Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 7/24/2021 6:35:07 PM   
wildcolonialboy

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 10/18/2017
Status: offline
I've just been looking at some of the Radar Cross Section inputs and they are absolutely ludicrous, or someone wasn't paying attention or just entering whatever.

The UK's F-35B has an RCS of 0.065m2. The identical Marine Corps version has 0.15m2. I can only assume they meant 0.015m2 because that's what the Italian F-35B is rated at for low-band radar. Are you seriously telling me that the UK's F-35B has an RCS four-times that of the Italian F-35B, but half that of the Marine Corps? That the Royal Navy that has spent hundreds of millions of pounds integrating weapons and developing doctrine getting ready for "clean" internal carriage of 2 Meteor missiles and 8 Spear 3 or Spear EW missiles (swarms) per air aircraft for "kick the door down" first day operations, and then external carriage (as every other air force is planning) once the threat level lowers, that somehow they (who build 15% of every F-35 including radar absorbent sections) don't know how to maintain their own aircraft? Or was it a mistake?

And absolutely laughably, the Su-57 PAK-FA has an RCS of 0.035m2 (i.e. about as stealth as the F-117.. give me a brake). You're seriously telling me that the PAK-FA, which is a complete dumpster fire that doesn't even had integrally hidden fanblades or DSI, and for which it only has fairly basic primary stealth shaping from the frontal angle and very little evidence of stealthy Radar Absorbent Material (precisely the reason the Indians pulled out... it's about as good as a Super Hornet Block III), is as stealthy at the F-117, which despite its age, remains a pack leader because while angular shaping isn't great for aerodynamic stability, it's still the best when it comes to the primary stealth shaping (as opposed to radar absorbent materials and clever EW management of exposure to enemy radars from which directions)

Also, the difference between high band and low band observability has gone from orders of magnitude to a tiny step down. For the Marine Corps F-35B, it's 0.15m2 for low band radars, 0.14,2 for high band radars. For the British F-35B, it's 0.065m2 to 0.0065m2.

This is an urgent fix on all stealth aircraft as they are absolutely essential to any modern warfighting scenario (and please don't rely on AusAirPower for anything related to the F-35, F-22 or stealth generally... they're good on their knowledge and access to Russian missile and other technology, but they are infamous for being F-35-hating cranks in Australia)

< Message edited by wildcolonialboy -- 7/24/2021 6:37:02 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 7/24/2021 6:47:38 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13075
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
"Hi guys, I've been observing some of your RCS figures, in DB3K vXYZ, and I suspect there may be some inaccuracies present".

Start with that, and then we can talk.

< Message edited by Dimitris -- 7/24/2021 6:57:18 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to wildcolonialboy)
Post #: 2
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 7/24/2021 6:48:29 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6113
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
"Are you seriously telling me"

"And absolutely laughably"

"give me a brake"

"You're seriously telling me"

"This is an urgent fix"

This has to be one of the more disrespectful bug reports I've seen in a few years. A few points:

1) I think maybe taking it down a notch might on the aggressiveness factor might win you a few points

2) Post it in the database error reporting thread

3) Post the database you are referring to. There have been a number of database updates and the F-35 issue was reported before, I think.

D beat me to it.


< Message edited by thewood1 -- 7/24/2021 6:52:01 PM >


_____________________________

You are like puss filled boil on nice of ass of bikini model. You are nasty to everybody but then try to sweeten things up with a nice post somewhere else. That's nice but you're still a boil on a beautiful thing! - BDukes

(in reply to wildcolonialboy)
Post #: 3
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 7/26/2021 9:45:25 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 1212
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
wildcolonialboy - Please note also there is the matter that the DB browser doesn't show what the baseline is in the actual database so, it only shows the result of the calculation based on the last loadout listed in the browser. This can at times explains many oddies one might see in the DB browser between what appear to be or are known to be extremely similar aircraft in terms of rcs.

For example the DB Browser may show different values for UK # 1095, and UK#4669 and UK#4947, while all 3 actually have identical baselines, the difference you see in the browser is the difference in the various last-listed-loadouts. Also the baseline in the db for those 3 is the same for the Italian ones #4697,#4698,#3786 and #3787 - You just have no way of seeing it without a raw database viewer. For example the 'browser' difference between USMC-F35B #4701, and say UK #4947 who have identical baselines in the DB is additional rcs calculations to the baseline for the the Storm Shadow External loadout on the UK, vs the GBU-56(V)4/B LJDAM external loadout out on the USMC one.

