Nuggetz Posted May 25, 2022 Author Share Posted May 25, 2022 Can I respectfully ask that the banner to this thread be updated to Investigating. The “missing track file” was provided 4 days ago. Thank you. Ryzen 5950X, MSI RTX 3080TI, 1 TB SSD, 64GB 3600 MHZ DDR4 RAM, Pimax Crystal and 8KX KDMAS. WINWING F16EX Throttle: FSSB-R3-MKII ULTRA Base/TMWH Joystick: DCS: F16C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld113 Posted May 25, 2022 Share Posted May 25, 2022 In another thread I read that they are looking into this internally. That is good news...even though it was several weeks ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Se1ko Posted May 26, 2022 Share Posted May 26, 2022 (edited) I'm not trying to stir up trouble, but as a thought: ED would have derived their version of the F16 radar perfomance from some sort of documentation that must be in the public domain? If this is so, why not release that documentation so that it can be reviewed? In commercial real world full flight simulation (level D) both customer and manufacturer would have validated flight test data of the actual aircraft performance which forms the basis of how the simulation behaves (which is checked by a series of tests known as QTGs (quality test guides))l. If an aspect of the simulation is called into question then the test flight data would be the reference point or standard by which any dispute can be argued objectively (raw data) rather than subjectively (end users opinion)? Like I said just a thought..... Edited May 26, 2022 by Se1ko 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swaps Posted May 26, 2022 Share Posted May 26, 2022 I thought this was something I was doing wrong, I am finding it had to lock targets at 20 miles. It works sometimes but its more miss than hit. Alan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted May 27, 2022 ED Team Share Posted May 27, 2022 Please attach a track replay example Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPSCHRISS1803 Posted May 27, 2022 Share Posted May 27, 2022 (edited) Hi. After a long break I went back to flying f16c on public servers. At the moment, BVR is not possible for a known reason (see comments above). The F16 is only suitable for AG play. It's a bit sad ... but what can we customers do about it ?? Edited May 27, 2022 by OPSCHRISS1803 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggetz Posted May 27, 2022 Author Share Posted May 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said: Please attach a track replay example Please see 10 posts above for a Track file. I also note todays video from Growling Sidewinder F16 vs Typhoon where if I remember correctly he gets a lock/launch at 15, 19 and 9 miles. Perhaps worth a look. Edited May 27, 2022 by Nuggetz Ryzen 5950X, MSI RTX 3080TI, 1 TB SSD, 64GB 3600 MHZ DDR4 RAM, Pimax Crystal and 8KX KDMAS. WINWING F16EX Throttle: FSSB-R3-MKII ULTRA Base/TMWH Joystick: DCS: F16C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted May 27, 2022 ED Team Share Posted May 27, 2022 Hey, the team took a look and here is the feedback: Quote I watched the track. He did not manage antenna elevation correctly. I took over and detected at 35 nm. Given the very large look down angle too, it is all correct. As part of Radar While Paper, we are though still looking into radar look down affect based on factual data. So, his video simply proved there is no actual bug. He needs to place the TDC at the same range as the target so he can match elevation coverage to target altitude 2 1 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
303_Vins Posted May 28, 2022 Share Posted May 28, 2022 (edited) I have experienced same issues. Contacts corelated on scope about 36-40 miles but no Lock ON possible until TGT reach : bigger airplanes such Su-27 at 35 miles JF-17 at about 25 miles. So from now the king of BVR is JF-17.... with its "stealth" technology and perfect SD-10... I mean, tests i made all was with TGT HOT ASPECT. F-16 now is piece of junk with its poor RDR and faible AiM-120 C-5. Forget abot get lock oN when TGT is Flanking just even less than 20 degs, but still hot aspect. Seriously thinking about switching to fly JF-17. Edited May 28, 2022 by 303_Vins 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggetz Posted May 28, 2022 Author Share Posted May 28, 2022 (edited) 8 hours ago, NineLine said: Hey, the team took a look and here is the feedback: Thank you for your reply. Having read the feedback I was concerned I may have been clumsy putting together my track file and was all set to offer a full apology for the track file despite believing issues continue to exist with the F16 RADAR. However: I have just reviewed the track file and note the following: 80 Mile Bracket the antenna altitude is approx 35k to -11k with the approaching Migs at 6k (Link 16) at approx 50 miles the antenna alt is adjust to 17k to -5k within the 40 Mile bracket the antenna alt is 13k to -6k therefore I am not clear what I am doing wrong? It is within this approach from 80 miles to below 40 miles that no detection or lock is possible. Now I accept that there is a disparity between the antenna alt and targets for a short period of time at around 20 miles which required adjustment. it is also interesting the the track file records things happening I have no recollection of ie running out of fuel and getting shot down. But I have experienced odd things with track files in the past and hence this is a side issue. I note threads have been merged and overlapping issues have now been reported/are under investigation for which I am grateful. I await the outcome of your work in due course with interest. Can I finish off by stating I am a huge fan of DCS and the F16 module specifically and am in awe of the talented people that have developed this fantastic product. I fly