Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Define logic and workflow for estimating group sizes and types based on observed intel #11

Open
jkhoel opened this issue Oct 13, 2016 · 3 comments
Assignees
Projects

Comments

@jkhoel
Copy link
Owner

jkhoel commented Oct 13, 2016

Note: We might want this filter to be optional, and thus set as a flag on the IO server and not in the WebApp.

Conciderations:

  1. Input will be 100% accurate with all neccesary data from DCS. Without any filtering, the chance of correct estimation on size and type has to be 100%.
  2. Filter will have to classify group type based on group composition
  3. Some modifier to accuracy based on multiple units "seeing" the same group will be needed
  4. Do we want to split information based on source? I.e. all AWACS intel goes directly on the map (pretty accurate aquisition system), while SOF intel might go to a list (text message type report) and have to be added by AOC.
  5. Output to follow NATO Joint Military Symbology

Basic Logic:
Accurate group size and types from DCS --> [Filtering function] --> Output list of estimated size and type

Parameters:

  1. Factor for the units ability to give accurate intel:
    Reduction factor based on range to target (0.0-1.0)
    Reduction factor based on unit type and its estimated abilities. Groups can be mixed, so this needs to be taken into account
@jkhoel jkhoel self-assigned this Oct 13, 2016
@jkhoel
Copy link
Owner Author

jkhoel commented Oct 13, 2016

Reduction factor based on range to target

There should be a falloff based on detection range. So 1 maybe out to 20% of detection range for a system based on optical identifaction, but maybe 1 out to 70% of the DR for an older radar system.

@birgersp
Copy link
Contributor

I think it would be most efficient to discuss these rules after we have made a working version showing all map markers.

When we have a working version up and running, we can run some test mission(s) and try to see situations where markers or details should be hidden. Maybe invite other players to get other rule ideas?

@birgersp
Copy link
Contributor

Also, I think all this logic should be kept server-side. The client webapp should only receive what is intended for the user to see (except convenience view toggles, ofc)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants