Debunking RVE MOD myths.

[nscode]

I see this more as an anti-cheat system, than a system to increase realism. It uses arcadeish solutions to achieve a realistic end result. Like the hud blinking for IFF.. it's creative, it works, but the feeling it leaves you with.... blah.

 

Also, some things are questionable.

I would have to check for planes i LO, but I remamber the MiG-21 manual clearly says that you can use the airbrake at any speed.

Did I understand corectly that you are disabling EOS when flying low? Why? It should have problems locking beyond the range of the laser (when the radar is used), but you should be able to search in look-up with no problems.

[RvEFuSiOn]

Did I understand corectly that you are disabling EOS when flying low? Why? It should have problems locking beyond the range of the laser (when the radar is used), but you should be able to search in look-up with no problems.

 

 

 

Holy cow has no one read the mod manual?

[nscode]

I have only read the manual.

 

 

Edit:

 

it says

- To address the exploit of sub 10-15 m flying, we have made it impossible to enter BVR or

CAC modes for fighters flying below 20 m AGL.

 

So, if I understand this correctly (I haven't got a way to test it the mod at this time), you can not enter EOS search mode when you are <20m, and I consider this unrealistic.

Edited October 7, 2008 by nscode

[Boneski]

After all LOMAC was released 5 years ago and nobody lifted a finger to improve it like this before.

 

Well that's not 100% true... have you seen the Air Guard A-10 project??? The things they made Lock On do were amazing...

 

It shows that this is a very good code base. When you guys get your hands on the next project you will see...

[RvEYoda]

Nscode the EOS is not as limited as Radar, but still suffers from

some ground clutter, especially when in look-down IR systems get problematic with

quick moving targets over "grainy" surfaces. However the 10m exploit in the

game (proven earlier) forces us to do something about it, so below 20 m we exagerrate

it just to highlight this. Above that 20 m you can use for example helmet mode freely

while the eagles need to climb above around 150 m for a perfect non-LRM lock.

 

EOS BVR will in future LRM versions have less limitations than BVR Radar. Once

we have written code to separate them, but the problems are not zero for IR systems,

they are just a little less, because you only have the "normal angles" and you can cut

away the side lobe angles (it's a passive system after all :))

[RvEYoda]

I have only read the manual.

 

 

Edit:

 

it says

 

 

So, if I understand this correctly (I haven't got a way to test it the mod at this time), you can not enter EOS search mode when you are <20m, and I consider this unrealistic.

 

 

nscode please read my last post. There is a reason.

The radar floor in not realistic either. A target with good closure

is simple to separate from ground return with doppler shift

and some other techniques. For sub 20 m we take the lesser

of the two evils....Reducing one of lockons biggest exploits ever.

 

(in fact this look-down problem was in fact solved a long time back, while the search modes for

example radar while flying low, to solve these fully, you pretty much need an AESA radar, meaning look down

can be easier than look-up :))

Edited October 7, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[Frostie]

Thanks Yoda for offering to back up your words with hard proof, im happy to take your word on the Mig. I appreciate the fact that you come across as open as possible without trying to demand being right.

With regards to the low altitude lock if the Mig suffers from this then why have you also punished the Flanker and Eagle upto 150m?

[nscode]

Ok, i can accept the exaggeration as a tool for the end goal, but please be more careful when giving it a "back story". I mean... look-down.. at 20m? :) :) :)

 

First, the reason it doesn't suffer from side-lobes is not it being a passive system (which it isn't entirely, the ranging is done by a very active laser), but it being an optical system. Second, passive systems also have sidelobes. They are determined by the antenna, and they are there both when transmitting and receiving.

 

I know it can't be perfect, but I'm only trying to help you make it better. Even if it's just making the docs better, even if no one reads them:)

Edited October 7, 2008 by nscode

[nscode]

Good point with being able to block part of the field, still has to do only with wavelength, not passive/active :)

[RvEYoda]

Good point with being able to block part of the field, still has to do only with wavelength, not passive/active :)

 

Yes but you can block it by geometry in the passive case, is this not what you mean?

[nscode]

Lobes on an antenna's directional diagram represent the way the antenna focuses radiation to and from that angle. If you have a TV antenna on your roof that is designated for having 30 degrees coverage, that is how wide the main lobe is. But you will still be able to pick up stations from a transmitter that is more than 30* to the side from where the tip of the antenna is pointing. You are receiving this station's signal with your passive antenna's sidelobe. Naturally, this signal will be weaker than if you were to point the antenna directly.

