JNelson
-
Posts
433 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JNelson
-
-
14 hours ago, buur said:
Also to say that the trim is depending on the FPS of each individual computer. Signals from buttons only checked each frame.
It's not the trim moves at a constant rate.
Export script has variable update rate, but not devices in the aircraft. These are fixed update rates.
-
On 6/12/2025 at 2:54 PM, PLAAF said:
Which RWR will we get in this module? May I assume it is going to be worse than that in the F-4 and F-104, since this is a much older design?
The RWR (RHAW - Radar Homing and Warning Receiver) is an AN/APR-25. The early F-4 and F-104 had the same RHAW.
There is a short documentary for pilots here if you want to learn more:
-
3
-
-
It's possible that the change to when the module are loading is contributing to the change being seen here. Here is a snippet from my log file on 2.9.15, seems like the modules are contributing about 140 seconds, whereas previously their loading would only be on demand (when loading into specific module).
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 6/4/2024 at 1:16 PM, Tango3B said:
@JNelson Shouldn’t there also be a circle around the threat emitter guiding a missile on you? Especially, a circle around threat emitters guiding a Fox1? Isn’t this mentioned somewhere in the corresponding description of the ALR-46? I’m pretty sure the description mentions this very circle. Your thoughts on that, JNelson?
The circle is related to the launch/activity warning system and is only present for C/D band threat at current, although when we add active missile radars it will likely also trigger with these threads if correlated correctly.
-
On 5/29/2024 at 10:48 AM, FusRoPotato said:
Yeah? It came back for me in multiplayer PVE and now I can't get it to go away, even in fullscreen. The priority fix isn't helping either.
I thought jester was fiddling with gains to cause the background static to go away but I don't think that's it. I've come across a few instances now where all the background noise vanishes but I can still see clear contacts when I'm close to the ground. It's as if terrain rendering just stops working. Lifting the gain eventually turns the whole screen green, but no sign of terrain. When I can see contacts, jester often can't and ignores commands to change modes. He will confirm a request go to narrow for example, you got it boss, but never change. I'm constantly having to get in his seat and fix settings and grab targets.
I am also having extraordinarily poor luck grabbing air targets in any mode other than scan. CAA and bore-sight just don't seem to connect with anything unless I'm in a singleplayer mission. It's as if some background process is just constantly getting stuck.
Are you still seeing this post patch on the 4th?
-
Hey, you guys are correct, this appears to be a bug in the doppler gate setting.
-
3
-
1
-
-
On 5/29/2024 at 10:53 PM, MBot said:
Sorry my dumb question, but what would the two search radars of the SA-8 be? I am aware of one search radar, one target tracking radar and additionally two separate missile tracking radars (but why would they be on if I am not engaged by missiles yet). Am I missing something or is that a DCS thing that every emitter is on all the time?
It appears the SA-8 has two search beams. If you are curious yourself you can take a look at the database that was constructed for the RWR in the base game files. It's called rhaw.lua
If you are seeing the track radar on all the time it could be a bug, however it's not always obvious whether a unit is tracking something or not.
-
On 5/29/2024 at 11:26 PM, Mig Fulcrum said:
Hi, I would like to request some features to increase realism in this awesome mod that I love since day1.
- Remove the capability of carring 4 AIM-9 since the only variant that could do it was the A-4G for RAN and RNZAF (I know there are Australian and New Zeland liveries so I can understand if this request would be ignored
)
- Introduce the possibility to remove countermeasures from ME like we can with the ECM control panel: this was in fact a late modification of some A-4E but not a standard feature, just like the RHAW, and since we can remove the RHAW panel I don't se why can't with the countermeasures one, it would better rappresent a "standard" navy A-4E
- Remove AIM-9J: being a USAF-only missile the actual A-4 could only carry B,D and maybe G. I can understand the AIM-9P being an export variant and could be used with non-USN/USMC A-4E, but the AIM-9J is just out of place and don't bring anything new to the table
Let me know...
VA-45 was known for carrying sidewinders on outer pylons and there are images. It was their standard loadout, 2 outer sidewinders, 2 tanks and sometimes MK-82 on centre, there is even an interview from a pilot who used to fly them mentioning they carried them on intercepts.
