Jump to content

Radars in DCS


Tancrede

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

 

I am very interested in the radar network modelization in DCS World. I already saw that there is many radar systems modelized but not as much as I though.

 

For exemple, I am a bit surprise that the Russian Spoon Rest is not modelized in DCS World as this type of radar is very much in use in many countries.

And what about GM-400 from Thales? Is there a restrain due to lack of knowledge?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GM-400 is from 2008-2010, it's easy to understand it can't be modeled even in remotely realistic way in publicly available software.

 

DCS models historical air combat, not the one of today. The most modern F-16CJ b.50, F/A-18C lot 20, A-10C are all 2004-2007 and even this planes are somehow compromised in terms of some systems modeling due to classification.

 

The more recent plane = the less realistic.

 

You can model WW2, Korea, Cold War, Desert Storm etc. with all bells and whistles. After that - not so much.

 

ED steep on the thin line trying to make post Cold War modules reasonably realistic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you can see from the code below, radar simulation in Digital Cockpits Simulation is very simplified, so until they implement a better radar model, I think there's no point in having a whole diversity like in CMNAO for example.

 

 

["Dog Ear radar"] =
       {
           type = RADAR_AS,
           scan_volume =
           {
               azimuth = {-180.0, 180.0},
               elevation = {-15.0, 60.0}
           },
           max_measuring_distance = 35000.0,
           detection_distance =
           {
               [HEMISPHERE_UPPER] =
               {
                   [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 35000.0,
                   [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 35000.0
               },
               [HEMISPHERE_LOWER] =
               {
                   [ASPECT_HEAD_ON] = 35000.0,
                   [ASPECT_TAIL_ON] = 35000.0
               }
           },
           lock_on_distance_coeff = 0.85,
           velocity_limits =
           {
               radial_velocity_min = 15,
           },
           scan_period = 1.0,

Banned by cunts.

 

apache01.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

I am very interested in the radar network modelization in DCS World. I already saw that there is many radar systems modelized but not as much as I though.

 

For exemple, I am a bit surprise that the Russian Spoon Rest is not modelized in DCS World as this type of radar is very much in use in many countries.

And what about GM-400 from Thales? Is there a restrain due to lack of knowledge?

The P-18 1RL131 has a EW radar in use with the 1L22 "Parol" IFF radar on the air defense EW sections. That can add by ED in a future, when improve the air defense networks. The same situation when G400 and others radars systems.

 

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GM-400 is from 2008-2010, it's easy to understand it can't be modeled even in remotely realistic way in publicly available software.

 

DCS models historical air combat, not the one of today. The most modern F-16CJ b.50, F/A-18C lot 20, A-10C are all 2004-2007 and even this planes are somehow compromised in terms of some systems modeling due to classification.

 

The more recent plane = the less realistic.

 

You can model WW2, Korea, Cold War, Desert Storm etc. with all bells and whistles. After that - not so much.

 

ED steep on the thin line trying to make post Cold War modules reasonably realistic.

 

 

This limitation is a myth. There is nothing that prevents ED from creating realistic system, other than their own efforts. There are no laws or rules the prevents them from guesstimating even the most modern of systems with available public data and real physics study. Books on the subject are available for the general public.

 

 

 

Of-course, without real classified data and nasa supercomputers, its impossible to simulate this with 100% fidelity in real time so simplifications must be made from the start. The thing is that if the emphasis in DCS was not so much on the eye-candy, perhaps other aspects of military simulation could definitely be achieved, like better sensors, better ai and better dynamics.

  • Like 1

Banned by cunts.

 

apache01.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one example of what is achievable today in terms radar simulation in a real-time game enviroment. It's taken from CMNAO FAQ:

 

https://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=2920#614

 

 

 

 

Sensor Modelling

 

 

How are sensors modelled in the simulator?

Sensors work according to their RL counterparts. Radars are affected by factors such as weather, clutter, jamming (true radar equation, incl. propagation loss), line of sight, horizon (incl. surface effect) and others. Likewise for sonar (passive, active, ping intercept), visual and IR sensors, electronic warfare (ESM/ECM) and so on. Some types of sensors like laser designators/rangers and MAD have simpler models.

