We are limited to certain patterns only. We seriously lack ability to choose own bar settings in rws atleast as its not limited by set refresh speed so you can run 6bar 140.
1 Like
‘Switching to your sidearm is faster than reloading’ type comment
That doesn’t help when I’m engaging multiple targets at long range
1 Like
As I believe someone told you already before, you have one scan mode that have a larger coverage but slower refresh rate which is ideal for spotting and long range while you have a narrowed but faster one for close range and actually engaging.
pretty sure the rafale has something like this because its TWS is rock solid and updates before it does a scan…
here look
this is with the wide scan pattern
No it just has very very good roll stabilization
it genuinely updates before a scan.
i checked with the Eurofighter, it does not do this
1 Like
Just so were clear - the radar we have in game, how its currently performing - is going to stay exactly as it is right now?
no plans to adjust or change it? unless ofcourse documents that dont exist (unclassified documents with regards to radar performance) come into our possesion?
If it’s going to have worse track while scan performance than a damn F-14A and Tornado F3, and be subject to the F-15E horde, I think I’ll just not bother playing it
1 Like
As per usual, the artwork folk nailed it.
God, warplanes look so amazing.
other than the fact the panels forward of the engines are still painted grey when IRL they’re brushed bare metal… font/colouring of the aircraft ‘tail’ numbers is quite wrong
other than they look decent!
I might try to do a compairions of the volumetric scan rates of top tier radars at some point. Should get a better depiction of why some radars “feel” slow/bad while others “feel” fast/good.
I dont think scan speed in itself is a good metric to compare, since a radar that scans at lets say 120°/s but with a bar height of 1° would scan less in the same time period as a radar scanning 60°/s but at a bar height of 3° assuming they’re scanning similar azimuths.
Also, where did the Ground radar mode went?
It was on the Dev, but got lost on Live
1 Like
the woes of a rushed update
AI.24 vs PS-05A
Scanspeed 160 deg/s vs 65 deg/s
Transiver power 2000 vs 600
Angle of half sensitivity 2.6 vs 4
Max distance of TWS (my own expirience) - 110 km vs 80km
Main beam doppler notch velocity in scan 15 vs 30
Main beam doppler notch velocity in track 15 vs 20
Target in TWS - 20 vs 10
PS-05 better only in azimuth limit
Honestly, it looks like the top-tier radar and mid-level radar have been swapped.
2 Likes
I know that speculation etc isnt a valid source, but Gaijin has explicitly stated previously that they try to go for best estimate if no sources are available.
Therefore, let’s go with what is known, and try to derive a reasonable value from that:
The Captor-C aswell as M are capable of interleaved A/G and A/A operation, aswell as keeping track of individual targets while resuming the regular TWS scan as the bug report stated previously.
These features by themselves necessitate these things to happen at the same time:
- Revisiting up to 20(!) targets every few seconds to update their position
- Covering its entire TWS scan area at least once
- Doing a full SAR scan of a designated ground area, or at minimum a dedicated more detailed sweep of the ground to support its target ID
Now given we want to split these three about equally, and it updating ground and air reasonably quickly, i.e. every three seconds or better (already assuming conservative performance here), we arrive at it having to cover its 140° × 120° scan area (Captor M has ±70° azimuth and ±60° elevation) at least once per second. Now lets go with an absurdly unrealistically low requirement of simply scanning once from left to right, and once from top to bottom, no further sweeping. That means it still has to cover a total of 260 degrees of movement in one second.
Ergo, the worst possible performance it could reasonably be thought to have is 260°/sec
Mind that sources that are public, and that you yourself reposted as part of the bug report on Data Adaptive Scanning, suggests, at minimum, a scan rate of 333°/sec. This bug report was accepted.
Claiming there aren’t any sources or indications of a faster scan speed or better performance than a glorified blue vixen, and then giving it at best like 1/5th of its lowest publicly reported scan rate isn’t exactly fair. Nor is saying “its fine in its gimped state because I am doing ok with it” constructive.
2 Likes
That is not at all how radars work. You don’t ever scan the entire field of regard in a single scan pattern. You scan a set number of bars (usually between 1 and 8 which are each a couple of degrees apart). For example these are the scan patterns used by the Foxhunter radar on the Tornado, you’ll notice they don’t scan anywhere near the entire field of regard. If you want to scan an area higher or lower in the field of regard you move the scan pattern up or down. It scans 11.7° out of a 120° vertical FoR.
I said word for word that scanning the entire area by doing just one sweep left to right, and top to bottom, is hilariously unrealistic. I’m aware that the Captor, like any radar, scans in bars. I chose to simplify to highlight just how hilariously bad the radar is compared to what it would have to be.
If we assume a 4 bar scan for simplicities sake, we’d already be up to the ballpark of 400 degrees per sec assuming a wide scan, and reducing the area to a narrower one necessitates several hundred degrees per sec regardless so not even that could be reason for their fantasy number
There is only a Red Baron tribute skin, known as Baron Spirit, not one for Erich Hartmann
I’m fairly sure the Foxhunter 2G is easier to notch than the Blue Vixen and its derivatives
Where are you getting those sort of numbers from?
Having a radar scanning at 400°/s (or even 333°/s) would likely severely reduce the maximum range due to dwell time requirements.
The 333°/s number is very likely the maximum movement speed during the “jumps” not the normal scanning speed.
1 Like