wip F16 false targets introduction?

[falcon_120]

Hello all!

Reading the patch log i've seen the following:

• Radar: Introduced false targets. They are caused mainly by internal receiver noise and ambient noises at receiver input. The radar internal circuits maintain false target rate constant with an average frequency of one false alarm per minute. 

This is a great step towards improved radar simulation, and i was really looking forward to it, however i've been flying around in different scenarios and altitudes and i can't seem to see false targets in the radar, has this been introduced really or did not make it into the patch? What is your experience?

 

Regards,

 

EDIT: I've managed to see false targets in the F18C radar in the KOLA Map, need more testing with the F16C in different maps, i dont see how could have any impact whatsoever but you never know :).

 

EDIT2: OK i found the false targets also in the F16, i was not realizing because its only just 1 false target, in a cicle of aprox 1 min and at random ranges, so simetimes it was appearing further than 40nm that was my preset scope where i was trying to find it. Other weird thing is that you cannot attempt to lock the false target, it does not even give you the option with TMS Up.

Edited July 12, 2024 by falcon_120

[greenmamba]

I had a false target return, but while being on the ground, on the Afghanistan Map and i also had it in the air while i was looking for the tanker, datalink helped me confirms it wasn't what i was looking for. Introduction, still wip. But nice.

[Czar66]

I've got a few with the Viper.

False target at 3k ft AGL and a couple at 22k ft.

Edited July 12, 2024 by Czar66

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

I’ve seen false targets appear even with the radar in Quiet/Silent

[Prime]

17 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I’ve seen false targets appear even with the radar in Quiet/Silent

ew

[falconzx]

Il 12/07/2024 at 20:40, Raven (Elysian Angel) ha scritto:

I’ve seen false targets appear even with the radar in Quiet/Silent

I can confirm. I usually fly in quiet and i saw them.

[Viper33]

This is far from realistic. Either make it realistic or dont implement such a feature at all. False targets at 22k is crazy.

[falconzx]

I actually appreciated the efforts ED is doing to re-make systems that were working good enough for the sim standards, like the choice to implement a INS+GPS more deeply. 
 

3 ore fa, Viper33 ha scritto:

This is far from realistic. Either make it realistic or dont implement such a feature at all. False targets at 22k is crazy.

Instead, this radar false returns, seems a step back to an ancient, well known, philosophy: all hat and no cattle. 

Seeing how much is WIP, it's a feature force pushed into the update in a state that can be titled only with: "fake returns", further explanations are quite fancy given that the user can't be convinced in any way this is not a fake graphical effect on the radar screen.

You move the radar, nothing changes, you turn off the radar, nothing changes.


I just give my two cents:
we don't need candies and fancies, just pay more attention to the DEEP details that can make this sim good. 
 

Start checking the gimbals of the antenna on the scan pattern when azimuth is set to A1 and the aircraft is maneuvering with medium pitch angles, scan volume positioned on the gimbal limit and you roll the aircraft. If someone in the team only have the patience to do proper tests they will notice something wrong. A problem that only the F-16C has, but a lot of people just don't care because most of pilots don't use A1 and use the radar while leveled.

 

This...
months are passing and still we don't have a proper functioning AUTO MLC Filter. At the current patch its forced on, so it filter all even in lookup(no clutter) scenarios.

I think going on with decorations while these and more core radar issues are still there its a waste of time.

Edited July 18, 2024 by falconzx

[Swift.]

17 hours ago, Viper33 said:

This is far from realistic. Either make it realistic or dont implement such a feature at all. False targets at 22k is crazy.

Im pretty sure they are trying to model Constant False Alarm Rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_false_alarm_rate), rather than the 'birds' you'd see on something like the Razbam radar modelling.

So perhaps not 'unrealistic' just not what you were expecting.

 

See also: https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/False Alarm Rate.en.html

Edited July 19, 2024 by Swift.

[Viper33]

1 hour ago, Swift. said:

Im pretty sure they are trying to model Constant False Alarm Rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_false_alarm_rate), rather than the 'birds' you'd see on something like the Razbam radar modelling.

So perhaps not 'unrealistic' just not what you were expecting.

 

See also: https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/False Alarm Rate.en.html

 

Yeah no. 

https://www.amazon.com/Stimsons-Introduction-Airborne-Radar-Electromagnetics/dp/1613530226

Read some subject matter books or maybe work on said systems to learn how ridiculous that statement is.  Razbams model is probably the most true to life radar simulation in a consumer sim I have seen so far and uses correct treshholds and fitlers to generate said returns when flying down low. Adding a scipted representation based on an average value you found on wikipedia is not it.

[Swift.]

10 minutes ago, Viper33 said:

Yeah no. 

https://www.amazon.com/Stimsons-Introduction-Airborne-Radar-Electromagnetics/dp/1613530226

Read some subject matter books or maybe work on said systems to learn how ridiculous that statement is.  Razbams model is probably the most true to life radar simulation in a consumer sim I have seen so far and uses correct treshholds and fitlers to generate said returns when flying down low. Adding a scipted representation based on an average value you found on wikipedia is not it.

Yep and you'll find in that book too, it mentions CFAR.

 

Edit, in fact if you turn to page 144, you'll see it mention: 'In radars for fighter aircraft, for example, a false-alarm time of a minute or so is generally considered acceptable.'

Edited July 19, 2024 by Swift.

