reported earlier Radar range

[HWasp]

In the current patch DCS F-16s radar has more range, than the Hornet and the F-15 (that has been the case for a long time with the F-15)

 

Some sources, and the fact, that it has a smaller size, indicate, that it should have less range, than the other two. 

 

Are there any plans to review the radar performance of this plane in the near future?

[Tonk99]

From what I've seen and messed around with myself, the hornet still has a way more powerful radar depending on what mode you use. I believe it's max range goes up to 83 nm? And then for the F-16 it's around 70. Then yeah the F-15 performs similarly but I believe all FC-3 aircraft have the exact same radar performance which definitely needs to be looked at imo. 

[HWasp]

Hornet radar range was decreased this patch, it is more comparable to the F-15 now. 

F-16 having more range than the F-15 makes no sense imo. 

 

[Florence201]

12 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Hornet radar range was decreased this patch, it is more comparable to the F-15 now. 

F-16 having more range than the F-15 makes no sense imo. 

 

Why wouldn’t a newer radar offer greater range? That conclusion makes no sense. Whilst the DCS Viper radar is over power I agree, the APG68 is newer than the 65 and therefore, has better capability 

 

hence why the Hornets APG83 offers far better capability 

[HWasp]

9 minutes ago, Florence201 said:

Why wouldn’t a newer radar offer greater range? That conclusion makes no sense. Whilst the DCS Viper radar is over power I agree, the APG68 is newer than the 65 and therefore, has better capability 

 

hence why the Hornets APG83 offers far better capability 

 

I did not argue about the Hornet's radar, I just said, that it's range was decreased in 2.7 by ED and afaik it was intentional.

 

My point is that the F-16 radar should not have more range than either the F-15 or the 18.

[HWasp]

I see, now this is marked "reported earlier", so just disregard this thread.

[Kev2go]

1 hour ago, Florence201 said:

Why wouldn’t a newer radar offer greater range? That conclusion makes no sense. Whilst the DCS Viper radar is over power I agree, the APG68 is newer than the 65 and therefore, has better capability 

 

hence why the Hornets APG83 offers far better capability 

 

we dont have the APG 65 in the Hornet we have the APG73. and by all accounts between the two the APG73 has been regarded as better radar.  Also keep in minds USAF vipers continued to retain APG68 V5, and not the further refined V9 many that foreign operators did upgrade to

 

so if anything the Hornet should a modest  advantage in detection ranges

Edited April 16, 2021 by Kev2go

[Tonk99]

1 hour ago, Florence201 said:

Why wouldn’t a newer radar offer greater range? That conclusion makes no sense. Whilst the DCS Viper radar is over power I agree, the APG68 is newer than the 65 and therefore, has better capability 

 

hence why the Hornets APG83 offers far better capability 

I disagree that its overpowered, at least in comparison to other high fidelity. The radar is hard to manipulate and in order to actually get nails on someone max range you need to have a very small search cone. 

 

 

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

Hornet radar range was decreased this patch, it is more comparable to the F-15 now. 

F-16 having more range than the F-15 makes no sense imo. 

 

I saw a graphic and the F-15 does have slightly more range than the F-16. I don't think the F-16's radar should be nerfed, it really isn't horribly unrealistic from my knowledge, but rather the FC-3 aircraft should have their radars accurately modelled. All of the FC-3 aircraft basically have the same radar.

8 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

we dont have the APG 65 in the Hornet we have the APG73. and by all accounts between the two the APG73 has been regarded as better radar.  Also keep in minds USAF vipers continued to retain APG68 V5, and not the further refined V9 many that foreign operators did upgrade to

 

so if anything the Hornet should a modest  advantage in detection ranges

 

And it does, whenever I do BVR setups with my squadron the hornets always get detection range first. Its just the viper is more dangerous in BVR due to its speed and maneuverability.

 

Edit: I was misinformed about the new ranges, and yeah damn I agree the F-16 is definitely too beefy when it comes to range.

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Tonk99

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Florence201 said:

Why wouldn’t a newer radar offer greater range? That conclusion makes no sense. Whilst the DCS Viper radar is over power I agree, the APG68 is newer than the 65 and therefore, has better capability 

 

The conclusion makes perfect sense if you understand what's being talked about.  The APG-68 is on the same technology level as the APG-63 MSIP and APG-70, with a much smaller antenna and transmitter power.  It's changes of detecting things at anywhere near the ranges an APG-63 does is next to nil.  The in-game radars are not AESA radars so they won't be taking advantage of the massive power increase that those provide.

4 minutes ago, Tonk99 said:

I saw a graphic and the F-15 does have slightly more range than the F-16.

