EOS 1.2.7

[fitness88]

So in the 1.2.7 Exactly what elevation increment is for each "click" of the elevation button ? .... I click up raises the EOS scan volume by how much

 

I note with EOS selected there is a "10" value forthe expected target range

 

I noted in FC2, elevation movement on the left side of the HDD as you toggle up and down. And I believe there is a given percentage [5 or 10] for each notch of rise or fall.

[IvanK]

I think I have it figured out.

 

Assuming that the Elevation scale is based on the expected target range of 10Km (which is fixed) and the HUD Delta H on the right hand side. 1 Click represents raising the scan centre to look at 1000m above your present altitude at 10km range. So basic Trig says this is requires the scan to be raised by 5.71deg per click.

 

Testing this the highest delta H value you can get is +15 so that represents at 10Km 56.3degrees elevation (EOS scan centreline)

 

The lowest Delta H value you can get is -2 so that represents at 10Km -11.3degrees of elevation . (EOS scan centreline) You can still click a bigger minus value but the elev indicator on the MFD shows no further movement. Might be better in the Sim if the Delta H value stopped at -2 to indicate the lower limit.

 

 

So the Up value is close to the Quoted +60, in the down side at -11.3deg its a bit shy of the quoted -15degrees

Edited December 25, 2013 by IvanK

[Kuky]

What are the tracking ranges? Can it detect flare decoys?

 

I think as long as you can see the contact on EOS, you can lock on it and track it... aircraft in afterburners you can see them much further away (in MIG-29 I could see the F-14 something like 100Km away... but as it went out of afterburner the lock dropped and I could no longer see it... until I got much closer

 

About flares, I just tried it and I could not see any flare contacts in EOS BVR mode, I think EOS is smart enough to filter out flares but this is just my guess, and only in FIO mode, the IR missile seeker can see and lock onto flares (see screenshot)

[Kuky]

[/b]

 

The Migs in FC2 were able to adjust EOS elevation manually as well as with the nose, now you can only adjust with the nose.

 

And this is how real MiG-29 EOS operates (as stated by ED, I believe they have docs for MiG-29 and Su-27 EOS)

[fitness88]

And this is how real MiG-29 EOS operates (as stated by ED, I believe they have docs for MiG-29 and Su-27 EOS)

 

I too read the docs, I wasn't sure if they were accurate...too bad I liked the EOS scan feature in the Mig.

[fitness88]

I think I have it figured out.

 

Assuming that the Elevation scale is based on the expected target range of 10Km (which is fixed) and the HUD Delta H on the right hand side. 1 Click represents raising the scan centre to look at 1000m above your present altitude at 10km range. So basic Trig says this is requires the scan to be raised by 5.71deg per click.

 

Testing this the highest delta H value you can get is +15 so that represents at 10Km 56.3degrees elevation (EOS scan centreline)

 

The lowest Delta H value you can get is -2 so that represents at 10Km -11.3degrees of elevation . (EOS scan centreline) You can still click a bigger minus value but the elev indicator on the MFD shows no further movement. Might be better in the Sim if the Delta H value stopped at -2 to indicate the lower limit.

 

 

So the Up value is close to the Quoted +60, in the down side at -11.3deg its a bit shy of the quoted -15degrees

 

IvanK,

Great info I will try it out once the finished version of 1.2.7 is released.

[Vekkinho]

I too read the docs, I wasn't sure if they were accurate...too bad I liked the EOS scan feature in the Mig.

 

It's time to start liking the current one 'cause AFAICS it's far more accurate in modelling...

[Vekkinho]

o the Up value is close to the Quoted +60, in the down side at -11.3deg its a bit shy of the quoted -15degrees

 

I believe I mentioned already, EOS is a bit trippy in the lower hemisphere near it's gimbals, heat noise from nose cone kinda clutters it...

[IvanK]

I know its still being tweaked however this on line in 1.2.7 Upd 1:

 

Initial contacts on both was160Km Tail on F15 was never in Burner either.

I lost the f15 when he turned nose on but regained at 70Km.

These pick up ranges are way to excessive imo. The numbers Kuky referred to in his testers version however seem reasonable.

 

[/url]

[fitness88]

Actually, in FC2 the EOS was gyro-stabilized and the adjustments were practically unusable.

Just like in 1.2.6, you had to be around co-altitude and leveled with the bandit to reliably use EOS.

So 1.2.7 has actually the best EOS, since its basic functions are finally fixed!

 

Interesting, in FC2 flying flight level behind a plane at my alt...as I scan up I lose it as I come down I pick it up again. Similarly if the plane is 5000 above me as I scan up I will pick it up as I scan down below horizon I lose it.

 

But I agree with everyone...get used to what it is.

[59th_LeFty]

Occured to me as well, this is pre-update1 1.2.7. No info if he was going burner, but cpeed was not changing after so I guess not.

Also, one more thing for the EOS, it has laser for target distance measurement. But from pilots stories it is not useful over 10-12km. No idea about how the range mechanics working, I will ask.....

 

I know its still being tweaked however this on line in 1.2.7 Upd 1:[/url]

Edited December 25, 2013 by 59th_LeFty

[karambiatos]

Occured to me as well, this is pre-update1 1.2.7. No info if he was going burner, but cpeed was not changing after so I guess not.

Also, one more thing for the EOS, it has laser for target distance measurement. But from pilots stories it is not useful over 10-12km. No idea about how the range mechanics working, I will ask.....

 

but if the EOS laser only reaches 10-12 km, then the CAC modes should all give you a speed and heading should they not? yet in game they dont, even when you turn the radar on.

[59th_LeFty]

I can not tell you for russian MiG-29s, but basic export versions does not tell you target speed and alt information, regardless of mode. Not even in "BVR".

