Blinky.ben

So if the F-16 was better then any other radar you’ll demand it gets nurfed without documentation? I’m not saying don’t point out every single flaw, but I am saying back it up and just cause another module can’t that’s just being biased. Have evidence just like ANY other module does. The JF seems to be the only module where it’s excepted to say it wrong without documented evidence. im also not arguing the radar needs tweaking I myself through a educated guess would think a off the shelf radar wouldn’t be better then some of the most advanced fighter aircraft radars. But I’ll speak up when I can prove it. Not cause I have a favourite module and can’t stand the thought the JF might be better at it.

Actually it can remove all the clutter completely but you’ll also never find a contact either as it will be hidden under the threshold. Which is why we have both cause one CANNOT work without the other effectively. but I doubt DCS considers anti-clutter circuits and just try and replicate Doppler. The radars we use irl which also are Doppler radars are not so automated and don’t need to have speed gates and I doubt you’ll ever find a anti-submarine radar with any such gates. Cause the operator will determine what clutters circuits will be used and threshold with Doppler to determine the target. But we’re not talking about these kind of radars which I understand but all I’m trying to point out is that Doppler IS NOT everything like most people seem to think it is. How do we know what type of speed gates Chinese, Pakistani, Russian aircraft utilise? Or does DCS just use a value for everything? I only ask this cause 1. I know nothing about coding and have no idea what values their using between modules 2. There is a lot of drum beating over the JF not working exactly like the western world or not following values western aircraft have as pointed out in the title of this thread. This isn’t a western aircraft and information is very lock tight in these countries so why MUST a eastern plane act like a western? Old Saucer as a DCS beta tester has been working very hard to find any anything that the JF can do that another modules can’t, but he’s not on the F-16 forums saying that the F-18 can’t do that so the F-16 shouldn’t either. Cause their comparing the F modules to documents not other modules so the JF shouldn’t be different. Now I’m not saying anything pointed out is incorrect cause no one can prove that it is or isn’t except Deka making the best educated guess cause again good luck finding that open source information, but we keep comparing this jet the American built. So we might as well be demanding the Su-27 starts becoming more like the F-15 also. I also believe there is a overwhelming amount of biased opinions towards this aircraft so it gets a very unfair amount of scrutiny. Meanwhile drums remain fairly quiet on the ED aircraft unless it need to be buffed.

It’s not only Doppler that’s removes ground clutter in most search radars. Most of it is removed due to anti clutter circuits. Your statements not wrong but not exactly correct there’s more to it. For example FTC is a common one to remove clouds and weather, CFAR is good for setting a threshold for ground clutter and detecting something not typical ground tree clutter.

Does anyone know how to delete a post I didn’t wish to submit?

Either way the possibility to add the CM-400akg and the other LS-6’s is great news. Will make this the best anti-shipping in DCS at the moment possibly. I wonder if it can carry duel LS-6 100/250. I predict that it will be single pylons.

But is the smoke coming from the rockets a big problem. The graphics show very little smoke from the BRM’s compared to the SD-10’s

From what I have managed to find out so far is that it lofts from very high up and it strikes from above at high speeds it has a powerful penetration warhead which might mean we may finally have a weapon system that may very well stand a chance against warships and do real damage.

Curious question shouldn’t the bore sighting also be something the F-18 should be doing also? I’m a little confused as to why this feature is only exclusive to the f-16. As the F-18 is coming to a end I don’t see any hints ED is implementing this to the F-18 so it seems to me the F-18 isn’t planned to get it.

That would be amazing.

.

Do you know what radar they used to to test for this data? What size target is used? Is this a military radar flying through the sky. This looks to be ground based. Don’t take this as any insult or attack. These are legitimate questions.

Agreed we’re not talking seconds cause also remember the jet is moving at incredibly high speeds also so when talking about radar of FOV at close ranges it wouldn’t even take half a second to move outside. As for the pixel resolution that’s not helping determine what is within the same pulse itself or multiple pulses close together. That comes down to pulse compression and depending how good that is will determine how close together 2 objects are to each other. You can have more then one target in a pulse which is creating a high amplitude. So pulse compression can help determine more then one contact hidden within the same pulse. I really wish I could say something but I really do t know if I’m pushing some boundary. I was going to send a link to what I’m hinting to on Wikipedia but it is so horribly wrong and written poorly I would rather not create a false fact. I will continue to find something to link tho. as for chaff slowing down I again agree with you but, for the Doppler effect that isn’t decided instantly by the radar it takes time to determine this from multiple pulses. Again I agree we’re not talking seconds but with a jet moving hundreds of meters a second we don’t need to be talking seconds to have an effect. But even still a pulse hits everything no matter what, it’s the processing effect that determines the Doppler (moving). So if chaff is in the way it is going to have an effect on the pulse itself no matter how good the radar is. However will it create enough of an effect well that’s up to more variables then I think DCS could deal with (keep in mind I know nothing about coding) So we end up with a simplicity of random dice roll to decide if there is an effect or not. No radar in the world including missile radars can be completely resistant to objects in space (e.g Chaff) that’s just not possible. In the end we are talking about a pulse full of radiated energy and it bouncing back towards the radar antenna where all the actual magic begins. Yes we can manipulate a pulse for different reason but in the end if the object has any type of solid to it then it’s going to effect the pulse.

Yep it makes sense how it degrades the power of the pulse but it can also confuse the missile for that brief moment until it can process that’s it’s not the target. but a “statement that the ECM techniques is indisputable excellent to superb”. that’s a big statement from someone that unless your part of the team that build these missiles then you couldn’t have the knowledge to make such a statement.

