Patch 1.13 Requested Features/Fixes List (*Merged)

[aviadreams87]

Starnge please explane.

 

:joystick:

 

I dunno, seems that i lose radar locks most of the time in the Eagle. Maybe i'm a newbie or is always missing something.. and oh~ i'm envious of the PRF Options for russian radars;)

[Weta43]

IvanK wrote

AIR to AIR modes

F15

Radar performance needs to be increased to provide a slightly better advantage above the Russian radars.

 

Could you be more specific about what you mean by this ?

Improved detection/tracking range or improved multi target tracking/targeting abilities ?

 

Speaking of detection/tracking range

FAS.ORG (not particularly pro soviet.) wrote:

.. with its superior radar the Su-27 can launch a missile before the F-15C does, so from a purely kinematic standpoint, the Russian fighters outperform the F-15C in the beyond-visual-range fight. The Su-35 phased array radar is superior to the APG-63 Doppler radar in both detection range and tracking capabilities... Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.

 

Boeing published a simillar study a few years ago in which they said with equally well trained pilots in either plane, 1 on 1 BVR an Su-27 would down an F-15C every time.

 

True, the USAF probably don't intend to ever have Su-27 & F-15 meet 1 on 1 & outside of that situation the F-15's radar's better processing capabilities come into play - and also true The F-15 radar is in need of some work in LO, but then again so are the MiG & Su radars...

 

I think though even if they weren't only saying they'll only 'probably do a patch', that they're seriously hampered by the underlying model of the radars - which is at least in part why they're developing a new sim.

 

Still - I agree - in a wishlist updated gear would be nice - then we could have some later variant of the N001 radar in the Su-27. Maybe all the way to the last of the series - the N001VEP radar - able to concurrently track 10 targets, and engage four air targets or two ground targets of the 10 tracked.

[GGTharos]

IvanK wrote

 

 

Could you be more specific about what you mean by this ?

Improved detection/tracking range or improved multi target tracking/targeting abilities ?

 

Both ... but range will suffice, especially look-down.

 

Speaking of detection/tracking range

FAS.ORG (not particularly pro soviet.) wrote:

 

 

Boeing published a simillar study a few years ago in which they said with equally well trained pilots in either plane, 1 on 1 BVR an Su-27 would down an F-15C every time.

 

Certainly incorrect ... the Su-27's radar isn't particularly good in its 1990's form. It is designed to deliver a weapon on target, not for searching etc. It's ok when in STT, when searching the problems are horrible. Also, IIRC the lock limit is some 66km due to the off-axis mainlobe.

 

 

True, the USAF probably don't intend to ever have Su-27 & F-15 meet 1 on 1 & outside of that situation the F-15's radar's better processing capabilities come into play - and also true The F-15 radar is in need of some work in LO, but then again so are the MiG & Su radars...

 

INSIDE that situation the capability also comes into play. Especially with AMRAAM. Su and MiG radars are indeed missing and thing or two as well ... but nothing near as much as the F-15's.

 

I think though even if they weren't only saying they'll only 'probably do a patch', that they're seriously hampered by the underlying model of the radars - which is at least in part why they're developing a new sim.

 

Quite correct - if you pay close attention, the F-15's radar in game is a clone of the flanker radar with slightly altered parameters and a new 'skin'.

 

Still - I agree - in a wishlist updated gear would be nice - then we could have some later variant of the N001 radar in the Su-27. Maybe all the way to the last of the series - the N001VEP radar - able to concurrently track 10 targets, and engage four air targets or two ground targets of the 10 tracked.

 

 

Ah, and APG-63(v3) for the eagle, then? ;)

[Weta43]

I wondered if you'd be the first to post a reply GG :-)

 

Certainly incorrect

 

You're saying Boeing is incorrect - maybe you should write to them & tell them !!!

I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear it.

 

The initial N001 was apparently a dificult peice of equipment to use, but there were a number of variants rolled out & it improved over time.

