[TEC] - Solved !!!! Lost Radar Contacts When Sub Heading South (90-270)

[Redwine]

[quote=akdavis] The performance statistics were posted earlier in the thread:

PERFORMANCE
Maximum reliable range.

Target......................................Range in Mile
Land 3,000 feet or higher.............35
Land 1,000 feet..........................20
Large planes above 1,000 feet.......12-20
Small planes above 1,000 feet.......8-15
Low planes.................................Not detected

Due to the fact that low flying planes will usually not be detected, lookouts must
be alert for aircraft flying at low elevations during daylight hours.

Many thanks AkDavis... but your add not clarify my dude. :hmm: Sorry.
May be due to my bad english.

Originally Posted by akdavis

No surface contacts, no land contacts unless the elevation exceeds 1,000 ft.

1000ft at 20nm, but 2000 at 40nm.... or 500 at 10nm, 250 at 5nm....

Let me to expose my point.... with more precise numbers.

In example :

Large planes above 1,000 feet.......12-20

This is for the beam angle... at a determined altitude.

This is 37.020m range flying at 333m height.


With that data....

Then at minimun range... we can say 2500m

It will be 22.5 meters, about 74 feet.

And with that data, a masive 65 meters battleship, will enter the beam at 7226 meters.

At 7226 meters a battleship will put it mast top into the SD beam, it is about 3.9 nm, about 4 nm, and ....

Then...

Is there an eco....? I think so yes...

Then....

Are we right when i look for to completelly eliminate the surface contacts ?

I think so, at very near range, land and big ship must be present.
And small ship at shorter range of course.

At longer range we will not have surface contacts, but at range under 4 nm we must to have the bigger ships contacts.

Sorry if i cant explain better, my english is no good.

May be i am wrong but i think so when a big ship or a mountain enter into the beam of the SD we must to have a peak...

[akdavis]

The land contact ranges may suggest a beam angle, but the large/small air contacts do not. A large air contact is detectable at a longer range simply because it has a larger surface area (or more accurately, a larger radar cross section).

[Redwine]

Originally Posted by akdavis

The land contact ranges may suggest a beam angle, but the large/small air contacts do not. A large air contact is detectable at a longer range simply because it has a larger surface area.

Completelly agree, but a battleship, or even a cruiser, or a land hill have a big surface....

Any way, we can live if the SD dont reach the exact real life behaviour, after all it is game, and cant be perfect.

My point is, may be... only may be, we must not to squeeze our brain attempting to "completelly" eliminate the surface contacts.

I think so.... we must be happy, with the file i posted above, with wich one, we can recover the radar contacts using the V1.2 file instead the V1.1 !!!

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by Redwine

Completelly agree, but a battleship, or even a cruiser, or a land hill have a big surface....

Any way, we can live if the SD dont reach the exact real life behaviour, after all it is game, and cant be perfect.

My point is, may be... only may be, we must not to squeeze our brain attempting to "completelly" eliminate the surface contacts.

I think so.... we must be hapy, with the file above, we can recover the radar contacts using the V1.2 file instead the v1.1 !!!

I think we do need to squeeze our brains because 1. SD radar did not return a bearing and would not be useful for plotting surface contacts and 2. if SD radar is returning surface contacts at the ranges it could detect aerial contacts, it will far, far outperform SJ radar.

Here are some other stats I found:

DESCRIPTION AND USES:Long-wave aircraft warning sets. SD-a, SD-1, and SD-2 are installed on submarines and give range only. SD-3, for small auxiliaries, supplies range and bearing. All sets are equipped with "A" scopes, and have provisions for IFF (identification) connections.

PERFORMANCE:SD-a, SD-1 and SD-2, with antenna at 40' above water, have a reliable maximum range of 15 miles on medium bombers at 10,000' altitude. SD-3, with antenna at 80 ft. has a reliable maximum range of 25 miles on a medium bomber at 10,000'. Range accuracy is ± 500 yards. Bearing accuracy of SD-3 is ± 10°.

