Jump to content

Will the Eurofighter have an ir seaker like the su-27 have for example?


isglas

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

@Spurts AFAIK radar also has a hard limit, 160nm if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't really matter because you can't realistically "see" that far out anyway, and I assume there needs to be some kind of cutoff due to how the game works

The difference is there are podded IR systems in game with >45nm capability and you can slave the TGP to a waypoint and watch a green wall roll back.  That is not realistic.  Things should fade to unrecognizability like they do visually because that is the closest analog to how IR systems work, they just receive.  Sidewinders will growl at the sun but a pod with the resolution to tell you how many wheels a vehicle has at 44nm sees a green wall at 45nm?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a whole other issue, unrelated to potential implementation of IRST.

You know what isn't realistic? Being able to see anything other than blurry mess when fully zoomed in (not counting proper optical zoom), I don't think they should be able to perfectly ground stabilize to a point 40 nm away as well. Of course ED should handle the draw distance limitation more gracefully and add some sort of distance fog in IR, but unless you abuse DCSisms it's not that big of a deal.

With the exception of MitL cruise missiles, they are affected by that and beyond certain distance from launch aircraft you can't see what you're aiming at

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be unrelated right now, but it shouldn't be.  The sensor logic is the same, look at an area and detect thermal contrast.  Tiffy being a high altitude and high speed fighter puts it's sensor in the best possible condition to spot other high altitude high speed aircraft.  It should have >45nm detection range on anything supersonic that isn't behind a cloud.  The IR system in DCS is less borked than it used to be, and they are working on it, but it isn't ready for proper PIRATE or even OLS functionality.

 

And according to combat pilots seeing something clearly from 40nm wasn't an issue.


Edited by Spurts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody implements sensors like that in video games, it makes no sense for many reasons including performance.

You already know where all the aircrafts are, you just have to design rules which dictate whether an object is flagged as "visible" or not which would take into account for instance LOS, distance, some kind of visibility factor which could be static, could be assigned per object, or could be a function of aspect, throttle position and type of aircraft, maybe actual temperatures with some delay if you're feeling fancy.

 

By the way targeting pods and Mavericks aren't using image recognition either, they just magically lock onto any object flagged as alive, and its fine for DCS purposes


Edited by Dr_Pavelheer
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

Nobody implements sensors like that in video games, it makes no sense for many reasons including performance.

In video games? No. In a sim? It's certainly an option, one that would produce a far more realistic behavior. Performance-wise, it's not actually that bad. Contrast tracking Remember, the same logic worked for Mavs with Vietnam-era electronics. Detecting contrast in an image is easy. This is not image recognition, the only time anything like this comes into play is with handoff, where TGP and Maverick images are compared (still simpler than recognizing an arbitrary image) and points the Maverick at that, under assumption that with images matching that closely, the missile will lock the same thing the TGP is tracking. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2022 at 8:56 AM, Dr_Pavelheer said:

 

 

By the way targeting pods and Mavericks aren't using image recognition either, they just magically lock onto any object flagged as alive, and its fine for DCS purposes

 

they only lock if there is enough contrast.  If something is alive and cold it wont lock or even show up.  They are already modeling surface temperatures and changing them dynamically for the FLIRs, no reason not to do the same for IRST.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few times I've had it lock a spot on the vehicle if I zoomed in too much. It doesn't always go for the centroid. If using a modern TGP, even a cold vehicle will, as long as it's visible, have enough contrast for a successful point track. The Maverick, however, won't always track in such case, particularly at longer ranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

Never had trouble locking up cold vehicles, at least once I managed to find them (for instance using TV mode of targeting pod), I'm 99% sure it's purely visual like clouds and stuff, at most binary like heat signature of aircrafts from the point of view of Fox 2 missiles (AB vs no AB)

That supports my point. To lock a cold target you have to change to something with contrast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't think we will have access to PIRATE in the first iteration that we are receiving (ESPECIALLY with EA), it's certainly possible, we are getting a "frankenstein" build after all. It all depends on if there is enough declassified information available to HB to model it and if so, it would come down to their decision to move forward.

Specs: i7-11700k, RTX 3070 Ti, 64GB RAM, 1TB M.2 SSD

Squadron:

Capture.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

That supports my point. To lock a cold target you have to change to something with contrast. 

Actually you don't, I just did a quick test, tank was basically invisible in FLIR, but if I cued IR Maverick with targeting pod in TV mode I could get a lock despite not seeing anything in its camera. And it was an actual lock, not force correlate.