 

INSIDE that situation the capability also comes into play.

 

Not according to Boeing. They said that as long as both pilots knew what they were doing - 1 on 1 BVR - pretty much what happens in LO would happen in real life - the longer legs of the ER meant the Su gets first launch, the Eagle driver ends up going defensive, & then he's dead meat.

 

But like you said - maybe Boeing got it wrong.

 

if you pay close attention, the F-15's radar in game is a clone of the flanker radar with slightly altered parameters and a new 'skin'

 

Actually - I already knew this :-) but last time I said it in a post half a dozen people said they were going to quit playing LO because they felt it had undermined their enjoyment of the sim, so I have made a point of not saying it since...

 

Ah, and APG-63(v3) for the eagle, then?

 

I guess fair's fair :-)

[GGTharos]

No, Boeing didn't get it wrong ... they knew exactly what they were saying ... and why :P

 

The R-27ER's legs don't appear to be a whole lot longer than those of AIM-120C either ... potentially shorter by now .. but eh. Idle speculation and stuff ;)

[Weta43]

:-)

[RvEYoda]

If you take the sukhoi AESA radar, why dont u compare it to the F-15 equivalent with AESA radar? I'm hoping for implementation of Full azimuth and bar control. Cone shape determining burn through range. Variable burn through range also depending on earlier contact (example if you have hardlocked something, you should not "click-lose" the lock on ecm on from 20 nm. Also this situation should extent burn through range significantly, since your radar and FCC now already have a "signature" of the radar returns that you are looking for). Oh btw, now that we are speaking of it. At this years fortis I was able to ask some mig-29 pilots about radar detection ranges for their plane. (Note ofc that this is the export version). I was surprised when they told me about exercises against Rafale, where they flew level altitude with it (no look-down situation), and detection range was WITHIN 20km (!!!).

[GGTharos]

Burn-through and ECM is SO misunderstood :) Burn through will typically work against an angle jammer, but a range jammer jams the mainlobe, and burn through is very difficult if not impossible at -any- range. This is why, to model ECM/ECCM properly, a probabilistic model is needed ... none of his 'I make the cone smaller so burn through comes sooner' ... this is in general true only of a jammer that jams the sidelobes, not the mainlobe - at least, the way I've understood it.

There will not be any fixes to ECM like that anyway IIRC.

 

Why are you surprised about the MiG's detection range? It's radar has always sucked; so double the range 'non export' version if you so wish, but really, the rafale has low RCS and the MiG's radar, as it appears in those warsaw pact versions, was NOT made for searching - it was made for going STT and delivering weapons with the help of GCI. It really does suck in search - it works well enough in STT.

 

If you take the sukhoi AESA radar, why dont u compare it to the F-15 equivalent with AESA radar? I'm hoping for implementation of Full azimuth and bar control. Cone shape determining burn through range. Variable burn through range also depending on earlier contact (example if you have hardlocked something, you should not "click-lose" the lock on ecm on from 20 nm. Also this situation should extent burn through range significantly, since your radar and FCC now already have a "signature" of the radar returns that you are looking for). Oh btw, now that we are speaking of it. At this years fortis I was able to ask some mig-29 pilots about radar detection ranges for their plane. (Note ofc that this is the export version).

I was surprised when they told me about exercises against Rafale, where they flew level altitude with it (no look-down situation), and detection range was WITHIN 20km (!!!).

[muamshai]

I want Su17, Su24. Tornado and a plane that can carry HARM or ALARM

Asking for heavy bomber is too much :)

[Pilotasso]

Mind you that F-15 doesnt need AESA to remain competitive against Su-30MKI (Its PESA)because AMRAAM is still a better ARH weapon. It would be interesting to have complementary advantages and disavantages on each planes and never parity.

[RvEYoda]

Burn-through and ECM is SO misunderstood :) Burn through will typically work against an angle jammer, but a range jammer jams the mainlobe, and burn through is very difficult if not impossible at -any- range. This is why, to model ECM/ECCM properly, a probabilistic model is needed ... none of his 'I make the cone smaller so burn through comes sooner' ... this is in general true only of a jammer that jams the sidelobes, not the mainlobe - at least, the way I've understood it.

There will not be any fixes to ECM like that anyway IIRC.

 

Why are you surprised about the MiG's detection range? It's radar has always sucked; so double the range 'non export' version if you so wish, but really, the rafale has low RCS and the MiG's radar, as it appears in those warsaw pact versions, was NOT made for searching - it was made for going STT and delivering weapons with the help of GCI. It really does suck in search - it works well enough in STT.

 

I highly doubt you there are jammers on current fighters that are 100% guaranteed to disrupt enemy radars at any range. A probabilistic model - definitely an improvement.

 

Higher radar intensity (by cone shaping) will definitely affect this also affect this equation, so burn through range would be affected - if you are saying there are jammers that work regardless of radar indensity(=RANGE) - That would be pretty neat wouldnt it. Regardless of ECM type, if the inbound radar signal is several magnitutes stronger, the ECM signal, regardless of type, will not even be seen.

Currently burn through is hard locked at 12nm....which is......:huh:

[GGTharos]

I highly doubt you there are jammers on current fighters that are 100% guaranteed to disrupt enemy radars at any range. A probabilistic model - definitely an improvement.

 

If your radar has no ECCM, it can definitely be 100% effective. Let us not confuse 'burn through' with ECCM - one defeats ECM through raw power (eg. MiG-25) the other through smarts (frequency hopping and PRF change, ie. F-15 radar)

 

Higher radar intensity (by cone shaping) will definitely affect this also affect this equation, so burn through range would be affected - if you are saying there are jammers that work regardless of radar indensity(=RANGE) - That would be pretty neat wouldnt it.

 

Not only is it neat, it's quite real - the reflection from the TARGET is what counts, and that is a tiny fraction of the radar's power/intensity which a jammer can easily overcome. This is why you need ECCM.

Further, as I said ... some ECM techniques can be burned through simply due to their nature (jamming the weak sidelobes for example)

Cone shaping may help with reducing sidelobe jamming (I am speculating here) so you will get burn through sooner, but it's probably not going to do squat against a mainlobe jammer or a smart jammer.

 

 

Regardless of ECM type, if the inbound radar signal is several magnitutes stronger, the ECM signal, regardless of type, will not even be seen.

Currently burn through is hard locked at 12nm....which is......:huh:

 

 

No ... wrong. The REFLECTED radar signal. And yes, you could make it that strong - you'd also fry your target, so you wouldn't need missiles no more :D

 

12nm is 'anyone's guess', representing ECCM techniques AND burn through. It is not terribly realistic, though it is 'fair' in that it works the same way for everyone.

[59th_LeFty]

Additionally the ability to carry R77 on the SU27 and SU33 to simulate later versions of the SU27/30/33

 

Addition of Aim9X would be great for F15/16/19 to counter the R73, though I guess this would then require a Helmet mounted sight for these aircraft to utilize it. Though I guess this would be considered a major update and outside the scope of a patch.

 

I think this is a major problem in LO modelling, because you have to choose between "reality" and fairplay. I mean, if programmers concentrate on realism, they must ensure that two technologies from the past and the present do not meet. If we have Aim-9X, let's have OEPRNK-30, or ramjet R-77Ts, RVV-AE-PD... You know what I mean.

