APG-63 Discussion

[Frostie]

It would be ****ing cool to have this 30 deg 4 bar tws search pattern to our hands in DCS. It would be a much more comfortable search pattern when engaged. Unfortunatly it's a that simple radar model that you don't have the most features.

It seems the F-15C radar is overmodeled in some respects with DCS with regards to TWS. In FC3 the F-15 TWS has a 60 degree 4 bar scan when in fact it should be limited to 60 degree 2 bar, that is double the altitude you can scan at 60 degrees in FC3 than with the real radar.

[srky]

"I started angling the search unit in the direction or my turns. For example, if I banked into a gradual left turn, I would angle my radar left to "look into" the turn. But then I suspected that I was angling the radar down into the ground because of the bank angle. Is this true?!"

 

No, the radar should be stabilized to horizon. At least in RU fighters it is...

[GGTharos]

I wonder what those things to the left of the throttle do.

 

http://www.f15sim.com/images/left_console_new.jpg

 

It seems the F-15C radar is overmodeled in some respects with DCS with regards to TWS. In FC3 the F-15 TWS has a 60 degree 4 bar scan when in fact it should be limited to 60 degree 2 bar, that is double the altitude you can scan at 60 degrees in FC3 than with the real radar.

[opps]

I wonder what those things to the left of the throttle do.

 

http://www.f15sim.com/images/left_console_new.jpg

 

hmm, looks like F-15C in DCS has APG-63(not v1) and no FDL or JTIDS?

 

sorry off topic

[Frostie]

I wonder what those things to the left of the throttle do.

 

http://www.f15sim.com/images/left_console_new.jpg

Looking at your image it seems that early APG-63(v)1 and APG-70 don't have options for narrowing the azimuth.

I'm guessing that is an F-15E panel.

 

 

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/technology/avionics/65-radar-system

 

The emitted radar beam covers a 120 degree (horizontally) arc in front of the jet, while the radar beam covers up to 8 bars - that is it can scan a line from right to left

 

Track While Scan (TWS) modes: Track-while-scan means that the radar does its normal right-to-left, left-to-right scanning while it is actively tracking a couple of targets. TWS uses either high or medium PRF's. In TWS mode the radar beam covers an area much smaller than the maximal 120 degrees, but this way the target updates are much quicker. In takes around 2 seconds for the radar to complete a full scan. The arc and number of bars covered by TWS scan can be set to different settings: 'wide' (60 degrees with 2 bars), 'medium' (30 degress with 4 bars) and 'narrow' (15 degrees with 6 bars).

Edited May 9, 2014 by Frostie

[SDsc0rch]

I wonder what those things to the left of the throttle do.

 

http://www.f15sim.com/images/left_console_new.jpg

 

WANT!

 

i want the functionality of that panel!!

8)

[GGTharos]

Looking at your image it seems that early APG-63(v)1 and APG-70 don't have options for narrowing the azimuth.

I'm guessing that is an F-15E panel.

 

We're not in danger of having an eagle without such options in the game (or more to the point, after 1979).

 

Track While Scan (TWS) modes: Track-while-scan means that the radar does its normal right-to-left, left-to-right scanning while it is actively tracking a couple of targets. TWS uses either high or medium PRF's. In TWS mode the radar beam covers an area much smaller than the maximal 120 degrees, but this way the target updates are much quicker. In takes around 2 seconds for the radar to complete a full scan. The arc and number of bars covered by TWS scan can be set to different settings: 'wide' (60 degrees with 2 bars), 'medium' (30 degress with 4 bars) and 'narrow' (15 degrees with 6 bars).

Nothing in the -34 suggests that you cannot alter the TWS modes as you desire. What it describes is TWS modes that you can cycle automatically via AZ bump - ie. with the HOTAS. It doesn't explicitly state that they work with it either, but then the same descriptions might have you thinking that LRS/RWS is stuck in a 6-bar scan.

 

This is no different than the missing manual control options for some of the flanker's and mig's weapon systems.

 

Incidentally, the -34 describes the TWS modes as using a wider bar scan width, and so the altitude segment scanned in DCS is essentially correct.

Edited May 9, 2014 by GGTharos

[*Rage*]

Seems a little disingenuous to try and pass something off as should be modeled in the game when in fact that function likely pertains to a different model.

 

People trust what you say. If you have doubts about some of the information you are posting then perhaps you should disclose that in your initial post rather than only when challenged.

Edited May 9, 2014 by ///Rage

[HiJack]

I wonder what those things to the left of the throttle do.

 

http://www.f15sim.com/images/left_console_new.jpg

Can we please have those buttons go live? :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

Their functionality in the air to air arena is equivalent. The hardware is different. You can look at the left hand panel in the game's F-15C. You'll find those controls there, too, and they were there before MSIP as well.

 

Seems a little disingenuous to try and pass something off as should be modeled in the game when in fact that function likely pertains to a different model.

 

People trust what you say. If you have doubts about some of the information you are posting then perhaps you should disclose that in your initial post rather than only when challenged.

Edited May 9, 2014 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

So I went through my -34s.

 

Turns out Frostie is right.

 

The available modes are the ones Frostie pointed out, along with some others that are not the main search modes, so I won't discuss them.

The 4-bar scan we have now covers a little more altitude than the 2-bar scan would (but not twice. TWS bar scan is wider). The scan time for all modes is 2.2-2.6 sec, excluding special faster TWS scan modes which we won't go into for now.

 

As for the radar, is it over-modeled?

 

Not really. With the real deal you could scan that volume in the same amount of time and maintain all tracks within it anyway.

 

The slight additional altitude coverage does not offset the lack of track memory, which would allow you to scan full gimbals and a couple of elevation positions and maintain tracks in all of them.

 

All TWS functions in this sim are currently operating the same way, certainly lacking both advantages and disadvantages.

[Frostie]

So I went through my -34s.

 

Turns out Frostie is right.

What the.. what is this sorcery?

I didn't hack GG's account, honest. :devil_2:

 

 

As for the radar, is it over-modeled?

 

Not really. With the real deal you could scan that volume in the same amount of time and maintain all tracks within it anyway.

 

The slight additional altitude coverage does not offset the lack of track memory, which would allow you to scan full gimbals and a couple of elevation positions and maintain tracks in all of them.

 

All TWS functions in this sim are currently operating the same way, certainly lacking both advantages and disadvantages.

 

Obviously there is so much more the radar can do and should do, but seeing more in TWS than reality is not the right way to make up for things that are missing. One of the known limitations of using TWS is the reduced scan zone in azimuth and elevation over RWS, this limitation in elevation currently doesn't apply to the APG-63 in FC3.

 

It's the same situation in FC3 where you can see EOS contacts for x amount of km, that is being fixed. Or the MiG-29 had an EOS slewable gimbal the same as the Su-27, that has now been sorted to a fixed non slewable, smaller elevation plus a narrower azimuth.

You can't fix over-modeled aspects of some aircraft and then ignore the F-15 because it's lacking in other areas, all other aircraft are suffering from ED's modelling in that not all radar modes are modeled.

 

Radar track files are missing yes but so is delayed updates for TWS contacts, you can't expect to have all the pros of RL without any of the cons.

[Paradox]

I don't have much knowledge to contribute to the topic but I will say:

 

Discussions like this make me VERY excited for the F-18C given that it will be built from the ground up to simulate these systems in exacting detail and I'm hugely optimistic about learning them and interacting with them myself rather than letting an FC3 style interface simplify it for me.

[GGTharos]

I don't expect to see any of this changed in the SSM. The radar modes are quite complex (bar scan widths, rates, PRFs and oher parameters change based on selected range for examples). Right now, if anything, the radar in the eagle is heavily under modeled, right from the basics which is detection range.

[lunaticfringe]

Radar track files are missing yes but so is delayed updates for TWS contacts, you can't expect to have all the pros of RL without any of the cons.

 

I am more than happy to deal with the bar scan halving, not simply due to the fact that it's how the system works, but also based on what would be the commiserate update in speed of the antenna through the search zone. The application of TWS as a search mode is not tactically, or effectively, correct with how the APG-63 is used in real life. RWS finds; TWS prosecutes.

 

That said, Frostie- you'd better be careful what you wish for with the delayed TWS update. There's a very specific reason, being the back end processing, and the resulting compression of what is currently an over-modeled Doppler notch for the F-15 would, frankly, have all of Russian air screaming bloody murder.

 

So, yes please! Let's have realistic modelling of the APG-63. :D

[Postal2]

Same !!!! i want a most render than actually for APG 63 ^^

 

try this i like it http://home1.stofanet.dk/baskat/mainpage.html its a interactive APG 73 (on the F-18) and i dreams to have same thing on F-15c ^^ .

[srky]

We are constantly discussing the limitations of mechanically mounted arrays in threads like this. What if our simulated radar was of a model with drastically fewer limitations, that being one with an AESA array? I know that is a big "What If" but hey, I bet people suggested equally bold things back in the days of the original Lock On.

