Who in the Lomac Community uses radar Automization?

[A.S]

So thats what you get when you complete Falcon.

 

NO !

 

THAT

 

[GGTharos]

But not much. This isn't a submarine - he's confined inside a relatively small space in the amount of time it takes to do your TMA.

 

A few degrees hmm, so what if he decides to not fly like a drone and fly towards you? Screws up your sketch a little.

[RvEYoda]

A few degrees hmm, so what if he decides to not fly like a drone and fly like you? Screws up your sketch a little.

 

I drew the sketch so I could explain it simple.

 

Naturally the simplest implementation looks something like:

 

• Do some importance weighted sampling of the radar's LOS to target for the last few seconds.
  
• Make random movements
  
• Move up and down a lot in the vertical
  
• Use a few hundred LOS vectors and approximate the probable intersect point
  

 

Unless the target mirrors your movement exactly you will get him through sheer average values.

The limiting factors will be how random you can fly vs the target in a way hehe, Maybe you will get a

reasonable value in less than 1 second, but you probably will need a few secnds to get the range with

decent accuracy vs a target knowing these things.

 

I was guessing before that a barrel roll would be an excellent maneuver for this kind of math, but it has to

vary quite a lot hehe.

 

Then you can also put in some limiting factors like.

 

• If target LOS changes more than X then he must be above mach 4 or inside 30 nm
  
• If target LOS changes less than Y then he mus tbe below ... or outside 60 nm
  
• No target goes above mach 3, so he cannot move more than X nm/s
  
• If target LOS changed ... from vertical moves and .. from horizontal moves, then .... range
  
• .
  
• .
  
• .
  
• .
  

 

The more the better :D

 

[LOS = Line Of Sight unit vector in world 3D coordinates]

Edited April 1, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[Case]

An X-band radar is diffraction limited to a beam of 5 degrees. Just before the burn through distance of 25 km and assuming the target doesn't move perpendicular to the line of sight you'd have to move 2.2 km perpendicular to the line of sight to see an angular change the size of the beam. Since you still have to see him on radar, you cannot fly perpendicular to the line of sight but are limited to anything within 60 degrees. So instead you have to fly 2.2 km/sin(60) for the target to discern the angular change. At a velocity of 800 km/h this'll take you at least 10 seconds.

 

This is in the best case scenario where the bandit is closest to you and does not move laterally. If it would, then then line-of-sight would change even more if he was flying in the opposite direction of you, or even less if parallel with you. I'm not so optimistic as you are.

[Frostie]

Here is why its FLAWED.

 

[RvEYoda]

Here is why its FLAWED.

 

 

What is flawed in that picture? it seems like a good estimation. I'm only interested in the range.

Again check the other post, the picture is only a simplification.

Edited April 1, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[RvEYoda]

An X-band radar is diffraction limited to a beam of 5 degrees..

Yes this is the first good counter argument so far. I don't know the exact diffraction limit of the F-15 radar.

I don't know exactly what methods are used to deal with finding the center of the spot, only that in real life

it is actually done and have documents of it. Maybe GG can send you the PDFs and test results?

 

But even if you have a spread out over 5 degrees, why not pick the center, sure you

wont get it to 0.00001 deg precision, but should at least be able to do a lot better than 5 degrees.

Just because you have a spot which is 5 degrees doesnt mean you can't find the center of it.

With correct numerics you might achieve, what, maybe >1 orders of magnitude better?

 

Consider for example that even though there is a rather large diffraction limit in small radars

such as the F-16, it can separate close formations considerably smaller than 5 degree spread.

Edited April 1, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[Frostie]

What is flawed in that picture? it seems like a good estimation.

Your estimation at 100nm away is going to get worse.

[Frostie]

I don't think you understand the argument here, your mod has instantaneous, accurate ranges 100nm away.

 

How long is it going to take to get a good range on this? Not immediately thats for sure.

 

Edited April 1, 2010 by Frostie

[RvEYoda]

I already said it doesnt work if you mirror positions. You must use vertical/random movement.

