OUO Posted October 15, 2022 Share Posted October 15, 2022 (edited) 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorianR666 Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 looks correct to me. your first image has 6B*20deg and second image 4B*40deg. what is the problem exactly? CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1600X GPU: AMD RX 580 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OUO Posted October 18, 2022 Author Share Posted October 18, 2022 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raus Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 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. GV5Js DATACARD GENERATOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OUO Posted October 18, 2022 Author Share Posted October 18, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solution raus Posted October 18, 2022 Solution Share Posted October 18, 2022 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. GV5Js DATACARD GENERATOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted October 18, 2022 ED Team Share Posted October 18, 2022 Hi, we have taken a look, we are not seeing any issue here. thanks 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...
OUO Posted October 18, 2022 Author Share Posted October 18, 2022 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMouse Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toilet2000 Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 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). 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toilet2000 Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 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. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AroOmega Posted October 27, 2022 Share Posted October 27, 2022 (edited) 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 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recluse Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 (edited) 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmak Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 (edited) 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmak Posted October 28, 2022 Share Posted October 28, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92nd-MajorBug Posted October 29, 2022 Share Posted October 29, 2022 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. 3 92nd Kodiak Air Force - May the Greuh be with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howie87 Posted October 29, 2022 Share Posted October 29, 2022 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recluse Posted October 29, 2022 Share Posted October 29, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob10 Posted October 29, 2022 Share Posted October 29, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92nd-MajorBug Posted October 29, 2022 Share Posted October 29, 2022 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. 1 1 92nd Kodiak Air Force - May the Greuh be with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howie87 Posted October 30, 2022 Share Posted October 30, 2022 (edited) 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92nd-MajorBug Posted October 30, 2022 Share Posted October 30, 2022 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). 3 92nd Kodiak Air Force - May the Greuh be with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howie87 Posted October 30, 2022 Share Posted October 30, 2022 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARLAN_ Posted October 30, 2022 Share Posted October 30, 2022 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. Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AroOmega Posted October 31, 2022 Share Posted October 31, 2022 Is it possible to get the "correct as is" tag removed? @BIGNEWY 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts