F-15 Radar

[Graf1sk]

Omigod, everyone just seems to try to flame GGTharos for not accepting these "facts" ^^

 

Anyway, fight the power Tharos

[Pilotasso]

We already made the points, Im not entirely satisfied with the F-15 sensor perfomance either but lets wait to see whats out in the hot fix. It just requires a few tweaks just like it was donne for chaff. I personaly hold a bit of hope there. Theres no point to get bitter. Its a nuissance and I've stoped flying for stats, but its just a game.

 

And GG you, too, you know perfectly well the F-15 sensor features is only half as good as the russian birds for sigle BVR shots right now (multiengagement is impaired as we stand currently), dont you have just a slighly hunch that something smells fishy over here? ;)

I think you do, just dont let that confuse you just for not give in in front of whiners on other forums.

 

(read between the lines ,just have this corrected as a secondary issue thats not worth mentioning in the fix list just as with 1.12 full feature list ;) LOL)

[GGTharos]

We already made the points, Im not entirely satisfied with the F-15 sensor perfomance either but lets wait to see whats out in the hot fix. It just requires a few tweaks just like it was donne for chaff. I personaly hold a bit of hope there. Theres no point to get bitter. Its a nuissance and I've stoped flying for stats, but its just a game.

 

And GG you, too, you know perfectly well the F-15 sensor features is only half as good as the russian birds for sigle BVR shots right now (multiengagement is impaired as we stand currently), dont you have just a slighly hunch that something smells fishy over here? ;)

I think you do, just dont let that confuse you just for not to give in for some whiners on other forums.

I'm quite certain that there's only one radar -system- (by that I mean not the physical radar model, but the virtual radar set onboard your plane) modelled, with the only tunable parameters being the display type, and wether you're allowed to tag things in TWS ... plus the azimuth/elevation methodologies and max range/power. Aside from that nothing else appears to be tunable or has been tuned ... eg. the notch gates ... for example, IIRC, the MiG-29 has a 375kph wide notch gate at 80KM, where the F-15 can happily adjust the notch to 47kts (less than 90kph!) ... in addition when locked on a target, the notch gate is tighter at least on the MiG, I don't know about the 15. This stuff for example is obviously not modelled.

The MiG's inferior radar processor is -also- not modelled.

 

In essence there exists a radar physics model, but not different radar sets that really take advantage of parameters in such a way as to create significant differences.

 

I also know that there are a lot of different radar modes and options within those modes (bar selection, for example) that have not been modelled. Some automation, just as the TWS scan zone centering on the PDT is also not implemented, nor are features such as the SAM mode, though I honestly don't know if SAM is just part of the F-16's radar set of it's a feature available to the F-15C's set (though I don't see why not, either ... but those sets do differ in fucntionality). I doubt we'll see any of that 'till the clickpits are slapped on those birds though. And of course, there's the missiles ... so the problems are really two-fold.

 

(read between the lines ,just have this corrected as a secondary issue thats not worth mentioning in the fix list just as with 1.12 full feature list ;) LOL)

 

Heh ;) I really think it'll take until the new pits start getting implemented, and perhaps advanced sensor model for all units (of which the radar would then be just one type of sensor, with multiple tuning parameters. Just wait 'till you see the funny bugs like people notching your padlock ;) )

[D-Scythe]

Stats pages have proved that no plane is vastly superior to the other and IMO thats how it should be.

 

What, because of gameplay reasons the APG-70 shouldn't be worked on? I can accept other reasons for leaving things as is, but if one plane is superior to the others and it's not getting modelled because of "game balance" then that is stupid IMO.

 

Lock On is a simulation.

[rlogue]

What, because of gameplay reasons the APG-70 shouldn't be worked on? I can accept other reasons for leaving things as is, but if one plane is superior to the others and it's not getting modelled because of "game balance" then that is stupid IMO.

 

Lock On is a simulation.

