Muchocracker

Idk what you're talking about "inputs" https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2025-07-12/

Have no reason to believe that the proper antenna gain patterns aren't modelled considering all of the statements made by ED through the whitepaper and other places like the interview answers in the flyandwire video.

At true 90 degrees it's in the sidelobes of the 50-70 degree antennas even though it's in the mainlobe of the really low gain rear hemisphere antennas. Im not at all surprised the ranges are that low for detecting an MPRF waveform.

There is only 1 A/A WYPT reference on the radar page and that's the top left. You're thinking of the SA page, which already does exist and gives both BRA and BE for selected targets on it.

Intended change, previous behavior was inaccurate for our hornet.

SILENT mode does not "shut down" the transmitters and receivers like standby. In SILENT the receiver is still active and will do Angle Only Tracks and passive ranging (IRL, not implemented). The "ACTIVE" button is part of the QUICKLOOK function (also not implemented) that does some pseudo phased array trackfile update stuff. The radar just isn't doing constant transmitting with the Raster volume search pattern and is still able to transmit command links to in flight aim-120's. So this is correct function.

This has been an off and on issue for many years espeically with the normal antiship harpoons where they will just go off in completely different directions between clients or client-server. We've stopped using them in vCSG-3 at this point because of it.

When AUTO INT is turned off interrogations will only be run on the L&S automatically. But if you're setting the friendly as L&S them there may be an issue with outside of STT. Will do my own testing. I do have to ask tho, are you playing with Link-16 not turned on? This would be the only time a problem like this would turn up for friendly aircraft that i see.

And like i said in the next sentance, reacquired late. Missing under because of glint induced aiming errors. In the third track the missile oscillates up and down when the target isnt doing a similar maneuver. That's indicitive of the missiles aim point shifting.

I'm talking about LITENING, not ATFLIR.

reproduce it and post a trackfile please

distance missed doesn't make it a bug. And the aim-7 is not on the same advanced model yet.

Marine corps hornets use it as their primary TGP. It's within the timeframe standard ED has set.

Missile is losing the target to chaff while beaming in almost every track. Then reacquires super late and misses under likely because of target glint. I don't see anything in these tracks to suggest a bug.

Okay, so it should be easy to present evidence to prove that the blanking circuit installed on SPO-15LM's for 9.21A mig-29's can handle the HPRF waveform then

The claim being made by the dev is that the synchronization circuit itself can't handle HPRF or CW signals.

They tried to with the CORDS upgrade but it had huge performance and reliability issues with the vacuum tubes based memory storage. Trying to keep the total package weight down on the nose of radar + the gun was likely just not possible or too cost prohibitive for the late 60's. By the 80's its an old airframe, and cost is even more prohibitive.

One does not equal the other

it would be much quicker than 1 second for sure. The error in range estimate just on radial velocity is bound to accumulate quickly because of phase noise in the doppler measurement. Applying a set of data from one case to everything else is not proper research tho. We dont know what that threat system the tornado TACMAN refers to, and what specific waveform and function those threat systems use. Like everything in radar design there are multiple ways to do the same thing. By examining another system and its operation i think i've demonstrated that at minimum it's not a black and white conclusion. And there are some systems that have enough change in waveform to trigger launch warnings.

We're looking at the same document then regarding STT logic. But it specifically mentions in earlier pages that during sparrow launches it will run burst ranging logic in PDI until the sparrow is launched and then burst ranging logic is inhibited. During that time it's fully using the higher duty cyle HPRF. In either case in my opinion, there is enough of a difference here to indicate that a sparrow launch from an APG-73 would be picked up by RWR's, at least more advanced western varieties. I suspect it may be a delayed reaction thing where the RWR recognizes a mode change when the expected interval burst ranging didnt happen. -Yes the non-range gated HPRF is used in velocity search. But it's going to be recognized as a search by a scan rate -Yes STT uses-non range gated HPRF, but it does periodic "supersearch" rasters with MPRFLU burst ranging at specific intervals. -During illumination. It's staring directly at the target using high dutiy cycle HPRF with no change in waveform until impact. No MPRF waveform is used during this time.

ED's claim in the manuals is that it specifically cannot blank out the radars HPRF waveform. My question would be then is does the forward hemisphere not get disabled when the radar is in persuit (MPRF) mode. Somebody will need to find evidence to back that theory up. ED seems to have modelled it as just disable it with no nuance. Instead of disabling it depending on what waveform it's transmitting. Details matter.

The issue seems to be the full sized HAFU disappears but the 75% SURV track stays. Then the new radar contribution circle overlaps on top of that SURV track symbol. I only observed it happening in Track While Scan. I'm on vacation so i havent been at my PC to see if the issue still persists and in what fashion.

That is the built in DCS radio system. Not SRS. SRS has to add individual module support aftered they are added to the game.

It's a known issue

He said F-15