Captor-M or Captor-D

[Dragon1-1]

The Eurofighter they're making is a plausible mid-2000s configuration (every one of them is a frankenjet IRL), so it'd fit pretty well. Advanced for its time, sure, but that's because it's a new jet and not an upgrade to an older one.

[Spectre11]

I'd suggest, stop speculating. There will be a commuication in the future to tell you what standard of aircraft will be simulated. And yes it may include some elements from different capability standards, so it will be somewhat "Frankenstein" for sure. 

[Ignition]

From what I understand the german EF2000 received the meteors on 2018, so it will be a 2018 frankenstein aircraft.

It's hard to tell if it will be a mid 2000 aircraft since it will have features of wathever they can find and will not focus on making a particular plane.

Not a fan of that.

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Again, it's been said that every Eurofighter is like that. Literally no two airframes are the same, there's no "capability standard", they receive upgrades as they go. Our EF2000 will be a plausible mid-2000s configuration+Meteors (which, if restricted, would make it a true mid-2000s aircraft). There's a chance there exists, or existed an Eurofighter in this exact configuration, but the team isn't focused on a particular airframe at a particular time.

[Spectre11]

On 10/29/2022 at 11:05 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

Again, it's been said that every Eurofighter is like that. Literally no two airframes are the same, there's no "capability standard", they receive upgrades as they go. Our EF2000 will be a plausible mid-2000s configuration+Meteors (which, if restricted, would make it a true mid-2000s aircraft). There's a chance there exists, or existed an Eurofighter in this exact configuration, but the team isn't focused on a particular airframe at a particular time.

Which is not entirely true. Aircraft of a particular Block are build to the same standard, have the same systems, equipment and software at the time of delivery. Thereafter aircraft receive modifications designed and cleared for specific tailnumber ranges (effectively defining the applicable Block ranges). As far as avionics, FCS etc. is concerned, both in terms of hardware and software you have precisely defined standards, known as PSC. Aircraft at a given PSC provide the same level of functionality and capability. So no it's not like one aircraft has radar software this, DASS software that etc. Aircraft at the same PSC are identical as described above, they might differ at a level that's not driving capabilities as is evident to a pilot. Ofcourse not every aircraft receices the same modifications at the same time and while three aircraft may have been delivered at the same standard, it might be that they are differing at a given point in time as some modifications have been implemented or not.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Spectre11 said:

Ofcourse not every aircraft receices the same modifications at the same time and while three aircraft may have been delivered at the same standard, it might be that they are differing at a given point in time as some modifications have been implemented or not.

That was my point. Based on what real EF pilots had said, fleet aircraft diverge fairly quickly and rarely conform 100% to any given standard at any given time. Some things are installed earlier, some later, and neither tranches not PSC provide a full picture of what a given airframe can or can't do.

[Spectre11]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That was my point. Based on what real EF pilots had said, fleet aircraft diverge fairly quickly and rarely conform 100% to any given standard at any given time. Some things are installed earlier, some later, and neither tranches not PSC provide a full picture of what a given airframe can or can't do.

PSCs pretty much tell you what a given aircraft can do. Tranches do not, as they are plain production contracts  only. The PSC is the most specific and precise expression of aircraft capability. Aircraft at the same PSC provide the same capabilities. The other differences are things like, this or that panel modification, frame reinforcement, loom change and the like being embodied or not. This is stuff that isn't driving aircraft capability as such. If a wing/squadron operates a mix of aircraft at different PSCs it will ofcourse leave the impression of a non unified fleet, because it isn't. If a pilot flies aircraft X with PSC A and aircraft Y with PSC A it won't make a difference for him. If he switches to aircraft Z with PSC B it will make a difference, as PSC B will offer different functionalities and capabilities. I have explained the relationships in the facts & myths thread in this channel, providing a top level view of how the programme is managed in terms of capabilities and standards.

[Kev2go]

On 10/11/2022 at 10:47 PM, Harlikwin said:

HB is pretty close to ruining its rep by even trying to do the EF. They are relying on the ignorance of the customer base IMO. Because the customer base doesn't know what it doesn't know. Even the basic versions of the EF had systems like MSI that aren't in DCS, sensors like IRST currently aren't credibly modeled in DCS in any reasonable form. And lol AESA radars? Nope, not gonna happen IMO.

 

 

 

 

I personally haven't find a F15E Suite 4+ dash 1 or Dash 34  (  i think thats like circa 2002-2004)  via quick google search. therefore it doesn't exist.

