From Sagem:
3D target models developed within the framework of air-to-ground for “complex outdoor scenes”.
From Sagem:
3D target models developed within the framework of air-to-ground for “complex outdoor scenes”.
“valid and non-valid targets”… so like whether it’s a tree or a tank?
But what is their use. The brochure STATES IN BOLD FONT that the algorythm is used for facilities.
Those models might as well be used as example of thing the missile is no supposed to target, or if concentration of look alike targets is hight, there is a chance said facility is its target.
No as per the brochure and the NATO definition of terms it does “identification”, again we don’t need to be English masters here, the same paper outlines the definition of those terms.
But that paper only mentions target classification…
So IR only for the ships? Interesting
The Japanese GCS IR guidance kits were refused to be added because it couldn’t be proven the IR seeker could track ground targets, do Hammers have a document specifically saying the IR can track ground targets?
Right which is then furthered by the manufacturer claiming “identification”.
Let me help you here;
And yes it turns out you can iteratively improve on something.
Cool arguing in bad faith then.
Nah, I just haven’t seen any worthwhile sources outside of the NATO dictionary.
Time to bug report hammers only being able to use IR for stationary targets 🤣
Any of those comments could be correct based on the insufficient detail in that paragraph, so don’t got making snarky comments.
Also @Gunjob already gave you the NATO definitions of these terms:
Your example falls under detection (the first step): “separating targets from other objects [i.e. trees]”. From the sources provided Brimstone undeniably has at least target recognition (the third step). So we can drop this rubbish about it only being able to tell tanks apart from trees.
Did the MMW seeker change from Brimstone 1 through 3?
Yes.
You were given sources that did backup Gunjob’s point whilst not really providing anything to back your own. Arguing like this simply makes no sense and it sort of falls into being disrespectful, please try to respect the time that Tech Mods willingly put into the forums as they have plenty of things to take care of already.
they would have to do that for every scan pattern, on every radar they gace TWS+
thats the problem, if you hard code it its going to be a pain in the ass to change something about it or even adding new planes/ radars that would get that feature
Proving me right again and again.
Its language issues on your sides not understanding clear sources of the english language. Stay with french sources
Well then gaijin needs to make tws++ with some esa radar code spiced in, i believe gaijin can do it, maybe by christmas.