Beamscanner

MSI and LTWS are separate entities. MSI should be available without LTWS. MSI gets sensor data from whatever inputs are available. Technically, even in RWS with LTWS turned off, trackfiles are still processed. LTWS button only changes if a few of them are displayed (L&S, DT2, and TUC). I imagine that if ED is against this, it has to do with their own coding struggles and not real life functionality.

1. yes. 2. Not sure, but even if we cant we should still be getting "Spotlight Search" which will allow us to very rapidly search a narrow azimuth to either build a trackfile or lock on a target.

Providing #50 springs does not confirm that two can be used simultaneously on one axis. For instance the maximum recommended could have been a #50 and a #40. So no, it is not implied. Its also not in the PDFs on your website. Most of us here dont want to break a $300 product that took a year to order. Not sure it would be worth waiting another year to purchase again.

I agree. I have the premium one and I prefer it over the MCG Pro. TBH, the MCG Pro has buttons that wiggle too much for my taste. The SCG buttons are not lose. Also the 5 way hats are better on the SCG, as the valleys in the MCG hats are too steep. Maybe its a demographic difference, but there's no way a mans thumb can sit into the concave hats of the MCG. The concave hats of the SCG are wider and have less slope. Though they are still alittle small. I have to sit my thumb sideways in the SCG, but at least I have full surface contact (and friction) with it unlike the MCG. IMHO, the TM Warhog has the best sized hats, which my thumb rests perfectly in.

can you confirm that the maximum resistance on each axis is 2 #50 springs?

is 2x #50 on each axis dangerous? If so, what is the recommended maximum?

thanks! EDIT: Just finished! Works pretty good.

If you read my initial post entirely you'll see that I mention what was lacking in DCS. Target extrapolation. Meaning the radar continues to predict target motion between radar revisits based on known target parameters (vector velocity, altitude, range, etc). Target extrapolation is the primary reason there is a limit to how many targets a radar can 'track'. In the video you can see that the trackfiles continue to move smoothly between antenna revisits. The when the radar does make it back to the trackfile, the position is updated with the targets true position. As the radar moves off, the position is extrapolated again until the radar gets another visit. This logic is not present in ED modules yet. The hornet does not yet perform target extrapolation though it should be doing this in LTWS RWS. As per the manual, the radar can track up to 10 targets in RWS/TWS. Many other features are missing in ED modules as well. Just to name a few: -Closely spaced targets being detected as one target -Accurate trackfile ageout -Altitude notch (Heatblur actually has this modeled in the F-14, but not ED) -Doppler notch off in look-up conditions (again, Heatblur has modeled this) -Unassociated radar hits. (you can actually see this in the APG-68 video I posted, but if a "brick" is too far from a trackfile or doesn't line up with the trackfiles projected path, the brick wont be properly associated/coorelated to the trackfile. And thus you'll see a 'random' brick pop in once in awhile. In truth, it is probably a hit of the target with parameters that didnt quite meet the criteria for trackfile association. For instance, if it was a large target, your sidelobes could have detected the target again at the same range but offset left or right of the trackfile.

No..? I want proper radar logic built into the latest iteration of ED modules. Some of the recent ED 4th gen modules lack said logic...

APG-68 (time 4:49) Notice the smooth and continuous trackfile extrapolation on the targets. Even the one leaving the radars scan volume on the bottom left of the display continues to be extrapolated and doesn't fade out after 4 seconds (>.>).. Hope this logic makes its way into DCS radar logic...

I just upgraded From: 1080p main screen + 1080p side screen (radar export) To: 3440x1440p Main screen + 1080p side screen (radar export) and the 'side by side' fix no longer works. The video DDI exports on the secondary screen are blurry again. It seems to happen whenever Y axis resolution is greater than 1080. As 1440p vertical is only slightly more than 1080, the blurriness is only slight. When i had a vertical resolution of 2160 (two 1080p displays configured vertically) the DDIs were extremely blurry. So this isn't an aspect ratio problem so much as it is a problem with the Y axis resolution.

I tested my stick in windows, and the axis moves immediately without perceivable delay. So this must be in DCS. I dont notice this with other modules either. I think it has to do with the acceleration logic applied to the Hornet TDC.

Has anyone noticed an input delay with the TDC? I'm trying to figure out if its my hardware or if its DCS. Im using axis control for the TDC btw.

HARM TD box still moves around relative to aircraft maneuvers, rather than following the angle in space it detected the target. Hopefully this gets some love soon.

I think he was just making a joke. I said DCS makes the maverick image too clear. I should have said DCS gives the maverick too much resolution.

agreed. This extends to the mavericks too. Its way too clear in DCS

Is this the Litening?

