Still have no idea why they pretend they cant just use the AESA code to model P-Track for CAPTOR-M and PS-05/A Raven. Its incredibly easy to do…
because that way they have to set the refresh manually for every scan pattern, for every mechanical radar that got TWS+
Yeah… But apparently that would be unfair according to the French guys because it would have to have latency modeled. Not that I really understand why it would cause any latency actually
See, still wanted to add more Internal reports which Gunjob said here…
- Glitched textures of Pylons (Internal report)
Would be cool to see everything submitted. Even if not an specifics, just the title
I also wonder whether you should include BOL related reports on that list too
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/B8OvCzjZ7E91
I am pretty sure I got that allready
Turned out it was in an diffrent Collection of the DC…
1 Like
Well, know its on the EF as well
1 Like
I mean, not really, it would work literally the exact same way as the devs have the ESA radars modelled, but would just have an increased time between updates due to the lower scan speed. They already have the entire code laid out for them, all they need to do is input the appropriate CAPTOR-M and PS-05/A values instead.
Heck, in the most recent major update, they improved the priority track code for the RBE2-AA allowing it to track stuff outside its current scan zone. Thats quite literally what the bug report for priority track for the CAPTOR-M states it can do:
Also, afaik the only 2 mech scan radars capable of P-track are the CAPTOR-M and PS-05/A Raven, so they cant even use the excuse that too many radars would need changes. They’re either being outright lazy or biased.
This reminds me a lot of when they swore up and down that they could not make the MUSS soft-kill APS on the Puma IFV react to threats, saying they “did not have the code for it”. I suggested they should just use the code from the hardkill APS’ already in-game but just make it so the effector was the laser jammer instead of a projectile. 2 years later thats exactly what they did.
They have the code, they’re just too lazy to do anything with it.
4 Likes
Just for fun, these 2 blurbs of code should be roughly what P-track would look like on the EFT (with the current state of the radar) using the ESA code already in-game (unless I missed something):
Spoiler
Instead of updating targets every 0.04s like on the RBE2-AA, it updates them every 2 seconds. Still 5000% slower than the RBE2 for example, but it would be ~42% faster on the medium scan pattern and 50% faster than the wide pattern. Itd be slower than narrow pattern for tracking a single target, but would also allow the radar to update targets outside its currently selected scan zone every 2 seconds, and wouldnt influence the track rate of the narrow scan anyways.
P.S: I also adjusted the brackets from gaijins code cuz the way they bracket their code bugs the heck out of me…
2 Likes
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.