Best coverage of dsts?

[alex_brunius]

Coverage area should still grow as the square of tracking stations on one rock. Ideally, you'd want stations next to your JPs, but without turning of orbits, that's not feasible.

The range of the DSTS on a body is given by:

Detection range = DSTS Tech * Number of DSTS * Target Signature.

Your both right. If the range is growing linear, then the covered area is growing by the square

[Paul M]

The fact that the area grows as the square of the number of stations is why it makes more sense to keep them in one place.

If I assume I have N stations then I have an area coverage that is given by: N^2*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi()

If I assume I have x locations each with N/x stations then I have an area coverage given by: x*(N/x)^2*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi() = (N^2/x)*(DSTS_strength)^2*Pi()

The problem is that the area covered by the (x+1)th DSTS  is considerably greater than by the xth and so I can't see how a dispersed system can win.

I think for it to make sense you would have to make it so you also used the seperation of the systems as part of the formula.

[alex_brunius]

Yes, Separated only makes sense for systems where you have valuable things very far from each other and want both well covered/protected.

For example a system with multiple stars say 5 billion of km apart (or more) and colonies on bodies around two or more of them.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The same problem exist on ship based sensor systems, both active and passive.

The only sensor system where I would think a linear approach in sensible are fire-controls because they only concern a single object already illuminated by another active sensor system.

The current mechanic clearly favour one single large sensor system, over many spread over a larger area which would be more realistic and fun as well I think. 
It might be a problem for the AI though so we have to bare that in mind as well.