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

[JOYFUL_CLOVR]

On 10/11/2022 at 9:56 PM, Harlikwin said:

 

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

 

I'm a simple man, I see a Spaceballs reference, I "like react" it 

Edited October 13, 2022 by JOYFUL_CLOVR

[CaptPickguard]

On 10/11/2022 at 10:20 PM, Harlikwin said:

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.

 

 

 

 

So your take is you shouldn't be excited for the Typhoon because modern DCS has inaccuracies and it will never be fully accurate.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are plenty of people out there who like modern DCS regardless. Not everyone wants to fly grandpa's jet fighter because at least all the rivets are in the right spot.

If you want to rain on the Typhoon parade, at least wait until the module releases so your feedback can be constructive. Until then, as you said, there are other modules to discuss inaccuracies about.

[MRTX]

A lot of these inaccuracies exist throughout all eras of DCS not just with the modern day environment. For example SIGINT and other parts of EW even in the late 60's and 70 played a huge role in air warfare, with the difference asside from performance and capability being that the required technologies were not integrated into every aircraft and vehicle you could find. Yet the environment pilots had to operate in often posed simmilar challanges as todays battlefields.

The fact is that DCS when it comes to the simulation of most sensors is rather superficial. Even something as well documented and studied as radar in DCS barely goes beyond what is needed to give the player a believable interaction with his aircraft and its surroundings. (In 2022 DCS is still using non-directional RCS estimates)

Even the so beloved 80's cold war era can hardly be represented by DCS in a fashion that would truely do justice to the expectations of a realistic warfare simulation. 

The only reason why we suddenly see a handfull of people complaining about it being pointless to try and simulate modern day aicraft in DCS, is the realisation that an aspect that was already missing throughout DCS is suddenly turning into a specific part of an airframe you can point at.

[Rick Mave]

On 10/12/2022 at 4:20 AM, Harlikwin said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Bro you live in a sad, sad world if that's your genuine opinion...

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, Rick Mave said:

 

Bro you live in a sad, sad world if that's your genuine opinion...

Not really, I just have an actual understanding of how alot of this works, and where DCS falls well short. I get it that they "try", but like on the whole MSI thing, that is literally what makes the hornet "good" IRL. But its entirely missing this system. "Modern" fighter combat isn't about dogfighting, and turning and burning etc. Its 100% about networked sensor systems and who sees the other guy first, gets a solution on them first and kills them BVR first. But literally no plane we have in DCS has any of that modeled from a sensor standpoint. Instead we have the 3rd generation part of 4th gen planes modeled but mostly not any of the 4th or 4th gen+ parts. 

What is sad is that most "modern" DCS players don't actually understand this. 

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Harlikwin

[Rick Mave]

29 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Not really, I just have an actual understanding of how alot of this works, and where DCS falls well short. I get it that they "try", but like on the whole MSI thing, that is literally what makes the hornet "good" IRL. But its entirely missing this system. "Modern" fighter combat isn't about dogfighting, and turning and burning etc. Its 100% about networked sensor systems and who sees the other guy first, gets a solution on them first and kills them BVR first. But literally no plane we have in DCS has any of that modeled from a sensor standpoint. Instead we have the 3rd generation part of 4th gen planes modeled but mostly not any of the 4th or 4th gen+ parts. 

What is sad is that most "modern" DCS players don't actually understand this. 

 

 

ZzZzZzzz

[JOYFUL_CLOVR]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Not really, I just have an actual understanding of how alot of this works, and where DCS falls well short. I get it that they "try", but like on the whole MSI thing, that is literally what makes the hornet "good" IRL. But its entirely missing this system. "Modern" fighter combat isn't about dogfighting, and turning and burning etc. Its 100% about networked sensor systems and who sees the other guy first, gets a solution on them first and kills them BVR first. But literally no plane we have in DCS has any of that modeled from a sensor standpoint. Instead we have the 3rd generation part of 4th gen planes modeled but mostly not any of the 4th or 4th gen+ parts. 

What is sad is that most "modern" DCS players don't actually understand this. 

 

 

I've read through your previous posts... At the end of the day, this is a game, and for ~97% of the player base this is a past time, and an outlet of fun. One could argue that NO module is made 100% to it's real life counterpart. I think it was important for HB to set the expectation early with the fact that this is an "amalgamation" build which gives HB/TG some leeway in terms of what to build. With that in mind, you shouldn't need to scrutinize any possibility of a system just because YOU haven't seen public data on the matter. Remember, the lead person on this project is a previous Eurofighter pilot. If you're that worried about this module being a waste in terms of realism, don't buy it. Nothing, and let me be clear, NOTHING in DCS is perfect, and we should take everything with a grain of salt. Sit back, relax, and have some fun

Edited October 15, 2022 by JOYFUL_CLOVR

[MRTX]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Harlikwin:

Not really, I just have an actual understanding of how alot of this works, and where DCS falls well short. I get it that they "try", but like on the whole MSI thing, that is literally what makes the hornet "good" IRL. But its entirely missing this system. "Modern" fighter combat isn't about dogfighting, and turning and burning etc. Its 100% about networked sensor systems and who sees the other guy first, gets a solution on them first and kills them BVR first. But literally no plane we have in DCS has any of that modeled from a sensor standpoint. Instead we have the 3rd generation part of 4th gen planes modeled but mostly not any of the 4th or 4th gen+ parts. 

What is sad is that most "modern" DCS players don't actually understand this. 

 

 

If we go back to the Eurofighter conversation and leave jamming aside (lets see how long ED will take to make their "Improvments" to it) i can't put a finger on any feature/system of the DASS, Datalink and Radar that is publically known that couldn't be simulated in DCS with an early German Eurofighter comprised of tranche 1 and 2 systems. The General capabilities and performance approximations are out there, and with Heatblur having ex Eurofighter pilots as their SME's i hardly believe that these features can't be achieved in a realistic/believable manner.

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, MRTX said:

If we go back to the Eurofighter conversation and leave jamming aside (lets see how long ED will take to make their "Improvments" to it) i can't put a finger on any feature/system of the DASS, Datalink and Radar that is publically known that couldn't be simulated in DCS with an early German Eurofighter comprised of tranche 1 and 2 systems. The General capabilities and performance approximations are out there, and with Heatblur having ex Eurofighter pilots as their SME's i hardly believe that these features can't be achieved in a realistic/believable manner.

MSI probably can't/wont be done well, but on the upside at least HB won't have to try to model a modern IRST like PIRATE for the German Trache1/2. The main issue is DCS itself, IRL all sensors have limitations and uncertainties, which for the most part aside from razbam and the M2k radar for example are absolutely not modeled at all in DCS. Like the F18 and 16 radars both should similar problems in similar situations, but ED doesn't model it. IRL that radar contact is basically a "sphere" with a plane somewhere in it, that sphere of uncertainty gets smaller as you get closer. No one models that, which is why RAID for example is worthless in DCS because all aircraft show up as discrete contacts even when they shouldn't.

And this "sphere" is highly relevant for weapons performance. Imagine shooting your aamram in TWS against a sphere with like a 5 mile uncertainty. Well Mr AAMRAM can go, and hopefully when his radar is turned on he can find the enemy AC in that sphere still even though its not where the Viper radar told him its at, rather its like 3 miles to left and 3000ft higher. Which incidentally is why no one in the real world would want to use TWS for actual engagements, and used STT when possible, because the actual errors when using those modes were less due to much faster update times, i.e. Mr Radar has 5000 hits on a target to figure out exactly where it is instead of say 500 or 100. But again, uncertainty is not modeled in DCS, even though its highly relevant for modern modules. 

 

3 hours ago, JOYFUL_CLOVR said:

I've read through your previous posts... At the end of the day, this is a game, and for ~97% of the player base this is a past time, and an outlet of fun. One could argue that NO module is made 100% to it's real life counterpart. I think it was important for HB to set the expectation early with the fact that this is an "amalgamation" build which gives HB/TG some leeway in terms of what to build. With that in mind, you shouldn't need to scrutinize any possibility of a system just because YOU haven't seen public data on the matter. Remember, the lead person on this project is a previous Eurofighter pilot. If you're that worried about this module being a waste in terms of realism, don't buy it. Nothing, and let me be clear, NOTHING in DCS is perfect, and we should take everything with a grain of salt. Sit back, relax, and have some fun

 

You have no idea what I have or havent seen, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts its more than you.  But the point being is that public data to check against is very useful for the community. And for modules much past the 90's you most folks aren't gonna see it, which makes checking accuracy of a module hard, meaning the overall quality of the model is lower. And its much easier and "safer" for everyone to work from public docs.

That being said, even HB didn't model systems like the APX70 combat tree (VN era system) in the F14, because there likely aren't enough docs out there on it, or how it interacted with soviet era IFF systems. Even though literally most "in the know" people in the community know it has it. Does that effect how you employ the F14? You bet it does, and it leaves the module less capable than it was IRL. 

And if your expectation is they can do "better" with modern jets, well I guess you can think that but very few other people will. As for the EF pilot comment, do you think he is credibly giving up any actually classified info he can goto jail for? LOL... Nope. At best he's probably providing a level of disinformation making sure nothing too sensitive actually gets modeled too correctly since it has actual national security implications, cuz you know he took an oath at some point. So yeah, his commentary on the FM might be useful, or not. Since that matters alot less than say classified performance data on sensors or missiles etc. Esp since those are still in use.

Edited October 16, 2022 by Harlikwin

[bies]

One thing to add, when it comes to the title: simple rudimentary Cold War IR sensors on aircrafts like F-101 Voodo, F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart, J-35 Draken, MiG-23M, MiG-25PD, F-8 Crusader, F-4B Phantom, F-14A Tomcat, MiG-29A, Su-27S etc. - had totally different capabilities compared to PIRATE FLIR/IRST used by Italian, Spanish and British Eurofighters.

PIRATE works similar to radar, capable of detecting and tracking multiple targets with incomparably greater range due to sensitivity order of magnitude greater compared to Cold War IR systems and big advances in computer technology. It works like TWS tracking some 500 targets at once computing their positions, coupled with helmet sight, possibly identifying them etc. Details are obviously strictly classified.

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, bies said:

One thing to add, when it comes to the title: simple rudimentary Cold War IR sensors on aircrafts like F-101 Voodo, F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart, J-35 Draken, MiG-23M, MiG-25PD, F-8 Crusader, F-4B Phantom, F-14A Tomcat, MiG-29A, Su-27S etc. - had totally different capabilities compared to PIRATE FLIR/IRST used by Italian, Spanish and British Eurofighters.

PIRATE works similar to radar, capable of detecting and tracking multiple targets with incomparably greater range due to sensitivity order of magnitude greater compared to Cold War IR systems and big advances in computer technology. It works like TWS tracking some 500 targets at once computing their positions, coupled with helmet sight, possibly identifying them etc. Details are obviously strictly classified.

Absolutely correct. And those early systems are currently badly modeled in DCS (IR sees through clouds, no IR clutter etc). And pirate is a quantum leap (literally for the detector  ) above those sorts of older sensors, and yes it can basically create and correlate track files as well as ID targets in some case like NCTR and has much better resolution than radar so it can do stuff like "RAID" (well it doesn't need to it is more the point). And honestly beyond, "broad" descriptions, no one is going to disclose much beyond the most general details of those capabilities. 

[Dragon1-1]

The physics are the same, though. Note that in DCS, we don't have to emulate the exact workings of the system. IRST is basically an IR camera that's sweeping back and forth and instead of producing an image, it finds spots likely to be aircraft. There's no magic there, PIRATE is just very, very good at this, classified stuff doesn't necessarily enter into what's need to model it in DCS. If the mechanization is known, we can have it. In fact, note that all those spiffy accuracy-improving things about MSI aren't needed in DCS since track accuracy isn't simulated, and if it sometimes makes it in, it'll likely be a random error that's decreased based on which sensors are tracking the target (the physics behind it would be very taxing to calculate, in any case). MSI is also easy compared to IRL, just check which sensors are tracking a given game object. Inner workings of the systems are irrelevant.

I wouldn't be so sure about NCTR, this would require image recognition which is hard enough for modern machine learning systems. In mid-2000s even a limited variant would be questionable. It's possible that it can do it at close range from a specific angle, and if the target is against the sky.

[F-2]

What’s more many aspects of DCS are simplified. We know ECM regardless of Era is basically estimated in-spite of its importance to tactics. To date only the Mirage 2000 RDI has some fundamental aspects of Radar behavior in-spite of its importance to tactics, while I expect others to follies that will be sometime. If we wanted to call purity on everything we would be lucky to have WWI aircraft. I don’t disagree realism shouldn’t always be the goal or that I wouldn’t rather an earlier aircraft without said feature if possible, but rejecting something because it has to be simplified when the experience can otherwise be done very realistically isn’t a hill any DCS fan can die on without being a hypocrite.

