MiG-29S RADAR RANGE Bug Report

[Satarosa]

Anyway need have a difference

 

I threw an F-16 down on the map for a quick test. Detected it at 78km. So they need to add another 2km or so?

 

 

 

Are you using Tacview for get this value?

Or using pause on game when got detection in the HUD?

What's your Angel? And you speed ?

 

 

Perhaps my speed was to high to have 78km..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway there must be a difference between the two radars so there is a problem in the game!

[Ironhand]

Are you using Tacview for get this value?

Or using pause on game when got detection in the HUD?

What's your Angel? And you speed ?

 

 

Perhaps my speed was to high to have 78km..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway there must be a difference between the two radars so there is a problem in the game!

Read it off the HUD and, then, paused and measured in F10 view. I had glanced away from the HUD for a moment and, when I looked back, there it was at 78 km. So it might have appeared slightly before. I don’t particularly automatically trust Tacview. I’ve seen it lead too many people to false conclusions over the years. It can be a useful tool but I don’t treat it as the voice of god.

 

I don’t recall the exact details—altitude, etc—and i’m several thousand miles from my computer. But I think I saved the track. If I did, I can get you the details, when I’m back.

 

I agree that the two radar ranges should not be identical. But I’m inclined to feel that it’s th A’s radar that’s overly optimistic.

[JunMcKill]

The reason why we get more western planes as high fidelity modules is that information on them can be found more easy but this was discussed to death in dozens of threads.

 

I don't agree with you on that, there is all the documentation of the MIG-29, SU-27SK. MIG-23MLA/ML/MF/BN online, and many others, the original documentation in russian with all details.

[Dudikoff]

I don't agree with you on that, there is all the documentation of the MIG-29, SU-27SK. MIG-23MLA/ML/MF/BN online, and many others, the original documentation in russian with all details.

 

I think the only reason those manuals can be found as they were distributed with the export variants.

 

But, manuals or not, ED is based in Russia and is bound by current Russian laws and apparently anything newer than Su-24M (including) is off the table. So, this is why they can make the MiG-23MLA, but not a MiG-29 9.12B or Su-27SK.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Dudikoff

[JunMcKill]

I think the only reason those manuals can be found as they were distributed with the export variants.

 

But, manuals or not, ED is based in Russia and is bound by current Russian laws and apparently anything newer than Su-24M (including) is off the table. So, this is why they can make the MiG-23MLA, but not a MiG-29 9.12B or Su-27SK.

 

I don't think that's the problem, a basic rule of business is, if you are in a country, and something is stopping your growth, move to another!. They can even move their company to Cancun, Mexico. Beautiful beaches, good weather all the year and cheap!. :thumbup:

[GGTharos]

They have flat out started that this is the problem, and the devs are not willing to leave their country.

[Weta43]

They have, & home is home.

That said, I'm surprised no one* has signed a contract to take the existing Su-27 or MiG-29 & produce an official mod (like the J-11), but mod in the full PSM and new DCS radar modelling using APIs that will presumably exist between the work E.D. & third parties have done on other aircraft,

Developer avoids the risks of developing / maintaining the FM / ground handling / artwork, sells it as a full price module & pay E.D a royalty for each unit sold...

 

*no one - like a wholly owned subsidiary in the us or uk

"MattWag" developers :)

[Dudikoff]

They have, & home is home.

That said, I'm surprised no one* has signed a contract to take the existing Su-27 or MiG-29 & produce an official mod (like the J-11), but mod in the full PSM and new DCS radar modelling using APIs that will presumably exist between the work E.D. & third parties have done on other aircraft,

Developer avoids the risks of developing / maintaining the FM / ground handling / artwork, sells it as a full price module & pay E.D a royalty for each unit sold...

 

An officially supported mod would never work as ED would be held responsible.

 

As an unofficial mod, it could work, but then the mod developers have no way of protecting their product.

