F-14 v2.8 - Jamming, JESTER, and Headless Bodies!

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Rapierarch:

Others?

A-6, AI A-6, AI J-35 Draken?

[Callsign JoNay]

Of all the things in this new patch that I'm most curious about, it's jammer burn through range. Will it be the standard 29 nm that the APG-68 and 73 get burn through? Or does the more powerful AWG-9 give us more burn through range? The AWG is roughly twice as powerful as the 68 and 73 in terms of range, so I'm hoping the burn through range will also be double, around 58nm +/- a few. 

I was very excited to do some testing today but it looks like the patch got delayed to tomorrow. Any chance the HB team can give us a hint at when to expect burn through? Pretty please? 

[IronMike]

22 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Of all the things in this new patch that I'm most curious about, it's jammer burn through range. Will it be the standard 29 nm that the APG-68 and 73 get burn through? Or does the more powerful AWG-9 give us more burn through range? The AWG is roughly twice as powerful as the 68 and 73 in terms of range, so I'm hoping the burn through range will also be double, around 58nm +/- a few. 

I was very excited to do some testing today but it looks like the patch got delayed to tomorrow. Any chance the HB team can give us a hint at when to expect burn through? Pretty please? 

Due to how jamming is in DCS, the standard burnthrough ranges are featured, and vary with the type of aircraft that is jamming only.

[Spurts]

16 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Due to how jamming is in DCS, the standard burnthrough ranges are featured, and vary with the type of aircraft that is jamming only.

Can you share more info on that?  It's the first I've heard of it, I thought DCS did a default 40% of normal detection range or something

[Callsign JoNay]

44 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Due to how jamming is in DCS, the standard burnthrough ranges are featured, and vary with the type of aircraft that is jamming only.

RIP

[Redounet]

U managed to burry the f14 even more after destroying the aim54 now u cant even track ai f15 or 18s

Trying to get realism is nice but not when dcs core jamming is not realistic 

Another update ill have to skip at launch everytime until i manage to reverse engineer your crypted files

Edited October 26, 2022 by Redounet

[captain_dalan]

Wait,  so the developer (of a given plane) decides the burn-through range that its jammer allows? Is this at least different for different radars, or is it equivalent to a worker's salary in a communist country ? 

[Harker]

Of all the things in this new patch that I'm most curious about, it's jammer burn through range. Will it be the standard 29 nm that the APG-68 and 73 get burn through? Or does the more powerful AWG-9 give us more burn through range? The AWG is roughly twice as powerful as the 68 and 73 in terms of range, so I'm hoping the burn through range will also be double, around 58nm +/- a few. 
I was very excited to do some testing today but it looks like the patch got delayed to tomorrow. Any chance the HB team can give us a hint at when to expect burn through? Pretty please? 

The AWG-9 is also a much older radar than the APG-68(V)5 or APG-73 though, so it's likely to be much less capable in ECCM, whereas the -73 has dedicated options and modes for ECCM, for example. Radar power is not that relevant here, since a more advanced jammer can just manipulate the incoming radar signal's other characteristics and transmit a false return. Based on that logic alone (and without knowing more about the specifics of the AWG-9), HB's approach is reasonable.

[lunaticfringe]

29 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Wait,  so the developer (of a given plane) decides the burn-through range that its jammer allows? Is this at least different for different radars, or is it equivalent to a worker's salary in a communist country ? 

 

There are three jammer values, which are based on respective aircraft type; (strategic) bomber, fighter, and attack.  This breakdown dictates the respective ranges of detection- 12, 23, and 29 nautical miles, respectively.  Every radar in the game is subject to these ranges currently. 

39 minutes ago, Redounet said:

U managed to burry the f14 even more after destroying the aim54 now u cant even track ai f15 or 18s

Trying to get realism is nice but not when dcs core jamming is not realistic 

Another update ill have to skip at launch everytime until i manage to reverse engineer your crypted files

 

They didn't bury the F-14 or destroy the AIM-54; the "over the shoulder" loft fix instituted by ED placed an unnecessary cap on the maximum altitude achievable by the weapon, thus reducing it's overall energy state on the flyout.  And nobody else honoring ED's jamming code can track fighters over 23 nautical miles, either; that, unfortunately, is the nature of the environment. 

And for what it's worth- the F-14 is the only aircraft in the game capable of taking a HOJ shot knowing what the target is it's shooting at without god's eye AWACS. 

[captain_dalan]

7 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

 

There are three jammer values, which are based on respective aircraft type; (strategic) bomber, fighter, and attack.  This breakdown dictates the respective ranges of detection- 12, 23, and 29 nautical miles, respectively.  Every radar in the game is subject to these ranges currently. 

