The Détecteur de Départ Missile (DDM)

[The M]

He described in an earlier post that the System consists of 3 sensor eyes on each side rotated so that the detection area from his source is reached.

He said multiple times he can't change what the sensors see or what the field of view is. They are the same sensors used in the A-10c module, because he can't add new ones to the game, and he can't adjust the ones he uses:

myHelljumper: The D2M will only detect missiles with active rocket motor right ?

Zeus67: I think so. I have no control over that.

 

 

 

Zeus67:

Due to thecnical constrains I had to implement 3 "eyes" per sensor.

The coverage is still 180 degrees azimuth and 80 degrees elevation. Unfortunately there is no way for me to block the upper coverage so I rotated the sensor eyes to simulate it.

 

It looks like there is no "blind spot" but that is an optical illusion created by the drawing of the rotated cones.

 

That is what I understood from what Zeus wrote

[myHelljumper]

Thanks, I know it was somewhere but I haven't got the time to dig :thumbup:

[RightStuff]

The sun is huge and emits on all spectrum so... how do you filter it if it simply blinds everything?

 

First idea that comes in my mind:

You know your position, date and time. Though you can exactly tell where the sun is. Knowing that the sun has a diameter of 30' (0.5 degrees), converting this onto the 2D picture of the DDM you can 'blend out' (right wording?) this hot area. In combination with a Gyrosensor like in EDTracker ( to stay in our Sim-World ;)) even hard movement could probably not really harm the needed calculations for judging 'sun' or 'other hot object'.

 

Rem.: I like the tech. discussion on the last pages. Pls keep on!

[PiedDroit]

First idea that comes in my mind:

You know your position, date and time. Though you can exactly tell where the sun is. Knowing that the sun has a diameter of 30' (0.5 degrees), converting this onto the 2D picture of the DDM you can 'blend out' (right wording?) this hot area. In combination with a Gyrosensor like in EDTracker ( to stay in our Sim-World ;)) even hard movement could probably not really harm the needed calculations for judging 'sun' or 'other hot object'.

 

Rem.: I like the tech. discussion on the last pages. Pls keep on!

Certainly not linked to sun's position at a given time, sensors aren't that smart :D

Flitering would be done based on size/intensity => anything that is bigger/brighter than X or is in whatever spectrum is filtered out, that's it.

I worked on sensors, not optical, but I guess the principle is the same, you know what you're looking for (in terms of size, spectrum, etc), anything that falls out those parameters is ignored.

Edited December 28, 2016 by PiedDroit

[RightStuff]

Yup.. The difference between our two approcahes is, that one assumes the hot thing there must be the sun - the other one 'knows' this is the sun.

 

A combination of both would be perfect. :D

[PiedDroit]

Yup.. The difference between our two approcahes is, that one assumes the hot thing there must be the sun - the other one 'knows' this is the sun.

 

A combination of both would be perfect. :D

Usually that kind of filtering is done at a different level in the system (if done at all).

 

For example, let's say you have a sensor that has a fixed set of parameters (which may or may not be configurable), in return the sensor will output everything it find that falls into those parameters.

 

After that (at the next level), all the sensor's input will be grouped together, tracked (i.e. the system will try to link one detection to another detection in the previous cycle).

Detections will then be confirmed or ignored, based on the track history, that the raw sensor doesn't know about.

 

For example, a detection that has is not moving over time, or has a calculated speed that does not correspond to it's predicted path, or unrealistic speed, whatever.

Filtering by sun position would fall into those categories. But due to the number of things that could go wrong with this approach (aircraft attitude, time of day, geo localisation, weather), my bet is that there is no such thing in the DDM, only raw filtering based on strength (and maybe spectrum).

But why not :D

[red_coreSix]

The Typhoons IRST supposedly has the dynamic position of the sun, moon, and other bright stars stored and uses that data to filter out clutter. But then again, it is a few generations ahead of the D2M...

[jojo]

Already posted it, it's the new DDM NG, but still...here is how it sees the sun

 

 

@ Zealu

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.

US can do what they want, other countries have other ways to do business.

 

Terma developed solutions for all kinds of airframe, including fighters like Danish F-16, RAF Tornado GR4 or RAF Harrier.

https://www.terma.com/defense/aircraft-survivability-equipment/self-protection-solutions/electronic-warfare-solutions-for-fighters/

 

https://www.terma.com/media/364492/modular%20countermeasures%20pod%20for%20fighter%20aircraft.pdf

Look at the threat display in the pdf, with a perfect azimuth line.

 

Another system for F-16

https://www.terma.com/media/364486/pylon%20based%20ew%20solutions.pdf

 

Look at the tail of Chinese J-11B

 

Russian 101KS-U UV sensor for MLWS function T-50/ PAK-FA

 

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Warners-and-Sensors/101KS-U_a002988001.aspx

 

So it's safe to assume that MLWS have some interest on fast jet fighters too.

 

I am sure someone with better knowledge than mine could "educate" 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...