 

Not sure what you saw but not a chance.  Laws of physics.

 

4 minutes ago, Tonk99 said:

I don't think the F-16's radar should be nerfed, it really isn't horribly unrealistic from my knowledge, but rather the FC-3 aircraft should have their radars accurately modelled.

 

It should be 'nerfed' and it is horribly unrealistic.   Update your knowledge.

[Exorcet]

22 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

Not sure what you saw but not a chance.  Laws of physics.

This might have been a reference to how the radars work in game. Someone posted the data on reddit.

 

[Harlikwin]

Yeah and based on that chart most knowledgeable people should seriously CRINGE at both the F18 and F16 and JF17 numbers relative to everything else.

 

Bottom line, radar range is not some "simple magic number" in the real world, it depends on a lot of things like PRF, target aspect/RCS, radar power, radar noise floor etc.

 

Bottom line the "rule of thumb" when comparing radars of a similar "generation" is to look at the dish diameter. All other things being equal that's gonna tell you the most, because most of the other factors will be equal.

 

Your radar TX power matters getting the signal out there, and while Txmitter power is one thing it is GREATLY amplified by the antenna. So bigger antenna=more gain = more power out at 100nm or whatever.

 

Then that signal has to come on back to the dish. Again, since antennas "work both ways" a bigger antenna will be able to detect a signal from farther away than a small antenna.

 

"technology" yeah this is stuff like signal processing and all that. At best it can dig out some weaker returns, but in general its never gonna make a small antenna into a big antenna. (unless you are talking like current modern tech which is waay past the scope of this discussion).

 

So... Look at the diameter of a an F14 nose, compare that to an F15 nose, and then look at the Viper... This tells you literally everything you need to know. Same with a SU-27 nose, or even more egregiously a Mig31. 

 

There are reasons nations built and operated those giant assed fighters, its so that they could put an Eye of Sauron sized antenna on them.

 

Realistically, the F16 should have amongst the worst radars in the game. Brace yourself for that. It was never built, designed, or even really used as a Big Nose, OCA fighter, precisely because of this. Yes it can carry spamraams and yeet them at a mig29 (similar problems for mr mig29 btw). But a SU-27 of a comparable generation will eat the Vipers lunch every day and twice on Sundays.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Exorcet]

58 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Realistically, the F16 should have amongst the worst radars in the game. Brace yourself for that. It was never built, designed, or even really used as a Big dong, OCA fighter, precisely because of this. Yes it can carry spamraams and yeet them at a mig29 (similar problems for mr mig29 btw). But a SU-27 of a comperable generation will eat the Vipers lunch every day and twice on sundays.

 

 

 

 

Can't happen fast enough, it would be another reason to bring the FC3 fighters to full fidelity, so that we could have some actual air superiority radars.

[Harlikwin]

6 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Can't happen fast enough, it would be another reason to bring the FC3 fighters to full fidelity, so that we could have some actual air superiority radars.

 

Yeah I 100% agree. But what we need even more is some actual modeling of "drawbacks" in various radars. I mean TWS is seldom used in the real world for target engagement, but because DCS doesn't really model the drawbacks to using it, everyone uses it because its a "magic and perfect" mode with a ton of advantages and no disadvantages. I forget if the F15E backseater posts here, but I think the quote was something along the lines of "I would slap the shit out of my pilot for using TWS, unless it was specifically briefed that we would". 

 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah I 100% agree. But what we need even more is some actual modeling of "drawbacks" in various radars. I mean TWS is seldom used in the real world for target engagement, but because DCS doesn't really model the drawbacks to using it, everyone uses it because its a "magic and perfect" mode with a ton of advantages and no disadvantages. I forget if the F15E backseater posts here, but I think the quote was something along the lines of "I would slap the shit out of my pilot for using TWS, unless it was specifically briefed that we would". 

 

Yeah, similar to perfect IFF, flawless AI judgement, and other such things. We do need some of the flaws to really make things accurate. Although I imagine getting these just right would take a bit of work. I've heard the quote you mentioned but it's hard to get something like a reliability percentage out of that. Granted SME's would probably be more descriptive working with ED on a module.

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Yeah, similar to perfect IFF, flawless AI judgement, and other such things. We do need some of the flaws to really make things accurate. Although I imagine getting these just right would take a bit of work. I've heard the quote you mentioned but it's hard to get something like a reliability percentage out of that. Granted SME's would probably be more descriptive working with ED on a module.