The radar model takes a great number of factors into account, like frequencies, horizontal and vertical beamwidth, System Noise Level, Processing Gain/Loss, Peak Power, Pulse Width, Blind Time (yes we simulate pulse compression!), PRF, min & max range, min & max altitude, scan interval, range/height/angle resolution, various capabilities such as air/surface/ground/periscope & range/altitude/speed/heading (RASH) info, OTH-B/OTH-SW, pulse-only & early/later doppler with limited/full LDSD, MTI, NCTR, Phased Array continuous target tracking, CW and CWI capability.

 

 

How detailed is your radar model? They are taken from the Radar Calc MS/Excel sheets that we’ve used to balance out the radar sensors in Command, and should give some clues about the input parameters that we use and also the model’s complexity. Note that stats from public sources are in black, our guessimations are in red. There is only one operating mode per radar set, which is the most typical operating mode. The radar model also has range capping (see Max Rng column) to simulate PRF cutoff and scope limitations.

 

 

 

How do your ESM / RWR sets work? There are 698 ESM/RWR systems in the Command 1.04 database. To the right is a screenshot showing range estimations for some ESM sets against five typical radar sets. You can click on the screenshots for a full view. Black stats are from public sources, red are our guesses.

As you can see, high-end ESM/ELINT sets produce some pretty ridiculous range estimates against powerful radars.

 

 

What is the electronic warfare (ECM) model like?

To the right are some ECM vs radar examples. You can click on the screenshots for a full view. As you can see it is pretty complex. Black stats come from declassified sources, red stats are our guessimations. The effects assume the target radar antenna points directly at the jammer beam. Sidelobe jamming (which Command also simulates) has less effect.

We even developed our very own radar and electronic warfare simulator while building the radar and electronic warfare models for Command. We are considering releasing it to the public so that the players can look at the models in detail, but haven’t had the time to ‘productify’ it yet.

 

How does stealth work with F-117A Nighthawk, B-2A Spirit, and other stealth aircraft?

Stealth and low-observable aircraft and ships in the database have smaller radar, visual and IR signatures than other units. The simulator uses several different generations of radar stealth and various signature modifiers to produce realistic detection ranges. We also simulate the fact that A to D-band radars are far better at detecting stealth aircraft than E to K-band radars.

The AN/FPS-130 is a D-band long-range air search radar which means it is quite effective against stealth aircraft since the wave length is equal to the aircraft or big fuselage components such as wings or tails. This produces resonance effects which give good radar returns. This is not the case for E to K-band radars, and the effect of LO shaping is much, much higher.

 

How do Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) radars work?

In Command, LPI radars use their real-life power output (0.1W or 1W) and pulse lengths but have much lower System Noise Levels and better Processing Gain/Loss than conventional sets. We do not simulate the ‘ESM-style analysis techniques’ used by these radars in real life, we adjust the processing gain. As such LPI radars work just like any other radar set except they are counter-detected at much shorter ranges.

RWRs have much smaller antennas than the LPI radars, and thus the LPI has an advantage as it uses signal analysis methods similar to that of ESM gear. That means modern LPIs are often detecting stuff before being counter-detected, and this is also the case in the simulator. For more advanced RWRs and ESM sets the LPI will be picked up at longer ranges

 

 

 

Radar-Info-1.jpgRadar-Info-2.jpgESM-Stats.jpgECM-Stats.jpg

Banned by cunts.

 

apache01.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're working on better SAM and ground based radar simulation:

We are also designing support for Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) networks and more advanced air defence AI to include shared-time searches, counter-SEAD/DEAD tactics, and SAM traps. Together, DCS will provide the most realistic and challenging air defence simulation to operate in.

It's actually one of my most anticipated features for DCS, as it will totally change SEAD and A-G warfare in general, as most gamey tactics used in DCS to deal with SAMs won't work anymore.

  • Like 1

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This limitation is a myth. There is nothing that prevents ED from creating realistic system, other than their own efforts. There are no laws or rules the prevents them from guesstimating even the most modern of systems with available public data and real physics study. Books on the subject are available for the general public.

