Ecm Implementation Defies Reality A Little
#21
Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:56 PM
#22
Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:56 PM
Quote
Real life ECM, from...
http://en.wikipedia...._countermeasure
Because I'm too lazy to pick out specific definitions that support my case, this is ECCM,
http://en.wikipedia....countermeasures
So according to both of these, ECM is working as it does in real life.
So in my opinion it's working as it should be. For the range issue, it all depends on the power of the transmissions. The more power that the transmission has, the longer the range and more effective the jamming is. It's just like regular radio.
Edited by BritishJesus, 05 December 2012 - 05:03 PM.
#23
Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:57 PM
Noodlesoup, on 05 December 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:
i didn't notice that, but that makes no sense whatsoever lol, why would something putting out RF noise show up "hot" on thermals. lol.
It's not just radio-frequencies, it's broad-spectrum which would include IR.
The ECM system itself would also produce lots of genuine heat creating all the EMI.
Edited by Quazil, 05 December 2012 - 04:58 PM.
#24
Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:59 PM
TwoFaced, on 05 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:
And no, the physics do not work, 2 ecm on same team would negate each other and cause problems targeting thier enemy.
Gee I guise throws Stealth fighter must pic the guy to flips the switch to cover them from Radar and other detection devices in Combat.
#25
Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:08 PM
Quazil, on 05 December 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:
It's not just radio-frequencies, it's broad-spectrum which would include IR.
The ECM system itself would also produce lots of genuine heat creating all the EMI.
That is true that one of the resin Tank ships and plane end up looking the way thy do to hide EMI as best thy can Heat is a killer in Combat and one that grate care is used in the dezine of such things.
#26
Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:10 PM
#27
Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:36 PM
Quazil, on 05 December 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:
two points.
1. if we were really following TT rules then our mechs would have 50% of the armor they have today and Gauss Rifles wouldn't fit in the torsoes of a catapult and our double heatsinks would really be double heat sinks etc. blah blah blah you get my point, TT rules don't translate well into real time FPS simulations.
2. TT rules don't block visibility or sensing of the mech, just the ability to use narc/bap/artemis against units shielded by ECM. i.e. you don't remove your battlemechs from the TT and "stealth" move them around the table until they are within 180m of your opponent's mechs.
#28
Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:41 PM
BritishJesus, on 05 December 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:
http://en.wikipedia...._countermeasure
Because I'm too lazy to pick out specific definitions that support my case, this is ECCM,
http://en.wikipedia....countermeasures
So according to both of these, ECM is working as it does in real life.
So in my opinion it's working as it should be. For the range issue, it all depends on the power of the transmissions. The more power that the transmission has, the longer the range and more effective the jamming is. It's just like regular radio.
you're not understanding the content of the articles you linked.
both of them reinforce my original point.
the ECM broadcasting unit needs to be within range and actively jamming the searching unit in order to "hide" his friendly units. not the other way around.
the ECCM unit needs to be affected by the ECM unit (within jamming range) and use methods to counter-act and "see through" the jamming signals.
#29
Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:28 PM
Quazil, on 05 December 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:
TT construction rules do not limit chassis ECM may be mounted on.
So MWO's limitation on chassis is unique to the game, as are weapon hardpoints. Which might be ok, if ECM was balanced and had reasonable counters.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users