That radar...

[Tango3B]

Okay, so today I tried the F-5E. I actually don´t know if I should laugh or cry after seeing that the radar is not stabilized to the artificial horizon of the aircraft but to the actual (!) horizon. I am basically speechless. Who had the bright idea to actually code it this way? And yeah, I know what it is written in the real life manual but this does refer to the ADI of the jet, of course! Like in every other jet in this world, by the way. You would find the exact same passage concerning the way the radar is stabilized in the technical description for the Cyrano IVM, for example but of course the ADI is meant. No one in his sane mind would actually stabilize the radar to the actual horizon which would mean if I climb 20 degrees nose up my radar would then be looking 20 degrees down. This is hilarious to say the least. Somebody must have interpreted this completely wrong in the rl manual when this module was developed. I think this has to be thoroughly reviewed.

[Sarowa]

If this is true and they made a shortcut in the code, this just means the radar stabilization is not affected by the attitude indicator's error (e.g. stuck at an odd bank). If you pitch up 20 degrees, the radar is still level with the horizon in the world reference frame because it's gyro-stabilized. In the plane's reference frame, this means the radar is pointed 20 degrees down from the plane's longitudinal axis. This all makes sense to me and seems correct.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean?

Edited April 22, 2023 by Sarowa

[Tango3B]

13 hours ago, Sarowa said:

If this is true and they made a shortcut in the code, this just means the radar stabilization is not affected by the attitude indicator's error (e.g. stuck at an odd bank). If you pitch up 20 degrees, the radar is still level with the horizon in the world reference frame because it's gyro-stabilized. In the plane's reference frame, this means the radar is pointed 20 degrees down from the plane's longitudinal axis. This all makes sense to me and seems correct.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean?

 

So, what I meant to say here is that the antenna dish should always point in the same direction as the aircraft‘s nose in relation to the horizon unless I manually manipulate the antenna elevation and/or the azimuth. Another exception would be if the radar is actually tracking a target, of course. I think this is common sense, right? In the F-5, though if I pitch 20 degrees up my radar does not point to where my nose is actually pointing. The antenna dish is moved 20 degrees down in this case and I would have to constantly keep the antenna centered manually to point where my nose is pointing. This is obviously wrong and should be reviewed. I hope this clarifies my point.

[Sarowa]

I'm not aware of any aircraft radars that work that way in search mode. To see that behavior, you need to use a special acquisition mode, like boresight. Or specifically in the f5's case, Dogfight Missile or Dogfight Guns, which are boresight modes.

The DCS f18 and f14 radars work the same way as the DCS f5's radar: in search mode, they're all fixed to the horizon and only point up or down if you change the radar elevation. This gives you a stable radar picture regardless of aircraft pitch.

For your desired behavior, you'll have to center the radar elevation manually to match your pitch like you mentioned.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Sarowa

[VZ_342]

The F-111 radar was stabilized in both pitch and roll, unless there was a lock-on, in which case it was stabilized to the target. Yes, if you went up by 20 degrees, the antenna is (relative to the airframe) at negative 20 degrees....that's because it was an Attack Radar, not a Navigation Radar (which you would find on airliners). It needs to look ahead to the area to be attacked. The WSO (guy on the right side, weapons system officer) could tilt the antenna if appropriate, but then he'd have to manually tilt the antenna once they were flying level again.

 

21 hours ago, Tango3B said:

No one in his sane mind would actually stabilize the radar to the actual horizon which would mean if I climb 20 degrees nose up my radar would then be looking 20 degrees down.

 

[Dragon1-1]

Radars are absolutely stabilized to horizon. This way, your aircraft pitch doesn't affect the radar picture until you start hitting vertical gimbal limits. This is a little counterintuitive, but that's how it works. Basically, think of your radar display as a horizontally-oriented moving map. If you need to change elevation, you do it with the antenna elevation control. This feature came in around Vietnam era for the US, and only a bit later on Russian jets.

Although, yes, it should depend on the ADI. That's where the radar gets pitch information it needs to compensate for it.

[Temetre]

Ah good to hear its stabilized to the actual horizon, thought i was crazy thinking about how I used  the F16/18 radar. How much of a PITA it would be to scan a certain altitude if any pitch change would modify the altitude you might scan at 50 miles distance.

Non-stabilized radar usage is more a thing during ACM or so.  

Am 23.4.2023 um 23:06 schrieb Dragon1-1:

This feature came in around Vietnam era for the US, and only a bit later on Russian jets.

Pitch/Roll stab is gonna be on the F-4E Phantom, I imagine? Considering its a BVR radar after all.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Temetre

[Dragon1-1]

Certainly, since we're getting, at least at first, a late/post Vietnam aircraft. That said, I'm pretty sure all Phantoms had stabilized radars. They had fairly complex sets.

[303_Kermit]

On 4/26/2023 at 5:36 PM, Temetre said:

Pitch/Roll stab is gonna be on the F-4E Phantom, I imagine? Considering its a BVR radar after all.