Maybe you heard about technology progress ?

MANPADs were not always able to perform head on tracking.

In fact IR tracking system went from hot spot tracking to imaging tracking system. These missiles are much harder to foul with FLAREs, this is why DIRCM are becoming more important these days.

 

This is how Mica IR see a Mirage 2000, so good luck to spoof it with flares:

Again bi-spectral IR sensor.

 

Back to Soviet IRST on MiG 29 in the 80'...it was nowhere near that kind of technology

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

One sensor that got a lot of discussion from Intel analysts was the infrared search-and-track system (IRSTS). Most postulated that the MiG-29 could use the passive IRSTS to run a silent intercept and not alert anyone to its presence by transmitting with its radar. The IRSTS turned out to be next to useless and could have been left off the MiG-29 with negligible impact on its combat capability. After a couple of attempts at playing around with the IRSTS I dropped it from my bag of tricks.

 

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 )

Without any reliable source to back it up, off course we have to laugh :megalol:

A laser weapon which can stop a tank in 1968 !

Edited December 28, 2016 by jojo

[zaelu]

Thanks again for reply and links Jojo!

 

Already posted it, it's the new DDM NG, but still...here is how it sees the sun

(IMG)

 

Sure but as you said later in your post... good luck spotting a launch from the air now... while yanking hard that sensor. A picture can look impressive. A smudged video feed with "2 diodes and a resistor" to compute it might be a bit harder. Imho this why you see DDM on the attack version of Mirage and not on the Fighter. The DDM can be selectively started by the Weapons Operator while in the dive and after attack while egressing when a smoother trajectory is mandatory. I think for the Fighter version the results with that era technology was bad enough so they did not bother.

 

Look at the threat display in the pdf, with a perfect azimuth line.

 

Yes at 45° ;) . Since it has 2 sensors... even double sensors it would be nearly impossible to display (continuously!) a moving line across more azimuths.

 

 

So it's safe to assume that MLWS have some interest on fast jet fighters too.

 

Of course. I don't deny this... so is the interest on having an airborne powerful laser.

 

Maybe you heard about technology progress ?

 

 

I think you misunderstood me here so your extra tea spoon of arrogance is not necessary :) .

 

I said that since ManPads technology now days (obviously not from the middle ages...) can spot-track-engage a moving IR target with a disposable seeker (because the missile will be destroyed with all the electronics and it needs to be cost effective you can't launch a Hubble telescope after every plane) we can assume that an IRTS from a Mig29/Su27 even if a bit older would be far more helpful. At least this is what I find reasonable.

 

 

This is how Mica IR see a Mirage 2000, so good luck to spoof it with flares:

(IMG)

 

Again... if that target stays like that. But moving, it will roll or turn presenting far different image. Thus the seeker must have more images stored or a fall back algorithm and this I think would make it susceptible to flares. Another thing is that lots of big flares will make the image of that sensor look like a brand new piece of white A4 paper. There is no need then to spoof the missile anymore... it's simply blinded.

 

This can happen with D2M too if it has to look into a cloud of flares launched from own plane. It can have 10 spectrums... all will be blinded. And you can't afford to make flares with only one spectrum radiation because they will become useless isn't it?

 

And finally... when this technology will be really that good I am sure the military will hire some fireworks technicians to build something like this, but foldable and to look more like a plane than a dragon :D .

 

http://21ccgroup.com/fireworks/lancework-fireworks/

 

 

 

Back to Soviet IRST on MiG 29 in the 80'

 

I think everybody have seen that testimony (I was pointing at it too in my post). I find it anecdotal to say the least. Not to mention the only one and in contradiction with common sense as I said above.

Edited December 29, 2016 by zaelu

[jojo]

Ok, I'm done.

 

Western technology is crap.

Soviet technology from the 80' was so superior.

And Romanian were even on top of that, with anti tank laser weapon that were able to deter Soviet Army in late 60' ! Anyway Darth Vader was Romanian chief of staff.

 

Finally MLWS are so useless piece of crap that everyone is adding it to fighters, helicopters, tactical transport plane...

Edited December 30, 2016 by jojo

[zaelu]

Ok, I'm done.

 

Western technology is crap.

Soviet technology from the 80' was so superior.

And Romanian were even on top of that, with anti tank laser weapon that were able to deter Soviet Army in late 60' ! Anyway Darth Vader was Romanian chief of staff.

 

Finally MLWS are so useless piece of crap that everyone is adding it to fighters, helicopters, tactical transport plane...

 

I think your post summaries perfectly how the discussion went in this thread. :megalol:

 

I didn't said western tech is crap... I said I don't trust military contractors advertising. Why, is really easy to understand if you think about it, no need to expand here.

I didn't said Soviet technology is so superior, I was using an argument to explain why IRST can't be crap since it uses a huge Optic/IR device that looks at least far more superior to a disposable ManPad seeker that seems to work very well even from the humble beginnings. Your only argument was an old bar story about a US pilot flying a German legacy Mig29.