[Harker]

The physics are the same, though. Note that in DCS, we don't have to emulate the exact workings of the system. IRST is basically an IR camera that's sweeping back and forth and instead of producing an image, it finds spots likely to be aircraft. There's no magic there, PIRATE is just very, very good at this, classified stuff doesn't necessarily enter into what's need to model it in DCS. If the mechanization is known, we can have it. In fact, note that all those spiffy accuracy-improving things about MSI aren't needed in DCS since track accuracy isn't simulated, and if it sometimes makes it in, it'll likely be a random error that's decreased based on which sensors are tracking the target (the physics behind it would be very taxing to calculate, in any case). MSI is also easy compared to IRL, just check which sensors are tracking a given game object. Inner workings of the systems are irrelevant.
I wouldn't be so sure about NCTR, this would require image recognition which is hard enough for modern machine learning systems. In mid-2000s even a limited variant would be questionable. It's possible that it can do it at close range from a specific angle, and if the target is against the sky.

I agree with this line of thinking. We only care about the system's output, not its inner workings, in DCS. An IRST seeker can very well be programmed like a radar, just with different parameters. So, we can certainly get an IRST that is capable of TWS-like operation and trackfile generation (the ATFLIR in the Hornet should also have that capability for A/A and contribute to MSI). Razbam already has a pretty nice hotspot tracker on the AV-8BNA, which can also give false positives. Did they program it like a radar, more or less? Probably.

As for other limitations, Razbam again has showed that it's possible to model effects on sensors. Adding a detection coefficient based on LOS, to account for clouds between the player and the attempted target aircraft is not impossible. This is the same reason why people ask for MSI in the Hornet. We don't have the capability of such interactions in DCS now, but it's something that can be added, if the developer wants it to.

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Harker said:

I agree with this line of thinking. We only care about the system's output, not its inner workings, in DCS. An IRST seeker can very well be programmed like a radar, just with different parameters. So, we can certainly get an IRST that is capable of TWS-like operation and trackfile generation (the ATFLIR in the Hornet should also have that capability for A/A and contribute to MSI). Razbam already has a pretty nice hotspot tracker on the AV-8BNA, which can also give false positives. Did they program it like a radar, more or less? Probably.

As for other limitations, Razbam again has showed that it's possible to model effects on sensors. Adding a detection coefficient based on LOS, to account for clouds between the player and the attempted target aircraft is not impossible. This is the same reason why people ask for MSI in the Hornet. We don't have the capability of such interactions in DCS now, but it's something that can be added, if the developer wants it to.

You can't really do much with the system "output" without actually knowing at least in some detail how it actually does work. And respectfully no, an IRST seeker works nothing like a radar in the sense you don't get "range" from an IRST without doing some fancy things. So no, unless you know how to model how exactly the IRST is getting ranging info, and how "good" or "bad" that info is (and in many cases its going to be bad) you can't really model it well. 

I would not call what Razbam did with the HST "good" not even remotely. All it does is mark all "units" in the hud, and generate some "not-so random" noise. It doesn't operate in game at all like an HST, nor does it even remotely replicate what that display should look like. Yes there should be noise, but its very much not random. But they did the best they could with the state the game is in. I had high hopes for the FLIR remodel would let them model some of what those false signals should look like, but thats apparently not how it works. 

And like all IR systems currently it sees through clouds, that is pretty basic thing to get right about IRST's and IR seekers, and yet like what 2 years later since the clouds were introduced we still have this not so minor problem?

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The physics are the same, though. Note that in DCS, we don't have to emulate the exact workings of the system. IRST is basically an IR camera that's sweeping back and forth and instead of producing an image, it finds spots likely to be aircraft. There's no magic there, PIRATE is just very, very good at this, classified stuff doesn't necessarily enter into what's need to model it in DCS. If the mechanization is known, we can have it. In fact, note that all those spiffy accuracy-improving things about MSI aren't needed in DCS since track accuracy isn't simulated, and if it sometimes makes it in, it'll likely be a random error that's decreased based on which sensors are tracking the target (the physics behind it would be very taxing to calculate, in any case). MSI is also easy compared to IRL, just check which sensors are tracking a given game object. Inner workings of the systems are irrelevant.

I wouldn't be so sure about NCTR, this would require image recognition which is hard enough for modern machine learning systems. In mid-2000s even a limited variant would be questionable. It's possible that it can do it at close range from a specific angle, and if the target is against the sky.

The very basic physics are the same, and not hard to calculate or approximate in real time. And FYI pirate does both, it absolutely is used as an imaging FLIR. And yes classified stuff absolutely plays a big role into how it actually is able to generate those tracks with the accuracy it does, and no one is going to tell you how accurately its actually capable of doing it. As for "accuracy" not being modeled in DCS IMO its pretty criminal that it isn't since literally the last 40 years of sensor development have been all about how to reduce "uncertainity" in all of these sensor systems, and using sensor fusion techniques and track files and kallman filters etc. Do you need to model it all down to the last detail? No, you can't and it would be hard. But the fact that DCS has not even attempted to do it outside of the M2k radar is a real shame, because it is doable in broad strokes (as the M2k shows), and if it were done consistently right in the major modules, you'd actually see some very big functional gameplay differences between sensors on a mig21, the mirage F1, and the F18 for example. Which would lead to some serious gameplay changes for all of those modules. But as it stands in DCS a radar from the 1960's is just as good as one from the early 2000's, with literally no drawbacks modeled. And the fact from a radar standpoint that you can fly a mig21 like an F18 is well, not particularly realistic.

Simply put, from a sensor standpoint, the defining characteristics of Gen2 fighters was that they had any sort of radar at all, and they were terrible by modern standards, Gen3 greatly improved the functionality of those radars allowing to do stuff like lookdown shootdown, and finally gen4 made those radars good, longer ranged, easy to used, and integrated them with other sensors, and really most us gen4/4.5 fighters have stuff like MSI, its just not modeled much/well in DCS. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

16 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

And yes classified stuff absolutely plays a big role into how it actually is able to generate those tracks with the accuracy it does, and no one is going to tell you how accurately its actually capable of doing it.

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter how it's doing it. If accuracy can be estimated from public data, that's all we need. In the current DCS version, not even that, since it'll always be perfect. You don't care how it achieves its accuracy, just, at best, in what ballpark the accuracy is. The technologies that a sensor uses don't matter because we're not simulating a physical system. What matters is the results that the pilot gets.

18 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Simply put, from a sensor standpoint, the defining characteristics of Gen2 fighters was that they had any sort of radar at all, and they were terrible by modern standards, Gen3 greatly improved the functionality of those radars allowing to do stuff like lookdown shootdown, and finally gen4 made those radars good, longer ranged, easy to used, and integrated them with other sensors, and really most us gen4/4.5 fighters have stuff like MSI, its just not modeled much/well in DCS. 

Except that's not really true. What matters, from tactical standpoint, is detection. DCS models that. Once you've detected it, you don't care if your target is a mile off to the left or right, in fact, in most cases the display introduces a significant error because it represents, say, 40 miles of airspace in 1024 pixels. That gives you 72m per pixel (of course, real errors are typically much higher). A missile does, but realistically only the Fox 3s do, since Fox 1s work off reflected radar waves and thus increase in accuracy as they close in. In practice, how accurate, in absolute terms, your radar is does not affect your tactics in any way.

In fact, aircraft we have do not render the radar contacts on any sort of map display. Even the F-18's map will not display track files, only SA page does, and it doesn't show the map (and it would be rather useless if it did). As such, absolute accuracy or lack thereof would be pretty irrelevant. If you're close enough to get tally, even early radars were good enough to tell you roughly where to look (that is, if you didn't get tally before the contact even appeared, a real risk with 2nd gen systems). The biggest thing not modeled in DCS is contact separation, right now it's only limited by the display itself, and that means you can't do the close trail trick the MiGs did in Top Gun. That was a serious limitation of the radars at the time. This is not a matter of accuracy, but resolution, which is a somewhat different thing.

[draconus]

On 10/20/2022 at 8:24 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

The biggest thing not modeled in DCS is contact separation...

Tomcat says hi.