 

IMHO, the only way out of this, realistically, is when the Russian MOD (or whoever needs to OK it) decides that e.g. those initial export variants and their systems are no longer relevant to them or to the partner countries who still operate them. But, even if that's the case now, they have no benefit from it, so I'm not sure if they'd OK it anyway.

 

And even if they did, you'd get a somewhat downgraded export variants of initial MiG-29 and Su-27 variants (so, Soviet mid-80's tech), which would perform worse (radar and RWR-wise) than the current FC3 modules. So, I guess plenty of MP people would complain even more.

 

Though, ideally, that could entice ED to release downgraded variants of their Hornet and Falcon modules (e.g. an F/A-18A or initial C and e.g. F-16C Block 30 or 40). That would be really nice to have.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Dudikoff

[Satarosa]

The real goal

 

I don't think that's the problem, a basic rule of business is, if you are in a country, and something is stopping your growth, move to another!. They can even move their company to Cancun, Mexico. Beautiful beaches, good weather all the year and cheap!. :thumbup:

 

 

 

The problems here, we paid for a pack with 3 MiG-29 variant, The MiG-29A, MiG-29G, MiG-29S and we have the same cockpit for all and the same radar! :thumbdown:

 

 

How a russian compagny can doing this kind of mistake with them main popular aircraft ?!

[sLYFa]

paid for a pack with 3 MiG-29 variant

A whole 15$, which gave you a state of the art FM and visual model. Criticising the developers for a (presumably) slightly incorrect radar peformance at that price tag is inappropriate IMO

[JunMcKill]

They have, & home is home.

That said, I'm surprised no one* has signed a contract to take the existing Su-27 or MiG-29 & produce an official mod (like the J-11), but mod in the full PSM and new DCS radar modelling using APIs that will presumably exist between the work E.D. & third parties have done on other aircraft,

Developer avoids the risks of developing / maintaining the FM / ground handling / artwork, sells it as a full price module & pay E.D a royalty for each unit sold...

 

*no one - like a wholly owned subsidiary in the us or uk

"MattWag" developers :)

 

If you are going to make a mod you dont need a contract AFAIK, simply build the mod and distribute it free, like the A-4 one

[Satarosa]

Super

 

A whole 15$, which gave you a state of the art FM and visual model. Criticising the developers for a (presumably) slightly incorrect radar peformance at that price tag is inappropriate IMO

 

 

You are from germany, ok you don't want see the real cockpit of MiG-29G ?! :cry:

(Also the loadout of MiG-29G isn't correct)

 

Ok they could be upgrade all FC3 aircrafts, personally I'll paid more money for more realistic simulation if needing.

[Ironhand]

...

What's your Angel? And you speed ?

 

 

Perhaps my speed was to high to have 78km..

...![/i]

 

 

 

...

I don’t recall the exact details—altitude, etc—and i’m several thousand miles from my computer. But I think I saved the track. If I did, I can get you the details, when I’m back.

 

...

No track available but I looked at the mission. I had set it up co-altitude, 10,000 meters. The F-18 was set to something like 1000 km/hr as was mine but I had probably slowed down prior to seeing him on radar.

[sLYFa]

don't want see the real cockpit of MiG-29G ?! :cry:

(Also the loadout of MiG-29G isn't correct)

 

I would love to see any variant of the Mig-29 (even the shitty 9-12B) modelled with full fidelity and proper GCI. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. My point is that you can´t expect that much from a module that costs merely 15$. I appreciate your attention to detail and you are probably right about the radar differences between 9-13 and 9-13S, but a flaming cliffs module for that price just isn't going to deliver that level of detail you are asking for.

[draconus]

I would love to see any variant of the Mig-29 (even the shitty 9-12B) modelled with full fidelity and proper GCI. But thats not going to happen anytime soon. My point is that you can´t expect that much from a module that costs merely 15$. I appreciate your attention to detail and you are probably right about the radar differences between 9-13 and 9-13S, but a flaming cliffs module for that price just isn't going to deliver that level of detail you are asking for.

I don't see why waving a price tag here is relevant to anything. There is a module and it has things done to it already. If the devs could model different loadout and fuel quantity for A and S, so they can do it for any difference in radar performance (if there is one). As it is simple radar model I don't see a problem changing one parameter. Certainly simpler task than animating cockpit light knobs if you ask me. Who would have expect such level of detail in the $7 module :)

[sLYFa]

Maybe changing the radar parameters in the sim is simple but getting data on what exactly the difference in radar performance is is certainly not. They could decrease the detection range for the non S variant by 10% or so, but would that be more or less realistic than what we have now? You need detailed information on the radar and a more advanced radar model to answer that and thats where the price tag comes in. It´s not as simple as changing fuel quantities, or weapon loadouts. These things are clearly documented in the publicly available manuals but the radar is not.

[viper2097]

A whole 15$, which gave you a state of the art FM and visual model. Criticising the developers for a (presumably) slightly incorrect radar peformance at that price tag is inappropriate IMO

 

So, how many $ does someone need to spent to be allowed to say if something is not correct?

I hate it when "the right to claim any shortcomings" is attached to a price tag, IMHO this is completely false thinking...

No matter if you spent 1$, 50$ or 5000$. If you bought something and it has any kind of shortcoming, you have always the right to point that out...

Edited February 26, 2019 by viper2097

[Satarosa]

Nice man

 

I don't see why waving a price tag here is relevant to anything. There is a module and it has things done to it already. If the devs could model different loadout and fuel quantity for A and S, so they can do it for any difference in radar performance (if there is one). As it is simple radar model I don't see a problem changing one parameter. Certainly simpler task than animating cockpit light knobs if you ask me. Who would have expect such level of detail in the $7 module :)

 

 

 

+1

[sLYFa]

So, how many $ does someone need to spent to be allowed to say if something is not correct?

I hate it when "the right to claim any shortcomings" is attached to a price tag, IMHO this is completely false thinking.

 

I´m not saying you are not allowed to complain or point out if something is incorrect. All I'm saying is that considered how many resources have been spent on developing the mig-29, which can be somewhat measured by its price, it is out of scope to model particular differences in radar performance between a 9-12A, a 9-13 and a 9-13s.

I really don´t understand why the concept of price vs. expected quality went by unnoticed...

[AussieGhost789]

Why would it be out of scope? If it can be corrected, it should. If it can't or doesn't need to be then so be it. But my impression of ED is they strive for realism/accuracy where they can so why wouldn't that apply here?

[Satarosa]

+1

 

Why would it be out of scope? If it can be corrected, it should. If it can't or doesn't need to be then so be it. But my impression of ED is they strive for realism/accuracy where they can so why wouldn't that apply here?

 

 

 

Yes if DCS WORLD want staying "the best air combat simulator", they need have a standar of quality. I don't like simplified FC3 planes but we DON'T have others choise to deal with (No hope to have plane like Su-33 full clickable)! So request more realistic FC3 plane for have nearest standar of quality plane. If they need update the price also.

[sLYFa]

ED is they strive for realism/accuracy w

Thats exactly the point. Radar detection and tracking capability depends on a myriad of factors and some ambigous internet sources saying this radar has that range is just not enough information to realistically model the differences between the various modifcations of the N019 radar.

Let´s assume the OP is right and the N019M has a 20km greater detection range in "the best conditions on a fighter HOT" (whatever EXACTLY that means) as compated to the N019.

How about not ideal conditions? What about a tail chase or beaming situation? Does the N019M outperform the stock version there too? If so, by how much? What about look down situations? The N019M has a better processor, so it should have less problems with ground clutter right? But again, by how much. I'm not even starting with ECM...

There are a LOT of questions to be answered to realistically model the differences between a N019 and a N019M. A few publicly available forum posts and internet articles aren´t going to answer that. And while increasing the detection range of the N019M in a head on high altitude situation to 80km might seem more realistically in that particular situation, it might make the radar overperform in other situations. Buttom line, if you want realism, things are not as simple as changing a few values. And this brings me to my original point, that such a thorough simulation would call for a substantially higher price, which I do hope to see one day. But in the scope of a FC3 plane, I don't think we will see that level of sophistication, although I hope to be proven wrong on this.

Edited February 27, 2019 by sLYFa

[draconus]

So, Slyfa, you know well that the current FC3 radar model is simple but you still love to elaborate on how it could be one day just to stir the pot. Again, to make a change a few parameters is all that is needed but I do agree that the weight of providing real data is on Satarosa.

[Satarosa]

Thats exactly the point. Radar detection and tracking capability depends on a myriad of factors and some ambigous internet sources saying this radar has that range is just not enough information to realistically model the differences between the various modifcations of the N019 radar.

Let´s assume the OP is right and the N019M has a 20km greater detection range in "the best conditions on a fighter HOT" (whatever EXACTLY that means) as compated to the N019.

How about not ideal conditions? What about a tail chase or beaming situation? Does the N019M outperform the stock version there too? If so, by how much? What about look down situations? The N019M has a better processor, so it should have less problems with ground clutter right? But again, by how much. I'm not even starting with ECM...

There are a LOT of questions to be answered to realistically model the differences between a N019 and a N019M. A few publicly available forum posts and internet articles aren´t going to answer that. And while increasing the detection range of the N019M in a head on high altitude situation to 80km might seem more realistically in that particular situation, it might make the radar overperform in other situations. Buttom line, if you want realism, things are not as simple as changing a few values. And this brings me to my original point, that such a thorough simulation would call for a substantially higher price, which I do hope to see one day. But in the scope of a FC3 plane, I don't think we will see that level of sophistication, although I hope to be proven wrong on this.

 

I invite you to do more research and you will see that if we make an average of all available internet sources on this radar, as well as a complete comparison of all the radar and avionics of each aircraft, you will understand that the justification of data that I presented and some more correct..

[Satarosa]

Here is a comparison with huge research that I did..

 

M-2000C (1984)

 

RDI

~ 85km

-60°/+60° <120°

+60°/-60° <120°

 

 

MiG-29A (1983)

MiG-29G (1989)

 

N019E "Rubin"

~ 70km

-60°/+60° <120°

+56°/-36° <92°

 

 

MiG-29S (1988 )

 

N019M "Topaz"

~ 90km (ingame ~70)

-65°/+65° <130°

+60°/-38° <98°

 

 

SU-27 (1985)

 

N001 "Myech"

~ 110km

-60°/+60° <120°

-55°/+55° <110°

 

 

SU-33 (1990)

 

N001K "Myech"

~ 115km

-60°/+60° <120°

-55°/+55° <110°

 

 

F-15C (1980)

 

AN/APG-63

~ 140km (ingame ~130)

-60°/+60° <120°

-30°/+30° <60°

 

 

MiG-21bis (1972)

 

RP-22 "Sapphire"

~ 30km

-30°/+30°<60°

-2°/+17° <19°

 

 

F-5E (1972)

 

AN/APQ-159

~ 40km

-45°/+45° <90°

-40°/+45° <85°

 

 

J-11A (1998 )

 

N001VE "Panda Project"

~ 120km (ingame ~110)

-60°/+60° <120°

-55°/+55° <110°

 

 

F/A-18C (1987)

 

AN/APG-73 RADAR

~135km

-70°/+70°<140°

-60°/+60°<120°

 

 

MiG-19P (1958 )

 

RP-5 "Izumrud"

~9km

+30°/-30°<60°

+26/-16°<42°

 

 

 

 

 

soon F-14B

Edited March 3, 2019 by Satarosa