Harlikwin

I'd really love a detailed comparison between your guys FC3 + + target in range "model" if you can call it that. And a physics based ray traced model that actually a) sends out pulses, models features of things like pulse compression, and then does the actual post processing that happens on real radars. That developer posted multiple videos about how it works. I have yet to see any detailed descriptions or videos from ED. Instead what you guys have provided the community is a few really badly written white papers that have made the rounds all over discords where people that actually understand radar modeling even on a basic level laugh at them. Seriously, consider hiring the guy that did the F15 radar to redo the F18 radar (more or less it would be the same exact radar model with less power / dish size, but in terms of processing its the same). The F16 radar as well. I'm not even gonna get into the difference between their SAR model and the F10 map stuff with filters you guys do. The key difference is that that the F15 and M2k have an actual "model", whereas what you guys are doing is some rules of thumb on how you think a radar should work, and when corrected by SME's you argue with them, and don't listen to them. You want respectful feedback, there it is.

Mk1 mod0 GCS was what was used on the Gar-8. In Navy speak, mk1 = First thing, mod0 = modification 0. And yes Gar-8 is what the AF called the navy missile. If yoou check I forget which one of the 3 2309's it mentions the 1A=9B thing.

@Flappie IDK if ED really wants to do it but if would be cool to at least break down the 9B/Gar8 on the f86 into an early/late model (call the Original Gar-8, call the later the 9B) Main differences: Gar8: 20deg gimbal limit, uncages on missile departing the jet 9B: 30deg gimbal limit, uncages immediately after gas gen is ignited. There is also a photocell change in there, but frankly I Don't think it would mater for DCS.

I'm going of really old memory here, but I think the button needs to stay depressed or the relay wont flip when its ready. I forget where I saw that circuit diagram tho, it was a long time ago. Honestly I care way more about getting the lock/uncage behavior right than getting this 100%.

Have you ever actually looked through a pair of binoculars? Do you see 2 images side by side?

#1 Its in OP 2309, 2-1, 2nd part of the below. It will apply to pretty much all sidewinders, since they all use gas generators (well, later ones use a gas gen AND a battery but I'm pretty sure the firing seq is similar enough in that regard). Should also be the same for soviet R3S, R13M and Chinese sidewinder copies, Pl2/5 etc. #2 yeah its fine if it did it, but if you wanted a gar8 as a separate thing from the 9B that would be an easy way to differentiate it and give the F86 both. null

#1 Thats not what happens IRL. IDK in DCS, if you can try to re-fire it in DCS thats wrong too. Once the gas generator is initiated thats it, its a one time event. You can't stop the the gas generator from burning. #2 AFAIK thats what happens if you don't hold the button down long enough missile stays on the rail but its basically dead, while the gas generator burns for the full 21 seconds (or whatever time it is). (bonus sparky smokey missile effect if you want to be accurate) As for your earlier question, yeah it looks like in OP 2309 (1966) (navy) it does in fact say the gyro uncages at launch. I "think" that chart posted above is from the F-8 crusader manual. It might be a later or earlier manual or maybe a navy F4 manual. And a later version of the 9B. It might have been changed at some point as there are a few revisions of the 9B (as noted in OP2309 but it only goes to 66), the earliest of them actually had a mechanical cage system that would would only uncage on firing. That was later changed to an electromagnetic system. So if you want to be "correct" for the F86 and a GAR-8 and make players lives sad, yeah uncage it only on departing the rail. Or add a second version that uncages immediately (probably what was used for most of the VN war, and on your late model F5E) It also couldn't uncage on the 5E (yes I know what the manual says but it seems to be a copy pasta from a 9E/J/P description which all could uncage). Given that the 9E entered service in like 68 and was mostly rebuilt/improved 9B GCS it makes little sense that the AF would have further improved the 9B between 66 and 68.

Honestly the issue with this is what "hot" part the missile sees. The uncooled 9B/R3S PbS seeker literally has to see the "inside" of an engine since its the only stuff hot enough for it to see. Hence the tracking angles being so bad. Once you get to cooled PbS seekers, then its the exterior parts of the engine, i.e. the exterior petals and such and depending on how much insulation there is and what the actual look angles are. In theory if you are under a head on target you could likely get tone frontally if the seeker could see the rear of the jet from underneat, the problem being it will start guiding, and rapidly loose sight of it if its "leading" the target. Also, you guys really need to revisit this idea of "afterburners" increasing the lock on ranges all that much. Its partly true since the actual metal gets hotter, but the actual AB plume which is CO2 and H2O, gets rapidly absorbed by the atmosphere within a few km (and almost entirely by like 10km). Its a fairly complex set of phenomenon, cuz it sorta does matter at high alt (less atmosphere) versus (low alt, lots of atmosphere to absorb it). If you want to model it offline to get a feel for it try MODTRAN. And missiles like the 9B can't even see the AB plume. Thats just basic IR physics.

