Isn’t it possible that it tracked a flare for a second and when it lost it it continued turning in IOG ?
Not saying it’s a normal behavior, but I don’t remember IR having much issues with ghost targets.
I sometimes have bugs with any IR missile where I’d have a lock on someone and just as I fire my missile the lock freezes in the air, so my missile locks absolutely nothing and fly straight, but I’ve never seen IR missiles going for actual ghost targets.
Sensor view shows constantly “TRK” (no IOG ever mentioned) while the seeker cone effectively stays on the target plane while the missile turns away sharply (as if the distance to target is way shorter). So either sensor view is lying or the hop from plane to flare in the given timeframe is used for IOG-data. Anyway it shouldn’t use the flare as a reference point for IOG data at all.
The discussion about realistic scan speed is that according to gunjob :
So simply giving an average mech + esa scan speed in the whole pattern considered seems like an okay solution to this problem.
And add an extra limit to where targets aren’t continuously updated to model would also make a better distinction between full ESA and hybrid radars
No, Gunjob is responding to removal of TWS ESA when the target is away from radar ESA fov, that is if EF radar is looking max left, and the target is max right.
When it came to scan speed, developers “needed more sources”
2 Likes
Scan speed
2 Likes
Ah ok fair enough.
I still stand by the fact that approximating hybrid scan speed by giving only the average of the combined speed is sufficient without complicating the mechanic too much, which is what the devs seem to think because that’s how they implemented the (obviously much superior) Russian radars
Edit : obviously that average depends on the actual mode, if in narrow scan with only ESA, then you should have access to 100% of the ESA speed
Which is what we’ve got for all modes, even those that are just pure ESA.
Should be 190 for the 200x15 but the 90x30, 60x30 and I can’t remember the narrow mode, but those 3 should be 560+
Gaijin has all set to 190.
There are no complications when it comes to changing scan speeds, I did that myself
It is as much as changing 1(!) numerical value
3 Likes
Yes, I didn’t see your proposition, that’s basically what I was also thinking about.
Didn’t say it was complicated either, my initial question is why gaijin hadn’t done it for the EFT when they can do it for the SU30 just fine :/
1 Like
Ok I thought the 190 was the pure mech speed, not the combined ESA + mech at 200x15 width, hence the confusion in my comments
1 Like
Something something russian bias ;)
Idk, devs seem to belive that is is not possible to do it that fast at 571 degree/s, while at the same time we had things like Pantsir that for a long while wore astonishing 72000 degree/s, and even now boasts with 3600 degree/s.
1 Like
Im fairly certain its a estimated figure for a combined ESA + Mech speed at least. But I could be wrong
1 Like
Related question, anyone know why its 200x15 and not 200x30, on the grounds that its just any mode, being rapidly moved back and forth by the repositioner (as far as I am aware) and therefore it could and probably would be one of the larger volume modes like the 90x30 or 60x30?
Why to grind flare really hard? Any keybind to remove this CCRP that make me unable to drop my bomb because my radar keeps slaving my IRST.
190 is i think pure mech speed? my very basic understanding is that the mech+esa should be about twice that (i imagine the ESA would be set up to hit the maximum scan angle at the same time the swash plate hits its maximum travel if that makes sense?)
No, your only option is to toggle your radar off, or swap to a non-TWS mode (Like ACM/HMD) so stop it doing that. Then have a keybind for deactivate target point set to switch CCRP off if you want to use CCIP. I had the exact same issue. I thought manual CCRP was meant to override it, but it doesnt seem to be working currently. Might work on a report
I swear I hear that backing track in my sleep these days haha.
6 Likes
Well, if you manually set a point on the ground (either 3rd person of in TGP), the red mark priorise this point to the tracked target, so you can actually drop the bomb. But yeah, no other way than that
That is what I mean. I tried that when stock, and it kept getting overridden. So I think a report is in order
Edit: It appears to be working correctly now in test flight. so it might have been resolved, but It wont let me test with map set points in test flight
Maybe it’s a EFT bug ? I don’t have any issue on the rafale C, mirage 2000D (both variants).
It’s not just a report that’s needed, they should report the entire system and keybinds especially if they want to integrate more sensor fusion in the future. Currently it’s a bit of a mess.
For example the way looking around is inconsistent with keyboard inputs when in mouse aim :
- if the mouse aim cursor is still on your screen when you look around and start using the keyboard, the plane will return to the mouse aim
- if the mouse aim cursor is outside of the screen when you look around and start using the keyboard, then the mouse aim cursor will stay on the nose of the aircraft.
Like why does systems (both gameplay and and sensor mechanics) behave so inconsistently