So, if i got this right, the detection (that is burn through) is reduced TO those ranges, not BY those ranges?

[lunaticfringe]

8 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

So, if i got this right, the detection (that is burn through) is reduced TO those ranges, not BY those ranges?

Correct. 

[captain_dalan]

7 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

Correct. 

Thank you. You have always been an honorable and open person, honest and straight-forward with your answers, and i have learned a lot from you. It's been an outmost pleasure to have had the opportunity to get to know you. I would like to think of you as a friend. 

[diditopgun]

So how are we supposed to intercept a Tu-22 bombers raid in TWS at long range when their burn through in DCS is 12nm..... ???....

Edited October 26, 2022 by diditopgun

[lunaticfringe]

15 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

Thank you. You have always been an honorable and open person, honest and straight-forward with your answers, and i have learned a lot from you. It's been an outmost pleasure to have had the opportunity to get to know you. I would like to think of you as a friend. 

Same here, even when we bump heads. 

[okletsgo]

I love this module, thanks so much HB!

I would love some prettier cockpit textures though. Is any update planned?

 

[RaisedByWolves]

Any update on glove vanes, possibly adding PTID, and what about the F-14D sometime in future. I think I got all of them.

[CheckGear]

Has the wing sweep handle cover issue been fixed? It's still stuck in the "up" position and I can't click it.

[Callsign JoNay]

48 minutes ago, lunaticfringe said:

And nobody else honoring ED's jamming code can track fighters over 23 nautical miles, either; that, unfortunately, is the nature of the environment.

Can you double check your numbers? The F-16 and F-18 can both get burn through of other fighters at 29 nm, not 23. Did you get Fighters and attackers mixed up?

[Naquaii]

3 hours ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Of all the things in this new patch that I'm most curious about, it's jammer burn through range. Will it be the standard 29 nm that the APG-68 and 73 get burn through? Or does the more powerful AWG-9 give us more burn through range? The AWG is roughly twice as powerful as the 68 and 73 in terms of range, so I'm hoping the burn through range will also be double, around 58nm +/- a few. 

I was very excited to do some testing today but it looks like the patch got delayed to tomorrow. Any chance the HB team can give us a hint at when to expect burn through? Pretty please? 

That's not how that works, power doesn't translate directly into burnthrough like that and it's not modelled like that in DCS anyway.

13 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

Can you double check your numbers? The F-16 and F-18 can both get burn through of other fighters at 29 nm, not 23. Did you get Fighters and attackers mixed up?

The numbers should be the same as other aircraft in DCS as it's the same API call afaik.

1 hour ago, Redounet said:

U managed to burry the f14 even more after destroying the aim54 now u cant even track ai f15 or 18s

Trying to get realism is nice but not when dcs core jamming is not realistic 

Another update ill have to skip at launch everytime until i manage to reverse engineer your crypted files

 

If by that you mean that the AIM-54 is more realistic now and that you're refusing to use jam angle tracking then sure.

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

Wait,  so the developer (of a given plane) decides the burn-through range that its jammer allows? Is this at least different for different radars, or is it equivalent to a worker's salary in a communist country ? 

We could code it however we want, we read the ecm on/off flag on our side and implement the functions in the radar. But could you prove why the AWG-9 should be better or worse than any other aircraft with actual evidence?

46 minutes ago, diditopgun said:

So how are we supposed to intercept a Tu-22 bombers raid in TWS at long distance when their burn through in DCS is 12nm..... ???....

Home on jam is your friend if your running a mission where the bombers are allowed to jam. Not as long a distance as without jamming but you could also disable ECM in the mission to make it more realistic.

17 minutes ago, RaisedByWolves said:

Any update on glove vanes, possibly adding PTID, and what about the F-14D sometime in future. I think I got all of them.

Glove vanes might happen eventually as a visual thing only. PTID and F-14D are unlikely as there's no data available on much of the functionality.

 

Just to elaborate on the ECM. The ECM in DCS is not currently really realistic, you could easily argue that it's better to just not use it when you design missions. And that's not a dig at ED, there's just not much data available.

What the simulator has (for air to air) is just a simple flag that tells another radar if it has a jammer or not.

We then use EDs api to set the burnthrough ranges and afaik that's what everyone else uses for their radars.

Is this realistic? Not really, but it's also not realistic to have a radar that completely ignores jamming when it exists in the game.

What we've tried to do is to somewhat represent how jamming should look in the AWG-9 and still have it fair to the other modules in the sim.

