Pilum
-
Posts
382 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pilum
-
-
3 hours ago, draconus said:
That's your problem. You don't see, because you may have knowledgle about EW but know nothing about believably simulating it in DCS on a bit higher level than it is implemented now. You didn't think they gonna simulate single radar pulses or EM waves going through the virtual sky, did you?
Yet devs says otherwise (4 posts above) and I take their word for it instead of some random internet guy. That's who you are - you're just the one who's not helping at all, standing by and saying: "Impossible, you can't do it, I know how, but won't tell".
First of all, you are the random internet guy here since you are the one who is anonymous while I'm not. I already posted a link featuring my name and my resume when it comes to competence in EW which I've worked professionally with for close to 15 years.
In addition, I've already explained why I don't "help" in an earlier post and which is the same reason I suspect many other professionals who have worked with classified systems stay away from doing so: And this is because one's knowledge base is a mix of open and classified knowledge and even if I were to refer to open sources, this would be because I have the knowledge base I have so it's a catch-22. And the only way to avoid the risk of divulging classified data is to stay away from it. Again, read my sig. It was not chosen at random.
But this is going nowhere so unless there are any more comments about my persona or my competence that need to be addressed then I will leave you here since it should by now be abundantly clear what my views are on the viability of modeling the EW systems of the F-35 for anyone who does not have classified access.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, skywalker22 said:
I was also kidding. Even F-35's systems base on well known (publicly available) principles, they only raised the bar to a higher level. So even if some guessing is needed to use, you won't miss much I suppose.
Well again, if you bothered to read the resume I linked to above you will know that I'm a former EW engineer who has worked on the EW systems for the AJ 37 & JA 37 Viggen and JAS 39 Gripen systems and that I come to a somewhat different conclusion. And frankly, I don't see how "some guessing" and utilizing "well known (publicly available) principles" will allow the modeling of a highly classified F-35 EW system.
And believe me, I would like nothing better than not having to reply to posts like yours but they just keep on coming: And one internet expert after another seems to be lining up to explain to me how EW systems work and how they can and should be implemented in DCS and how the results will be just dandy.
3 hours ago, draconus said:That's a bold statement we can't call DCS aircraft simulator just because there's no fully simulated IFF and EW.
First of all you're twisting my words: IMO many aircraft modeled in DCS are very much simulators even though the EW on most is pretty basic. However, the F-35 is a highly classified system that will form the backbone of the West's AF's for a long time to come so it's a completely different ballgame to model the systems on that compared to say a Mig-21 or F-4 for which there is a ton of declassified data to go on.
-
2
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Muchocracker said:
Who said anything about concrete or 100% accuracy? We all know that the APG-81 is too classified to get hard data. The point is to get as close as possible through knowledge of first principles and what you can glean through open sources. Idk about you but i would much rather have a 60% approximation than none at all.
You're the claimed EW Engineer, how about you tell us? I know you're asking these questions in bad faith so you'll probably scoff and dismiss the answer like this is some kind of black magic forbidden knowledge. But i'll go ahead and list some of the stuff stimson's touched on anyway.
- Pulse Compression in its normal forms
- Pulse Compression using pseudorandom codes in more secure formats
- PRF Jitter/Switching
- Pulse to Pulse/CPI to CPI frequency agility
- Phase shifting elements to null antenna gain in the direction of a jammer to counter high power jamming signals.
- Leading Edge Tracking to counter gate stealers
It boils down to being unpredictable. If the jammer can't know what waveform to send back or isnt sophisticated enough to match parts of the waveform then signals get rejected.
You use parameters that you know, and fill in the blanks with first principle knowledge, idk what is hard to understand about this concept. Sensitive receivers will detect low power pulses from longer range than noisier ones, more advanced detection algorithm's can decode higher complexity compression and frequency hopping schemes. And for that matter who says it would be exclusively transmitting LPI waveforms? It's not a free lunch has associated costs that can be detrimental to overall detection performance.