[RvEYoda]

Lobes on an antenna's directional diagram represent the way the antenna focuses radiation to and from that angle. If you have a TV antenna on your roof that is designated for having 30 degrees coverage, that is how wide the main lobe is. But you will still be able to pick up stations from a transmitter that is more than 30* to the side from where the tip of the antenna is pointing. You are receiving this station's signal with your passive antenna's sidelobe. Naturally, this signal will be weaker than if you were to point the antenna directly.

 

Thanks, seems like approximately what I thought, then it's possible to

geometrically block them in the passive case.

[nscode]

No. If you add something to the antenna it becomes a totally different antenna, with a different radiation diagram. You might have reduced the amount of radiation from one direction, but you have also done thing to the main lobe (probably moving it and reducing it).

[Pilotasso]

ED also made 10m anti exploit algo...did you guys noticed that, no matter what you do in the american planes the auto pilot always climbs above this threshold? LOL :D

[RvEYoda]

ED also made 10m anti exploit algo...did you guys noticed that, no matter what you do in the american planes the auto pilot always climbs above this threshold? LOL :D

 

yeah ;). I think it's the same in the russian planes.

[RvEYoda]

No. If you add something to the antenna it becomes a totally different antenna, with a different radiation diagram. You might have reduced the amount of radiation from one direction, but you have also done thing to the main lobe (probably moving it and reducing it).

 

Edit : i see....Just did the math and I follow what you mean now. Diffraction integral results become different and you move the main beam

in position and amplitude.

 

However, that should mean that IR detection (If it was using an antenna for recieving) suffers in the same

way search mode when flying low as the radars do. (since the laser would only help when actually being locked onto a contact,

or when processing "possible" contacts).

 

Case 2 : Assuming it's using something more of an array design, then the lobes could be counted out i guess, which

perhaps is the most likely case in optics. But you would still suffer from different problems although the look-up-from-low

would probably have close to no problems at all. (clouds, humidity, weather, sun maybe)

 

Like you say we may need to add something about why EOS is affected so much in the LRM pdf a bit. Something like

"Although these optical systems would suffer from clutter problems, they are less than that of the radar systems and we do reduce the

problems for the optical systems. In relation to their real counterparts we still exaggerate the problem to counter the 10m exploit".

Edited October 7, 2008 by =RvE=Yoda

[nscode]

Yeah, something like that :) The clutter problem would go away if you scan high up, put I don't know if that could be tweaked through LUA.

 

Something else just crossed my mind.. I'm sure you can't find out where the clouds are, but can you get the fog floor? And at least disable it in the fog.

[RvEYoda]

LOL thats a funny way of doing it ^^. Maybe if somehow it's possible to

ask lockon that, but so far I have not found any way.

[nscode]

No... i mean regardless of the 10m bug, making EOS blind in fog.

[GGTharos]

Unfortunately there's no weather data export IIRC ... :(

I'll re-check.

[Teknetinium]

In Lomac u need to climb down to 10 m to achieve no lock ability(while still Kip a track), In RL u would never need to go down 10 m, I would assume it would be enough dropping to 400m, while su-27 was much higher, radar would not only having problems locking bandit, it would lose it.

[RvEYoda]

which part are you talking about tek?

 

If you have a stable enough bandit flying at 5 or 15 meters does not

really make much of a difference as long as he is not beaming you.

 

Dropping "only" to 400 m to break opponents lock?

Depends on how you drop there...

if you notch down vertically and perfectly, then yeah most likely you

would break his lock, assuming he isnt very close, but it's not really a matter of how high, perhaps this

is what you wanted to say?

[GGTharos]

Maybe if you're talking about an old F-4 or MiG-23 radar ... but those aren't the radars we're talking about :)

 

In Lomac u need to climb down to 10 m to achieve no lock ability(while still Kip a track), In RL u would never need to go down 10 m, I would assume it would be enough dropping to 400m, while su-27 was much higher, radar would not only having problems locking bandit, it would lose it.

[RvETito]

No... i mean regardless of the 10m bug, making EOS blind in fog.

 

Or in cloud. That's how it's meant to work in the 29/27- slaving the radar to the EOS. For sneak attack in close range you use the EOS while radar is on stand-by, your bandit goes into a cloud, in that moment the radar automaticaly takes over to not lose him and give warning. You go out of the cloud and the radar goes quiet again, automaticaly. Note, in both cases the two systems exchange data (bandits last known position)so you don't lose lock. The radar is not emitting but it knows where to look when called.

 

I imagine that require a lot of new physics modelling which, apparently, won't happen in LO. Hopefully in DCS...

Edited October 7, 2008 by =RvE=Tito

[TheMoose]

Good work on the IFF for the Eagle, :thumbup: That itself is awesome :D