DCS: F-4E - Episode IV - RADAR Pt. 1 - Basics and Theory

[Hiob]

7 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Yes, I’ll have to watch it several times as well.

And we also have part II incoming, which will hopefully clear up some confusion.

 

@Hiob Had to what? 

Nevermind it was just a link to "Step by Step" by New Kids On The Block. Stupid Joke......

[Keith Briscoe]

I hate to admit (but I will) that this video made me at least slightly less likely purchase/fly the new Phantom.  It's like all the details are here to make us realize we will mostly NOT be successful a) getting where we need to go; b) actually finding bad guys; c) deploying weapons that have a chance of hitting targets.  

On the other hand, if Jester is as good/well modeled as it seems, then I hope that can be a partial "Phantom for Dummies".

[_Milan_]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

Yes, I’ll have to watch it several times as well.

And we also have part II incoming, which will hopefully clear up some confusion.

 

@Hiob Had to what? 

In which country do you live that you're not permitted to watch a good old New Kids On The Block video ?

 

Edited April 8 by _Milan_

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

20 minutes ago, _Milan_ said:

In which country do you live that you're not permitted to watch a good old New Kids On The Block video ?

 

 

It’s the uploader who didn’t make it available, not my country “censoring” a music video.

[Hiob]

23 minutes ago, Keith Briscoe said:

I hate to admit (but I will) that this video made me at least slightly less likely purchase/fly the new Phantom.  It's like all the details are here to make us realize we will mostly NOT be successful a) getting where we need to go; b) actually finding bad guys; c) deploying weapons that have a chance of hitting targets.  

On the other hand, if Jester is as good/well modeled as it seems, then I hope that can be a partial "Phantom for Dummies".

Do you have the F-14? Are you flying with a real human as RIO or with AI?

I'm flying mostly with a fly-buddy, but since we both want to be Maverick, no one could be bothered to properly learn the backseat. We have fun with it anyway.

I'm not concerned with leaving the backseat in the hands of Jester. And even if I will never utilize the F-4 to its full potential, I can't wait to see and feel it "from inside"!

p.s. @_Milan_, @Raven (Elysian Angel) Guys, please let it drop.  I'm starting to feel bad for bringing it up - it's OT, let's not fill this thread with more OT! 

Edited April 8 by Hiob

[_Milan_]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

It’s the uploader who didn’t make it available, not my country “censoring” a music video.

Aahh, makes sense, thanks fo the clarification and sry for OT

[WarbossPetross]

3 часа назад, Keith Briscoe сказал:

I hate to admit (but I will) that this video made me at least slightly less likely purchase/fly the new Phantom.  It's like all the details are here to make us realize we will mostly NOT be successful a) getting where we need to go; b) actually finding bad guys; c) deploying weapons that have a chance of hitting targets.  

On the other hand, if Jester is as good/well modeled as it seems, then I hope that can be a partial "Phantom for Dummies".

That's what makes Tomcat a great first purchase - you get actual help along the way as you learn how stuff works. That and the fact that the front guy has it easy there, it's in the back where you need actual braincells. The Phantom can be even better for that due to its much larger mission profile.

[marmor]

How will the interaction with chaff be? Will RCS modeling be improved? This would be an issue for the phantom's apq120. Especially with chaffing targets.

Target RCS is constant right now, independent of aspect. Lets say the target is 7m² and chaff cloud for example 310m²( following ada151928, the RCS of a mature cloud would be N(0.155A²), where N is amount of dipoles- ex. 1.8million- and A the wavelength of radar-ex9Ghz radar-) . For track to switch to the chaff, the power centroid should be closer to the chaff cloud thus the target will leave the resolution cell. So a small chaff cloud should be able to decoy the radar easily.

But on a beaming target, the RCS increases considerably. For example the tornado f3 side aspect can get close to 1500m². Same as the mig 21s rcs(1000m²) 

With a higher rcs, the power centroid should be closer to the target, therefore keeping lock better and not having just a single chaff transfering the lock away. And the typically when you turn while defending you show your belly and whole wing area.... 

