donaldseadog

If we can blame it on visual spotting by the neutrals, then I'd like to know if Joe only experiences this phenomenon only when neutrals are involved and a chance of them spotting or detecting his units. Yep, a double check on that point seems a good idea, could consciously steer away from any green units but otherwise follow old scheme? Well done Joe

I played the opening minutes of the scenario a couple of times. The first time I had the same results Brad did, no vectoring of AI fighters towards the E-2. But I was curious so I ran it again with E-2 radar on and again confirmed Brad's findings. For no particular reason I ran it again with the E-2 radar off and saw the AI send fighters to me. The only units reasonably close that could have had a detect were the drug runners. Having something to work from I loaded up the game in the debugger and managed to catch the detection without too terribly much work (luckily there aren't many detections going on at that point in the game so the data wasn't overwhelming). I suppose that's how I did it. Thanks, I assume your debugger is a full line by line critter, rather handy. Don

I'll have a go at time : referring to screen shot THB-2.jpg "passes over center of carrier group", it would have been good to look at the unit window here to see how close YZR came to individual ships. I think these early hawkeyes don't have LDSD radar so if ACA is loitering at high alt and YZR is medium then I believe the effective air search radar is halved (now down to about 40 nm) - someone might confirm that-. That corresponds to the report. I guess that "Carrier group shows visibility of 21 nm" is taken from the weather report, any way if YZR is 24 nm from group centre and vis is 21 nm then placement of ships of the group will be important, but still a pair of mig-17 won't be seen at the max visibility range, see later on when similar visuals are made at 1 nm. Don

I did a radar log (now I know how to) with a E-2B against mig-21 and got: 100691 search.c:860 - Radar Emitter=E-2B Hawkeye Target=MiG-21MF Fishbed J, TargetRange=173, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 100691 search.c:861 - Radar LOS of 271nm = (271nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=73569/256 100691 search.c:867 - A RCS=137 TName=MiG-21MF Fishbed J AName=E-2B Hawkeye Range=173 Die=36 aPD=60 100691 search.c:940 - B RCS=137 ARng=87 Arng=238 SRng=87 Srng=238 100691 search.c:1017 - Not Detected MiG-21MF Fishbed J IE max effective radar range (in this case) 87 nm and prob of detection (if in range) of 60% each case is different though, different conditions that influence the effectiveness of the radar but if the planes did come to within 75 nm and stayed there for any amount of time then I guess you are going border line and depending on luck. and for the Mig 100691 search.c:860 - Radar Emitter=MiG-21MF Fishbed J Target=E-2B Hawkeye, TargetRange=212, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 100691 search.c:861 - Radar LOS of 271nm = (271nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=73569/256 100691 search.c:867 - A RCS=157 TName=E-2B Hawkeye AName=MiG-21MF Fishbed J Range=212 Die=99 aPD=40 100691 search.c:940 - B RCS=157 ARng=23 Arng=29 SRng=0 Srng=0 100691 search.c:1017 - Not Detected E-2B Hawkeye effective air search range just 23 nm, as you say you can see a hawkeye before then (if he's infront of you )

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: Which about says it all. So, really, the answer to Joe's question, oh so long ago, really should have been, yes, the AI sees you in ways that you cannot see it. ......................... I think that getting something concrete that we could look at instead of just a large amount of comments made a big difference. thanks, got it now. Don Thomas

Ah, good. Since radar range due to LoS (Earth's curvature effect) from high to ground is about 250 nm, we can now say that ESM could pick up the plane at about 275 nm. Add 25 nm for the attached ground units. Therefore, if the radiating Hawkeye at high altitude is within 300 nm of either Vietnamese base proper, then it will be detected by ESM. Further away, it is below the horizon. So, what's the deal when I park the Hawkeyes out there 300 nm or more, with their radars left OFF? I dunno, it seems a bit much to me, but I guess I wouldn't feel so bad if my side could also use blind ESM to do similarly effective intercepts at similar distances. Not the issue I know, but why are you putting a hawkeye right out there with no escort and are you using it as a pure esm platform (as you have the radar off)? E-2Bs don't have esm I think?

