45 replies to this topic

[Cochise]

I agree, passive should broadcast no friend or foe beacon but that doesn't mean that you cannot detect targets with passive systems or that they cannot detect you if you are both close to each other. There is a reason we have BAP, BHP and the other GECM stuff. I hope they use it to its fullest.

Also, in MWLL passive is not an 'win' button, it really depends on the mech and situation. I've killed many a pilot sneaking in passive.

And last but not least, I really hope that they do implement friendly fire, it's a sim, not an arcade game.

just my .02

[Nexus Trimean]

The Problem with siesmic data like that is that it makes sense in a 1 on 1, but when there are 24 mechs out there stomping around the data becomes much harder to process and get meaningfull information out of. and stride length would vary depending on speed, making it an inconsistant item to draw data from. that tiptoeing 100 ton could be the atlas, or any number of other 100 tonners. and what if they have dropped 5 tons of lord knows what, it would be nearly impossible to get an accurate reading in the middle of a battlefield. All of that isnt accounting for Weapon impacts on the ground as combatants miss. Your own Mechs footsteps would overshadow any seismic data that you were trying to aquire.

Edited by Nexus Trimean, 12 April 2012 - 09:42 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Seismic data would provide at best a Bearing to what would be seen as a loud noise. The same as a herd of running buffalo might make if you put your ear to the ground.

A very good pilot with seismic gear may be able to set a bearing to a large group and then note a break away group and also where they were headed. Stuff like that.

But I too agree, Electronics should be utilized to there fullest and as much stuff should be available as timeline possible. That way players with a knack and desire for that kind of stuff could really excel way beyond what has been possible in MW games to date.

"Holy crap Jimbo, they were exactly where you said they would be, great job Scout!" Lead out...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 April 2012 - 09:52 AM.

[Famous]

Nexus Trimean, on 12 April 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

The Problem with siesmic data like that is that it makes sense in a 1 on 1, but when there are 24 mechs out there stomping around the data becomes much harder to process and get meaningfull information out of. and stride length would vary depending on speed, making it an inconsistant item to draw data from. that tiptoeing 100 ton could be the atlas, or any number of other 100 tonners. and what if they have dropped 5 tons of lord knows what, it would be nearly impossible to get an accurate reading in the middle of a battlefield. All of that isnt accounting for Weapon impacts on the ground as combatants miss. Your own Mechs footsteps would overshadow any seismic data that you were trying to aquire.

That's not entirely true. The seismic waves from your 'Mech are outbound not incoming, so they may weaken the incoming waves but if we're talking Light vs Assault the Light's sensors would still receive. So maybe seismic is only very useful if you are stationary, but it's still useful.

For a person there might be too much information to distinguish, but as I said in my previous post the BCs in the 'Mechs are supposed to be advanced enough to correlate all of the available data, seismic vibrations, sound from movement and firing, heat generation, magnetic anomolies, and so on. It might even be able to detect chemical propellants based on wind direction, distance, and length of time since a ballistic or missile weapon was fired. Using all of this information the computer can make judgment calls on a lot of infomation.

EDIT: In my opinion the major difference between Active and Passive detection should be time. Active detection makes you visible to the enemy, but gathers data at a much faster rate. Passive detection is slower, but relies picking up signals and emission from other 'Mechs so you do not have to broadcast your location.

Active should also generate better data to be shared. With passive you can give size, location, and direction to your Lance. With active you can give firing coordinates, not just best guess of location

Edited by Famous, 12 April 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[AlanEsh]

Yeah seismic is much more for locating mechs, not really an in-battle tool.

[Nexus Trimean]

It needs to be if you are not using active scanning your data should be extreemly limited. direction and speed. maybe weight class, depending on distance. "going passive" should be something that people avoid. Because it robs them of meaningful information, that guy with active radar, he already knows your there, and how big you are, and that you arent emiting radar, cause his bounces off you and tells him that. unless your bone still next to a building your going to stick out on all my sensors. even if your passive.

If you want to hide you'll need a Null Sig, or some good ECM. Turning off your sensors doesn't mean i shouldn't be able to see you, It Means you have blinded yourself. You will still be a giant hit on any magnitometer. and if your in the open youll be a giant very vertical echo, much different from the surrounding terrain, unless your in an urban Enviroment.

Edited by Nexus Trimean, 12 April 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[Famous]

Except that "going passive" is the best way for scout 'Mechs to get to the flank/rear of an enemy lance. It seems to me that basic scout doctrine is go passive, hit a flank as fast and hard as possible, pause to get a rough reading on enemy position, adjust and then go hot. As soon as you go active again you should be on comm informing your Lance of incoming targets. Once they've locked and fired you go passive again and GTFO before retaliation can find you.

[MaddMaxx]

Nexus Trimean, on 12 April 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

It needs to be if you are not using active scanning your data should be extreemly limited. direction and speed. maybe weight class, depending on distance. "going passive" should be something that people avoid. Because it robs them of meaningful information, that guy with active radar, he already knows your there, and how big you are, and that you arent emiting radar, cause his bounces off you and tells him that. unless your bone still next to a building your going to stick out on all my sensors. even if your passive.

