The Détecteur de Départ Missile (DDM)

[Chrinik]

The main issue raised several times is that the D2M system being not a realistic one it shouldn't be default On. Not that it should be removed altogether or something. The rest is really not so important.

 

So why did you bring up "Multiplayer Fairness" as the main issue if that´s not the main issue?

 

Either it´s your english, or it´s mine.

 

I´d agree it could be default off, but that wasn´t the discussion I joined, you were on about exploits and multiplayer and all sorts of reasons, claiming all other discussions are "dancing around the main issue of fairness"...and I´m sorry, but that´s a load of crap.

 

Good to see you are moving to more sensible arguments now.

Edited December 26, 2016 by Chrinik

[TomCatMucDe]

The main issue raised several times is that the D2M system being not a realistic one it shouldn't be default On. Not that it should be removed altogether or something. The rest is really not so important.

 

 

 

It is a realistic and a real system

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WinterH]

It is a realistic and a real system

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It is realistic in another airframe, and is real in said airframe.

 

Razbam, for whatever reason, chose to include it for people who wants to play with it? Fine, but I really think it should be off by default, and should be up to mission planner to go the extra step if they think the planes they put into mission should have it.

[Gliptal]

How many of would be so up in arms about the DDM if it didn't add a minor advantage in airquake?

 

I really don't see how "realism" is a factor here. The only portion of the sim that is affected is MP, and the niche FC3 side of it as well. That whole module is anything but realistic in its depiction of the systems.

 

There are really no bases to cry out about the DDM when both the F-15 and the Su-27 sport a SSMs that have little to do with the real systems. To fight the SPAMRAAM potential of the low cockpit workload of the F-15 Mirage pilots have to adapt. Do the same thing and adapt to the DDM.

 

I'd be more willing of conceding the point if the MP PvP scene was centered around ASM aircrafts, but the only one widely used is the MiG-21bis. Step down from the power of the semi-simulated FC3 jets give, and accept that you have to work around the advantages the new kid in the block has.

 

Lord only knows what will happen if VEAO ever comes out with their rendition of the Typhoon, even if it's one of the very early Tranches. It'll be fun to see what an airframe capable of having a fair fight with the F-22 will bring to the PvP scene.

[Bogey Jammer]

You mean what-if equipments like the KH-66 GROM on MiG-21 or the ability to change the GBU Lasercode from the Cockpit in the A-10C, and other such features that provide clear advantages to the user of said product? I don´t see the threads attempting to stop those "features" anywhere.

 

This argument is nothing new. Nobody is adding "what if" features because someone else did...

 

I don't know about the laser codes, but the KH-66 is more likely to be played into mission tailored around that element. The D2M can be in that case too BUT this would be a PvE scenario. Now the D2M can also be used during PvP close range combat. That's not the same psychological effect for the opponents based on the fact that the presence of this equipment is fictional. I already roughly said that earlier.

However against FC3 aircraft it is indeed a worthless difference. But against hardcore realism enthusiasts embracing the original concept of DCS, it is unacceptable, multiplayer fairness or not.

BTW the KH-66 is regularly thrown in the face as a counter example but nobody cares about the CCIP inexistent feature on the real ASP. That would be the typical case of convenient exploitation concept mentioned by Zaelu :megalol:

[zaelu]

@ Gliptal

 

I never flew F15C online and maybe 1-2 times the Su-27 in a PvP environment. Because of lack of time and training I rarely fly PvP and I do it on BlueFlag server mostly flying Mig21bis or a helicopter.

 

@ Bogey Jammer

 

As I said numerous times by now here, there is no point fixing an wrong by doing another one. I do use Mig21 online in PVP but there is no point in using it for CAS/GND Attack for me since it will just become even easier to die having less missiles or heavy rocket launchers attached. I use Su25 for this task.

 

But against hardcore realism enthusiasts embracing the original concept of DCS, it is unacceptable, multiplayer fairness or not.

 

For the hardcore realism side of fans I think this issue is "beyond fixing". The only solution is to simply disable it and carry on.

For the multiplayer though, no matter how little this side of DCS is in each ones view, this system being now close to worthless (if RAZBAM would add sensibility to flares and sun to D2M everybody would keep it off I guarantee) can only be a bad thing if it glitches after a patch because it is already close to the bottom of usefulness and the only direction would be towards giving unreal "Battlefield" style advantage.

 

I think we can agree that after people will use this and see how badly it warns about missiles launches if this system after a patch drops it's sensitivity by half no one will notice or care!

