My 2 cents: the (somewhat) famous saying goes: All models are wrong, but some are useful. Notice it says some are useful, not all. In the case of this analysis its topic is radar reflectivity which is heavily affected by the geometry and detail treatment of the object. If the model used in the analysis itself has multiple macroscopic differences (shape of canopy, strake design, etc) to the real-life object that’s distinguishable using the naked eye then there’s just too high a possibility that these inaccuracies will bring enough “noise” into the system that the results get effectively meaningless. This may be the case, this may not be, we just don’t know.
And since we don’t know how inaccurate this analysis is, it’d be irresponsible and borderline stupid imo to treat its result as an even partly reliable source, just because “there’s no better alternative”. Not to discredit the author’s efforts or anything, just that no good information on a subject doesn’t mean anything is necessarily an improvement.
And since we don’t know how inaccurate this analysis is, it’d be irresponsible and borderline stupid imo to treat its result as an even partly reliable source, just because “there’s no better alternative”. Not to discredit the author’s efforts or anything, just that no good information on a subject doesn’t mean anything is necessarily an improvement.