Edited October 25, 2022 by draconus

[Dragon1-1]

Tomcat models it, and I think the Mirage does, too, but modern radars are no better at seeing through another airframe than old ones, and at long ranges the contacts should merge together even in the Viper and Hornet.

[Southernbear]

The answer to the OP's question is yes, it will have it. Gero has stated at least twice in interviews and this picture was given in a progress report back in 2020

Edited October 30, 2022 by Southernbear

[Spectre11]

A 3D model is one thing, implementing the sensor from a simulation point of view another thing. That's not to say it's going to happen or not, but keep in mind that a German variant of the aircraft is thus far planned to be developed which has no IRST/FLIR. If at a later time other nations' aircraft will be covered as well this may change, but if I hazard a guess here it will take a lot of time considering EA and subsequent development of all features, before we can really expect variants thereof.

[MRTX]

Another big problem which i see is the fact that nobody at truegrit has any firsthand experience with using PIRATE apart from maybe a mission trainer. And since the exact performance of PIRATE is classified and the public info either without context or unprecise, there is no way of at least guesstimating its performance without some SME's who actually have used PIRATE irl. (And have fun finding any SME who's allowed to disclose such information)

[Spectre11]

I'd say that this is a general problem with regard to sensor performance in any computer game produced for the public consumer market. Be it radar, IRST, RWR, ECM performance or whatever. The underlying algorithms are design engineering data that are typically not available either. I sometimes wonder what some people here expect from a game... Join the airforce or industry and get a job to fly the real thing. If you can't, or don't want then accept that flying such aircraft in a commercial flight simulator produced for entertainment purposes always come with strings attached.

[Harlikwin]

18 hours ago, MRTX said:

Another big problem which i see is the fact that nobody at truegrit has any firsthand experience with using PIRATE apart from maybe a mission trainer. And since the exact performance of PIRATE is classified and the public info either without context or unprecise, there is no way of at least guesstimating its performance without some SME's who actually have used PIRATE irl. (And have fun finding any SME who's allowed to disclose such information)

Thats the fundamental problem, there is some general info on it, and of course the basic physics of it. But actual helpful details, not so much.

 

6 hours ago, Spectre11 said:

I'd say that this is a general problem with regard to sensor performance in any computer game produced for the public consumer market. Be it radar, IRST, RWR, ECM performance or whatever. The underlying algorithms are design engineering data that are typically not available either. I sometimes wonder what some people here expect from a game... Join the airforce or industry and get a job to fly the real thing. If you can't, or don't want then accept that flying such aircraft in a commercial flight simulator produced for entertainment purposes always come with strings attached.

Well, thats where I'd say you are both wrong and right. For example you can do a pretty good job with older systems, since there is a good amount of information on them, and you can basic physics to fill in the gaps. I.e. the RDI radar on the M2k, or the AWG-9 to various degrees are pretty well known how they work. I.e. you can build a radar model which is what Raz did with the RDI, and hey you have false targets in certain situations, when you are in situation A/B/C. Is it 100% right in terms of things like false alarm rate? No, that part is likely an educated guess. But it ticks most of the boxes of "simulation". 

[F-2]

56 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Thats the fundamental problem, there is some general info on it, and of course the basic physics of it. But actual helpful details, not so much.

 

Well, thats where I'd say you are both wrong and right. For example you can do a pretty good job with older systems, since there is a good amount of information on them, and you can basic physics to fill in the gaps. I.e. the RDI radar on the M2k, or the AWG-9 to various degrees are pretty well known how they work. I.e. you can build a radar model which is what Raz did with the RDI, and hey you have false targets in certain situations, when you are in situation A/B/C. Is it 100% right in terms of things like false alarm rate? No, that part is likely an educated guess. But it ticks most of the boxes of "simulation". 

Neither of those are physics based though. There are only a handful of radars with very detailed documentation in the public domain, I’m really only aware of AWG-10 and the IEEE papers on APG-66. Almost all of it is educated guesswork based off what info is available and cleaver implementation. this is very true with old radars and their quirks and pre solid state hardware. If Raz can do a convincing multi mode pulse Doppler radar like RDI and it seems APG-70 then I don’t see why the benefit of the doubt shouldn’t be extended to a proven team with a number of subject matter experts and industry support. This should be considered in light of True Grits alter ego The Adams group which is aiming to develop a professional version of the sim.