Now I did a search, I didn't come up with anything. I'm sorry if this has been disscussed before.

Now what if we had different types of scanners/radar/sonar that we could upgrade and equip to our ships with added benefits but with disadvantages. The reason I am suggesting this is because the way it is now, there is no way to *sneak* up on your enemy. Or be supprised in any way. It's not a very good system in my opinion and doesn't really represent how difficult it would be to detect other ships in space based on currect technology and our knowlage of how sensor systems work. Also I think it would add more intense gameplay and depth.

The basic idea revoles around passive and active sensor systems. So we have a passive system which is sonar that "pings" 360 Degrees around your starship showing all objects around you to say 3 clicks (3,000 meters) and updates every five seconds. It won't give you an absolute fix on a target but it will inform you when something is approaching you. It works on the basis that the Electo-Magnetic or Sound Waves would be reflected back from any solid object that it hits. But if the target isn't moving it would look like just another floating piece or rock.

Another passive system could be done by heat dectection, although would be completely useless in a astroid system it would keep a fix on the target constantly. Although is the implementation to turn off subsystems (like engines) the ship would remain undetectible unless it started up it's engines. Or genterated heat. An EMF (Electro Magnetic Field) passive scanner would work and much the same way but would be more difficult to slip by.

Active systems would have the advantage of being able to detect and identify enemy targets. But would have a limited angle of view. In a RADAR system it would be fixed forward with a 90 Degree angle field of view so the pilot would be completely blind at his back but anything infront of him would be detected.

So this would all go in tune with the targeting system, making combat more then just roll-strafing and returning fire adding some real stratagy to how to approach your enemy.

So what do you guys think?

Peace
Miyamoto

I love it when people treat me like an idiot.. Now genka, don't you think instead of posting a link to how to *effectively search* it would be more plasible to direct me torwards the thread in which the exact suggestion I have posted here has been disscussed before? It probably would of been nicer, to be more curdious then over-looking it and blatently stateing that I don't know how to use a php to mysql database search?

Thanks. Now, if you would like to comment on this rather then completely blow me off that would actally be nice..

Peace
Kozuka

Nevermind, I found a lovely post here to read which kinda sounds like the same thing..

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/3273#40582

ignore genka. his resident trollage is just something you get used to, it seems to be accepted.

(as for the idea, yeah, different radars and different cloaking measures would be really nice to have and would bring a new type of depth to combat. this has been discussed a lot over the short time I've read the boards though and the bottom line is that a consensus is hard to find. we'll see what John thinks eventually... ;-))

Yeah thanks.. No pun intended. But from the sounds of it "the post was from way back in 2004" that no progress has been pushed for an updated radar syste.

Although you say you have no comment and insult yourself for some odd reason. (very confused, I assume sarcasum) But you make a good point that you like the old version because you have used it for so long and would feel hindered by the implementation of a new system that would infact give you less situational awareness.

Do you treat all new members like this? Or am I special case.

Peace
Kozuka

Oh, and your link didn't help. Unfortunitly because for some odd reason the forum doesn't display all results only the most recent 100. Which didn't contain what I was talking about and it wasn't contained in the "PLEASE READ" threat. So I'm sorry that I wasn't able to find it..

Yeah, I'm not used to it unfortunitly. But from now on, I'll just ignore it.

thanks terjekv.

Peace
Kozuka

Yes, please ignore it.

[A few troll posts removed. Annoyance level rising.]

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/7692

Thanks for checking the "Please Read" thread. I wish I had a way of making that the opening screen to the Suggestions forum, but for now we can only (politely) direct new users to it.

Yes, the radar issue has been discussed before and no movement has been made on it as yet. There are scads of good ideas in this forum, but the devs must prioritize. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.

the whole sensors thing has been retread bunches of times, but just so you know, I'll post some slight nitpicks.

You have your active and passive sensors slightly confused.

Active sensors by nature, actively search for targets. Your "sonar pings" are active sensors. Depending on the sophistication of the sensor, you have various levels of detail in regards to contacts. All radars can give you range, and if you scan a target multiple times, also give you rate of closure. They also give you bearing to the target, although on most older radars, you don't get elevation (most old radars send out a vertical plane of radar waves so you get precise heading, but you lose the vertical information). I believe that the F-22 and other modern radars can give heading and elevation, but don't quote me on that.

Passive sensors, on the other hand, have no active emissions and rely on the emissions from targets. In terms of passive radar, it's simply the receiver portion of the radar, and in a sonar, it's only the hydrophones. These give you a fairly precise heading to the target, but usually not a precise range (although computer systems can give an estimate based on if the type of radar is known, and the signal strength).

Passive sensors (I'm fairly certain, always) have double the range of an active system. This is pretty logical: an active signal has to travel out from the source to the target, and back, while passive systems wait for signals emitted by the target. At extreme detection range on a passive set, there isn't enough signal for the active system to classify a contact, because the signal, again, has to travel exactly twice the distance to the target.

Depending on sophistication, both active and passive systems can identify targets, although the methods are different. A sufficiently detailed active system could identify targets based on the shape of the return, like scanning a 3D object. A passive system relies on computer records of known active emissions and can classify targets based solely on what emissions it receives. For instance, the radar on an AIM-120 missile looks very different from that on an F-16 based on frequencies and signal types. Or in terms of submarines, different submarines will sound different based on the sound that the water makes passing over the hull, what type of generator the sub has, how many blades the sub has on its screw, the number of screws, etc.

Most modern jet fighters carry instrumentation for both types of sensors. They use active sensors to achieve weapon locks to shoot down their targets, but also use passive sensors to locate things like enemy fighters, SAM sites, missiles, etc.

Active radar systems aren't necessarily limited to 90 degree arc of the sky, different modes have different ranges, and of course, if you have the space, you can have a radar that can scan 360 degrees. How else would traffic control sets like those at airports, on aircraft carriers, and on AWACS birds be able to keep track of all those planes travelling on different vectors in all different parts of the sky?

Something I like from a PS2 game called Armored Core, is the fact that you can equip your core with different types of radars. Radars built into your core's head tend to be low detail, low range, and with slow scan rates. Components that are specifically radars have much greater detail, greater range, and faster scan rates.

Scan rate means how long it takes for a radar beam to scan the same area, so naturally, the higher the rate, the more readings you get per period of time, and the more accurate positon and speed readings you can get. Of course, such components also mean that you have to equip one less weapon.

Thanks for some real disscussion! I was getting worried there for a second. Torwards the forum mod, I'll ignore the toll and I understand that we are in active development and things will take some time to be implemented. But I believe for more "Interesting" combat, apart from smarter bots *which would help greatly* a radar system with advantages/dissadvantages should be implemented in the near future. It's amazing to me what three guys can do! (If I remember correctly this game was developed by three individuals or thats what I remember reading about.)

Which quite frankly (knowing alittle about game development) is incredible for the product we have now. This was my little nitpick of what I saw was lacking in the game from the beginning. Although it seems to have been already addressed and the basic responce is "Not right now, but in the future we have plans" which is a good sign.

Now back to the disscussion since CrippledPidgeon made some comments it would only be right that I reply to him ^_^.

Well my knowlage of currect sensor technology is that we bounce a certain type of wave (weather it be sound, radiowave, ect.) off and object and recieve the signal back where we calculate the time it took too reach the target and come back and calculate the distance from the target to us. But into a computer and represented in some way. Now the problem with air traffic control radar is that even though it has a 360 degree range, you can't tell one plane from another. But this is the future, and the proccessing power and signal strenght would be able to detect a target and return it's shape which could be run through a database and identified.

Now I might of gotten alittle mixed but there, but the basic ideas the same. A radar mixed with radial spectromiter might be a better solution, for finding the composites of astroids or the composites of a starcraft.

But it seems like I have, brought up old news. I'll try and post something that hasn't been suggested a million times before next time.

Peace
Kozuka

Actually, active sensors usually have a far greater range than passive. When you use passive, you're listening for the sounds/signals your enemy makes just by running their engines/systems, and understandably your enemies' ship is designed to minimise those outgoing signals, so they're fairly 'quiet'. Active sensors, on the other hand, send out a deafening pulse (sonar), in other words give out a huge pulse of energy to the surroundings, then wait for the bounce back. True, it's harder work because the range-to-travel is doubled vs passive, but the signal strength is much more than double the 'noise' naturally given off by your enemy... UNLESS they're using active sensors too!

That's the big disadvantage to active sensing - you give away your own position (to passive sensors) twice as effectively as you reveal your target's (because the target only has to listen to your signal, having travelled from your ship to theirs, whereas you have to listen to a signal that has travelled from your ship to theirs, and back again. Perhaps that's what you meant, but the way you worded it left a lot of room for misunderstanding.