I suspect this data might be closer to real performance. Also bear in mind that all these stats are likely for the later versions of SD radar.

Here is data on the later SV radar (do we even have that in-game?) for comparison to SD early/late that it superceded:

Description.-An 8 cm. aircraft warning radar for use on submarines to supersede the SD.
SV-1 has instantaneous automatic volume control, fast time constant. Also uses SS indicating unit.

Number of operators.-One

Weight installed.-3,400 lb.

Power suppIy. 6 kva, 115 volts, 60 cps, 1 phase.

Maximum reliable range. (miles):
Bombers, at 30,000 ft 7.5
Bombers, at 10,000 ft 10
Fighters, at 10,000 ft 12
Battleships 12.5
Cruisers 15
Destroyers 10
Submarines, surfaced 7.5

Resolution: Range (yd.) 5.7 Bearing (deg.) 5

Accuracy: SV SV-1 Range (yd.) +-(50+0.1%). 15+-1%. Bearing (deg.) +-2. 1/2.

Minimum range (yd.) 400. 400.

Indication and data output:
Range: SV uses SJ-1 indicator (5 inch A scope with 10, 30 mi. ranges). SV-1 uses SS range indicator (3 inch A scope 10, 30 mi. ranges).
Bearing: SV-1 uses SS bearing indicator (3 inch B scope with 4,000 yd. range).
P.P.I.: 5-inch scope. Provision for four radar repeaters.
Ranges: 4, 10, 40 miles on SV; 4, 10, 20, 80 miles on SV-1
Other: Provisions for IFF trigger and display.

Antenna specifications:
Total weight (lb.) 500 including pedestal but not torque tube.

Feed: Wave guide.

Reflector:
Type Slotted csc2 parabola.
Size 2 ft. high x 4 ft. wide.

H.P. beam width:
Horizontal - 5.5 degrees.
Vertical - 60 degrees.
Polarization - Horizontal.
Gain (db) - 30.
Scan - 360 degrees at 0 to 6 r.p.m. by motor. D-c motor control.

Transmitter specifications:

Frequency (Mc.) 3400-3700.
R-f Source - Magnetron.
R-f Lines - Wave guide.
Pulser type - Nonlinear coil.
R-f peak power (kw) - 500.
R-f average power - SV-0.2; SV-1-0.15.(kw).
Pulse rates (pps) - SV-300 +-5%; SV-1-300 +-5%.
Pulse length (micro sec) - 1.

[Ducimus]

Heres an alternate idea, totally outside the box. I can't claim sole credit for it, and i didnt get it to work, but maybe someone else can. Maybe someone else will catch something i missed.

SD radar is really nothing more then ACTIVE aircraft detection. Why not reverse it to PASSIVE like Sh3? Sh3 had passive plane detection in the form of RWR, and it bloody worked. It did exactly what we want it to do now. It's sensor type 4 if im not mistaken.

So really all you need to do (in theory), is redo the stats on SD, change the sensor type, then equip all JP planes with a MK1 airborne radar (6K max distance, whoopity do), change the "radar signals detected" line in the menu.txt, and presto chango. Plane detection with no surface contacts.

Onlyl one small problem. i coudlnt get it to work Maybe i screwed up somewhere, so if someone else wants to try.......

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Heres an alternate idea, totally outside the box. I can't claim sole credit for it, and i didnt get it to work, but maybe someone else can. Maybe someone else will catch something i missed.

SD radar is really nothing more then ACTIVE aircraft detection. Why not reverse it to PASSIVE like Sh3? Sh3 had passive plane detection in the form of RWR, and it bloody worked. It did exactly what we want it to do now. It's sensor type 4 if im not mistaken.

So really all you need to do (in theory), is redo the stats on SD, change the sensor type, then equip all JP planes with a MK1 airborne radar (6K max distance, whoopity do), change the "radar signals detected" line in the menu.txt, and presto chango. Plane detection with no surface contacts.