It doesn't care about contrast or anything, it just tracks objects, but there are some rules implemented to mimic limitations and imperfections or sensors.

Which is perfectly fine mind you, there is no point in making proper simulation of every little aspect of the game


Edited by Dr_Pavelheer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

Actually you don't, I just did a quick test, tank was basically invisible in FLIR, but if I cued IR Maverick with targeting pod in TV mode I could get a lock despite not seeing anything in its camera. And it was an actual lock, not force correlate.

It doesn't care about contrast or anything, it just tracks objects, but there are some rules implemented to mimic limitations and imperfections or sensors.

Which is perfectly fine mind you, there is no point in making proper simulation of every little aspect of the game

 

So FLIR pod had a different functionality than IR Mav?  Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you have to understand is that visual detection and IR detection in DCS are modeled completely seperate and literally have nothing to do with one another.

DCS handles IR detection by seekers and sensors pretty much like radar, on the other hand targeting pods and missiles with optical guidance work with simple image contrasting to lock objects.

When it comes to IR detection, each object trackable by an IR sensor in DCS has a set maximum IR emission coefficient value which works the same as the RCS simulation in DCS (with the caviat of being variable in conjuction with the engine rpm for vehicles/aircraft). IR seekers/sensors in DCS are mostly based on two values, first its maximum detection range and secondly its sensitivity.

So for an IR seeker/sensor to detect an object in DCS primarily two conditions have to be met: First the object has to be within the max range of the seeker, second the IR emission coefficient value of the object has to be high enough for the seeker/sensor to see it at its current distance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites




So for an IR seeker/sensor to detect an object in DCS primarily two conditions have to be met: First the object has to be within the max range of the seeker, second the IR emission coefficient value of the object has to be high enough for the seeker/sensor to see it at its current distance.


I think DCS simplifies that, it just track objects that are alive under a certain distance. Last time I checked the maverick will lock a tank if under x nm and the crosshair is around it by a margin only when the unit is still "alive". It won't lock when it's destroyed.

Did ED changed that?

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2022 at 1:46 PM, Lurker said:

If Heatblur can get reliable non-classified information that would allow them to simulate this sensor and it's employment I'm sure that they would simulate it. A lot of people seem to forget that a LOT of systems on a military aircraft are difficult if not impossible to simulate simply because there is no reliable first hand information describing their use, and their underlying systems. 

If Heatblur only have access to a certain number of systems that they can reliably simulate, then maybe it's not that they "don't want to" but that they simply can't. 

 

If that would be so, we wouldn't have any DCS 🙂

It's still just a game, and things can be "simulated" in many different ways, one way is to make a thing up, to make it work as you think it does in reality. 

I'm sure there is so many data available out there, that some IR sensor is really not an issue to make it quite realistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

If that would be so, we wouldn't have any DCS 🙂

It's still just a game, and things can be "simulated" in many different ways, one way is to make a thing up, to make it work as you think it does in reality. 

 

I'm sorry but that's not how things work in DCS World, as it goes against everything that Heatblur have stated in the past about their own modules. 

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the way most older military aircraft work is well documented, and theory behind even the advanced ones is publicly known. What isn't known is exact capabilities of those systems, things like detection ranges and such, since that's sensitive information. If you have enough information to estimate their behavior and effectiveness from first principles, you can make them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 часов назад, skywalker22 сказал:

If that would be so, we wouldn't have any DCS 🙂

It's still just a game, and things can be "simulated" in many different ways, one way is to make a thing up, to make it work as you think it does in reality. 

I'm sure there is so many data available out there, that some IR sensor is really not an issue to make it quite realistically.

 

1 час назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

Actually, the way most older military aircraft work is well documented, and theory behind even the advanced ones is publicly known. What isn't known is exact capabilities of those systems, things like detection ranges and such, since that's sensitive information. If you have enough information to estimate their behavior and effectiveness from first principles, you can make them. 

