intended as is Hostile surviliance tracks(empty red triangles) became unknown (solid white bricks) once seen by onboard radar

[skywalker22]

Stay on topic please!

[Aquorys]

I tried this a few days ago, it seemed to work as expected.

[skywalker22]

There are two different versions of symbology, one with Datalink (AWACS, doners), and another without it (with onboard sensors only).

And both have their own symbology, and both seem to be correct. Attached track shows both example, which I would say are correct, based on manuals.

The only thing that puzzles me here is, when contacts are in range of onboard FCR, why do they not change symbology accordingly? So to:

They are keep on having symbology for Datalink, so these ones:

"Track Correlated with Onboard Sensors" - so is this it? When Datalink is turned on (in use), this symbology has priority over FCR's? Which means FCR symbology is not in use any longer, at least not until Datalink is turned on.

If so, then all is fine, and this thread can be marked as "correct as is".

[skywalker22]

f16-rcr_tws_track_to_sytem_with_with and without_AWACS.trk

And a track I did with a use of both different symbology (with datalink and without it).

[falconzx]

I think symbology at the current openbeta is hardly broken, hope all this things are w.i.p. , we even lost all the link16->fcr tracks correlating symbols.

Edited June 27, 2023 by falconzx

[Moonshine]

On 6/24/2023 at 12:01 PM, skywalker22 said:

"Track Correlated with Onboard Sensors" - so is this it? When Datalink is turned on (in use), this symbology has priority over FCR's? Which means FCR symbology is not in use any longer, at least not until Datalink is turned on.

this is apparently still WIP as the issue is reported here: 

currently upon painting a contact, all Link16 information is immediately lost

 

[BIGNEWY]

posts merged

[justAflankerFAN]

Hi. Can anyone explain to me as to why the display of contact on my F-16 radar only show up as yellow bricks? I can identify friendly & foes using the Datalink just fine but the moment I steer my radar to look up these contacts, they all turned into yellow brick. I tried IFF & switching radar mode but the result is still the same. 
Can anyone explain to me what went wrong here and how can I make my radar display less ambiguous and more like the examples that are shown in Youtube tutorial vid? The display of contacts I seen on these youtube tutorial is much better and I can clearly distinguish between "Tracked" & "System" target. Meanwhile the one I'm having right now make it impossible for me to figure out whether or not I have successfully bugged a contact

I attached 2 pictures below for better reference

[IanC58]

Read the manual

[atercygnus]

Hostile surveillance enemy tracks, presented as empty red triangles(as expected) should became solid red triangles once seen by onboard radar. As per documentation, and youtube tutorials.

Instead once being seen by onboard radar this red triangles became unknown contacts(white solid squares).

Am I doing something wrong?

bug.trk

Edited July 15, 2023 by NineLine
Removed 1.16 image

[Moonshine]

 

[justAflankerFAN]

3 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

 

I see this post like this on reddit, and it is similar to what is happening to me as of the moment. So is E.D still hasn't fix up the Viper FCR system yet?

 

[NineLine]

From Viper Team: Please understand that the ID tree changed a while back. To get a solid red triangle, you must have two-factor ID of the target that can only be a C2 ID and a hostile NCTR print. AIFF is not a contributor. As such, if you only have one of these with an ownship-detected target, it will appear as a suspect target.

Remember that a white solid target is only detected by you.

 

[Comrade Doge]

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Please understand that the ID tree changed a while back. To get a solid red triangle, you must have two-factor ID of the target that can only be a C2 ID and a hostile NCTR print. AIFF is not a contributor. As such, if you only have one of these with an ownship-detected target, it will appear as a suspect target.

I think we already got over this and proved it wrong. ROE is already established as Hostile, there is no need for NCTR to correlate the track. What you are describing is the behavior when there is no ROE decided already.It was marked as WIP, now we're back to correct as is?

Edited July 15, 2023 by Comrade Doge

[Moonshine]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Remember that a white solid target is only detected by you.

yes but that means it is also not detected by a C2 instance, hence no ROE has been decided yet.

but what we are talking about is a contact, that on DL is shown as red (my jet does not yet see it yet, C2 however does and has marked it hostile). now that contact, as soon as my jet ALSO detects it, currently changes back to "unknown" at the very moment my radar paints it - even though C2 still sees it - which means i can not be the only one painting that contact... the current implementation logic is wrong and needs to be fixed. in addition to that C2 has marked it as hostile already, there is no need to also have to correlate that track with my radar/NCTR to maintain the hostile classification.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Moonshine

[NineLine]

From the Viper Team: As stated, must have two factor to set as correlated hostile. Not only C2. 
Generally, an ROE tree can be customized, but we are not going there. For us, it’s two factor. 