 

The myth is ED is able to make 'realistic most modern of systems' but they are chosing not to just because they are 'mean' or 'mischievous'.

 

Matt Wagner initially wanted to create F/A-18E Super Hornet, he was involved in creating "Jane's F/A-18 Super Hornet" years before. They talked with Boeing and Boeing did not not give them the license nor data to model full fidelity F/A-18E, they can speak about legacy big motor Charlie. ED made it clear many times.

 

If you think you can model 'most modern systems' because you saw some publicly available book, natops or manual, go ahead, make some JSF and Raptor. You are going to be rich.

 

They could make some FC3 class semi sim with 'most modern systems' which would portray air combat totally opposite to what it really looks like today. Today's combat is all about stealth, emcon and electronic warfare, all strictly classified. Not chasing each other with missiles like in Gulf War but with today's bigger engines or longer range weapon.

 

Theoretically ED could do Raptors and JSFs in environment similar to FC3, without realistic systems, without producer's license etc. only that it would be nothing like modern air combat.

 

They even told what systems of legacy Hornet are guestimated and which are missing from the real jet. And we are talking about 2004 plane, phased out from US Navy years ago.

 

Razbam tried to make 1980s Mirage 2000 without licence, and after Armée de l'air finally helped them and provided data Razbam was performing changes to all its systems which worked very different initially. That's what you can do without license using publicly available data creating 35 years old plane. More modern thay 1980s without producer's data? No problem, but totally fictitious. But Ace Combat 7 is already here so why to complete with them.

My two cents.

 

PS. And comparing level of detail of full fidelity module for DCS like F/A-18C to 'Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations': it takes about 2-3 years for experienced professional company to make one full fidelity plane and the same 2-3 years to make the whole 'Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations' with hundreds of planes, ships, radars, SAMs, tanks etc...


Edited by bies
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS. And comparing level of detail of full fidelity module for DCS like F/A-18C to 'Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations': it takes about 2-3 years for experienced professional company to make one full fidelity plane and the same 2-3 years to make the whole 'Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations' with hundreds of planes, ships, radars, SAMs, tanks etc...

 

 

What?! :thumbup:

Banned by cunts.

 

apache01.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Sorry for the minor thread necro, but a lot of what it has to do with is the architecture of the Sim.  I have an AESA radar modeling tool at home and it was great at giving detection ranges against targets.  I could even use public source info to simulate less advanced radars (PESA and MSA) fairly easily.  And I could even kludge in noise jamming ECM.  But once I wanted to measure relative LPI, RWR detection ranges, ECM technique effects and such I not only had to "go back to school" to learn how these things work from a modeling standpoint but I had to change the structure of the tool.  There is still a lot of estimations and guesswork for modern systems but the more info you have the better your guesses can be.  In the end, I could tell you what ESM systems can detect transmissions from an F-22 vs Su-35S, which ECM systems can jam them, and at what range the radar MAWS of a Typhoon can detect an Su-35S vs an R-77. 

Are these 100% "take it to the bank?"  No. 

Is it DCS FFSM level accuracy?  No, that would require more details and FFSM simulate more hardware component and actual programing involved in reading the signals.  AFAIK HBs AWG-9 is the most advanced in this. 

Could DCS use this framework to increase the realism of their RF spectrum simulation?  Possibly, I don't know what their FFSM takes into account. 

Could it be used to easily bring FC3/mod SSM aircraft up in realism? Vastly.  It is still simplified, theory driven, equations.  Default values for unknowns can get you "close enough".  LPI techniques and ECCM have been around since at least the F-106.  These are a sliding scale, not binary toggles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Why do you need a license to have some gear in your game? It's not like they're actually building it. Only whatever they use from the real thing could be restricted, such as the voice messages, which as far as I know they actually got from boeing. Does counter strike have to pay whoever designed the M4 to have that in their game? Does call of duty have to pay boeing to have an ac-130 in their game? Does every vietnam war game ever have to pay boeing to use the uh1? I don't get this whole legal nonsense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't get this whole legal nonsense.