Onlyl one small problem. i coudlnt get it to work Maybe i screwed up somewhere, so if someone else wants to try.......

And then we have Jap planes that can see in the night (in fact, that is already a problem we don't need to exacerbate).

[Ducimus]

>>And then we have Jap planes that can see in the night (in fact, that is already a problem we don't need to exacerbate).

What planes at night? Even if there are, 6KM max distance isnt squat. They can see farther then that. (or at least they did in in 1.1, in 1.2 i think their wearing blinders)

[akdavis]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

>>And then we have Jap planes that can see in the night (in fact, that is already a problem we don't need to exacerbate).

What planes at night? Even if there are, 6KM max distance isnt squat. They can see farther then that. (or at least they did in in 1.1, in 1.2 i think their wearing blinders)

Maybe they are gone now. People reported getting attacked at night before 1.2. Anyways, it is a brilliant idea, especially if it gets rid of bearing information.

[Redwine]

Night attack probability can be reduced from the AirStrike.cfg file.

Night Modifier=0.3 ;[>0] Modifier on strike probability at night

Any way... to have a pasive alert in the sub, the planes must to have an active radar emission ...correct ? :hmm:

Or just the game gives you the alert by its proximity disregarding if they have a radar mounted ?

[t0maz]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

(...) then equip all JP planes with a MK1 airborne radar (6K max distance, whoopity do) (...)

like he said

[Mraah]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

So really all you need to do (in theory), is redo the stats on SD, change the sensor type, then equip all JP planes with a MK1 airborne radar (6K max distance, whoopity do), change the "radar signals detected" line in the menu.txt, and presto chango. Plane detection with no surface contacts.

Onlyl one small problem. i coudlnt get it to work Maybe i screwed up somewhere, so if someone else wants to try.......

Ducimus,

Try one quick test. Give the MK1 airborne radar a max range of at least 40,000 meters. You may have done this already but just checking. Perhaps the airborne radar needs to overlap the sub for it to trigger a warning. I know that in real life it's not the case but in the sim world it may need it. If not, check the data from SH3 and see what type and range they used on the allied aircraft for the metox to detect it.

[Ducimus]

I'lll try again sometime this weekend. Regardless of results ill post the test modlet i was using if others want to take a stab at it. I know from SH3, the only limitation on RWR that i know of, was it only detected radars that exist, before the RWR's entry date. Range on the radar being detected was irrelevant.

Honestly i strongly suspect that RWR sensor support was removed and/or replaced with something else in the game code and the functionatliy is no longer there. OR.. some hex editing on sub nodes may be neccessary. I honestly don't know but i suspect the problem is one or the other.

[Mraah]

Originally Posted by Redwine

Up to this present moment, a theory i have, is may be, only may be, the tweak file we are using do not adress the correct settings...

Please, do not ofense Mraah !!! is only a posibility.

No offense taken . Ref's original tweakfile for use with v1.1 gave specific hex addresses that matched the search we are doing.

By the way, when you set MinHeight = -2500 were you able to detect aircraft while you were sumberged at periscope depth?

Update : Nevermind, I was thinking MinSensorHeight.

[Mraah]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I'lll try again sometime this weekend. Regardless of results ill post the test modlet i was using if others want to take a stab at it. I know from SH3, the only limitation on RWR that i know of, was it only detected radars that exist, before the RWR's entry date. Range on the radar being detected was irrelevant.

Honestly i strongly suspect that RWR sensor support was removed and/or replaced with something else in the game code and the functionatliy is no longer there. OR.. some hex editing on sub nodes may be neccessary. I honestly don't know but i suspect the problem is one or the other.

Agreed. Looks like something too deep to tweak at the moment.

Thanks for trying

[fullmetaledges]

I think this is more serious than it seems, since the patch addressed sd radar picking up ships and the result is an sd radar that doesn't pick up anything post patch. I think it shows the quality of work coming from the guys patching the game. Kind of like what originally came with the game, if it's not working then just take it out attitude.