Bear21

The DCS F-16 Early Access User Guide page 238 "Dual Target Track (DTT). Dual Target Track is entered from SAM by bugging a second target.", which is what I did. No effect. Regarding the range hijack, I never flew the F-16C so can't say but it seems to me the programmer took the easy way of using the STT behavior for SAM and DTT. For Single Target Track (STT) the FCR control of display range makes sense, but for SAM not, as SAM shall allow stepping up to DTT, which can be at a different range to the SAM target. The solution is to do nothing for SAM and DTT, let the pilot manipulate range.

Here is the mission file for others to try. Mission: Kill off the Mig29s, then the Tu95. Observe how the FCR controls range scale from SAM (one TMS up) start. F-16 2 Mig29 CAP R27, R73 and Tu95MS, E3 Caucasus.miz

1. The appended track shows how after entering A-A SAM the FCR steps down display range on its own both before and after AIM-120 launch (18:53:30 and fwd), and does not allow the pilot to increase display range to control second Mig29 (several attempts to increase range to control second Mig29 are not accepted). 2. The FCR does not allow DTT on said Mig29 when it's within the hijacked range, instead it continues to step down range as SAM (on Tgt 1) comes closer and is active (there is no need for the pilot to have the SAM target at an optimal range display, you only need to watch azimuth coverage for datalink updates to AIM-120). In cases where the second Mig29 is further behind you are victim to the FRC and can't follow Mig29 no 2, even though you are in SAM and not in STT or TWS. 2024.1.4 F-16 vs 2 Mig29.trk

Finally, thanks for the info.

I've read the radar whitepapers you have published. Seems ED has now got a competent radar specialist and that the APG-73 and -66 are heading in the right direction. It would then be nice to have confirmed that the Data/Target aging setting then sets the DISPLAY target aging and not the target tracking algorithm timeout (as continuously claimed to be the correct way by ED, as the Pilot shall set the tracking timeout and not the RDR!). The radar tracking algorithm, running in the RDR admin computer, configures the track scans and its timeouts as it sets all detection parameters through waveform, PRFs, scan patterns etc., and thus has all the info about revisit times and how to configure timeouts after " n " missing paintings. This shall be done automatically by the RDR; pls confirm this is or will be the case!

Just want to give a heads up. I have Virpil stick, throttle, and pedals and have used a software version from 2020. It has worked fine, but I noticed since ED reworked controls that the dialog, in game especially, was laggy. When I recently bought the Varjo Aero and started using VR again, it was so laggy it was not useable. Turned out the culprit was old Virpil software; updated, and imported profiles, and now everything works fine. Just for info.

I've used Updater 1 to build one click DCS launch with 2D/TrackIR or alternatively VR, including all the different settings. Working with 2.0 it's not clear how to achieve similar simplicity. Are ALL the pre-launch actions, including pre-launch apps (SteamVR, Varjo base,...), ST or MT, launch APIs, scripts etc, + the Graphics presets, collected in Presets (You have #1 to #4)? Or how do you achieve such a batch action? I fail to find any description of the base principle of 2.0 (I've watched the Utube video which shows the features but it's not clear how these are related and connected). Any link that clears this?

Moderator, delete topic. Sorry/Bear21

There is a good document describing the history of French radar development (appended), that also describes the Cyrano IV. It's a non coherent Magnetron radar that CSF tried to make reject main lobe clutter with a clutter coherent MTI block filter. It didn't work (as per the document) as the antenna used in the Cyrano IV, the inverted Cassegrain has rather high sidelobes. Clutter comes in at all relative speeds through the sidelobes and therefore lands in the echo space outside the MTI suppression. Your faint aircraft echo is now competing with ground echos. The Russians had the same antenna type (it has many advantages, no Waveguide flexible joins, agile twist plate, but at the expense of sidelobes) and transmitter in late Mig-23s, tried the same type of MTI suppression and had the same problems. For lookdown you either need HPRF and a doppler filter bank (your clutter doppler frequency is outside the echo range) or MPRF, a multi-PRF scheme (to eliminate blind spots), a doppler filter bank and an antenna with very low sidelobes. French radar history.pdf

This bug was reported on 17 April, was first labeled "Correct as is", then after my plea to BIGNEWBY changed to "Reported". But nothing has happened. We are now two months later and three releases, and no change. This is a BIG bug, the F-18 radar is the only contemporary radar in DCS that can't offset its can center in search (RWS), it can only scan straight ahead (except for using Spotlight which is not the same thing). Please: 1. Change the present RWS miniScan (which is a lock-on procedure and indeed results in an STT) to follow a double TDC depress. 2. Implement the RWS single TDC press outside a brick/track to change the scan center like in TWS (which has the correct modes). The text and discussions in the original thread is correct as is the provided track, no need to provide a new one. Everything is still the same since April.

Yes, if the processing gain of the pulse compression is one to one with a shorter pulse with a higher peak power. This is my point, you can rank radars from the same time period using average power and antenna gain, given you understand how they operate (HPD + MPD or not, dual mode transmitters or not, pulse compression or not, receiver technology and processing, scan time on target, etc.). I would be careful saying you can predict their actual range as this requires detailed knowledge of the radars but also of the targets characteristics (a simple RCS value is a huge simplification of a real A-A target).

Nice try LaFleur , but you can't calculate anything meaningful with this calculator. It's made for old style pulse radars as it ignores pulse compression gain and integration. Further, you need the peak power derived through a reasonable duty factor for the mode you are modeling and read up on what dB is. I'm not trying to be difficult but the absolute range calculation of PD radars need detailed knowledge of a number of rather tricky parameters. This is why I stay with the relationship of the range between the radars, which is much simpler to estimate.

The APG-73 and 68 are Pulse Doppler (PD) radar with multimode transmitters and use pulsecompression to run the radar to their transmitter limits in the different A-A modes. With assumption of the same bracket for receiver noise factor, integrated pulses and compression processing gain, the differences in range in the different modes boils down to the transmitter power and antenna gain. In a multimode radar it's productive to look at the average transmitter power (which is then divided with the duty factor to get peak power). Range is then dependent on average transmitter power, 1,800W for -73 and 800W for -68, and antenna gain, 35.8 dB for -73 and 33.5 dB for -68 (You get if from transmitter frequency and antenna area. The exact figure is dependent on your antenna weighting function but we are looking a relations here). Putting it all in the radar equation gives you the range difference.

The Mirage we have should be the S5 variant IIRC, equipped with the RDI J3-13 radar. Thanks, my bad. The radar was so bad when I flew the M2000 a year ago that I thought it was the "Radar De Merde". I checked, it's the inflexible, A-A BVR oriented RDI. In this case the RDI should have 26% better range than the F-16 APG-68 for HI PRF hot targets, mainly because of a 40% larger planar slot antenna (3.5° circular lobe) and shall suck on flanking and cold targets as it's a HI PRF radar that lacks MPRF (this came in the later RDY). RDI's low PRF modes for non PD stuff shall be really bad as well, its TWT transmitter is designed for high duty factor HIPRF modes with a low peak power. The peak power of the non pulse compression LP modes suffers. RDI has a low range in all modes except A-A HIPRF PD modes (the radar has no pulse compression to compensate a low peak power, this came in RDY).

Thanks Mo, I think ED is struggling with imprecise SMEs. The programmers and testers can only implement and test for correctness what is specified for them in total detail (been there, done that), so if the spec is wrong or imprecise they burn the hours with this kind of results. I feel sorry for them, it's not their fault. ED needs a knowledgeable person who tells them how to spec it in all the details.