look down / shoot down realistic?

[LuSi_6]

Bonjour!

 

I ran into some Radar problems once and a while, to name it: I loose lock (STT) on my target as soon as the targed dives and turn ( =notching?)

 

Now I only used Radar for A2A in FC3 before and the Eagles and Flankers and MiGs do have a solid lock and it's kind of hard work to brake the lock. Not so the M2k Radar :huh:

 

So my question:

 

#do I use wrong Radar settings? I let all to default, just set Radar to EM

#is the RDI Radar to sensetive (and related to that: are the FC3 Radars to good or not as simulated as the full scale DCS Radars like MiG-21, M2k?)

#looking at the F-14s AWG-9, even that Radar has some trouble with terrain and low flying targets as it was build to target bomber over open seas

 

-> Mirage Radar is optimised for high altidude head on interception and kind of lacks low alt small target tracking?

 

Thanks :pilotfly:

[TomCatMucDe]

I find the the Mirage radar to be way too sensitive to beaming. As soon as your target puts you in his 3/9 line the lock breaks. very often he doesnt even need to dive. It is kinda systematic. In FC3 it isnt that easy to do that.

 

Another thing that maybe a factor here, the radar doesnt move vertically, so maybe, in his dive, he went out of your -6 degrees cone.

Edited January 11, 2016 by TomCatMucDe

[sedenion]

I think the radar is currently too sensitive to notching, beaming, etc... it seem to have 0 tolerance.

[LuSi_6]

so I'm not the only one. This makes the use of the 530 even harder :(

[Bidartarra]

On a related subject, will the antenna be movable (as in change its orientation) ?

Its terribly hard to lock let alone see targets flying below us when at 40,000ft or up

[Jester Darrak]

I think the Mirage is sort if blind or at least very limited without AWACS or ground control. And that is on ourpose. A simplified radar control and/or electronics help keeping the cost per unit and flying hour low. GCI/AWACS does the trick though. The Mirage was not built for air superiority like the Eagle so keep in mind to not try to use it like one. Grab a bag and fend off any bandit closing in on your base but do not go hunting. Get an Eagle Driver guide you in on bandits or pack bombs and deliver. It is not about the kills, it is about keeping the enemy at bay and deny him offensive momentum.

 

It was built in a time where NATO (EU countries) was only to stall the enemy while US Forces starts packing big stuff for the counter attack. I read somewhere that the bigger "plan" saw Sowiets coming close to the Rhine until US+NATO could properly fight them off. Not to mention initially tactical nukes on defensive positions in the first three days.

[LuSi_6]

yes, but when I lock a target I would like my Radar to keep the lock and not to loose lock as soon as the pilot of the target plane touches his stick...

[dotChuckles]

I wonder if it's a case that this is more realistic, and we are used to radar systems that are a little *too* good if you get what I mean?

[Jester Darrak]

Well, there might be several issues causing that. When flying the Eagle I sometimes can't even get a solid lock when I see his tailpipes eight miles behind him. Notch is pretty effective, I almost lose lock within a second that he turns. Just look where you saw him and remember where he was going, even if you have to go into a violent nose down attitude. Then you watch at the terrain and might be able to anticipate his moves.

 

I once let a M2K get to me within 8 NM unnoticed and luckily was able to find him and get a shot off. Anticipation, guys. Eagle at 45k and 40NM dead ahead? Keep snaking while dragging him in, every once in a while look for his position. If you have him 15NM up your nose it's time to start zooming up. You can fire SARHs from 10NM and an altitude difference of 20k ft and he will probably get no launch warning when you fox since he's blind and deaf on his belly.

[QuiGon]

I wonder if it's a case that this is more realistic, and we are used to radar systems that are a little *too* good if you get what I mean?

 

I also wonder about that.

[sedenion]

I wonder if it's a case that this is more realistic, and we are used to radar systems that are a little *too* good if you get what I mean?

 

Currently the radar loses the lock for any glitch, i find hard to imagine that a radar is so bad that it lost the lock when the target does some manoevers. I can hear the "FC3 radar are too powerful", but here we have radar that unlock pretty like: "ho sorry, the target turned, i lost it !"

