correct as is F16 Blk50 Radar needs upgrade to reality level.

[zanebanks]

F16 BLK50 Radar is still so weak. now we only have around 40NM heavy fighters scan range. According to 90s USAF official clip it shows F16c early vision that possibly Blk30/35 APG68 radar have at least 58NM heavy fighter scan range. I will leave link here. I think this is strong reference for prove Apg68 not only have such weak scan range. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq5HXTGUHGI

[BIGNEWY]

37 minutes ago, zanebanks said:

F16 BLK50 Radar is still so weak. now we only have around 40NM heavy fighters scan range. According to 90s USAF official clip it shows F16c early vision that possibly Blk30/35 APG68 radar have at least 58NM heavy fighter scan range. I will leave link here. I think this is strong reference for prove Apg68 not only have such weak scan range. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq5HXTGUHGI

Hi, 

we can not use this video as evidence that something is wrong. 

But please include a track replay example of what problems you are having we will be happy to review them 

If possible keep them as short as possible to show an example of what you think is wrong. 

thanks

[Geraki]

For 40 and more  miles  dependents the altitude separation from target so far....." it is good" needs only some trimming for deferential altitude separation

For ACM it need rework the BORE or other ACM modes must lock quicker and stronger even in low altitude and ground clattering since in distances below 10 miles the APG-68V5 is powerful for burn through and filter's any cluttering 

[Geraki]

The Radar needs to get contact locked in 45-55 miles in same altitute level or small seperation altitute  and stable contact lock below 40 miles  even if the contact is in low alt.

Under 15 miles the contact is solid lock even in ground cluttering , only if the contact went dehind mountains then the radar contact could be lost.

Rigiht now  with current radar the lock is difficult even in close distances ,something that is not realistic.   

[Hulkbust44]

No, it's definitely over-performing. Remember this is a very small radar. The 68v9 upgrade gave a 30-33% range increase as to see a 5m^2 target at a max range of 55nm. Max range means HPRF for the radar which isn't even available in RWS/TWS. HPRF is only available in VSR. Based on that, for the APG-68v5 we have, it is *way* too powerful. Max range in VSR HPRF should be around 41nm. Being generous, that would put the MPRF to 35nm max. 35nm for RWS/TWS should be realistic for our Viper. Actual sources (not just math) put the AN/APG-68v5 at 32nm for a 5m^2 target.

[TEOMOOSE]

7 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

No, it's definitely over-performing. Remember this is a very small radar. The 68v9 upgrade gave a 30-33% range increase as to see a 5m^2 target at a max range of 55nm. Max range means HPRF for the radar which isn't even available in RWS/TWS. HPRF is only available in VSR. Based on that, for the APG-68v5 we have, it is *way* too powerful. Max range in VSR HPRF should be around 41nm. Being generous, that would put the MPRF to 35nm max. 35nm for RWS/TWS should be realistic for our Viper. Actual sources (not just math) put the AN/APG-68v5 at 32nm for a 5m^2 target.

The radar actually performing as it should. Its the RCS of an aircraft needs to be update.

[SCPanda]

2 hours ago, TEOMOOSE said:

The radar actually performing as it should. Its the RCS of an aircraft needs to be update.

Can confirm. It's not overperforming. My usual detection and lock range against a fighter size target flying hot at me and it's below my alt is about 30 miles. 

[Geraki]

The problem with currect radar that is loosing easily the buged target , i think in STT is ok but with soft lock the target easily lost for BVR 

For ACM the modes needs to have stable lock and specialy in JHMCS bore or slave mode 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Geraki

[okopanja]

28 minutes ago, Geraki said:

The problem with currect radar that is loosing easily the buged target , i think in STT is ok but with soft lock the target easily lost for BVR 

For ACM the modes needs to have stable lock and specialy in JHMCS bore or slave mode 

There are inherent problems with mechanically steered radar beams especially in TWS mode. There are limits on how fast you can move the antenna, which means there is a limit in terms of frequency of updates. 

TWS is a compromise compared to STT. While it offers general situational awareness, while keeping tracking (with the hope that target does not take notice), such tracking is way less reliable, especially if the target does take a notice.