Same way that a 1000m² rcs will show up longer range and brighter than a 10m² rcs target on the radar scope. 

Would like to hear about this since it's something that will really suck using the phantom (having 1 (ONE) chaff pull the lock away)

This is something that can easily be worked on ED's side. Make RCS increase side aspect, nothing hard and complex. A simple function f depending on angle off nose and initial rcs, f(θ, σ). May not be the most accurate but 7.3 gorillion miles better that what currently is in use. 

[Tiger-II]

I thought about this some years ago, and why we only have a super-simplified RCS bubble. There is enough data out there to make it more accurate without stupidly complex models.

[Ziggy]

Whoa!! I hope Jester has been studying very hard!

Very nicely done HB.

[JNelson]

13 hours ago, marmor said:

How will the interaction with chaff be? Will RCS modeling be improved? This would be an issue for the phantom's apq120. Especially with chaffing targets.

Target RCS is constant right now, independent of aspect. Lets say the target is 7m² and chaff cloud for example 310m²( following ada151928, the RCS of a mature cloud would be N(0.155A²), where N is amount of dipoles- ex. 1.8million- and A the wavelength of radar-ex9Ghz radar-) . For track to switch to the chaff, the power centroid should be closer to the chaff cloud thus the target will leave the resolution cell. So a small chaff cloud should be able to decoy the radar easily.

But on a beaming target, the RCS increases considerably. For example the tornado f3 side aspect can get close to 1500m². Same as the mig 21s rcs(1000m²) 

With a higher rcs, the power centroid should be closer to the target, therefore keeping lock better and not having just a single chaff transfering the lock away. And the typically when you turn while defending you show your belly and whole wing area.... 

Same way that a 1000m² rcs will show up longer range and brighter than a 10m² rcs target on the radar scope. 

Would like to hear about this since it's something that will really suck using the phantom (having 1 (ONE) chaff pull the lock away)

This is something that can easily be worked on ED's side. Make RCS increase side aspect, nothing hard and complex. A simple function f depending on angle off nose and initial rcs, f(θ, σ). May not be the most accurate but 7.3 gorillion miles better that what currently is in use. 

Target orientation (how much of the nose/tail, top/bottom, or left/right are presented to the radar) will significantly alter the resulting RCS of a contact in our model.

Just to clear something up, the conical scanning is simulated, so there is no "transferring the lock away", rather the antenna is pulled towards the maximum of the total signal (in the conical scan on average), including all kinds of clutter/noise (jamming, chaff, ground clutter and targets).

As for chaff the problem is more complicated, currently in DCS chaff objects are very short lived, so building volumetric chaff clouds is not possible (with correct synchronization) or worth the cost at this time, we have asked ED for a more useful data-structure with regards to this which is being looked into for the future.

The primary concern relating to the above is the track being disturbed by an aircraft dropping something which a huge RCS very quickly. To combat this the chaff takes some time to bloom and gradually comes up to it's full RCS (as it would IRL) as specified by DCS. 

 

Edited April 9 by JNelson

[Temetre]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb JNelson:

Target orientation (how much of the nose/tail, top/bottom, or left/right are presented to the radar) will significantly alter the resulting RCS of a contact in our model.

Interesting. Is it done like in RBs M2K, which afaik assumes a static percentage of RCS with tail/side/top/bottom for all aircraft? (like as a made up example, frontally it might always assume planes to reflect 80% RCS)

vor 21 Stunden schrieb Keith Briscoe:

I hate to admit (but I will) that this video made me at least slightly less likely purchase/fly the new Phantom.  It's like all the details are here to make us realize we will mostly NOT be successful a) getting where we need to go; b) actually finding bad guys; c) deploying weapons that have a chance of hitting targets.  

