The amount of things wrong here amuses me.
2 Likes
Which is still superior…
Bigger radar with a bigger servo. What do you want me to say? hahah
1 Like
Id assume a smaller radar with 10 years advantage in servo technology and likely more processing power would have the advantage in speed quite frankly
The smaller radar would have less inertia to deal with and more powerfull/efficient servos relative to size
1 Like
i think i read somewhere that the servos on the Captor-M have like 0.5hp
AI.24 over 650 days in game - shoud be reported, no?
But right now that’s not the case.
Well, I don’t know, the AI.24 holds targets quite well. I have no complaints about it (moreover, I had cases when the radar tracked the target against the background of the ground in the back at a distance of 20 km.) And considering that on the Typhoon it would have to work without direct target acquisition, but only in TWS, then notching would cease to be a problem at all.
But that’s not how we do it now, is it? I compared two radars in the game in the state they are in now.
If the snail sets up Captor/PS-05 so that it is better than AI.24 - I will be only glad. But now it is simply painful to use PS-05. It loses contacts, tracking the air, does not see the contact where it is. In my opinion, AI.24 currently has a much higher QoL than PS-05
AI.24 now feels like a beacon, and PS-05 feels like a flashlight.
Exactly you would assume, the requirements for the radar didn’t stipulate massive increases in scan speed or an increase of any kind.
1 Like
It was, then it was broken again when they changed the scan patterns which inadvertently doubled the speed.
Would make zero difference as you’re not using HPRF-VS in TWS right now. As TWS is MPRF.
It does until it doesn’t, assuming we’re talking about just TWS, in track both radars perform very well, but in track AI24 is easily notched with chaff where as a MPRF radar isn’t.
Since the TWS timeout fix it holds tracks perfectly well.
1 Like
What did the requirements stipulate? I cant imagine it was simply an increase in range as is basicly the case atm ingame?
The requirement was a minimum of 60 degrees a second scan speed, 60nm lookup headon range against a fighter type target going 2000 ft/s. And only a 60+/- degree wide scan area.
1 Like
Ok now do it with the medium width TWS and compare it to just about any 12.7-14.0 TWS - the Typhoons peforms the worst and the Radar will not hold the lock box over the targets
60°/s or “Slew rates are to be compatible with the tracking requirements for close combat against agile fighters of a similar aerodynamic performance to EFA.”
You just listed PS-05A and Blue Vixen WHICH HAS THE SAME PERFORMANCE. Its literally copy pasted haha what do you mean!.
Though it is very strange that the radar should be capable of tracking and identifying both moving and stationary grounds at the same time tracking air targets using an interleaved mode without any increase in scan rate
1 Like
We’ll have to see if the latest round of bug fixes sorted it, but at this moment In time. I consider captor-m notably weaker than blue vixen
2 Likes
What kind of requirements are those? Doesnt the blue vixen already fit that?
Okay. You’ve convinced me.
Low enough to allow radars like the APG-65(MSD-2000) to enter the competition.
Just did with PS-05A lost track multiple times.
Blue Vixen fell a bit short in various areas, but yes, it was a very good radar, hence CAPTOR was heavily based on it
1 Like