F-15C avionics wishlist

[169th_Jaws]

There's no closure displayed when the gun mode is selected. Could we get closure while in gun mode?

 

Absolutely. Closure rate would have to be one of the most important things to know while in CAC. I'd be amazed if the real F-15 didn't display such data while in guns mode. How did the devs let that one slide?!

[Skarp]

thanks D-Scythe for the info :)

[MikeRocker]

Rough cronology of the F-15 radar(s) as far as I know:

 

-APG-63(v)0 -- First set, installed in F-15A/B, much improved during MSIP

 

-APG-70 -- Developed for F-15E, with ground modes, new electronics, fitted to last batch of F-15Cs

 

-APG-63(v)1 -- based off APG-70 tech, improved signal processing, fewer parts, lighter, but still mech. scanned

 

-APG-63(v)2 -- first-generation AESA radar, only installed on a dozen Alaska Eagles

 

-APG-63(v)3 -- projected 2nd gen AESA system. Is being considered for complete refit of the F-15E fleet (here's hoping!!)

 

 

Please feel free to comment and discuss! :-)

[MikeRocker]

Closure rate would have to be one of the most important things to know while in CAC.

 

I read the closure from the way the gun pipper's range guage is moving. I find that adequate, don't you?

[169th_Jaws]

Closure rate would have to be one of the most important things to know while in CAC.

 

I read the closure from the way the gun pipper's range guage is moving. I find that adequate, don't you?

 

Adequate is the word but not good enough. It's a little clunky for my liking. If you're closing fast it's not to bad but if you're trying to achieve a nice, slow even closure it's just not accurate enough. I'm sure the real F-15 would have a display in kts or mph as it's far more precise.

[Wags]

This did not "slide" by the devs. At least as of 1995, there is no Vc on the HUD in either GSD or LCOS gun modes. Vc can however be seen on the VSD.

 

-Matt

 

There's no closure displayed when the gun mode is selected. Could we get closure while in gun mode?

 

Absolutely. Closure rate would have to be one of the most important things to know while in CAC. I'd be amazed if the real F-15 didn't display such data while in guns mode. How did the devs let that one slide?!

[bflagg]

No disrespect to anyone here.

But since this thread first appeared I have some doubt as to it's "weight".

Is this thread nothing more than wishfull thinking or is ED really considering the F-15 changes?

 

...remember.. no disrespect intended......

[169th_Jaws]

Pretty sure this has already been mentioned but I wanted to reitterate the whole IFF in CAC with the F-15... or lack thereof. There should be a cross in the middle of the HUD indicating if a friendly has been locked. I INSIST on not using externals to identify friendlies while in Lock On as I shouldn't have to (this is SOOO unrealistic and detracts from the sim) but geez it's unecessarily difficult in the F-15!

 

Can this please be looked at?

[Kenan]

No disrespect to anyone here.

But since this thread first appeared I have some doubt as to it's "weight".

Is this thread nothing more than wishfull thinking or is ED really considering the F-15 changes?

 

...remember.. no disrespect intended......

 

I say wishfull thinking. ;)

I mean, the addon is about to be released, how the hell they're going to put all this stuff in the game? :twisted:

[D-Scythe]

I say wishfull thinking. ;)

I mean, the addon is about to be released, how the hell they're going to put all this stuff in the game? :twisted:

 

Definitely not. All the technical stuff that Wags posted is just some background information so that people can just see the complexity of the F-15 radar. The devs can then work on a system that manages to represent such modes fairly - not all the little intricacies and details need to be included. These improvements can eventually make their way into a future add-on, which has been heavily hinted at by ED.

 

Honestly, a realistic, thorough simulation of the APG-63/70 is definitely wishful thinking - the resources, time and money for it simply do not exist at the moment, But a scaled down F-15C radar? With CAC and HOJ fixes, maybe an extra main radar mode, and much better functioning TWS? It can be done, and is very much possible, IMO.

[Kula66]

Pretty sure this has already been mentioned but I wanted to reitterate the whole IFF in CAC with the F-15... or lack thereof. There should be a cross in the middle of the HUD indicating if a friendly has been locked.

Can this please be looked at?

Seconded!!! Especially having just been shot down by a 'Friendly' F-15!

 

Also, in TWS mode telling friend from foe is not easy, espically at lower resolutions and it is a pain to switch out of TWS mode, check friendlies, then back in ... particularly when the scope clears when you switch and you have to wait for tracks to reappear!!!

 

James

[169th_DedCat]

I wanted to reitterate the whole IFF in CAC with the F-15... or lack thereof.

 

I posted some ideas for this in the Ubi forums ages ago, I don't know if anyone in ED took notice though.

 

link to original post: ubi.com forums - Lock On: Modern Air Combat (Wish List) - IFF in TWS

[bflagg]

No disrespect to anyone here.

But since this thread first appeared I have some doubt as to it's "weight".

Is this thread nothing more than wishfull thinking or is ED really considering the F-15 changes?

 

...remember.. no disrespect intended......

 

I say wishfull thinking. ;)

I mean, the addon is about to be released, how the hell they're going to put all this stuff in the game? :twisted:

 

I knew they wouldn't / couldn't do it with the FC release, but the question of

future releases is what I had in mind...

[GGTharos]

Here are some very, very concrete wishes for F-15 and A-10 - perhaps something we could see in 1.2?:

 

1. F-15 Radar

RWS mode should maintain a fading contact history for the past 3 sweeps on each contact. Ie. with each sweep of the radar an old contact fades a little - at the 4th sweep it dissapears.

RWS and TWS should BOTH place the cotact on the radar display where it should be when the aircraft is turning ... ie. if the F-15 turns 30 degrees right, the contact should be displaced on the display 30 degrees left.

TWS mode should extrapolate contact movement between sweeps ... eg. when it sees a contact, the contact should move smoothly on the radar screen between sweeps using last known data for the contact. If the contact has not been detected again is should be gin flashing, and if it is not detected in 3 sweeps it should dissapear.

TWS should not display a 'bugged' contact differently than any other contact, but it shoudl put a little circle around or something similar to indicate that this is a designated target. It should otherwise behave in EXACTLY the same way it does for other targets. Should this contact be lost, it should flash, but if it is reaquired within 3 sweeps it should still be bugged (ie. 'lock' should not be broken unless the contact dissapears after 3 sweeps fail to detect it). This meas that the radar itself should NOT associate the displayed contact witht eh in-game aircraft object ... since what it detects where this contact -should- be could be another aircraft or chaff, and maintain track on THAT ... it would be a rare situation but should be possible.

Aditionally, in RWS, when the TDC is moved over a contact, but the contact is NOT designated, the contact's alttiude should be displayed next to that contact.

Also, the RADAR should NEVER enter STT without thepilot's consent. This means that HoJ shots (to make things simple) should only be possible in RWS, while in TWS one will nto be able to select the jamming strobe, but will be able to select any contacts what are on it. TWS should not enter STT against a jamming contact on which burn-through has been achieved (in fact, STT should NEVER be entered from TWS UNLESS the target is selected twice)

When selecting Sparrow in TWS with target selected, the symbol 'GO STT' should flash under the target square on the HUD.

 

 

2. NAV info for BULLSEYE

Both F-15 and A-10 should have a special waypoint 'BULLSEYE' which would be a 'virtual' object that can be added to the map by the designer. Only one bullseye per side should be possible to add to the map. Bullseyes can be hidden on the map like any other object (this can be important for the future)

When switching to the BULLSEYE waypoint the following should be displayed:

The waypoint marker should point to bullseye, as well as HSI (if possible, make HSI and BULLSEYE operate independently however)

On the HUD the distance to bullseye and bearing FROM BULLSEYE TO THE AIRCRAFT should be displayed.

In the F-15, range and bearing FROM bullseye to the TDC should be displayed at all times on RADAR.

AoA should be displayed on HUD in guns mode.

PLEASE ensure that NAV info works correctly independently of COMBAT modes, and that the correct distance to waypoint is displayed on the HUD for the F-15.

 

 

3. A-10 Equipment

PLease give us high-drag bombs. Please ;)

 

 

For all sides:

AWACS needs to have a 'picture' option not just 'nearest bandit'.

When a picture is requested, AWACS should compute distances between bandits and refer to all bandits within 5nm of each other as a 'group'. But if it is easier, it could just consider each flight a separate group - then it should give bearing and range from bullseye for each group.

Example:

Cobra 11, request picture.

Majestic, copy picture. Four groups:

First group, 320 for 110

Second group, 280 for 90

Third group, 220 for 120

Fourth group, 290 for 50

Please make AWACS stop calling out recovering players in MP. I realize that this may be due to players warping and thus showing up on AWACS radar, but perhaps a more realistic AWACS RADAR modelling will help with this (ie. contact bearing sonly get updates every say 10 seconds or so internally for AWACS and please model range and LOS for them ... as well as ground clutter and jamming)

 

Also, for AWACS, the hot/cold/flanking calls are incorect, and should be as follows:

BOB is the aircraft calling the awacs for an update. MOE is the bandit.

BOB asks for bogie dope (nearest bandit) from AWACS.