 

I wouldn't expect much from it. In instructional movie for pilots (well available in YT) one may find that radar of F-4J, detects target 5m² RCS from 39nm in search mode. (MiG-21 has RCS 3m²). F-4E will be significantly weaker, since it's antenna is much smaller (because of M61A1 Vulcan). From the same reason F-4E has no doppler radar. Lack of space in the nose.

Also I wouldn't risk of naming it BVR since interception ranges for AiM-7E of tgt 4m² head on in tests were 
-F4 at 10kft , tgt on 200ft, lunch 6,8nm, missile flight time 15s. miss 3ft
-F4 and tgt co-alt, 300ft lunch 6nm., miss 7ft
-F4 at 45100ft (launch at 1,8Ma), tgt co-alt, 2xlunch 12,8nm & 11,4nm,. miss 4,7ft and 31,8ft
tgt moving perpendicular
-F4 at 7,8kft , tgt on 200ft, lunch 2nm,. direct hit

I suggest practicing BFM, Double Attack, Loose deuce, Fluid Four, Combat spread and so on. Phantom it's a Pilots plane, not a laptop. To score you need to come close.

Edited May 29, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[Temetre]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb 303_Kermit:

I wouldn't expect much from it. In instructional movie for pilots (well available in YT) one may find that radar of F-4J, detects target 5m² RCS from 39nm in search mode. (MiG-21 has RCS 3m²). F-4E will be significantly weaker, since it's antenna is much smaller (because of M61A1 Vulcan). From the same reason F-4E has no doppler radar. Lack of space in the nose.

Also I wouldn't risk of naming it BVR since interception ranges for AiM-7E of tgt 4m² head on in tests were 
-F4 at 10kft , tgt on 200ft, lunch 6,8nm, missile flight time 15s. miss 3ft
-F4 and tgt co-alt, 300ft lunch 6nm., miss 7ft
-F4 at 45100ft (launch at 1,8Ma), tgt co-alt, 2xlunch 12,8nm & 11,4nm,. miss 4,7ft and 31,8ft
tgt moving perpendicular
-F4 at 7,8kft , tgt on 200ft, lunch 2nm,. direct hit

Intersting, makes me wanna look up the Vietnam stuff more. But that doesnt strike me as special. Even the MAR for an Aim-120C is like 10-15 miles for many planes, if I remember correctly? DCS was a big surprise to me with how short ranged missiles are against close targets. The F-16s radar is also kinda poor, but basically always sees a lot further than it can shoot. Probably gonna be the same for  Phantom.

Even a 10 mile hit with a sparrow would seem pretty darn good. Im sure the radar is up to that in STT, outside of lockdown issue, false contacts, etc. Wonder how much that stuff is gonna be simulated, havent checked HBs F14 RIO radar yet. M2000 is pretty cool about that.

Btw, that 12 mile launch, 4.7ft miss sounds like a problem with the radar fuze? Thats extremely close, wouldve been a kill for sure. Also mustve been a pretty darn good shot, considering it was likely fired at some small interceptor. That one actually makes the Sparrow look good in my book.

vor 8 Stunden schrieb 303_Kermit:

I suggest practicing BFM, Double Attack, Loose deuce, Fluid Four, Combat spread and so on. Phantom it's a Pilots plane, not a laptop. To score you need to come close.

You say that, but I also found the A-4 or Mig-21 to be way easier to handle than the F-14 xD

And heck, any of those early to mid cold war jets? Just half-laptop planes, with assists, stability-noobmentation-modes and enough thrust to make up for every mistake. Warbirds, thats where the real pilots are. What real pilot even needs trimming? :^)

Edited May 29, 2023 by Temetre

[Dragon1-1]

With how Fox 1 engagements work, even if you can launch before getting tally, you should be ready to transition to WVR once the missile times out. If you shoot at 10NM, you'll be at 3 or so unless the target turns and runs. It's still BVR because you use BVR techniques in that fight, but such an engagement will rapidly devolve into WVR by its nature. Fighters of the era typically don't carry very many Fox 1s partially for this reason, if you can't kill the enemy with two Fox 1s, most of the time you're in BFM anyway.

[303_Kermit]

13 hours ago, Temetre said:

You say that, but I also found the A-4 or Mig-21 to be way easier to handle than the F-14 xD

And heck, any of those early to mid cold war jets? Just half-laptop planes, with assists, stability-noobmentation-modes and enough thrust to make up for every mistake. Warbirds, that's where the real pilots are. What real pilot even needs trimming? :^)

As far as I red and watched - F-4 will be a challenge. To be honest, I didn't found any warbird challenging, but I flew only P-47 and Bf-109. Mastering MiG-15 was big challenge, but it's not so difficult to fly if you just want to perform basic flight. F-4 seems to be wild beast.

[=475FG= Dawger]

10 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

As far as I red and watched - F-4 will be a challenge. To be honest, I didn't found any warbird challenging, but I flew only P-47 and Bf-109. Mastering MiG-15 was big challenge, but it's not so difficult to fly if you just want to perform basic flight. F-4 seems to be wild beast.

That is just an indication of how poorly modeled DCS WWII modules really are. High powered propeller driven aircraft are more challenging to fly than any jet and the newer the jet, the easier it gets. 

