Hornet Air-to-Air Radar Like a Boss by 104th_Maverick

[TheCoyoteHunter]

My apologies if someone has already posted this...

@104th_Maverick, one of the best Hornet gear jammers out there, shows his tips and tricks with the A/A radar.

 

 

[Hulkbust44]

My apologies if someone has already posted this...
@104th_Maverick, one of the best Hornet gear jammers out there, shows his tips and tricks with the A/A radar.
 
 

Except his understanding of TWS vs RWS for the Hornet is all wrong. I'll post my comment on the video here.


"You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of TWS vs RWS in the Hornet.

First, the whole thing about RWR warnings for the bandit. There is NO difference between RWS and TWS. A STT is a STT. A L+S designation is the same "soft lock" in RWS and TWS.

Next, there is no difference in trackfile processing. Hornet RWS functions exactly like TWS aside from the auto scan centering (DCSism). RWS just dosen't have frame refresh minimums and will only display HAFUs for a few trackfiles. (And a TUC) Advantage of RWS is larger scan volumes, less cluttered displays. You can always just use NWS to step through ranked trackfiles.

The thing is, in DCS the Hornet A/A logic is not right in basically anyway.

The aircraft is lacking Multi-Source Integration (MSI). This is a special type of sensor fusion the process all available data to create a track file. The radar is just one (still a primary) sensor that contributes. Other possible contributing sources: donor DL trackfiles, EW suite, ATFLIR, IFF, and HARM. With this, you can designate and fire on tracks without radar contribution. There should be no track display difference between Attack, SA, and AZ/EL formats. You can designate tracks via SA and whatnot. Not to mention that an AMRAAM launch should cue TWS AUTO and command RDR priority."


The video is alright...he does a lot of unnecessary things and didn't mention some of the current radar issues and workarounds. Namely hit age out affecting trackfiles.

Mobius708

[NineLine]

38 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

The thing is, in DCS the Hornet A/A is not right in basically anyway.

The Hornet A/A radar is not right in basically any way? Hmmm, we disagree. We have some things left to tighten up, but we think your assessment is pretty harsh.

Anyways, at the OP, the video is a good one for sure. Thanks

[WobblyFlops]

6 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Hmmm, we disagree. We have some things left to tighten up, but we think your assessment is pretty harsh.

Unfortunately the current behaviour and lack of implemented nuances make the aircraft much more annoying to operate than reality. Mo's workflow and the way it's done in the real jet sounds like being on par with the Viper, but since many of those minor aspects are missing, people are forced to adapt a very peculiar workflow, like the one describe in the video. I don't disagree that what the team has managed to achieve with the Hornet so far is incredible and all the major pieces are there (and if you're willing to adapt to a more cumbersome way of operating it, it will be effective), but the  smaller inconsistencies and things that are left to do add up fairly quickly. And without properly implemented MSI the workflow is even further removed from the one described by Mo.

 

I believe this is the main reason why people who are less knowledgable about the Hornet say that it's HOTAS/pvi is trash or that it has a terrible system integration. When all those final things fall into place the Hornet will be just as nice to operate as the Viper.

[Hulkbust44]

The Hornet A/A radar is not right in basically any way? Hmmm, we disagree. We have some things left to tighten up, but we think your assessment is pretty harsh.
Anyways, at the OP, the video is a good one for sure. Thanks

Oops, forgot to edit it.

You are correct, basically all of the symbology is there and works, however the logic does not. Just look at all of the recent bug reports.

Mobius708

The Hornet A/A radar is not right in basically any way? Hmmm, we disagree. We have some things left to tighten up, but we think your assessment is pretty harsh.
Anyways, at the OP, the video is a good one for sure. Thanks

Note that I didn't specify radar.

Mobius708

[104th_Maverick]

On 12/2/2021 at 4:41 PM, Hulkbust44 said:

Except his understanding of TWS vs RWS for the Hornet is all wrong. I'll post my comment on the video here.


"You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of TWS vs RWS in the Hornet.