If you want actual baseline values UK|IT|USMC-B's f-35's (blk 3+) they are ALL the following in dBsm:
5001=  A-D band 5002= E+
Type | Front | Side | Rear | Top
5001 | -18.2 | -16.0| -18.2| -15.6
5002 | -28.2 | -26.0| -28.2| -26.0


As for those values accuracy that's a matter I leave to others, I would just say if you're gonna take issues with certain values, make sure you're pulling from the actual database and not the browser, unless of course the last-loadout listed is an internal-only one, then you can be reasonably sure it's the baseline figures.




(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 4
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 7/26/2021 10:42:06 AM   
ultradave


Posts: 1332
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline
Exactly what I was going to ask of <wildcolonialboy>. After noticing these things the first thing to try would be to set up some identical scenarios with just one or two aircraft and try to determine if the numbers that you are seeing in the DB viewer are actually having differing in game effects WITH THE SAME LOADOUTS. Or is it just an artifact of how the DB viewer displays information to you and the aircraft do actually perform the same. Very quick and easy to do. When I do this, >90% of the time I answer my own question.

For the 10%, if it didn't work the way you think it should, you could provide a save that shows (example - just picking random numbers) - identical aircraft, 2 nations, one detected at 25 miles, the other at 35 miles, with the same scenario setup, just aircraft swapped.

Or even easier, just ask nicely - "What radar cross section is the DB Viewer reporting, because I see some differences I don't understand" (with the examples listed). I bet that would have gotten a better response. Your previous posts have all been quite reasonable, so maybe chalk this one up to having a bad day :-) Everyone does now and then.


Dave

< Message edited by ultradave -- 7/26/2021 10:46:24 AM >


_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 5
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 7/26/2021 4:50:10 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13075
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

wildcolonialboy - Please note also there is the matter that the DB browser doesn't show what the baseline is in the actual database so, it only shows the result of the calculation based on the last loadout listed in the browser. This can at times explains many oddies one might see in the DB browser between what appear to be or are known to be extremely similar aircraft in terms of rcs.

For example the DB Browser may show different values for UK # 1095, and UK#4669 and UK#4947, while all 3 actually have identical baselines, the difference you see in the browser is the difference in the various last-listed-loadouts. Also the baseline in the db for those 3 is the same for the Italian ones #4697,#4698,#3786 and #3787 - You just have no way of seeing it without a raw database viewer. For example the 'browser' difference between USMC-F35B #4701, and say UK #4947 who have identical baselines in the DB is additional rcs calculations to the baseline for the the Storm Shadow External loadout on the UK, vs the GBU-56(V)4/B LJDAM external loadout out on the USMC one.

If you want actual baseline values UK|IT|USMC-B's f-35's (blk 3+) they are ALL the following in dBsm:
5001=  A-D band 5002= E+
Type | Front | Side | Rear | Top
5001 | -18.2 | -16.0| -18.2| -15.6
5002 | -28.2 | -26.0| -28.2| -26.0



That is an excellent observation, thank you! It does sound like a bug in how we manage the last-loadout values in the DB viewer. We'll definitely have a look.


_____________________________


(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 6
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/9/2021 12:49:56 PM   
aerosky


Posts: 16
Joined: 7/20/2021
From: Italy
Status: offline
A good question and good answer

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 7
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/10/2021 6:34:07 PM   
wildcolonialboy

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 10/18/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

"Hi guys, I've been observing some of your RCS figures, in DB3K vXYZ, and I suspect there may be some inaccuracies present".

Start with that, and then we can talk.


Well, if we were mates then maybe I'll take a different tack. I'm sorry if I offended you. However you should keep in mind that your customers pay significant money (including the upgrade from CMANO to CMO) in order to access the must up-to-date and accurate naval and air-warfare simulations available. I didn't mean to pique your irritation but to motivate your sense of pride over your creation. That this really is a serious impediment to playing realistic scenarios in two modern aircraft that are probably amongst the most likely to be used in a conflict in Asia or the Middle East (the RAF/RN F-35B in Europe, and the Marine Corps F-35B in the Pacific), in precisely the scenarios I want to simulate, makes it something of an irritation for me, as a $$-paying customer, that it seems that very strange and disparate RCS figures were put in. If you want to say that the F-35A is 0.012 at low band, and the F-35B is 0.015, then I can probably buy that as the F35B is a bit "chunkier".