 

I mean the IFF thing I go back and forth on. We have some elements of it in DCS, but at the end of the day most players would struggle with it, most online servers that cater to casual users wouldn't use it even if it was available, because of the reality of blue on blue would be extremely high in those environments. So, the ROI on implementing it is pretty low for ED, and the overall community. That being said I'm sure some portion of the community wants it.

 

The whole doing a better job with radar limitations is a whole other kettle of fish though. Its certainly doable. An easy example is the rather lackluster RCS modeling. I can happily show you open source charts of the TA-50 RCS model from a decade ago published on the web, broken down by frequency band, and aspect. Are they "accurate", well who the hell really knows. BUT the "tech" to do that was out there over 10 years ago, running on a desktop machine. In the context of DCS, it could easily be done in the same way for all the models, in probably a reasonable amount of time, and could be used to build a "realistic" RCS database. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would a hell of alot better than taking some number from a chart posted on the interwb circa 1995 which is where the current "RCS" numbers come from. And those are only front aspect numbers (hint, RCS changes based on aspect, and "gasp" payload).... You could generate all aspect RCS for any given plane if you actually wanted to put the compute time in, and even modify it based on weapon configurations if you wanted to put more compute time in.... 

 

But other stuff like hey, TWS tracks will generate shitty weapon track files should be something ED should do. Rather than this "perfekt" world. So people stop using it as gods "solution" to the radar problem. I mean every radar in DCS from the mig19 onward acts as an AESA radar in that sense.

 

[TLTeo]

Holy crap the Jeff (although the ever so reliable Wikipedia has similar numbers for the same RCS....) and 2.5.6 Hornet are bonkers. The Viper's not looking great either...out of curiosity, what is its PRF? Medium I suppose? On a brighter note, kudos to RB for getting it right with the Mirage. Ages ago PRF in that radar was supposed to not matter either, so it's nice to see that change as well.

 

Regarding RCS, honestly I don't think it would be too hard to set up a better table model than what we have now. Just having a few RCS values in a lookup table as a function of aspect, rather than just a fixed number, would be a massive step forward.

 

edit:

6 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean TWS is seldom used in the real world for target engagement, but because DCS doesn't really model the drawbacks to using it, everyone uses it because its a "magic and perfect" mode with a ton of advantages and no disadvantages.

With the exception of the Tomcat if I may add. The AWG-9 rightfully sucks in TWS against maneuvering targets. I personally find all the cries about it in the Tomcat section to be a never ending source of amusement.

Edited April 18, 2021 by TLTeo

[TAW_Blaze]

14 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah I 100% agree. But what we need even more is some actual modeling of "drawbacks" in various radars. I mean TWS is seldom used in the real world for target engagement, but because DCS doesn't really model the drawbacks to using it, everyone uses it because its a "magic and perfect" mode with a ton of advantages and no disadvantages. I forget if the F15E backseater posts here, but I think the quote was something along the lines of "I would slap the shit out of my pilot for using TWS, unless it was specifically briefed that we would". 

 

 

Tbh I can't picture a good Viper driver in DCS using TWS more than ~ 20% of the time. RWS is just far superior. The only time you're using TWS is to build picture and multi target.

 

The Hornet is another story.. but in my opinion the whole avionics implementation of the Hornet is the absolute worst possible. It is literally the polar opposite of good user interface. Picture the things you can do in other fighters by passively looking at a display or pressing 1 button. In the Hornet you have to push 16 buttons to achieve the same result.

Edited April 18, 2021 by 104th_Blaze

[Harlikwin]

9 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Holy crap the Jeff (although the ever so reliable Wikipedia has similar numbers for the same RCS....) and 2.5.6 Hornet are bonkers. The Viper's not looking great either...out of curiosity, what is its PRF? Medium I suppose? On a brighter note, kudos to RB for getting it right with the Mirage. Ages ago PRF in that radar was supposed to not matter either, so it's nice to see that change as well.

 

Regarding RCS, honestly I don't think it would be too hard to set up a better table model than what we have now. Just having a few RCS values in a lookup table as a function of aspect, rather than just a fixed number, would be a massive step forward.

 

edit:

With the exception of the Tomcat if I may add. The AWG-9 rightfully sucks in TWS against maneuvering targets. I personally find all the cries about it in the Tomcat section to be a never ending source of amusement.

 

 

Yeah the tomcat does actually try to model some of the drawbacks of the AWG9 at this point. But it was the all seeing eye of sauron for a long time. TBH I think the main complaints are vs the Phoenix and those are not so much the missile as it is the net code and desynch problems. I recently saw an amazing track of a guy ditching a Phoenix, turning back in, flying a good few secs, and out of nowhere boom, dead. It was a good 10-15 secs later. 