 

All you need to do is explain to ED how AESA works and all the operational modes of such a radar in US and RU aircrafts... along with it's specifications and everything in much detail as possible... and everything about the aircraft that carries them.... so, no, I think that would be too much guessing for a simulation.

[howie87]

Yeah, but FC3 isn't really a simulation at all. It's DCS lite. Game mode if you will.

[Oberst Zeisig]

Same !!!! i want a most render than actually for APG 63 ^^

 

try this i like it http://home1.stofanet.dk/baskat/mainpage.html its a interactive APG 73 (on the F-18) and i dreams to have same thing on F-15c ^^ .

 

That's great! Great link! I'd love to have these functions with the F-15C, I don't know why it's so difficult to model. Anyway I'm looking forward intense to any fighter on DCS-level!

[*Rage*]

Yeah, but FC3 isn't really a simulation at all. It's DCS lite. Game mode if you will.

 

Because not enough buttons for you to click?

 

FC3 is a great simulation (albeit with some flaws) of air combat. Some people like to fly and fight realistically. Some like to push buttons. Some can do both.

[srky]

Because not enough buttons for you to click?

 

FC3 is a great simulation (albeit with some flaws) of air combat. Some people like to fly and fight realistically. Some like to push buttons. Some can do both.

 

+1

[TAW_Blaze]

Agree with Rage, however we're missing advanced systems and this puts a limit to how good the simulation can be. Clickable buttons are irrelevant and are only there to attract the crowd.

[howie87]

Because not enough buttons for you to click?

 

FC3 is a great simulation (albeit with some flaws) of air combat. Some people like to fly and fight realistically. Some like to push buttons. Some can do both.

 

Ever flown a real plane? There are a lot of buttons to push, checklists to follow and radios to tune. In fact it's a huge part of the workload.

 

Locking someone up on the radar and cranking until your amraam goes pitbul doesn't make you a fighter pilot.

[Dudikoff]

Does it always have to be either/or really? It's so funny..

 

Clickable buttons are obviously handy for operating some systems, like e.g. MFDs in a readily apparent way rather than memorizing some obscure key combinations..

[Eddie]

Because not enough buttons for you to click?

 

No, because many fundemental and aircraft basic systems are not there.

 

FC3 is a great simulation (albeit with some flaws) of air combat. Some people like to fly and fight realistically. Some like to push buttons. Some can do both.

 

Indeed, but anyone who does attempt to use real world TTPs in FC3 aircraft will quickly run into barriers caused by missing systems and funtionality. Yes you can employ many real world TTPs (not that I've ever seen anyone doing it in the FC3 environment, although I know at least the 44th do), but there are a lot of hurdles to overcome and some that you can't.

 

I sense from your wording that you're trying to imply that Howie just wants to click switches without actually emplying any actual realism. Well that is actually not the case, he's in the 476th and that isn't exactly an option. ;)

 

The thing with your remark is that most people in the DCS/FC community don't actually know what real TTPs involve, and even those that think thery are flying "realistically" are usually doing nothing of the sort. Even in the 476th we're using little more than 50% of the real world TTPs, due to a combination of practicality and the art of what's possible in DCS, and what's actually enjoyable. But the fact is, that if you do truely want to fly in anything approaching a genuinely realistic manner, then you need many of those "buttons" and systems available, even if you only click them one or twice in a flight.

 

Something as basic as correct approach and landing procedures, or tactical formation flight are made much harder to perform or even impossble without TACAN and a working HSI for example.

 

Clickable buttons are irrelevant and are only there to attract the crowd.

 

Sorry but that just rubbish. Being forced to use arbitrary keyboard commands is just simply unacceptable to many simmers, myself included. Clickable cockpit does not have to mean increased system fidelity, it just means being able to use relevant switches in the cockpit to manipluate the systems that are available. Clicking the actual switch corresponding to a given function is considerably easier to learn than a radom key command. In my case learning some random key command is nigh on impossible, but tell me to do anything with the switches in the right place in the cockpit on my screen and that is easy, because it actually makes sense and corresponds with the actual system and its operation.

 

Clickable cockpit does not have to equal DCS A-10C level system modelling. For example, Falcon 4.0 had a clickable cockpit on release, but the systems fidelity was actually far less than in FC3 aircraft. It's the lack of that gamplay element that turns many away from FC3, not necessarily the level of systems modelling.

 

In my case, I simply could not/cannot fly the way I enjoy in an FC3 aircraft at present. The use of keyboard and missing systems just remove any sense of fun and enjoyment in seconds and lead to nothing but frustration. You and many others feel differently, and that's fine, just realise your view is not shared by everyone, in fact there are more out there who share the opposite view than you may realise.