I know I recently saw esm range stuff, but can't find it now Victor, it's 110% of radar line of sight, right? and for a high altitude plane to ground that is what? about 240nm giving esm range of about 265? (I think it is in the manual so I'll loook it up anyway) Don

I think that it came out of formation patrol (CAP) from one of the bases (sent to intercept the bogie) and would have had radar on as default while in CAP. Don

I like to take one problem at a time and I think the screen-shot THB-1 and Joe's AAR at: are pretty hard to fathom. Fact: the hawkeye heading NE (high altitude, radar silent?) has been detected by Red and the closest CAP (from one of the base formations) has been sent to intercept. Questions: 1/ what type of detection. I'm baffled (unless Victor's idea about neutrals?) Guess what , the Neutrals are working for the North Vietnamese in 2009.50-53 (and earlier). I'll post a 2009.054 in a bit (running the build right now). It may also be true that the AI fighters don't give up the chase after contact is lost. I'm not certain but it would be great if someone would make a test scenario. .............. So how did you confirm that? ..and now we can look further into "Joe's report". Don

Yes, I've had time to play with this and see that now. I'm guessing the database for the demo is based on HCDB-something, if so none of the red planes are ESM capable, (some are missile warning capable). I like to take one problem at a time and I think the screen-shot THB-1 and Joe's AAR at: are pretty hard to fathom. Fact: the hawkeye heading NE (high altitude, radar silent?) has been detected by Red and the closest CAP (from one of the base formations) has been sent to intercept. Questions: 1/ what type of detection. I'm baffled (unless Victor's idea about neutrals?) 2/ what platform detected. I'm baffled (ditto) 3/ is it reproducible? I've tried in my HCE versions and can't get it to happen. 4/ is it a fluke (e.g. a dice roll of 0 deciding some probability of 1%) or is it something in the demo version? 5/ has anyone set up the plot in the demo game, taken an early game save and done lots of auto play (ctrl-alt-z) high time compression runs to see how often it occurs. Even in Brad's post I'm thinking Red was lucky to get an esm from one of the land platforms, that's assuming the migs in the demo have no esm (and the green drug runners aren't on the take), and I didn't reproduce that (hawkeye with radar on going to station) over a half dozen attempts in various HCE game versions.

OOps, slow me, I was using 2009.42, could I run the 2009.53 without the latest HCE patch while waiting for 'ultimate'? Don.

Yes. You need the "AS (360 degree)" flag to avoid that. Thanks,

Well, let's see ... I ran the Thanh Hoa Bridge scenario myself, using the HCE Demo and trying to replicate Joe's observations. Here is a screenshot of my E-2B taking off and heading off to the northeast, just as Joe's did, staying radar silent and outside the range of North Vietnamese radars. You can see a frenzy of North Vietnamese formation patrols in the Unit Map, including a pair of MiG-17s and a pair of MiG-21s in the Gulf of Tonkin (inside the blue circle). There is also a long range patrol by a pair of MiG-21s just off the southwest coast of Hainan, which is visible on both the Unit and Group Maps (inside the blue square). I also see what looks like a Red surface vessel lurking behind a green to the north of the carrier group at about what looks like AAM range red circle ESM platform? A win for screen shots, yes? Don Thomas

Can some one confirm or otherwise my assumption that an aircraft radar with LDSD flag, but no other air search flag, has a blind spot through the tail? TIA Don

That all helped heaps Tony, (I think it is starting to be useful to me) Now: another string of log- 105641 Search.c:860 - Radar Emitter=F-111C Aardvark Target=Amberley, TargetRange=178, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 105641 Search.c:861 - Radar LOS of 246nm = (246nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=60644/256 105641 Search.c:867 - A RCS=199 TName=Amberley AName=F-111C Aardvark Range=178 Die=38 aPD=0 105641 Search.c:940 - B RCS=199 ARng=0 Arng=0 SRng=364 Srng=160 105641 Search.c:958 - Detected Amberley with Surface Radar of range 364 with PD 65, Roll=38 105641 Search.c:1024 - Type of target known I see a test for F 111C detecting Amberley base at a physical range of 178 nm. Line of sight emitter to target is 246, check OK. F 111C has no air search so ARng & Arng = 0, check OK Database gives range of SS radar for Ardvark as 160 nm (= Srng as I expect from looking at other logs items) BUT here the (I'll call it final surface range) SRng is more than double at 364 nm - this takes the case from one where the target is out of range to where it is in range. QUESTION: how does that final ss range more than double? QUESTION: what is difference between "A RCS" & "B RCS"? I see a air detection prob ( aPD) = 0, check ok, but in the same area there is no print out of the sPD (see next log string), here I only know the sPD from the 'detected Amberley' line. QUESTION: is than an omission from the logging printout? next string: 105611 Search.c:860 - Radar Emitter=F-111C Aardvark Target=Amberley, TargetRange=178, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 105611 Search.c:861 - Radar LOS of 246nm = (246nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=60644/256 105611 Search.c:867 - A RCS=199 TName=Amberley AName=F-111C Aardvark Range=178 Die=77 aPD=0 105611 Search.c:940 - B RCS=199 ARng=0 Arng=0 SRng=364 Srng=160 105611 Search.c:1017 - Not Detected Amberley I see from the numbers in the left columns this is 30 secs prior to the first string I showed (last previous radar detection tests). Here Amberley isn't detected but it doesn't tell me why not, if I look at the other string I learn the sPD is probably 65 so the die throw was too big. MY CONCLUSION, the printout omits to list the sPD value in the ' A RCS...' line but it should. Don Thomas