I would just hope that such important and likely widely used aircraft would be carefully checked to ensure that they are correct and accurate (and the 0.15m2 lower band Marine Corps F-35B RCS makes it almost unplayable in high-end DEAD scenarios. I just want to see the issue fixed, I have no beef against the management, but equally, I don't think you should take it as a personal attack against you as an individual when someone points out a flaw in the RCS values among very prominent aircraft, in numbers that simply don't make sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

"Are you seriously telling me"

"And absolutely laughably"

"give me a brake"

"You're seriously telling me"

"This is an urgent fix"

This has to be one of the more disrespectful bug reports I've seen in a few years. A few points:

1) I think maybe taking it down a notch might on the aggressiveness factor might win you a few points

2) Post it in the database error reporting thread

3) Post the database you are referring to. There have been a number of database updates and the F-35 issue was reported before, I think.

D beat me to it.



I'll take number (1) into mind, however I think it should also be kept in mind that the owners of this product are not doing their customers a 'favour', this is a product they put on the market, that they market as being the most realistic naval/air simulator on the market, and then when I find that major, prominent aircraft are showing RCS figures that are unrealistic, inconsistent (for example, UK F-35B in 2025 is 0.085, which is higher than its 2018 variant, where the Marine Corps F-35B is 50% more detectable with a 0.15m2 RCS in low band, that just doens't make sense).

I might have approached this with a less confrontational post, but equally I think the developers can apply some common sense, and customer service mentality, in dealing with people who have shelled out hundreds of dollars for their products, rather than taking it as a personal attack. In reality, I'm bringing a bug/issue to their attention, that's something they should want to fix, and fixing it shouldn't be determined by how much obeisance I show to the developers in my posts, especially in an initial post which is obviously borne of frustration and a sense that the entry of these figures was, (1) not given the due care and diligence that you would expect, and (2) there seems to have been no double-checking of the work.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 8
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/10/2021 6:53:05 PM   
wildcolonialboy

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 10/18/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris


quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

wildcolonialboy - Please note also there is the matter that the DB browser doesn't show what the baseline is in the actual database so, it only shows the result of the calculation based on the last loadout listed in the browser. This can at times explains many oddies one might see in the DB browser between what appear to be or are known to be extremely similar aircraft in terms of rcs.

For example the DB Browser may show different values for UK # 1095, and UK#4669 and UK#4947, while all 3 actually have identical baselines, the difference you see in the browser is the difference in the various last-listed-loadouts. Also the baseline in the db for those 3 is the same for the Italian ones #4697,#4698,#3786 and #3787 - You just have no way of seeing it without a raw database viewer. For example the 'browser' difference between USMC-F35B #4701, and say UK #4947 who have identical baselines in the DB is additional rcs calculations to the baseline for the the Storm Shadow External loadout on the UK, vs the GBU-56(V)4/B LJDAM external loadout out on the USMC one.

If you want actual baseline values UK|IT|USMC-B's f-35's (blk 3+) they are ALL the following in dBsm:
5001=  A-D band 5002= E+
Type | Front | Side | Rear | Top
5001 | -18.2 | -16.0| -18.2| -15.6
5002 | -28.2 | -26.0| -28.2| -26.0



That is an excellent observation, thank you! It does sound like a bug in how we manage the last-loadout values in the DB viewer. We'll definitely have a look.



I'm not sure I entirely understand you. I would be thrilled if different internal/external loadouts produced different RCS (for example, you often see UK F-35B flying with external ASRAAM attached under the wing, which would increase RCS). But the Royal Navy/RAF has also worked hard on putting together a pure internal "First-day-kick-down-the-door" configuration (i.e. two Meteors, and 8 Spear 3 / Spear EWS, which when hunting in wolf packs of four, connected by their MADL, will be not only excellent air-to-air platforms due to their ability to fuse data and carry about ambushes on an unsuspecting enemy using four of the best A2A missiles in the world (Meteor), along with eight of the most advanced, complex surface to air missiles in the world (that are designed from the ground up for fifth-generation warfare and information fusion), which will make them absolutely fantastic for taking out Russian A2/AD complexes.

