[ALREADY REPORTED]Incorrect ranges of DCS MiG-29 radar

The generally a lot of things DCS are too reliable, RWR, TWS, Missiles, Locks, CMs, etc.

The main reason modeling and calculating such things adds a lot more calculations and complexity and the simulator is already pushing the hardware limit.

 

To keep in on topic, this correction of range is quite needed, since 30% difference has a large impact on volume scanned and also it is clearly documented.

Yes this, some ED comment would be appreciated.

The generally a lot of things DCS are too reliable, RWR, TWS, Missiles, Locks, CMs, etc.

The main reason modeling and calculating such things adds a lot more calculations and complexity and the simulator is already pushing the hardware limit.

I don't agree on the hardware limits, as we are still running all with single core (yeah, audio is second) and if we could utilize 1+n cores... We could give plenty of stuff to own cores.

1st core for own aircraft flight modeling

2nd core for own aircraft systems/damage modeling.

3rd core for own side ground units

4th core for enemy side ground units

5th core for every missile in flight.

6th core for general purpose.

Etc.

Possibility combine few groups together to 4-core CPU as minimum and it is like 1, 2 and 6 are cores 1-3 and rest goes to one.

Many timing things should be relaxed, like it doesn't matter much for the pilot what happens on ground or somewhere distance before it is called and synced when needed.

What comes to systems reliability, it is completely true that we don't have proper simulations for the scaling. Like radars still are too trustworthy and reliable, while we should more see blibs going in and out. More drops by maneuvering targets etc as systems own designs makes so. Counter measurements effects to missiles are way too simple and unrealistic etc.

The random system failures is important feature and needs more investment in future to become more trustworthy to be serious feature.

ED knows all that, challenge is to go and design system that will take DCS over the next decade...

Sooner we have players with 6-12 cores than with 4-6. And many will start to have 12-24 cores.

Easiest way to utilize all them is to allocate various parts as independent ones, not requiring processing together. Like a ground units moving on ground should not have anything to do what happens around. Only care it own movement and is it under fire or not.

One great limiter is to make realistic communications system. If unit can not communicate with others, or can't care what is happening. No need to update anything between those elements.

How DCS does currently operate is like a borg give, everyone is connected to each others and thinking simultaneously. A single entity. Currently impossible at current technology.

But if you split all units to small groups, give them authority to themselves, following commands as best as they can and have a performance capabilities based their training and purpose, you ease the hardware requirements. A sleeping soldier requires less than a active soldier on patrol. A soldier observing area is less demanding than soldier who is in combat.

Simulating a proper information exchange and validations can ease a lot the performance and make many units behave more realistically as you now have such a core feature to be "damaged". Adding extra "parts" to every soldier like a moral, courage, speed, intelligence etc. And you get a whole units operate more realistically.

It is not much different than how a aircraft itself work. Each part has purpose and scale where it needs to perform. Some things you can push over limits, some things not more than once, and some don't like it at all...

What is difference between machines and humans is how other can find a solution to problem many different ways, while other will stop right there when the failure happens.

But splitting complexity to pieces, give them ranked order and weight, give them scale and you can get interesting results how to solve problems based information at hands.

And reminder for people, the manual states "minimum" detection ranges. So it is capable detect far further the target, but it will be popping in and out depending weather and various other conditions. At those ranges the detection and lock is expected to be a solid one.

DCS doesn't simulate these things, it is either detected or not.

Still wrong radar ranges after todays patch.

But F-16 radar has to much range, so on average DCS radar ranges are correct :thumbup:

...but youve gotta consider how badly underperforming our F15 radar is. Surely that gives us a -1 BalanceFactor, right? :megalol:

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Certainly worth looking into all FC3 aircraft and seeing if their radars stack up

Seem to be so neglected though despite all the readily available info

The main issue with the FC3 aircraft is that the lookdown penalty keeps "climbing" with the aircraft. instead of effecting targets and aircraft only down low. I already reported it and hopefully it will be fixed soon. This is for the Fulcrum but you can test other FC3 aircraft.

Here is the table I produced, the RLE min and RLE max are ranges the manual states target should be picked up, first two columns are hight of the target and the fighter.

