F/A-18C vs. F-16C Radar (BVR)

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, markturner1960 said:

firstly, I am not advocating some kind of air quake version of DCS, nor do I want one.

Fair enough.

 

1 hour ago, markturner1960 said:

I am simply saying that what we have is clearly based on what ED are allowed / able to simulate from the data they have access to....so no point constantly bellyaching about stuff thats not going to change

What is your evidence for this? When the Hornet initally released the 73 heavily overperformed. Same thing happened with the 68. There were threads like more than a year ago both here and on Hoggit (I can find them if needed) where people argued that the performance of the two radars aren't in line with real life specs. Now, ED adjusted both. The issue is that a lot of people believe (and can demonstrate that with evidence that's likely good enough for our purposes) that some further adjustments are needed. What makes you think that ED was allowed to change them once but not anymore? If, let's say the Hornet got 10 extra nm against the same target would that mean the DDTC and Saint Walker himself would storm the ED headquarters? If that's the case, they wouldn't have been able to adjust them in the first place. There's nothing fundamentally different between making the Hornet detect a 5sm target at 48 nm and 58, the only issue is that we have to ensure that the data we use is publically available and there's quite a bit of that.

 

Same thing goes for the Viper. If they have detailed data on the implementation of these radar modes and the symbology of the FCR display what makes you think that removing the interleaved HPRF would be over the line? Why would the DDTC (remember, none of this is classified because it's from the -34 which is unclass, so it can only be either an ITAR issue or  perhaps a licencing/IP related issue and since ED products are licensed it can only be an export control issue theoretically) care about ensuring that the PRFs match with the radar modes if the radar modes themselves can be added?

 

As for not going to change, this is also demonstrably untrue. Based on feedback from the forums they had investigated the performance of the 63 and the 68 and concluded that they needed to be adjusted. What makes you think changing the 73 would be fundamentally different? 

1 hour ago, markturner1960 said:

They have been very open that certain systems and areas of the sim are not hyperreal......

 

That has more to do with the incredibly simplified sensor simulation in the core engine because even if sufficient data is available for a highly realistic implementation the core engine doesn't allow sufficient control for the developers and they have to simplify it. Also, the difference between 'hyperreal' and acceptable fidelity is huge and DCS has much more serious issues with the radar simulation as a whole that doesn't require them access to classified data. (To drop a few things, the proper effect of PRF ambiguities, RCS changing with loadout and aspect, proper affect of chaff on radar tracking, channelization and interference, limitations of TWS and so on.)

 

1 hour ago, markturner1960 said:

You can winge all you like, but its not going to change,

Do you work for ED? What is your evidence for this?  Both the Hornet and the Viper has received very serious adjustments in this area.  

 

1 hour ago, markturner1960 said:

Its still a pretty f*cking good approximation of the real thing

Both the 73 and the Hornet as a module itself is highly simplified and wrong even when you compare it to publically available data and SME feedback. I can imagine how much it has to do with the real thing.  This is the reason why feedback threads are essential. And even if they don't fix it, we at least have the evidence in case they ever were to revisit this implementation.

Edited September 22, 2021 by WobblyFlops

[Cepheus76]

2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

 

 

 

If you're a casual player and don't care about realism you also wouldn't care enough to approach the topic with such a highly anti intellectual attitude, so it's safe to assume that your concerns have to do with pewpew airquaking metagaming balance and performance, don't they?

 

Since you're having these high standards regarding realism, I am sure you can present us with the data for take-off and landing performance, along with the m+b figures and of course the flightplans with fuel figures for, lets say, the last ten sorties you flew in DCS?

 

You see, I was a pilot and planning a flight is something I actually enjoyed. It would greatly add to my immersion if I could plan the flights in DCS the same way I used to plan and had them planned for me in real life. Therefore, I would be greatful for any hints were to get flight planning documentation.

 

Sarcasm aside, these discussions of what a radar should be capable of are starting to get tiresome at times and condescending posts like yours are really taking the fun out of getting deeper involved with the game.

[WobblyFlops]

2 minutes ago, Cepheus76 said:

You see, I was a pilot and planning a flight is something I actually enjoyed. It would greatly add to my immersion if I could plan the flights in DCS the same way I used to plan and had them planned for me in real life. Therefore, I would be greatful for any hints were to get flight planning documentation.

 

Unfortunately we (and most other squadrons I'm aware) use internal calculators that are based on experimentally derived flight data and the planners aren't for public release. I agree with you partially, having a proper JMPS like mission planner with extensive performance charts would be incredibly useful but I doubt ED and the other devs have enough resources to properly gather and publish even the raw data, let alone implement them into a mission/flight planner. So all we can do is get the data through extensive testing and have people with more technical knowledge than me program that into a fuel and TOLD planning software. 

