My issue with the Full Spectrum Scanner, from a radar engineering perspective

[austeregrim]

Alright, I know this is fictional, it's not real... but theres a huge flaw with the directional finding of the Full Spectrum Scanner.

First, I like the new scanner, it's awesome... it's just missing some things that would make it a bit more technical, and not just a quick job.

Here's my view;

the bumps on the spectrum, makes sense it's a "theres stuff in this part of the spectrum"... the amplitude (hight of the bump) should be more noticeable if there's more objects in that part of the spectrum, lower if there's fewer. Filtering out as you discover things the rest of the frequency should even out along with it. Meaning, you won't be able to find those water worlds until you've knocked out 90% of those ice bodies! (forcing more complete scans)

directional finding, this is cool but my biggest point... right now, it's hunt to find the blob, and tune the scanner. Hunt and tune... hunt, and tune. Where that's not how it should be at all! It should be tune the scanner and then hunt for the blob. I pick the frequency I'm looking for, then search. (a more technical approach, more methodical but easy to adapt to)

Now the blobs, they're the same size? No matter what frequency I'm on, or what zoom I'm at? Come on.
As I tune away from a frequency, the blob should blur out of focus. Instead of using arrows to point me in the direction of the blob, I should be able to see if come in to focus in the world sphere. 5 or 6 notches out of frequency, the blob is not noticeable... as you get into 3 and 2 notches out of frequency the blob is large and hints where to go, 1 notch out it's focused but you can see it's not perfect. You turn your reticle over to the area; the scanner picks it up automatically, tunes and you can zoom. (another more technical approach, and less >> HERES YOUR TARGET!!!)

I shouldn't be able to see all the blobs if I'm not within the frequency of the blob itself!

This will make it more time consuming, but much more functionally accurate. And getting good at noticing these tells is the same kind of effort to practicing dog fighting... right now the scanning is still "too easy", where trade you need to figure out routes, dog fighting you need to get techniques... exploration needs a technical challenge also! Especially for the value of these scans!

I might draw some pretty pictures of what I mean if there's confusion to any of this.

AG

 

[Para Handy]

I can truthfully say that " from a radar engineering perspective " the FSA display is laughable.




P.S. There is nothing stopping you tuning for a signal then sweeping the "camera" to locate - that is what the earth-hunting boys (and gals) do.

 

[Morded]

Gotta agree with the OP. I've just been finding a blob, then moving the tuner while mashing the scan button. Damn gamer brain.

 

[austeregrim]

I can truthfully say that " from a radar engineering perspective " the FSA display is laughable.




P.S. There is nothing stopping you tuning for a signal then sweeping the "camera" to locate - that is what the earth-hunting boys (and gals) do.

I'm not trying to argue that technically even the FSA Display is a joke, but lets assume there's some technological magic behind it. There's still a logical progression problem to scanning, why can I see all the blobs if I'm not tuned? Why isn't there a gain issue across the spectrum?

The time delay of scanning, and etc. goes into the same bucket as why we don't see FTL lensing...

We're not looking for doppler formations like conventional radar techniques, we're looking for magical spectrum emissions, at least we can apply some logic to how this works, and make it a skill you can actually get to.

 

[varonica]

I'm not trying to argue that technically even the FSA Display is a joke, but lets assume there's some technological magic behind it. There's still a logical progression problem to scanning, why can I see all the blobs if I'm not tuned? Why isn't there a gain issue across the spectrum?

The time delay of scanning, and etc. goes into the same bucket as why we don't see FTL lensing...

We're not looking for doppler formations like conventional radar techniques, we're looking for magical spectrum emissions, at least we can apply some logic to how this works, and make it a skill you can actually get to.

Doesn't everybody tune to gas giants first? You tune to gas giant discover, then tune to sub-bodies, which are usually all the same type icy etc, that way around seems obvious to me, are there really people who mash the tuner for every blob?

 

[Para Handy]

I'm not trying to argue that technically even the FSA Display is a joke, but lets assume there's some technological magic behind it. There's still a logical progression problem to scanning, why can I see all the blobs if I'm not tuned? Why isn't there a gain issue across the spectrum?

The time delay of scanning, and etc. goes into the same bucket as why we don't see FTL lensing...

We're not looking for doppler formations like conventional radar techniques, we're looking for magical spectrum emissions, at least we can apply some logic to how this works, and make it a skill you can actually get to.

Well at the risk of being accused of "defacing" real-world systems (and being really simplistic): Let us assume that the FSS receives a form of energy that contains many different packets of energy at different frequencies - all sources in the system show as a blob indicating that there is a source in that direction. In the real world we perform a Fourier Transform (well, a FFT really) of a signal to break it down into it's component discrete frequency elements - thus we can have a graph showing the distribution of energy (y-axis) per frequency (x-axis) and that is what the FSA scale is emulating I suppose (except it shows "squiggles" indicating a presence, not peaks indicating amplitude).

So there is no reason that you can't tell that there are signal sources in different directions and if we allow for the fact that the FSA graph is displaying in all directions at once (i.e. you see there is a signal occurring at a frequency even if you are not pointing in that direction) then it is logical that we can choose either of the two variables to examine the system: Set the frequency variable and change the direction (lets find ELWs or HGEs) or set the direction variable and alter the frequency to see what is causing that blob over there. (Obviously zooming and fiddling for complex associations of signals.)

BTW there is no reason why an automatic gain control (AGC) can't account for differing signal intensities, your transistor radio can so a 3304 scanner surely can.

I am not actually defending the new system, just saying that if we accept it is there, we can invent a justification of it's features (if not it's science). I don't really "mind" the new system, it is a bit of a time-sink to me in trading activities but it has advantages when out in the black. The system is hoisted on us, we just have to adapt our play to accommodate it.