[Wizard_03]

1 hour ago, Viper33 said:

Yeah no. 

https://www.amazon.com/Stimsons-Introduction-Airborne-Radar-Electromagnetics/dp/1613530226

Read some subject matter books or maybe work on said systems to learn how ridiculous that statement is.  Razbams model is probably the most true to life radar simulation in a consumer sim I have seen so far and uses correct treshholds and fitlers to generate said returns when flying down low. Adding a scipted representation based on an average value you found on wikipedia is not it.

The one that ED just had to fix after razbam intentionally sabotaged it? That radar you mean? 

[Hobel]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb Wizard_03:

The one that ED just had to fix after razbam intentionally sabotaged it? That radar you mean? 

This has nothing to do with the topic and is also misleading.

The Radar Simulator from RB has already proven how authentic it is, just because it didn't work some  time doesn't mean it was or is bad 

 

[Pavlin_33]

On 7/18/2024 at 9:14 PM, Viper33 said:

This is far from realistic. Either make it realistic or dont implement such a feature at all. False targets at 22k is crazy.

What about ECM?

[Swift.]

48 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

What about ECM?

What about ECM? I dont think that has any weighting to false alarms.

[Viper33]

8 minutes ago, Swift. said:

What about ECM? I dont think that has any weighting to false alarms.

It does. What you think is wrong. Again, either do it like Razbam or don't do it at all.

 

56 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

What about ECM?

Technically also depending on the type of jamming. It could also have the opposite effect where treshholds are raised so high no other noise can pass through and only the jamming strobes or sources are present.

Edited July 21, 2024 by Viper33

[Wing]

@Viper33No reason to get sassy towards @Swift.
 

From what I’ve read about F16 defense and how it effects radar scope - ECM jammer can cause some interesting effects to radar returns.

As we all know, the jammer is an active emission that can be seen on your radar scope. Using it advertises your presence from much longer ranges that you could normally hope to detect a target. You will see a jamming target even with your radar in standby. You don't need to emit a signal intended to bounce back from him. Your radar can detect the signal he's emitting all by itself (thus causing false target bricks on the FCR). A radar signal is nothing more than a noise ping which has a frequency and a wavelength. Since conical scan radars use the phase of the target returns to generate error signals, an inverse gain deception jammer attempts to alter the phase by inducing fake signals into the antennas. Also, by altering the amplitude of the signal, the jammer induces large errors into the tracking loop. To do this, the jammer must determine the frequency, PRF, and scan rate of the victim radar. It then transmits signals that change the phase and amplitude of the target signal, resulting in a signal 180 degrees out of phase with the actual target. This 180-degree error rapidly drives the antenna off the target and causes a break-lock. Because of the signals being transmitted is the jammer itself is a perfect source for your radar to detect.

You may not wish to use your jammer at long ranges because of this factor, but you'll probably wish to use it once you are sure that he knows you're there. You'll want to do this before he spikes or locks you, not when you are hard spiked. By then it's often too late. If he spikes or bugs you, he's got altitude, range, bearing, aspect and course on you and can use this information to his advantage. He may have already fired a missile. Once the radar has locked on to you and all the power of the attack radar is focused on you, it's harder for the jammer to break the lock than it is for the jammer to prevent the lock in the first place. Very often, once locked, turning the jammer on will not break the lock, but again it depends on range, aspect and other variables which you'll have to be flexible in assessing when to use your jammer.

Edited July 21, 2024 by Wing

[Xhonas]

Real life evidence of how much clutter there is in a F-16 radar at low altitude... Curiously, it is very similar to how Razbam have modelled it. F-16 and F-18 (Hornet when using high prf) should have way more clutter than what we have now, which is nothing compared to what we see in this video.

 

 

[Swift.]

32 minutes ago, Xhonas said:

Real life evidence of how much clutter there is in a F-16 radar at low altitude... Curiously, it is very similar to how Razbam have modelled it. F-16 and F-18 (Hornet when using high prf) should have way more clutter than what we have now, which is nothing compared to what we see in this video.

 

 

There are different effects at play here. What ED have done is a CFAR. What everyone else seems to be talking about is sidelobe ground returns.

The former is why you see false alarms whilst 'high'. And the latter is what you see in that video and what is obvious in razbams modelling.

 

What ED have done is 'accurate', but just incomplete. Once we get sidelobes modelled, we should start to see more like what you all seem to be expecting.

[Pillowcat]

false targets appears with turned off radar:

[Swift.]

3 hours ago, Pillowcat said:

false targets appears with turned off radar:

The interesting question would be whether that switch controls receiver functions or just the transmission power. Because false alarms are a processing function on the received radiation. So even if nothing is being transmitted, so long as the receiver is still receiving noise itll still show false alarms.

[Dragon1-1]

I don't think it would bother processing anything when the emitter is turned off. 

[falcon_120]

I don't think it would bother processing anything when the emitter is turned off. 

I dont think that is correct. F16 radar will in fact show jamming targets with the radar on silent mode (not transmitting).

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Viper33]

On 8/5/2024 at 8:33 PM, falcon_120 said:

I dont think that is correct. F16 radar will in fact show jamming targets with the radar on silent mode (not transmitting).

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Yeah no, the loops are closed for that when radar isnt scanning. The simple fact why this is the case here is because ED simply faked/scripted this stuff with an arbitrary rate, with 0 actual procesing or scanning logic (raycasting). It's basically all afaked effect to make you think the redar is seeing false contacts. It doesnt even take into account the antenna angle or the altitude.

[Lord Vader]

@Pillowcat and repliers.

[edited] The false target depiction while in silent mode is correct as is. It's due to the ambient noise and receiver own noise generated over time.

Thanks anyway for your input and thoughts.