Beamscanner

The recent ED Viper videos shows the DCS F-16C with an F/A-18 ALR-67 RWR scope rather than the Vipers ALR-69/56M scope. The latest video on navigation even shows the "N" symbol found in the Hornet RWR. So is this just a copy/paste issue? Even if it is, the textures for the scope should be different.

Sidelobes and multipath are not just "theories", they exist in real life and they are everywhere. Its not a laser-like beam. the defined "beamwidth" of an antenna is just references the 50% (3dB) below the peak energy of the beam center. Beyond that much more energy exists. Some of which is still upwards of 45% of the peak field strength. Since you have no concept of how much RF energy leaks, scatters, reflects, diffracts, here is a real life example of multi-path influencing a 4 antenna direction finding unit. In this case you could "pretend" that the transmitter wasn't looking at the SDR receiver and still much energy from other angles did in fact reflect into his receiver. You can bet that his setup is nowhere as sensitive as an multi-million $ RWR. Sidelobes dont just exist at one angle on the antenna.. Many sidelobes/backlobes exist, for which the RWR can detect. You're right that DCS RWR simulation is lacking, but not because you can sometimes detect signals not looking exactly at you, but because it doesn't happen enough. We dont get enough detections from side-lobes, multi-path reflections, diffraction, etc. Here is an example of a more accurate simulation of RF propagation and an RWR's ability to continue signal detection.

I dont think it has anything to do with that.. It's just on the DDI HAFUs. Hopefully ED has material on it.

yes. Its not new, its mentioned several times in APG-65/73 material available online.

The "radar contribution" circle is missing from the HAFU tracks. IDK if its just a WIP issue or a missing piece. The circle in the HAFU indicates that your own radar is also detecting the target. Thus you wouldn't have that problem. Here is a clear image of it, though in the more modern Super Hornet. This image is from tail hook 2019.. I will try to find an image of it in the APG-65/73

The sticks size itself is great. Its the 4 way hat where your thumb rests (CMS switch on warthog) that is somewhat small on the SCG. But its way too small on the MCG Pro. I highly recommend the premium SCG over the MCG pro. All i had to do was swap out the mini stick cap for a PS4 cap which feels much better.

looks great! I would personally swap out the two buttons for a potentiometer.

Others claim to have a small sweet spot.. IDK much about optics or VR. Can someone explain why he has edge to edge clarity yet others do not. Its IPD related? Is having an IPD 64 going to give me a better sweet spot than someone with an IPD of 68? (for this device?)

Chinese J-10 Pilots using Lock on Flaming Cliffs 2 as their training simulator... But not only that, they blew the canopy off the SU-33. And they use a crummy old Mig-21 mod Source:

If they go that route I hope they go with the KLJ-1 rather than the type-208 variant.

Tried cleaning it up alittle. Not much to make out in the air to ground mode. But it looks like he's in a DBS mode with the screen set to "Frozen". It also looks like he has Data-link tracks in air to ground mode. Compared to another video showing what looks like a SAR mode: (from at ~32 minutes) EDIT: Also cleaned up the air to air mode

Found this in one of my radar books. Air to Ground (SEA mode) from what is highly likely the APG-68. IDK the exact version, but I'm sure one of the viper fanboys here can figure it out. (This book was published in 1998.). Notice that SEA mode still has the ground return, similar to real beam ground mapping. It looks as though the yellow returns are the surface targets. [just a guess]The yellow highlighting could be the radar attempting to distinguish surface targets from ground return. via Doppler, magnitude of adjacent range/azimuth bins, or both) [just a guess] EDIT: Below is 100% an image of the APG-68 in SEA mode as well, though this time the aircraft is headed out to sea with no terrain forward of the aircraft. The green smear at the bottom is likely "ground return" from the ocean surface at high depression angles. Otherwise, at lower depressions the RF energy is more likely to deflect away rather than back to the radar. Also, water being highly absorptive of X band would limit the amount of return from the waters surface, especially at range. It certainly looks similar to the image in my book. I think it's safe to say the image in my book is the APG-68.

How noticeable is the narrow "sweet spot" many have mentioned? Do the edges really get THAT blurry? Does it bother you in game when not looking for it?

