With the radar able to move at 300+°/s though the interruption to the regular scan pattern only lasts for a small fraction of a second.
Copying the AESA code with the targets set to update every 2 seconds instead of every 0.01 seconds would accurately mimic the end result of data adaptive scanning. The only thing that wouldn’t be modelled is the typically 0.05-0.1 second interruptions that occur each time a priority track target needs to be updated.
Now I would argue having data adaptive scanning modelled with that caveat would make the radar less inaccurate than having it’s primary mode of operation (which is stated in primary source MOD documents to be one of the reasons the radar was chosen over it’s competitors in the first place) completely missing.
But wouldn’t that make the Eurofighter ever so slightly better than it should be? Glad you asked, there’s a simple solution to that: reduce the radar’s scan speed slightly from 70°/s to say 60-65°/s. Now the radar would take as long to complete a full scan as it would if it had update a few priority track targets along the way. The only inaccuracy is that the scan speed reduction is evenly distributed over the scan rather than occurring at distinct points.
I agree that modelling things 100% properly is ideal, but with literally 15 minutes of effort Gaijin could create a form of Data Adaptive Scanning, using only existing code, which would be more accurate to reality than most of the mechanics we have in game. I see no reason for you to oppose this unless you just don’t want the Typhoon to have a decent radar.
The radar gimbal speed towards the priority targets isn’t in dispute, the question is wouldn’t the scan speed of the priority targets themselves require some time? If there’s 6 priority targets then there’s effectively 7 scan volumes to maintain (scan volume being an oversimplification as a term). Gaijin would also need to implement increasing delays to the original selected scan zone for every priority target added which would degrade the quality of the original selected scan volume.
How wide of a scan do you think the radar needs to do, we’re still talking small fractions of a second per scan. Also there is a primary source stating that a 4 bar 140° scan with data adaptive scanning of targets takes approximately 8 seconds to complete. The developers used this source as the basis for a 70°/s scan rate in game (without data adaptive scanning track updates modelled), so I’d argue the time needed to perform data adaptive scanning is already baked into the current in game scan rate, but without the benefits of data adaptive scanning.
Ever heard the saying “Perfect is the enemy of good”?
Insistence on perfection often precludes the opportunity for something worthwhile
I’ll ask again, as you ignored that section of my last post, what is less realistic? The radar missing it’s main operating mode, which was one of the reasons it was selected in the first place, or said radar operating mode being present but not quite 100% accurate? Even with the simplified approach I suggested it would be a more accurate than a bunch of other mechanics we have in game.
I said I would prefer the radar to be modelled 100% accurately, but as Gaijin seem reluctant to put any time into fixing the Eurofighter’s radar I would settle for a low effort fix that is more accurate than the current implementation and actually has a chance of being implemented. You are essentially arguing that something which is (making up numbers for the sake of an example) 70% accurate to real life shouldn’t be improved to be 80% accurate, “because changing it wouldn’t make it 100% accurate”. Personally I’d consider a net gain in historical accuracy to be a good thing, but you do you I guess.
Then there would be no issue on my end if this downside was already implemented (which I was not aware of).
Where exactly did I ever say I was against this feature being modeled? For future reference you would never see me arguing against implementation of more realistic features as someone that has over half of his reports asking for implementation of features that aren’t in the game yet. I think you misunderstood the intent of my original post, which is just to clarify that the radar IRL doesn’t work on the same principle since I’ve seen posts that effectively said as much.
The radar missing its main operating mode would be less realistic of course.
You were arguing that my proposal for a simplified version of Data Adaptive Scanning shouldn’t be added, because it was not entirely accurate (stuff like “Gaijin would also need to implement increasing delays to the original selected scan zone for every priority target added”). I’m aware that there are problems / limitations with my solution, but my position is that it is a low effort fix, using existing code, which would lead to a net increase in historical accuracy (even if not perfect) compared to the mode being missing entirely.
Maybe because I don’t use the EFT, although I still play other things than the rafale, but I would be on the opinion that if downsides aren’t implemented (requiring more work), there still needs to be a distinction between ESA and mechanical radars, even if the latter has systems mimicking PESA to an extent.
The same applies for a system that I often use, the R530F radar missile for the Mirage F1. In game, it’s modeled as a simple pulse missile, which is chaffable in one pop. IRL the 530F seeker has chaff discrimination hardware allowing it to act closer to a regular pulse Doppler CW guided missile, but still much more chaffable. The devs have been incapable of modeling this behavior without breaking the missile, and I would not advocate for the devs to slap it the pulse Doppler guidance code, and rather keep it to the current state of being just another easily chaffable missile.
Obviously I would prefer for things to be modeled properly, but gaijin spaghetti code or the devs inability to model things more reliably often times mean it won’t happen.
That is just my personal opinion tho, I understand that not everyone agrees with that.
Also, I beleive P-Track is limited to only updating 6 contacts on the Typhoon, where AESA can do far more. In gamemodes like ASB this probably isnt much of an issue, but could be quite major in a CQB gamemode like ARB.
If I argue for a more realistic implementation or a different solution than your proposal, it doesn’t mean I would favor the current state of things over your proposal. It just means I favor for a more realistic implementation over your proposal, that’s all.
If you argue for A (somewhat accurate implementation) over B (no implementation/current state)
And I argue for C (more realistic implementation) over A (somewhat accurate implementation)
Perhaps not, but given its been 7 months and we still have implementation B. The priority should be on Implementation A given that Implementaiton C will probably take years. if they add it at all and you can always go from A to C in the future.