There is a minimum distance between 2 objects that a radar can distinguish between the 2 radar returns. So yes the closer the missile is to the target if the contact is to use chaff at the last moments before impact the missile is more likely to find it harder to determine which is the real target or chaff but this is going to be hand in hand as to what anti clutter circuitry the radar uses. As for chaff expanding, tear up some paper and throw it in the air. Its rather instant for chaff to seperate and it doesn’t have to completely seperate to create an effect. I can’t speak for the Aim-120 just like every single person on this forums has no idea what the minimum distance would be to determine 2 targets between each other and most the data classified for the missile (unless someone here can say what the real compression ratio is and what the anti-clutter circuits are for the Aim-120), But for our radars that we use that are I would assume to be way more advanced then what would be in a missile, is that the distance between 2 objects is more then you would expect. However the further from the contact the better chance the missile has to sort out what is what. But just to point out some radar theory the larger the antenna the more accurate the radar is. so a tiny missile radar isn’t going to be as accurate as a much larger airborne or ground based tracking radar, That’s just hard rules for radars which is why I would suspect the missile radar doesn’t go active until it’s close to the contact. There is a trick that can be done to synthetically make your antenna seem larger then what it really is but I don’t know if this is something that can be discussed but I’m sure it’s on the internet how this is done. But a missile wouldn’t be able to achieve this.

I believe the theory is that the data is already loaded within the DTC. So it doesn’t matter it it’s not on the map anymore. However if you name another marker wpt 1 it will update

ED admitted they bit of more then they could chew with having both those modules in such early access. So they even made an announcement they are going to push harder on the F-18 and once complete turn their attention to the F-16C. so I may agree they did stuff up in the beginning but I will give them credit for owning the mistake. I did read on a Mi-24 forum that they will never do the same thing again. So lesson learnt. No point continuing to bash them for a mistake they owned and learnt from.

This is what happens if you play the trk file and speed it up. You have to watch it in real time or this is what happens. I do find sometime I can watch it in 2x and it doesn’t screw up.

But thats the point “EASY” which for some people they love that for a lot of others they don’t like feeling like a technician telling a computer where to send the plane. The only reason it’s not a UAV is because a pilot sits in it. but in real world I’m sure a heavily automated flight system is a great asset. However even the guys that came from the F-14’s to the F-18’s even said their flying skills definitely where better then the guys that only new how to fly F-18’s. As for the TGP well I have to completely disagree here. I am mostly a ground pounder and I learnt the Su-25T then the A-10c. After that I learnt the F-18 and found the TGP the most horrible experience so I left the F-18 alone. I kept trying to get back into it over time as a good mate of mine only flys the F-18 but as soon as I starting ground attacks with the TGP I instantly hated how it worked. I am now fairly good at the F-16 and JF-17 and I still find the F-18 TGP the most horrible experience and I’m always behind the other guys. Sense the HMD update it changed a lot of problems I had with it but it is now completely bugged so I guess I’m just never supposed to like the F-18. Just to point out tho no one actually said the F-18 is total crap we’re just saying that we do not like it. But some people hate how the F-14 flys where as I love it.

The Viper doesn’t have this feature yet and looks to be a long time till that happens. So you need to post in the f-18 forums.

Do you seriously believe they would make a armoured AFV if it only took one .50 cal to make it explode? A .50 cal wouldn’t even wipe out a family street car if It just went through one door and out the other, you would just have a hole in your doors. I get it that in a testing environment it is rated to below what a .50 cal could penetrate but that doesn’t mean it will kill the vehicle. The round has to actually hit something important like a engine block for a mobility kill but the turret will still work. Or get a turret kill but they are all hard to do and it will take a few rounds to go through the armour before it actually brings it to a stop, especially with slanted armour like the front of the BTR-82, a .50 cal is not going to go through that front armour at all unless it’s fired from the sky. But splash damage and blast damage is entirely different. Even if a .50 cal could go through the armour a Maverick exploding a vehicle even 20ft from another vehicle is going to do very little to the other vehicle. At the moment in DCS one Maverick will wipe out a convoy of 5 BTR-82’s just with blast damage which is completely incorrect.

If the F-16 has to do it then shouldn’t all the other modules that use the MAV have to do it also? Like the F-18, A-10

Yep I can kill 5x BTR-82 with one MAV

You need change MAN to Auto for the waypoint change before you select the approach. Then it will change from FAF to RWY when your at the FAF the point

I can second this comment from a real life perspective. We use radar detecting equipment in our search aircraft in real life and we fairly regularly track radar signals If we were to fly straight towards the signals bearing I will constantly be updating the pilots tracking course as we get closer due to the margins of error with the signal. You can easily visually see the margins when we are detecting and tracking another radar signal for example we will map out lines and then move to another location to map out the signal from another bearing and again to create a cross section. BUT we will always get a triangle of error which can vary in size for each contact but the contact is always within the triangle. This trick always has a error margin due to the fact that a signal hitting the RWR aerial is not completely accurate. This is due to the fact radar antennas shoot the pulse out in a expanding cone and not a laser tight pulse. So when the signal hits the Aerial it is covering a certain percentage of the aerials surface and not a laser sharp pointer on a very small part of the aerials surface. I realise it is a little more in depth then this but you get my point. However the closer you get the more accurate it is but even at 10nm there is still a margin of error it’s just smaller. fun fact the larger the radars antenna the smaller the pulse is. So a missiles tiny tiny antenna is going to shot a pulse with a larger cone.