 

In the case of fairplay, some technologies (like APG-63 in present LockOn) have to be undermodelled due to their Russian counterparts' lacks. I always wondered, which one of these ideas ED is following (followED :) )

[RvEYoda]

Of course I am talking about the reflected signal off target, GG! - Maybe you want me to talk about reflected off ground or recieved by target.....Why not reflected by sun:P

 

Otherwise we could never generalize to "any plane"

[GGTharos]

Ahh, I do believe the sun would jam you senseless :D

[GGTharos]

I think this is a major problem in LO modelling, because you have to choose between "reality" and fairplay. I mean, if programmers concentrate on realism, they must ensure that two technologies from the past and the present do not meet. If we have Aim-9X, let's have OEPRNK-30, or ramjet R-77Ts, RVV-AE-PD... You know what I mean.

 

I sure don't - you mean put in missiles that aren't in service against missiles that are? What the heck? :D

Concentrating on 'fair play' simply means 'make things work the same' and nevermind what name you give them.

 

In the case of fairplay, some technologies (like APG-63 in present LockOn) have to be undermodelled due to their Russian counterparts' lacks. I always wondered, which one of these ideas ED is following (followED :) )

 

 

Neither - it is made impossible by the code :( F-15 radar is just a flanker radar copy with a different skin. Although I expect there would be a lot of upset people if the APG-63 and AMRAAMs worked properly - then INDEED we'd need to see something like Su-27SM or at least Su-30MKx to make things much more reasonable. You cannot expect an old Su-27S and its radar and R-27's to be a huge challenge for a modern F-15C ... and I'm not saying you should laugh at its capabilities, just that the exchange ratio (kills v deaths) would make playing the game very very frustrating.

[Weta43]

It's a shame that modelling to the intended depth in DCS is going to make each addition a job worthy of a module - so someone will likely chose between an Su-27SM or an Su-30MK(x) & I guess we're not likely to get both released close to each other. Most people play offline & if online are more likely to fly solo and want to be in control of both the flight controls & the weapons - so an advanced single seat variant makes more sense, but the 2 seater code from the AH-64 would make an SU-30MK(please add your favourite letter here) a lot of fun... (Read F-15C & F-15E for Su-27SM & Su-30MK if it makes you more happy)

[Pilotasso]

I happen to know an Infalible Radar Jam method! ;)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cEDTEge_cE&feature=related

[GGTharos]

Jam in the PCB's? :D

[Squid]

If this is going to be the last patch then i wish for:

 

• capability to add new cockpits/avionics/planes (complete new plane packages) & maps/terrains/worlds ....
  
• better multicore support
  
• improved performance under high visibility range
  
• fix the full shadows bug (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=425816#post425816, http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=425812#post425812)
  

 

:D

[SoaringEagle74]

A lot of details could be improved but most importantly fixing the tuturials after each patch release would really make my day.

 

Yes, some or all of the tuturials have been converted to video format but they are so large that for dial up users its hopeless!

[lion737]

Su25 T front wheel deflection with rudder has to be restricted. Touchdown with full rudder needs to be possible.

[RvEYoda]

Su25 T front wheel deflection with rudder has to be restricted. Touchdown with full rudder needs to be possible.

 

yeah, NWS control would be nice ;),

but imo hardly something that is worth focusing on if we can only "fix" things with this patch,

the above would, unfortunately, most likely need new things to be implemented.

[cool_t]

Hi there.

 

Temperature varinces on Fighter performance.

 

Meteorlogical factors takin in on the "Micro" scale, storms, High pressure systems, warm-cold fronts, jet stream influence, useing storms to hide your attack point to shoot all 8 120s on one bandit and he's so good that you need to go gunzo on him to make him eject.

 

:drink:

[spartan_007]

hi i'm relatively new to that simulation

i've played it for a few hours

and i would like for patch 1.13:

-in all training missions a guy speaking because it's more easier to learn i think and more pleasant :pilotfly:

-fixes sounds problems (you're in afterburner and you decrease your speed and there is no sound for a while then the engine sound comes back)

-i saw the a10's hud was flickering when i was taxiing :joystick:

-better detailled planes and more playable planes (from

more countries)

-more graphic options

-if possible like FSX have track IR six axis