On the other hand, if Jester is as good/well modeled as it seems, then I hope that can be a partial "Phantom for Dummies".

I wouldnt worry about that tbh. Mind, the F-4E is from the same time as the Mig-21. Meaning you rely on EWRS warning planes, and youre not really reliant on finding targets with the radar, and youre not reliant on BVR combat anyway.

Even in the worst case, you will be able to skip most radar complexity with dogfight-radar modes that go up to 5 miles out, which is well above the engagement range of a Mig-21 or often even Mirage F1 carrying Matra 550s.

Also, just looking at the manual, the jester functionality seems to be heavily expanded and much more easy to control. It honestly sounds quite impressive as to how HB improved Jester, and I imagine hell be easier to manage than in the F-14 anyway, considering long range BVR/TWS shennanigans arent of concern in the Phantom.

Edited April 9 by Temetre

[JNelson]

1 hour ago, Temetre said:

Interesting. Is it done like in RBs M2K, which afaik assumes a static percentage of RCS with tail/side/top/bottom for all aircraft? (like as a made up example, frontally it might always assume planes to reflect 80% RCS)

I wouldnt worry about that tbh. Mind, the F-4E is from the same time as the Mig-21. Meaning you rely on EWRS warning planes, and youre not really reliant on finding targets with the radar, and youre not reliant on BVR combat anyway.

Even in the worst case, you will be able to skip most radar complexity with dogfight-radar modes that go up to 5 miles out, which is well above the engagement range of a Mig-21 or often even Mirage F1 carrying Matra 550s.

Also, just looking at the manual, the jester functionality seems to be heavily expanded and much more easy to control. It honestly sounds quite impressive as to how HB improved Jester, and I imagine hell be easier to manage than in the F-14 anyway, considering long range BVR/TWS shennanigans arent of concern in the Phantom.

 

I knew the M2K did something with RCS, but it's interesting we have converged on essentially the same solution.

In the F-4E implementation the relation between RCS and the amount each side presented to the radar is not linear so as to give a shape closer to that of the general trend of RCS diagrams. There are factors for, side, top, bottom, and front and back which multiply the base RCS based on the amount of each side presented to the radar (as mentioned before not linear though).

[Temetre]

vor 41 Minuten schrieb JNelson:

I knew the M2K did something with RCS, but it's interesting we have converged on essentially the same solution.

In the F-4E implementation the relation between RCS and the amount each side presented to the radar is not linear so as to give a shape closer to that of the general trend of RCS diagrams. There are factors for, side, top, bottom, and front and back which multiply the base RCS based on the amount of each side presented to the radar (as mentioned before not linear though).

Aye, that makes sense. Theres probably also gradients to how the M2K handles it, im not 100% sure. Neat tho  

 

[marmor]

8 hours ago, JNelson said:

will significantly alter the resulting RCS of a contact in our model.

Nice to know!

10 hours ago, JNelson said:

To combat this the chaff takes some time to bloom and gradually comes up to it's full RCS (as it would IRL) as specified by DCS. 

 

That would require to know the content of dipoles in the cloud but could be simplified. But still, at 10N.M the mainlobe would be looking almost half a N.M behind of a beaming target. 

[hermes7226]

 I hope the next patch will include the Phantom. 

[Hiob]

12 minutes ago, hermes7226 said:

 I hope the next patch will include the Phantom. 

Given the current statements from Heatblur regarding the Phantom release (may) and from ED regarding the patch cycles (6 weeks), it is not unlikely.*

(*IF everything goes as planned , so I‘m confident but wouldn’t bet my life on it)

[PawlaczGMD]

Very impressive radar simulation, although I will probably not fly the back seat, it still gives me some satisfaction that this stuff is modelled correctly behind the scenes.

Not sure how this kind of stuff works with HB as a 3rd party, but it would be great to see this tech migrate to other modules.

We also need a core rework of DCS flare and chaff systems to match the level of this radar.

