Вопросы к разработчикам

Xhonas · January 26

@Chizh Hello there ! What about making RWR's more realistic in DCS? I've came across some OSINT documentation that can be used to improve the simulation of EW in DCS.

Most RWR's in DCS, especially the modern ones like the ALR-67 and ALR-56 uses amplitude comparison to find the direction of a threat, with 4 to 6 directional antennas. Using this direction finding technique results in an angular accuracy of 5° to 10° however in DCS these RWR's are ultra precise, within 1° of angular accuracy which is very unrealistic. The only way to achieve such accuracy is by using a phased interferometer system, but no aircraft in DCS uses this currently. Here is the link to a very interesting PDF about EW, its unclassified with unlimited distribution: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA566236.pdf

In the PDF there is nothing specific to the ALR-67 and the ALR-56, but knowing the real world angular accuracy for these systems is impossible because they are classified, although it is possible to estimate what the angular accuracy of this system might be because we know what direction finding technique it uses. Page 215 / 216 talks about the average angular accuracy of systems that uses amplitude comparison for DF.

But why this matters for DCS? Implemeting such limitation in the RWR of aircraft in DCS will be good to have a more realistic approach to combat situations. Currently with ultra precise RWR's it is possible to notch active missiles every single time with a very high consistency. While notching a radar is a very real thing, in the real world pilots don't do this against active missiles for a variety of reasons, one of them being the fact that RWRs are not precise/accurate neither reliable enough to do this. Current RWR implementation allows you to do this: https://streamable.com/d0kxbf (perfectly notching an aim120 at 30k feet)

null

Also another interesting limitation to have would be the RWR being triggered (spike and launch warning) despite your aircraft not being targeted. It is already implement to some extent, but would be nice to see this area also improved. For example, if i'm flying in formation with another aircraft and this other aircraft is targeted by a SAM and a missile is launched on his direction, i won't receive the launch warning with the current implementation in DCS, only the spike warning, while realistically both aircraft in the formation would receive the launch warning. This behavior is already coded into the A.I, would be nice to see the player controlled aircraft facing the same limitation.

In this video, an F-15E SME who has been shot by an SA-3 in real life explains how it happens:

I understand that this might be difficult to implement in DCS, realistically the solution that would further improve the simulation of DCS short term is reducing the angular accuracy of all RWR's that uses amplitude comparison to DF.

Other interesting things that could be added if time allows: RWR ambiguity - when multiple emitters with different frequencies are illumating an aircraft, the rwr can have ambiguities, showing a single contact as if it was 2 to 3 different emitters -.

When multiple contacts are too close from each other they will show as one single contact on the rwr.

And if you're flying low and a new threat pops from above, the rwr will show multiple threats from a variety of azimuths for a few seconds, those are the signals bouncing off the ground and reflecting back on the antenna, which takes a few seconds to correlate and show a single threat in the correct direction.

I hope you can take a look at this matter, thanks !

Edited January 26 by Xhonas

draconus · January 26

12 minutes ago, Xhonas said:

What about making RWR's more realistic in DCS?

Depends on the module. You should really test F-14. I agree it would be nice if all modules have RWR better simulated.

Xhonas · January 26

10 minutes ago, draconus said:

Depends on the module. You should really test F-14. I agree it would be nice if all modules have RWR better simulated.

I'm aware, almost everything i mentioned in my post is simulated on the F-14, i hope ED is able to follow a similar approach to what HB did with their ALR-67 simulation.

Andrei · January 26

Писали что с МиГ-29 будет полностью переделан RWR (СПО в том случае). Возможно, после этого обновления получат и другие самолеты. Когда-нибудь.

foxhound592 · January 27

В 24.01.2025 в 19:52, TotenDead сказал:

Частотно-селективный обтекатель Ф-35 прозрачен для других РЛС

А на сколько точна эта информация? что если там ещё по поляризации фильтр? если она будет круговая то считай непрозрачен
да и экраны бывают и управляемые, с динамической полосой пропускания

Chizh · January 27

16 часов назад, Xhonas сказал:

@Chizh Hello there ! What about making RWR's more realistic in DCS? I've came across some OSINT documentation that can be used to improve the simulation of EW in DCS.

Most RWR's in DCS, especially the modern ones like the ALR-67 and ALR-56 uses amplitude comparison to find the direction of a threat, with 4 to 6 directional antennas. Using this direction finding technique results in an angular accuracy of 5° to 10° however in DCS these RWR's are ultra precise, within 1° of angular accuracy which is very unrealistic. The only way to achieve such accuracy is by using a phased interferometer system, but no aircraft in DCS uses this currently. Here is the link to a very interesting PDF about EW, its unclassified with unlimited distribution: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA566236.pdf

In the PDF there is nothing specific to the ALR-67 and the ALR-56, but knowing the real world angular accuracy for these systems is impossible because they are classified, although it is possible to estimate what the angular accuracy of this system might be because we know what direction finding technique it uses. Page 215 / 216 talks about the average angular accuracy of systems that uses amplitude comparison for DF.

But why this matters for DCS? Implemeting such limitation in the RWR of aircraft in DCS will be good to have a more realistic approach to combat situations. Currently with ultra precise RWR's it is possible to notch active missiles every single time with a very high consistency. While notching a radar is a very real thing, in the real world pilots don't do this against active missiles for a variety of reasons, one of them being the fact that RWRs are not precise/accurate neither reliable enough to do this. Current RWR implementation allows you to do this: https://streamable.com/d0kxbf (perfectly notching an aim120 at 30k feet)

null

Also another interesting limitation to have would be the RWR being triggered (spike and launch warning) despite your aircraft not being targeted. It is already implement to some extent, but would be nice to see this area also improved. For example, if i'm flying in formation with another aircraft and this other aircraft is targeted by a SAM and a missile is launched on his direction, i won't receive the launch warning with the current implementation in DCS, only the spike warning, while realistically both aircraft in the formation would receive the launch warning. This behavior is already coded into the A.I, would be nice to see the player controlled aircraft facing the same limitation.

In this video, an F-15E SME who has been shot by an SA-3 in real life explains how it happens:

I understand that this might be difficult to implement in DCS, realistically the solution that would further improve the simulation of DCS short term is reducing the angular accuracy of all RWR's that uses amplitude comparison to DF.

Other interesting things that could be added if time allows: RWR ambiguity - when multiple emitters with different frequencies are illumating an aircraft, the rwr can have ambiguities, showing a single contact as if it was 2 to 3 different emitters -.

When multiple contacts are too close from each other they will show as one single contact on the rwr.

And if you're flying low and a new threat pops from above, the rwr will show multiple threats from a variety of azimuths for a few seconds, those are the signals bouncing off the ground and reflecting back on the antenna, which takes a few seconds to correlate and show a single threat in the correct direction.

I hope you can take a look at this matter, thanks !

Yes, thank you. We already have such a task written down.

TotenDead · January 27

6 часов назад, foxhound592 сказал:

А на сколько точна эта информация? что если там ещё по поляризации фильтр?

Это возможно

6 часов назад, foxhound592 сказал:

если она будет круговая то считай непрозрачен

А она там возможна?

6 часов назад, foxhound592 сказал:

да и экраны бывают и управляемые, с динамической полосой пропускания

Конечно, но они не меняют частоты так же быстро как рлс, так что там в каждый момент времени будет прозрачность под некий поддиапазон

foxhound592 · January 27

6 часов назад, TotenDead сказал:

А она там возможна?

Честно без понятия, но логично предположить что для управляемого экрана да

6 часов назад, TotenDead сказал:

Конечно, но они не меняют частоты так же быстро как рлс, так что там в каждый момент времени будет прозрачность под некий поддиапазон

ну технологии быстро развиваются, патенты на экраны с управлением по оптическому каналу уже давно в сети, думаю с быстродействием проблем не будет, тут скорее вопрос стоит ли оно того, ведь каков шанс что при облучении обычного экрана совпадёт поляризация хотя бы на 5-10%?