Again its clear this is one of those instances where a developer likely has more documentation that might be privy  due to license agreements. 

Also just because ED hasnt done something as well as it should, doesn't mean other developers cant do something better. Remember that right now Razbams a2a radar simulation   is better than ED's...... And this is a developer that had a rocky start. My opinion of Razbam in 2022 is very different than what it was in 2017. 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

On 10/28/2022 at 8:38 AM, Spectre11 said:

I'd suggest, stop speculating. There will be a commuication in the future to tell you what standard of aircraft will be simulated. And yes it may include some elements from different capability standards, so it will be somewhat "Frankenstein" for sure. 

 

kind of like the Razbam F15E? Its supposed to be a suite 4+  simulation but for gameplay purposes have  expressed interest to throw in features and weaponry  that would only apply from later suites. So depending on what players fly the F15E can be a something of a franken jet too.  If course this is going to rustle certain peoples jimmies, that Razbam isn't doing a 100% pure suite 4+ jet from an exact year. 

but i guess you can't make everyone happy. IF you choose to do a specific year for for an earlier era you have most documentation on people will complain its too early and limited in features and want a later version to have more gameplay diversity. IF a developer does a later version at the expense of "realism" or perception they are creating something of franken aircraft you get the side of the community that complains its breaks realism  for making the plane too fantasy.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Kev2go

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

I personally haven't find a F15E Suite 4+ dash 1 or Dash 34  (  i think thats like circa 2002-2004)  via quick google search. therefore it doesn't exist.

Again its clear this is one of those instances where a developer likely has more documentation that might be privy  due to license agreements. 

Also just because ED hasnt done something as well as it should, doesn't mean other developers cant do something better. Remember that right now Razbams a2a radar simulation   is better than ED's...... And this is a developer that had a rocky start. My opinion of Razbam in 2022 is very different than what it was in 2017. 

 

 

Well, they have the -34 and SME's from like 3 different time periods of the eagle. Point being that they have those docs, and yeah its basically a 20 year old plane at this point. Do I think everything on it will be right? Nope, my bet again, missing certain systems/capabilities that make it a good gen 4.5 fighter. The one I'm really waiting for from the is the 23, which they have all the docs and SME's for and they can do 100% right within the confines of DCS, which can model Gen3 fighters well.

And I 100% agree with 3rd parties doing better than ED for some time now, the F14 is very good and the M2k radar is awesome. That being said, without ED fixing the cloud issue, no one is gonna model an IRST system, cuz it will see through clouds. Same thing for ground reflections and other false alarm issues that FLIR/IRST systems have. The false alarm rate on pirate when it first came out was legendarily bad, and it took some years to fix and thats with a ton of work on processing etc. Now, the job for HB is simpler, they just add some hopefully realistic clutter (not like the terrible job Raz did with the HST (though they couldn't really do better)), but to do that ED/maps need to have some sort of IR information embedded in them, where should that clutter be, based on time of day etc.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Harlikwin

[Spectre11]

13 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

kind of like the Razbam F15E? Its supposed to be a suite 4+  simulation but for gameplay purposes have  expressed interest to throw in features and weaponry  that would only apply from later suites. So depending on what players fly the F15E can be a something of a franken jet too.  If course this is going to rustle certain peoples jimmies, that Razbam isn't doing a 100% pure suite 4+ jet from an exact year. 

but i guess you can't make everyone happy. IF you choose to do a specific year for for an earlier era you have most documentation on people will complain its too early and limited in features and want a later version to have more gameplay diversity. IF a developer does a later version at the expense of "realism" or perception they are creating something of franken aircraft you get the side of the community that complains its breaks realism  for making the plane too fantasy.

 

 

 

Indeed you'll never be able to please everybody. Great where the times when developers of sims produced their interpretation and vision of aircraft in the 90s and there was not a myriad armchair generals, desktop wannabe pilots complaining all day long about everything they disliked. I find it kind of disrespectful and discouraging how some people here behave. Maybe they should look for other hobbies, or do it better themselves.