No it doesn't. Look at the firing sequence once the gas generator is lit (literally step1) the missile is committed. Yes it can mess up and you can get a hung store etc, but once the gas gen is lit either the missile continues down the sequence and fires or if there is an error it dies on the rail. The gas generator only runs once since its pyrotechnic (fancy black powder if you want to think of it like that). So no, there is no "uncage" in practice. You don't "ulight" a burning pyrotechnic charge which is what the gas generator is. Gas generator runs the fin actuators and the turbo alternator which provides power to the seeker once it leaves the jet. So how it should work for the 9B specifically. You have tone (and you guys should model the seeker null too) (ref Mirage F1 that does it right) You push and hold down the firing button. Electrical impulse ignites the gas generator, which gets the pyrotechnics burning. 9B uncages the gyro to track the target for the 1sec or so before launch. It takes time for the gas gen to generate enough pressure to run the turbo alternator/fins (at .4sec) Then once the turbo alternator is producing enough voltage the firing relay closes taking the missile OFF the jet electrical and onto the turboalternator. (Also the firing button has to be depressed for this to happen, otherwise you get a hung store with the gas generator fizzling on your wing for 21 seconds) And the motor lights. Then Mr Missile goes on his happy way. The seeker uncages immediately because its difficult to keep a good track with the missile, and after it uncages you don't have to cuz mr missile will do it for you (in theory). You should also loose tone once it does this because it will be in the seeker null. Later sidewinder versions worked a bit differently ofc and you could uncage/recage the 9E for example (At the risk of damaging the seeker, not like you guys would model that tho). And then the later navy winders with SEAM compatibility starting with the 9G

yup exactly this.

I see. Seems like Steam just don't really want to do pre-orders there. Well I guess thats a change on their end.

So what exactly are Steams pre-order requirements? Have they changed since other pre-orders there? IIRC the Viper and others were on steam.

Well, the FC3 radar/IRST are a) not the best modeled, to begin with but its FC3. you can do some wild stuff with the elevation limits thats totally wrong. And OFC the the whole radar model is well, "basic". And well, we can hope someday IRST won't see through clouds, though by all accounts from actual pilots it was fairly worthelss aside from the HMS/dogfight mode. b) If you are actually gonna do it clicky wise like you'd do it IRL, the controls while decently placed, aren't on the HOTAS and are well, fiddly. (flying the 21 for example you have the same issues with the weapon selector) Now, OFC the pro-gamer pilots will just bind it all to the hotas but if you are flying it realistically the ergos are not great.

It was on an online server so no. But I'm sure you can setup a flight of 4 TU-22's and go shoot at them.

I have STT break lock on TU-22's at like 5 miles while I'm trying to guide sparrows on them once they turn/go cold. And I'm under them... That ain't right.

Lets hope the Radar ends up being a real simulation like what Razbam and HB have done, and not some cheezy FC3++ ED model.

Corsair has been in every coming soon vid for like 3-4 years now... Its not comin...

It was to disable SteamXR or whatever it was. I forget how I did it. I'm using the Varjo runtime for it.

Well, given the current "situation" between Raz and ED Its not looking great.

Now if they only fixed the ATHOS and did a better job with the HOT.

Why? DCS ground units and AI are pretty bad. Like the whole air to ground interaction systems of units under air attack is terrible. DCS mission maker issues aside where they park a tank/infantry platoon in the middle of an empty field aside. Once attacked those vehicles/infantry should be moving as rapidly as possible to actual cover (where they would have been IRL anyway). DCS AI gunnery for non radar guided AAA is absurd. The BMP-1 or 2 are still better than dedicated AAA platforms like the shilka, and every guy with an unstabilized 50 cal is vasiliy zaitsev. And never mind stuff like shorads vs fast jets. Literally unless a unit is notified by radio or have their own radar running, they have almost no chance to react to a fast jet attack IRL. There is literally no time to react to something coming in at 500mph. and most infantry shorads basically need like 30 secs (it varies) to actually cool the seeker and get ready to fire, assuming they actually hear/see the jet coming in the first place. But in DCS AI spotting is perternatural levels of vision and SA, all AI units immediately know where you are and immediately begin to direct insanely accurate ground fire at you. Instead of doing what would actually do IRL which is run for cover. Never mind the actual after effects of CBU-ing a set of units. They literally do-not care unless you actually fully destroy the unit, there is no morale, no shock of "holy cow" we almost just died. Just T1000 levels of determination to kill you. These problems have been major issues for years as well, so I have 0 faith that ED will do anything to actually improve this systems, or things like SAM's in DCS which are also variously broken. You'd think for a game where the critical pieces are the bombing things or getting shot at by sams that it would actually have a higher priority to make it more realistic but its just not and never really has been. Who actually cares about animations? I mean the only thing there is so ED can post some replica "kill videos" from GWOT in some trailer, which is tacky and in poor taste at best. Actually modeling realistic AI behavior should 10,000x more important. Same with "gunnery" effects. I can guarantee you private snuffy or mr tank commander's first priority is not having a showdown at the O.K. corral with enemy helo or ground attack jet, their first priority is getting under cover where they won't get murdered by enemy air, and let the attached ADA detachment deal with it. As for soviet units, yeah we desperately need older SAM systems that are the most commonly used ones in the world, but we have needed them for a decade and still nothing.