It has been discussed at length in the A-4E Discord feel free to read the arguments made by everyone.
AIM-9J can be mounted on the A-4E there is nothing preventing it, it's there for people to use if it fits with their goals. If you do not want to use it then you can restrict it through the mission editor.
-
9
-
1
-
-
On 5/29/2024 at 9:12 AM, skywalker22 said:
So is it indeed true that the RWR AN/ALR-46 can't detect the airbrne radar in track mode? I find it very strange, that it cannot distinguish between search and track mode.
And why is there anyothe button "Activity Power", in the manual it says it has similar functions to Missile Launch button, but nothing more. So we have two "warning buttons" for SAM launch? Which at least means RWR can detect ground radars (like SAMs) in search and track mode.
The RWR specifically indicates PRF changes, in DCS this will indicate a change from search to lock or vice versa, specifically the new guy audio as mentioned in my previous comment.
The activity light shows if there is a SAM producing launch related signals, if the RWR thinks these are for you, then it will also give you a launch warning.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, MBot said:
Thank you very much for the feedback JNelson. As mentioned, there are still some aspects of the RWR that are unclear. So why does a single SA-8 show up as 3 seperate emitters instead of 2 (search and tracking radar)?
The SA-8 has three different emitters. Two for search and one for track.
9 hours ago, EXPENDTripwire said:I admit, I haven't tested this extensively, but I too noticed that there didn't appear to be any audible difference based on lock vs launch. You mention a bug regarding the 'new guy' indication, but either I haven't understood your answer correctly, or you haven't covered off on the quoted part of MBot's question?
In my case it was an SA2 that was priority and set to handoff. The RWR provided a launch indication, as it does when you don't have handoff turned on, but am I expecting something that isn't realistic - different handoff audio based on lock vs launch?
There will not be an audible difference between lock and launch. It is generally highly specific to the system how guidance is handled. For example in the F-4E the APQ-120 is always emitting it's guidance signal. Therefore there is no change between lock and launch. The ALR-46 was designed with the C and D band command guidance SAMs in mind.
-
20 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:
I want to chime in and say I've been experimenting with detection of a long line of Mig-21's and have been noticing a lot of strange artifact in the returns of the Mig-21's and what appears to be a lot of clutter and noise existing where it isn't expected.
I switched to full-screen mode and this noise went away. Targets were generally much cleaner and easier to spot.
DT bombing mode also has been significantly more accurate in fullscreen. Otherwise they behave like in the video, nowhere near close.
Are you sure both these are exactly the same radar settings because the clutter you indicate is just the normal altitude line presentation.
-
On 5/27/2024 at 10:32 AM, Zabuzard said:
The RWR has no missile launch warnings. It might detect the missile as separate "unknown" emitter, show it and play a "new threat" sound. But thats about it.
Jester will only warn you if he can visually see the missile (which requires visual smoke and similar stuff)
Hey everyone just to clear up some confusion here. Unfortunately Zabuzard was slightly incorrect here.
The ALR-46 has a separate set of electronics for detecting C and D band guidance commands that which are commonly found on soviet SAM systems. These signals can be detected and correlated with a threat to give you a launch warning, or warn if there is launch related activity.
The RWR can also indicate PRF (Pulse Repetition Frequency) changes which occur during search/tracking changes. These will be indicated by the new guy audio which plays 3 short beeps at the PRF of the emitter. A diamond is also shown around the new guy producing the new guy audio. Currently the new guy audio is bugged and not displaying the diamond and the audio being played is wrong, these will be fixed in patches soon.
Lastly the RWR can categorise known active missile threats, these will be displayed and trigger a launch warning - currently this feature is in testing but not in the public version.
Thanks, Hopefully that is clearer.
-
7
-
-
On 5/25/2024 at 11:23 AM, MBot said:
I have to say I am mildly confused about the supposedly new high-fidelity RWR simulation. So far I haven't noticed anything special about the raw threat audio. When Handoff is selected I can hear a constant buzzing sound, but that doesn't change between search, lock or launch. Is the new RWR even implemented yet or is that still coming later?
