2 seconds is probably waaaay too long of a latency. I reckon 0.5-1 second is more than accurate, maybe have it 0.08 seconds per target if that is possible for them to code
No, 2 seconds is accurate as per the sources on P-track. The radar scan volumes in-game are wildly inaccurate. iirc they should all be 140deg with varying numbers of bars (1, 2, 4, 6, 8), with P-track working by jumping the radar to a target when the radar crosses its azimuth. 2 sec p-track is the approximate time between each point at which the radar would cross the targets azimuth to be updated (140deg/70 deg/s = 2sec)
Oh I see. I figured you meant the time it took for the radar to jump from the target and jump back at which point for a 333°/sec radar, 2 seconds sounds really slow
Yeah thats not how this works.
The way P-track currently works in-game (from what I can tell) is that gaijin has coded in another TWS mode that works in the background and scans the entirety of the radars gimbal limits in a very short amount of time, and uses this background scan to update all trackfiles. The rafale does this entire scan in 0.04sec atm for example. Adjusting the code for the EFT, the time to complete the scan to make sense with P-track would be 2 seconds, since it updates targets every 2 seconds.
2 Likes
I think the reason gaijin isnt adding p-track like this is because it wouldn’t model the downsides like higher overall scan time, they’d need to add dynamic scanning to accurately model something like this, which i think gaijin would need a miracle to implement.
They could just make the radar slower and provide p-track like you’re proposing, but they’d probably need to add a key to designate priority targets anywway, because you’d only get 6 p-tracks.
Why would it slow down the scan time? CAPTOR-M is extremely fast
Nah, Thats just over complicating it.
It can track up to 20 priority targets. The maximum number of players in the enemy team is 16. Just have it “Prioritise” players over ai vehicles and boom. Priority targets designated
at least that is my interpretation of sources.
The radar is able to track up to 20 targets at once and can engage 6 of them.
I assume the 6 is referring to number of DL channels for AMRAAM/METEORs and not for P-Track
It would inevitably add some latency, it says the radar can do 10 degree vertical in 30ms, which if using a 140 degree scan area with current scan speed would add up to seconds in some fringe cases, in a 70 degree scan area the radar would need to go out of scan limit and add extra time to scan.
The 6 p-track limit is apparently stated in a classified document, this is taken from another forum so 🤷♀️.
P-track wouldnt cause any real increase in scan time, and even if it did, it would still decrease the time to update tracks, which renders the increased scan time irrelevant.
If there is a non-classified source for that. Then instead just make it the 5 closest player targets plus which ever is currently selected. or the 5 closests player targets to the currently selected target plus the current target.
Should be more than enough on that front.
But still. I think MythicPI is right, it really shouldnt be too complicated to add something close. Sure, some day if the game code allows, we could get the proper dynamic modeling, but Id rather take something close than nothing at all.
Had that for 18 months on the Tornado with leading edge wing slats and it sucked. Could be looking at the same for the Brimstone too. Really would be nice to have at least a half decent CAPTOR-M, instead of the Buggy Vixen we have currently.
I do think that even with some downsides p-track should be added as quick as possible to improve captor-m usability.
Honestly, any possible downsides would just be canceled out by the fact we have P-scan
According to EADS it takes 8 seconds to complete a four bar +/-70° priority track scan. That is how long it currently takes to do a four bar +/-70° scan in game without priority track.
So the overall scan speed won’t get any worse in game. If anything you could argue that the non priority track scan should be slightly faster.
6 Likes
Moving this convo to a more appropriate thread:
Its fair to say the brimstone is very good at ID’ing targets, and if pre-designated by a TGP, its likely using the pre-launch info on the target to avoid targeting objects that dont return the expected image to the seeker.
2 Likes
Or pre designated with the planes radar
But they are designed to be lauched without knowledge of a target and find its own
They can be fired either or. The website I linked discusses it.
In indirect mode, a killbox is designated and the brimstones are fired at it, locking identified threats when it comes into view automatically (the primary reason gaijin said they didnt wanna give Brimstone MMW seekers). This is used for striking multiple targets that might be well defended, such as an incoming convoy of ground vehicles (this has been seen done by ground launched brimstone in Ukraine vs a russian tank convoy atleast once on video, but cant post that here).
In direct fire mode, it can be launched at a vehicle the launch aircraft/sensors has direct LOS to.
The seeker is also stated to be high enough resolution with good enough target recognition to be capable of picking the ideal point of impact based on what the target is recognized to be, and when fired in salvos against groups of targets, the missile impacts are staggered to prevent missiles from striking the same one.
5 Likes
Well then, i hope gaijin just gives us p-track already.
@Gunjob see any potential issues with this suggested P-track code based on the ESA P-track adjusted for the current in-game CAPTOR-M?
I’ve already discussed this with a Dev. Can’t go into detail obviously.
6 Likes
Just figured i could try to provide example code to help :p
