Thoughts on radar

[GreyStork]

Ever since I heard that the DCS series intended to model radar realistically or not at all, I've been thinking about how it could be done, and done right. I finally gave in and started to write it all down, and the result can be downloaded here:

 

http://greystork.com/resume/writing/Detailed%20radar%20simulation.pdf

 

I will undoubtedly subject myself to a lot of flak about how I missed this and that, but it's a start. Any (constructive) suggestions are welcome.

 

I should mention that I never intended this thing to be this 30 page tome, but that's how it turned out. My apologies to you poor souls who choose to actually read it. :smilewink:

[GGTharos]

Neat, but not in-depth enough if you're looking at METHODS of simulating things.

[GreyStork]

Neat, but not in-depth enough if you're looking at METHODS of simulating things.

 

I agree that this is not nearly formalized enough for developers, no doubt about it. It also is not intended to address any specific radars, as used in actual aircraft or air defense systems.

[GGTharos]

Right, understandably so.

[Mugatu]

Very nice so far, are you going to attempt to describe algorithms to simulate each principle?

[GreyStork]

Very nice so far, are you going to attempt to describe algorithms to simulate each principle?

 

I've tried to create a few in the paper, but it appears to me that much of the functionality needed is pure boolean logic, which is also described in the text. I suppose I could formalize that in boolean notation for those lazy programmers, say, for a beta copy. ;)

 

There is the matter of jammer power management and the fact that I graciously declined to model emission strength to bandwidth ratio in any detail. The reason for this is the sudden need for more intimate knowledge about individual radar functionality, such as specific bandwidth. I also only estimate duty cycles. This kind of information is usually hard to come by, and the question is whether all that will add to the realism, or if estimates are sufficient. In the end, that's up to the ED team. I'd certainly be willing to include all that in the calculations if there is a real need.

 

If you're thinking about something else, I might need a little elaboration on which additional principles I could calculate in detail.

 

___________________________

 

UPDATE:

 

I just found Jade, a nice 3D engine written in C#. Maybe I'll play with that over the next few weeks and see if I can knit together a proof of concept mock-up. I've been wanting to get my hands dirty on 3D for a while. I hate flowcharts and the likes, so I'd rather just write the code. ;)

 

___________________________

 

UPDATE to the update:

 

Ha! My crappy old graphics card doesn't support pixel shaders 2.0, so it'll have to wait until I get a new one.

[VMFA117_Poko]

Great stuff GreyStork. Rep inbound :thumbup:

[GreyStork]

Thanks, Poko. :)

[Geier]

Thx, reading links I've found an interesting read about AIM120;)

[Святой]

ECCCM (Electronic counter- counter-countermeasures) chapter missed :).

This PDF is the only elementary and basic stuff of RADAR and ECM theory for non-specialists. Even not for programmers because no model realization samples was introduced.

No helpful and no interesting.

[CAT_101st]

interresting read. thanks :smartass:

[GreyStork]

This PDF is the only elementary and basic stuff of RADAR and ECM theory for non-specialists. Even not for programmers because no model realization samples was introduced.

No helpful and no interesting.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the reason you guys chose not to implement radar, then. If I understand you correctly, what you really need is detailed information about actual radar systems like, say, the Apache Longbow radar, not ideas on how to model radar in general?

 

Sorry, can't help you there. If you need exact specifications on radar systems that are still in operational use, I think we're out of luck. That's the kind of stuff the military keep to themselves, precisely because of the ECM/ECCM issues. In that regard, there's no way around conjecture, although it could be informed conjecture.

 

I do intend to play with this in some kind of software implementation, and will return with another download when I have something to show for it in, as I said, a number of weeks. This is mostly for my own amusement. If you can use it, that's great; if not, no loss to anyone. :)

[GGTharos]

Detailed information on the logbow radar means operational information. Meaning modes, symbols, etcetc.

They definitely didn't need general info nor really a model. ;)

This is why the Apache implemenetation will probably be the Apache-A, since they have information on that version.

 

By the way, you can model most chaff/ecm effects probabilistically, ie. all you need to know is if it achieves some effect, and the only -really- important reason to know which type of ECM it is is to display it properly, etc. In other words 'details'. Welcome details, but details :D

[Weta43]

ECCCM (Electronic counter- counter-countermeasures) chapter missed .

This PDF is the only elementary and basic stuff of RADAR and ECM theory for non-specialists. Even not for programmers because no model realization samples was introduced.

No helpful and no interesting.

 

Not interesting - ? A matter of opinion mistakenly posted as fact.

 

It may or may not be of use to ED, but I found it interesting, Thanks GreyStork

[GreyStork]

Detailed information on the logbow radar means operational information. Meaning modes, symbols, etcetc.

They definitely didn't need general info nor really a model. ;)

This is why the Apache implemenetation will probably be the Apache-A, since they have information on that version.

 

By the way, you can model most chaff/ecm effects probabilistically, ie. all you need to know is if it achieves some effect, and the only -really- important reason to know which type of ECM it is is to display it properly, etc. In other words 'details'. Welcome details, but details :D

 

I can only agree that detailed radar simulation will take up valuable CPU time, but that was exactly how I interpreted ED's intentions. I stand corrected. :)

 

I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if it's alright, I'll post whatever tinker toy I come up with, anyway.

[Mugatu]

What would be nice is a lua model, similar to the ATC mod that implements a detailed radar algorithm. ED could re-use or borrow bits off to improve the modelling in DCS.

[GGTharos]

I don't see why you should stop :)

That's how you learn best :)

 

I can only agree that detailed radar simulation will take up valuable CPU time, but that was exactly how I interpreted ED's intentions. I stand corrected. :)

 

I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if it's alright, I'll post whatever tinker toy I come up with, anyway.

[Bucic]

Great work, GreyStork! A proper approach to simulation - knowledge, discussion on modeling solution, eagerness to make it happen. Rep inbound. Same for Weta43 for his "gusts modeling" thoughts.

[-sulan-]

Very interesting read! Thx!! :thumbup:

[GreyStork]

I don't see why you should stop :)

 

I wasn't going to stop in any case, don't worry about that. :)

 

 

Bucic:

 

Thanks a lot! :D