Problem with TWS Radar

[Mirage2425]

Has anyone else noticed an issue with the TWS radar where contacts only appear on the radar about 60 miles out.  Then, the contacts wingman doesn't show up on the radar at all.  You see the contact on the datalink but not the radar.  The wingman is at coaltitude with the lead bandit.  Shouldn't I be able to bug a target from further out than 60 miles?  Also, shouldn't I be able to bug his wingman that is very close to his lead and coaltitude?

Edited March 24, 2021 by Mirage2425

[Willie Nelson]

It may sound like a silly question but what azimuth and angle is your radar at? Of course this can effect your capacity to pick up a target at range. 

[Mirage2425]

It was set to 30 degrees and 1 bar.

[SCPanda]

TWS is a bit wonky at the moment. Try using RWS to acquire the target and TMS right long to switch to TWS tracking. 

[Florence201]

8 hours ago, Mirage2425 said:

Has anyone else noticed an issue with the TWS radar where contacts only appear on the radar about 60 miles out.  Then, the contacts wingman doesn't show up on the radar at all.  You see the contact on the datalink but not the radar.  The wingman is at coaltitude with the lead bandit.  Shouldn't I be able to bug a target from further out than 60 miles?  Also, shouldn't I be able to bug his wingman that is very close to his lead and coaltitude?

 

So TWS needs to see the radar paints twice in 6.2seconds to create a track file. If the contacts are closely spaced, then using EXPAND may help you see them. 
Also detection range is RCS dependent. 

[Mirage2425]

RCS meaning radar cross section?  I've tried to use expand with no luck.  The wingman was flanking while lead was nose on.  Maybe he was notching my radar?  I'll try to acquire in RWS first and see if that helps.

[Florence201]

Anything approaching the notch and the modeled APG68 will lose primary radar paint. That coupled with how TWS works will lead to no track file being built 

[Mirage2425]

So, if I crank will that resolve the issue? Then we are at 45 degrees aspect instead of 90 degrees.

[Florence201]

Just now, Mirage2425 said:

So, if I crank will that resolve the issue? Then we are at 45 degrees aspect instead of 90 degrees.

Offsetting the target will change aspect angle. 
 

be mindful of using the phrase “crank” as that’s a specific brevity word used at certain BVR timeline points. 

[Mirage2425]

Got it, offset.  Just learning the BVR stuff.  It will also slow closure.

[Florence201]

Maneuvering targets will create AA problems. If one is notching, then use a tactic to kill the hot guy and then the notching guy separately. 

[Mirage2425]

Got it.  I can wait for my missile on the hot guy to go pitbull and keep an eye on the aspect on the wingman.  Then, lock the other guy, pull him into the HUD, launch, crank, wait for the missile to go pitbull and defend the missile that is likely to be coming at me from the hot guy.

[Mirage2425]

Better yet, use TWS.  Then I dont have to wait for the missile on the lead guy to go pitbull before going after the second guy.  Just so long as the other guy stays within the gimble I should be fine.  I'll try it tonight. 

[Harker]

You shouldn't expect the APG-68V5 to be able to generate tracks at 60 NM out. The real one cannot (at least according to sources I've found), the one in DCS generally works a little better than it should.

[Harlikwin]

12 hours ago, Harker said:

You shouldn't expect the APG-68V5 to be able to generate tracks at 60 NM out. The real one cannot (at least according to sources I've found), the one in DCS generally works a little better than it should.

 

Yeah, the Viper radar currently works about like an F15 radar should from what I've seen/read. Plus TWS is waaay too good, but I doubt DCS will ever actually model why no real pilots use it for combat.

[dundun92]

Yea, the APG-68(V)5 IRL sees hot 5m^2 targets out to ~38nm, and uses only MPRF in RWS/TWS, unlike the HPRF used in game. So IRL its better against notching/cold targets, but worse against hot targets than in game

[dundun92]

34 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Plus TWS is waaay too good, but I doubt DCS will ever actually model why no real pilots use it for combat.

For starters, to make it clear, TWS has been used IRL, on the F-15 for a double kill, and the F-16 for that MiG-25 kill thats on YT, and I have no doubt at other times.

(Note that for weapons employment the pilot did switch to STT as you would expect, but TWS was used initially)

 

The problem is more that TWS has downsides IRL, mainly against ECM, countermeasures, clutter, and notching targets (and to a lesser extent maneuvering targets if combined with the prior mentioned limitations). And the problem is that none of these downsides exist in DCS; DCS TWS is literally multi target STT without a spike (this is simplified, there is basic trackfile simulation, but thats not enough). IRL there are plenty of reasons you wouldnt want to use TWS; there are also some situations where you may have to, or be desirable to, but you would have to accept the downsides, something you dont have to do in DCS. So TLDR i woudnt say its useless or never used IRL, but it has distinct diasdvantages that need to be weighed against the advantages; DCS meanwhile simulates TWSs advantages, but with no limitations, so it ends up being the mode of choice for everything (detection, sort, track, weapons employment), when IRL its more like a specialty mode for specific situations, whereas STT/RWS is the general mode of choice.

Edited March 25, 2021 by dundun92

[Harlikwin]

59 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

For starters, to make it clear, TWS has been used IRL, on the F-15 for a double kill, and the F-16 for that MiG-25 kill thats on YT, and I have no doubt at other times.

 

(

Note that for weapons employment the pilot did switch to STT as you would expect, but TWS was used initially)

 

The problem is more that TWS has downsides IRL, mainly against ECM, countermeasures, clutter, and notching targets (and to a lesser extent maneuvering targets if combined with the prior mentioned limitations). And the problem is that none of these downsides exist in DCS; DCS TWS is literally multi target STT without a spike (this is simplified, there is basic trackfile simulation, but thats not enough). IRL there are plenty of reasons you wouldnt want to use TWS; there are also some situations where you may have to, or be desirable to, but you would have to accept the downsides, something you dont have to do in DCS. So TLDR i woudnt say its useless or never used IRL, but it has distinct diasdvantages that need to be weighed against the advantages; DCS meanwhile simulates TWSs advantages, but with no limitations, so it ends up being the mode of choice for everything (detection, sort, track, weapons employment), when IRL its more like a specialty mode for specific situations, whereas STT/RWS is the general mode of choice.

 

 

Thats mainly what I meant, colloquially I've heard it referred to as "track while lie" by real pilots, and the comment from a F15 WSO was I'd reach up and smack the shit out of my pilot for using TWS unless it was pre-briefed that we used it. You'd generally not want to actually guide a weapon in TWS unless you really had to. And as I understand the general use cases yes you'd use TWS to maintain SA till that point conditions permitting. STT or any other mode that is gonna give you a faster "ping" on the target is what you use to greatly increase the probability of a hit IRL. In DCS the weapon ALWAYS knows where the target is so its totally irrelevant. Not hey its in this small volume of space, or this much larger volume of space (the difference between say STT and TWS), and the weapon entry point in that bubble, versus being able to find the target in "the bubble" with its own radar in time being one of the operative issues. One of the massive advantages that AESA based radars have is that they "solve" this problem by using multiple beams with crazy high update rates. (so hey, lets pretend we all have AESA)

 

And yeah, no downsides to TWS in DCS means it gets way overused vs other modes since its the  best of all possible worlds. 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Harlikwin