correct as is Unrealistic GMT radar? DCS is too good?

[lee1hy]

You can see big big square moving target  shown f-16gmt radar
big big square on the F16 GMT radar

. Is this realistic or is it incorrect?

game

F-16C Real 


 

Edited August 25 by lee1hy

[RogueSpecterGaming]

3 hours ago, lee1hy said:

You can see big big square moving target  shown f-16gmt radar
big big square on the F16 GMT radar

. Is this realistic or is it incorrect?

game

F-16C Real 


 

Your "F-16C real" photo is from a much earlier version of the F16C and most likely a much earlier version of the radar as well. And who knows if what we are looking at has moving targets on it. I think the squares a bit too big personally, but not too far off. 

[lee1hy]

https://www.scribd.com/document/678844678/APG-68




NOT "earlier version " 
ITS APG-68 V5

4 hours ago, RogueSpecterGaming said:

Your "F-16C real" photo is from a much earlier version of the F16C and most likely a much earlier version of the radar as well. And who knows if what we are looking at has moving targets on it. I think the squares a bit too big personally, but not too far off. 

If you want to check "correct as is", please bring a source material
Thanks 

Edited August 25 by lee1hy

[Ivandrov]

33 minutes ago, lee1hy said:

https://www.scribd.com/document/678844678/APG-68




NOT "earlier version " 
ITS APG-68 V5

If you want to check "correct as is", please bring a source material
Thanks 

The person who checks "correct as is" is usually the the ED team.

I don't know what any of this in the 2nd post has to do with the GMT blocks, the image in your first post as blurry as it is certainly looks like big ass blocks to me.

Edited August 25 by Ivandrov

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb lee1hy:

https://www.scribd.com/document/678844678/APG-68




NOT "earlier version " 
ITS APG-68 V5

If you want to check "correct as is", please bring a source material
Thanks 

And where in your source does the GMT representation contradict that in DCS?

It is a symbolic simplification to make the moving target more recognizable to the pilot amid the noise.
The representation in DCS is correct.

Edited August 25 by Hobel

[RogueSpecterGaming]

7 hours ago, lee1hy said:

https://www.scribd.com/document/678844678/APG-68




NOT "earlier version " 
ITS APG-68 V5

If you want to check "correct as is", please bring a source material
Thanks 

First off, I am not the one who marked it as "correct-as-is", that is the ED team who does that. 

 

Second, don't send links to try to prove something when the screenshots you just shared are from a document for the other F16 sim. Also, kinda weird how you took screenshots from another doc but linked to another one as if I wouldn't find where you actually grabbed those screenshots. 

 

Third off, if you have actual publically available source material that contradicts what is in this sim send it directly to either Nineline or BigNewy. 

 

Thank you and have a good day.

[lee1hy]

8 hours ago, Hobel said:

And where in your source does the GMT representation contradict that in DCS?

It is a symbolic simplification to make the moving target more recognizable to the pilot amid the noise.
The representation in DCS is correct.

 open public level (media, old pdf etc) we can access. of coruse, we dont know see real gmt f16
If there is something that makes sense of material, of course  dcs players will understand.

Edited August 26 by lee1hy

[Hobel]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb lee1hy:

 open public level (media, old pdf etc) we can access. of coruse, we dont know see real gmt f16
If there is something that makes sense of material, of course  dcs players will understand.

There are sources that show exactly what we see in DCS, a square. what you have shown us is still an older software representation/solution.
Nothing else you see in the A/A FCR a clean picture with nice symbols, everything nicely simplified for the pilot.

Exactly this logic of representation was then also decided for the GMT, objects that move fast enough are recognized by the system and are displayed clearly as a square as it can be seen in the Docs, I don't speak for ED either, but I assume that this was the orientation.

And I will not post any documents here for obvious reasons.

Edited August 26 by Hobel

[BIGNEWY]

Please if you have actual evidence from the block and year we have modelled DM me directly 

thank you