Also interesting is for example when putting down an SA-8, it will show as an 8 and two U (unknown). Now I understand that the SA-8 has a separate search and track radar. But: (a) Why total 3 emitters for just one SA-8? (b) If the 8 is the track radar and the U is the search radar, why is one recognized by type and the other isn't? (c) If the 8 is the track radar and the U is the search radar, why is 8 showing up when I am not even locked yet?
Hi each emitter is characterised by certain things that can be measured, like prf, prf jitter, carrier frequency, power etc. These are then used to match against a table of contacts to identify the emitter type, the limit in the ALR-46 is 64 entries per table. The limited nature of this table means some radars are left out of this table usually because they are not a threat.
In DCS units still do track their target with their radar despite not "locking", clearest example of this is the fan song radar which will track the target before actually "locking" the target. So the model accounts for this to allow a more accurate depiction of what is actually happening. Another possibility is that you are in a sidelobe for the radar as it tracks something else.
As for the handoff audio, each tone is generated based on the radar characteristics, the audio is not raw per say but based on the measured characteristics of the emitter, including things like PRF and PRF modulation which results in a unique sound. There is currently a bug, this audio should be played as the new guy indication but instead a fixed tone is being played this will be resolved in the next patch so you will correctly hear the sound of the target as the new guy along with the diamond going to the new guy for a brief period.
Hopefully that helps.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Kronstadt said:
I have recorded Track but somehow the bomb was successfully dropped and hit in the replay.
So attaching a screen capture as well.
Hi this is clearly a bug do you mind recording another video but with the radar screen visible please?
Thanks.
-
2
-
-
Yea this is a bug should be fixed next update.
-
1
-
-
Can you please post the mission and the crash log if able? Thanks!
-
Just now, MBot said:
Is settling of the doppler gate of the missile concurent with settling of the launch escape zone and closure velocity on the radar display?
I will test this more, but I had the impression that a 2 second delay works consistently with the CAA Lock->Heat->Radar methode.
The doppler gate is being set to what the radar is currently outputting so it will not correctly settle until the radar has.
-
I think potentially the issue you are running into is the TU-160 and TU-95 have the capability to jam. If you see something like the image attached then that would be my guess.
-
This is a bug thanks guys.
-
1 hour ago, MBot said:
I admit this is a bit difficult to test because I do not know exactly from when a lock "counts". But so far I have the impression that when locking a target in boresight mode, the AIM-7E-2 correctly needs a 4 second delay launch in order to track. But when locking a target with CAA, it seems only a 2 second delay is required to get a tracking shot. Not sure if that is intended.
This depends on a few things it's the guaranteed time for the doppler gate to settle. You can sometimes get away with launching it earlier but it largely depends on the doppler gate setting and the closure velocity.
-
Handoff plays the captured pulse train information continuously, unfortunately the raw audio produced by the SAM sweep patterns and change in amplitude unfortunately cannot be heard.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Temetre said:
Interesting. Is it done like in RBs M2K, which afaik assumes a static percentage of RCS with tail/side/top/bottom for all aircraft? (like as a made up example, frontally it might always assume planes to reflect 80% RCS)
I wouldnt worry about that tbh. Mind, the F-4E is from the same time as the Mig-21. Meaning you rely on EWRS warning planes, and youre not really reliant on finding targets with the radar, and youre not reliant on BVR combat anyway.
Even in the worst case, you will be able to skip most radar complexity with dogfight-radar modes that go up to 5 miles out, which is well above the engagement range of a Mig-21 or often even Mirage F1 carrying Matra 550s.
Also, just looking at the manual, the jester functionality seems to be heavily expanded and much more easy to control. It honestly sounds quite impressive as to how HB improved Jester, and I imagine hell be easier to manage than in the F-14 anyway, considering long range BVR/TWS shennanigans arent of concern in the Phantom.
I knew the M2K did something with RCS, but it's interesting we have converged on essentially the same solution.
In the F-4E implementation the relation between RCS and the amount each side presented to the radar is not linear so as to give a shape closer to that of the general trend of RCS diagrams. There are factors for, side, top, bottom, and front and back which multiply the base RCS based on the amount of each side presented to the radar (as mentioned before not linear though).
-
8
-
-
13 hours ago, marmor said:
How will the interaction with chaff be? Will RCS modeling be improved? This would be an issue for the phantom's apq120. Especially with chaffing targets.