I just did an experiment, four F-35s in Block 4 config (2025). Two of them carrying a fully internal loadout of four meteors and eight Spear 3s. The other two were carrying two external storm shadow, two external asraams, and two internal Meteors. Obviously the Storm Shadow sorties would have an appreciably higher RCS. But when I DB'ed them, they both had the same.

If the database is taking into account a kind of average, why does this not effect the F-35A when carrying external weaopons loads (or have a higher than 0.012 low band RCS?).

Perhaps I'm still not fully understanding, but people like me rely on the database as a source of information when it comes to mission planning, and I hope you might take this into account when determining your database information as a clean F-35B should not be significantly more RCS-relecting than the A (the diff between the American F-35A and the Italian F-35B is 0.012 lowband to 0.015 when taking into account the significant "hump" the B's have. But to make the British one 0.065, and the Marine Corps one even worse at 0.15 m2 RCS, methnks there's something wrong. If the DB has no actual link to game mechanics, then a fuller explanation would be appreciated, and peraps you can let it do that behind the scenes rather than knobbling (or appearing to) British and Marine Corps F-35s

Apologies again if my tone was uncalled for.


< Message edited by wildcolonialboy -- 8/10/2021 7:39:24 PM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 9
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/10/2021 7:27:26 PM   
wildcolonialboy

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 10/18/2017
Status: offline
An additional datapoint. I completely ignored the database and looked at 'real world' performance. I set up a A Russian Billboard [9S15M Obzor], a modern Russia 3D air defence AESA radar with a notional range of 130nm (presumably against non-signature reduction bomber type targets)

I set up two F-35 pairs, one carrying two ASRAAMs externally, two Storm Shadows externally and two Meteors internally. I set up a second pair carrying only Meteors and Spear 3s in internal carriage. I set the Obzor up on a very prominent seaside cliff in eastern England, and had both F-35 pairs fly towards it paralllel to one another, but on an equally angular inbound course so that both their frontal intakes were pointing towards to the Obzor at all times.

The Obzor picked up the external-carriage F-35 three minutes and 48 seconds out, at a distance of 43.1 nautical miles. It picked up the internal carriage F-35 almost four minutes later, just 21 nautical miles away. So I give full credit for a game function of which I was unaware but had dreamed of being implemented

I'll do some other tests comparing these findings to Italian, Marine Corps, F-35A and other variants to see if it matches up, but nonetheless an interesting experimental result and thank for bearing with me.

(in reply to wildcolonialboy)
Post #: 10
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/10/2021 7:31:01 PM   
wildcolonialboy

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 10/18/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ultradave

Exactly what I was going to ask of <wildcolonialboy>. After noticing these things the first thing to try would be to set up some identical scenarios with just one or two aircraft and try to determine if the numbers that you are seeing in the DB viewer are actually having differing in game effects WITH THE SAME LOADOUTS. Or is it just an artifact of how the DB viewer displays information to you and the aircraft do actually perform the same. Very quick and easy to do. When I do this, >90% of the time I answer my own question.
Dave


An excellent and wise suggestion, which I have taken up (see me my recent posts). I've only compared British aircraft internal versus external loaded so far, but this confirms that internal loaded aircraft have better stealth and are detected later. I shall expand my inquiry into different countrys' aircraft to see if the same holds true.

(in reply to ultradave)
Post #: 11
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/11/2021 2:33:29 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 1212
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not sure I entirely understand you.

The in-game database VIEWER can lie to you, depending on whatever happens to be the last listed loadout of the that particular entry.

quote:

But when I DB'ed them, they both had the same.

Yes I explained this, if "DB'd" means compared in the database viewer, see above. Compare same aircraft with internal vs external loadout _in the game_ against the same radar\detecting unit, in the same exact way for both. Watch as one is very likely detected at least a few nm (if not much greater) before the other, that because of the rcs adjustments for different loadouts it's making for the loadouts actually on the unit from the raw baseline figures in the raw database.

quote:

If the database is taking into account a kind of average

It's not an average. It's the starting point for the aircraft before other factors are applied too it, ie the naked airframe's rcs. Again when you say "database" it's unclear to me what you mean because when I say "database" I mean the actual database, and not what the in-game 'viewer' shows me, which again for RCS since it lies depending on again whatever last loadout just happens to be listed (ie you don't get to control what you see in the in-game viewer , it's a by product\artifact\bug of whatever just happens to be the last entered allowed load-out for an aircraft in the database).

