reported Radar look down problem (F-16) - Low flying, fighter size targets not detected from high altitude

[DCS FIGHTER PILOT]

As with the Hornet at the moment, the Viper is unable to detect low flying fighter sized aircraft at high altitudes regardless of the targets aspect. Since this has been labeled a "bug" for the Hornet, I would imagine this is a bug for the Viper as well. 

 

F-16 No Detection.trk

Edited September 24, 2021 by DCS FIGHTER PILOT

[Viperrg]

Using your track file I found that as soon as you drop below 30000ft you can detect the targets just fine. Seems like 30000ft is the magic number where your radar will go wonky.

[Dawgboy]

@DCSopingI was just in a Syria map mission against an AI SU-27, and I locked him up, about co-altitude, at around 40nm.  He was doing the funky chicken on me, going left and right, and the lock was persistent.  I had a successful AIM120C shot within pitbull range, slightly lookup.  

[Dawgboy]

16 minutes ago, DCSoping said:

STT ?

Yes.

[Frederf]

TWS will not have better detection ability than RWS. The only things which might be better are VSR or LRS. MiG-29 should be detected in the 40-50nm range normally and at the very worst look down condition 2/3rds of that. 15nm is ridiculous plus if antenna elevation drops bug then logic is wrong since antenna elevation is automatic in that case.

[BIGNEWY]

We added a small look-down penalty due to ground clutter, we plan to adjust this further in the future. 

There is no look up penalty. 

thank you

[Slowdive]

7 hours ago, DCSoping said:

Dear ED i'm afraid you overdid it a little bit. 

It does seem pretty brutal. I see lower altitude datalink targets all the time now that I cannot see with the radar. I guess this is realistic?

[Harker]

We added a small look-down penalty due to ground clutter, we plan to adjust this further in the future. 
There is no look up penalty. 
thank you

Until an overhaul is done, please consider taking the range from the target to the ground, into account. Ground clutter should only be a problem if the target is very low over the ground and its return is actually mixed with ground returns. If the target is higher, then the range gate functionality of the radar will completely eliminate the problem.

[WolfhoundCH]

People, do you realize we are talking about Pulse-Doppler radar? Ground clutter is no effect because the aircraft (as long as it's not notching) has a clearly distinct closure gate compared to ground.

The only place where we should get a ground penalty is pulse, and there only if an aircraft is close to the ground.
And not just "5° nose down = penalty. That's not how radar works.

The FCR nerf really made the BVR king the BVR loser now, and there is public data stating differently. I was at angels 40, locking a hot target at Angels 38, so no ground clutter even close, didn't work until 35nm.. how am I supposed to launch an AMRAAM at 45nm?

Edited October 24, 2021 by Eteokles

[sk000tch]

9 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We added a small look-down penalty due to ground clutter, we plan to adjust this further in the future. 

There is no look up penalty. 

thank you

Others have commented on the penalty and high Vc scenarios, so i'd just echo that. As Eteokls points out its more that its occurring in geometries and Vc that it should not have a penalty rather than the strength of the penalty The ranges are a little concerning. Its currently detecting large fighters at ranges that are well below NLT for most of the intercept timeline. That's vague enough to not get in trouble yet clear enough to illustrate the issue I hope? Can't PRI and Commit by 30nm on something you can't see until 20nm, so to speak.

Right now the Hornet feels like an Eagle compare to the Viper, which isn't right. The Hornet should feel similar, as there's a 40mm difference in aperture (compared the the 200-250mm in Eagle/Cat)

[TobiasA]

vor 41 Minuten schrieb DCSoping:

Small ? 

3,5 % reduction in detection range for every 1 degree look-down. 
If a target is 20 degrees below you, that means you get a -70% range detection penalty. 

Did someone state these numbers or is this a wild guess?

[TLTeo]

I don't know whether the current performance is appropriate or not, but the Viper is *not* supposed to be king of BVR - small radar antenna and all. There's a reason why the best BVR platforms like the Eagle, Tomcat, Typhoon, Flanker, Raptor et al. are all large planes carrying a giant radar dish.

The current look down system is likely over simplistic and the range adjustment likely was overdone, but it's also important to moderate one's expectations with aircraft of this class (same goes for the Jeff by the way, but that's a whole other conversation).

[TobiasA]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb TLTeo:

I don't know whether the current performance is appropriate or not, but the Viper is *not* supposed to be king of BVR - small radar antenna and all. There's a reason why the best BVR platforms like the Eagle, Tomcat, Typhoon, Flanker, Raptor et al. are all large planes carrying a giant radar dish.

The current look down system is likely over simplistic and the range adjustment likely was overdone, but it's also important to moderate one's expectations with aircraft of this class (same goes for the Jeff by the way, but that's a whole other conversation).

The F-16 is not the king of BVR, but it has a nice radar for its size and can hold its own against most of the russian fighters, mostly because of the lack of the R-77 in most of them. The F-16 is a capable multirole fighter, and is a backbone for SEAD / DEAD in the air force. It can still shine against many opponents in BVR, but that's neither its purpose, nor was it designed for it. Doesn't mean it's bad, the current modelling is pretty nice apart of the look down issue. I'd even say that the signal processing is as important as the dish size, and the american radars are outstanding in that (see DBS1 and 2 in the AG radar). Its radar is capable of locking fighters within the range of the 120's in almost all conditions, unless the target beams or disappears in ground clutter (which is only an issue if you are really low, not just by pointing the radar a few degrees down).

If the numbers above are correct (which seems to be the case), then it is clearly overdone without any physical considerations taken into account. Locking someone flying at 20k while flying at 30k isn't affected by ground clutter.

Best is to wait for the next patch, and hoping for more in november. It is WIP after all.

[Geraki]

There is wrong not to lock targets in low altitude and in low distance .

The Radar need recalculation.

 

[Longiron]

I would say what we have in DCS is 1/3 radar performance and probably 1/2 missiles, sams included. 

[BIGNEWY]

Look down will be tweaked. 

thanks