TotenDead · January 27

19 минут назад, foxhound592 сказал:

Честно без понятия, но логично предположить что для управляемого экрана да

Тут упирается в поляризацию своей рлс

19 минут назад, foxhound592 сказал:

ну технологии быстро развиваются, патенты на экраны с управлением по оптическому каналу уже давно в сети, думаю с быстродействием проблем не будет, тут скорее вопрос стоит ли оно того, ведь каков шанс что при облучении обычного экрана совпадёт поляризация хотя бы на 5-10%?

Если два самолёта с рлс с вертикальной поляризацией будут смотреть друг на дружку, то в 100% случаев, полагаю?

Не будь радиопрозрачность обтекателя проблемой - РЛС бы не ставили под углом к горизонту

Xhonas · January 27

11 hours ago, Chizh said:

Yes, thank you. We already have such a task written down.

Glad to hear, thanks ! Also, since we are already here, it costs nothing to ask: Would it be possible to allow the user to configure the threat database of the RWR for a mission in the ME or the future DTC functionality?

The idea is, in the real world for threats to show up on the RWR they need to be on the threat database of the RWR, the frequencies of the radars need to be listened by specialized aircraft, and then those frequencies need to be inserted in the rwr software. The problem is that a single radar can have a lot of frequency channels, each channel in a very different frequency, depending on how many channels a radar has, it is impossible for intelligence to collect data on all of them. So, could we have an option to configure which radars are fully mapped in the database of the rwr, which are the synthetic "U" (unknow) and which aren't mapped and won't show up? Ik i'm really pushing it with this request but who knows

Another option would be having presets. Like, we could have 4 presets on RWR database intel: full, high, medium and low, where if you choose full on the ME, every single radar will be on the database of the RWR, and for the other ones you could have percentage + a randomizer, e.g: medium preset selected, 60% of all the enemy radars in a mission will be mapped, which ones will be and which won't would be random. Something like this could be interesting to simulate a scenario with limited intel on the enemy, and even in a dynamic campaing, you starting with low intel on the enemy and as you progress you get more intel on the enemy radars.

And lastly, something that i came across is that monopulse antennas (the ones in active missiles) uses little power and produce a very weak signal that is very hard to detect by the RWR, can you simulate that in DCS? Ik that the rule of thumb is that radars can be detected by an RWR 2 times the distance than a radar can detect a target, however it is more complex than that, it depends on the rwr antenna sensitivity and the type of emitter. In the case of monopulse antennas, the RWR will only perceive such emitter at very close ranges. In DCS you can detect a missile as soon as it goes active (around 8nm), can that be changed to a more realistic distance?

Edited January 27 by Xhonas

foxhound592 · January 27

12 минут назад, TotenDead сказал:

Если два самолёта с рлс с вертикальной поляризацией будут смотреть друг на дружку, то в 100% случаев, полагаю?

Да, только волну можно ориентировать под 45 градусов . или допустим 33.75, тут уже не всё так просто

14 минут назад, TotenDead сказал:

Не будь радиопрозрачность обтекателя проблемой - РЛС бы не ставили под углом к горизонту

Могут ведь быть подобного расположения и по другим причинам, разве нет? емнип у афар как раз проблемы с обзором по углу места из за охлаждения

16 минут назад, TotenDead сказал:

Тут упирается в поляризацию своей рлс

ну если она круговая, то физически ничего не мешает менять свойства материала под прохождение даже круговой, вопрос в быстродействии экрана. в прочем поляризацию можно менять интервалами, емнип вроде даже есть что то подобное у каких то рлс

T4buk · January 27

is this upgrade of FC3/FC2024 MiG-29A or new fully fidelity aircraft?

Quote

On 1/17/2025 at 7:31 AM, Chizh said:

Я уже как-то писал, но повторюсь. Причины разработки американской авиации в целом две.

Первая. На данный момент западный самолет дает больше прибыли, чем советский/российский. Впрочем, мы будем смотреть что будет с продажами МиГ-29, чтобы понять ситуацию со спросом на российскую авиатехнику.