I'm only interested in a high res VR for DCS (nothing else). I've seen some say that the Index has similar clarity with an increase in SS. Can anyone besides those two individuals confirm this? Also, are the F/A-18 DDIs readable in the Index?

Does the JF-17 RWR provide PRF audio, or synthetic?

Anyone who knows anything about RWRs, knows this is completely unrealistic... Especially a radar right below you.. In normal operation, to even determine a bearing to the an emitter, the RWR antennas facing the opposite direction also have to be able to see the signal in order to perform amplitude comparison direction finding...

Many MTI radars rely on the principle of doppler.. That doesn't make it pulse doppler. Pulse Doppler radars are radars that measure doppler. The soviets threw around whatever propaganda they wanted to try to convince the world they're on par with the west.. I dont care what the USSR called it. It does not, and cannot measure doppler. MIT Lincoln Lab states:

By western definition, it is a clutter-referenced MTI. Much discussion of it can be found here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mikoyan-mig-23-avionics.25/ (read down the whole page, and you can see the conclusion is that its not really PD but a unique MTI pulse radar) Big notes from the link: -Uses low PRF (True pulse doppler doesn't do this, and low PRF makes doppler completely ambiguous) -Uses novel MTI technique to separate clutter from moving targets. -Using a Low PRF means it cannot distinguish doppler or target velocity. Thus, it can indicate moving targets on the scope, but not determine or track doppler. Hence, its not a Pulse Doppler radar.

Real Beam Ground Map image looks amazing! Very well done Deka team!! Could you provide any info on how this is rendered?

Mig-23 radar has pulse and moving target indicator (MTI) pulse modes, but no pulse doppler modes. https://www.seeninside.net/sapfir23_radar.html The first Russian fighter with Pulse Doppler was the MiG-31 (1981). The below material indicates that the fighter radars up through the MiG-25 used pulse radars (not pulse Doppler) as indicated by the continued interest in reducing "ground clutter" and increasing clutter suppression. https://toad-design.com/migalley/index.php/jet-aircraft/mig25/mig25-smerch-radar/ The video below explains the difference between Doppler and MTI techniques. Generally speaking, MTI simply separates moving returns from non-moving returns and has no means of measuring specific doppler or target velocities. It also has far worse SNR (poor detection range), and usually many doppler blind zones (recurring at the rate of the PRF).

FYI, DDI exports do not work on the DCS: F/A-18C In fact, whatever they did to the DDIs should not be replicated in the viper. The A-10C, FC3, KA-52, F-5, and every 3rd party module have proper video exports. The DCS: F/A-18 alters the line width of its video exports depending on the resolution and aspect ratio of your monitor. Details below: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=226340 Not to mention that data presented on the Hornet's displays seem to track a position on the display itself, rather than a position in space. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3895048&postcount=10 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247024

I agree that fundamentally these are the same issues, just with different data on different displays. I would guess that it could be similar code being used for both displays. Hopefully they can fix this soon. It really lowers the quality of what should be a premium product.

What I’m talking about has nothing to do with trackfile update rate. It could update once every 5 minutes for all I care. What I’m saying, as others have clarified, is the the datalink tracks are not space stabilized like the other objects on the displays. Being that they exist at a known position in space, they’re placement on the display itself should refresh smoothly and synchronized with all other objects on the display. Instead what we see is tracks that jump at discrete intervals (rather than a smooth continuous movement) on the display. It doesn’t look natural or ‘solid’ to me. It’s much more apparent when exporting the DDI to another monitor.

Has anyone else noticed that the datalinked tracks on the SA page and radar dont move smoothly when you turn? The datalink tracks seem to skip around trying to keep up with the turn while other items such as the map, compass, way-point, radar bricks, etc; move smoothly with the turn. Datalinked tracks have positional data (like a lat/lon coordinate). It would make sense that, if you maneuver, the tracks would smoothly slide in azimuth following that coordinate in space. Other DCS modules, like the F-14/SU-27/A-10C, dont appear to have this problem. To me, the current state makes the datalink picture look like stickers applied to the screen rather than an integrated system. Does this stand out to anyone else?

to clarify, With MSI selected, LTWS not selected, you should see all of your hidden trackfiles (which are fed into datalink, which is why you see them), plus all other donor tracks, plus your own radar bricks. However, because the radar considers datalink input as 'off-board', you would only see lower HAFUs + radar bricks.