Is this us choosing balance over realism? Not really. The simple fact is that you'll never find enough open data to prove which system would best which and what aircraft would have an advantage over another. Modelling ECM realistically, especially regarding how strong an aircraft is contra another in regards to ECM and ECCM just isn't possible. And like I said above, keeping the AWG-9 as it was, i.e. totally unaffected by jammers would be less realistic than this. It's a compromise but one that we have to do to have ECM in the sim.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Naquaii

[Spurts]

Even at a high level, jamming burn-through range should be dependent on the power/gain of the radar, the power/gain of the jammer, the RCS of the defended asset, and a signals processing factor.  ED does none of this.  Just like target detection requires sufficient Signal to Noise ratio, jamming requires sufficient Jamming to Signal ratio, with the 'sufficient' ratio depending on the type of jamming implemented.  Without making things crazy classified the easiest way for ED to go about this would be to have each ECM system for an aircraft have a jamming effectiveness rating that reduces detection range by a fixed percentage, as RCS and Radar power already account for normal detection range.

 

I get that HB is just trying to play ball.  What we DO have is a BIG missile with HOJ capability and the ability to triangulate the range so that the user can fire it off at ~35nm then turn around before their own jamming is burned through.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Spurts

[lunaticfringe]

29 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

Home on jam is your friend if your running a mission where the bombers are allowed to jam. Not as long a distance as without jamming but you could also disable ECM in the mission to make it more realistic.

Conversely, the player or mission designer can also set it as "only on lock", thus retaining TWS versus STT (or when a missile goes active).  Or even use a mix across aircraft to roughly function as barrage versus self-defense.  

There's options.  Certainly not as elegant as most would like, but they exist. 

[lunaticfringe]

1 hour ago, diditopgun said:

So how are we supposed to intercept a Tu-22 bombers raid in TWS at long range when their burn through in DCS is 12nm..... ???....

 

If they're set to Always On ECM, HOJ.

If they're set to When Locked ECM, party on like always. 

[DSplayer]

Oh btw, will there be altitude difference ranging when in angle-tracked with radar and when with the TCS or is this coming in the future?

[gnomechild]

44 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

That's not how that works, power doesn't translate directly into burnthrough like that and it's not modelled like that in DCS anyway.

The numbers should be the same as other aircraft in DCS as it's the same API call afaik.

If by that you mean that the AIM-54 is more realistic now and that you're refusing to use jam angle tracking then sure.

We could code it however we want, we read the ecm on/off flag on our side and implement the functions in the radar. But could you prove why the AWG-9 should be better or worse than any other aircraft with actual evidence?

Home on jam is your friend if your running a mission where the bombers are allowed to jam. Not as long a distance as without jamming but you could also disable ECM in the mission to make it more realistic.

Glove vanes might happen eventually as a visual thing only. PTID and F-14D are unlikely as there's no data available on much of the functionality.

 

Just to elaborate on the ECM. The ECM in DCS is not currently really realistic, you could easily argue that it's better to just not use it when you design missions. And that's not a dig at ED, there's just not much data available.

What the simulator has (for air to air) is just a simple flag that tells another radar if it has a jammer or not.

We then use EDs api to set the burnthrough ranges and afaik that's what everyone else uses for their radars.

Is this realistic? Not really, but it's also not realistic to have a radar that completely ignores jamming when it exists in the game.

What we've tried to do is to somewhat represent how jamming should look in the AWG-9 and still have it fair to the other modules in the sim.

Is this us choosing balance over realism? Not really. The simple fact is that you'll never find enough open data to prove which system would best which and what aircraft would have an advantage over another. Modelling ECM realistically, especially regarding how strong an aircraft is contra another in regards to ECM and ECCM just isn't possible. And like I said above, keeping the AWG-9 as it was, i.e. totally unaffected by jammers would be less realistic than this. It's a compromise but one that we have to do to have ECM in the sim.

 

This is a very level headed and, in my opinion the correct, take. As much as the core logic is / isn't realistic, DCS modules don't exist in a vacuum. The reality is the AWG-9 like any radar can be jammed and it has some cool functions to circumvent that jamming. 3rd parties don't get to decide how "jamming" works in the DCS universe but it's better to live in the sim than to just pretend it isn't there. Plus, the updates look awesome. I'm gonna have to finally learn how to work the back seat. I'm missing out on too much cool <profanity> uh . stuff. didn't know there was a profanity filter lmao

Edited October 26, 2022 by gnomechild

[bies]

Both pilots and jamming looks awesome. Can't wait to get my hands on them.