Вторая. После ужесточения законодательства РФ в 2022 году, разрабатывать российские вооружения стало рискованно.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2024-12-21/

draconus · January 27

37 minutes ago, T4buk said:

is this upgrade of FC3/FC2024 MiG-29A or new fully fidelity aircraft?

It's all about new full fidelity aircraft.

Edited January 27 by draconus

Chizh · January 28

13 часов назад, Xhonas сказал:

Glad to hear, thanks ! Also, since we are already here, it costs nothing to ask: Would it be possible to allow the user to configure the threat database of the RWR for a mission in the ME or the future DTC functionality?

The idea is, in the real world for threats to show up on the RWR they need to be on the threat database of the RWR, the frequencies of the radars need to be listened by specialized aircraft, and then those frequencies need to be inserted in the rwr software. The problem is that a single radar can have a lot of frequency channels, each channel in a very different frequency, depending on how many channels a radar has, it is impossible for intelligence to collect data on all of them. So, could we have an option to configure which radars are fully mapped in the database of the rwr, which are the synthetic "U" (unknow) and which aren't mapped and won't show up? Ik i'm really pushing it with this request but who knows

Another option would be having presets. Like, we could have 4 presets on RWR database intel: full, high, medium and low, where if you choose full on the ME, every single radar will be on the database of the RWR, and for the other ones you could have percentage + a randomizer, e.g: medium preset selected, 60% of all the enemy radars in a mission will be mapped, which ones will be and which won't would be random. Something like this could be interesting to simulate a scenario with limited intel on the enemy, and even in a dynamic campaing, you starting with low intel on the enemy and as you progress you get more intel on the enemy radars.

And lastly, something that i came across is that monopulse antennas (the ones in active missiles) uses little power and produce a very weak signal that is very hard to detect by the RWR, can you simulate that in DCS? Ik that the rule of thumb is that radars can be detected by an RWR 2 times the distance than a radar can detect a target, however it is more complex than that, it depends on the rwr antenna sensitivity and the type of emitter. In the case of monopulse antennas, the RWR will only perceive such emitter at very close ranges. In DCS you can detect a missile as soon as it goes active (around 8nm), can that be changed to a more realistic distance?

Allowing the user to adjust radar frequencies in the game is too much. This could ruin the entire work with radars for the AI.

As for the detection range of the RWR threat, it depends on many parameters, from the type of antenna to special radiation modes. So far this has not been done in such detail, but we will try to expand the set of factors affecting the operation of both radars and electronic reconnaissance equipment.

Xhonas · January 28

7 hours ago, Chizh said:

Allowing the user to adjust radar frequencies in the game is too much. This could ruin the entire work with radars for the AI.

Sorry, i meant adjusting which radars that the player RWR can detect, not the frequencies of the radars themselves. Like, if we could change the RWR threat database to show an Su-30 as "unknow" for example, or not show it at all, to simulate a scenario with limited intel on the enemy radars

7 hours ago, Chizh said:

As for the detection range of the RWR threat, it depends on many parameters, from the type of antenna to special radiation modes. So far this has not been done in such detail, but we will try to expand the set of factors affecting the operation of both radars and electronic reconnaissance equipment.

I'm glad to know that, thanks for the answers. Will be interesting to see how LPI radars will be handled when the F-35 is released.

Edited January 28 by Xhonas
typo

TotenDead · January 29

В 27.01.2025 в 20:34, foxhound592 сказал:

Да, только волну можно ориентировать под 45 градусов . или допустим 33.75, тут уже не всё так просто

Я не уверен, что эти РЛС имеют возможность менять поляризацию. Возможно я не прав, конечно, но няз обычно она привязана к расположению ппм.

В 27.01.2025 в 20:34, foxhound592 сказал:

Могут ведь быть подобного расположения и по другим причинам, разве нет? емнип у афар как раз проблемы с обзором по углу места из за охлаждения

Ну, из-за статичности самого полотна углы там не больше 60гр сторону с падением дальности обнаружения на 25%. Однако отклонять луч так сильно наверх в общем-то нет смысла, тут полезнее был бы обзор вперёд - вниз (и для работы по земле, и для ДВБ), для этого лучше было бы развернуть полотно к земле. Но этого не делают

В 27.01.2025 в 20:34, foxhound592 сказал:

ну если она круговая, то физически ничего не мешает менять свойства материала под прохождение даже круговой, вопрос в быстродействии экрана. в прочем поляризацию можно менять интервалами, емнип вроде даже есть что то подобное у каких то рлс

На эту тему в общем-то, наверное, ответил: не уверен, что там может быть круговая поляризация из-за расположения ппм

Edited January 29 by TotenDead

foxhound592 · January 29

4 часа назад, TotenDead сказал:

но няз обычно она привязана к расположению ппм.

А что там с расположением? я просто не в курсе
афар так то как раз и открывает возможности сразу в двух поляризациях облучать и не только

4 часа назад, TotenDead сказал:

Ну, из-за статичности самого полотна углы там не больше 60гр сторону с падением дальности обнаружения на 25%

почему, падение дальности и вероятностей будет начинаться уже после 60 градусов и сильно зависит от суммарного уровня потерь. даже старый заслон с миг 31 с большим шумом приёмника имеет 70 градусов, а на афар можно и все 75-80 думаю сделать потеряв меньше половины дальности

4 часа назад, TotenDead сказал:

не уверен, что там может быть круговая поляризация из-за расположения ппм

думаю всё-таки однозначно нету круговой, ибо легче волну крутить дискретно

Смуглянка · February 1

В обновленном СУ-25 можно добавить пожалуйста возможность убирать ФКП.

Edited February 2 by Смуглянка

oovaoosh · February 1

Подскажите, а сейчас многопоточность по умолчанию включена? Что то упустил этот момент.

Eponsky_bot · February 1

35 минут назад, oovaoosh сказал:

Подскажите, а сейчас многопоточность по умолчанию включена? Что то упустил этот момент.

Да

MoleUK · February 1

Доступна ли в настоящее время информация о буфере глубины и цвете пикселей, чтобы ASW 2.0 и DLSS могли работать правильно?

В журнале я вижу предупреждение о том, что это не так, поэтому я не был уверен, верно это или нет.

2025-02-01 21:12:11.675 INFO DX11BACKEND (1336): DLSS successfully initialized, 436x452 -> 748x780
2025-02-01 21:12:11.990 WARNING LOG (2428): 1 duplicate message(s) skipped.
2025-02-01 21:12:11.990 ERROR_ONCE DX11BACKEND (1336): render target 'mainDepthBuffer' not found

Edited February 1 by MoleUK

Prorok · February 3

Будет ли в новом «бесплатном» Су-25 ось тормоза и уберут ли «регистратор» справа от АСП-17?

Wespe · February 3

50 минут назад, Prorok сказал:

Будет ли в новом «бесплатном» Су-25 ось тормоза

сказали импут и фм без изменений, только внешка

Prorok · February 4

4 часа назад, Wespe сказал:

сказали импут и фм без изменений, только внешка

Это конечно же печаль, ах да и тряска же есть ещё, которая не реалистичная есть

может и сделают когда-нибудь хорошо, неужели им самим в кайф это в свет выпускать, да с таким кокпитом

PUHXa · February 4

5 hours ago, Prorok said:

Это конечно же печаль, ах да и тряска же есть ещё, которая не реалистичная есть

может и сделают когда-нибудь хорошо, неужели им самим в кайф это в свет выпускать, да с таким кокпитом

На скринах на сайте кабина тоже меняется на более свежую. В остальном тот же Су-25.

Sign In

Вопросы к разработчикам

Recommended Posts

Xhonas

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Maksim Savelev

third_man

Silver_Dragon

draconus

Xhonas

Andrei

foxhound592

Chizh

TotenDead

foxhound592

TotenDead

Xhonas

foxhound592

T4buk

draconus

Chizh

Xhonas

TotenDead

foxhound592

Смуглянка

oovaoosh

Eponsky_bot

MoleUK

Prorok

Wespe

Prorok

PUHXa

Recently Browsing 1 member