GreyStork

More aereal photos I hope none of these have been posted yet: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/category/buildings/military-missile-sites/ http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Number=373189 An analysis of the Iranian SAM network: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/09/iranian-sam-network.html Unit structure of Danish Enhanced HAWK (DeHAWK): http://hawk.legends.dk/dehawk.asp Newport Aeronautical offers US Army manuals with descriptions of many NATO SAM systems - along with other hardware. These usually contain perspective drawings of the equipment, which might be useful in creating 3D models. As an example, they have technical manuals on the HAWK and IHAWK systems. (TM 9-1425-525-...) http://www.newportaero.com/home/manuals/army/browse/__50/tm.html?sort=description

Redeployment Shoot, I was going to suggest that one. :( Anyway, I'd like to remind everyone that you're not likely to encounter mobile SAM units, such as HAWK or Patriot, in their permanent peacetime facilities. Once a conflict starts, they will move to pre-determined locations in the surrounding area and likely switch between multiple locations on a near-daily basis. Systems with multiple fire units will not move all units at the same time, since one or more units are needed at operational status to provide cover during the redeployment. Afterthought: Redeployment to alternate sites also means that the placement of radars, command posts and launchers become more fluid, although they will still maintain the same basic structure - radars and launchers usually fan out to opposite sides of the command posts, with any specialized target tracking radars closest to the launcher clusters.

Of course, if someone were completely anal, they'd have to ask why anyone would mount 16 laserguided Hellfire missiles on a Longbow. ;)

1] Sprouting 2D geometry code out my ears at 'work,' here in my home office. 2] Checking the DCS forums. 3] Feeling happy about Spore now having an official release date. 4] Checking the DCS forums. 5] Messing around with the Jad Engine when not on the clock. 6] Checking the DCS forums. 7] Doing menial work for the girlfriend during weekends. 8] Checking the DCS forums. 9] Occasionally trying not to kill myself while skiing. 10] You get the picture...

Has anyone thought of asking the Chinese? I hear they're good at that kind of stuff. ;)

+1

It would make no difference. You don't get more bandwidth, just because you open another port. :)

They're for your nephew, of course. ;) I have a couple of F-18s of the same make right here, on top of my bookshelf. I'm sure I will give them to my nephew some day. :)

Hmm. I wonder if anyone ever considered an IR camera update to the Shkval system.

Niiiice. :P

Oh, 7 8800GTX cards should do the trick. :)

I can see that with 7 vertical 30" Dell monitors. That should be enough to wrap around 90 degrees to each side. :)

Heh. It has indeed been my observation that the worst writers here are actually among those, whose native language is English. Funny how that works... :)

Well, that too. :)

That is funny, considering this was written in 1988, just one year prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Case in point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7230496.stm

In Falcon 4, you can visually 'lock on' to an aircraft with the padlock function. If it were possible to hit a key and get a zoomed-in version of the padlocked target, that would probably be the most realistic solution. You'd still have to identify the target yourself, but you'd have the chance to do so in a resolution comparable to what a real pilot would see - with the appropriate amount of haze to decrease contrast, just like in real life. Since the zoom factor would be the same every time, you'd still have more trouble identifying small targets compared to BUFFs at the same range. Just my 2 cents.

Exactly. Good for you. :)

To the pure, all things are pure, GG. ;)

I wasn't going to stop in any case, don't worry about that. :) Bucic: Thanks a lot! :D

I can only agree that detailed radar simulation will take up valuable CPU time, but that was exactly how I interpreted ED's intentions. I stand corrected. :) I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if it's alright, I'll post whatever tinker toy I come up with, anyway.

Perhaps I misunderstood the reason you guys chose not to implement radar, then. If I understand you correctly, what you really need is detailed information about actual radar systems like, say, the Apache Longbow radar, not ideas on how to model radar in general? Sorry, can't help you there. If you need exact specifications on radar systems that are still in operational use, I think we're out of luck. That's the kind of stuff the military keep to themselves, precisely because of the ECM/ECCM issues. In that regard, there's no way around conjecture, although it could be informed conjecture. I do intend to play with this in some kind of software implementation, and will return with another download when I have something to show for it in, as I said, a number of weeks. This is mostly for my own amusement. If you can use it, that's great; if not, no loss to anyone. :)

Thanks, Poko. :)

I've tried to create a few in the paper, but it appears to me that much of the functionality needed is pure boolean logic, which is also described in the text. I suppose I could formalize that in boolean notation for those lazy programmers, say, for a beta copy. ;) There is the matter of jammer power management and the fact that I graciously declined to model emission strength to bandwidth ratio in any detail. The reason for this is the sudden need for more intimate knowledge about individual radar functionality, such as specific bandwidth. I also only estimate duty cycles. This kind of information is usually hard to come by, and the question is whether all that will add to the realism, or if estimates are sufficient. In the end, that's up to the ED team. I'd certainly be willing to include all that in the calculations if there is a real need. If you're thinking about something else, I might need a little elaboration on which additional principles I could calculate in detail. ___________________________ UPDATE: I just found Jade, a nice 3D engine written in C#. Maybe I'll play with that over the next few weeks and see if I can knit together a proof of concept mock-up. I've been wanting to get my hands dirty on 3D for a while. I hate flowcharts and the likes, so I'd rather just write the code. ;) ___________________________ UPDATE to the update: Ha! My crappy old graphics card doesn't support pixel shaders 2.0, so it'll have to wait until I get a new one.

I agree that this is not nearly formalized enough for developers, no doubt about it. It also is not intended to address any specific radars, as used in actual aircraft or air defense systems.