Here is a small piece form a ge.log, with radar logging operating. 104351 Search.c:860 - Radar Emitter=AF-18A/B Hornet Target=E-737 Wedgetail, TargetRange=124, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 104351 Search.c:861 - Radar LOS of 327nm = (327nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=107057/256 104351 Search.c:867 - A RCS=157 TName=E-737 Wedgetail AName=AF-18A/B Hornet Range=124 Die=31 aPD=65 104351 Search.c:940 - B RCS=157 ARng=130 Arng=160 SRng=130 Srng=160 104351 Search.c:944 - Target was previously tracked. 104351 Search.c:987 - Detected E-737 Wedgetail with Air-to-Air Radar of range 130 with PD 65, Roll=31 104351 Search.c:1024 - Type of target known 104351 Search.c:860 - Radar Emitter=E-737 Wedgetail Target=AF-18A/B Hornet, TargetRange=124, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 104351 Search.c:861 - Radar LOS of 327nm = (327nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=107057/256 104351 Search.c:867 - A RCS=136 TName=AF-18A/B Hornet AName=E-737 Wedgetail Range=124 Die=44 aPD=80 104351 Search.c:940 - B RCS=136 ARng=113 Arng=317 SRng=113 Srng=317 104351 Search.c:1017 - Not Detected AF-18A/B Hornet I assume: Radar LOS = radar line of sight distance, ie from emitter to horizon, can't 'see' any further due to earth curvature, BUT, if so, is it taking into account height of emitter and target and if so is that shown? Somewhere I expect a little bit stating a final probability of the emitter detecting the target and a dice throw to determine, ie throw less than prob and get a detection other wise not...something like "Die=31 aPD=65" and bingo that works for one detection but in the second we have die=44 aPD=80 so my theory is bad, so what is this part? I guess RCS is radar cross section from the DB (I should check shouldn't I), my question though where is this put into the calculation of final detection prob? ARng, Arng, SRng & Srng; these must be significant as they seem to be the biggest difference between the two data/calculations, but what are they, where do they go into the maths? I'd like to get the hang of these logs (ECM is next) but I find I have a lot to learn. One more question, I haven't found a logging that helps me (this does ?) with esm, where do I go? Don Thomas

..and I thought my first 286, with one whole meg of RAM (and whopping 20 meg HD) was hot stuff. That's what using old XTs to do remote database searching does to you I guess. Don Thomas

There is such a thing. It's called a screenshot. I have provided 2 in the "scenario creation" thread from exactly the relevant instant. Now you claim, Joe, that your AEW planes are constantly being jumped by stealthy enemy fighters. Fine. Next time it happens, lean back, stretch, press "print screen", dump it into Paint, save as a JPEG, and upload it here. Then do it again. This will not help for formally debugging the problem, but it will certainly help to convince everyone here that you are actually seeing this effect. Of course, after I have made this plain statement, if you do NOT provide such screenshots, then everyone here, realizing how easy it is to provide them, will be certain that you do not actually see such effects. No, a screenshot - or even a series of screenshots does not provide the play-back that I was thinking of. As far as screenshots providing any "evidence" necessary to convince anyone for or against this, I would debate the "weight" of that sort of "evidence" as being far less compelling than the game-saves I've already provided - albeit not for the sneak attacks situation. Since those were not believed, then I can't see this being believed, either. And lastly, how can it be logically contrued that if I fail to provide convincing screenshot(s), then that "proves" anything, one way or the other? At best (worst?), it might lead people to assume that I don't see the effects... but that has been the case since the outset, so nothing new there. Be that as it may, I'd ask what sort of screenshot is going to demonstrate what you seek here - that is to "convince" anyone that the situation happens even once, let alone regularly. I mean, seriously, what would it have to show in order to be "convincing" of this situation? Is it even possible to demonstrate that way? (I surely don't see how). Well I think screen shots are useful. In this situation I'd assume you get a game message (staff assistant or the like), before dismissing the message (while it is showing you are in a game pause) I look at my screen and if I think there is something to learn then as soon as I dismiss the message screen I go to 0 time compression, turn on 'see all' and see who is where. If I was still confused a screen shot will keep a visual record that a more experienced harpooner might be able to decipher. A screen shot of a single incident would be easy to talk about, what is there, what just got shot, who done it , how did they do it etc... They might not be the ant's pants but screen shots are useful. If nothing else they show the whole story (if done in 'see all'), not just what I can remember or what I think happened. Don Thomas

