reported some problems with AZ/EL pages

[OUO]

The AZ/EL page shows that the radar FOV range does not match the actual.

Or is it that the upper and lower limits of radar scanning have become smaller?

AZ.trk

Edited October 15, 2022 by OUO

[dorianR666]

looks correct to me. your first image has 6B*20deg and second image 4B*40deg.

what is the problem exactly?

[OUO]

2分钟前，dorianR666说：

looks correct to me. your first image has 6B*20deg and second image 4B*40deg.

what is the problem exactly?

the target displayed on the AZ/EL page is already within the FOV, but the scanning range of the radar page cannot cover the height of the target

[raus]

I am not really sure at which range is the FOV of the AZ/EL displayed, I guess, in this case, at 80nm?? Anyway, the height bracket on the Attack Radar is displayed at the exact distance of the radar cursor, in the examples, roughly 40-50nm (one is further away than the other). So, it might very well be, IMHO.

[OUO]

15分钟前，raus说：

I am not really sure at which range is the FOV of the AZ/EL displayed, I guess, in this case, at 80nm?? Anyway, the height bracket on the Attack Radar is displayed at the exact distance of the radar cursor, in the examples, roughly 40-50nm (one is further away than the other). So, it might very well be, IMHO.

This yellow box is the radar scanning field of view.

[raus]

35 minutes ago, OUO said:

This yellow box is the radar scanning field of view

Indeed, in AZimuth and ELevation... but at what distance? The volume covered by the radar is not a parallelogram, and you will not be covering the same height 2nm away from your plane, as 80nm away from it. That is what I meant, I think the yellow box represents the radar coverage at a given distance, which might or might not be the same at which you put your Attack Radar cursor, and therefore the mismatch.

 

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

we have taken a look, we are not seeing any issue here. 

thanks

[OUO]

42分钟前，raus说：

Indeed, in AZimuth and ELevation... but at what distance? The volume covered by the radar is not a parallelogram, and you will not be covering the same height 2nm away from your plane, as 80nm away from it. That is what I meant, I think the yellow box represents the radar coverage at a given distance, which might or might not be the same at which you put your Attack Radar cursor, and therefore the mismatch.

 

well, forgot that the AZ/EL pages change based on the radar page distance, not the radar's cursor

[DMouse]

Ok so the parameters have changed from first to second image.

First Image:

Target Range 60nm

6bar scan 

20 degree azimuth

Second Image:

Target Range 50nm

4 bar scan

40 degree azimuth.

It all looks good to me  I'll let you do the math but the AZ/EL box looks correct.

[toilet2000]

46 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

we have taken a look, we are not seeing any issue here. 

thanks

Should the AZ/EL page be in terms of azimuth and elevation, as in the vertical angle, not altitude at X range?

Don't have the docs close to me and I could be wrong, but given the name of the page it seems logical that both axis should be angles and not the horizontal axis being an angle (azimuth) and the vertical axis being a distance (altitude at X range).

[toilet2000]

1 hour ago, raus said:

Indeed, in AZimuth and ELevation... but at what distance? The volume covered by the radar is not a parallelogram, and you will not be covering the same height 2nm away from your plane, as 80nm away from it. That is what I meant, I think the yellow box represents the radar coverage at a given distance, which might or might not be the same at which you put your Attack Radar cursor, and therefore the mismatch.

 

Do you have source on that? AFAIK, the AZ/EL page is Azimuth vs Elevation (both angles), not Azimuth vs Altitude.

[AroOmega]

 

On 10/18/2022 at 9:46 AM, raus said:

Indeed, in AZimuth and ELevation... but at what distance? The volume covered by the radar is not a parallelogram, and you will not be covering the same height 2nm away from your plane, as 80nm away from it. That is what I meant, I think the yellow box represents the radar coverage at a given distance, which might or might not be the same at which you put your Attack Radar cursor, and therefore the mismatch.

 

If that's correct that's news to me. I thought the page showed azimuth and elevation (hence the name "AZ/EL")--it's a c-scope right? So if a yellow dot is drawn showing what my radar is pointing at, it will be pointing the same no matter what distance the target is at.

Here's a visual. All targets in the yellow should be between the highest and lowest scan lines. Distance should have no effect on my visualization of the box. If you look at the images posted by OP, the target (angels 6) is outside of the scan zone (angels 12-68) but still shown within the box.

Am I missing something? OP didn't describe it well and I think some replies just missed the numbers on the radar page?

Edited October 27, 2022 by AroOmega

[Recluse]

I am curious about this as well and the diagram above very clearly illustrates my confusion. I would expect that the target below the cone would NOT show up in the AZ/EL constraints, but it clearly DOES, yet it cannot be locked up as it is outside the scan range.  I would expect from all the tutorials I have watched (and perhaps WRONGLY) that a datalinked contact within the yellow box of the AZ/EL page SHOULD be within constraints to be locked up by your radar. Now it is clear that it DOES also depend on PRF/Distance/Aspect which could preclude a lock, but I wouldn't have expected the target shown by OP to be shown within the AZ/EL constraints.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Recluse

[Jarmak]

On 10/18/2022 at 9:46 AM, raus said:

Indeed, in AZimuth and ELevation... but at what distance? The volume covered by the radar is not a parallelogram, and you will not be covering the same height 2nm away from your plane, as 80nm away from it. That is what I meant, I think the yellow box represents the radar coverage at a given distance, which might or might not be the same at which you put your Attack Radar cursor, and therefore the mismatch.

 

This is incorrect, the Y scale on the AZ/EL is given as an upper and lower angle, not altitude. The distance to target does not change the scan volume as given by an angular measurement. 