You're trying to gish gallop me in attempt dismiss and discredit the broader point that you can in fact get more than "closer to 0%" by working on first principles of RF/DSP/Phased Array/EW theory to build a really damn good Electronic Warfare simulation that isn't TS/SCI. The game itself has a long way to go in RF modelling to get where it should be, and i said as much in the OP. But it's not "impossible".I'm not claiming to be a former EW-engineer. I am one and I've worked with multiple EW-systems. And I'm not trying to gish gallop you whatever that is, I'm just giving you my professional opinion and you can do with it what you like.
But I'm sure that that won't stop you since you're now building straw men claiming I'm saying it's not possible to build an EW simulations and that it's black magic. But that is not what I'm saying at all: What I'm doing is answering the question in the OP and saying that it's IMHO impossible to do one worthy of the name simulation for the F-35 because so much surrounding it is still highly classified.
But this is going nowhere and we simply have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. But on an ending note I can't help but notice that it's funny how people in these type of aviation forums are always so deferential to pilots and usually take what they say as gospel truth but when it comes to technical matters and engineering questions, there is always some armchair expert who has no qualms about lecturing professionals.
-
5
-
1
-
-
On 3/21/2025 at 12:14 AM, Muchocracker said:
There's plenty of literature out there in radar and Electronic Warfare theory textbooks to do "first principle" approaches for many of the EA and EP techniques, they're not hard to find. You can do many of the deception jamming modes like Barrage, Spot, Cover Pulse, RG/VGPO, Range and Range/Doppler MFT, Inverse Gain, and AGC Capture without getting too close to the sun on classified material.
The challenge is you need to completely overhaul the radar modelling to truly simulate most of these. ED is on the way there, but it's still a long way to go.5 hours ago, Muchocracker said:-Stimsons introduction to airborne radar 3rd edition (gets you started on base concepts and digital signal processing. Touches on EA/EP concepts but not in depth)
-Electronic Warfare Signal processing by James Genova
-EW 100 series by David Adamy
There's plenty more that you can find through google searches.
Sorry, but referring to open sources when modeling the F-35 EW is an exercise in futility for the simple reasons you yourself mention: These are general principles only and say absolutely nothing concrete about how the EW-systems in the F-35 are implemented.
But please do tell, based on these open source general principle textbooks you refer to, how should the F-35 radar model in DCS react to the “RG/VGPO, Range and Range/Doppler MFT etc” jamming you mentioned? Should it be fooled? Or should it via its ECCM filter out this and retain lock? And in which cases should this occur and for which enemy systems? And vice versa, how should the F-35’s jamming affect other in-game DCS aircraft’s radars?
Sorry, but the only thing we know with any certainty is that the F-35 has a state of the art EW-system that is still deeply classified and that this of course will be pretty sophisticated. But since there is absolutely no solid data to go on regarding how its jamming and ECCM works, you simply can’t model it with anything approaching realism. In addition, in-game in DCS, how should the RWR’s in other DCS aircraft react when being painted by an F-35 LPI radar? Should they always miss it or should some of them detect it and if so at what range?
I was not planning to post anything more in this thread but as a former professional EW-engineer, when I read “There's plenty more that you can find through google searches” connected to the F-35’s EW, I just felt I needed to react.
-
7
-
-
To answer the question in the OP, “how much EW content we can get based on publicly available information”, this will be close to 0 %.
Because everything about the EW for the F-35 is still top secret and will be for the foreseeable future.
And this is the problem with “simulation” modeling of any in-service aircraft, and not just the F-35: The information you need to model the radar and EW with anything approaching realism is still classified and will inevitably result in a game- and not a simulation-model.
I worked for more than 10 years in the defense industry with EW for fighter aircraft and my sig has not been chosen at random.
-
1
-
-
Well regarding just how much people who have worked with classified systems can help make unclassified modules in DCS we just have to agree to disagree. You have now made your point abundantly clear and you already know mine. So no need to repeat ourselves and we will just have to leave it at that.
Regarding how attractive we find a module that has a lot of guesswork in it, I understand you think that’s fine, you have made that very clear now in a number of posts. But that is not for me. Pushing a sequence of buttons on an MFD to do a specific task, or having displays with conceptual presentation modes, which change in a conceptual way when you are lit up by an S-300 holds no interest for me. I want a simulation where everything is much closer to IRL. And this you can do on a 3rd gen aircraft, but not on a 4.5 or 5th gen aircraft which is still in service.
AFAIK Heatblur is very much focused on realism and that modules should be as close as it gets, and I hope that they stick true to this goal. And whatever that means for the Eurofighter module time will tell.
So with that I’ve said my piece and have to chime in with the call that the ball is now in the developer’s court. Now we just have to sit back and see what they give us in the next update.
-
1 hour ago, Spectre11 said:
I haven't participated and replied to all threads as such... This question is the most often debated in addition to the never ending "when will it be released" and "is there any news" questions. Argueably they are first and foremost inflationary raised on HB's official Discord, but have been raised here several times.
That being said, True Grit is still involved, but mainly for the licences with ED and NETMA etc. and as SMEs. They apparently underestimated the effort and have reached an agreement with HB to take over the development part. HB agreed, but has it's own projects going and priorities. TG was solely founded to bring the Eurofighter to DCS, HB had the F-4E as it next priority when it took over in addition to the further development and support for its existing modules. Unsurprisingly this meant development of the Eurofighter would take longer and got a slot in the cue after the F-4E. That's the reason why it's taking so long. It was TG to announce the Eurofighter, HB wouldn't have made that at that point in time. People often complain, but never bother to check the facts.
Concerning the "it's oh so modern bla bla", the Eurofighter is actually one of the better documented aircraft compared to many others and it's not that much more advanced than evolved F-16s or F/A-18s either, it's doable and when there is also support from the operators/manufacturers (True Grit manages the licences and agreements and consists of a bunch of former GAF pilots) there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to produce a believeable, authentic representation of the real aircraft. Yes there will be omissions, but that's actually true for all aircraft, even older. Furthermore many people talk about in-service aircraft, guess what many modern aircraft incl. JF-17, A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C are all "still in service" and even they aren't 100% accurate on all accounts. Most people can't even tell the difference, but babble about it all day long and fill forum pages, chats etc. with their unqualified nonsense and wikipedia "knowledge".
Let them do their job and be patient.
Much of what you say about the reasons for the delay may well be true. However, I think it would be fair to say that we are all just speculating. And in this context I would like to add something:
I think many in this forum are a bit optimistic as to what former pilots (and engineer’s like myself for that matter) could bring to the table for DCS module development when it comes to classified systems we have worked with. And this is because after a while, your knowledge base whatever your profession, be it engineer or pilot, will be a mix of open and classified knowledge which you use (or used to use ) daily in your job. And it’s therefore very difficult when you are confronted with a question in the area of your expertise, to know weather you can answer it or not without divulging things you shouldn’t.
I already mentioned in another thread that I worked with EW previously, and for sure, I could refer to open sources to answer many questions in this forum related to EW if I wanted to. And believe me it’s tempting to do so sometimes when you know something. But the conundrum here is that even if you are referring to open sources, you may be guiding other parties in a way based on your classified knowledge. This may be a bit difficult to grasp unless you worked with classified data before, but the only way to be sure (at least if you worked for a number of years) is to not touch stuff at all that you signed an NDA for. And for me that is EW. But I dabble in another area which is classified: Missile kinematics. But I can do that since I never worked in that area professionally, and all my knowledge is therefore 100% based on open sources. So missile kinematics yes, but EW is a big no-no for me. So again, those GAF Eurofighter pilots probably won’t be able to help much with the modeling of classified systems in DCS. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t think sigs show up anymore, but mine is an Old Crow motto from the world of EW: “Those who talk don’t know, and those who know don’t talk”.
And this is of course not only applicable EW engineers, but very much to military pilots as well.
