New radar mode

[Old Sport]

Originally posted by Tilt
T............practiced operatives could recognise "signatures"...........

It is possible that return signal strength, speed and altitude were clues, but otherwise Stoney74 summed it up, it seems to me. The airborne radar I supported could show strong target blips or weak blips or swaths of cloud. There was no way to determine what aircraft type was detected or tracked. In fact in Vietnam aircrew were ordered to stop firing Sparrows at targets out of visual range after friendlies were downed. I read that in WWII a US fighter group tried a ruse against the Germans, flying to simulate a bomber formation without escort, in order to draw up German interceptors to a fight. Apparently that worked. The British, I believe, soon after developing radar came up with IFF to identify what appeared on the radar scope, but by a separate signal generated in the aircraft, not from the returned radar signal. [edit] Just read that the IFF signal was triggered by radar pulses, but was nevertheless a different signal [/edit] I do seem to recall reading that the US Navy had already implemented IFF into their radar detection systems by 1944 or 1945. So that may also be part of the explanation.

Best regards

Radar

[Krusty]

Oh, come ON!

That's rich!



(a Sparrow actually downing anything outside visual range? )

[Old Sport]

:-) Yeah, sparrows weren't known for their high reliability, but they occasionally actually worked.

Ritchie

[TheCage]

n the dar flags, add a new mode "Bomber only?" -- so that any dar, be it range, dar, dot, whatever, only shows up if the target is a formation-capable plane (defined as: Boston III, Ju88, Lancaster, B17, B24, B26, B25 (if formations enabled), Ki67, Ar234). Let's throw in C-47 just in case the scenario/event calls for it.

Ok let me get this straight, my idea which wouldn't kill the game and is less dweebish is a bad idea, but your idea which is makes this game more dweebish is the better idea.   Sorry Krusty but this game has gone from a great combat flight simulator to one that almost ranks up there with Dweebish High.   Best idea would be to leave the game alone and fly the game.   In any case you don't like my idea and I don't like yours.   It's our given right to disagree.   My only disagreement with your idea is that we have more then enough information as it stands.   Because of this IMHO creates the problems we currently have in the game.   One look at the radar tells you where the hordes are at.   That is my problem with current radar.    

Scenarios don't use in flight radar (except for friendlies), and it's one of the things that really makes them fun to fly.   Never heard anyone ever complain about the lack of radar there.  Guess that is all I have to say, won't say another word about the subject.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by TheCage
Scenarios don't use in flight radar (except for friendlies), and it's one of the things that really makes them fun to fly.   Never heard anyone ever complain about the lack of radar there.  Guess that is all I have to say, won't say another word about the subject.

Maybe you should fly more of them, and listen to more folks.

Many have problems with the way radar is used in scenarios. Regardless, it can and does change depending on the designer of the setup. We are currently limited in what we can do.

Think of it this way: We couldn't change CV hardness until a couple of months ago. For a LOOOOONG time this was a limiting factor in any scenario/event that included CVs. Now we CAN change the hardness, and it's been used already (OpHusky) and it will be an amazing tool to use for years to come.

But it doesn't have to be used. If you want default hardness you just leave it as-is.



The same goes for radar. You can't do a lot of things with it, and many different setups/events could have totally different dynamics (allowing re-running of past events with a new feel and new dynamic).

But it doesn't have to be used. It would be an amazing tool, nothing else.


P.S. You think any command structure anywhere wouldn't know "where the fight was"? Pilots would radio in, coordinate with their superiors, etc. Even ground observers couldn't miss 75+ planes in a massive furball. I think it's foolish beyond belief to hate dar because it points out.... what would be known anyways. Also, I never said MA, ever. Not once. I requested a tool for scenario/event use, not a new MA setting. Although with the way bomers work in AH it wouldn't be asking too much to know where bombers are BEFORE it's too late to stop them.

[TheCage]

P.S. You think any command structure anywhere wouldn't know "where the fight was"? Pilots would radio in, coordinate with their superiors, etc. Even ground observers couldn't miss 75+ planes in a massive furball. I think it's foolish beyond belief to hate dar because it points out.... what would be known anyways.

Hence ground controllers, recon, and scouts  

[Dantoo]

Identification of aircraft types using primary radar alone can still only be done by "flight profile" today and this is as it ever has been.  Skilled people known as "trackers" tag returns and attempt to keep them identified on displays.  You can do this job for yourself using the returns you have available now.  Increasing the update rate makes it easier.  Running at about 13 seconds it would be quite realistic.

There are other modern innovations which are used to identify aircraft type.  Many of these can be fooled or denied information.  They weren't available in WW2 or were so primitive as to be ineffective.

For scenarios, or anything else, I cannot conceive of a single circumstance where displaying bombers or even formations only would add to immersion and realism.  I wouldn't entertain the idea for a moment.

The flexibility desirable for radar settings is of the form where range can be increased as height is increased. For example 0-2000ft range 20 miles, 2000-1000ft 80 miles, 10000 - 30000 ft 120 miles.  A simple 3 part setting would provide wonderful flexibility, greater realism and more immersion for players.

Further flexibility in allowing for shipboard or land based only radar could be useful too.

"Aircraft type only" settings would not add anything beyond something to argue bitterly about.

[Krusty]

The radar return from a B-52 is probably the same as a F105, right?




The size of the return itself tells you a lot. Sometimes bunching smaller planes together can mimic larger signatures, but it isn't exactly the same thing.


You can bet your bonnet that a 1000+ plane bomber raid of B-17s and B-24s is sure as sh** going to be instantly decipherable amidst the 20-40 escorts fighters (which would be pinsalamanders in comparison).

[Dantoo]

Krusty I am talking from real life experience.  Your point of view is just that.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Krusty
The radar return from a B-52 is probably the same as a F105, right?




The size of the return itself tells you a lot. Sometimes bunching smaller planes together can mimic larger signatures, but it isn't exactly the same thing.


You can bet your bonnet that a 1000+ plane bomber raid of B-17s and B-24s is sure as sh** going to be instantly decipherable amidst the 20-40 escorts fighters (which would be pinsalamanders in comparison).

For 1000+ plane bomber missions, 8th AF typically sortied 700+ fighter escorts.  I'd say that would be a tough soup to pick the noodles out of.  I'd say the best fidelity received from the German radar would be "there's a butt load of Allied planes coming".  Beyond that, they'd probably just rely on what happened the day before--"there were a butt load of Allied planes on that raid" and put two and two together.

Read some of Old Sports link.  Good stuff in there.