My bottom line beyond "actually test it in game", was that if you want actual starting points grab a sql-lite browser and open the database as read-only and look at the DataAircraftSignatures table for the given DBID of the unit you are interested in, that's where I pulled the data in my last post from.

If you want to know what the adjustment %'s are for different factors, you'd have to ask devs, I have not peeked that far behind the curtain. What you can do for that in some instances is guesstimate it using the viewer 'last-loadout-bug' to you advantage. It's the one positive side effect of the 'bug\unintended feature'. What I mean by that is if and when two aircraft entries that are basically the same exist, but one shows different values because of internal vs external loadouts being last, it allows you to see the general % difference. It may not end up being 'exactly' that for any other external loadout besides the last one listed, but it does give you a general idea of how badly an external-stores impact RCS for mission planning in the game on the specific aircraft.

(in reply to wildcolonialboy)
Post #: 12
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/11/2021 12:12:52 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13075
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wildcolonialboy
Well, if we were mates then maybe I'll take a different tack. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Accepted.

quote:


However you should keep in mind that your customers pay significant money (including the upgrade from CMANO to CMO) in order to access the must up-to-date and accurate naval and air-warfare simulations available. I didn't mean to pique your irritation but to motivate your sense of pride over your creation.

Unnecessary. We are already committed to our work, and we take every earnest issue report seriously. There is no need to try to jump the queue by getting under our skin; the gravity of the matter at hand speaks for itself.

In fact this is already being looked into - not because you ticked us off, but because it's a pretty confusing (to end users) UI bug, and we understand how it can lead to significant uncertainty as to the actual RCS values in effect.

But next time, maybe give us the benefit of the doubt, okay?




< Message edited by Dimitris -- 8/11/2021 2:59:48 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to wildcolonialboy)
Post #: 13
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/23/2021 10:49:08 AM   
Struan76


Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

My bottom line beyond "actually test it in game", was that if you want actual starting points grab a sql-lite browser and open the database as read-only and look at the DataAircraftSignatures table for the given DBID of the unit you are interested in, that's where I pulled the data in my last post from.



This is a truly awesome insight. I didn't realise you could view the raw database this way (without a Pro license!).

So ... is there a table in the SQL DB for signature modifiers for each loadout? [edit] I tried adding up each weapon/sensor for the last loadout entry but they don't quite add up to the database viewer numbers - making an assumption there might be a basic modifier to factor in pylons, etc, over a 'clean' airframe. This last part is really just to satisfy my own curiosity..

< Message edited by Struan76 -- 8/23/2021 11:39:34 AM >

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 14
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/23/2021 11:48:42 AM   
Struan76


Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2019
Status: offline
I also note in the database that pods (eg ALQ-249 ECM Pod, wpn_dbid=3341) and bombs (eg Mk82 LDGP, wpn_dbid=1839) have '0.0' for the weapon signature entries. Is this intentional - ie, 'unguided' weapons have no signature?

It's not really a factor for older jets, but when experimenting with options like large external weapons carriage or external tanks on J-20, F-35 or signature treated 4/4.5-gen fighters it could be erroneous.

<edit> disregard the above, I found the relevant answer in the SQL. </edit>

< Message edited by Struan76 -- 8/23/2021 1:39:04 PM >

(in reply to Struan76)
Post #: 15
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/24/2021 12:05:38 AM   
Boagrius

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 7/21/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wildcolonialboy

I've just been looking at some of the Radar Cross Section inputs and they are absolutely ludicrous, or someone wasn't paying attention or just entering whatever.

The UK's F-35B has an RCS of 0.065m2. The identical Marine Corps version has 0.15m2. I can only assume they meant 0.015m2 because that's what the Italian F-35B is rated at for low-band radar. Are you seriously telling me that the UK's F-35B has an RCS four-times that of the Italian F-35B, but half that of the Marine Corps? That the Royal Navy that has spent hundreds of millions of pounds integrating weapons and developing doctrine getting ready for "clean" internal carriage of 2 Meteor missiles and 8 Spear 3 or Spear EW missiles (swarms) per air aircraft for "kick the door down" first day operations, and then external carriage (as every other air force is planning) once the threat level lowers, that somehow they (who build 15% of every F-35 including radar absorbent sections) don't know how to maintain their own aircraft? Or was it a mistake?