If thats what your into wrestling with pigs lol :lol:

Sure, but do you know what that actually means? Does it mean you get zero RWR sensitivity, or is sensitivity reduced?

See, with an integrated EW system the RWR, ECM and Radar will cooperate so that all systems can operate - to you simultaneously, to those systems, sequentially.

 

The RWR may blank out when the radar and/or ECM emit, the radar may blank out some times while ECM emits (if on the same channel, I guess) and ECM may or may not be prioritized for emission based on who-knows-what.

So like time-slicing and frequency sharing?

Exactly like that.

Fox Alpha do you happen to have information on the N001 as well?

In the west that information isn't as easy to come by as say APG-63 info

From the Su-27SK manual (export Su-27):

FC3 isn't going to be touched anytime soon. The Hornet and the Viper are both very incomplete and need finishing, and those are the clear focus of ED at the moment. Also, ED said on an interview that they're trying to get the license for the MiG-29A, which means they aren't going to touch the MiG-29 because "They're making a FF one, there's no need to work on the FC3 one". Besides, you can always say the russian sources are biased or something, and that the intel sources that ED may have come across to model the MiG-29 and Su-27's radar are more accurate.

I wish to see the performance fixed but it's just not going to happen. Maybe for an FC3 2 package, that fixes performances on the jets...but still, the performance of these radars is atrocious, I wonder how people can say these jets are good

Who says FC3 not gonna be touched? The Mig flight model is way more developed than many clicky modules. Yes we wait for ED to do 29, but trust me they will use what they have and model on top of that.

What Russian biased sources? its straight from aircraft manufacturers manual for the DOWNGRADED export version of the above said AC which is known to be 10-15% downtuned. And its not even 29S.

ED fix the radars pls for both Mig and Flankers. Nuff said. There are no counter arguments. The data is plain for all to see.

Who says FC3 not gonna be touched? The Mig flight model is way more developed than many clicky modules. Yes we wait for ED to do 29, but trust me they will use what they have and model on top of that.

 

What Russian biased sources? its straight from aircraft manufacturers manual for the DOWNGRADED export version of the above said AC which is known to be 10-15% downtuned. And its not even 29S.

 

ED fix the radars pls for both Mig and Flankers. Nuff said. There are no counter arguments. The data is plain for all to see.

 

Can you provide said plain data? Not arguing there shouldn't be adjustments made to the radars, but this kind of affects all ED modules, be it FF or FC3. They either overperform vastly or underperform. We have a decent base off the SK manual. In addition, weather and environmental conditions will affect those old 80's radars immensely, let alone any form of ECM. Both of which are hopefully being worked on by ED.

 

Can you provide said plain data? Not arguing there shouldn't be adjustments made to the radars, but this kind of affects all ED modules, be it FF or FC3. They either overperform vastly or underperform. We have a decent base off the SK manual. In addition, weather and environmental conditions will affect those old 80's radars immensely, let alone any form of ECM. Both of which are hopefully being worked on by ED.

...the data has been provided in this thread. The fact that some radars overperform (F-16/18) and some underperform (F-15, MiG-29) isnt a reason not to fix them.

Exactly. We can never have them right. But at least based on Official manuals they need to match the perf charts.

F16 is way overmodelled

Mig-29 is way below par

Mig-29S is ABYSMAL

F15 Probably a little undermodelled, same as Su-27/33 family (but not really critical)

Id say the F-15 under modeling is a fair bit more than a little (at least a solid 40% reduction, and thats vs the very original APG-63) but yes DCS radars are overall poor, and the thing is, the documentation is out there. And even when it isnt, the radar range equation is a thing. You can make VERY good guesses off that (such as the fact that your little APG-68/73 shouldnt be performing better than the APG-63 :music_whistling:). Even if you cant get exact absolutes, at least make it as close as possible comparatively. Yet it seem that for their flagship modules (F-16/18 ) they are just gonna keep them overperforming, and leave the FC3 ones to w/e they are at RN.

A target with an EPR greater than 3M, such as the su 27 or f-15, should he see even further?

A target with an EPR greater than 3M, such as the su 27 or f-15, should he see even further?

Yes, it should. 3m target was measured since Manual and Documentation are based on 3m targets....