[F-2]

https://defensearchives.org/editorials/the-captor-radar
 

very very detailed write up on captor by an engineer who worked on it

[Harlikwin]

15 minutes ago, F-2 said:

https://defensearchives.org/editorials/the-captor-radar
 

very very detailed write up on captor by an engineer who worked on it

That is not detailed. That is pedestrian. It does show the actual resolution of the SAR which is sort of useful, but from what range? How long does it take to generate a patch map. whats the AA range vs RCS whatever target. Those are the numbers you actually need etc etc. Like gee whiz it has a SAR mode is not "detailed", or wow it has TWS, whats the scan rate, volume etc? Hey can you overlay GMTI on a SAR patch map? This is a very pedestrian description of captor. Similar ones exist for pirate, with no actual "data" presented. 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Harlikwin

[F-2]

3 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

That is not detailed. That is pedestrian. It does show the actual resolution of the SAR which is sort of useful, but from what range? How long does it take to generate a patch map. whats the AA range vs RCS whatever target. Those are the numbers you actually need etc etc. Like gee whiz it has a SAR mode is not "detailed", or wow it has TWS, whats the scan rate, volume etc? Hey can you overlay GMTI on a SAR patch map? This is a very pedestrian description of captor. Similar ones exist for pirate, with no actual "data" presented. 

 

 

 

 

I wrote very twice by mistake. I posted it for interested users. The fact that captor is fast enough that they claim it can use mode interleave is something I found interesting. I have another document claiming this was tried for APG-70 I think and was never really workable, so I was impressed.

[Harlikwin]

4 minutes ago, F-2 said:

I wrote very twice by mistake. I posted it for interested users. The fact that captor is fast enough that they claim it can use mode interleave is something I found interesting. I have another document claiming this was tried for APG-70 I think and was never really workable, so I was impressed.

Yeah different radars do different stuff. And like that 30cm SAR res, was achievable in the early 90's by replacement F4 radars for example. So for something that reached IOC a decade later, well... And again I still very much doubt any real numbers will be used to model the actual dcs captor.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Harlikwin

[MRTX]

The problem is that most of the interesting features of captor are enabled by software and not by general hardware design. So there is almost no basis to even make an edjucated guess on the performance of a lot of functions and the interleaved modes.

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, MRTX said:

The problem is that most of the interesting features of captor are enabled by software and not by general hardware design. So there is almost no basis to even make an edjucated guess on the performance of a lot of functions and the interleaved modes.

Yup.

[F-2]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah different radars do different stuff. And like that 30cm SAR res, was achievable in the early 90's by replacement F4 radars for example. I still very much doubt any real numbers will be used to model the actual dcs captor. 

I don’t think any radar in DCS uses much in the way of real extensive data simply due to how rare it is on even decades old sets and the fact that DCS radar simulation isn’t physics based and across the board is quit simplified. It’s just a slow slow incremental advance of cleaver devs thinking of new ways to make something that seems real enough.

 

 

but it’s interesting to read and learn about these things and that’s mostly why I post.

[Harlikwin]

4 minutes ago, F-2 said:

I don’t think any radar in DCS uses much in the way of real extensive data simply due to how rare it is on even decades old sets and the fact that DCS radar simulation isn’t physics based and across the board is quit simplified. It’s just a slow slow incremental advance of cleaver devs thinking of new ways to make something that seems real enough.

 

 

but it’s interesting to read and learn about these things and that’s mostly why I post.

Razbam has a physics based radar model for the M2k. And while HB haven't gone into a ton of detail on the F14 model I assume it sorta uses physics. The 15E radar teased absolutely uses basic radar physics. And really IMO all of DCS should move to that model. 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Harlikwin

[F-2]

11 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Razbam has a physics based radar model for the M2k. And while HB haven't gone into a ton of detail on the F14 model I assume it sorta uses physics. The 15E radar teased absolutely uses basic radar physics. And really IMO all of DCS should move to that model. 

 

 

Interesting, I didn’t realize it was physics based. I do know they only used publicly available information to make the radar model though, so I assume they derived the rest.

 

I seem to recall that Heatblur used Ray casting for ground radar but not air to air for reasons I don’t recall. I am curious what improvements they have in store for their future radar models.

[Harlikwin]

17 hours ago, F-2 said:

Interesting, I didn’t realize it was physics based. I do know they only used publicly available information to make the radar model though, so I assume they derived the rest.

 

I seem to recall that Heatblur used Ray casting for ground radar but not air to air for reasons I don’t recall. I am curious what improvements they have in store for their future radar models.

Yeah galinette has a bunch of videos on how the M2k one works and now the F15 radar, you can find them on their discord. 

[F-2]

From the UK National Archives 

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C17574615

Credit to Flame2512

this describes ECR-90A

[rkk01]

All this talk of which version of Captor for the EF…

… but nobody seems able to pierce the veil of secrecy on the previous generations - Blue Vixen and Blue Fox

If HB / TG are able to make sufficient non-classified assumptions about Captor, Meteor and Iris-T, then surely it must be with DCS capability to model Blue Fox