AWACS / GCI Zones and BLUE GCI capability

[Von Thrud]

Requesting / supporting any notion for the following:

 

1. Polygon zones / rectangular / square / elliptical zone drawing tools

 

2. Report on / act on contacts detected that only exist in a zone or out of a zone

 

3. AWACS detection tied to zone

 

4. Pre-bake zone names for detection i.e "Kill Box 1A" (lame transformers reference), "Downtown" and the like or what ever any real AWACS / GCI folk can suggest for a name list of detection boxes.

 

5. GCI / ground based radar for Blue side that can be era specific (ww2, korea, vietnam, modern) - probably add era's for red side as well

[Notso]

That would be cool.

[Northstar98]

Agreed on all points.

The thing is though, RADAR modelling outside of a select few modules is fairly crude. The other thing is that there is a complete lack of EWRs/long-range surveillance RADARs.

In DCS we have 4 present, 1 of them (the best looking one) is completely non-functional eye-candy (well, it rotates, but it's only at airfields in the Caucasus), 2 of them are seriously outdated and are in dire need of a remodel. Precisely none of them can be operated by a player in any way whatsoever, and BLUFOR don't even get AI GCI capability (that's something that's going to need to definitely change for the upcoming channel map).

Also, outside of a select few modules, AFAIK, RADAR fidelity and simulation is crude. And the maps being flat definitely doesn't help either.

I think that, in order to really flesh this out, we're going to need more RADARs, higher-fidelity RADAR simulation (well, maybe), some player operator capability and AI BLUFOR GCI capability (there must be a script that can be used for it).

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Von Thrud]

I did simulate a pseudo blue GCI for a korean map by putting it a long way from the action and only at about 5000ft ASL so it cant in theory see over mountains nor far over the horizons.. .seems promising though I have not used it much in t his manner

[Fri13]

The thing is though, RADAR modelling outside of a select few modules is fairly crude.

 

Eventually it would be nice to see all radars to have their beam width modeled, the power simulated and as well then get communications updated, meaning that single scan doesn't mean you get to know contact heading and accurate position, but it takes multiple scans to generate the track. We as well need the communications so once early warning radar or some ground radars detects something, it should have simulated times that it takes to communicate over radio the new contacts etc, and then even discuss those things over radio to troops around the areas etc.

 

The other thing is that there is a complete lack of EWRs/long-range surveillance RADARs./QUOTE]

 

You can put few RedFor EW radars on ground and they will transmit their picture to Su-27/33 radar screens over datalink.

 

Meaning you don't need AWACS for that.

[Northstar98]

Well the RADAR fidelity maybe isn't a complete must have, but it's certainly be an improvement, as would making new maps curved.

I know REDFOR GCI D/L works, BLUFOR however doesn't (to my knowledge). But there's no BLUFOR EWRs, the closest thing is the AN/MPQ-50 PAR, which isn't an EWR, it's an acquisition RADAR for the Hawk

Were missing things like:

• AN/TPS-43
• AN/TPS-59
• AN/TPS-70/75
• AN/TPS-77
• Commander SL/AMES Type 101
• Master S/A/M/T
• RRP-117
• S600 & S613
• S723
• SAAB Giraffe S / AMB
• TRS 2100

The list goes on.

Let alone the additional associated equipment, such as shelters, generators, transporters etc.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting