Is it time to "accelerate" on the AG radar?

[Picchiorosso]

As far as my thinking is worth, I believe DCS planes work far below their potential without radar AG.

I am in possession of the AJS-37 Viggen module and when I fly, I understand that the AG radar is fundamental.

I hope that there is an acceleration on the part of the programmers in this sense because, in my opinion, in the AG, the airplanes that are not in possession of them fly 50% of their potential.

Thanks for your attention.

 

On fly Dax

[Weta43]

•Clouds:

A very anticipated improvement coming to DCS is already making progress. Just a few of the improvements we are looking to add to this are (the following is subject to change):◦Different cloud types, such as:Cumulus

. Сumulonimbus

. Сirrus

. And variations.

 

◦Localized precipitation

◦Multiple cloud layers

◦Multi-player synchronization

◦Lower Performance overhead with minimal to no “pop-in”

 

 

 

This is a neat list, but it's a bit worrying that the by far most critical component isn't even mentioned: the toolset to make any of that happen. Hopefully it's not just a visual spit-shine and an MP bugfix, but an actual update and improvement of how clouds work in the game.

 

What they listed are fixes to "how clouds work in the game".

 

I assume you mean the ME GUI ? (as all the defects with the current clouds are specifically addressed except clouds 'rotating'), surely even a little thought before jumping to (forecasting) complaining would make it obvious that in order to have multiple cloud layers, types and localised precipitation, they're going to have to work on the weather interface.

 

Some specific suggestions regarding what you'd like to see would be a better idea than a general gripe of "I'm sure they'll get it wrong:..

[cthulhu68]

I think the thread you're looking for is down the hall to the left Weta43.

[Krippz]

I think people over estimate how good the A2G radar will be.

[KTFBGB]

I think people over estimate how good the A2G radar will be.

 

Yep. Plenty of pilots have been on here stating that AG radar isn’t all that useful and is used secondary to other primary systems like targeting pods.

[Oceandar]

AG radar has its own function in bad weather. As long as ED has not implemented complex weather I don't mind using the TGP to spot ground targets.

[Picchiorosso]

I assure you that if an airplane has to do an AG mission and has a failure on the radar ag, the plane does not fly.

Does it seem unimportant to you?

If you don't have the radar AG how do you see the moving vehicles?

The TGP works well if interfaced with the AG radar, otherwise all the missions must be done in PrePlanned.

Do you believe that the tanks remain still waiting for a hunt to hit?

If you have Viggen see the difference

 

In flight Dax

[David OC]

The time it's taking is because of the NEW tech ed is building to simulate how a radar would work IRL, using the hardware we now have. There is no "accelerate", that's really a bad word to use. As I'm sure ED's team are hard at it. They could accelerate and fake it.... tho not very accurate like all other combat sim's before. What I mean by this is, that it should not be perfect and not just see all etc.

 

These things are just very experimental and need testing and perhaps even re-coding, you need to throw it out there and try it test it etc.

 

It's worth the wait for ED to get this core tech in the sim right for the F/A-18 and 16, not quick or "accelerated". This then can be changed and applied to other aircraft in the future etc.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224989618_Simulation_of_Imaging_Radar_Using_Graphics_Hardware_Acceleration

[Picchiorosso]

In fact, my thread is a question.

I understand and know the difficulties in creating a mapping of the terrain in AG and also that the Viggen radar AG is simpler and has less data to process than a F16 or F18 radar.

My question that has given rise to my question is the fact that many are asking, rightly, for this or that type of AG armament to be implemented, forgetting the importance in the military flight of the radar AG.

It is my opinion that the AG radar in the 3 modes would make the simulator jump in quality and I also understand that it is really difficult to implement.

 

In fliy Dax

[Fri13]

I assure you that if an airplane has to do an AG mission and has a failure on the radar ag, the plane does not fly.

Does it seem unimportant to you?

 

The aircraft doesn't fly because the critical component of the fighter features are inoperable, not because it can't perform bomb dropping but because it can't fight its route through enemy air defence there and back. It is not capable to defend itself against sudden air threat.

 

If the aircraft has ejection seat malfunction, the aircraft doesn't fly, regardless it doesn't matter in A-G missions as you are not suppose to get hit.