Some more information from a different MiG-29 manual:

Quote

Самолет МиГ—29 оснащен комплексной системой управления вооружением СУВ-29, включающей импульсно-доплеровский радиолокационный прицельный комплекс РЛПК—29 (НО— 19 «Сапфир-29») с цифровым вычислителем серии Ц 100, а также оптико-электронный прицельно-навигационный комплекс ОЭПрНК-29 (С-31). БРЛС массой 350 кг с параболической антенной, имеющей механическое сканирование по азимуту и углу места, способна обнаруживать цели типа «истребитель» (ЭПР порядка 3 м²) в передней полусфере (в том числе и на фоне земли) на дальности 60 км и в задней полусфере — на дальности 35 км. Диапазон углов обзора по азимуту ±70°, по углу места +60°/—40° Станция способна одновременно сопровождать до 10 целей.

На истребителе МиГ-29С установлена СУВ-29М с усовершенствованным РЛПК-29М (НО-19М) массой 380 кг, оснащенная цифро-

вым вычислителем серии Ц101М. Дальность обнаружения воздушных целей увеличена до 70 км в передней полусфере и 40 км — в задней полусфере. Возможен одновременный пуск ракет по двум воздушным целям.

Google translation:

The MiG-29 aircraft is equipped with an integrated weapons control system SUV-29, which includes a pulsed-Doppler radar sighting system RLPK-29 (N019 "Sapphire-29") with a digital computer of the Ts 100 series, as well as an optical-electronic sighting and navigation system OEPrNK-29 (C-31). An on-board radar with a mass of 350 kg with a parabolic antenna, which has mechanical scanning in azimuth and elevation, is capable of detecting fighter-type targets (EPR of the order of 3 m2) in the front hemisphere (including against the background of the earth) at a distance of 60 km and in the rear hemisphere - at a distance of 35 km. Range of viewing angles in azimuth ± 70 °, in elevation + 60 ° / -40 ° The station is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 10 targets. The MiG-29S fighter is equipped with SUV-29M with an improved RLPK-29M (N019M) weighing 380 kg, equipped with a digital computer of the Ts101M series. The detection range of air targets has been increased to 70 km in the front hemisphere and 40 km in the rear hemisphere. It is possible to launch missiles simultaneously against two air targets.

So detection range is again listed with 60 km for both lookup/lookdown in front hemisphere case, and with 35 km in the rear hemisphere (propably lookup) for the same 3 m² target.

Additionally, the MiG-29S has the heavier, upgraded radar with a better computer and even higher detection range of 70 km in the front hemishphere (lookup and lookdown) as well as 40 km in the rear hemisphere.

The current DCS MiG-29 module does not even make a difference between the A/G and the S model. They all have the same (underperforming) values.

Well, to be fair we also enjoy some benefits in the MIG29 which we shouldn't, as the real thing is a bit different. Mainly, our EOS somehow provides ranging information well beyond 6-8km, which should be the max range of the laser. The real thing, takes sometimes a pretty long time to lock up a target in EOS (2-15s depending on the mode used), and we have it instantly. Same goes for the radar. We usually lock it pretty much same moment it appears on the HUD and the target lock button is pressed.

I've been sifting throught the MiG29A manual, and was quite shocked when I realized how much crappier, our sensors should be in-game.

I am guessing the same applies to blue side. We just have everything a bit too perfect.

If the target is outside of the laser designator range, then the radar will be fired every few seconds to get a range to the target.

Not sure where you got the up to 15 s from, the manual says it can take 2-3 s, and 1.5 - 2 s for locking with radar.

Yes, locking a target should take a moment, but you do not close in to the target that fast during the time that it would make the degraded ranges in DCS realistic.

4 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

If the target is outside of the laser designator range, then the radar will be fired every few seconds to get a range to the target.

Oh I see. I've never realized that the radar is involved there. Wouldn't that trigger the target's RWR? I don't think it does in DCS, but yet again I am not 100% sure.
I will have a more closer look in the manual, regarding the locking times...

27 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Oh I see. I've never realized that the radar is involved there. Wouldn't that trigger the target's RWR? I don't think it does in DCS, but yet again I am not 100% sure.
I will have a more closer look in the manual, regarding the locking times...

It shouldn't since it is not a constant illumination... RWR are much less accurate in real life that modelled in DCS...