Terrain (various types) can also prevent detection if running Passive. So Passive can be used when moving, the supposed beauty of doing so is you aren't sending out any Pings yourself for the enemies to detect (your listening, not actively Pinging)

Now, if they do introduce various radar types, and some have been noted, then a ground penetrating type might find you standing behind a hill or building or whatever.

[Nexus Trimean]

MaddMaxx, on 12 April 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

the supposed beauty of doing so is you aren't sending out any Pings yourself for the enemies to detect (your listening, not actively Pinging)

The thing is, if you can hear my ping, my ping is touching you, and I'm getting data from that. Passive versus passive makes a difference, but as soon as someone is active and you can sense that it means they have pinged against you. Now wether or not they outline you as a mech, or part of tree your hiding behind is a different story.

Edited by Nexus Trimean, 12 April 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[AlanEsh]

Nexus Trimean, on 12 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

The thing is, if you can hear my ping, my ping is touching you, and I'm getting data from that.

That's fine. You show up as a radar emission source at bearing "blah", but range would be undetermined.

[MaddMaxx]

Nexus Trimean, on 12 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

The thing is, if you can hear my ping, my ping is touching you, and I'm getting data from that.

And based on distance, then if I am not hiding, you should be able to see me visually anyways. Standard radar does not penetrate solid objects, like the ground, it bounces off. So if I hide, you get back ground noise... not me.

[Pht]

LordDeathStrike, on 11 April 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

logistically at least, the right way is to tie in IFF to radar, if you go radar passive and null, you should not have any indicator of whether or not the mech under your reticle is friend or foe.

IFF transmitters are virtually always "on" and transmitting, by design. Reception of a signal is a passive process, and so turning off your active sensors does not disable the ability to recieve IFF signals.

Edited by Pht, 12 April 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Pht, on 12 April 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

IFF transmitters are virtually always "on" and transmitting, by design. Reception of a signal is a passive process, and so turning off your active sensors does not disable the ability to recieve IFF signals.

Isn't the proper term "transponder"? And on a special coded frequency.?

[Nexus Trimean]

MaddMaxx, on 12 April 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

And based on distance, then if I am not hiding, you should be able to see me visually anyways. Standard radar does not penetrate solid objects, like the ground, it bounces off. So if I hide, you get back ground noise... not me.

You are correct, but in turn you cant detect me either as there is a hill between us, even if im pinging at full power. It seems some people in the thread are under the illusion that if your passive you become invisible on sensors, which is not true.

Edited by Nexus Trimean, 12 April 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[Famous]

I think the posts about IFF involve turning off the IFF transmission, not reception. While the IFF may be on a coded frequency, the transmission is still detectable. The enemy may not know what is being transmitted, only that something in that area is broadcasting.

If they include this it opens up a whole new avenue of Information Warfare, like a module that mimics enemy IFF or beacons that can be planted and squawk nonsense encrypted transmissions

[Naughtyboy]

MaddMaxx, on 12 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Isn't the proper term "transponder"? And on a special coded frequency.?

yes on both..not sure if an unfriendly target would pick up the 'question' asked though, but in my mind it would make sence after all if a scrambled question is directed at your mech on a 'special frequency' your mech does not understand it would atleast alert you about it..

what i remember from my days in the military branch we had IFF transponders that when we went from 'safe' to hot the inbuilt system sent what we can call a question to the target asking who are you? if the responce was not the right one like ' HEY I'M FRIENDLY DO NOT SHOOT!!' the missile would go live and hopefully take the target out.

[Curon Hifor]

My only qualm is that passive radar is one of the few ways to NOT GET KILLED by enemy firepower while piloting a Light 'Mech and extreme distances. Passive at least gives us a way to close distance with an enemy without exploding after ten steps. However, I agree that more information could/should/would be available if running active. Thankfully, if sensor detection is based on LoS, then I don't think Active or Passive radar will be that big of an issue. Still, just voicing a concern.

[warner2]

I'm glad nobody likes the idea of paying CBills out as compensation for friendly fire, nor of having friendly fire turned off entirely. That really would be a dumbing down of the game.

[n0thing]

It seems as though if the battle of information is to be an interesting one, more than a single toggle is going to be required. I for one would be very excited to see electronic packages as modular as the weapons on the mechs. Perhaps a sniping mech could equip high power directional radar, able to lock on rapidly at extreme ranges but blind in other directions, or perhaps a scout mech could crouch behind enemy lines and pick up the seismic disturbances of a battle. It would also be imperative that greater ambiguity was added to non-line of sight data. It would be interesting to send a lance to attack a major seismic disturbance only to discover it was a light mech firing at the ground luring your lance into a trap. If the depth of information warfare is going to be expanded then adding more than a radar active/passive button and instant reliable target definitions only seems logical.

If you look at the ways simple waves behave, a reflected radar return by definition has traveled twice the distance as a wave generated from the point of reflection. In this way active radar detects passive entities, but a triangulation system using the enemy transmission can find them at greater range.

Edited by n0thing, 12 April 2012 - 11:18 AM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Angelicon, on 12 April 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

I think he confused FF (Focus Fire?) with IFF (ID Friend Foe).

I seriously read that as Ferro-Fibrous, which makes the quote even more skewered.