RvEYoda

Don't know what game you have been playing but it certainly doesnt give me instantaneous range.

You haven't really proven anything Kuky. I've asked you and others several times in this thread and elsewhere(yep you can go back and check the posts now if you don't believe me) how things could been made better. I don't really see the problem, if real eccm ranging is giving you 20 km error at the start and then +- 5 km after 50 seconds, and eri radar gives you 15-30 km error variations all the time(and FAR more at long ranges), then I cannot really see what is the issue with it. Let's take the example of a target at 80 nm. What does my radar do? Well it basically has 60 nm error , maybe more, virtually impossible to range the target. perhaps at 40-50 nm out you start to see reasonable results. From what I remember from the documents those errors start at about 20 km and then decrease over time, while my radar will always give you quite a bit more than 20 km error, non-decreasing. Then there is the third point. What makes you think that the burnthrough is a completely discrete change? There is probably a lot more information out there than just pure bearing, so that will probably also make the ranging better the closer you get. Couple this with passive ranging and you get a very good estimate, likely better the closer to target you get. Not at all, but I think it is ridiculous that this is being aimed at something that has been out there for so long now by so many different developers, lovp, touch buddy etc, then some more for black shark. You might not have been doing it personally Grimes, I cannot say I've seen any such posts or vent-craziness by you, but those responsible know who they are. Your comment does not at all reflect the kind of feedback we've been getting. It would be so much simpler with a straight forward constructive critical posts than what has been said here and in other forums. I would if I could copy in what has been said from elsewhere, but that would be breaking the rules of this forum quite a few times.

I take it you are against programs such as Touch Buddy then also, since they only bundle avionics for some airplanes? (or even allows F-15 style rwrs on russian jets) Nothing wrong with being against external tools in general as far as I see it. Cause leavu is nothing more than a framework for creating external avionics for any jet or sim. I could hook it up to F4aF if I wanted to, that wouldnt matter. The difference is, Just because I make a software that can be used to create instruments for any jet, it is not my responsibility to create profiles for all jets, just like it is not the responsibility of the touch buddy creators to create profiles for all jets "in the spirit of game balance". If people had just stopped arguing and being afraid of something that has been there since lofc1 and spent just half that time producing new content we would probably have several working RU instruments already. Instead certain people have actually run around different teamspeak/ventrilo servers in the sole purpose of starting rumors and spreading crap about me and others. Then these people show up in these threads here to act all nice... Paploo used to say "they smile to your face and stab you in the back".

Thanks for the video once again :)!

The only real solution, as said before, is for someone with good programming/luagui knowledge to integrate an automatic mod-downloader for servers inside fc2. Locking down all servers "barebone" is not going to evolve the game very much.

I probably have around 100 hrs flying the fc2 F-15 using eri radar improvements. If you have found something in the ERI pack that makes the radar less effective I'm all ears. Such problems must be removed asap, though right now I cannot find any issues myself. (Eri for fc2 is not the same as lrm for fc1) I'm thinking about putting in some algorithms for the ECCM that mimics the effect of getting better an better range approximation rather than just having one large error: The more times you scan a target and the less predictable your relative flight paths are, the better the approximation

GGTharos was really the one who found it :)

Good stuff Cyberkut! So the "range from only bearing is impossible" myth is pretty much busted then ;). Also Here is a document from 1983 showing the F-15C capable of discerning targets down to 1/10 of beam witdth at 40 nm (so about 0.25 degrees), pdf page 32: http://yoda.reservoirselite.com/apg63%20case%20study.pdf (So the diffraction limit was not an issue that could not be dealt with) CHECK PAGE 190 - Proof of ECCM ranging on F-15C with APG-63:

hmm, i get this with just keyboard though

I don't think I ever have said my ecm ranging is accurate or "just like the real F-15".

Constructive ideas work so much better, I'm taking suggestions, so maybe you have some ideas I/we could use? no factors is not true. It does have some factors, but not many.

I could make the ranging depend on randomness of changing LOS and how parrellel/mirrored the flight path of attacker/defender is. This could be a decent approximation instead of doing all this math.