Nobody truly does. Technically it makes sense that you can't just take somebody's designs and put them in your game without them having a say. That's why a lot of games have what are clearly real life objects in them but give them nonsensical names to avoid 'any sort of semblance'. The thing is that some courts would definitely decide that certain designations and names are 'fair game' while in some circumstances courts would be 'oh no that is totally making statements about this particular product!'. Doesn't get much easier when you consider how wildly laws about that sort of thing vary from country to country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kang said:

Nobody truly does. Technically it makes sense that you can't just take somebody's designs and put them in your game without them having a say. That's why a lot of games have what are clearly real life objects in them but give them nonsensical names to avoid 'any sort of semblance'. The thing is that some courts would definitely decide that certain designations and names are 'fair game' while in some circumstances courts would be 'oh no that is totally making statements about this particular product!'. Doesn't get much easier when you consider how wildly laws about that sort of thing vary from country to country.

Even with out the legal side, if you can get the manufacterer involved you can get technical data. due to the nature of DCS there is some stuff we can't get due to secuirty reasons but when it comes to declasified informtiaton you can be sure that Boeing might have something in their library 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Am 24.5.2022 um 09:02 schrieb FalcoGer:

Why do you need a license to have some gear in your game? It's not like they're actually building it. Only whatever they use from the real thing could be restricted, such as the voice messages, which as far as I know they actually got from boeing. Does counter strike have to pay whoever designed the M4 to have that in their game? Does call of duty have to pay boeing to have an ac-130 in their game? Does every vietnam war game ever have to pay boeing to use the uh1? I don't get this whole legal nonsense.

As far as I know that's exactly why there is no humvee in squad anymore 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

Its a shame the same tools granted to a 3rd party arent allowed for modding community. Youd have a pretty nice F/A18E simulation in no time

More, reality of many similar games shows you would have 10 different simulations of F/A-18E.

One totally unrealistic, but with very good graphic, very popular on servers, doing 200° super cobra maneuver.

Second quite realistic, but bugged and unplayable.

Third rater simplified and unrealistic, but with good PR team, very popular, having 3 different sub-mods variants.

Fourth very ambitious and quite realistic, in some aspects not that far from some real modules, but unfinished, poor visuals, released only because guys were begging to release what that had anyway. Unplayable.

Fifth, the most popular in competitive MP due to having "modeled" AESA radar being able to detect anything from at least 200nm and fire "realistic" AIM-120D from at least 100nm with deadly PK.

And a few less popular.

-------------------------------------

Truth is making reasonably realistic, good audiovisual, rather bug-free, supported and maintained to be playable F/A-18C Lot 20 we have in DCS is the fruit of 6-7 years of work of big team consisted of professional very experienced coders and flight engineers, working full time daily ~8h job and being well paid.

Doing anything close to that by few amateurs, having another job to live, non-flight engineers and experienced coders, without any official chief designer having always the last word - it will be impossible and module would be unrealistic, unfinished, compromised, bugged, messed with every new update, after some time abandoned.

Simple rudimentary A-4 Skyhawk with very simple avionics is maximum what can be done and we have zero guarantee they will stop supporting it tomorrow.


Edited by bies
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bies said:

More, reality of many similar games shows you would have 10 different simulations of F/A-18E.

Not really considering i Flew a super Hornet and was able to very easily transition and fly combat the DCS Hornet on Day 1 release due to the same Hotas and fundamental systems operation, as well as being familiar with the symbology.

 

DCS world as a platform  has the benefit of being a proper combat sim platform environment.

 

3 hours ago, bies said:

 

Truth is making reasonably realistic, good audiovisual, rather bug-free, supported and maintained to be playable F/A-18C Lot 20 we have in DCS is the fruit of 6-7 years of work of big team consisted of professional very experienced coders and flight engineers, working full time daily ~8h job and being well paid.

so you just described heatblur. they had developers with with another full time job part of the team, and even development for another sim platform once the F14 released into EA.  3rd parties like heatblur proved that you can make on par or arguably better quality modules than ED.  But im sure you will say HB is the exception to the rule.

 

Again with the Hornet you could reause many of the same systems on a block 1 Super Hornet versus starting from scratch.  But if you want to continue to be a naysayer and makes excuses why a Super Hornet will not be possible go ahead.

 

3 hours ago, bies said:

Doing anything close to that by few amateurs, having another job to live, non-flight engineers and experienced coders, without any official chief designer having always the last word -

 

All resting on the assumption  modders wouldn't be able to get access to RL pilots willing to offer input ?

 

3 hours ago, bies said:

 

it will be impossible and module would be unrealistic, unfinished, compromised, bugged, messed with every new update, after some time abandoned.

 

If such a hypothetical  mod was created you would loose nothing from it by not playing it if you really want to only simp for paid modules. Again IM willing to give money for effort, but some of us appreciate mods if they are of a good quality. 

 

3 hours ago, bies said:

Simple rudimentary A-4 Skyhawk with very simple avionics is maximum what can be done and we have zero guarantee they will stop supporting it tomorrow.

 

because modders don't have access to the same development tools licensed 3rd parties have ( which is what ED do) ......  So yes it would have been a better made module.  hence proving my point of what the issue here was. 

So the issue is not amatuer developers but lack of proper tools that are going to be a limitation as it was in the case of the A4 mod.

By all means if ED want to let slip a potential super hornet module to a 3rd party so be it, their loss. People said a Eurofighter would never be possible, yet suddenly some naysayers are going to eat thier words real hard.

 

 


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kev2go said:

But im sure you will say HB is the exception to the rule.

I won't say anything except for the fact ED made the right decision by only making API available to 3rd parties who can prove they are producing modules that meet certain standards.

If there would exist this mythical group of modders capable of making high quality realistic Superhornet in DCS environment meeting DCS standard - they would already be working on it, as a DCS 3rd party with API and become rich after release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bies said:

I won't say anything except for the fact ED made the right decision by only making API available to 3rd parties who can prove they are producing modules that meet certain standards.

 

So I don't see a problem allowing modders or non 3rd parties from having access to those tools. If they made a bad quality mod. Nothing of value was lost. People can simply Uninstall it an another group of people can make a better one.

People such as yourself that have faith only in paid 3rd party projects as the only people competant enough to design modules outside of ED can continue to only want to fly aircraft made by them, and pay for them.

So no one in the community would really lose from this. 

Open source is better than closed source api.

 

8 hours ago, bies said:

If there would exist this mythical group of modders capable of making high quality realistic Superhornet in DCS environment meeting DCS standard - they would already be working on it, as a DCS 3rd party with API and become rich after release.

By the same logic there would already have been a team that would have been a official 3rd party to develop a Skyhawk. A much simpler plane.  I think all of the existing 3rd parties have done more complex aircraft at this point

Again there are many other strings attached that would make being a 3rd party developer a headache or for that matter, considerations for being economically viable  etc besides meeting a ED quality threshold.

Unless of course you want to argue there isn't a 3rd party skyhawk becsuse there isn't enough interest in it, and its an obscure aircraft no one cares about ( it's not)

 

 

 


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

So no one in the community would really lose from this.

Everyone loses. These mod aircraft are a waste of time for everyone involved, players and modders. It amazes me that people would put so much work into something that they aren’t being paid for. And the results are still mediocre. And for the players there’s not much you can do with these, you mostly can’t use them in MP, there are no good DLC campaigns for them etc. I don’t know why someone wants a fantasy system F-22 or Su-57 in DCS. Seems like a joke. 

  • Like 2

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Please if you are going to necro an old thread at least keep to the rules. 

Posts moderated.

On 6/10/2020 at 1:58 PM, bies said:

Matt Wagner initially wanted to create F/A-18E Super Hornet, he was involved in creating "Jane's F/A-18 Super Hornet" years before. They talked with Boeing and Boeing did not not give them the license nor data to model full fidelity F/A-18E, they can speak about legacy big motor Charlie. ED made it clear many times.

Please note this is also nonsense, we did the legacy hornet as we had much more data for it.  

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...