I would like to suggest you to try to calculate how much did target move between 2 scans in different scanning modes.

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by okopanja

[Hulkbust44]

Perhaps the ranges were unofficially changed.

[TAW_Blaze]

On 2/8/2022 at 11:12 AM, okopanja said:

There are inherent problems with mechanically steered radar beams especially in TWS mode. There are limits on how fast you can move the antenna, which means there is a limit in terms of frequency of updates. 

TWS is a compromise compared to STT. While it offers general situational awareness, while keeping tracking (with the hope that target does not take notice), such tracking is way less reliable, especially if the target does take a notice.

I would like to suggest you to try to calculate how much did target move between 2 scans in different scanning modes.

 

 

IRL perhaps. In DCS the TWS of F-16C is actually more reliable than DTT/STT. I chalk it up to lack of fidelity since they chose to first implement DTT/STT.

Before DTT, the SAM mode was much more reliable. Ever since the introduction of DTT both DTT and STT modes offer very dubious performance. Quite frequently you end up having a fake target memory locked which is never recognized by the FCR. I find it very amusing that undesignating your target often results in faster true-positive performance tarcking than actually keeping a lock. In general it's superior to just sit in search mode, you get better tracking (but unfortunately no altitude indication, unless hovered or in TWS).

[SCPanda]

13 hours ago, TAW_Blaze said:

IRL perhaps. In DCS the TWS of F-16C is actually more reliable than DTT/STT. I chalk it up to lack of fidelity since they chose to first implement DTT/STT.

Before DTT, the SAM mode was much more reliable. Ever since the introduction of DTT both DTT and STT modes offer very dubious performance. Quite frequently you end up having a fake target memory locked which is never recognized by the FCR. I find it very amusing that undesignating your target often results in faster true-positive performance tarcking than actually keeping a lock. In general it's superior to just sit in search mode, you get better tracking (but unfortunately no altitude indication, unless hovered or in TWS).

Yeah, I have also realized how slow DTT updates target. On your HUD or JHMCS, you can literally see the TD box lagging behind the target and then jump to a updated target location after few seconds. In TWS however, suprisingly the update is really fast and smooth, TD box stays right on the target without any lagging as long as the lock is not broken. 

[Ignition]

RCS is not modeled in DCS yet, its just a fixed number of clean aircraft right now.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Ignition

[Crptalk]

1 hour ago, SCPanda said:

Yeah, I have also realized how slow DTT updates target. On your HUD or JHMCS, you can literally see the TD box lagging behind the target and then jump to a updated target location after few seconds. In TWS however, suprisingly the update is really fast and smooth, TD box stays right on the target without any lagging as long as the lock is not broken. 

SAM contacts are not extrapolated between updates. But in the other f16 sim, bugged targets are extrapolated in SAM. Not sure which is right.

[Frederf]

SAM should have a much better track quality than TWS. That is reality. Of course tracks are extrapolated. That's what tracks are, persistent modeled object which exist distinct from their data points. That's why they have timeout lives when the updates no longer support them. Tracks are the same concept in any mode. TWS generally has less detailed information because it merely sweeps over the target instead of dwelling like SAM does (which gets a few in a burst approaching a mini STT).

The introduction of DTT has completely obliterated the concept of SAM AUTO and SAM MANUAL which existed briefly after SAM introduction but before DTT.

The nature of the extrapolation may be in question. The level III, IV, V EEGS pipper for example are progression through the understanding of target motion from position to velocity to acceleration (more and more derivatives of position). RWS "hits" are position. Tracks are at least dx/dt minimum if not d^2x/dt^2 (say with STT levels of updates). Unsure if radar ever attempts the third derivative and certainly not beyond that.

Track quality goes from TWS to SAM (two tracks) to SAM (one tracks) to STT in order of worst to best. Be aware that even in RWS with no tracks displayed the radar is always constructing tracks in the background. It doesn't suddenly remember to do its homework when a track might show up on screen. It tirelessly builds track files from hits at all times which is why switching from AGR to TWS takes a while to build tracks while switching from RWS to TWS already has those tracks ready to go.

[TobiasA]

The only thing I doubt is its poor performance when you are at 35k ft and looking down to someone flying at 25k ft coming in hot like a spaceship.