Yoda ....... Case :doh: <--- :megalol:

Yes what you said is exactly my point, I was talking about raytracing the actual wave propagating from the radar as a joke of making things overly complicated.

I don't know this expression, my english is too limited. I was referring to "your mod is not realistic because you are not implementing all the factors", and I was trying to say that all models have limitations and simplifications. You must always make a choice when something is reasonable to implement or 80% of it at 1/100 of the time is enough. There is never any way to take all factors into account, unless you know everything in the world Anyway i'm out of this discussion for now. It is unfortunate it requires too much knowledge in math and comptuter science for most people to understand these algorithms. I'll let you know if I find that pdf, maybe it could at least prove to some people that these methods are real things.

So, how about you raytrace the radar equations for fighter radars then? Maybe you will get a good results within 2 years sim time for one frame? I'll work on eccm ranging when I get time. It will be a fun challenge, though, you might not like what you find when I suddenly have much more accurate ranging.

So if I implement the real range estimator, will you believe it then? :music_whistling:

I already said it doesnt work if you mirror positions. You must use vertical/random movement. Also you would absolutely not use the kind of sampling in your picture.

Yes this is the first good counter argument so far. I don't know the exact diffraction limit of the F-15 radar. I don't know exactly what methods are used to deal with finding the center of the spot, only that in real life it is actually done and have documents of it. Maybe GG can send you the PDFs and test results? But even if you have a spread out over 5 degrees, why not pick the center, sure you wont get it to 0.00001 deg precision, but should at least be able to do a lot better than 5 degrees. Just because you have a spot which is 5 degrees doesnt mean you can't find the center of it. With correct numerics you might achieve, what, maybe >1 orders of magnitude better? Consider for example that even though there is a rather large diffraction limit in small radars such as the F-16, it can separate close formations considerably smaller than 5 degree spread.

What is flawed in that picture? it seems like a good estimation. I'm only interested in the range. Again check the other post, the picture is only a simplification.

I drew the sketch so I could explain it simple. Naturally the simplest implementation looks something like: Do some importance weighted sampling of the radar's LOS to target for the last few seconds. Make random movements Move up and down a lot in the vertical Use a few hundred LOS vectors and approximate the probable intersect point Unless the target mirrors your movement exactly you will get him through sheer average values. The limiting factors will be how random you can fly vs the target in a way hehe, Maybe you will get a reasonable value in less than 1 second, but you probably will need a few secnds to get the range with decent accuracy vs a target knowing these things. I was guessing before that a barrel roll would be an excellent maneuver for this kind of math, but it has to vary quite a lot hehe. Then you can also put in some limiting factors like. If target LOS changes more than X then he must be above mach 4 or inside 30 nm If target LOS changes less than Y then he mus tbe below ... or outside 60 nm No target goes above mach 3, so he cannot move more than X nm/s If target LOS changed ... from vertical moves and .. from horizontal moves, then .... range . . . . The more the better :D [LOS = Line Of Sight unit vector in world 3D coordinates]

It's not accurate enough to fire at. It's not how real jammers work. Hundreds of ECM types, and some even screw up the wavefront so the LOS direction you get is going somewhere completely different. Real life jammers do a lot more than throw out noise. From what I understand this noise/overwhelm jamming is more often used in larger aircraft, while fighters are more likely to use some self defense jammers. In fact real ECM will often only "activate" when someone locks you, or when the onboard system sees "hey this guy is a threat". Then they also have a limitation on "maximum number of targets I can jam simultaneously" Some rl jammers even simply make you not appear on radar :). Happened in RED flag when those Indian mig-21s got fitted with Israeli jammers. ------ The picture above is not a full representation of eccm ranging, just a simple idea of what you can do vs headon targets. You need a little more work to cover all cases, but the basic principles are similar. Now I currently have to stop answering here for a while because I must go work on a workaround for the lua export issue Case found affecting tacview

You dont need to beam him..... Just fly maybe a few degrees left or right.

And this is super overly simplified, nowhere near the real eccm methods used. This is used in a million other applications than eccm.

Yes I can :P, except for when the target is flying parralel to me. I'm going to draw an MSPAIN(T) picture to prove this