Beamscanner

Has cobra stated if they plan on implementing Link-4A and Link-4C?

Like what?

Hey Mav, I have a few questions for you if you don't mind. Is sim shaker supposed to be working? I saw a post where you said it should work now, but its not working for me. Are the AWACS invincible? Is there a significant amount of people using simple radio? I have connected to your SR server, but no one responds on guard or any other freq i try. Thanks!

idk if it was mentioned already, but IRL all of the chaff in front of the radar is being illuminated to so degree or another, from main beam/sidelobe/multipath(from ground or another chaff bundle that was illuminated. The "beamwidth" listed on the brochure of any given radar refers to the half-power (or -3dB) beamwidth. This refers to the area where the majority of the power density is located, but varying degrees of energy emit out in almost all directions.. in the example below, the antennas "beamwidth" would be listed as 28.65°, but in truth energy is being emitted out (at an ever decreasing power) across a much wide angle (near to 60°). The decrease in power extends to a degree called a "null", after which the power increases again in areas known as side lobes. So the only place where there is little to no energy are the nulls. When looking at your given tests (if you want to be realistic about) you need to take the signal to noise ratio into account. Yes there is less energy outside of the half power beamwidth, but the RCS of the chaff bundle is MUCH higher than that of the target. additionally, some self protection jammers may use chaff with a jamming signal directed at their own chaff as a method of employing off axis jamming. I imagine they might even employ doppler jamming on the chaff bundle, making the technique useful while not being in a radars doppler notch.

You are EXACTLY right. If a new player joins, he's (or she's) going to be unimpressed when they fly by a tank or B17. This will incentivize them to buy the asset pack or not. (but it wont make them lose interest in DCS) On the other hand, if their not even able to join the server (likely the most populated WW2 server), they'd had to choose whether or not they invest more into DCS or somewhere else... This can be done when making the asset in the first place, and as i said only one generic low poly model could be used for all tanks, and one for all bomber etc. They'd still sell their assets to the majority of their customers, bc as u said who wants to see boxy models. But they'd also keep new players from walking away.

I can see both sides to this issue. You cant make products for "free"(even if it was given for "free", the extra incentive for people to buy further DCS WW2 products would net them a return), but making it more difficult for players to network and join our already low count servers won't help the business model either. My 2 cents. Let people join any server, but if they don't have 'X' asset, then only show a generic low poly render in its place. In this case, players would only see the same generic low poly tank (on their pretty map) regardless if it was a Sherman or a Tiger. That way players that don't want to lose immersion will buy your assets, but we can still invite our friends who are 'on the fence' with DCS, or random players with shallow pockets looking to join a game. Yes, its a little more work on the devs. But it is my opinion that this move would keep this game approachable to new players (whom are likely of a younger generation and have a large demand for online inter-functionality, and would likely be put off by the low server/player counts)

The US probably knew alot more from alot of other sources, not just that guy. Say ELINT for instance.. Also, the N019M and N019(and its big brother the N001) are nearly identical. With the only difference being its ECCM logic, processing speed, and the ability to track and engage two objects.

Can we expect further paid content to operate in a similar way? i.e. if I don't buy a module, will I be able to join a game that has that module active in its sever?

Technically, if deciding between two TN panels, the curved option *should* negate the color shifting effects experienced for off axis views angles. Especially with such a wide monitor, as the far edges of long flat screen may appear shift the color. Though the significance of this may vary by maker, model, screen size and view angle.

thanks

question Is there any incentive (besides supporting an awesome studio) to buy the assets if I do not intend to build custom WW2 missions, but only wish to join other peoples missions online? edit: can I join games online that have the assets if I do not buy in?

You sure its a bug? The RWR may not be set up to filter out your own radars emission. Especially if it uses a crystal video receiver. (based on that time period, it likely does) The mountains likely reflect more energy back into your RWR, just as they do your radar.

Perhaps a delayed export (not a delayed tacview) would solve your problems.. ie the server may allow sensor exports, but with a set delay (5, 10, 15 minutes or whatever they want). And If someone leaves the game, all of the real time export data immediately gets opened up and released to that client. That way programs like leavu are rendered useless, while programs like tacview can still be utilized. Though this would require help from ED I imagine.

Need more bearing swing bro

Emitter 1 = first emitter logged Freq A = Receiver probably uses a couple of crystal video receivers, so they don't know the exact freq its on, but they do know which of the tuned crystal receivers is picking up the signal. So in this case it translate to RF band "A". Can be used to ID the signal. PRF 400 = The emitter pulses 400 times per second. Can be used to ID the signal. First signal = time the receiver first saw the signal Last signal = time the receiver last saw the signal "sequence broadcast" = looks like the scan time of the radar. The appears to spin in a circular pattern, taking 10 seconds to rotate around. Can be used to ID signal. The position looks like the point of an ellipse after having triangulated the emitter.

I seriously thought the in-game radar beam looked silly and unrealistic (flip-flopping near the bottom) until I saw a clip of the real radar screen in your video..

keep in mind that it takes two people to proficiently engage targets with the F-14/AIM-54.. In most cases, it'll be one guy switching back and forth. So his actions/reactions will be delayed..