Edited December 26, 2016 by zaelu

[jojo]

if RAZBAM would add sensibility to flares and sun to D2M everybody would keep it off I guarantee) can only be a bad thing if it glitches after a patch because it is already close to the bottom of usefulness and the only direction would be towards giving unreal "Battlefield" style advantage.

 

What are your sources to say that MLWS in general, and Saphir DDM in particular generates false alarms about the sun ?

[zaelu]

What are your sources to say that MLWS in general, and Saphir DDM in particular generates false alarms about the sun ?

 

Pretty much same as RAZBAMs :D .

 

here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2963498&postcount=1

[myHelljumper]

Pretty much same as RAZBAMs :D .

 

here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2963498&postcount=1

 

I do not see anything related to false alarms in this post.

[zaelu]

Why do you think is like that? ;)

[jojo]

Ok, so YOU decided that a MLWS has to be sensitive to the sun.

 

The problem with this theory is that this kind of system became wide spread.

The SAMIR DDM has been incorporated to Rafale (after Mirage 2000N & Mirage 2000D) before being replaced by DDM NG.

MLWS system based on IR and/ or UV sensor are wide spread on helicopter and heavy tactical aircrafts. The same systems are used to point DIRCM system on incoming missiles.

 

Would you think anyone would give a s... about that kind of sensor and rely on it if it was sensitive to the sun ???

 

This isn't 1970' technology...

 

Finally it isn't "arcade sensor". And it's probably code borrowed from DCS A-10C (already in game, with the same performance and limitations).

Yes it doesn't belong to the specific Mirage 2000C variant. Yes it's a bit "what if".

You won't change this, I won't. We got your point, but it's like that !

[myHelljumper]

Ok, so YOU decided that a MLWS has to be sensitive to the sun.

 

The problem with this theory is that this kind of system became wide spread.

The SAMIR DDM has been incorporated to Rafale (after Mirage 2000N & Mirage 2000D) before being replaced by DDM NG.

MLWS system based on IR and/ or UV sensor are wide spread on helicopter and heavy tactical aircrafts. The same systems are used to point DIRCM system on incoming missiles.

 

Would you think anyone would give a s... about that kind of sensor and rely on it if it was sensitive to the sun ???

 

This isn't 1970' technology...

 

Finally it isn't "arcade sensor". And it's probably code borrowed from DCS A-10C (already in game, with the same performance and limitations).

Yes it doesn't belong to the specific Mirage 2000C variant. Yes it's a bit "what if".

You won't change this, I won't. We got your point, but it's like that !

 

True, if there are anymore complains about this system, it will purely be for balance or fairness, two words that does not have a place in DCS word.

[zaelu]

@Jojo

 

How do you know D2M code is borrowed from A10C?

From Zeus posts we could deduce he code it it from scratch all by him self.

 

I make an educated guess... I could be wrong... but you would either have to bring me some arguments to convince me otherwise or you simply can not to care and live it like this. Shouting at me that somehow is my fault that "I decided" (lol) to think like this is just in the realm of humor.

 

So here is my "educated guess":

 

Our Mirage is actually too old to have good D2M system. Yes... Maybe Rafale has one too but also my grandpa computer had a Hard Drive but it was just one Megabyte, weighted 2 tones and had a transfer rate of 1kbs... hardly the same thing with a modern Hard Drive.

 

So my opinion is that D2M was not introduced on Mirage 2000C but was put on the attack double seater because of its probably huge drawbacks. A fighter rarely attacks ground target where he could have a reasonable flight path that he could understand and clearly expect lanches. A fighter mot probably would use this in dogfight at close combat rages.

 

I make a parenthesis here.

 

The fact that D2M is placed under IR missiles pylons and they take a shape of some puny little webcam sensors with a prism o top and not like a small astronomic observatory like the IRST sensor from Su27 looks like shows not only the huge difference in technology but also in expectations.

 

So returning to my guess. If this system with such a small angle of coverage and big latency would be used in dogfight most probably a fighter pilot would be enraged by the rate of failures of detections or false positives that he would consider it useless.

 

A pilot in dogfight would most probably be turning at a huge rate and a warning even if correct would be shown too late or in the wrong position. But most probably because he (the pilot) would pop flares and be turning and very likely expose the back of the plane to the sun will add more chances to the system to fail and show false positives that will only clutter his mind instead of helping.

 

But a double seater attack variant can use the D2M as a backup or supplementary device in a more stable environment (steady attack runs with comprehensible trajectories for the plane crew). The crew can disable D2M if attacking from the sun or if the plan to use a lot of flares.

 

Lastly how do people imagine a launch will look on a lensless (as it seeems) sensor mounted on an aircraft moving at hundreds of kilometers per hour banking and turning heavy in combat? Like a Space Shuttle Launch from Cape Canaveral or more like impressionistic spasmodic blobs of black and white filling mindlessly the small uncorrected unstabilized image sensor?

 

And if instead of looking like a Spacecraft streaking across the sensor with good chances of being picked by a pattern detection algorithm from the 80's the thing looks more like an explosion catch up-close by a phone camera while falling from the hand... how it would not be sensitive to flares or Sun?

 

How do you think you filter out the Sun? Or some flares that looks like more Suns?

 

Example. TrackIR can't filter out the Sun and is 2012? (the last one) technology.

 

 

... balance or fairness, two words that does not have a place in DCS word.

 

So lets put AIM120 on all planes, helicopters , boats and trees in DCS.

 

You know... is this kind of comment, or the one that cries for thread locking or that one that stumbles on some phrazeologic bureaucracy that raise the red flag for me. Is these kinds of remarks that makes me think... he he he...

Edited December 27, 2016 by zaelu

[T_A]

You can write entire walls of text , bottom line its in the game , deal with it , or not.

[jojo]

@Jojo

How do you know D2M code is borrowed from A10C?

From Zeus posts we could deduce he code it it from scratch all by him self.

 

Because in posted pictures you can clearly see that there are several sensors on each side to cover the 180° horizontal FoV of each DDM sensor.

So the MLWS false alarm and limitations are on ED side.

 

How can you dare to compare military jet hardware to 100$ entertainment piece of kit (track IR) ?

 

You want to make educated guess ? Then start to educate yourself...

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Missile_Approach_Warning

Infra red based MAWEdit

 

Advantages

• In good weather conditions,the atmospheric transmission of IR radiation tends to be better than that of solar-blind UV radiation.
  
• Can potentially achieve longer detection ranges at altitude where there is no ground clutter.
  
• Can potentially detect the kinetic heat of missiles after motor burnout at altitude but probably not at low level due to high IR background clutter.
  
• Provides good AOA information for pointing a DIRCM and good decision making regarding decoy dispensing direction and maneuvering.
  

Disadvantages

• Very low IR transmission through liquid water and ice, which precludes all-weather operation. Even a few tens of micrometers of water on the lens, or in the atmosphere between the threat and the sensor, is sufficient to effectively blind both MWIR and LWIR sensors.
  
• Must compete with massive amounts of natural (sun) and man made IR clutter.
  
• False alarm rate and/or Probability of Warning is therefore a huge problem against surface to air missiles due to high IR background clutter originating from the earth.
  
• Needs vast computing power to alleviate false alarm problem which in turn drives up cost.
  
• Two colour detectors are used in some systems to assist in the suppression of background clutter and lower FAR. Even though it solves some problems, it creates others as it complicates the system further due to the optical, sensitivity and extremely high pixel rate requirements which impact negatively on cost and reliability.
  
• Cannot provide actual range information.
  
• Traditionally IR detectors have very narrow instantaneous fields of view to achieve good enough signal to target ratio. Large detector arrays are therefore required to provide 360° azimuth coverage which is another cost driver.
  
• Requires cooled detectors which complicates life cycle logistic support and result in high cost of ownership.
  
• Detection range could be limited against future new technology low IR/UV emission rocket motors.
  

About SAMIR DDM:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1990/1990%20-%203428.PDF

Bispectral infra-red missile detector

So maybe it isn't just "Track IR" technology in DDM.

 

Is it challenging to produce good MLWS ? Probably.

But if SAMIR DDM was so bad, it wouldn't have been fitted as standard equipment on Rafale (same sensor).

 

So returning to my guess. If this system with such a small angle of coverage and big latency would be used in dogfight most probably a fighter pilot would be enraged by the rate of failures of detections or false positives that he would consider it useless.

You're right, 180° x 80 for each sensor is really a narrow FoV :music_whistling:

What do you know of the DDM latency ?

 

The lens:

- MiG 29 IRST is generally considered useless equipment in pilot's report (including one USAF pilot on exchange assignment on MiG 29G)

- DDM isn't designed to target aircrafts from long range, it's designed to spot incoming MANPADs = short range

 

SAMIR DDM on Mirage 2000C:

I have said from the very beginning that:

- DDM has never be seen on Mirage 2000C

- it wouldn't be plug & play on Mirage 2000C.

- I provided link to the story of Mirage 2000N K2 upgrade with DDM

 

Mirage 2000C and Mirage 2000N are from the same time period, they both use SERVAL RWR.

 

So yes, again, DDM on M-2000C is "what if". But stop to call it "arcade" and pretend it's a perfect system in game.

It has been reported that it reports any missile or rocket firing, so yes you have false alarms in game.

 

But a final decision has been announced. So lets stop arguing about why we have DDM on M-2000C. We all should be angry because MANPADs have no IR signature, and it defeats the purpose of AN/AAR-47 for A-10C and DDM for M-2000C :D

 

Comparable AN/AAR-47 "since 1991"

${1}

[myHelljumper]

Thanks for this post jojo, I really enjoy reading them as they are very informative and backed up with facts.:thumbup:

[microvax]

Example. TrackIR can't filter out the Sun and is 2012? (the last one) technology.

 

... And the track clip is a perfect example of trackir built quality.

 

Honestly, not wanting to add insult to injury anymore, but trackir is really a terrible product in comparison to what it could be for the price. Both soft and hardware.

[Bogey Jammer]

I have a question :

Does it have to detect flares ?

I can deduce the answer from this :

Two colour detectors are used in some systems to assist in the suppression of background clutter and lower FAR.

Thanks Jojo for pointing it out.

 

By comparing the measured levels with the characteristic ones it would be possible to discriminate the nature of the sources. :) I think…

 

The IR seeker of the modern missiles may use the same trick which explains why they are considered flare-proof. :book:

[grunf]

Comparable AN/AAR-47 "since 1991"

Fixed link to video: :)

 

[Bogey Jammer]

BTW after watched that video above, and considering the relative straightforward bulky architecture of electronic applications of computing in the 80's, I'm wondering if the RWR rendering would just be pictograms giving Left/right information only instead of a perfectly aligned segments to the origin of the threat :music_whistling:

 

Yet this Razbam's solution is ergonomically logical and convenient but giving the fact that the laser detectors don't have this luxury and must be satisfied with usually 4 sectors, perhaps this has to be reconsidered ?

Who knows if the SAMIR's sensor are just giving global levels instead of a digital picture ? What can be the properties of the prisms related to the direction of the input light ?

[myHelljumper]

BTW after watched that video above, and considering the relative straightforward bulky architecture of electronic applications of computing in the 80's, I'm wondering if the RWR rendering would just be pictograms giving Left/right information only instead of a perfectly aligned segments to the origin of the threat :music_whistling:

 

Yet this Razbam's solution is ergonomically logical and convenient but giving the fact that the laser detectors don't have this luxury and must be satisfied with usually 4 sectors, perhaps this has to be reconsidered ?

Who knows if the SAMIR's sensor are just giving global levels instead of a digital picture ? What can be the properties of the prisms related to the direction of the input light ?

 

I think it can be an good talk, but all datas from aircraft defense systems are classified so DCS implementation is wagess as well as all the talk we can make about it. :)

[syn]

I think it can be an good talk, but all datas from aircraft defense systems are classified so DCS implementation is wagess as well as all the talk we can make about it. :)

 

Well, if:

1.) system was never fitted to the M2000C

AND

2.) system details are classified and nobody knows how coverage angles/cockpit display presentations are

 

The obvious decision should have been not to simulate it... but well.... yeah.... RAZBAM....

[zaelu]

@Jojo (sorry for the long post)

 

Because in posted pictures you can clearly see that there are several sensors on each side to cover the 180° horizontal FoV of each DDM sensor.

So the MLWS false alarm and limitations are on ED side.

 

Best way is to ask Zeus about this. He can tell best if he used anything from A-10C code to make D2M. My opinion that he create it from scratch is based on his WIP pictures and text.

 

How can you dare to compare military jet hardware to 100$ entertainment piece of kit (track IR) ?

 

:megalol: I guess this is a matter of "perspective". Did you know that Romania (my country of origin) had in the late 60's some powerful anti tank and anti-personal Lasers that effectively stopped Russia to invade Romania after disobeying to invade Czechoslovakia? (For the Russian friends here on the forum... please try not to laugh... this is serious :D ) But maybe things are different in the West, maybe these super systems are build by VEAO (they do have contracts with DOD) and the quality is as advertised :pilotfly: .

 

You want to make educated guess ? Then start to educate yourself...

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Missile_Approach_Warning

About SAMIR DDM:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1990/1990%20-%203428.PDF

So maybe it isn't just "Track IR" technology in DDM.

 

Comparable AN/AAR-47 "since 1991"

 

Hey, thanks for the links and video!!