Edited April 18, 2021 by Harlikwin

[wilbur81]

On 4/16/2021 at 1:06 PM, Florence201 said:

Why wouldn’t a newer radar offer greater range? That conclusion makes no sense. Whilst the DCS Viper radar is over power I agree, the APG68 is newer than the 65 and therefore, has better capability 

 

hence why the Hornets APG83 offers far better capability 

**EDIT** Sorry, Flo... I think you were referring to newer Viper radar compared to older Viper radar. Disregard. 

 

The Lot 20 Hornet's radar in DCS is the APG-73, not 65... The Eagle's is the APG-63, not 65. The Tomcat's old AWG-9 system had a greater range than the block 50's radar because the dish was way bigger. Moral of the story: The Tomcat, Eagle, and Hornet radars should all have greater detection ranges than the Viper (though I'd imagine the Hornet's advantage should only be a slight one over the Vipers...whilst the Eagle and Tomcat much more).

Edited April 18, 2021 by wilbur81

[Machalot]

5 hours ago, 104th_Blaze said:

The Hornet is another story.. but in my opinion the whole avionics implementation of the Hornet is the absolute worst possible. It is literally the polar opposite of good user interface. Picture the things you can do in other fighters by passively looking at a display or pressing 1 button. In the Hornet you have to push 16 buttons to achieve the same result.

A bit off topic, but I just want to second this.  I learned the Viper first, and am constantly frustrated in the Hornet by constantly moving up and down the layers upon layers of menus and subscreens within subscreens.

[TobiasA]

Am 18.4.2021 um 14:36 schrieb 104th_Blaze:

 

Tbh I can't picture a good Viper driver in DCS using TWS more than ~ 20% of the time. RWS is just far superior. The only time you're using TWS is to build picture and multi target.

 

The Hornet is another story.. but in my opinion the whole avionics implementation of the Hornet is the absolute worst possible. It is literally the polar opposite of good user interface. Picture the things you can do in other fighters by passively looking at a display or pressing 1 button. In the Hornet you have to push 16 buttons to achieve the same result.

 

TWS has advantages in cycling through targets. 

I am like 50% TWS because it is less likely to trigger someone a warning in BMS, old habits die hard. I have no clue if it is the same in DCS. 

If I don't give anything about being noticed and have clear SA I just hardlock the bugger through RWS and TMS up twice. But if I don't wanna let him know, I use TWS. 

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, TobiasA said:

TWS has advantages in cycling through targets. 

I am like 50% TWS because it is less likely to trigger someone a warning in BMS, old habits die hard. I have no clue if it is the same in DCS. 

If I don't give anything about being noticed and have clear SA I just hardlock the bugger through RWS and TMS up twice. But if I don't wanna let him know, I use TWS. 

 

I mean you're using more right than most IMO. Currently there is no penalty for firing on stuff in TWS. Really no reason not use to TWS for everything. Hopefully something like increased miss chance gets modeled in at some point, or your displayed track being more "wrong" than RWS. 

[TobiasA]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Harlikwin:

 

I mean you're using more right than most IMO. Currently there is no penalty for firing on stuff in TWS. Really no reason not use to TWS for everything. Hopefully something like increased miss chance gets modeled in at some point, or your displayed track being more "wrong" than RWS. 

 

So the receiving end does get a hardlock tone if I softlock someone in TWS?
Guess I need to test it in multiplayer...

 

TWS is indeed more likely to drop a track. The benefit of it is mainly maintaining SA since you can keep track of other guys as well while a STT just tracks one guy with all the power we have.

[LaFleur]

On 4/16/2021 at 10:50 PM, Tonk99 said:

I disagree that its overpowered, at least in comparison to other high fidelity. The radar is hard to manipulate and in order to actually get nails on someone max range you need to have a very small search cone.

 

 

To be honest, I don't know what you are talking about. Yesterday, I was able to soft lock an enemy, high aspect, F-16 with TWS from about 70Nm away. The F-16 is overwhelmingly overperforming according to the real world specs.

[Snappy]

3 hours ago, TobiasA said:

 

So the receiving end does get a hardlock tone if I softlock someone in TWS?
Guess I need to test it in multiplayer...

 

TWS is indeed more likely to drop a track. The benefit of it is mainly maintaining SA since you can keep track of other guys as well while a STT just tracks one guy with all the power we have.

 

No , I think you misunderstood or misread  what he said.

The part of being noticed by the locked on enemy was referring to using RWS.

Thereafter he specifically said "But if I don't wanna let him know, I use TWS. "

 

 

I would also prefer a more realistic simulation of the TWS weaknesses/limitations  in the F-16/18 by ED.

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Snappy