Same thing is if your digital map doesn't work, you do not fly.

 

Some doesn't even let you fly off your environmental control unit is broken, regardless you do not need heating or cooling for comfort.

It is because when the aircraft has a malfunction, it doesn't fly!

 

If you don't have the radar AG how do you see the moving vehicles?[/Quote]

 

Visually... You need to confirm visually that what is the target. You can't drop bombs without ID of the target.

 

That is why intelligence is there, they are finding when columns goes, what routes and what there is. Pilots are told to go specific area for circling or called when required. To prepare to strike at given position and time, and target.

The A-G radar ain't accurate enough to deliver you the targeting. It is nice tool, but not a silver bullet.

 

When you go against a modern enemy, you don't do anything with A-G radar really.

Why?

 

The enemy getting units has a RWR. Once you pop radar On, they know your distance and direction. You just revealed your location and your intensions.

 

The enemy will not be moving there without concealment. The vehicles are covered with branches and nets that are IR and radar absorbing, they conceal anything under them effectively from thermal cameras and radars. So you to detect them moving on the road is even less likely, but possible.

 

Then the important columns do not travel without AA cover, meaning they have SAM, AAA and MANPAADS with few AAA machine guns etc there. If very important, they have CAP on area.

 

Then as well, when the column is on the move, in the way time operations etc, they do not group together, they do not! They keep distance all the time! Why? Because you can not order an artillery barrage, mortar strike, air strike or ground attack to whole column, only to a individual vehicle or small section of them. In the urban areas it is opposite, you drive as close as possible, you are one tight formation that moves and operates so if you get ambushed, you get everyone to lay down the fire and get quickly out as all possible escape routes needs to be known.

DCS doesn't simulate this at all in open areas, instead all columns drive like drunken holiday parties. Why you can find them on radar, you can drop a submunition bombs or program bomb delay to cover the whole column length for one passage. No, not in reality, not possible against a modern military.

 

The case is different when you have a road going through a flat desert, as there is nothing where to hide or what to do. It is literally like shooting fishes in barrel. But in forested areas etc, totally another case.

 

As well a modern enemy has a electronic listening posts all over. Early warning radars, AWACS etc. The ground stations are completely passive, detecting all the radio communications, datalink transmissions, radars etc. They get passively the direction, altitude and distance of the fighters. This is why JSF is so critical, why it is Strike fighter. As it needs to be able to avoid getting locked from long range by enemy fighters, even when they know where you are and what you do by early warning radars coverage. They need to be able stay silent so they do not emit any energy to reveal their position, so no, you keep your A-G radar OFF. They use FLIR/TV to spot and identify targets and target them. And even they can't do anything to enemy columns that are scattered at 500-1500 meters spacing between them. They can't drop bombs on more than couple vehicles until local air defense is active and shooting at them, and CAP is already heading on location and everyone in the area of 50km radius is alarmed for air threat, ready to find you and shoot you down.

 

 

The TGP works well if interfaced with the AG radar, otherwise all the missions must be done in PrePlanned.

Do you believe that the tanks remain still waiting for a hunt to hit?

If you have Viggen see the difference[/Quote]

 

You believe that tanks can be found by using A-G radar? Or FLIR?

 

The one of the first things that are ordered to military units in first standing command is preparation against air threats. Visual, electronic and optical observations, spotting and targeting.

 

#1 rule, hide, conceal and avoid...

 

Vehicles do not shine in FLIR like they do in DCS. You do not see them via A-G radar like in BMS etc.

 

Unless you fight against a idiots who do not want to survive, fight and are just ready to die by parking the tank middle of opening, waiting to get bombed...

[Fri13]

It is my opinion that the AG radar in the 3 modes would make the simulator jump in quality and I also understand that it is really difficult to implement.

 

I wait that ED will rewrite the getting units AI logic and add camouflage nets, proper vehicle concealments and air threat preparations.

 

You would rarely anymore spot any columns or ground units, and even less to be able bomb those than one at the time for tiny time window until you get shot down.

[Picchiorosso]

therefore

1 I inform you the only components that prohibit the flight are those of emergency and survival.

2 The systems on military aircraft are interfaced to have the best possible result, that is to say, fulfill their mission, proof is the importance of the JTAC datalink and other things.