It's these little tradeoff details that make stealth-based play so interesting... can you tell I used to play a lot of submarine games? :)

Mineral scanners.

They have nice effects.

RAVE!

yea, well I played a lot of flight sims, so there :P

Most aircraft (as well as aircraft detection) sets tend to stay active, so in that sense, passive sensors have much greater range. The only time you run into problems is if the enemy plane doesn't carry a radar (like the A-10, the F-117, and I believe the B-2, but don't quote me on the last one). The F-117 and B-2 are stealth, so this is understandable. You're trying to reduce radar returns, so there's no point in emitting radar yourself. The A-10 isn't meant for engaging aerial targets, so its weapon systems are geared towards unguided, infared, laser, and visual targeting (EO missiles, like the Mavrick). It flies low to the ground for its protection, hoping to get lost in ground clutter. The F-22 is the new exception to stealth = no radar. Its radar doesn't send out continuous beams of radar like more conventional systems, but consists of many transmitters and receivers, each bursting in a different area of the sky. These bursts are intended to appear like random radar emissions and not register as a target on a passive set. Other than that, I don't know much about it, but then again, its operation is supposed to be secret.

Hmm, one thing to nitpick on:

You can't have sonar in space.

Another thing:

The heat detection sensors are interesting, but I'm wondering whether it would be useful when you're in space. Because since your ship is a pretty much solitary object in space (no air, remember, hence no sound... unless you prove that there is an 'ether'), pretty much any sun ray that hits your ship will be converted into heat (unless you harness it otherwise). This way, your heat sensors would pick up a lot of heat from your own ship before they would get any readings from other ships.

Hm.
So radar relies on radio waves, which are lightwaves, basically (they're just not visible). The same goes for heat detection (infrared).

However:
Since we already have non-newtonian propulsion systems, we could assume that they also emit other particles beyond light (duality!).
If they have wave/particle duality, they, too, could be used as means of detection.

Or we could assume that optical recognition has evolved beyond our imagination and we're using telescopes to detect and identify other spacecraft.

tosh: radar and infared sensors work in space. The main issue is that pointing at the sun, and possibly even at the lit side of the Earth, would blind the sensors. However, looking out at deep space would work.

You wouldn't necessarily be blinded by your own emissions unless they had something to reflect off of and return those emissions back to the receiver.

Modern AWACS aircraft have extremely powerful radars, yet they don't blind their own receivers with their emissions. Only beams that hit another object and reflect back to the receiver are seen, otherwise they just travel out into deep space.

Well, if we're in a thick nebula, (which would make sense given the apparent drag that we have at turbo velocities), then sonar is very feasible. But they would have to be passive sensors, active sonar in a disperse gas is harder.

nebuli aren't realy that dense, i think they average around 1 partcle per cubic foot* anyway passive sencore have better range and update speeds than active sencores, but they run the risk of missing some targets (it's a lot easier to hide from passive sencores than active sencores).

different forms of EM sencores could be used (infra-red, radar, lydar, gamma-ray scans, x-ray, etc.) But given the ships from VO use gravity for propulsion, the most logicle passive sencore would detect gravitational distortions (any ship using it's engins would light up like an x-mas tree, and large 'roids and other massive objects would also be detectable).

the other detection method, that needs to be adressed is the use of transponder signals. now, generaly transponders use standard comunication systems, but then encode the information so only friendly units can determin anything inportant from it (ie what ship it is).

personaly i think deactivating your transponder should make you show up as a 'roid on other player's radar, and remove you from the sector list. Also i think this would solve most of the issues with regards to stealth.

multiple types of sencores, ECM, and cloaking-devices would be cool, but cutting the transponder would be enough for a lot of good hide-and-seek styal battles.

I know nebulae aren't very dense, that's why I said that active sensors wouldn't work. But passive sensors COULD detect long wavelength pressure waves given a statistical approach.

You still have shockwaves in nebulae, especially if you have gravity drives running around everywhere.

As far as gravitational sensors, THAT's hard. The best one right now is gravity B, or something like that, I forget exactly. But look it up, I doubt that gravity sensors would survive ANY firefight.

inadvertent double post

gravity sencores are difficult (read inposable) to use for targeting weapons, etc. with curent levels of technology. but i'd expect that any civilization that can build a propulsion device that uses gravity, to also be able to build better gravitational seccors.

and shock-waves through a nebula would be detectable at extreem range, but i don't think they would be effectively dectectable and discernable from within the nebua, but that may be a fals assumption.