If you want, you can enter a customized ROE tree wishlist item. 

[NineLine]

You guys really need to re-read the rules, specifically 1.16, you cannot share information from any Controlled document. Even if it's something that is different than what we are doing it doesn't mean we CAN do it because of this very simple fact. We have been super lenient on the rules today, but next 1.16 is going to get a full warning, I'm sorry but we can't have this turn into a forum like the other game. Please a bid by the rules, all info such as this should be sent by DM only.

Thanks.

[MARLAN_]

I think the community would appreciate and feel less offended if instead of saying things are "correct-as-is" (when they often are objectively not) these would be marked as "intended-as-is" or similar (and/or with a similar reply) this simple rewording can probably help a lot. I think the community understands not everything can be perfectly real due to information constraints, but it's a bit offending to say things are correct when people know they aren't, it feels like gas lighting.

(FYI, I have very little knowledge about the F-16, so this response has nothing to do with whether this particular topic is or isn't correct)

Edited July 16, 2023 by MARLAN_

[NineLine]

It is working as intended right now, but the entire module is WIP and as always this can and will change. After other systems are fleshed out, this and other things could very well change.

I do not understand what is offending people though, but this is not a place for that discussion. Regardless, if you are so offended that you need to post controlled or leaked documents or information from those documents then we might just have an issue.

We have stated how we do things over and over. Please follow those rules.

Thanks.

[_SteelFalcon_]

so it is intended that all DL info is lost once the radar detects a contact that was previously provided with DL and already marked as either friendly or hostile? seems weird

[skywalker22]

2 hours ago, _SteelFalcon_ said:

so it is intended that all DL info is lost once the radar detects a contact that was previously provided with DL and already marked as either friendly or hostile? seems weird

Seems so, DL is only one factor, you need two, to keep the info of contacts. Persoanally if DL designates a contact undoubtedly as a friend of foe, why you would change that, when contact is seen by your onboard FCR?

Makes no sence at all.

The other story is when there is no DL. But we are not talking about that here.

[WHOGX5]

2 hours ago, _SteelFalcon_ said:

so it is intended that all DL info is lost once the radar detects a contact that was previously provided with DL and already marked as either friendly or hostile? seems weird

AFAIK, the way it's supposed to work is that if there is a mismatch in ID between L16 and your onboard sensors, the contact will flash between the two different identification types, like between unknown and hostile for example. You always need to classify a contact yourself using onboard sensors and like others have mentioned, the only thing that gets correlated from L16 for your own identificaiton process is IFF response.

[Tango3B]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

From Viper Team: Please understand that the ID tree changed a while back. To get a solid red triangle, you must have two-factor ID of the target that can only be a C2 ID and a hostile NCTR print. AIFF is not a contributor. As such, if you only have one of these with an ownship-detected target, it will appear as a suspect target.

Remember that a white solid target is only detected by you.

 

Okay, got your intent there but let‘s talk about NCTR in this context. ED hardcoded NCTR to only work at/or below 25nm. This really is quite unfortunate. Why exactly is that? NCTR prints can, under the right conditions, be obtained from far greater ranges. Can we please agree on the fact that this has to be coded in a much more dynamic way? We really need to get rid of this static radar behavior. Being fully aware of the fact that NCTR always was and still is kind of a hot topic I want to point to Razbams form of implementation which really shows the beauty of what can be done. I really hope we will see some of this coming over to the F-16 in the future, too. Thank you.

[WHOGX5]

10 hours ago, Tango3B said:

Okay, got your intent there but let‘s talk about NCTR in this context. ED hardcoded NCTR to only work at/or below 25nm. This really is quite unfortunate. Why exactly is that? NCTR prints can, under the right conditions, be obtained from far greater ranges. Can we please agree on the fact that this has to be coded in a much more dynamic way? We really need to get rid of this static radar behavior. Being fully aware of the fact that NCTR always was and still is kind of a hot topic I want to point to Razbams form of implementation which really shows the beauty of what can be done. I really hope we will see some of this coming over to the F-16 in the future, too. Thank you.

All ED's DCS modules are deterministically hardcoded. It doesn't matter if it's detection range, NCTR range, MAV acquisition range, etc, etc. Everything is very simplified with arbitrary hard limits to them. Hopefully ED will pay some of the 3rd parties to copy their technologies, like Razbam's A-A and A-G radar modelling, or Heatblurs RWR modelling for the new F-4E, which is leaps and bounds beyond all ED modules.

[VarZat]

If im right ED will be using RWR tech from heatblur in the F-16 when the F-4 comes