So this is why I would not be surprised at all if a flight sim enterprise that relies on modeling systems that are still classified runs into problems. But again, for sure, this may not be the particular problem that is delaying Heatblur right now, but it’s for sure is not unreasonable to ask, and see what kind of answer we get.
2 hours ago, MAXsenna said:Finally had the time!
I re-watched and analyzed to the best of my abilities and my "failing" vision, (getting old).
I've counted cutscenes/every time the camera shifts position.EF2000, appears 17 times.
MiG-29, 12. Including multiple cockpit shots.
F-4E, 12.
F-16C, 11.
C-130, 9. Including shots from the cargo bay.
F/A-18C, 6.(I'm positive I saw the F-4E shoot down a MiG-23).
Also consider the EF2000 was the major "background" in the 2025 and Beyond promo art.
So, yeah! I'd say it's safe to say the development is far from having been stalled.
Cheers
You are a funny guy Max! Yes, The 17 appearances of the Eurofighter compared to a measly 12 each for the Fulcrum's & the F-4's in that video tells us all we want to know, because herein lies the irrefutable proof that the Eurofighter is as you say "the main star" in the 2025 lineup and therefore all must be well!
But seriously, while as we know correlation is not causation, it's nonetheless food for thought that it's the in-service aircraft with systems that are still classified that is so delayed.
And I'm sure Heatblur keeps an eye in the forum and will eventually see this thread. And it will be interesting to see if they respond because I really do think the question in the OP deserves an answer.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Czar66 said:
You have to take into consideration that the Phantom is a highly mechanical aircraft systems wise where DCS is already well developed in that front. Who knows how many codes from scratch the Eurofighter module needs or even core updates to get there.
And this is exactly my point: The F-4 is a 3rd gen aircraft with much lower complexity and no classified parts making it much easier to implement than an in-service 4.5 gen aircraft, hence the big interest in how the development of the latter is progressing.
-
Just now, BIGNEWY said:
The developer will always be in the best position to know what can and can not be done. They are the ones making the investment, they are the ones taking the risk with that investment.
When they are ready to share more details they will.
thank you
Well all those points are rather self-evident aren't they? You could say that about basically any product made by any company.
But that TG & HB obviously know what's going does not stop potential customers from finding it strange that a one module is announced 5 years ago, another 2 years later, but still becomes available much earlier?
Again, my question really stems from the fact that the Eurofighter was mentioned in the F-35 thread as an example that in-service aircraft had already been modeled in DCS, which made it all the more interesting to understand just how the Eurofighter's module was progressing.
-
9 minutes ago, Volator said:
I understood it more as a joint-venture between HB and TG. I don't think TG is "out" at all.
Well I saw a post where it was stated that HB had "taken over" from TG but maybe I read too much into that and that this should instead be interpreted as taking over the management of the module only?
-
8 minutes ago, Volator said:
Huh? When, where, why? Care to elaborate?
Well AFAIK Gero Finke is one of the founders of TrueGrit Virtual Technologies, and if Heatblur have taken over and Truegrit is no loner involved, then I understood that to mean that he is no longer part of the development but maybe I'm mistaken on that point?
-
1 hour ago, Spectre11 said:
The nth user, the nth thread the nth repetition of the same doubts, concerns... Boring
Well you may find it boring, but I can't agree with your "nth thread the nth repetition" take: I just looked at your contributions on the Eurofighters timeline and there are only 5 posts during the last 6 month in two threads on the matter so if there is a problem I would not say its spamming but rather a lack of news if anything.
Anyway, one of the contributing factors to my interest in the Eurofighter's timeline was because when I in another thread (the now merged and closed F-35 thread) claimed that the F-35 will be the first fighter module DCS does of an aircraft which is still in service, then someone "corrected" me and said that that was not true because we already have the Eurofighter in DCS.
But it now seems like that person was stretching the concept of being "in" quite a bit and so from that perspective I think it would be very interesting indeed to understand just what is behind the delay of the Eurofighter and why Heatblur took over, and just why Gero Finke is no longer (as I understand it?) part of development.