And absolutely laughably, the Su-57 PAK-FA has an RCS of 0.035m2 (i.e. about as stealth as the F-117.. give me a brake). You're seriously telling me that the PAK-FA, which is a complete dumpster fire that doesn't even had integrally hidden fanblades or DSI, and for which it only has fairly basic primary stealth shaping from the frontal angle and very little evidence of stealthy Radar Absorbent Material (precisely the reason the Indians pulled out... it's about as good as a Super Hornet Block III), is as stealthy at the F-117, which despite its age, remains a pack leader because while angular shaping isn't great for aerodynamic stability, it's still the best when it comes to the primary stealth shaping (as opposed to radar absorbent materials and clever EW management of exposure to enemy radars from which directions)

Also, the difference between high band and low band observability has gone from orders of magnitude to a tiny step down. For the Marine Corps F-35B, it's 0.15m2 for low band radars, 0.14,2 for high band radars. For the British F-35B, it's 0.065m2 to 0.0065m2.

This is an urgent fix on all stealth aircraft as they are absolutely essential to any modern warfighting scenario (and please don't rely on AusAirPower for anything related to the F-35, F-22 or stealth generally... they're good on their knowledge and access to Russian missile and other technology, but they are infamous for being F-35-hating cranks in Australia)

From one Aussie to another, I can assure you that the team here is quite reasonable on these matters. I raised a similar issue regarding IR signature values for VLO vs non-VLO aircraft and found my input was well received. No need to be combative out of the gate mate ;-)

< Message edited by Boagrius -- 8/24/2021 12:10:37 AM >

(in reply to wildcolonialboy)
Post #: 16
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/24/2021 4:25:52 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 1212
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
quote:

So ... is there a table in the SQL DB for signature modifiers for each loadout?


No. the baselines are in the DB, the modifiers are buried in the client code.

quote:

have '0.0' for the weapon signature entries.
0.0 is ~1sqm when it comes to the 2 radar bands, invisible = doesn't have an entry for the band type, or -10000.00 if I recall, 0.0 for the ir\eo bands would mean invisible.


(in reply to Boagrius)
Post #: 17
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/24/2021 4:35:36 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13075
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
We are currently beta-testing a change in the DB-viewer that clearly shows the "final" RCS values per-loadout. Example screenshot:



The green background indicates that this loadout has the same RCS values as the baseline ones (ie. the A/C does not carry external stores). This makes it easier to quickly focus on the loadouts that do change the RCS.



_____________________________


(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 18
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/24/2021 5:12:00 AM   
KnightHawk75

 

Posts: 1212
Joined: 11/15/2018
Status: offline
Looks like a great improvement.


(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 19
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/24/2021 4:32:11 PM   
BrianinMinnie

 

Posts: 134
Joined: 5/7/2015
Status: offline
Thanks to all the developers involved in this Game, I'm amazed with the amount of data & variables involved that you folks have to track and potentially update that your heads don't explode.

I've been playing casually for years and even today I'm seeing something new I've either never noticed or used adequately.

Thanks for great work, its greatly appreciated!

BiM

< Message edited by BrianinMinnie -- 8/24/2021 5:16:18 PM >

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 20
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/24/2021 10:49:25 PM   
Boagrius

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 7/21/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

We are currently beta-testing a change in the DB-viewer that clearly shows the "final" RCS values per-loadout. Example screenshot:



The green background indicates that this loadout has the same RCS values as the baseline ones (ie. the A/C does not carry external stores). This makes it easier to quickly focus on the loadouts that do change the RCS.



Looks great

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 21
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/25/2021 1:10:19 AM   
Struan76


Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KnightHawk75

0.0 is ~1sqm when it comes to the 2 radar bands, invisible = doesn't have an entry for the band type, or -10000.00 if I recall, 0.0 for the ir\eo bands would mean invisible.


*slap forehead* Of course. I was reading that as 0m2 not 0dBsm.

(in reply to KnightHawk75)
Post #: 22
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/25/2021 1:14:32 AM   
Struan76


Posts: 34
Joined: 9/3/2019
Status: offline
Dmitris this is a really nice addition to simulation. Impressive.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 23
RE: Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs - 8/28/2021 1:42:21 AM   
c3k

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 4/25/2017
Status: offline
Great addition!

(in reply to Struan76)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Tech Support >> Bug in aircraft Radar Cross Section inputs Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.510