Well, the general standard for models in 3rd parties is 2-3 variants or time frames at least. Look at razbam with different suites for the F15, Heatblur with 2 F14's (so far, maybe more "tm"), or Aerges with what 3 delivered and one more coming variants for the F1. Seems like the ED value proposition makes them seem like a bit of a piker in the contemporary sense...

Also, its very likely you cannot use the Jammer and the Sidearm at the same time, for obvious reasons.

There wasn't an interchangeable seeker. I think however it had to be set for certain bands, most likely on the ground. IIRC there were 7 bands it could use or be set to (or combinations therof), but I'll have to look that up. Also, the more I think about the limitations of late 70's electronics I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was 7 pre-programmed "threats". Most likely SHORAD and AAA radars. ZSU-23, SA-8, SA-6 etc. "The receiver subassembly shall provide the capability to scan the entire frequency band of A to G in a sawtooth" (this is where the 7 bands comes from, A-G, and its also pretty clear it doesn't mean Radar band "A" or "G" its just a generic designation. Probably refering to 7 different slices of spectrum, which likely correspond to "threat" radars. My further guess is stuff like PRF etc is either pre-programmed or has to be set on the ground if you want a different "threat library" as the harrier tac man never mentions any sort of in-cockpit programming. Its also entirely possible the library is just fixed. Also the guidance life of the missile and or seeker sensitivity needs revisiting. People are using these like HARMS and hitting stuff 10s of miles away by firing them at 30k feet etc. Here we go. Dokumints. Original Credit to Beamscanner. MY COMMENTS IN BOLD @Chizh Most of the following information was found via MIL-G-85742 AGM-122 Receiver Info: -Made 1984 -Uses a Local Oscillator/mixer to down convert the received signals to IF -Can detect PRF, PW and Amplitude --This correlates to a superheterodyne Receiver-- -Scans between frequencies "A through G"(likely a unique band code, not referencing NATO band codes as a seeker that small wouldn't be able to track such low frequencies) -We know it can detect an SA-8 and a ZSU-23 radar, thus we know it can at least see signals roughly between 7 and 15 GHz. -Generates a tone for the pilot to hear that matches the signals PRF. "WGU-15(XCL-1)/B" Seeker info: -Conically scanned. 'Gyro speed.. between 7-20Hz' -'Unambiguous FOV>15 degrees' -"The system gain in each of the four quadrants" Implies a 4 quadrant array ---Of note, the seeker must be able to detect linearly polarized signals from any angle (given the missiles chance of spin), but also must be cheap given its purpose. Knowing this, the tracking technique, the rough size of the seeker, and the time of IOC, the missile likely used a small 4 spiral antenna array ---Spiral antennas are cheap, have wide bandwidths, and can see nearly all polarizations. The band width these antennas provide would indeed allow the seeker to see the SA-8 and the ZSU-23 from such a small aperture. ---Spiral antennas have wide beam widths, making for poor tracking. Though, using the sum of 4 spiral antennas can narrow your beam width and increase your tracking performance. It does not use a 4 spiral antenna, its a parabolic dish like the 9C used but not exactly the same (picture included) null Other: -Uses PN guidance -"The AGM-122 was less capable than newer antiradiation missiles like the AGM-88 HARM, but also substantially cheaper, and its lighter weight enabled it to be carried by combat helicopters as well as fighter aircraft and fighter bombers." -"While Sidearm is less capable than modern anti-radiation missiles (like AGM-88 HARM), it is still a cost-effective alternative against low-tech threats." Likely can't deal with more modern russian radar threats i.e. SA-10/11 etc -"it was proposed to build new missiles as improved AGM-122B. The AGM-122B was to receive a new guidance and control system using re-programmable EEPROM memory boards." supports the idea of a small fixed set of radars it could detect/target --The above implies that there were some short falls with the AGM-122 guidance against modern systems. This would make sense if the missile used a conical scan tracking system like I hypothesized, as multipath effects, jammers, decoys, and amplitude modulation could cause to seeker to guide off target. Based on the following -PN guidance -no INS unit -no target plotting -the use of conical scan tracking (also called 'lobe on receive') The missile was probably very ineffective against radars with a scanning antenna. I imagine shots were only made on radars who's beams were fixated (locked) on to the launching aircraft. Reason being that the seeker would lose the radar every time the beam spun around to the other direction, in which case it might home in on a reflection off an illuminated object (think of a flashlight spinning around). Broadly agree, its entirely possible it would only target actual tracking radars, though possibly it could use sidelobes. References: http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-2/page2.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-3/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-4/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742-5/index.html http://guidedmissilecomponents.emilspec.com/MIL-G-85742/index.html http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-122.html https://www.onwar.com/weapons/rocket/missiles/USA_AGM122.html

Hopefully the fix the friggin Optical sight stabilization, or actually model it in the first place, to call that "arcade" level is being nice.