Having data available != being able to use it. We know the Hornet has MSI and can merge A-A radar contacts with datalink contacts (among other lovely things). F-16 does it, F-14 does it, the Flankers do it but the Hornet cannot because ED says documents about Hornet MSI are still classified. That doesn't seem to stop the very same ED from making an entirely fictional MWS display on the Black Shark-3. I hope you can make sense of that (because I can't), my point being it can swing either way and it's up to HB to decide what they can or want to do. And yes, I wouldn't mind hearing from them about this but I guess they are simply not at that stage yet as they work on the Phantom.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are in contact with Kamov, it's possible the MWS display isn't fictional. One thing you need to take into account is that they have to show that they arrived at the classified results independently, from unclassified sources, at least as far as US aircraft go. "I dunno, I just guessed it" is not something that would fly if someone were to accuse ED of leaking classified information. So, the thing with Hornet's MSI might be a legal issue. They can't prove they found that out from an unclassified source, as opposed to an unauthorized disclosure from someone in the know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Typhoon for DCS will probably have the PIRATE available as an option, but I doubt it will be available immediately. Initial featureset will be reminiscent of a German Tranche 1 according to the FAQ.

To be clear, it's not going to be strictly a German Eurofighter. It's just the initial release will likely be reminiscent of one.

 

On 9/28/2022 at 12:12 PM, WarbossPetross said:

We know the Hornet has MSI and can merge A-A radar contacts with datalink contacts (among other lovely things). F-16 does it, F-14 does it, the Flankers do it but the Hornet cannot because ED says documents about Hornet MSI are still classified.

I think you are misunderstanding the whole MSI thing. In DCS, the F-16, F-14, and F/A-18 all correlate datalink with radar contacts. This is correct.

The issue is the ability to set MSI trackfiles as launch+steering targets even when they are not contributed to by radar. In the discussions I've read on this forum, that seems to be the source of contention, as the Hornet and the Hornet alone is argued to have this enhanced capability.

 

Since this is a Eurofighter thread, you may be wondering about the Eurofighter. Judging by what I've seen, it should be even more capable in this sense.

 

This video heavily implies that radar, IRST (if it's mounted), and datalink all work together to create trackfiles, and you can use whichever source from your "toolbox full of tools" to provide guidance for your missile.

 

This is an interesting article from the Eurofighter website on some practical applications of this capability.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120319052436/http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/unique-amraam-firing-with-eurofighter-typhoon.html


Edited by CaptPickguard
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CaptPickguard said:

The Typhoon for DCS will probably have the PIRATE available as an option, but I doubt it will be available immediately. Initial featureset will be reminiscent of a German Tranche 1 according to the FAQ.

To be clear, it's not going to be strictly a German Eurofighter. It's just the initial release will likely be reminiscent of one.

 

I think you are misunderstanding the whole MSI thing. In DCS, the F-16, F-14, and F/A-18 all correlate datalink with radar contacts. This is correct.

The issue is the ability to set MSI trackfiles as launch+steering targets even when they are not contributed to by radar. In the discussions I've read on this forum, that seems to be the source of contention, as the Hornet and the Hornet alone is argued to have this enhanced capability.

 

Since this is a Eurofighter thread, you may be wondering about the Eurofighter. Judging by what I've seen, it should be even more capable in this sense.

 

This video heavily implies that radar, IRST (if it's mounted), and datalink all work together to create trackfiles, and you can use whichever source from your "toolbox full of tools" to provide guidance for your missile.

 

This is an interesting article from the Eurofighter website on some practical applications of this capability.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120319052436/http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/unique-amraam-firing-with-eurofighter-typhoon.html

 

 

So, the whole MSI thing in this community is badly misunderstood as to what it actually is and can do, and more specifically as to when it could do what. And mind you what I'm going to write, is VASTLY oversimplified. 

On a very simple level, in case 1 you have say 3 sensors, your radar, your IRST, and your RWR and lets say a basic INS system. And lets say the year is the early 90's for these capabilities. Which in large part determines how much actual processing power you have to deal with and sort all this data. 

The accuracy of all 3 of these sensors is limited by physics, and I'll simplify that to just dealing with lets say wavelengths and how they are detected.

So lets start our hypothetical scenario, you are flying along all passive like at 500kts heading 000. Your RWR is gonna be your worst sensor with the most ambiguity but it can get you a rough bearing of lets make up a number say 10 degrees. So, this sensor tells the MSI "computer" hey boss ping bearing 340 (the submarine analogy here will become a bit more clear later). So the MSI computer gets an target at an angle of 340 "ish" at time and position X and time Y (time is well known, ownship position less so, but lets say internally referenced its perfect at time Y to 0,0,0), the RWR periodically updates this contact every time Mr. Enemy radar paints over your ship. 