Target RCS is constant right now, independent of aspect. Lets say the target is 7m² and chaff cloud for example 310m²( following ada151928, the RCS of a mature cloud would be N(0.155A²), where N is amount of dipoles- ex. 1.8million- and A the wavelength of radar-ex9Ghz radar-) . For track to switch to the chaff, the power centroid should be closer to the chaff cloud thus the target will leave the resolution cell. So a small chaff cloud should be able to decoy the radar easily.
But on a beaming target, the RCS increases considerably. For example the tornado f3 side aspect can get close to 1500m². Same as the mig 21s rcs(1000m²)
With a higher rcs, the power centroid should be closer to the target, therefore keeping lock better and not having just a single chaff transfering the lock away. And the typically when you turn while defending you show your belly and whole wing area....
Same way that a 1000m² rcs will show up longer range and brighter than a 10m² rcs target on the radar scope.
Would like to hear about this since it's something that will really suck using the phantom (having 1 (ONE) chaff pull the lock away)
This is something that can easily be worked on ED's side. Make RCS increase side aspect, nothing hard and complex. A simple function f depending on angle off nose and initial rcs, f(θ, σ). May not be the most accurate but 7.3 gorillion miles better that what currently is in use.
Target orientation (how much of the nose/tail, top/bottom, or left/right are presented to the radar) will significantly alter the resulting RCS of a contact in our model.
Just to clear something up, the conical scanning is simulated, so there is no "transferring the lock away", rather the antenna is pulled towards the maximum of the total signal (in the conical scan on average), including all kinds of clutter/noise (jamming, chaff, ground clutter and targets).
As for chaff the problem is more complicated, currently in DCS chaff objects are very short lived, so building volumetric chaff clouds is not possible (with correct synchronization) or worth the cost at this time, we have asked ED for a more useful data-structure with regards to this which is being looked into for the future.
The primary concern relating to the above is the track being disturbed by an aircraft dropping something which a huge RCS very quickly. To combat this the chaff takes some time to bloom and gradually comes up to it's full RCS (as it would IRL) as specified by DCS.
-
7
-
2
-
-
On 4/2/2024 at 3:53 PM, Panny said:
And don't forget - if you get a bad lock in CAA you have to either get the WSO to leave air to air mode from the back seat, or rotate the weapon selector knob to 'B' before you can cage and hit CAA again
What could go wrong!
You can hit cage on the throttle, to break the lock and go back to caged mode, you can then re-enter CAA again with the nosewheel steering button.
-
2
-
An Inside Look at How We Validate the F-100D’s Flight Model
in DCS: F-100D Super Sabre
Posted
We’ve released the second revision of our Flight Model Methodology Report, detailing the real-world data and process behind the creation and validation of our F-100D flight model for DCS. You can see the full report here.
Methodology
The second revision of our flight model methodology report is available to view. The report encompasses real-world data that was used to build our flight model. This report was created as part of the flight model review by Eagle Dynamics, but we have released it publicly to share the development process with the community.
You will be able to see the pain-staking detail we captured by filtering through tens of thousands of data points to produce a hyper realistic replication of the F-100D handling in short and long period dynamics and performance. We are confident in saying the F-100D will have one of the most realistic flight models ever developed for DCS, and you can see why yourself.
The flight model and the corresponding report are work in progress and will continue to be tweaked and improved.
Flight Model Tool
We created a tool which simulates our flight model outside of DCS, programmable using python making full use of all the scientific tools available. This includes curve fitting, root finding, integrated plotting, and much more.
In order to validate our flight model against real data we developed a method to generate multiple repeatable tests quickly. Instead of hand flying multiple tests and plotting the telemetry against real-world graphs, we can script and run the test in seconds.
One example of this is the AI flight model. A series of tests can be used to match the AI flight model parameters as closely as possible to the player flight model such that the overall performance should be similar in game.
The tool contains a physics engine which allows us to not only simulate steady state conditions, but also dynamics. This pairs perfectly with the data we have for the F-100D as we have real-world tests with the recorded stick input and the resulting output.
Having a tool which runs near instantly and is repeatable allows us to quickly iterate on the flight model to quickly converge on real-life behaviour.
Follow our ongoing work on the F-100D Progress Tracker.