 

Its funny that:

 

ITT is negotiating

US rights for the system which is being offered

to USAF to meet its tactical MAWS requirement.

 

So much for that advert :D

 

Also in that Advertising video there is no fighter! And I think we can agree that if they would have had one single fighter they would have mention it because... advertising.

 

 

Returning at D2M system.

 

How do you know that the D2M system on Raphale has no upgrades versus the one on Mirage2000B at least in the sensor? Since both are very secret, thus not really known I would assume (since Military is so awesome :) ) since 90's they would have upgrade it.

 

 

What do you know of the DDM latency ?

 

I can't find the post but I think Zeus said that the warning on RWR will stay for 10 seconds and after those 10 seconds a new one can appear. So if the plane is in a turn this could render the thing very unreliable even more.

 

The lens:

- MiG 29 IRST is generally considered useless equipment in pilot's report (including one USAF pilot on exchange assignment on MiG 29G)

 

I am sure someone with better knowledge than mine could "educate" :P you on this also. But, all I can say to you (not being in the business) is that Russians have IRST on all their planes Su27 family and Mig29 planes (even T-50!) and they have a lot of missiles that work in conjunction with it. Are they lying? If so... big lie :) . But think about it... ManPads can spot/track/ and engage front aspect targets with a disposable seeker and we are to assume the IRST is useless because?!? An US pilot in an exchange program tested one on a Mig29G? C'mon...

 

The thing here is this... Russians put IRST on all of their fighter planes and claim it can even do BVR but the French only thought of putting D2M on Mirage2000C... on the back... if the plane carried IR missiles (this detail speak clearly of the intended only anti ManPads)... The difference between IRST and D2M seems huge to me.

 

So yes, again, DDM on M-2000C is "what if". But stop to call it "arcade" and pretend it's a perfect system in game.

It has been reported that it reports any missile or rocket firing, so yes you have false alarms in game.

 

This is I guess a matter of how do we tend to round up or if one is an optimist or an pessimist. If the system was never installed on the C and we know practically nothing about it... you want to call it realistic... I will call it a la "Battlefield 4". Especially since nobody will benefit from it anything against ManPads. Only in A2A will have its use. I don't fool myself about it. Because of this the developer should have asked himself... is it worth it to even expose the plane to online multiplayer possible misuse? That's why I always asked the feature to be default OFF so the mission designer to have not to worry about this aspect.

 

 

 

The best best solution would have been to make this system available even at rearming so it would be independent of mission designer short sight if the case. But it should have been in the Airbase Warehouse Option as available load out!

 

And if it would have been placed there I wouldn't mind to be default ON because is very easy to prohibit it by a Multiplayer Mission Designer.

 

 

But a final decision has been announced. So lets stop arguing about why we have DDM on M-2000C. We all should be angry because MANPADs have no IR signature, and it defeats the purpose of AN/AAR-47 for A-10C and DDM for M-2000C :D

 

This the final etc sounds to me like "I want this thread locked! Locked! Quick! Is too dangerous! Lock it!!!" :D

 

Nothing is final... even if somehow you say I am right... maybe you change your mind later. I would totally agree with your new arguments if necessary.

 

 

One last thing about the Sun and flares. You highlighted the filter aspect in you post but the wording was about "background noise". Not flares not Sun. Again... they would have praised them selves about this not insinuate it or let it at anyone's guess.

 

The problems with flares and sun are that the flares are very powerful and close to the plane/D2M sensor creating what somebody (if not you) said about a missile launch a volcano! The sun is huge and emits on all spectrum so... how do you filter it if it simply blinds everything?

 

The solution I would think is similar with the one that was used in WW1 to make the machineguns fire through the propeller. Although most people would think at some magic thing that would protect or move the blades from bullets it was actually a lot more simpler.... the guns were stopped from firing when the propeller was in the path of the bullet. So the best way is to stop the filter when exposed to flares or Sun. This is one of the things that make me solve the riddle of this D2M system being mounted only on the double seater attack variant of Mirage. Easy to calculate your attack run not to have sun in the back or if it does to disable it.

[Rlaxoxo]

Where is Sithspawn when you need him : D

[Bogey Jammer]

I think it can be an good talk, but all datas from aircraft defense systems are classified so DCS implementation is wagess as well as all the talk we can make about it. :)

Of course but the point is to do the guesswork the most credible as possible.

The obvious decision should have been not to simulate it... but well.... yeah.... RAZBAM....

Problem is… many other features of the M-2000C were developed from guesswork, so your reasoning would eliminate the whole module ;)