So you being the ace you are think to point your amazing IRST sensor in that general direction and tell it to search whatever volume of space along that bearing line. IRST of course works not on really bad radar wavelengths of whack units like "centimeters" holy cow, how crude is that. IRST works on in the micrometer range (way way way smaller wavelength wise), and therefore the angular accuracy of IRST's is "phenomenal" relative to things like some poor mans 10m long antenna (your RWR) or your radar. Well off your IRST chugs along and lets say a minute later Mr IRST gets a ping at bearing EXACTLY 342.3 degrees. The sensor of course keeps track of this contact. So now at Time Y+1min, at location 0,0,0 + 500kts in the north direction for 1 minute, PLUS whatever INS drift you have in your system in all 3 coordinates. 

Mr MSI computer now has 3 radar ping points over that 1 minute however, and they are still roughly coming 340, 345, and 335 according to your RWR but you have moved in space as well. Whats a poor MSI computer to do? Well ok, so the target is either at 340, 335, 345 or 342.3 degrees. The RWR has a track file that is "on average" 340 degrees. Luckily Mr MSI computer was programmed by a smart man that knew something about physics that realizes well, the IRST sensors is the better sensor but hedging bets the target is likely at 340 degrees or 342.3 degrees, now that is a volume of space, or "solid angle" if you want to think about it this way. Of course Mr. MSI computer can also choose to ignore the RWR track, or in a "computation" give it less weight because we know its a low tier sensor. 
 

Well you keep this up for like 10 minutes flying as due north as you can, the track gradually changes from 342.3 degrees to like 330.7 for the IRST, and you get a bunch of data points on that. Your RWR is still getting lit up, however the tracks are now moving "away" from the IRST track... 

So now for any "submarine sim" fans will know what is happening. We are now building a ranging baseline track on our enemy contact, but instead of relying on absolutely huge sonar waves (many meters long) we are now using IRST tracks, and radar tracks to do the same thing. Now we can start to get range data for our contact from either our IRST or our RWR. However, due to our INS drifting our own ship position is now not a point, its a "sphere" (technically a spheroid). So we now have an estimate of enemy range from 2 sources, our RWR track file, and our IRST track file... They aren't the same, the RWR is giving us one range and the IRST another. Which do we believe. They are roughly coming from the same direction... The other fun bit we have is that our RWR has also classified the target as a mig29 radar, we know the output power of that radar, and we also understand the radar equation, so we now also have in addition to that angle data, some very rough range data from the power of that radar for each "ping" and its getting "closer". 

So at this point the MSI algorithm has merged with various weights, all of these angle rate tracks, along with estimates of range from these sensors, be they angle rate measurements, or radar "strength" measurements. And its now munged all that "data" into an "estimate", which includes within a circle of X miles, heading direction approximately Y, at speed Z. Just like Mr submarines much larger and more capable computer (cuz hey its a submarine), which of course has the same problem, but only one (ish) sensor to solve it with....

Now disaster strikes... the IRST has been totally and utterly defeated by its greatest nemesis. Mr Fluffy McCloud... "sad bzooop" and R2D noises from Mr. IRST ensue... But you just lost that track. Luckily Mr RWR still works through clouds, but now your track file is only being updated by your absolute worst sensor. And Mr. Mig29 in the MSI computers estimate is coming close enough to detect you. 

Being a smart and well trained Ace fighter bro, you quickly cue up the track, and point your might Mr. Radar at it. BZZT... Scan, scan, scan, send cancer out. Ping... Ah well there he is, and now he's at bearing 328, but the range is waay off from your RWR estimate and your IRST estimate of range. But hey this is your fancy fire control radar and your #1 most trusted sensor. 

So now Mr. Radar starts sending Mr. MSI range/bearing/azimuth data. With the standard uncertainty of Mr. Radar (which is really fairly good). And Mr. radar gets weighted MUCH more heavily by Mr. MSI than Mr. RWR who no one trusts, and Mr. IRST that we kinda trust, but he's always a bit dodgy. So now the track files are getting updated quite precisely and you now are starting to build up a very good firing solution on poor Mr. Mig29. Your rather large spheroid of uncertainty of the enemy has now shrunk considerably to a weapons grade firing solution. 

But wait it gets better, Mr. Cloudy McCloud suddenly isn't in the line of site anymore. And the IRST picks up Mr. mig29 again. And starts sending much more accurate bearing data to Mr. MSI which now knows that Mr. IRST is providing superior bearing and azimuth data to further refine the firing solution to a VERY good firing solution for Mr. AAMRAM...