 

With that being said, your point is invalid since I'm not arguing that other people should play the game in a realistic manner. After all, it's a sandbox sim, you can play it any way you want. The issue is that ED have a design goal where their ultimate desire is to simulate the aircraft and the systems as realistically as possible. Chiming in with an attitude that's trying to make a technical debate stop or making it seem irrelevant generally tend to have some kind of metagaming motive behind it. It seems like this isn't the case here but usually that's how it goes. A vast number of people play DCS and have fun with beating other people with their favourite/national aircraft and anything that makes this more difficult is a change they oppose.

 

My high standards for realism are standards for the game and the developers, not ordinary players. So even if all I did in DCS was to  organize drag races in Dubai with tanks using CA the technical points I made cannot be invalidated because the way I or anyone uses the game has no bearing on the stated design goal of the developers; make it as accurate as possible.

 

We have to differentiate between the accuracy and realism of the modules themselves and the way people use them. Even if you use them in an inaccurate, ahistorical or otherwise non conventional way you can still argue for realistic modules because one of the biggest plus sides of a simulation is that you can use realistic equipment in scenarios that aren't possible or too dangerous in real life. However, if someone is arguing against realistic systems then calling it out I feel is warranted because as I've stated numerous times, DCS is aimed to be realistic.

[Cepheus76]

Thank you for your quick and extensive reply. Actually, I think we're not that far off from our expectations as to what ED should strive for, but I always understood the statement "...to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft..." also to be a sales pitch. Thus I am always willing to accept that certain things in DCS may be close to, but not an exact replication of, real life items- especially classified ones. 

 

As a general observation, it is interesting, that there are seemingly always long discussions about sensor and weapon performance but never about other things like the ATC system. Personally, I can't wait for improvements in that arena, especially since I heard mentioning that the Marianas should also serve as a testbed for the new system.

 

In any case, I better shut-up before getting (rightfully) charged with derailing the thread.

 

Good hunting and happy landings

 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 9/14/2021 at 7:13 PM, Harker said:

You can designate an MSI trackfile (with or without radar contribution) as the L&S, so you can already get all related targeting info. But at that stage, the MC does not pass on data to the missile (you have a NO RDR cue under the TD box on the HUD). Radar contribution is necessary in order to enable a radar guided missile launch.

So, the radar becomes a necessary part of the MSI system, only if you intend to launch a radar guided missile.

Funnily enough, this is how things worked in the '97 "sim" F-22 Air Dominance Fighter by DiD (and its follow-up called Total Air War): you could stay in EMCOM until you were ready to launch, and then turn off the radar again. The manual for that game even described tactics you could use post-launch (sort of flying 360s, every time lowering your altitude, to continue guiding in your AIM120s via data-link while minimising closure rate).

[Longiron]

Here is some food for thought.

Nasa sends signals from Mars with less than 20 watt in UHF and X band around 8 gigahertz.

All be it the dish here is 34 to 70 meters diameter...

Also we have ameture radio operators bouncing voice in UHF off the moon with less than 5w, its a competition to see who can get the best result with the lowest power.

Same guys get double bounce in HF and send morse around the world, nighty.

 

Now all that being said, the caveat here is the above is best done at night when the suns emf is weak.

 

So a guess at modern radar would have me believe what we see in DCS is described as the best reliable performance in adverse conditions.

Yes I'm aware a radar hit is a two way trip, ie double real distance.

[markturner1960]

Absolutely correct Cepheus, many more things that need working on before looking into tweaking the radar..........I am sure most would agree

[GGTharos]

The radar range is tweaked based on supporting documentation and understanding of the radar equation, and general behaviors of similar radars.

 

I don't see why anyone would agree to not tweak that radar when the knowledge for it is there and it's literally the act of changing a single number in some file.

 

 

8 hours ago, Longiron said:

Here is some food for thought.

 

So a guess at modern radar would have me believe what we see in DCS is described as the best reliable performance in adverse conditions.

Yes I'm aware a radar hit is a two way trip, ie double real distance.

 

Here's more food for thought:  The radar equation is known.  There's a reason why that mathematical relationship exists, and why it predicts detection range under the best of circumstances; it's valid for everything and anything, and it doesn't take atmospheric attenuation into account or attenuation due to weather.

 

The only things taken into account are the emitted power, reflection power, system gain and sensitivity all the system.   The fun part is that if ED really wanted, they can make the sensitivity variable which would simulate the changing noise floor due any type of natural or certain types of artificial ECM.

Edited September 23, 2021 by GGTharos

[GumidekCZ]

I'm not sure, but according to my calculations and DCS detection measurements the ED is using Signal to Noise Ratio (S/N) which is defined somehow somewhere in DCS together with some detection range cut range for larger RCS aircraft. For Hornet and Viper that is around 77-78nm. Both radars now have very similar S/N ratio. Somebody would like to argue about Hornets radar performance needs to be according to available data 10-20% better. I don't have thrust worthy source of this info. But Vipers radar was smaller, that's for sure. Other hardware and software differences ... I didn't know, but expecting that it also does matter.

[TLTeo]

Signal to noise is not a property of a detector alone (radar, IR sensor, CCD detector, whatever), noise is. Signal is a property of what you're looking at.