 

Also you would absolutely not use the kind of sampling in your picture.

Edited April 1, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[Kuky]

After reading this good discussion I am not in favour of any ECM estimation as I just don't see how it can work... at least there is no way it can work like it's been done with lua scripts.

 

Triangulation just doesn't work as for that you need 3 objects at the same time which is not the same as 2 objects contiously changing positions where you don't even know the position of the 2nd object.

 

To estimate it mathematically you need some constant and I don't see it anthere as both you and the jammer are moving, changing altitude, heading and you don't know other guys speed or anything. And beside, I still believe that if this estimation could work (which would actually take considerable time) it defeats the purpose of the jammer... so at least in this sim I think this should be dropped.

[RvEYoda]

So if I implement the real range estimator, will you believe it then? :music_whistling:

[Case]

So if I implement the real range estimator, will you believe it then? :music_whistling:

Yes, show us the mathematics behind it.

[Frostie]

The point is Yoda, none of this is in your mod.

You can lock strobes willingly for a fraction of a second and have the range of 5,6 bandits in an instant.

[RvEYoda]

The point is Yoda, none of this is in your mod.

 

So, how about you raytrace the radar equations for fighter radars then?

Maybe you will get a good results within 2 years sim time for one frame?

 

I'll work on eccm ranging when I get time. It will be a fun challenge, though,

you might not like what you find when I suddenly have much more accurate ranging.

[Frostie]

So, how about you raytrace the radar equations for fighter radars then?

Maybe you will get a good results within 2 years sim time for one frame?

 

I'd be much happier if you don't go around claiming your ECM ranging to be realistic and just like the real F-15. Please.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Frostie

[Case]

So, how about you raytrace the radar equations for fighter radars then?

Maybe you will get a good results within 2 years sim time for one frame?

 

I'll work on eccm ranging when I get time. It will be a fun challenge, though,

you might not like what you find when I suddenly have much more accurate ranging.

There's absolutely no need to ray trace anything. Back of the envelope trigonometry is the basis of this method of ranging.

[RvEYoda]

. Back of the envelope

 

I don't know this expression, my english is too limited.

I was referring to "your mod is not realistic because you are not implementing all the factors",

and I was trying to say that all models have limitations and simplifications. You must always

make a choice when something is reasonable to implement or 80% of it at 1/100 of the time is

enough. There is never any way to take all factors into account, unless you know everything in the world

 

Anyway i'm out of this discussion for now. It is unfortunate it requires too much knowledge in math and

comptuter science for most people to understand these algorithms. I'll let you know if

I find that pdf, maybe it could at least prove to some people that these methods are real things.

[Case]

I don't know this expression, my english is too limited.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-of-the-envelope_calculation

[RvEYoda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-of-the-envelope_calculation

 

Yes what you said is exactly my point, I was talking about raytracing the actual wave

propagating from the radar as a joke of making things overly complicated.

[Frostie]

I find that pdf, maybe it could at least prove to some people that these methods are real things.

Yoda, I don't doubt for 1 minute this is not possible in RL, but your mod doesn't even remotely resemble this. Your mod is just giving a range for the sake of it.

[Case]

Then both of our puns did not get accros.

[RvEYoda]

Then both of our puns did not get accros.

 

Yoda ....... Case

:doh: <--- :megalol:

Edited April 1, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[RvEYoda]

Yoda, I don't doubt for 1 minute this is not possible in RL, but your mod doesn't even remotely resemble this. Your mod is just giving a range for the sake of it.

 

I could make the ranging depend on randomness of changing LOS and how parrellel/mirrored

the flight path of attacker/defender is. This could be a decent approximation instead of doing

all this math.

[Frostie]

I was referring to "your mod is not realistic because you are not implementing all the factors"

 

I could make the ranging depend on randomness of changing LOS and how parrellel/mirrored

the flight path of attacker/defender is. This could be a decent approximation instead of doing

all this math.

This might be a factor, but as it now there are no factors.