-
3 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:
Why aren't fighter planes from the first word war (biplanes and whatnot) considered first generation fighter planes when they were literally the first generation of fighters?
AFAIK the definition "generation" as in "4th gen" etc refers to a classification of jet aircraft and that that piece of information is just left out these days.
-
3
-
-
41 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:
I consider the Eurofighter the main star of the 2025 & Beyond video, so I highly doubt it's stalled.
Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
I just watched that video but not sure I get it: In that video, if it's the one you mean, the Eurofighter makes about as much of an appearance as many others?
-
I'm well aware that Heatblur have their hands full with the F-4 Phantom at the moment, but my thinking is more connected to the fact that the 4.5 gen Eurofighter module was announced almost 5 years ago, and that the solidly 3rd gen (i.e. nothing is classified any more) F-4 Phantom module was announced after this, but is even so nearing completion while the Eurofighter development seems to have made very little progress during these years.
Given that large parts of the now closed discussion connected to the the problems of modeling the classified systems of the 5th gen F-35 are very much applicable also to the 4.5 gen Eurofighter, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Heatblur has realized the difficulties of modeling in-service aircraft, and are acting accordingly.
-
1
-
-
Has the issue of how to model classified systems stalled this module’s development?
DCS recent announcement to do the F-35 has sparked a lot of forum discussions about the feasibility of introducing aircraft that are still in service, and since the Eurofighter faces the same problem, is this why this project appears to have stalled?
I watched the Grim Reapers Gero Finke interview, and just as I would have expected, he says that there will be a very progressive approach to introducing systems due to the problem that many are still classified.
And about 5 min into the interview, he mentions that as a consequence of this, only a limited number of systems will be modeled initially, and that system will be added if/when the information to do that becomes available given the classification issue.
So is this what is holding Heatblur back from following through on this project? As is the number of systems that can actually be modeled under these constraints just to small to make it an attractive module that will sell, or is it something else?
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, ThePops said:
Sorry. As I said, it would be somewhat interesting to know who these complainers are. Those categories are only my impression based on what I have seen, mostly here on this forum. Not meant to be taken super seriously. But looking through the F-35 threads it is IMO hard to not get a similar impression.
I also know a thing or two, and so do many others here. You are not alone on that one. Among other stuff, I took part in field testing of the Penguin missile from Kongsberg in the mid-late 80s for instance, when the missile was adapted/upgraded to be launched from the F-16 (a small insignificant part, but nonetheless
). I worked in the Air Force back then and I know what this "stuff" is made of.
Every time I start DCS on my PC it says: "For entertainment purposes only". I take that for what it is, and I'm sure ED takes it very seriously indeed, the entertainment part. Perhaps it's just me then. I don't take DCS "seriously" enough to fall flat on my back because of the introduction of the F-35. What ED has said is they have enough info to create this F-35 module in high fidelity for DCS. I am looking forward to that launch.
OK, thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.
Well if you worked with the Penguin, you may have have known a Norwegian friend of mine by the name of Knut who worked with it. Surname begins with an S and if you met him you would have remembered it. But for obvious reasons I wont write out his name here in the clear. We studied together at the RIT University in Stockholm back in the days and he went on to work for Kongsberg. Unfortunately he passed away a few years back.
Anyway, sure, I agree DCS modules are for entertainment but if I spend time to learn a "cold start" procedure and system setups, operating the MFD buttons, interpreting displays, radar and RWR info and push buttons etc etc I want this to replicate how it's done IRL, not something cobbled together as a best guess because that info is still all classified. But each to his own, and I can see it from your angle as well only I would still have preferred a 3rd or 4th gen aircraft rendered with high fidelity as opposed to a F-35 guesstimate.
-
3
-
-
20 minutes ago, Yeti42 said:
My first thought on hearing this was "Oh dear" ED has been saying for years that they could not create modules for newer aircraft as they system information was still classified. This apparently, is now not an issue. What I suspect we will end up with is an approximation of an F35 based on limited public domain information and anecdotal evidence, it will be no more than a community mod. The reason I play DCS is for realism in the knowledge that that aircraft have been modeled in a highly accurate way, once you start fudging modules together based on projected increased sales, you are on a rocky road to something akin to War Thunder, which don't get me wrong, has it's place and is probably fun to play, but not a flight simulator modeled to the level we have become accustomed to in DCS.
Well put!
8 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:Its a 5th gen, not 6th.
What ever ED comes up with this plane, will be not 85% guesswork, but 99%. So, we better forget about it, and focus on 4th gen, and now upcoming Mig-29. Besides, F-35 has no place in DCS, its way too advanced in all regards.
Yes, you're right. I should have written 5th gen. My bad. That being said, I agree with your take on this.
PS: This auto-merge gets on my nerves. Is there any way to avoid it?
-
33 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:
Wouldn't being called a purist be a compliment for you?
(Couldn't resist 
)
Now that you put it like that.....
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:
Well, then you need to define short term and long term. Pretty sure ED is in for the lather.
I don't think your analogy quite fit here.
I've come the conclusion that they might not have been totally honest about that. Easier way to say no. We can't really expect them to willingly lose money. If the MiG-29 sells well too. I'm sure that will be an incentive to make more Redfor modules.
Well what I mean is that while I agree that they will probably make money short term, is that in the long terms their status as a producer of high fidelity flight simulations products could be tarnished by releasing modules that inevitably (since the systems are still classified) must contain loads of guesswork.
I think there is still a lot of money to be made on producing high quality 3rd and 4th gen aircraft (which they already do and are quite successful at), so I don't see them risk loosing any money as long as they retain a good name as flight simulation producers. So more of the same would be better I say.
-
6
-
-
17 minutes ago, ThePops said:
It would be somewhat interesting to see what part of the community who complain over this. I don't think it's the greybeard/purist, at least not in large parts. The greybeard/purist have been "playing the game" since long before DCS existed, and may very well be pleased or unpleased, but for the most of it see it for what it is. It's ED doing the right moves to shape the company into the future. When all is set and done, that's the thing that matters, and complaining over this is certainly just a waste of time in any case.
I think two groups are the big complainers.
- The "gamers". The ones who see this purely as a game. They want game balance. Red and Blue should be roughly equal and have roughly the same tech. The F-35 + HF F-15 + HF Typhoon is a move (a huge leap in fact) in the opposite direction.
- A more hard to describe group that see DCS in their head as something else and much more than what it really is. The F-35 somehow shatters their illusions. I don't know why exactly, but the word "Karen" comes to mind.
As for myself I am too old to have any nice and cozy "childhood memories" about the F-35. It's in large part a big unknown and therefore uninteresting compared with something like the F-104 for instance, or F-5, MiG-21 and so on. But I know there's a huge amount of data available. Now, when ED compiles all that data into a flyable module the same way they have done with all the other stuff. The F-35 suddenly becomes hugely interesting. I see F-35s passing by my window almost every day (literally). Getting the chance to know it more intimately, is a big thing really, and something to look forward to.
Well Pops, thanks for sharing. However, since I don’t belong to the first category, I think you are implying I belong to the second?
But maybe you should consider that there is a third category? Professionals who actually know a thing or two? I’m an aeronautical engineer by profession with a master’s in aerodynamics and structural engineering. I worked for more than 10 years at Ericsson and SAAB with the JAS 39 Gripen, mostly in EW, but close to the guys who did the display systems.
So maybe you should consider that there are people here who actually know a thing or two before categorizing them into gamers and Karen’s?
-
6
-
1
-
7 hours ago, MAXsenna said:
What happened to the summery?
Just kidding!
I appreciate your opinion, voice and expertise, both in this discussion and elsewhere. You could be correct, while I don't understand why you bother. The majority doesn't care because the majority wants this.
Cheers!
Why do I bother? Well forum posting helps me procrastinate and stay away from doing the honest work that needs to be done, that’s why.