Other than that it is on point as far as publicly available numbers suggest. I would like to see COAST mode modelled though.

[SCPanda]

On 2/12/2022 at 4:40 PM, TobiasA said:

The only thing I doubt is its poor performance when you are at 35k ft and looking down to someone flying at 25k ft coming in hot like a spaceship.

Other than that it is on point as far as publicly available numbers suggest. I would like to see COAST mode modelled though.

What is COAST mode? 

[Crptalk]

2 hours ago, SCPanda said:

What is COAST mode? 

A radar submode where the radar will extrapolate the position of a target for four seconds after that target is lost, continuously attempting to reacquire the target. You can tell you're in COAST by a segmented TD box, segmented TLL, and COAS replacing target closure rate in the missile launch envelope. Also missing is "track through the notch" where the radar shifts the frequency of the doppler clutter notch to attempt to track a notching target.

[SCPanda]

2 hours ago, Crptalk said:

A radar submode where the radar will extrapolate the position of a target for four seconds after that target is lost, continuously attempting to reacquire the target. You can tell you're in COAST by a segmented TD box, segmented TLL, and COAS replacing target closure rate in the missile launch envelope. Also missing is "track through the notch" where the radar shifts the frequency of the doppler clutter notch to attempt to track a notching target.

cool thx

[Sandman1330]

I wonder if some of the issue here is the radar performance of AI aircraft.

Since both the hornet and viper have had their radars recently rationalized to be more realistic, the AI with their simplified systems now seem to grossly overperform our jets.

I find going against a MIG29S in the Viper to be very challenging now. The AI has always had perfect situational awareness, but now combined with better radar performance, it does make one feel at a disadvantage in the full fidelity modules.

So if you’re playing primarily single player, maybe it’s the AI that needs fixing?

[Dawgboy]

2 hours ago, Sandman1330 said:

I wonder if some of the issue here is the radar performance of AI aircraft.

Since both the hornet and viper have had their radars recently rationalized to be more realistic, the AI with their simplified systems now seem to grossly overperform our jets.

I find going against a MIG29S in the Viper to be very challenging now. The AI has always had perfect situational awareness, but now combined with better radar performance, it does make one feel at a disadvantage in the full fidelity modules.

So if you’re playing primarily single player, maybe it’s the AI that needs fixing?

Good point.  In the other Viper sim, we'd watch the AI cuz they'd know all.  I wonder what the fog-of-war factor is on AI.  I don't have enough experience with DCS to say.  

[OPSCHRISS1803]

Hello.
With each additional patch, the radar in Viper deteriorates.
Target at 18000ft, head on, sees only 18 miles away ??
If you work with AWACS, at least you know that something is out there.
If there is no AWACS or it is too far away, it is better to fly the FC3 than the $ 60 module.
A colleague in JF17 who was 15 miles behind me saw the same goal much earlier.

Edited February 20, 2022 by OPSCHRISS1803

[Chibawang]

I get the feeling people arguing for overperforming radar are offline pilots, the radar seems to perform very differently in multiplayer. Way below your most conservative numbers. This could be due to many different variables I suppose, I don't think the answer is a "radar buff."

[Hulkbust44]

3 hours ago, OPSCHRISS1803 said:

Hello.
With each additional patch, the radar in Viper deteriorates.
Target at 18000ft, head on, sees only 18 miles away ??
If you work with AWACS, at least you know that something is out there.
If there is no AWACS or it is too far away, it is better to fly the FC3 than the $ 60 module.
A colleague in JF17 who was 15 miles behind me saw the same goal much earlier.

 

Well the FC3 F-15C should have the best radar period. There's no "pay to win"

Edited February 20, 2022 by Hulkbust44

[Chibawang]

8 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Well the FC3 F-15C should have the best radar period. There's no "pay to win"

 

No mention of the F-15 in his post, to be fair. But according to your source, wouldn't 18 nm be very low for that scenario? In my experience, this is the norm in multiplayer. If it weren't for datalink, I'd think the skies were clear most of the time. This isn't directed at you really, but it's a little tiresome reading all of the contrarian posts that ignore the problem, or assume it's simply operator error.