20-07, 05:42 PM | #93 | |
Sea Lord
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Martin de los Andes, Neuquen, , Argentina.
Posts: 1,962
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Any way, we can live if the SD dont reach the exact real life behaviour, after all it is game, and cant be perfect. My point is, may be... only may be, we must not to squeeze our brain attempting to "completelly" eliminate the surface contacts. I think so.... we must be happy, with the file i posted above, with wich one, we can recover the radar contacts using the V1.2 file instead the V1.1 !!! |
|
04-20-07, 05:45 PM | #94 | ||||
Samurai Navy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 597
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Here are some other stats I found: Quote:
Here is data on the later SV radar (do we even have that in-game?) for comparison to SD early/late that it superceded: Quote:
__________________
-AKD Last edited by akdavis; 04-20-07 at 06:08 PM. |
||||
04-20-07, 06:05 PM | #95 |
Rear Admiral
|
Heres an alternate idea, totally outside the box. I can't claim sole credit for it, and i didnt get it to work, but maybe someone else can. Maybe someone else will catch something i missed.
SD radar is really nothing more then ACTIVE aircraft detection. Why not reverse it to PASSIVE like Sh3? Sh3 had passive plane detection in the form of RWR, and it bloody worked. It did exactly what we want it to do now. It's sensor type 4 if im not mistaken. So really all you need to do (in theory), is redo the stats on SD, change the sensor type, then equip all JP planes with a MK1 airborne radar (6K max distance, whoopity do), change the "radar signals detected" line in the menu.txt, and presto chango. Plane detection with no surface contacts. Onlyl one small problem. i coudlnt get it to work Maybe i screwed up somewhere, so if someone else wants to try....... |
04-20-07, 06:15 PM | #96 | |
Samurai Navy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 597
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
__________________
-AKD |
|
04-20-07, 06:22 PM | #97 |
Rear Admiral
|
>>And then we have Jap planes that can see in the night (in fact, that is already a problem we don't need to exacerbate).
What planes at night? Even if there are, 6KM max distance isnt squat. They can see farther then that. (or at least they did in in 1.1, in 1.2 i think their wearing blinders) |
04-20-07, 06:27 PM | #98 | |
Samurai Navy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 597
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
__________________
-AKD |
|
04-20-07, 06:45 PM | #99 |
Sea Lord
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Martin de los Andes, Neuquen, , Argentina.
Posts: 1,962
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0
|
Night attack probability can be reduced from the AirStrike.cfg file.
Night Modifier=0.3 ;[>0] Modifier on strike probability at night Any way... to have a pasive alert in the sub, the planes must to have an active radar emission ...correct ? :hmm: Or just the game gives you the alert by its proximity disregarding if they have a radar mounted ? |
04-20-07, 06:59 PM | #100 | |
Ensign
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 231
Downloads: 44
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
04-20-07, 09:23 PM | #101 | |
Engineer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Conning Tower - repairing the radar.
Posts: 200
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Try one quick test. Give the MK1 airborne radar a max range of at least 40,000 meters. You may have done this already but just checking. Perhaps the airborne radar needs to overlap the sub for it to trigger a warning. I know that in real life it's not the case but in the sim world it may need it. If not, check the data from SH3 and see what type and range they used on the allied aircraft for the metox to detect it. |
|
04-20-07, 09:35 PM | #102 |
Rear Admiral
|
I'lll try again sometime this weekend. Regardless of results ill post the test modlet i was using if others want to take a stab at it. I know from SH3, the only limitation on RWR that i know of, was it only detected radars that exist, before the RWR's entry date. Range on the radar being detected was irrelevant.
Honestly i strongly suspect that RWR sensor support was removed and/or replaced with something else in the game code and the functionatliy is no longer there. OR.. some hex editing on sub nodes may be neccessary. I honestly don't know but i suspect the problem is one or the other. |
04-20-07, 09:43 PM | #103 | |
Engineer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Conning Tower - repairing the radar.
Posts: 200
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
By the way, when you set MinHeight = -2500 were you able to detect aircraft while you were sumberged at periscope depth? Update : Nevermind, I was thinking MinSensorHeight. Last edited by Mraah; 04-20-07 at 09:54 PM. |
|
04-20-07, 09:45 PM | #104 | |
Engineer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Conning Tower - repairing the radar.
Posts: 200
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Thanks for trying |
|
04-20-07, 11:26 PM | #105 |
Chief
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 314
Downloads: 120
Uploads: 0
|
I think this is more serious than it seems, since the patch addressed sd radar picking up ships and the result is an sd radar that doesn't pick up anything post patch. I think it shows the quality of work coming from the guys patching the game. Kind of like what originally came with the game, if it's not working then just take it out attitude.
|
|
|