[SgtPappy]

On 4/8/2024 at 9:08 AM, Keith Briscoe said:

I hate to admit (but I will) that this video made me at least slightly less likely purchase/fly the new Phantom.  It's like all the details are here to make us realize we will mostly NOT be successful a) getting where we need to go; b) actually finding bad guys; c) deploying weapons that have a chance of hitting targets.  

On the other hand, if Jester is as good/well modeled as it seems, then I hope that can be a partial "Phantom for Dummies".

Do you have or fly the F-5? Ever fly it on ECW or similar and have a blast? The F-4's radar is like that but way better. Also, Sparrows which, if DCS missile failure rates were more realistic, would still fail like (wild guess) ~15% of the time anyway. I think folks would benefit from looking at the F-4 and adjusting the mindset such that they don't look at it like it's a very old version of a 4th gen fighter and more like it's a Korean War plane on steroids. We are able to change our perspective for WW2 planes as entirely separate and discrete. Korean War jets too. It's time for this era of jets to have their own category.

Imagine jousting an Su-27 in an F-15 and having 2 of your AIM-7M's fail. You're now in a lot of danger because you have to assume their missile did not fail. If the same happened in the F-4 vs a MiG-21, it's frustrating, but generally you're in a lot less danger. Yes, you can do a lot less than in a Hornet but there's also generally a lot less to do vs the enemies of the era.

I do agree though, as someone who can mostly only fly alone, I hope Jester will be capable of handling the new controls on his own sufficiently to make the experience in MP fun.

[Karon]

On 4/8/2024 at 2:08 PM, Keith Briscoe said:

I hate to admit (but I will) that this video made me at least slightly less likely purchase/fly the new Phantom.  It's like all the details are here to make us realize we will mostly NOT be successful a) getting where we need to go; b) actually finding bad guys; c) deploying weapons that have a chance of hitting targets.  

On the other hand, if Jester is as good/well modeled as it seems, then I hope that can be a partial "Phantom for Dummies".

This game aims to realistically represent military aeroplanes (+CE2 :] ), and flying a fighter jet is not easy, isn't it?
That being said, it will take some time, practice and study, of course, but eventually, it will become a slightly more complex version of the Tomcat (which is quite easy to operate).
A point you have not considered is that a GCI (get a human one) will do most of the work to get you where you need to be. Moreover, you can fly directly from the back more efficiently than in the Tomcat. You can do all the radar work there and move to the front when needed. Hell, you can even land from the backseat, worst case pretend it's IFR!

[Rorqual_eta]

On 4/8/2024 at 9:13 PM, marmor said:

How will the interaction with chaff be? Will RCS modeling be improved? This would be an issue for the phantom's apq120. Especially with chaffing targets.

Target RCS is constant right now, independent of aspect. Lets say the target is 7m² and chaff cloud for example 310m²( following ada151928, the RCS of a mature cloud would be N(0.155A²), where N is amount of dipoles- ex. 1.8million- and A the wavelength of radar-ex9Ghz radar-) . For track to switch to the chaff, the power centroid should be closer to the chaff cloud thus the target will leave the resolution cell. So a small chaff cloud should be able to decoy the radar easily.

But on a beaming target, the RCS increases considerably. For example the tornado f3 side aspect can get close to 1500m². Same as the mig 21s rcs(1000m²) 

With a higher rcs, the power centroid should be closer to the target, therefore keeping lock better and not having just a single chaff transfering the lock away. And the typically when you turn while defending you show your belly and whole wing area.... 

Same way that a 1000m² rcs will show up longer range and brighter than a 10m² rcs target on the radar scope. 

Would like to hear about this since it's something that will really suck using the phantom (having 1 (ONE) chaff pull the lock away)

This is something that can easily be worked on ED's side. Make RCS increase side aspect, nothing hard and complex. A simple function f depending on angle off nose and initial rcs, f(θ, σ). May not be the most accurate but 7.3 gorillion miles better that what currently is in use. 

