I'm wondering if the "Just go with D-rated sensors" is a maxim applying more to the fixed-weapons crowd than those using gimbaled weapons. I'm wondering if gimbal tracking sensitivity might actually play a bigger role across sensor classes than we currently believe.
This note will have little interest for those who only use fixed weapons. Just use D-rated sensors and move along. ;-)
I've looked through the threads on this subject in these forums and other discussion areas, and have seen no testing of the impact of sensor sensitivity (which we're given as the emission detection range threshold) on gimbal (or maybe turret) tracking.Perhaps that's because some of the variables are harder to control.
I wonder if there may be a link between sensor sensitivity (rating) and the ability of gimbals to maintain target track as the target approaches the outer ranges of the gimbal cone.
This is what I *think* we know:
Sensor scan angle is independent from tracking angle. So engineering that changes scanning angle does not impact gimbal weapons' tracking angle.
All sensors have a max range of 8km (gamey, sure, just like weapons ranges, but whaddayagonnado?). But many targets cannot be resolved at that range.
Without engineering, a sensor's typical emission range value (TER) is a function of its class and rating (mostly rating). Think of TER is the range at which a ship with an average heat signature will go from being a 'ghost' contact on your scanners to an actual contact that you can resolve and target.
Your sensor's target detection and resolution ranges (in normal space) are a function of the target ship's aggregate emissions: definitely heat, and some other variables, which may include the target's own active sensor radiation, shield radiation, engine emissions, and the ship's cross section (think radar return).
Using class 4 sensors, for example, A-rated sensors have a typical emissions detection range of 6.72km. D-rated sensors have a typical emissions detection range of 5.04km. Hotter ships you may pick up further away; cooler ships (and ships giving off less other emissions), may not be detected until a little closer.
Now let's look at target locking:
Two distance-related factors can break your target lock on a ship (discounting weapons effects or silent running):
(1) A targeted ship moves outside the range your sensors can resolve it (a function of target emissions and distance).
(2) The targeted ship cools itself below the point your sensors can resolve it, even though the range has not changed (and, yes, these are kind of the same thing, but bear with me).
There is another value your sensors are providing: Target weapons tracking. Just because your sensors can lock a target doesn't mean your gimbals will pick up the track, even if the target is within the gimbaling cone. Gimbal weapons lock on better along your ship's axis than they do near the outside of the cone.
Every gimbal user has experienced the phenomenon where they have a ship is targeted and your gimbals are tracking (and this may happen even at short ranges), but your weapons then lose their tracking even though your sensors maintain a target lock, and even though (seemingly) that ship is within the gimbal tracking cone and has not done anything like pop a heat sink. When that happens you have to maneuver your ship so that the gimbal tracking angle is reduced in order to get the weapons to pick up their target tracking again.
Some ships (Viper MkIII's are notorious to gimbal users for this) have inherently lower emissions and can shake gimbal tracking loose all the time, despite being well within range -- and even when in close combat -- and must frequently be re-acquired by maneuvering your ship to get your gimbals to pick up their lock again.
Here's what I've been wondering:
Those "typical emission range" numbers oddly specific. So there's clearly underlying math (and probably numerous variables) associated with target emissions and detection range. That detection resolution has some kind of fall-off curve and may be a function of the vector off your ship's axis (the tracking cone, if you will).
The same might well be true for target tracking performance, once you have the target locked up. Different sensors might have varying sensitivity fall-off as you depart from the ship's axis toward the outside of the gimbaling cone.
Might the greater sensitivity of A-rated sensors (as exhibited by their longer emissions detection ranges) provide a slightly stronger "lock" on a target near the fringes of the gimbal tracking cone than, say, D-rated sensors? Especially when trying to track ships whose emissions are closer to the sensor's lower tracking margins?
It seems logical: Greater sensor sensitivity would equate to a stronger target gimbal lock, or a stronger lock near the outer edges of the gimbal cone.
How can we test this?
This note will have little interest for those who only use fixed weapons. Just use D-rated sensors and move along. ;-)
I've looked through the threads on this subject in these forums and other discussion areas, and have seen no testing of the impact of sensor sensitivity (which we're given as the emission detection range threshold) on gimbal (or maybe turret) tracking.Perhaps that's because some of the variables are harder to control.
I wonder if there may be a link between sensor sensitivity (rating) and the ability of gimbals to maintain target track as the target approaches the outer ranges of the gimbal cone.
This is what I *think* we know:
Sensor scan angle is independent from tracking angle. So engineering that changes scanning angle does not impact gimbal weapons' tracking angle.
All sensors have a max range of 8km (gamey, sure, just like weapons ranges, but whaddayagonnado?). But many targets cannot be resolved at that range.
Without engineering, a sensor's typical emission range value (TER) is a function of its class and rating (mostly rating). Think of TER is the range at which a ship with an average heat signature will go from being a 'ghost' contact on your scanners to an actual contact that you can resolve and target.
Your sensor's target detection and resolution ranges (in normal space) are a function of the target ship's aggregate emissions: definitely heat, and some other variables, which may include the target's own active sensor radiation, shield radiation, engine emissions, and the ship's cross section (think radar return).
Using class 4 sensors, for example, A-rated sensors have a typical emissions detection range of 6.72km. D-rated sensors have a typical emissions detection range of 5.04km. Hotter ships you may pick up further away; cooler ships (and ships giving off less other emissions), may not be detected until a little closer.
Now let's look at target locking:
Two distance-related factors can break your target lock on a ship (discounting weapons effects or silent running):
(1) A targeted ship moves outside the range your sensors can resolve it (a function of target emissions and distance).
(2) The targeted ship cools itself below the point your sensors can resolve it, even though the range has not changed (and, yes, these are kind of the same thing, but bear with me).
There is another value your sensors are providing: Target weapons tracking. Just because your sensors can lock a target doesn't mean your gimbals will pick up the track, even if the target is within the gimbaling cone. Gimbal weapons lock on better along your ship's axis than they do near the outside of the cone.
Every gimbal user has experienced the phenomenon where they have a ship is targeted and your gimbals are tracking (and this may happen even at short ranges), but your weapons then lose their tracking even though your sensors maintain a target lock, and even though (seemingly) that ship is within the gimbal tracking cone and has not done anything like pop a heat sink. When that happens you have to maneuver your ship so that the gimbal tracking angle is reduced in order to get the weapons to pick up their target tracking again.
Some ships (Viper MkIII's are notorious to gimbal users for this) have inherently lower emissions and can shake gimbal tracking loose all the time, despite being well within range -- and even when in close combat -- and must frequently be re-acquired by maneuvering your ship to get your gimbals to pick up their lock again.
Here's what I've been wondering:
Those "typical emission range" numbers oddly specific. So there's clearly underlying math (and probably numerous variables) associated with target emissions and detection range. That detection resolution has some kind of fall-off curve and may be a function of the vector off your ship's axis (the tracking cone, if you will).
The same might well be true for target tracking performance, once you have the target locked up. Different sensors might have varying sensitivity fall-off as you depart from the ship's axis toward the outside of the gimbaling cone.
Might the greater sensitivity of A-rated sensors (as exhibited by their longer emissions detection ranges) provide a slightly stronger "lock" on a target near the fringes of the gimbal tracking cone than, say, D-rated sensors? Especially when trying to track ships whose emissions are closer to the sensor's lower tracking margins?
It seems logical: Greater sensor sensitivity would equate to a stronger target gimbal lock, or a stronger lock near the outer edges of the gimbal cone.
How can we test this?