 

You said it !

[504 Wolverine]

Christ, guys. Give it a break. your just repeating the same arguments over and over again.

 

Its stuff like this that makes me want to quit Lock-on for good. :icon_evil

 

When military hardware is modelled, there are things that cannot be included. Especially for a russian company trying to model western systems. This does not mean that the sim is anti-western/pro-russian.

[Guest Cali]

Very good post Striker! :)

[Pilotasso]

What, because of gameplay reasons the APG-70 shouldn't be worked on? I can accept other reasons for leaving things as is, but if one plane is superior to the others and it's not getting modelled because of "game balance" then that is stupid IMO.

 

Lock On is a simulation.

 

 

Exactly, you put in few words what I have said numerous times. Migs are all about sniping, F-15's are about calling the oposition into a confrontation out in the open where its radar makes the most of it. Now I cant do that because everone in my team and RTB oponents jamm (consequent tactic from the corrections?)

 

Anything else risks to be labeled as an arcade and I dont want to do that favour to F4 Fanboys (LOL) I used to be an F4 simmer. ;)

 

Anyway the point has been made. ED is aware. And Im glad. This has been a friendly and constructive conversation but now the ball is off my field.

 

Cheers!

[Olgerd]

I think you are missing the overal point here. If I could go into more depth on this subject and answer your questions and then we would be moving into the "sensitive" side of things and I cant do that. Take my word or leave it....I stop there. I also would like to refer back to my first two very clear points wrong with the radar. Again take it or leave it but if you fix those two issues thats a start. We can go back and forth all day on this my friend but we will go nowhere with your line of questions.

 

Oh, and I'm waiting on that Russian avionics guy's quote that you promised. Thanks,

 

Thanks for the post =STRIKER=.

It is the good opportunity to make our sim better talking directly with guys who have actual experience with the aircrafts we model. Now we have the long list of desired changes for F-15C avionics. Most of things are unmodelled at all yet. Hopefully we had a chance to get some information we need for the further avionics improvements. The most desirable scenario should be the reimplementation of F-15C cockpit with the detail we are implementing now in the Ka-50. Now we can not say yet how much time will go before we will start it. Some (relatively small) changes possibly should be made in following patches.

[Pilotasso]

Olgerd, I have been told and Im aware advanced radar modeling is off limits for now, but the same way the AMRAAM has been fixed in relation to how easely it was spoofed so much, as can be donne so that the eagle can engage above 10 miles without hesitating for ID. Thats all. Just an Idea.

 

Cheers for ED

[Olgerd]

... but the same way the AMRAAM has been fixed in relation to how easely it was spoofed so much, as can be donne so that the eagle can engage above 10 miles without hesitating for ID. Thats all. Just an Idea.

 

Not before the Ka-50 release...

[S77th-GOYA]

What documentation was used to determine that the IFF capability of the F-15 in respect to a jamming bogey was incorrect before the 1.11 patch?

 

In other words, why was the F-15's ability to IFF jammers removed? Was there documentation or was it done to appease whiners?

[Olgerd]

What documentation was used to determine that the IFF capability of the F-15 in respect to a jamming bogey was incorrect before the 1.11 patch?

 

In other words, why was the F-15's ability to IFF jammers removed? Was there documentation or was it done to appease whiners?

 

We got some info near the 1.11 release moment... I can not say much about the kind of info itself. I am sorry.

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Even if you are tracking HOJ you still can determine if its a friend of foe.

It's late and I'm tired but I'd be interested to know how this could work. Surely with a jamming strobe you don't know the range of the jamming source, so if you interrogate in the direction of the strobe and get a Mode 4 response of Friend, it could be:-

 

1) a friendly aircraft between you and the enemy jamming source or

2) a friendly further away beyond the enemy jammer or

3) the jammer is a friendly.

 

I would have expected that only the NCTR function of the primary radar system can help determine friend or foe in this situation.