To give a little more explanation, what changes with distance on the AZ/EL page is the linear distance the bounds of the box represent. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Jarmak
more info

[Jarmak]

21 hours ago, AroOmega said:

 

If that's correct that's news to me. I thought the page showed azimuth and elevation (hence the name "AZ/EL")--it's a c-scope right? So if a yellow dot is drawn showing what my radar is pointing at, it will be pointing the same no matter what distance the target is at.

Here's a visual. All targets in the yellow should be between the highest and lowest scan lines. Distance should have no effect on my visualization of the box. If you look at the images posted by OP, the target (angels 6) is outside of the scan zone (angels 12-68) but still shown within the box.

Am I missing something? OP didn't describe it well and I think some replies just missed the numbers on the radar page?

 

No you're not missing anything, those two pages are showing contradictory information. It is impossible that this is correct as is, both pages can't both be correct when they contradict each other. 

[92nd-MajorBug]

On the AZ/EL page the contact is shown within radar scan bounds. On the radar page the same contact is shown outside radar scan bounds. The contradiction is quite obvious indeed. Great find by OP.

[howie87]

Does the box on the AZ/EL page slew up and down as you change the radar elevation? Just wondering if it might be fixed in place, which could be causing the issue?

[Recluse]

YES the box slews up and down with radar elevation changes.  I have to say, last night I used it extensively and I didn't notice this issue. It seemed that targets within the AZ/EL box were also in constraints for the radar.  SEEMS to be working for me pretty consistently, but I can't say 100% that the original Post situation might not happen.

[rob10]

6 hours ago, 92nd-MajorBug said:

On the AZ/EL page the contact is shown within radar scan bounds. On the radar page the same contact is shown outside radar scan bounds. The contradiction is quite obvious indeed. Great find by OP.

You'd be correct *IF* the FOV box adjusted with the range you have the TDC cursor at (i.e. the box changed as you moved from TDC cursor from 60 nm in the 1st, to 40 nm in the 2nd).  The FOV box in the AZ/EL doesn't represent the FOV at the TDC cursor location.  It changes size base on BAR setting and AZIMUTH setting.  I haven't found exactly what distance the box represents vertically (obviously it's set to the angle indicated top/bottom right side, but 15 or 30 degrees at 10 ft distance is much smaller area than 15 or 30 degrees at 10 nm, so it has to be representing the angle at some set distance).  The numbers beside the TDC box adjust based on distance from your aircraft, so as you move it closer it will become narrower.

[92nd-MajorBug]

2 hours ago, rob10 said:

You'd be correct *IF* the FOV box adjusted with the range you have the TDC cursor at (i.e. the box changed as you moved from TDC cursor from 60 nm in the 1st, to 40 nm in the 2nd).  The FOV box in the AZ/EL doesn't represent the FOV at the TDC cursor location.  It changes size base on BAR setting and AZIMUTH setting.  I haven't found exactly what distance the box represents vertically (obviously it's set to the angle indicated top/bottom right side, but 15 or 30 degrees at 10 ft distance is much smaller area than 15 or 30 degrees at 10 nm, so it has to be representing the angle at some set distance).  The numbers beside the TDC box adjust based on distance from your aircraft, so as you move it closer it will become narrower.

 

4 minutes ago, howie87 said:

Think of the AL/EL box as being a view of the max/min radar limit at a fixed range i.e. 120nm, 80nm, 40nm etc. 

 

Nope, it isn't. Straight from the manual :

Quote

The azimuth-over-elevation (AZ/EL) format displays a forward-looking view of targets detected by the radar and other sensors. Unlike the normal Attack Radar format, which is a top-down B-scope display, the AZ/EL format is a boresight display, showing the “view out the nose.” The AZ/EL page combines HAFU symbols from the multi-sensor integration (MSI) platform with returns detected by either the radar or the FLIR

The yellow box shows the FOV of the radar, depending on the horizontal angle and vertical number of bars selected. This has nothing to do with any distance. The distances you can select on the AZ/EL OSB's are related to the IFF automatic scan (which has its own bugs: contacts replying to an IFF ping but invisible to the radar won't appear, but that's another issue)

In other words, the screenshots provided by OP display a clear contradiction between the radar and AZ/EL. If the target is outside of vertical scan limits at cursor distance, it should also be outside of the yellow box on the AZ/EL page, and vice versa.

@AroOmega's little schematic further explains the issue nicely.

[howie87]

Apologies, you're absolutely right. After reading the manual, the AZ/EL box should show the radar FOV and there are no distance markers because it shows angle, not altitude. This is definitely not 'correct as is'. 

On 10/18/2022 at 3:18 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

we have taken a look, we are not seeing any issue here. 

thanks

Would you please ask the team to take another look at this?

The below image demonstrates the issue perfectly.

The target (angels 6) is outside of the scan zone (angels 12-68) but still shown within the AZ/EL radar FOV box.

Edited October 30, 2022 by howie87

[92nd-MajorBug]

No worries, things can be confusing. However this is absolutely not "solved" or"correct as is". With all the evidence provided (including a track) ED should take a look. This is the whole point of AZ/EL to show exactly what the radar can see (or not).

[howie87]

Yeah, I set up a quick test mission tonight with a target at 5k ft. AZ/EL mode shows the AWACS datalink track within the radar FOV but with the TDC over the target my scan volume was like 12-30k ft. Definitely not working correctly.

[MARLAN_]

Maybe the contacts should be "normalized" such that they are appropriately displayed inside or outside of the AZ/EL scan volume for their range.

I haven't looked into how it works IRL, this is just a logical assumption based on the fact the entire point of the scan volume box is to quickly indicate to the pilot if the contact is inside their vertical scan volume.

[AroOmega]

Is it possible to get the "correct as is" tag removed? @BIGNEWY