But more seriously: I agree with the take that the DCS F-35 module will probably sell like hotcakes. But that does not mean it’s the right approach: There is a famous company doing commercial aircraft that was once run by engineers, but when the accountants took over, quality took a dive and they are now struggling to regain their good name. And just because you can make money on something in the short term, doesn’t mean it will benefit you in the long term.
I’ve always respected DCS in the past when they have said that they could not do something because they did not have enough data. That speaks to the engineer in me.
-
7
-
-
11 hours ago, Ornithopter said:
I really doubt they would be doing an F-35 if they weren't aware of the challenges awaiting them. It isn't their first airplane.
You and those who liked this post didn’t read what I wrote above did you? Because that post clearly explains why those challenges cannot be overcome for an in-service 6th gen aircraft like the F-35.
-
2
-
-
TL;DR
There are literally dozens of posts now in this forum that go something like this: “Yes, well we understand that some are skeptical about DCS ability to model the F-35, but nothing has been released yet so there is no merit to your objections, because you can’t be critical of something you haven’t even seen”.
Well I beg to differ: I think we can be critical of the decision to model the F-35 already now, and here is a concrete example of why:
On the F-35, there is just one big humongous screen that can hold a myriad of different windows and tables etc. And, yes, we can see what they show us at demos and airshow and that can give us some idea about how the display may look like IRL. However, the only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that this will not be what the pilot will see in an operational aircraft. This is just common sense. You don’t show classified presentation modes for operational aircraft publicly. So already here we are lost. But wait, it gets worse:
Because instead of a couple of MFD’s with knowns sub-menus and display properties, supplemented by the ubiquitous round RWR we see in most 3rd and 4th generation fighters (you know, the type of displays & systems DCS modeled up till now), you will in the F-35 have just one big screen where you have absolutely no idea how the disposition of different display windows will be. Why? Well because the big thing with 5th generation aircraft is the sensor fusion and how this will be displayed is top secret.
For example, when you’re dozing off in nav mode, and you suddenly get lit up by a SAM or fighter radar, how will that enormous display react? Will it be overlaid something already there or will a threat window pop up which takes up 10, 20, 30 or 50% of the big screen? Where will it be located? How will threat zones be displayed? If, dynamic, how will this be displayed? Missile position and if you are inside or outside projected range? Birds eye view, or obliquely? What other windows will be active? Stores, radar, IRST etc? And if so where? Bottom right? Top left? etc etc.
And this is where the 6th gen secret lies: How do you fuse not only your own, but your wingman’s, ship and AWAC data? And how do you in the best way filter and present all this data? And the only thing we can be sure of here is that what we see in manufacturers booths at airshow will be fluffy concept modes, and exactly NOT how it will be displayed IRL. Because this is what separates the wheat from the chaff. And not only for reasons of security, but also not to divulge trade secrets to your competitors, will you be showing how you have solved all this. The winner will present not all data, but the right data at the right time in the right way (SAAB is good at this!). But there is no way SAAB or Lockheed Martin are going to share this with us either in air show booths or in open documentation. So whatever DCS comes up with will be guesswork.
And yes, some may scoff at the figure of 85% guesswork that was thrown around here earlier on, but how are you even going to get THAT close when you are working with one huge display that could be used in a myriad of ways, all of which are classified? However, if the aircraft you are modeling has two MFD’s, a round little RWR, and a bunch of manuals which tells you exactly how those MFD’s function and look in all sub modes (3rd and 4th generation fighters), well then 85% ACCURACY and not GUESSWORK seems within reach.
And this is why it's currently possible to do high fidelity 3rd or 4th gen sim aircraft, but only 6th gen game aircraft, and while IMHO DCS should stick to the two former.
-
8
-
1
-
Radar Cross section modeling
in DCS: F-35A
Posted
Very interesting stuff @Northstar98 and @okopanja. Years ago I met a German Luftwaffe officer who came by our booth at an airshow and we started talking about the conflict. He was very impressed with the professionalism of the Serbian Air Defense forces and said that although they (NATO) made every effort to catch these batteries once they had started emitting, they were always long gone by the time any strike package got there.