in VR and find the whole experience completely immersive which is why I have invested thousands of pounds in hardware to reap the enjoyment experienced. Any frustration that may have come across is unintentional and certainly not personal as we all just want the F16 to work as well as we know it can. Thank you for the tremendous work undertaken and I will stand back and await the results of your investigations. Edited May 28, 2022 by Nuggetz 2 Ryzen 5950X, MSI RTX 3080TI, 1 TB SSD, 64GB 3600 MHZ DDR4 RAM, Pimax Crystal and 8KX KDMAS. WINWING F16EX Throttle: FSSB-R3-MKII ULTRA Base/TMWH Joystick: DCS: F16C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawk2174 Posted May 28, 2022 Share Posted May 28, 2022 8 hours ago, NineLine said: Hey, the team took a look and here is the feedback: OK hopefully they actually do look into rebuilding how lookdown works as it is not realistic at all for the radars being discussed here. They have the data to show this too, you guys were given test data on detection ranges for the original version of the APG-63, pre MISP (still waiting on your guys to fix its detection range too....). And that data shows no appreciable difference in look up or look down detection range. Could it be less, sure if your radar is particularly bad in certain aspects. Or in HPRF against cold targets in some situations. I have a strong suspicion this current implementation is based on the stated MIG-29 detection ranges where according to the manual it sees a noticeable decrease in lookdown range. But that radar shouldn't be the basis here has it is rather quite infamous for having a lot of issues. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld113 Posted May 28, 2022 Share Posted May 28, 2022 They are quick to point out that GS radar elevation was wrong but they are not willing to take 3 minutes to fire up the game and see for themselves you can't lock a fighter sized target outside of 40 mile range EVEN IF YOU ARE PAINTING THE TARGET? Frustrating. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted May 28, 2022 ED Team Share Posted May 28, 2022 I would suggest you all wait for now, we will prepare a white paper explaining how it works in DCS thanks 2 Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitalvole Posted May 29, 2022 Share Posted May 29, 2022 (edited) Edit: changed the confusing title I thought the Viper was the king of BVR? Having been trying the same little set up (4 Mig 29s’s at 30k ft hot) in both the Hornet and Viper (40kft Mach 1+). I’m finding I can lock them up in the Hornet at 40 miles and successfully splash all 4 of them. Can’t recall at what distance I get the shoot cue but it was above 20miles and none of them even got a missile off. The Viper on the other hand, I can’t get any kind of lock till about 25 miles and even then it keeps dropping the lock. I got 2 missiles off before the merge and then died So from this can we conclude the Hornet now does everything better than the Viper? I keep going back to the Viper because it looks so good and I really like the cockpit and just in general it feels like it has a higher level of polish and attention to detail. But every time I find something else that surprises and makes me think the Hornet is better in almost every regard. It’s a bit annoying, as great as the Hornet is I really want a change, I’ve got my eye on the Harrier now, but that’s a story for a different sub forum Edited May 29, 2022 by Digitalvole 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Doge Posted June 6, 2022 Share Posted June 6, 2022 Hello, I've recently stumbled across one of the 3rd party developers' newsletter for an upcoming change to their module: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/219924-dcs-jf-17-amp-chinaassetpack-changelog/?do=findComment&comment=4981056 What grabbed my attention was the slew of new radar modelling for it, particularly these features: "probability of detection for AA radar" "Added: unstable track of AA contact if detected range is near detection boundary" I was wondering, are there are any such features also planned for the F-16? It would surely be well received versus the current, hard coded, 15% difference in detection vs lock range model. As always, we have to be patient with the developers, they are doing their best. This post is not meant as a request to rush things, but merely as a question for the future, and it's plans, however long it may take. Wish you all an easy day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viciam1 Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 So whats up with the f16 radar lately, it sucks? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskyV Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 (edited) I think there is supposed to be a white paper being made public on the radar performance from ED at some point if I remember correctly. it’s a remark in the latest beta patch notes. Edited June 8, 2022 by RuskyV Found the source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viciam1 Posted June 8, 2022 Share Posted June 8, 2022 Yes but what changed in the last 2/3 weeks? It never was like this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango3B Posted June 9, 2022 Share Posted June 9, 2022 (edited) Ok, so the problem with the APG-68v5 not being able to bug targets flying lower or higher than 4000 ft below or above your own altitude and ranges of greater than 24nm under certain conditions, although the APG-68 has already generated a valid track file still exists in DCS Open beta 2.7.15.25026 as described in the following post from 28.04.2022: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/299740-dcs-f-16cm-apg-68v5-look-down-issues-and-also-weird-aim-120c-behavior/ I attached a track file and a vid of what happened on my radar while I was trying to bug two contacts