Chris Pawley Posted November 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM Posted November 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM Hi Everyone, We have some problems with implimenting RADAR holes within Euroscope files. We have an off site secondary feed combined with a primary feed on the airport. When traffic goes directly over the airport we expect to lose primary feed - but we don't - we only lose the feed if the traffic is too low (and thus out of the cone) To simulate this - we input the feeds into the ESE file as specified - and drew a 2nm circle around the airport and defined this as the "hole". I attach the code below, could someone perhaps shed some light as to why this works, but not entirely? Thanks Chris. [RADAR] RADAR:Pease Pottage:N51.04.56.000:W000.11.53.000:0:60000:0:0:60000:0:100:200:16 RADAR:PSR (SOU):N050.56.57.00:W001.21.39.00:74:70:75:0:60000:0:0:60000:0 HOLE:60000:60000:60000 COORD:N051.06.28.605:W001.16.43.026 COORD:N051.05.11.646:W001.12.26.571 COORD:N051.03.11.002:W001.08.57.913 COORD:N051.00.37.393:W001.06.35.591 COORD:N050.57.44.467:W001.05.32.252 COORD:N050.54.47.590:W001.05.53.524 COORD:N050.52.02.479:W001.07.37.516 COORD:N050.49.43.803:W001.10.34.988 COORD:N050.48.03.886:W001.14.30.171 COORD:N050.47.11.604:W001.19.02.168 COORD:N050.47.11.604:W001.23.46.811 COORD:N050.48.03.886:W001.28.18.808 COORD:N050.49.43.803:W001.32.13.991 COORD:N050.52.02.479:W001.35.11.463 COORD:N050.54.47.590:W001.36.55.455 COORD:N050.57.44.467:W001.37.16.727 COORD:N051.00.37.393:W001.36.13.388 COORD:N051.03.11.002:W001.33.51.066 COORD:N051.05.11.646:W001.30.22.408 COORD:N051.06.28.605:W001.26.05.953 COORD:N051.06.55.041:W001.21.24.490 COORD:N051.06.28.605:W001.16.43.026 COORD:N051.05.11.646:W001.12.26.571 COORD:N051.03.11.002:W001.08.57.913 COORD:N051.00.37.393:W001.06.35.591 COORD:N050.57.44.467:W001.05.32.252 COORD:N050.54.47.590:W001.05.53.524 COORD:N050.52.02.479:W001.07.37.516 COORD:N050.49.43.803:W001.10.34.988 COORD:N050.48.03.886:W001.14.30.171 COORD:N050.47.11.604:W001.19.02.168 COORD:N050.47.11.604:W001.23.46.811 COORD:N050.48.03.886:W001.28.18.808 COORD:N050.49.43.803:W001.32.13.991 COORD:N050.52.02.479:W001.35.11.463 COORD:N050.54.47.590:W001.36.55.455 COORD:N050.57.44.467:W001.37.16.727 COORD:N051.00.37.393:W001.36.13.388 COORD:N051.03.11.002:W001.33.51.066 COORD:N051.05.11.646:W001.30.22.408 Chris Pawley Division Director VATSIM UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Diamond 1001574 Posted November 22, 2011 at 12:35 AM Posted November 22, 2011 at 12:35 AM Hi Chris, What do you mean when you say "it works, but not entirely"? What from your code is working as expected and what isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todor Atanasov 878664 Posted November 22, 2011 at 05:11 AM Posted November 22, 2011 at 05:11 AM I can't remember if in this case the polygon was auto closed , but your end should be the same as your start coordinates. EuroScope BETA Tester/Board of Designers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Pawley Posted November 22, 2011 at 09:30 PM Author Posted November 22, 2011 at 09:30 PM Scott: The Radar slopes and absolute floors work fine. The hole doesn't work at all. Todor: Thanks for the tip - I think we tried that - but i shall give it another go. Cheers Chris. Chris Pawley Division Director VATSIM UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Bergin 931070 Posted November 24, 2011 at 07:27 PM Posted November 24, 2011 at 07:27 PM Not sure if it needs to be done, but if you have two radars defined, would you need to define the same hole for both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todor Atanasov 878664 Posted November 24, 2011 at 08:45 PM Posted November 24, 2011 at 08:45 PM No, the holes are for all defined radar sites, there is no hole-radar [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment. EuroScope BETA Tester/Board of Designers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Pike Posted November 24, 2011 at 11:16 PM Posted November 24, 2011 at 11:16 PM No, the holes are for all defined radar sites, there is no hole-radar [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment. I think if you define a hole overhead the field, you won't get secondary there either? I use the hole technique at Gloster (EGBJ), but I simulate the real life primary-only, so it works fine. (No secondary radar feed at all). When doing a different position that has secondary radar, I disable the radar definitions. Mike Pike VATSIM-UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Cunningham Posted November 25, 2011 at 01:46 AM Posted November 25, 2011 at 01:46 AM If it is for all radars concerned, I believe it is technically called a gate. Luke Cunningham Senior Controller VATSIM United Kingdom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todor Atanasov 878664 Posted November 25, 2011 at 08:35 AM Posted November 25, 2011 at 08:35 AM (edited) I think you are misunderstanding the two things. If you have two radar stations, one at the North, one at the South. You CAN'T define a radar hole for the North station only, the hole will be "active" for both stations. That is what I wrote. But you can have radar holes for different TYPE of radar stations: primary, secondary, S mode, I thought that was obvious from the radar hole definition. Edited December 1, 2011 at 12:47 PM by Guest EuroScope BETA Tester/Board of Designers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Pike Posted November 29, 2011 at 11:57 PM Posted November 29, 2011 at 11:57 PM ...you can have radar holes for different TYPE of radar stations: primary, secondary, S mode, I thought that was obvious from the radar hole definition. Sorry. Yes it is obvious, I just hadn't read it lately. I must have confused a different problem at Gloster which I can't remember now. Apologies for the confusion. Mike Pike VATSIM-UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todor Atanasov 878664 Posted December 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM Posted December 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM No need to sorry, you don't know how many things I forget EuroScope BETA Tester/Board of Designers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Pawley Posted February 16, 2012 at 08:33 AM Author Posted February 16, 2012 at 08:33 AM I can't remember if in this case the polygon was auto closed , but your end should be the same as your start coordinates. Hi Todor (and everyone), I've had a chance to look at our .ese and have a play in the simulator again - the coord loop is now closed explicitly in the .ese - but the hole still does not work. Does anyone have any other ideas? Reading between the lines above - it doesn't seem to be a function of having two RADAR sites - but that might be a problem...I'm not sure. Chris. Chris Pawley Division Director VATSIM UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todor Atanasov 878664 Posted February 16, 2012 at 05:22 PM Posted February 16, 2012 at 05:22 PM What do you expect to happen and what is happening? EuroScope BETA Tester/Board of Designers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Pawley Posted February 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM Author Posted February 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM I expect our returns to disappear when they go over the RADAR head (as it cannot look directly up) - so we drew a 2nm circle around the coordinates of the site and used HOLE:60000:60000:60000 to filter all traffic upto FL600. However - the Hole appears to have no effect at all. Chris. Chris Pawley Division Director VATSIM UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts