Does RCS Modifier really works?

[+column5]

The main difficulty about all of this is nobody knows how exactly TK implements thoses values...

So using real life values doesn't make really sense until we can verify the result in game as JAT and Fubar already said (painful work unfortunately).

 

Its even conceivable that TK is using the LOD itself to determine the base RCS and then applying the modifier to that.

[+Gr.Viper]

Maybe. Just like he does for stucture modifier over hitpoints based on part volume

[Gunrunner]

That would be about the most elegant way to do it, yet a hard one to mod for, as unless you can get access to the actual numbers used internally, the only way to adjust the RCS will be guesswork (well, it is guesswork now anyway).

 

Also, using such a method would imply that the way planes are modeled would impact the base RCS (ie. modelling rotating fan blades would return a higher base RCS than not doing it and getting them by a pasted texture).

[+Fubar512]

Be aware that ground objects in this series have had RCS values for years, if not right from the onset.

[Gunrunner]

That would still make sense as calculating from the LOD for ground objects, especially when most use simplified models, would be inconsistent, forcing to set "static" values.

 

In fact that might be an argument in favor of a LOD-derived base RCS, as if it is statically set for ground objects, why can't it be for planes, it would be so much easier than a modifier set against an unknown value (simpler both for modders and TK, internally).

[+Fubar512]

Also, the relevant statement is a "modifier", which implies a multiple, ie 1.0 = set standard, 2.0 = 2x the standard, etc. This differs from ground objects, which have an actual "RadarCrossSection" statement, not a modifier.

[+starfighter2]

The RCS value we chose for the F-117 is based on testing it in-game against ground-based missile systems, and against airborne interceptors. A powerful radar will "see" the F-117 at 25 nm, but cannot acquire it (achieve "radar lock"), until it's within 4-5 nm. The only ground-based threat that is deadly at close range, is the SA-10 (S-300).

 

The heat signature value likewise renders that model invisible to all but the closest threats, and even then, 70-80% of IRMs that do manage to initially acquire it, go stupid and lose lock, just after they're launched.

 

 

Hmmm, are you sure?

Our SA-3 modified a bit lock and hit F-117 with no problem, and agree for S-300 systems - they are dangerous even for newer stealth planes.

[+Fubar512]

Hmmm, are you sure?

Our SA-3 modified a bit lock and hit F-117 with no problem, and agree for S-300 systems - they are dangerous even for newer stealth planes.

 

Yes i'm sure, the F-117 was essentially 1978 technology. And it wasn't "seen" by the SA-3's radar. Its wake turbulance was,

[+starfighter2]

S-125 Neva/Pechora(SA-3) is not designed to destroy vapour, but airplanes. This system can be guided with several types of radars>

 

P-15 "Flat Face" or P-15M(2) "Squat Eye" 380 kW C-band target acquisition radar (also used by the SA-6 and SA-8, range 250 km/155 miles),

SNR-125 "Low Blow" 250 kW I/D-band tracking, fire control and guidance radar (range 40 km/25 miles, second mode 80 km/50 miles),

PRV-11 "Side Net" E-band height finder (also used by SA-2, SA-4 and SA-5, range 28 km/17 miles, max height 32 km/105,000 ft),

"Flat Face"/"Squat Eye" is mounted on a van ("Squat Eye" on a taller mast for better performance against low-altitude targets), "Low Blow" on a trailer and "Side Net" on a box-bodied trailer.

 

Radar screen showed object size - similar to wild duck, but one thing was strange, duck usually don't fly at 400kts. Radar picked it up, lock and 2 SA-3 missiles was launched and one "back up" SA-2 from another unit, soon target was destroyed. When you know what to search, you can manualy put search sight on target - rest is up to missile.

 

And, with all respect Fubar, you were not there, but some of us were.

Edited April 4, 2009 by starfighter2

[+Fubar512]

And, with all respect Fubar, you were not there, but some of us were.

 

 

tell me about your degree in Physics. What it saw was the wake turbulance coming off the area between the stabilators. the aircraft has a frontal RCS smaller than a hummingbird. and this was verified on radars far more powerful, and on displays with far more resolution, than what you would have out in the field.

[+starfighter2]

Very funny...regarding degree. What is your degree Fubar?

There are several "theories" like - F-117 opened weapons bay and radar picked it up, etc.

I told you real version of event, anything more will be violation of our law and Military Secret.

 

Cheers

[+Fubar512]

A real "BS" degree, as I didn't even stay to complete my freshman year at Rutgers My boss, however, is a PHD who's lectured at Cambridge, worked at Los Alamos, and has worked on a few aerospace projects with (and for) Northrop-Grumman.

[+Brain32]

OK, but in the end does anybody know what exactly "BaseRCSModifer" refers to? We have here and in some other threads plenty of RCS in m2 data, now how would that be applied in-game?

[+starfighter2]

Nice, you say - vapor - ok- in that case stealth is waste of money -because anything can be hit with ancient anti aircraft systems even UFO or something, unless UFO's don't make turbulence.

[+Fubar512]

Not really....it has to do with that particular aircraft's pseudo-lifting body fuselage design, and a desire to funnel air in such a way as to assist in the dissipation of hot exhaust gasses (IR signature reduction).