If BOB is within 30 degrees of MOE's 3-9 line then AWACS says FLANKING

iIf BOB is in the forward 120deg of MOE, then AWACS says HOT.

If BOB is in the rear 120deg of MOE, AWACS says COLD.

This does NOT depend on BOBs orientation with respect to MOE, only MOE's orientation with respect to BOB!

 

Also, all sides: Allow us to set our BINGO fuel value in the payload editor!

 

Editor:

Please add 'CAP radius' to waypoint for CAP missions ... ie. isntead of making a 'turning' waypoint you make a 'CAP' waypoint and assign a radius. The aircraft on CAP will orbit the waypoint or just patrol inside the radius and react to enemies WITHIN the CAP radius ONLY unless they are engaged with very long range weapons. Min CAP radius shoudl obviously be 20-30nm. Aircraft should remain on CAP waypoint until bingo fuel or no weapons, then return to base.

Similarely, please add AWACS and REFUELLING waypoints for AWACS and tankers respectively, and tweak the AI so that when an aircraft hooks up to a tanker the tanker will fly straight until the aircraft disconnects, or it will turn very very getnly to maintain an orbit. It should disconnect and fly away if enemies are detected near ir by AWACs or other friendllies (say within 50nm)

The same should go for AWACS - it should orbit its AWACS waypoint and only leave due to fuel considerations or being chased by enemy.

If the enemy is near, AWACS and tankers shoudl also call for help and give their location WRT BULLSEYE and their escape heading and speed.

 

Similarely, the ESCORT mission shoudl also have a settable radius where the escorts will react to any potentnial interceptor within that radius.

 

 

Better missile logic:

ARH missiles should switch between collision, proportional and pure pursuits.

When long range, receiving MCU's, the missile should be on collision course, UNLESS the target is detect to be maneuvering hard (say, 3 radical position changes in 3 sweeps) the missile should assume PURE pursuit and correct to collision on last known data is target is LOST by the launching aircraft.

This course should nto attempt to bring it to a collision with the target, but rather to put the target in the seeker view.

Once active, the missile should go to either pure or proportional if the target is maneuvering, and go lead-collision in last 3-4km or so ONLY.

If the target does NOT maneuver, the missile shoudl fly lead-collision all the way.

 

Better Missile seeker limits:

Both the R-77 and AIM-120 can detect and track targets at very strange angles. Neither should be able to see a target that is not within the seeker FOV in front of it, unless it's starts sweeping in which case it should search for targets like any aircraft.

I've heard, but cannot confirm, that R-77 and AIM-120 gimbal limits are 60 degrees (so 120 deg total sweep) but of course the field of view of the seeker itself is small - 10-15 degrees. When launched without lock, AFAIK, the missile only looks straight ahead.

Please implement notching against ARHs. They do use PD radars AFAIK.

Once they are notched they should attempt to reacquire using last-known target info.

 

Please make SARH missiles more susceptible to chaff.

 

 

Some miscellaneous items:

Please add some thin black smoke to the AMRAAM if possible.

 

 

I think that's all. Heh.

[GGTharos]

Addendum: If possible could you reduce frictionon all missiles by about 10-20%? (whichever gives the best 'feel') as they're -just- a little short legged right now.

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

Please make SARH missiles more susceptible to chaff.

 

Sure, let's screw the Flanker's one and only bvr trustworthy missile. Why didn't I see this coming...

[GGTharos]

Get a grip. SARH missiles are NOT accurate RL. They ARE a threat otherwise they wouldn't be used - the best ones however, AFAIK, have a Pk of about 30-40% in combat situations.

 

Besides we know that with MCUs the missile will have better ECCM capability so it's not like you just drop a chaff bundle (Or ten, or twenty) and the missile goes away. You do the defense right anyway or else.

 

ARH missiles already like to track chaff AFAIK.

 

I'm not asking this for long range anyway - it's more of a short-range consideration where SARH missiles seem just downright UNDEFEATABLE.

[169th_Jaws]

I think that's all. Heh.

 

That's all indeed lol!

Some pretty cool requests in there. The only ones I would question are:

 

(On the HUD the distance to bullseye and bearing FROM BULLSEYE TO THE AIRCRAFT should be displayed. ) I've heard that this data is not displayed on the HUD of the real F-15.

 

You also said that the AMRAAM should have a small amount of black smoke. Now I know you know that the AMRAAM is apparently 'close' to being smokeless but are you sure that it's small amount is black? I would've thought white or grey.

 

(TWS should not display a 'bugged' contact differently than any other contact, but it shoudl put a little circle around or something similar to indicate that this is a designated target.) This sounds a little vague, "a circle or something like that". What's the correct display?

 

The rest is cool!

[GGTharos]

It might be grey, but it's pretty dark regardless (as seen int he archer video) so thin and black, to reduce visibility should work :)

 

About TWS: The symbol should remain as it is in TWS when bugged, but to indicate that it IS bugged, it should be highlighted by putting a circle around it. Ie. you don't change the symbol itself, just stick a circle around it to indicate buggyness ;)

 

For the Bullseye info, if it's not displayed on HUD, then it's displayed on RADAR or somewhere where its easily accessible, I'm sure.

[SwingKid]

Addendum: If possible could you reduce frictionon all missiles by about 10-20%? (whichever gives the best 'feel') as they're -just- a little short legged right now.

 

Can you elaborate on this? i.e. short legged compared to what - the launch zone displayed in the sim's HUD, real missile data, or their relative performance in other sims?

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

Relative performance to other sims. I've no access to 'real missile data'.

 

AFAIK one pilot commented that within 8nm an AMRAAM is supposed to be a 'virtual death ray'.

 

Mind you I'm not asking for friction to be reduced just for a single missile, but for all of them by the same percentage. This should also actually give the R-27's a bit more reach over the 120, IMHO.

[D-Scythe]

About TWS: The symbol should remain as it is in TWS when bugged, but to indicate that it IS bugged, it should be highlighted by putting a circle around it. Ie. you don't change the symbol itself, just stick a circle around it to indicate buggyness

 

The current PDT and SDT model in LOMAC seems okay to me. Never heard of a circle indicating that a target is bugged - only the white outlined brick as it is in Lock On (as opposed to a solid brick for a unbugged target). The only areas of improvement with respect to PDT and SDT modelling in Lock On is:

1) The pilot should be able to adjust azimuth and elevation limits of TWS as it is tracking PDT and SDTs, but the radar should automatically "follow" or track the PDT and not allow the pilot to exceed the radar limits

 

Otherwise, you summed up everything about TWS pretty well :) I'll pay good money for a possible future expansion of the F-15s radar with a fully modelled TWS, all HOJ bugs in RWS and TWS fixed, and accurate CAC modes with acquisition ranges out to 15 nm. Something extra like a "Raid assessment" mode for TWS, or a new radar mode like Velocity or Vector search would also be nice. I honestly don't expect Lock On to model all the intricacies of the AN/APG-70 radar as Matt has described, but an accurate, detailed simulation of two or three main modes of the radar IMO is a must.

[SwingKid]

Relative performance to other sims. I've no access to 'real missile data'.

 

Ok. Missile modelling is a bit OT for this thread but I would point out that ED does have official data for some weapons, for example here is the perofrmance data for the R-27R (AA-10A Alamo):

 

 

The range performance of this weapon in Falcon 4.0 (with one of the SP patches, can't remember which) was about 2x what appears in this chart.

 

AFAIK one pilot commented that within 8nm an AMRAAM is supposed to be a 'virtual death ray'.

 

Real data is always welcome, but this is what we call 'hype'. AIM-120 is enough challenge to model even at subluminal velocities. :wink:

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

As an update for those following this discussion:

 

We are preparing a new design proposal document based on some of the suggestions in this discussion. One of the challenges will be to introduce new controls for the user for better controlling TWS that will also be compatible with the interface for other flyable aircraft.

 

This is a secondary priority at the moment (getting v1.1 out the door is first), but those who are interested may read a keyboard command layout proposal here:

 

http://www.waves.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/keyboard/newkeys3.zip

 

Proposed is to move the radar cursor controls from the ;,./ keys to the cursor arrow keys, and to reserve the three keys Tab, Enter and Backspace for manipulating designated targets in TWS modes. Many other controls are also proposed to be moved around, as the keyboard is now becoming crowded with commands.

 

Right now I'm considering how to handle the Padlock view - specifically, how many keys should be reserved for controlling this mode. When we have a clear picture of where all functions fit on which keys, we will be able to tailor new avionics according to the planned interface.

 

Comments welcome. Thanks for your interest,

 

-SK

 

Lock On v1.1 "Flaming Cliffs" beta tester

[GGTharos]

SK, could you interpret that diagram for me if possible? I just only barely understand it. It -seems- to be based on target speed, but I'm not sure what the other two speeds are for.

 

I'm going to look at the proposed KB now.

As for padlock, it seems fine to me right now ... what are you trying to change for it? :)

 

Edit: Okay, just remember to leave some easy-to-use keys for comms ... 2-3 should do (2 are enough for relatively complex stuff, but 3 would be better)