[DD_Fenrir]

35 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

That is just an indication of how poorly modeled DCS WWII modules really are. High powered propeller driven aircraft are more challenging to fly than any jet and the newer the jet, the easier it gets. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

14 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

From a flying standpoint, absolutely. Jets, especially tactical jets, are progressively easier to fly so that the crew can focus on employing it as a weapon. A WWII era propeller driven fighter is not optimized with the pilot in mind although late war versions are better than earlier. DCS WWII aircraft fly like jets, which is incorrect. 

[DD_Fenrir]

Then we are flying very different games.

You might want to check the module assists under the specials tabs in your setup menu and ensure you have auto-rudder and take-off assistance turned off because torque, gyroscopic and p-factor is VERY much modelled and makes the handling of the WW2 aircraft much different from the jets.

[Slippa]

I agree I think the jets are easier to, everything… taxi, take off, fly and land.

Don’t know what version of the Spit I have here but I can’t find the afterburner. I want to see a track with this really Super-Supermarine in action. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Slippa

[=475FG= Dawger]

30 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Then we are flying very different games.

You might want to check the module assists under the specials tabs in your setup menu and ensure you have auto-rudder and take-off assistance turned off because torque, gyroscopic and p-factor is VERY much modelled and makes the handling of the WW2 aircraft much different from the jets.

Having flown some WWII era aircraft out in the real world, I can assure you that what is modeled in DCS is a very lightweight version of the real thing.

The classic P-51 demonstration of "torque effects" was to slow to 130 with flaps and gear down and idle power and then push the power to 61 quickly. This was done at altitude because the aircraft would quickly invert itself.

In DCS, you can go stop to stop with the throttle at low speeds and the aircraft basically wallows a little bit unless you drop below 100 mph, where it does a rather gentle left wing stall.

It certainly isn't an exciting event.

Here is the quote 

Quote

The P-51D, which I flew, was a very straightforward airplane in every way. By that I mean it wasn't difficult to fly or hard to handle, as long as you remembered a few basic things. First and foremost, you never forgot for a minute that it could bite hard if you got careless. There are lots of airplanes that will let you have another chance if you get ham-handed. The -51, in certain areas of her envelope, wasn't one of them.  I remember telling everyone I ever checked out in the Mustang to take it up high, lower the gear and flaps, then back it off to about 15 inches with the prop up to 3 grand... slow it down easy to about 130 mph... then SLAM in 61 inches fast. The resulting torque roll might have helped save a few lives on full power go-arounds. None of my guys ever "torqued one in" anyway...

http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/p51pr.htm

You cannot get the DCS P-51 to do anything resembling the above and the rest are similarly toned down.

[DD_Fenrir]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Having flown some WWII era aircraft out in the real world, I can assure you that what is modeled in DCS is a very lightweight version of the real thing.

The classic P-51 demonstration of "torque effects" was to slow to 130 with flaps and gear down and idle power and then push the power to 61 quickly. This was done at altitude because the aircraft would quickly invert itself.

In DCS, you can go stop to stop with the throttle at low speeds and the aircraft basically wallows a little bit unless you drop below 100 mph, where it does a rather gentle left wing stall.

It certainly isn't an exciting event.

Here is the quote 

http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/p51pr.htm

You cannot get the DCS P-51 to do anything resembling the above and the rest are similarly toned down.

For what it's worth, I agree regarding this particular part of the Mustangs flight envelope. It is a well documented behaviour and if it can be corrected in DCS, it should be.

But to use this one deficiency in one aircraft module, assume it applies to all, and then damn the entire range of WW2 modules on the back of it is a stretch.

Even if you do have hours in a P-51, there are others here who have also, and say for that - for the most part - the DCS P-51 is pretty close, some niggles aside.

And do you also have the relevant hours in Spitfire IXs, MosquitoFB.VI, P-47D, Fw 190A-8s, D-9s AND Bf 109Ks to make such a wide ranging disparate remark?

Pardon my skeptism, but I doubt it, especially as there are zero flyable versions of the latter two, and whilst the warbird community is tight, getting cleared on type for the remainder of the above would be noteworthy, let alone actually getting access to them all.

Given this is a publically accessible commercial simulator software running on a home PC there will always have be some concessions to inaccuracy, mitigated as far as possible, but always there.

[kablamoman]

3 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

You cannot get the DCS P-51 to do anything resembling the above and the rest are similarly toned down.

Granted, it's at a much lower speed than 130 mph, but here is an example of a real player doing exactly this (and it's quite funny to witness):

 

Perhaps the modules are more forgiving than their real-world counterparts, but I definitely do find that the relationship you're talking about when making comparisons to the jets in the sim is definitely there. The jets are far simpler to control with their centerline thrust and their fly-by-wire as you progress through the roster in the sim from older to newer. Perhaps your experience makes it seem quite easy for you to fly the older warbirds -- but throw someone new to flying into the sim, and they similarly struggle like the poor chap in the video.

Overall, I think DCS does far better a job than any other sim I've played at modeling these things, and I think it's a bit unfair to call them poorly modeled. 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by kablamoman

[Slippa]

Shaking of the head had me chuckling there.