Kinda need to know if it is unintentional or not before I request it.. I gave them the 'benefit of the doubt' by asking if it was a bug.. Honestly, we don't need to simulate every ray of light.. Just dont let the radar detect targets on a jamming strobe when they are behind the jammer (or right next to it). Assuming their RCS isn't massive. On another note, if two targets are within a few feet of each other with the same vector and velocity(same range and doppler bin), the radar will see the combined strength of their returns (combined RCS), and you would detect them at significantly greater ranges (burn through range would also increase, if only one of them was using a jammer)... However, they would appear as one target

Are you assuming that Self Protection Jammers are powerful enough to hide a SU-27 at 40 miles but not also a fellow SU-27 who is further behind him on the same bearing? Who has a much smaller reflection.. the plane in the distance already had a low S/N ratio, and now the noise at that bearing has gone up even higher due to the jammer. The theory of operation for 'stand off jammers' and 'self protect jammers' is exactly the same.. One doesn't have a different force of nature behind it.. one is simply more powerful/more directional than the other.. If two targets are in the same radar range bin, traveling at the same speed, at the same bearing, and one of them starts jamming. Well the S/N ratio in that range/doppler bin is going to go down and either cover both the planes or neither of them. the jammer doesn't make individual planes invisible, it saturates the radar(at that bearing). Everything in that direction should be saturated. Some saturation should even come from other bearings due to jammer energy coming in the side lobes of the antenna. (though this wouldn't inject nearly as much noise) The further target was already harder to see.. If target one is able to cover himself with his SPJ, then certainly the weaker signal behind him will be covered too. Even when you get burn through on target one, if he leaves his jammer on you will not get to see target two until he gets way closer and his skin return over powers the noise of the jammer. Dedicated Stand off jammers (prowlers/Growlers) are used when you want to cover the friend in front of you, who is going in to fight.. That is why they must be more powerful and more directional. But an SPJ, while much weaker, can certainly cover planes directly behind you, if its able to cover itself.... Assuming its not a 747 with a massive RCS. And the closer that SPJ gets to your radar, the stronger the jamming signal will be. While this wont help the person up close, it will certainly help cover the guys behind him. If your wondering why burn through even happens, it's because antenna gain is more of a factor than transmit power(it takes 16x more power to double the detection range of a radar, but only 4x more gain to do the same). Most jammers have low gain, while most radar have very high gain. As the target gets closer to the radar, it becomes more and more difficult to compete with the gain of the radar.. If you had a jammer with even half the gain as the victim radar, then the radar would never get burn through.. (I say half because the jammer only needs to worry about one way path loss, while the radar needs to worry about two way path loss)

I catch players in tight formations on radar One of them turns on ECM and jamming indications occur The other, who is within a few feet of the other, doesn't disappear from radar... Other fighters, on the same bearing but much further away(behind jamming fighter), remain on radar scope as well....:huh: This must be a bug, right?

I think the ray tracing technique is only being used for 'imaging' the ground at this point. Though it hasn't been detailed, I do believe LN is looking to improve the Jaybird radar display and effects. Ray tracing would be very beneficial to improving the displayed artifacts of ground clutter. Using ray tracing for A-A radar modes isnt necessary, because most fighter radars do not 'draw' images of airborne targets (though it is possible with ISAR waveforms). I do believe that the RADAR/RWR/JAMMER/IFF systems need to be overhauled in this game though.. Repeater jammers should confuse or degrade RWRs (alter signal strength, direction, disrupt identification, and potentially create a false indication in the direction of the jammer. RADARs should have unique sounds based on their waveforms (like IRL) Modern Jammers should not jam signals identified as friendly multi-path interference from close terrain should have an effect on the RWR (create errors in signal direction or lower the S/N ratio)

I am actually a very slow learner. not the point of my post. I believed highlighting the contradiction was enough to dispel the video as fact. But if you are interested MMICs (the TR modules) have limited output powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_microwave_integrated_circuit The more you have on an array, the higher the gain and output power. Which leads to a higher effective radiated power (ERP), and a more sensitive array for reception. More receivers also allow for superior DSP methods (though that is not necessarily related to detection range) The more watts you shove in, the less efficient MMICs become at converting current to the desired RF energy, and more of that power is converted to thermal noise. Typical amplifiers on MMICs use Gallium arsenide (GaA) in the conversion process. These amplifiers have unique electrical properties, and were necessary to making AESA radars practical. Previously, silicon amplifiers were the only op[tion for small MMICs. However these offered very little output power and resulted in AESA designs with very low detection ranges (TWT planar array>silicon MMIC AESA) More advanced amplifiers use Gallium nitride (GaN), which are more efficient, at a larger range of microwave frequencies, at converting current to RF energy than GaAs. They can also operate under higher temps with less distortion to the electric properties to the medium. So the output power of a GaN MMIC can be several times higher than that of a GaA MMIC. A UV (ultraviolet) sensor, receives EM energy at wavelengths below 400 nano-meters... Not wavelengths around 30,000,000 nano-meters. (750,000 GHz vs 10 GHz) A "UV" receiver would have to have a bandwidth ratio of 7500:1 to be able to also receive X band energy. No receiver today can do anywhere near this. Current theoretical papers describe ratios far less than that. There is the explanation.

great mod! Thanks!!

not interested in fixing him or making him look stupid (thinking he looks stupid is a conclusion you would have had to conclude yourself, since I threw no insults like "stupid"). I just don't like seeing mis-information spread about. Nothing on an internet forum should be taken personally. But sure, I'm the stupid one..:thumbup:

Saw a video of yours on youtube. It was full of flaws.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKVHWod3dC8 You admit the APG-77 has 33% more T/R modules than the N036(about 500 more), and uses more powerful (more efficient/less heat/greater bandwidth) GaN amplifiers than the N036 using it's GaA amplifiers. Yet you somehow conclude that the N036 has a longer detection range. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL You also gave the wrong field of view for APG-77 (its plus or minus 60 degrees, not a total of 60 degrees), but managed to get the N036 field of view correct.. hmmmm.. Do i sense a bias? Plus you mention PAK FA UV sensors detecting radio waves in the X band.. haha A lot of other mistakes not worth mentioning.. Stopped watching half way through.