 

On 4/9/2024 at 10:12 AM, JNelson said:

Target orientation (how much of the nose/tail, top/bottom, or left/right are presented to the radar) will significantly alter the resulting RCS of a contact in our model.

Just to clear something up, the conical scanning is simulated, so there is no "transferring the lock away", rather the antenna is pulled towards the maximum of the total signal (in the conical scan on average), including all kinds of clutter/noise (jamming, chaff, ground clutter and targets).

As for chaff the problem is more complicated, currently in DCS chaff objects are very short lived, so building volumetric chaff clouds is not possible (with correct synchronization) or worth the cost at this time, we have asked ED for a more useful data-structure with regards to this which is being looked into for the future.

The primary concern relating to the above is the track being disturbed by an aircraft dropping something which a huge RCS very quickly. To combat this the chaff takes some time to bloom and gradually comes up to it's full RCS (as it would IRL) as specified by DCS. 

 

 

I am playing as Tomcat's RIO and curious about DCS's RCS modelling. Is RCS simulation now aircraft dependent in DCS?

 

If I have understood the cited replies above correctly, the angle dependance of RCS is simulated in Phantom's radar, but each aircraft's RCS is generally only constants in DCS?

Does that mean, that Phantom's radar will see angle dependent RCS of the opponent, but on opponent's radar the Phantom's RCS is still a constant?

And is the angle dependance of RCS simulated in Tomcat's radar?

[fatshmouk]

Hey ya, it`s been two weeks already, is there any info when the 2nd pt. will be ? 

 

 

Edited April 23 by fatshmouk

[t_hedlund]

I have watched the video several times and I'm amazed as to how much has been put into the radar. I appreciate the level of detail, but it is a little intimidating.  How much of the normal radar work is going to be done by Jester? I know that several members are comparing the F-4 to the F-14, but theF-4's radar seems much more complicated than the F-14.

Regardless, I look forward to the challenges that the F-4 will be bring. 

 

[Zabuzard]

5 hours ago, t_hedlund said:

I have watched the video several times and I'm amazed as to how much has been put into the radar. I appreciate the level of detail, but it is a little intimidating.  How much of the normal radar work is going to be done by Jester? I know that several members are comparing the F-4 to the F-14, but theF-4's radar seems much more complicated than the F-14.

Regardless, I look forward to the challenges that the F-4 will be bring. 

 

It is Jesters job to operate the radar, not the pilots. The pilot also has no controls for the radar in their pit. You can read about details here:

https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/jester/combat/radar.html

But the tldr is that you, as a pilot, do not have to bother with the how at all. You fly the aircraft and Jester finds the bad guys for you. There are of course options in the Jester Wheel to nudge him in a certain direction or change a few settings.

That said, it is important to understand that, in contrast to the F-14, the Phantoms radar is not a search radar. You wont be flying around in multiplayer, scanning the entire air space 100nm ahead of you, gaining full SA. At the time you realistically spot a bandit, they are already at around 25nm and you just have a few seconds until there is a heater coming your way. Everything is happening very fast with this radar. You spot the guy, you lock him, you shoot your Sparrow (which might miss, but forces the guy to go defensive) and then you are already merged and can shoot your Sidewinder or go for guns

Edited April 24 by Zabuzard

[Hiob]

2 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

That said, it is important to understand that, in contrast to the F-14, the Phantoms radar is not a search radar. You wont be flying around in multiplayer, scanning the entire air space 100nm ahead of you, gaining full SA. At the time you realistically spot a bandit, they are already at around 25nm and you just have a few seconds until there is a heater coming your way. Everything is happening very fast with this radar. You spot the guy, you lock him, you shoot your Sparrow (which might miss, but forces the guy to go defensive) and then you are already merged and can shoot your Sidewinder or go for guns

 

Ten times the effort for one tenth of the result.  Vietnam era pilots and RIOs had balls of steel, really.