[LotATC] 2.1.0-r1 version

LotATC is a Air Traffic Controller software (see first post on it here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=41468&highlight=LotATC )

 

A new version is available with a lot of new features:

 

• Better map position
  
• Multi runaway management
  
• Drawing module, make drawing on map, they will be share to all others controllers
  
• BRAA module, link two objects (plane, ground unit, ship, waypoint, drawing, airport) and LotATC display automatically the BRAA (bearing range altitude aspect) between them
  
• Internationalization: English, French, Russian (DarkWanderer), JaBoG32_Laud (german), Spanish (Predi), part of croatian (Babalui)
  
• Works correctly with all LockOn version (Europeans AND Russian) and must work with mods like AdAMod
  
• Better user interface
  
• Faster (server and client)
  
• A manual in French and English (other languages to come) thanks to Pouka
  
• lot of others...
  

To see all features and help at start, use the manual (installed with LotATC or available in download directory following).

 

The complete list of change since 2.0.5: http://lotatc.dartsite.org/query?group=status&milestone=LotATC+2.1.0

 

Download: http://lome.dartsite.org/download/lotatc/release/2.1.0/

 

Some screenshots (in French :) ):

 

 

 

Next step will be approach and ground view for airports, and other great stuff...

 

For any help: http://forum.dartsite.org/

 

Thanks for all people help me!

Translators and the 3rd-wing team.

Edited October 20, 2009 by DArt

Nice, Thanks very much!

Good stuff DArt!

We got to discuss LotATC on Hyperlobby today and the question was raised if you model notching.

 

Do you take into account the line-of-sight velocity towards radars to decide if a contact is visible or not?

LotATC does not model the notching, it is very difficult to manage it I think. LotATC radar coverage can be composed by severals radar and it will be complex to check noching.

 

For no-realist radar, we only simple sphere to represent radar coverage and check altitude between target and radar in order to check if mountains can hide the target. In realistic mode, radar use real radar enveloppe (so they see less target but it is more realist).

 

Your question is very interresting. Managing the notching will need lot of processing and need to store old plane position in order to retrieve its trajectory model then find radars that are no notching. I think it will take too much processing. :)

Great stuff!

DArt, it will only be a minor problem computationally because you must usually check against at most 2 AWACS, in practice (some times 4).

 

You can only notch airborne radars, and the parameters should be relatively strict (closure less than, for example, 15-30m/s)

 

LotATC does not model the notching, it is very difficult to manage it I think. LotATC radar coverage can be composed by severals radar and it will be complex to check noching.

 

For no-realist radar, we only simple sphere to represent radar coverage and check altitude between target and radar in order to check if mountains can hide the target. In realistic mode, radar use real radar enveloppe (so they see less target but it is more realist).

 

Your question is very interresting. Managing the notching will need lot of processing and need to store old plane position in order to retrieve its trajectory model then find radars that are no notching. I think it will take too much processing. :)

For no-realist radar, we only simple sphere to represent radar coverage and check altitude between target and radar in order to check if mountains can hide the target. In realistic mode, radar use real radar enveloppe (so they see less target but it is more realist).

 

Your question is very interresting. Managing the notching will need lot of processing and need to store old plane position in order to retrieve its trajectory model then find radars that are no notching. I think it will take too much processing. :)

I can't imagine it to take more processing than figuring out if a source is behind a hill or not. In essence you want to compute the line-of-sight velocity towards each radar, and if it is below some limiting value then it wouldn't be visible.

 

Concerning your radar envelope, does that take into account distance and RCS dependence?

I would personally vote against this - and why?

We don't really know real RCS, or radar parameters, and frankly neither does lock on (Lock On treats each fighter aircraft as having 4m^2 RCS as far as I can tell, which is, as far as I know, too low under certain circumstances, but I could be wrong).

 

Of course, there's something to be said about excluding F-117's :P

 

Concerning your radar envelope' date=' does that take into account distance and RCS dependence?[/quote']

Okay, fair enough. We are nitpicking here anyway.

 

(Lock On treats each fighter aircraft as having 4m^2 RCS as far as I can tell, which is, as far as I know, too low under certain circumstances, but I could be wrong).

But to digress, are you sure this is true for LockOn? I always get the impression a MiG will become visible at shorter ranges compared to a Flanker or Eagle.

I'll have to check again - I know there are differences between player aircraft radar sets, and I have seen small differences in initial detection ranges, but if you output the 'RCS' parameter from LUA it tends to be 4 for fighters. I'll admit that the number of fighters tested could be suspect, and possibly the parameter being output might not be the one actually used. :P

 

But to digress' date=' are you sure this is true for LockOn? I always get the impression a MiG will become visible at shorter ranges compared to a Flanker or Eagle.[/quote']

Effectively, a solution can be to check velocity relative to the radar. If null, we could make the plane disappear for this radar. That implies lot of modifications in our server, because we do not store plane position, and to compute velocity, we need to :)

 

Could be an option in the server like realistic radar.

 

I will thinking about it, it could add a step in putting reality into LotATC. For RCS, we does not use it, that will be too much complex for us...