Eventually the EMCON button will be able to quickly silence the radar, regardless of the radar mode.

Someones not listening.. The notch filter can be turned off in some radars during look up conditions (weak sidelobe reflections when tilting antenna upward). Sometimes its just the mainlobe ground filter, other times its both the altitude line and main lobe ground filter. It all depends on how they designed the radar to work. If you guys think the best radar engineers in the world are going to let a simple fix get overlooked on a multi-million dollar radar (each) for thousands of aircraft, you're sorely mistaken. Depends on the geometry, and also things we wont ever know about the APG-73.. If its a look up condition probably not. There's so much more to it than even what I've explained. For instance, the "doppler notch" in digital radars can just be a higher detection threshold instead of a black and white /yes or no filter. In that case if the target is very large and close enough it can still detect it even if its "in the notch". Also, some radars can change waveforms and processing techniques to meet tracking requirments. A radar could hypothetically go into a low PRF mode and continue tracking the target in range but not doppler (just like some of you are doing with the DCS AWG-9, but the radar may do this automatically).

Yes, the altitude line is filtered out. Keep in mind that the mainlobe clutter, altitude line, and sidelobe clutter also exist in each PRF harmonic in the freq domain (doppler spectrum). So, there are many doppler blind zones at various doppler freqs. So modern radars have to change PRFs to move the doppler blinds zones around to see if a target is under them. Generally speaking a modern fighter radar using MPRF will have to use many different PRFs to shift both the doppler and range blind zones. Also, if the radar only detects the target with one PRF, its limited to its maximum unambiguous range (MUR), which could be very short. I cannot speak to how the Hornet radar specifically works. That being said, the most well known technique is the "3 of 8" PRF logic. In this, the radar must detect a target with at least 3 separate PRFs in order to resolve target range (removes the limit of MUR). A total of 8 different PRFs are used in order to ensure at least 3 of these PRFs will see a target at any given speed or range. ie you shift the harmonics around at 8 different PRFs to ensure at least 3 PRFs will detect the target. EDIT: This BTW is one reason MPRF has lower detection range than HPRF. Because you need to use 8 different PRF integrations(each PRF used fires a long train of pulses which are summed in the range bins), you can only integrate (sum) 1/8 of the pulses that reflected off the target. HPRF gets to integrate a lot more pulses as its uses only 1-3 PRFs(usually), and it transmits more pulses overall. Though FMR used with HPRF will hinder the pulse integration processes, thus reducing the detection range. Hence why on the AWG-9, PD search (no FMR) has greater range than RWS (also a HPRF mode, but with FMR)

I dont know exactly what the AWG-9 did in Pulse STT (low PRF) mode. But I do know that it could not processes doppler in Pulse modes, hence why ground clutter cannot be filtered out in pulse modes. A guess would be that the radar extrapolates target speed via range rate (relative change in position over time) and not velocity (Doppler). I'm sure the heatblur team knows the answer to this.

Main DCS folder. Its JSGME/OVGME ready, meaning that the root folder path is already apart of the file.

I've been checking availability on the TM Warthog Adapter almost everyday for 4 months. Im not sure this product even exists at this point.

1. Determining a targets doppler is not always as easy as just doing an FFT. It can actually be very difficult in MPRF and RGHPRF, and almost impossible in LPRF. The reason is related to the low sampling rate I mentioned earlier and harmonics related to pulsed signals. idk your background, but unlike doing an FFT on a CW signal, a pulsed emission will generate bi-directional harmonics in the freq domain that are equal to the radars PRF. Doing a single FFT will show a number of doppler frequencies per individual target. Additionally, all the side-lobe and main-lobe noise/clutter will also repeat itself with harmonics. The radar cant know which spike in doppler is real and which is one of many harmonics. In this case the doppler is ambiguous. The radar will have to change PRFs several times in order to resolve the real doppler frequencies. In HPRF and CW emissions, determining doppler can be very simple though as the harmonics are pushed so far off from the carrier that its not a factor. However, HPRF and CW have the problem of having ambiguous range that needs to be determined in "slow time" (FMR dwell times for example) instead of "fast time" (single pulse timing) 2. If your goal is to reject ground clutter, CW is the simplest choice. Since CW doesn't have to deal with doppler harmonics, the ground clutter is only on one frequency (if you're not moving, the transmitters freq). It also has more data to sample, allowing larger FFTs, which enable greater doppler resolution. In truth, a PD radar is trying to mimic CW by increasing the duty cycle of a pulsed radar, but with the added benefit of only needing one antenna. But 30% duty cycle is not the same as 100% duty cycle, and higher duty cycles are always better for doppler processing. Though there are ways to improve clutter rejection in MPRF/LPRF, they can be very complex and expensive. One example is "STAP".