captain_dalan Posted March 9, 2022 Posted March 9, 2022 First off, this isn't a bug report, but more of a question relating to a problem. No tracks are still attached as they may not be needed if the behavior is as intended. My question: Does the AWG-9 have a datum preference? That is, does it like scanning above the plane datum line more then it does bellow it? As long as the target remains in the same conditions relative to he absolute horizon of course? Say, we have contact, 60 miles out, 35000ft. We are at angels 30. Jester id's it as hostile, goes to TWS-Auto, a track file is built. Now, if i bank away from the bandit say to the right, the cone will follow the bandit based on the centroid logic. After a while, if i remain in the bank, no g's pulled, just a fairly shallow bank, don't lose or gain altitude, TWS auto often gives up and starts scanning ahead. So if the target is below my datum line, it appears the AWG-9 doesn't like to keep the beam on the bandit. If however, i roll in the opposite bank and not change heading, again no g's pulled, that is i keep the bandit above the datum line, the track won't be lost and the cone will stay on the bandit. Even if the lock is gone when the bandit is bellow the datum line, if i make a quick correction and change the bank to bring it above the datum line, the radar will immediately track it again and restore the cone to match the contact. This sometimes happens in PD-STT mode, where it seems the lock is less stable you are banking "away" from the target then banking "into" it. BTW, these are shallow banks, inside 40 degrees of offset, so we aren't talking about the contact being outside gimbal limits. Is this a feature of the radar? Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack
captain_dalan Posted March 12, 2022 Author Posted March 12, 2022 No one noticed this at all? Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack
Callsign JoNay Posted March 14, 2022 Posted March 14, 2022 So the TLDR version boils down to the AWG being more prone to dropping locks when banking away from the contact than into the contact? I've never noticed, sorry.
Biggus Posted March 15, 2022 Posted March 15, 2022 Just tried a few tests and couldn't replicate, albeit I was banking left instead of right. Single inbound Su-24M at FL350 a little over M0.9, me at FL300, banking left immediately after the initial track appears in TWS (which was usually around the 74nm mark). Bank angles of 10, 20 and 30 degrees. Didn't lose the track at any stage while the contact was within the scan volume. @captain_dalan, where are you noticing this phenomenon? Are you over land? Could you be getting spurious returns from ground clutter that distracts the radar just long enough to move the scan volume but not long enough to build a track? I'll test it a bit more when I get some time.
captain_dalan Posted March 20, 2022 Author Posted March 20, 2022 On 3/15/2022 at 1:05 AM, Biggus said: Just tried a few tests and couldn't replicate, albeit I was banking left instead of right. Single inbound Su-24M at FL350 a little over M0.9, me at FL300, banking left immediately after the initial track appears in TWS (which was usually around the 74nm mark). Bank angles of 10, 20 and 30 degrees. Didn't lose the track at any stage while the contact was within the scan volume. @captain_dalan, where are you noticing this phenomenon? Are you over land? Could you be getting spurious returns from ground clutter that distracts the radar just long enough to move the scan volume but not long enough to build a track? I'll test it a bit more when I get some time. Thanks for the input. Sorry for the late reply, RL prevented me from logging in here or in DCS. I will investigate if the issue persists in the latest patch. As for the mission, yes, it's a home made mission, over Nevada. Me at angels 33, the Eagle at angels 35. Some 70 miles out. As i build the track i slowly bank to a side to offset him. Some 30 degrees of bank later and the cone resets from the eagle to dead ahead, just a couple of seconds after the contact went from bright green to dull green. The eagle didn't notch as i didn't fire at him yet. Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack
Biggus Posted March 20, 2022 Posted March 20, 2022 Interesting. Maybe try a similar setup on a map where you can try the same scenario over open water?
captain_dalan Posted April 4, 2022 Author Posted April 4, 2022 Haven't been able to reproduce since the last patch and subsequent hotfix. Will keep my eyes open though in case this creeps in again. Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack
Recommended Posts