On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 01:46 +0200, Alexis Bory - xiii wrote: > Good news, I'm quite lost in the radar technical world.
Hi Alexis - and everyone else who responded. It does not look to me like you are lost in the radar world. The input sent to me seems well thought out. I am glad to see that the Microsoft "radars are irrelevant" philosophy is not in FG. Having the radars and then having the radars in platforms is what I am most concerned with. Having it built in means less work for what I want to do with my sim which is controlling the interaction between platforms - something that FG per se- should not be doing - as it is more of a server function than an individual flight simulator function. > Actually we work on a very basic > level, but the aim is having a radar behavior being as near from > reality as possible, I mean from a pilot's point of view. Yes, I would agree. > This table exists, it is yet based by aircraft type but already includes > radar name, range, and other data (originaly by Glazmax/Jettoo and > updated by me). Radar types are not yet in the table but could be > added easily. The idea of indexing the table upon radar name is also > feasible and seems to be a very good idea :-) Yes, I see the table and I will go through it in more detail to see what is there. > One of the next application would be the RWR tone which on some > systems change with the frequency of the scan or goes continuous > when having a steady lock. Yes, the RWR tone is very important - as in the case of attack aircraft they don't have the sophisticated receivers and displays that ships or - for example the AWACS aircraft have. The RWR tells the pilot vital information about fire control radars locking on. In recent writings it has been proposed within the simulation world to give any radar 100% detection ability out to it's maximum range. The only conflict comes into play when the radar is looking down on ground and sea clutter, where reflective returns used to show up on radar scopes. Today's processors are pretty efficient at reducing such clutter. In my own sim, I have not yet removed the probability of detection, though I probably (pun intended) will soon. > Vivian Meazza wrote: > Hidden > away in it all is a simplified version of the radar equation. The most > significant simplification is that radar waves travel in a straight > line. In my world they do too. The amount of bending is very minimal given the relatively short ranges of these radars. Weather (ie cloud and atmospherics) can cause RF energy to bounce and "skip" sometimes great distances. But for simulation purposes I ignore these as well. > In addition there isn't enough ground loaded into fg to make the longer ranges meaningful. Further, random objects, such as ships, and bridges etc. are not detectable (which is what I was trying to do in the first place). That would supposition that every object had a radar cross section/reflectivity assigned to it. Actually, that might not be hard to implement - but it would add another data field to objects. Thanks folks! -- Geoff McLean McLean Research Associates "To be good is not enough when you dream of being great." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