First, the whole thing about RWR warnings for the bandit. There is NO difference between RWS and TWS. A STT is a STT. A L+S designation is the same "soft lock" in RWS and TWS.

Next, there is no difference in trackfile processing. Hornet RWS functions exactly like TWS aside from the auto scan centering (DCSism). RWS just dosen't have frame refresh minimums and will only display HAFUs for a few trackfiles. (And a TUC) Advantage of RWS is larger scan volumes, less cluttered displays. You can always just use NWS to step through ranked trackfiles.

The thing is, in DCS the Hornet A/A logic is not right in basically anyway.

The aircraft is lacking Multi-Source Integration (MSI). This is a special type of sensor fusion the process all available data to create a track file. The radar is just one (still a primary) sensor that contributes. Other possible contributing sources: donor DL trackfiles, EW suite, ATFLIR, IFF, and HARM. With this, you can designate and fire on tracks without radar contribution. There should be no track display difference between Attack, SA, and AZ/EL formats. You can designate tracks via SA and whatnot. Not to mention that an AMRAAM launch should cue TWS AUTO and command RDR priority."


The video is alright...he does a lot of unnecessary things and didn't mention some of the current radar issues and workarounds. Namely hit age out affecting trackfiles.

Mobius708

 

 

 I don't have any misunderstandings of TWS vs RWS, I was referring to people engaging in RWS using STT.  I never once talk about going STT using TWS yet you bang on about it being the same in TWS and RWS like you think you're teaching me something in some hyper critical manner.

I was also giving people advice on how to use the Hornet radar in 'DCS' as we have it, not how you think it's supposed to work in real life, again you seem to have gone off on some nonsensical random tangent ranting on about things I never even mentioned.

The video has helped literally 1000s of people who have given me loads of positive feedback on how it has improved their experience using the radar.  It's a tutorial on the way I use the radar as a GAMER not as a fighter pilot and the way I demonstrate it works perfectly well and people will get results from it.

The methods shown in the video work, no amount of nit picking will change that, I set out to help people use the radar better and I did just that, you can stop your little crusade now.

Edited December 5, 2021 by 104th_Maverick

[Tshark]

I found Maverick's YouTube videos to be the most helpful.  When I was learning to do air to air refueling I viewed A LOT of video tutorials.  His was the one video that really clicked for me and I immediately starting having success with refueling.  The same can be said for his new radar tutorial.  Since incorporating his pointers my kill ratio increased.  My understanding of some of my F-18 systems also improved.

Thank you Maverick!  Your tutorials got me results and made my play time more enjoyable.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Tshark

[Jak525]

On 12/2/2021 at 9:21 AM, NineLine said:

The Hornet A/A radar is not right in basically any way? Hmmm, we disagree. We have some things left to tighten up, but we think your assessment is pretty harsh.

Anyways, at the OP, the video is a good one for sure. Thanks

Hey NineLine, don't take this as a "gotcha" or anything but I would like to briefly explain why this harsh assessment is accurate, at least in my opinion. And I understand this is a subjective thing, but I think I can articulate it objectively just so you can understand why people have this opinion about the Hornet A/A stuff.

The thing is, it's not about some small areas needing some touch-up to make it as good as possible, it's that there are fundamentals to "daily use" of the A/A systems that are missing or wrong. In other words players regularly use certain functions in a way they would not use them if things were done differently.

Just for some examples that come to mind, the way the jet deletes trackfiles is supposed to be based on a radar frame-based logic, whereas it is tied to a plain seconds timer in game right now, making the process of maintaining targets totally different than it would be; being purely time based means the radar easily loses targets before it can even have the chance to re detect them. Also, TWS Auto is just "L&S centering" where it should really be keeping all your targets like the F-14, which nearly removes the advantage of TWS since RWS does its LTWS trackfile processing anyway (in other jets obviously the advantage of TWS is the fact it's TWS, but in the Hornet, you get the same TWS tracks in RWS). Another thing is the inconsistent display of targets across the 3 AA formats, so you may have Target A appear as a different looking HAFU (color/shape or rank for example) on your SA vs ATTK page.