coming in hot at roughly 40 nm. The first bandit is nearly co-alt with me, the second bandit is several thousand feet below me at the start of the engagement. A track file was created more or less immediately on the first bandit flying at co-alt at roughly 40 nm. The second bandit who now climbs slowly up to my altitude stays undetected until around 30nm when he is at roughly 15k feet. My own altitude at that moment is 25490 ft. So we have 10490 ft altitude difference, my scan settings on the APG are set to cover both bandits as you can clearly see on my radar display. Also, a track file is created rather quickly by the APG-68 on the second bandit, so in theory I should be able to bug him, right? Well, no! Only when the second bandit climbs up to 22k ft and 23.7 nm range am I able to bug him on my radar. Is there any explanation for this weird behavior because the same behavior is true for a bandit flying higher than you? So, let´s imagine a scenario on a well-known PvP where, say an F-15 is hot on you, flying at 42k ft and you are at 30k ft. The range is 40 nm. You know what happens? Right. You catch an AMRAAM right to the face because you can´t bug your bandit and shoot back until the exact same conditions are met. Is this fun? Hell, no! This is a major bug, guys. Easily reproduceable for everyone, I guess. Also, easy to see. So again, why is this? I mean, I know there is a white paper coming on the APG-68v5 but seriously, I am really curious as to what the scientific justification behind reducing the engagement range of a very capable Gen4 multi-purpose radar with good A/A capabilities to basically crude and illogical behavior might be and also why there has not been any hotfix on this stuff, yet. And please don´t get me wrong, I do not want to argue about the maximum detection capability of the DCS APG-68v5, so let´s keep the topic solely on the behavior described above. Link to vid: https://youtu.be/HmkQlR87sJk F-16CM APG-68v5 look-up or down problem still exists.trk Edited June 9, 2022 by Tango3B 14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invisibull Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 Hi all, Just wondering what's going on with the bricks when using RWS in a BVR engagement. At a certain point (somewhere around 45 nm for a co-altitude MiG29 heading directly at me for instance), I get a search target brick like in the attached pic. null My understanding is that at a certain point, as the track file is built, that there should be a visual cue represented by a chance in color/size of the brick in order to bring it to the pilot's attention that the search target is now a track target and they should be able to bug it at that point. What I'm seeing instead is a brick that never changes color or size that I'm suddenly able to lock, but only after TMS up'ing multiple times and allowing it to get within roughly 37 nm (again in the instance that same MiG). Is this now considered "correct as is," or will it be changing sometime soon? Thx. 1 i9 9900k - GTX 2080 Ti - MSI Z87 GD65 Mobo - 64GB HyperX Predator RGB DDR4 3200MHz - Win10 64 bit - TM Warthog w FSSB R3 mod - TrackIr 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llOPPOTATOll Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 You should be able to lock both search targets and tracked targets if they are on your FCR but for some reason this isn't the case in DCS and we are waiting for a White Paper to explain why this is Correct as is 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invisibull Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, llOPPOTATOll said: You should be able to lock both search targets and tracked targets if they are on your FCR but for some reason this isn't the case in DCS and we are waiting for a White Paper to explain why this is Correct as is Thx. I did see mention of an impending "white paper." I hope it turns out that this will be changed because it's not a very intuitive way of managing radar contacts imo. 1 i9 9900k - GTX 2080 Ti - MSI Z87 GD65 Mobo - 64GB HyperX Predator RGB DDR4 3200MHz - Win10 64 bit - TM Warthog w FSSB R3 mod - TrackIr 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederf Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 You're using Hornet terminology. Contacts are position detections. Vertical tick marks are called hot lines and is Doppler information of radial velocity. This info is not track data and is not a trend between detections. It is instantaneous info from a single detection and it is neither an indication that a track file is formed nor is a track required. It is not a requirement that a track file exist before a bug be commanded against a contact. That attempt may be made, this is fact. Whether that commanded bug of contact object attenpt will succeed is apparently not a settled question. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Doge Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) The community would surely appreciate the look-down penalty to be reviewed. I hope ED will take a look at this, it is one of the most important aspects of a multirole jet. Edited June 10, 2022 by Comrade Doge 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invisibull Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Frederf said: You're using Hornet terminology. Thx for your response. I'm a bit confused about this comment as I was consulting the DCS Viper Early Access Manual along with Chuck's Viper guide while writing my original post. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that I'd appreciate knowing what terminology I used, which applies to the Hornet, but not the Viper. i9 9900k - GTX 2080 Ti - MSI Z87 GD65 Mobo - 64GB HyperX Predator RGB DDR4 3200MHz - Win10 64 bit - TM Warthog w FSSB R3 mod - TrackIr 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts