That’s either a bug or there’s some other absurd thing I’m missing, but the key point is the actual detection range is overperforming.
1 Like
and where are you getting that from
Target designation range in game is 90 km in MPRF and 120 km in HPRF. Beyond those range the radar cannot track targets.
3 Likes
Your own image.
“guaranteed to detect and capture standard air targets at a range of up to 200 km (against the ground - up to 170 km), and in a narrower viewing sector - up to 350-400 km.”
The “narrower viewing sector” is a 10x10 scan. It should be 200km in every mode the aircraft uses in game.
There is no scenario in which 120x9 can be considered narrow.
Just to make this clear, scan speed of ECRS we got from sources should be 571 degrees/s. Gaijin chose to not belive them, and kept it slower, at ~180 degrees/s.
8 Likes
and yet you cant launch at a target that is 200km away no matter the mode
*even if we had big enough maps for that
and as i have shown the radar is clearly able to get a weapons grade lock above 160km range
1 Like
Sure and I agree you probably should be able to, but that’s not what I’m saying.
you are talking about the grey zone, which is irrelevant for WT
and iam talking about the green zone, which is relevant for WT
It’s relevant for when gaijin adds low observability airframes, where having nearly double the range it should will allow it to brute force stealth (as it’s just a flat modifier). That’s why range is a concern.
Is there anywhere I can find this source btw? I want to have a read through it if possible
i dont have the source but iirc it said that the ECRS scans a certain scan area 8x as fast as the Captor-M
and then the scan speed from ingame was used to come to the 571°/s
Okay so this is what ECRS mk1 should look like:
Now it has the (almost) correct scan speeds (553deg/sec) for AESA only modes and slows down massively for full TWS search using the mechanical movement too
"twsNarrow": {
"type": "pyramide",
"azimuthLimits": [
-90.0,
90.0
],
"elevationLimits": [
-90.0,
90.0
],
"rollStabLimit": 180.0,
"pitchStabLimit": 90.0,
"period": 0.33,
"width": 15.0,
"barHeight": 2.5,
"barsCount": 6,
"rowMajor": true,
"preciseMinor": true,
"tws": true
},
"twsMedium": {
"type": "pyramide",
"azimuthLimits": [
-90.0,
90.0
],
"elevationLimits": [
-90.0,
90.0
],
"rollStabLimit": 180.0,
"pitchStabLimit": 90.0,
"period": 1.3,
"width": 30.0,
"barHeight": 2.5,
"barsCount": 12,
"rowMajor": true,
"preciseMinor": true,
"tws": true
},
"twsWide": {
"type": "pyramide",
"azimuthLimits": [
-90.0,
90.0
],
"elevationLimits": [
-90.0,
90.0
],
"rollStabLimit": 180.0,
"pitchStabLimit": 90.0,
"period": 1.95,
"width": 45.0,
"barHeight": 2.5,
"barsCount": 12,
"rowMajor": true,
"preciseMinor": true,
"tws": true
},
"twsFull": {
"type": "pyramide",
"azimuthLimits": [
-90.0,
90.0
],
"elevationLimits": [
-90.0,
90.0
],
"rollStabLimit": 180.0,
"pitchStabLimit": 90.0,
"period": 5.85,
"width": 90.0,
"barHeight": 2.5,
"barsCount": 6,
"rowMajor": true,
"preciseMinor": true,
"tws": true
},
2 Likes
Yea I’m aware of the numbers, I just wanna have a read through the actual source it came from.
Gaijin copypaste this into the code I pray
1 Like
they would never
1 Like
“Marketing lie”
Until EF gets at least 2 more spice racks - grippy is the best GRB fighter. I don’t even know if it’s that much worse than EF in ARB…
Its like 2nd-3rd best CAS after SU-30SM and Rafale (imo) and in air? Yeah it is worse than Typhoon - less missiles, worse flight performance.
they already nerfed it a bit
Due to their own bad modelling btw. It got nothing to do with real life capability.
6 Likes