What I said about Romania was pure joke... you missed it with flying colors. :cry:

 

 

Finally MLWS maybe is not crap on F35 or a "Google Fighter" :P but this is the first and final point you missed badly. And you and the others are missing it so badly because you start to read with a wrong bias. You know... if you start "listening" to somebody "knowing" he is your "enemy and a piece of ...." you can't really "hear" what he is saying and you can't be constructive in the dialogue.

 

So finally I will say it again:

 

Because DDM wasn't installed on any real Mirage 2000C maybe is not such a realistic option and since is just a glitch opportunity (since is close to useless in game it can only go up towards "usefulness"/exploit in case of bug/glitch) maybe... just maybe it should be Off by default and not On.

 

Then... I thought of a better solution. Why not ad that to Warehouses in Airfields/Airbases so it will be On by default as you really really like it and mission designers can quickly and in a centralized manner can disable them. You know... like almost any other system attachable on a plane or helo.

 

 

Like here:

[myHelljumper]

Your opinion is absolute, you can't agree or give credit to anything someone else say.

 

WHO SAID IT WAS A CHEAT ??

Is it a cheat on the a-10 too ?

 

I understand jojo that have done à bit of diging and linked sources, it is easy to say it's not true without sources to back you up.

 

You are trolling because most of what you said is based on guesses that you think are facts.

[zaelu]

Is the second time you yell that empty question. You want the answer? read the thread. You are not listening and I have absolute opinion? :megalol:

[myHelljumper]

Lol keep the fun comming, with the Romanian lasers and stuff.

I have yet to see you providing a single document backing anything you said.

 

I can understand some of your guesses but without documents to back them you can't take them as fact.

 

About the cheat, this is your opinion and you act as if it's absolute truth.

Edited December 30, 2016 by myHelljumper

[spiddx]

Guys, you are going round in circles. Just sayin'...

[Azrayen]

Hi,

 

Let's try to move forward.

Actually I like the idea of having D2M availabity as a "pod" like the Eclair.

 

I don't know if it's doable (code-wise) as it would probably mean to modify the payload screen too (to add one or two "stations" able to "carry" the D2M pylons, and this would be need to be tied to the fact that Magics are carried on external hardpoints, or at last that there is not another payload here (I mean, you can't have D2M + rockets pods on the same pylon, as Rockets pods use (IRL) a different pylon than Magics).

 

This would also provide a way for servers / missions makers (who don't want it to be use) to prevent the D2M use.

It would also make it "default Off" provided that the default payloads don't include it.

But it would make it a bit harder (in fact: longer time, really) to "forbid" it than just a checkbox somewhere.

 

What do you think? (people and Zeus)

 

++

Az'

[spiddx]

I thought the best way to do it would be to just make two different missiles: a Magic and a Magic D2M (both versions seem to be coded anyway now). The D2M version would only be loadable on the outer stations, would use the different pylon and enable D2M functionality. No need to modify the loadout screen and can be disabled in the warehouse if desired.

 

That being said I also have no idea how much work this would be for the devs, especially now that there's already another system in place. Maybe it could be revisited at a later time...?

[Azrayen]

Nice idea too :) I like it better, actually.

[Enduro14]

Good idea or how about if you dont want to use it dont flip the switch to power it.

[spiddx]

Good idea or how about if you dont want to use it dont flip the switch to power it.

The main reason for all the fuzz I think is multiplayer where people don't want the Mirage to have it because it might get an unrealistic (aka unfair) advantage. :)

[Gliptal]

The main reason for all the fuzz I think is multiplayer where people don't want the Mirage to have it because it might get an unrealistic (aka unfair) advantage. :)

Which, again, is a nonsensical argument.

[ZHeN]

I'm still down with this one:

I'd prefer the opposite - not having DDM by default, but a special checkbox in ME "Mount the DDM sensors"

[Enduro14]

in all honestly it hasnt helped in blueflag in the engagements ive been in. Good GCI is what has helped. I can see both sides of this coin and agree have a pod option/ or enforceable via the server host aka mission maker.

[OperatorJack]

in all honestly it hasnt helped in blueflag in the engagements ive been in. Good GCI is what has helped. I can see both sides of this coin and agree have a pod option/ or enforceable via the server host aka mission maker.

 

I agree that it should be an option in the mission that's down to how the host wants it.

 

I also agree that it doesn't give that much of an advantage in a fight and people are overreacting to it greatly.

[myHelljumper]

I thought the best way to do it would be to just make two different missiles: a Magic and a Magic D2M (both versions seem to be coded anyway now). The D2M version would only be loadable on the outer stations, would use the different pylon and enable D2M functionality. No need to modify the loadout screen and can be disabled in the warehouse if desired.

 

That being said I also have no idea how much work this would be for the devs, especially now that there's already another system in place. Maybe it could be revisited at a later time...?

 

It would be the best option.