FOX3.... Splash, glory awaits....

So that was the early 90's version of what these systems were capable of doing in general. The F18C has this system, The F15E had this sort of system, the F15C MSIP had this sort of integration, even Blk 40 vipers had some level of this integration. 

What happens next.... in say 2005... You know "DCS MODERN"

Radios is what... (yes turns out "datalinks" are just fancy radios, also turns out "GPS" is a bunch of fancy radios)

Now instead of INS with dodgy errors and bad absolute position error data (I don't know where I am, please god help me) I don't know if I'm here or half a km over there plz halps. In 2005 (or earlier) you have INS plus GPS. You know where your ABSOLUTE ownship is at all times within some error margin of well a few meters, or worst case 10-20meters.... So now all your ownship tracks are much more accurate. But your own tracks are just the start. 

Now instead of just 1 ship. you have 2 ships (or more). Now with a 3 body system, I'm sure the smart guys here will figure out you can do really advanced stuff like... GEOMETRY... Holy cow we can now make "TRIANGLES". Pythagoras would be so proud of us and how we weaponized math. And for those that are in possession of advanced, weapons grade geometry will know, if you have two known points in space, and good angle data, you can fix that 3rd point in space pretty well. But wait it gets better for Mr. MSI... Not only does that work with a 2 ship, it also works even better with different sorts of triangles that you can draw from "multi ship" pictures... And even better Mr. Awacs also gets a vote in the MSI equation (though no one trusts his ass cuz he's using low grade UHF radars with absolute garbage accuracy....)

 

So whats my point with absolute "WALL OF TEXT"... 

In the context of MSI in DCS. Not ED, not Heablur, not Deka, not anyone has access to the level of information to make even a meaningful guess of how these algorithms and sensors work. And no one in the mil industrial complex will give up ANY details on these types of systems or how they work, even if they are 30 years old or more at this point. "best guesses" from ED or heatblur can be made on "basic physics". But since DCS will not, or cannot actually model "basic physics" of these sorts of systems its gonna pretty pointless beyond very general facts like RWR bad at bearings, IRST good, Radar in-between. And the companies that have developed the multi sensor type inegration algorithms and techniques pointed out here at the kindergarten level of understanding that I have laid out will absolutely laugh in ED/subsidiaries faces when asked about details.

So, ask yourself this. Do you really want a "simulator" that can't even begin to simulate how your "uber fighter" actually works in the modern world? And then ask yourself, is that world even simulated all that well, are SAMs as simple as they are in DCS? How "good" is DCS IRST modeling when they currently see through clouds (same question for IR missiles)?

OR is actually realistic combat systems much more possible to simulate (and more fun) in the pre 1990 world? 

This post brought to you by Mr. Coffee
null

image.png


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 3

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2022 at 3:35 AM, Rick Mave said:

It's possible, seeing as weret supposed to get an "amalgamation" of different Eurofighter versions...

Either way, I am extremely excited for the Typhoon.

You shouldn't be. 

I very much doubt HB can actually even remotely model the actual capabilities of Pirate in DCS in any sort of dynamic sense. And that is a job thats probably 1000x easier to do than do anything resembling a good job on how MSI in the Typhoon works. Mind you specific tactics, profiles and flight paths have to be flown to make modern IRST systems work well. Again, is that information going to be public? How much "realism are you willing to give up"

ED hasn't managed to do it with the hornet at all. and that in many ways is far simpler system/sensors than whats going in the typhoon since they are mostly going off 90's era info.

Think about this. You are approaching how actual modern day fighter combat works from the standpoint of baron von richthofen. All he knew was you needed some speed, luck, and how to turn tight, and gun the enemy... All you know from DCS is turn burn, lock contact, shoot fox3 win... 

Modern fighter combat, especially in DCS for most end users at this point is very much a case of "what you don't know". You basically think the typhoon is really awesome 3rd generation fighter... It turns good, it goes fast etc... THAT is NOT what makes the typhoon a good "fighter" IRL for the most part. And while DCS can kind of model that 3rd gen stuff, (and it will be wrong in the actual details). It will be far more right in those 3rd gen details, which are largely irrelevant, because its the sensors that matter most, and thats what DCS does not model well, if at all. And thats before you get further into the knowledge swamp and start adding EW to that mix.

 

 

 


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...