Edited January 11, 2016 by sedenion

[Azrayen]

I wonder if it's a case that this is more realistic, and we are used to radar systems that are a little *too* good if you get what I mean?

 

Guts feeling (with the hope I have educated guts :D): It's both.

I.e. FC3 pilots are probably used to "too efficient" systems (because of lack of limitations modelization, aka simplifications).

AND the M-2000 still has a bit of way to go before being fully usable.

 

If you have (serious) knowledge about "how it should be" and you see something amiss, do say so, I'm sure it will help developpers.

If you don't, then you may try to build you knowledge (if you enjoy this) by reading stuff. And/or wait a bit more to let Razbam guys complete their job: don't forget that what we got now is "only" the first public beta, still with unfinished/missing features.

 

Regards,

Az'

[TomCatMucDe]

Guts feeling (with the hope I have educated guts :D): It's both.

I.e. FC3 pilots are probably used to "too efficient" systems (because of lack of limitations modelization, aka simplifications).

AND the M-2000 still has a bit of way to go before being fully usable.

 

If you have (serious) knowledge about "how it should be" and you see something amiss, do say so, I'm sure it will help developpers.

If you don't, then you may try to build you knowledge (if you enjoy this) by reading stuff. And/or wait a bit more to let Razbam guys complete their job: don't forget that what we got now is "only" the first public beta, still with unfinished/missing features.

 

Regards,

Az'

 

+1

[myHelljumper]

I think the answer is : Doppler effect

[sedenion]

I think the answer is : Doppler effect

 

This is not an answer...

[PiedDroit]

I find the the Mirage radar to be way too sensitive to beaming. As soon as your target puts you in his 3/9 line the lock breaks. very often he doesnt even need to dive. It is kinda systematic. In FC3 it isnt that easy to do that.

 

Another thing that maybe a factor here, the radar doesnt move vertically, so maybe, in his dive, he went out of your -6 degrees cone.

reading all the reports I am under the impression that the radar is working only using Doppler difference.

It's expected to lose a lock for a target beaming, close to the ground.

But a radar is also a distance-measuring device, when a contact is far from ground (and not in bad weather), it is not into the clutter, even if it is beaming (making its doppler return 0, relatively to the ground), it's still a shiny, lonely flash of reflected energy, so the radar shouldn't lose it except if it becomes very close to the ground, still beaming.

I don't know if it makes sense or if I'm completely wrong (I never worked on radars, I worked on sonars and even the most basic one is able to do that).

[Croaker47]

reading all the reports I am under the impression that the radar is working only using Doppler difference.

It's expected to lose a lock for a target beaming, close to the ground.

But a radar is also a distance-measuring device, when a contact is far from ground (and not in bad weather), it is not into the clutter, even if it is beaming (making its doppler return 0, relatively to the ground), it's still a shiny, lonely flash of reflected energy, so the radar shouldn't lose it except if it becomes very close to the ground, still beaming.

I don't know if it makes sense or if I'm completely wrong (I never worked on radars, I worked on sonars and even the most basic one is able to do that).

 

My understanding is if you are in a doppler mode on your FCR, then a beaming target is going to be rejected. It knows it's there like it knows trees are there, but if the clutter filters are large, then it gets rejected like the trees when it is at a low enough rate of closure and perpendicular to travel (where the doppler effect is still high in front and behind, but effectively zero on the sides that you're illuminating as far as the radar's concerned). It shouldn't have much to do with terrain masking. The target would still appear on other radars, but you would not have velocity information like you do with Doppler. I would think given the high update rate involved in STT, that it would be more immediately apparent that you've lost lock. Maybe the Mirage has a large blind speed? Beaming is supposedly effective as well; a lot of Fox-1 defenses seem to start with 'put it on the beam, and if that don't work then do X' or something to that effect (Though 3/9 is a good place to be to defend a missile anyway).

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong in those assumptions, it's easy to learn a lot while being shot down, heh.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Dragoon47

[ttaylor0024]

On a related subject, will the antenna be movable (as in change its orientation) ?

Its terribly hard to lock let alone see targets flying below us when at 40,000ft or up

 

Yes, it will be implemented

 

I think the Mirage is sort if blind or at least very limited without AWACS or ground control. And that is on ourpose. A simplified radar control and/or electronics help keeping the cost per unit and flying hour low. GCI/AWACS does the trick though. The Mirage was not built for air superiority like the Eagle so keep in mind to not try to use it like one. Grab a bag and fend off any bandit closing in on your base but do not go hunting. Get an Eagle Driver guide you in on bandits or pack bombs and deliver. It is not about the kills, it is about keeping the enemy at bay and deny him offensive momentum.

 

It was built in a time where NATO (EU countries) was only to stall the enemy while US Forces starts packing big stuff for the counter attack. I read somewhere that the bigger "plan" saw Sowiets coming close to the Rhine until US+NATO could properly fight them off. Not to mention initially tactical nukes on defensive positions in the first three days.

 

If that's the case then you could make the argument that every fighter aircraft is blind or limited without AWACS. As it stands now, you have a total of 120* left to right coverage, and 48*(I believe each scan line is 12* unless I remember incorrectly) coverage up and down. Once Antenna elevation and azimuth movement is implemented you will be able to scan even more volume, especially if operating in a flight (think #1 scan up left, #2 up right, etc.) Yes, beaming works almost too well right now, however if you wait till you're in usable range of the 530 to lock AND fire nearly simultaneously they really won't have time to maneuver, and even if they do you just keep pushing the attack and finish them off.

 

It's going to take more work to get into range of a F-15C or any of the other FC3 aircraft really, but again you have to look at the tools available at the time of creation, purpose, etc. Calling this aircraft blind without any other support is misleading.

Edited January 11, 2016 by ttaylor0024

[jojo]

On a related subject, will the antenna be movable (as in change its orientation) ?

Its terribly hard to lock let alone see targets flying below us when at 40,000ft or up

 

Yes you can move scan area up/ down.

For left/ right it's slaved to TDC.

 

It will come...you can't miss that on such interceptor.

 

Currently Zeus said we have 4 lines = 12 degrees.

Edited January 11, 2016 by jojo

[spiddx]

and 48*(I believe each scan line is 12* unless I remember incorrectly) coverage up and down

 

One scan line is 3° so ATM we have max 12° coverage (6 up/6 down). It will be 120° (+/- 60) when antenna elevation is in. So the radar will get significantly better if you know how to use it. ^^

[GGTharos]

Guts feeling (with the hope I have educated guts :D): It's both.

I.e. FC3 pilots are probably used to "too efficient" systems (because of lack of limitations modelization, aka simplifications).

AND the M-2000 still has a bit of way to go before being fully usable.

 

Nope. The F-15 had well documented radar memory modes that work to recover a target that merely turned through the notch. This memory can last anywhere from 3 to 15 seconds depending on a bunch of factors, including settings, distance and radar mode.

But I can also guarantee that you can find videos of aircraft notching and causing the lock to drop right away, so the real answer is... It depends on the radar set, and the software.

 

I would expect the mirage to have some radar memory/target recovery modes as well, but we don't even have a reasonable radar operation manual for RDI, let alone something like the F-15s -34.

 

I have no idea what RAZBAM had access to, either.

[Azrayen]

Uh??

 

I really don't see how your answer and my quote go together...

[GGTharos]

Your claiming that FC3 systems are too efficient. Far from it, there are features that make them much deadlier than they are in game.

 

Radar memory is one of them.

 

On the other hand, there are very real examples showing that radar sets can do a notching target right away.

 

In other words your gut feeling is wrong in this case. What a real radar set does depends on the radar set and its software. It could give you either the behavior that you see in fc3 or what you see with the mirage. Both are possible in RL and it simply depends on the radar set, so saying one's fc3 and the other not means nothing.

Edited January 12, 2016 by GGTharos

[Azrayen]

OK. Examples of FC3 being too efficient:

- Radar immediately works; no warm-up.

- RWR is always able to distinguish Fox 1 launches.

- IFF is never wrong (granted, this is DCS in a whole, not just FC3).

 

Why? Because underlying code is simple.

Nothing more. :)

[GGTharos]

So no practical effect ;-)