Heh, keep in mind that Brad and Tony are pretty much at the end of their rope when it comes to explaining things. Its really nice when others (like mavfin) jump in to help. So, perhaps Brad and Tony need a holiday from the easier explanation stuff, there may be other things to do that they can find Don

By this point it needs to be plainly recognized that the AI units do NOT have any detection advantage "cheat" over the human units. If they did, given that no one seems to be saying that the game definitely does that, then if the game did in fact do that, Tony, Brad, and all the other Harpoon experts here would have to be lying through their teeth. It's an either-or case. Personally, I am going with the first possibility. And therefore any further suggestion that such a "cheat" is the explanation for certain observed effects is just wasting people's time. If anyone finds that their planes are being bushwhacked by the AI time and time again, you can be fairly certain that the scenario designer has positioned the AI units where they can bushwhack you, if you let them. Nor is a question of the game running wrong on one specific machine. If the game file is corrupt, then the game won't run at all. I am making it my personal mission to track down the real explanation for these effects. Hmm, just a thought, most of us think Harpoon is pretty realistic and in reality it takes an operator quite a while to learn how to run their machine, it sure as hell takes a warfare officer a long time to learn his (and these days her) trade. Not meant as a slap in the face, just a reality check I guess. Don Thomas

If you can't wait for someone like Tony I'd try using a short cut with "your hce drive letter:\your HCE folder name\winharp32.exe" -l radar as the command line I guess the -l radar is the bit you need to add to a normal short cut. I hope that works (I haven't used short cuts since the launcher). Don

File Name: In Flight Refuel Exercise File Submitter: donaldseadog File Submitted: 17 Mar 2011 File Updated: 31 Mar 2011 File Category: NACV DB Used: HCDB-100930 Authors: Don Thomas Battleset-NACV: .scn - EC2003 - EC2003 This is a non combat scenario with some 'exercises' to help hone skills in getting fuel to airborne aircraft with minimum effort. Probably only of interest to newer Harpoon players that don't already now the ropes of IFR. In the ZIP file there is a text file that gives the details of the included exercises so that you can have that open as a separate window for reference during the scenario. (31/3/11) Up dated orders to correct a feature regarding fuel allocation to multi unit groups. Don Thomas Click here to download this file

In RL each sonar device has a certain arc (towed arrays generally can't see a slice directly forward thanks to propulsion noises, bow sonar generally has a nice rearward gap,...). Most often if you have sensors to cover the full 360 degrees there will be operators covering the whole compass. You'll also have vertical limitations but the game does not model those other than docking you for cross-layer detection attempts. I don't recall if the paper rules have the 5 minute interval but I do know the explanation was that even if the sensors are always going to town it still takes time to do a proper TMA (target motion analysis), hence the 5 minute rule. I'm not going to say that it is the best model for detecting the quite loud torpedoes streaming towards you. In the game torpedoes are annoyingly loud. That 5 minute interval is for both active and passive sonar for the TMA reason (though really it should be easier with active sonar, you'll know range for sure which you don't with passive but you still need multiple ping returns to determine course and speed). Sonalysts take on TMA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49609458/16/Targ...on-Analysis-TMA Brad's Tactics 101 series: http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?showtopic=3608 Thanks Tony, as someone said recently, you learn something every day (well we do) Don

Ctrl Alt S will reveal all units in the scenario, your side and theirs. If you're not seeing that, let us know what version of the GE you're using, battleset and scenario, etc. Ooops... I was hitting Ctrl+Shift+S, now I see it, thanks! A real God's eye indeed ;-) Francesco Also in 'see all' you can actually give some orders to your opponent, not so much as your own team but some (I forget which ones but I think course and speed, maybe launching aircraft but not direct attacks). Don