3 The radar finds the tgt in movement the fixed tgt and the ships lost in the sea.

4 AWACS or JTSTAR see traffic on roads.

5 In a real war scenario the moves that are made are not made by incompetents and every land and sky mission is planned wisely.

6 I didn't talk about bms

7 I don't see why you get so upset, I just asked a question and I'm not here to criticize the work of the DCS programmers but just the expectation to close a circle for this simulator.

 

In Fly Dax

[KTFBGB]

therefore

1 I inform you the only components that prohibit the flight are those of emergency and survival.

2 The systems on military aircraft are interfaced to have the best possible result, that is to say, fulfill their mission, proof is the importance of the JTAC datalink and other things.

3 The radar finds the tgt in movement the fixed tgt and the ships lost in the sea.

4 AWACS or JTSTAR see traffic on roads.

5 In a real war scenario the moves that are made are not made by incompetents and every land and sky mission is planned wisely.

6 I didn't talk about bms

7 I don't see why you get so upset, I just asked a question and I'm not here to criticize the work of the DCS programmers but just the expectation to close a circle for this simulator.

 

In Fly Dax

 

I don’t think he is upset. Just trying to explain for the 100th time that ground radar is not going to be what people think it’s going to be. There are a ton of threads begging for the ground radar and the people who start the threads think it’s going to be this magical system that allows you to just dominate everything with no pre planning.

 

If you read books about fighter pilots and their experiences you quickly realize that every mission is pre planned multiple times before they fly it. Usually planning takes multiple days. Each aircraft is assigned 1 primary target, with maybe a secondary target to hit if the mission goes well. Then the plane is loaded with maybe 2 JDAMS, gun rounds, and fuel bags. Then they fly 4 hours one way, destroy the target with a single bomb, fly defensive route out of the OP, and fly 4 hours home. There is no flying around randomly with a full load of weapons to “take targets of opportunity”. If you are assigned to CAS then you may have a more diversified weapons load. Then you will fly in a assigned orbit until relieved by another aircraft. You may or may not be needed during your flight. And the only time you attack ground targets is under control of a JTAC. So again, no searching for targets of opportunity. You are given specific coordinates or targets are marked with a laser.

 

In the books I have read the ground radar is used for flying in bad weather to supplement IFR, to look for points of interest that you can slew a TGP to when in an area that is relatively safe and there is no threat that would come from revealing your location, and mostly in Search and Rescue.

 

Like Fri13 said, pilots are not allowed to drop ordinance on anything without visual confirmation of the target. Or some other means of confirming you have the correct target for the single JDAM you have just flown out for 4 hours. And of course the other side of that is confirming the target to make sure there isn’t a blue on blue incident or civilian casualties.

[Picchiorosso]

I didn't say the opposite.

As for what you say is sacrosanct.

I have not talked about anti-IR camouflage as new antiradar materials (ships and tanks).

Quote.

In the first Gulf War to hit a target 12 planes were needed in the second with an airplane could hit 4 targets.

 

So I repeat that mine is a question and not a provocation and that in a complex scenario everything has its importance and those who believe that the AG radar does not have its importance in my opinion underestimate it.

 

If we then return from the 70s to the 90s then we see that some planes have been designed precisely on the radar AG functions.

 

Now I hope I have clarified my position.

 

T/Y

 

in FLy Dax

Edited November 9, 2019 by Picchiorosso

[Prancingkiller]

Yep. Plenty of pilots have been on here stating that AG radar isn’t all that useful and is used secondary to other primary systems like targeting pods.

 

starting to find strange how plenty of pilots came here justifing every missing/strange feature on DCS

[BarTzi]

in my opinion, in the AG, the airplanes that are not in possession of them fly 50% of their potential.

Thanks for your attention.

 

 

You are setting yourself up for a disappointment. You are exaggerating the capabilities and usage of the A/G radar.

 

It is also very hard to develop and I would not expect it anytime soon. Most likely one of the last major features for the Hornet \ Viper.

[KTFBGB]

starting to find strange how plenty of pilots came here justifing every missing/strange feature on DCS

 

I haven’t seen any pilots on here justifying missing features on any module. Nor did I state that they did. Read my comment very slowly. The pilots on here discussing ground radar have been informing people that it’s not what many on here think it is. Once it’s released there are going to be a lot of disappointed people on here I think. They think it’s something that is capable of doing things that it can not.

[Prancingkiller]

I haven’t seen any pilots on here justifying missing features on any module. Nor did I state that they did. Read my comment very slowly. The pilots on here discussing ground radar have been informing people that it’s not what many on here think it is. Once it’s released there are going to be a lot of disappointed people on here I think. They think it’s something that is capable of doing things that it can not.

 

i've seen many instead, on different threads about different subjects, but whatever, i really doubt that planes like the f-16, where even the stick isnt moving to save space inside the cockpit, are equipped with such a complicated sensor if that was not crucial, or really needed in some kind of missions in some kind of situations

[Swiso]

McDonnel Douglas F-15E:

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg82v1

"Aircraft equipped with the APG-82(V)1 AESA radar can simultaneously detect, identify and track multiple air and surface targets at longer ranges than ever before. The longer standoff range facilitates persistent target observation and information sharing for informed decision making. This superior battlespace awareness supports greater tactical mission capability. The result: greatly increased aircraft-aircrew effectiveness and survivability.

 

Lockeed F-35:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-81

"Capabilities of the AN/APG-81 include the AN/APG-77's air-to-air modes, plus advanced air-to-ground modes, including high resolution mapping, multiple ground moving target indication and track, combat identification, electronic warfare, and ultra high bandwidth communications.[2] The current[when?] F-22 production radar is the APG-77v1, which draws heavily on APG-81 hardware and software for its advanced air-to-ground capabilities."

 

Northrop B-2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-181

"The AN/APQ-181 is an all-weather, low probability of intercept (LPI) phased array radar system designed by Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) for the U.S. Air Force B-2A Spirit bomber aircraft. The system was developed in the mid-1980s and entered service in 1993. The APQ-181 provides a number of precision targeting modes, and also supports terrain-following radar and terrain avoidance"

 

Yep...some very very expensive planes that were fitted with specific radar devices, that actually are not used in real life...just for the saking of spending money....

Right.

 

Try to fly with the Viggen without using the ground radar for correct navigation errors or finding ships....

 

I see the problem and difficulty in developing a "credible" G-R for each DCS module that need it... I get that, but from here to say that, "in fact in real life it is not used anyway", just to justify the fact that this system is missing, its like putting your head in the sand...

 

Just my two cents..

 

[KTFBGB]

Here is a picture posted by Wags a couple years ago. This represents the fidelity of the ground radar we are getting. It’s a very unpopulated area of the map so there isn’t a ton of clutter. Like I said, most pilots say its most useful for search and rescue at sea. Notice how easy it is to spot the Stennis in the water. Once on land you are back to hundreds of little blips that have to be visually interrogated. We aren’t talking about the new super high resolution ground mapping radar of current generation 4 aircraft. We are talking about the radar suite available on the lot 20 only. You can see why its a secondary sensor and not a primary sensor. Can it help you find a blip in the middle of nowhere? Yes. Can it pick out targets in a populated area better than a TGP with FLIR? Nope. Can it show you if you are feet dry or where the carrier is during case III conditions? Yep.

[Picchiorosso]

As usual I want to calm the spirits.

The problem is that we see the AG radar as a settling thing.

We need to imagine the system interfaced with others.

Would the El Dorado Canyon operation be possible without radar AG?

For me no.

The operation Operation Babylon would have been possible without radar AG?

For me no.

If you think it is overrated, why was the radar set on the AV-8B Harrier II Plus?

We know why, for AA but above all for AG sea.

We all know that the radar for inertial navigation systems in the 70s and 90s also served to carry out the FIX of a ship point for the decay of gyroscopic systems (about 3NM / h).

I opened this discussion not to see who is right and who is wrong, but the need to evaluate the development of AG radar systems on DCS.

Here we are not seeing those who are stronger, we are seeing opportunities.

Thanks for your attention.

 

In Fly Dax

[Swiso]

Thanks for the picture KTFBGB,

I think its safe to say that nobody here is realistically expecting a true "as real" ground radar system... just a "workable" solution,that give you the different operating moeds... even if is not realistic at 100%.

As in some other aspects of DCS (EW for example..)

 

Instead of nothing, I would gladly like to have something "workable" like the one in BMS. (since somebody mentioned BMS..)

Just my two cents...

[Fri13]

The BMS method is simple, you take the ground terrain texture, you make it look on ground radar as background, and then you take all the objects ID that you just map there to be a echo as white dot. This is something that ED is completely avoiding and building a far more complex A-G radar that actually is scanning the ground, calculating the radar emission returns and angles etc and then get back a as realistic as possible return of the ground.

As the real radars does filter things out and even try to detect the actual objects by their returns (buildings by size and the huge flat surfaces, armored vehicles with sharp edges and flat surfaces, normal vehicles by their round shapes, how many tires there are on the vehicle etc), that i takes huge amount of time to develop a system that is actually trying to simulate the radar, instead just being common type method that example a Shkval in KA-50 is using, where you can't lock anything that isn't object ID, so once you destroy a vehicle, you can't lock anymore to it as it doesn't have a object ID to shoot at. You can't lock on tree as there is no such ID etc. And ED likely is fixing that as well by making actual contrast lock system where you can lock on anything and it tracks as long there is contrast.

 

So with radars it is same thing, make it behavior as much as possible for real way and it will work on any map and multiple scenarios as you have the actual thing going on. It is a core feature, takes lots of time to tinker around the solution how to do it and then actually make algorithms and program those to software such way that it doesn't take a own dedicated GPU with ray tracing to implement.

 

With a modern radars you can get very fancy details from the radar, that is what everyone should already known for a decade or two. BUT, reality ain't so easy and simple. It ain't so that advanced modern enemy is so stupid that they do not know how attacking enemy systems work and have a counter tactics to minimize if not even avoid all their operations.

 

 

 

 

BUT we do not talk here about F-35, F-22 or any other aircraft most advanced radars, but F/A-18C Lot20, F-16C Blk50 etc.

 

This is not overhyped technology that was at 80's and 90's so advanced like what it is now on those 5th generation fighters etc.

So some can try to argue how the most advanced and modern radars work and what they support, we others are talking that what they are on the 4th generation fighters with their limited capabilities. They are two totally different topics, and ED is not to develop technology that 5th generation fighters does have, but what a 4th generation fighters has.

 

And reality is, those systems ain't so perfect as all the marketing material lets them present. No wise country is going to buy any military equipment without going through very long analysis, real world tests and then analyze all that, and only then start to draft the final agreement.

[Picchiorosso]

Sorry Fri13 ..... every time you bring up things that most people know, like modern planes, like the complexity of a war scenario but, I repeat, this is not the topic.

We have established and acknowledged and written it since the beginning of the discussion, the AG radar is not easy to program for the reasons you have listed.

Never mind the BMS ...... let's talk about DCS.

If you have Viggen you know very clearly what I'm talking about.

All the upgrades have perfected the armaments, the sensors, the performances, the breakdowns etc etc., why not also try with the Radar AG?

The question is time "to strive" on the AG radar can improve the palatability of the DCS aircraft as it is a niche simulator.

In my opinion yes and I believe it is the opinion of many people.

 

In Fly Dax

Edited November 10, 2019 by Picchiorosso

[Fri13]

If You would know those, then Hou would never have made this thread.

As you do not seem to understand that ED can't just slap it quickly together by increasing developer time.

And there is no such reason to be waiting it to be magical like You do, because the A-G aint high resolution enough to be a good targeting system unless it is made unrealistic.

So You have need to request or wish your accelerated development because you will not benefit from it much more than a A-10C TAD that allows you to sleeve targeting systems on wanted part of map and start searching there using optical targeting systems or get a GPS data to target it.

 

Let ED do it right for first time, and let them develop the ground units too as those will render most sensors in your wanted aircraft almost useless. You will be more using your TGP than your radar to find targets and to engage them, unless they are big bridges, buildings, tanks open at the desert, ships at sea etc.

 

Again, this is why still A-10C operates and why pilots loves it, because you are far more effective when you don't try to fight by looking through straw, but you actually look outside the whole situation when you fly around.