I don't want this post to come off as "hah look at all these things I can name off, get owned!!". I really don't think the Hornet has been done poorly in all areas, but I think that with the A/A systems in particular the mark was kind of missed. I just wanted to write this so that you might better understand why people have this critical opinion. People aren't just saying this cause some obscure feature is wrong and therefore the whole thing is totally screwed. Again, I'm just trying to explain, so please don't take this as rude or an attack or a "gotcha!" type thing. Thanks for reading.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Jak525

[oldcrusty]

...and from gamer's perspective... let's not forget cycling through your own Amraams (if not lofting high enough) and... 

[WarbossPetross]

Adding to the considerations above, the Hornet's jammer unequivocally disables the radar whenever it's transmitting while, as far as I understand, IRL it has settings that govern the priority of radar/jammer operation in different situations. That kinda matters seeing how virtually all other aircraft in the game have no problem using all the things at once. Whether it's realistic or not is a separate conversation, but right now that's how it is.

[macedk]

The deeper we dive, the more hush and closed doors we will find, and for good reason

Great video Mav. Learned a lot.

[WobblyFlops]

25 minutes ago, macedk said:

The deeper we dive, the more hush and closed doors we will find

The problems with the current implementation have nothing to do with that issue though. There's more than enough data on the Hornet's radar and more than enough SME input. Radar/jammer priority switch as mentioned by the user above you is a well documented function and the interference blanking unit's effect on the radar while the ASPJ is transmitting is also accurate to available data. We just need the priority switch function. From the top of my head, aside from specific tactics and very exact performance data, the only thing that would be 'behind closed doors' and is relevant to use in any way when it comes to the radar is the ECCM function, as it's detailed in a classified supplemental manual. Considering the simplified implementation of EW in the core game anyway, that's not a big issue in my opinion.

[macedk]

1 hour ago, WobblyFlops said:

The problems with the current implementation have nothing to do with that issue though. There's more than enough data on the Hornet's radar and more than enough SME input. Radar/jammer priority switch as mentioned by the user above you is a well documented function and the interference blanking unit's effect on the radar while the ASPJ is transmitting is also accurate to available data. We just need the priority switch function. From the top of my head, aside from specific tactics and very exact performance data, the only thing that would be 'behind closed doors' and is relevant to use in any way when it comes to the radar is the ECCM function, as it's detailed in a classified supplemental manual. Considering the simplified implementation of EW in the core game anyway, that's not a big issue in my opinion.

I just called Boeing with your questions....they hung up ??? Must be something wrong with the phone then

[Hulkbust44]

1 hour ago, macedk said:

I just called Boeing with your questions....they hung up ??? Must be something wrong with the phone then

The 742-100 is literally publicly available. You need the 150/C for ECCM and NCTR details, which you aren't going to get. And no, the ASPJ shouldn't always outright blank the radar, that's just illogical. The priority function is for the *filter*

[BIGNEWY]

Please do not derail the thread and remember our rules when posting, especially 1.16. 

thank you

29 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

The 742-100 is literally publicly available. You need the 150/C for ECCM and NCTR details, which you aren't going to get. And no, the ASPJ shouldn't always outright blank the radar, that's just illogical. The priority function is for the *filter*

 

Just because you can find it on google does not make it a public document, from memory I think it is distribution c

thanks

[Hulkbust44]

Please do not derail the thread and remember our rules when posting, especially 1.16. 
thank you
 
Just because you can find it on google does not make it a public document, from memory I think it is distribution c
thanks

That point is that ED has it, you have it. It's part of the very limited documentation for the Hornet but it's what's there to check ED's work.

Mobius708

[BIGNEWY]

40 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

That point is that ED has it, you have it. It's part of the very limited documentation for the Hornet but it's what's there to check ED's work.

Mobius708
 

regardless, we have rules here on the forum about documents. Please dont derail the thread.

We are happy with our radar and any issues that are reported are being looked at by the team. 
 

Thanks