[IvanK]

Yes I know what an E3 is. As you can see both F15 and E3 are displaying at the same range. Even with engines at cruise power at high altitude 90Km is excessive imo. I agree ref Laser range.

Edited December 27, 2013 by IvanK

[Vekkinho]

It's simply because your altitude is changing in relation to his as you pitch the nose.

Not because you point EOS sensor up and down.

In fact you are limited your view cone as you pull away from horizon either up or down.

The EOS was/is gyro-stabilized in FC2 and that always hindered Russian jets back in its days.

Now, finally after a few years it is functional again!

The ranges are being tweaked as mentioned.

I rather see only within 50km for incoming non-after burning target than pick up all kinds of them much farther out, just clutter the screen.

 

Can't really remember how EOS used to function with FC1.1?!!!

I never actually tried to slew it up and down with MiG-29 as I thought it was impossible...:doh:

[Vekkinho]

E-3 is a Boeing 707 with 4 huge hot engines..

It's going quite fast so its throttles are almost all the way up.

This is within normal for tailing a hot target, after burning or not - 4 engines..

 

You can Google the OLS-27 and 29 and see its ranges, they are quite far.

Yes, they are a bit extreme in DCS atm, but they are being tweaked.

And it should not show the exact range outside the laser range finder 15km.

But aspect, altitude and speed it can approximate.

 

Try locking an idling or low throttle F-15 thats head on, it wont see it.

It's not as extreme as you may think.

 

However, with the fact that F-15 is at 15km and E-3 at 90km heat signatures (contacts) displayed in that screenshot are far from reality...

[Pilotasso]

Also, the specs regarding the range of these sensors refers to optimum weather conditions, in practice we should have less on most occasions. Its a petty we haven't yet this dynamically modelled.

[Ragnarok]

I do not know if someone already posted, I don't know if the bug or the new logic of ED's? Authorization for R-27T/ET and R-73 is about 3km in conditions without afterburn and front hemisphere, with afterburn about 10-12km. EOS detects target in front hemisphere about 14-15km afterburn and non-afterburn! What happens now? Why so much change?

 

1.2.8

[GGTharos]

Because this is more realistic behavior according to the manuals for those sensors. As for the disparity between missiles having more range against an afterburning target vs. the EOS no, that doesn't sound quite right. EOS should probably be 8-20km for those cases.

 

I do not know if someone already posted, I don't know if the bug or the new logic of ED's? Authorization for R-27T/ET and R-73 is about 3km in conditions without afterburn and front hemisphere, with afterburn about 10-12km. EOS detects target in front hemisphere about 14-15km afterburn and non-afterburn! What happens now? Why so much change?

[Ragnarok]

I think that aspect is not modeled. Aspect 0/4, head on, non afterburn is about 10km. But now the aspect 1/4 front hemisphere with afterburn is 90-100km. This is obviously purpose given only the most important approximately information. The problem is that the 0/4 head on to the

detection can be improved by increasing the angle of >15 degrees of target.

 

Permission for R-27T/ET is too short.

Thermal head catching hot leading edges of the aircraft, which are probably over 100 degrees of celsius. Can not be that weak. 3km is poor. My old phone Nokia 6131 has a better camera than ET. With it I caught J-22 Eagle about 1.5 miles from my house :smilewink:

 

laser is not always the one that records speed and distance, already the software that differentiates modulated infrared wave, based on the steering angle in a specific aspect (russian "ракурс- front and rear 0/4, 4/4 like a 90deg. and 2/4-3/4 between these two")

 

Anyway, EOS is a huge difference in their power, based on the situation. Sometimes reveal very much, sometimes too short! This definitely is not modeled for now!

 

clipping from manual:

Edited April 12, 2014 by Ragnarok

[GGTharos]

I think that aspect is not modeled. Aspect 0/4, head on, non afterburn is about 10km. But now the aspect 1/4 front hemisphere with afterburn is 90-100km. This is obviously purpose given only the most important approximately information. The problem is that the 0/4 head on to the

detection can be improved by increasing the angle of >15 degrees of target.

 

That only means the fuselage is masking afterburner, but it should do so for missiles as well.

 

Permission for R-27T/ET is too short.

Thermal head catching hot leading edges of the aircraft, which are probably over 100 degrees of celsius. Can not be that weak. 3km is poor. My old phone Nokia 6131 has a better camera than ET. With it I caught J-22 Eagle about 1.5 miles from my house :smilewink:

 

Yeah, it is 'that weak'. That range head on is quite in line with seeker sensitivity manuals we got our hands on.

 

laser is not always the one that records speed and distance, already the software that differentiates modulated infrared wave, based on the steering angle in a specific aspect (russian "ракурс- front and rear 0/4, 4/4 like a 90deg. and 2/4-3/4 between these two")

 

I don't understand.

[Ragnarok]

Yeah, it is 'that weak'. That range head on is quite in line with seeker sensitivity manuals we got our hands on.

It will be interesting to follow the logic of ED. For now, the more useful the stinger hook up, than the use the R-27ET. We'll see who will want to play the drone, the Russian aircraft. But I think that this is not final. Every patch delivers a complete turnaround. Nobody wants to fly what in reality does not exist.

 

Ka-50 is brilliant! My recommendation to everyone...

[Frostie]

Yeah, it is 'that weak'. That range head on is quite in line with seeker sensitivity manuals we got our hands on.

3km?!?

I'm sure the Georgian UAV was at least that and it wasn't even in burners. ;)

[GGTharos]

Read what I wrote. Jet fighters can completely mask a head-on IR signature, and this is what the sensitivity graph shows us.

 

We don't know the exact configuration of the UAV's engine, but it might not have been as well shielded.

 

I have no idea how you could be sure about the engagement range of the Georgian UAV. The flight time of the missile is 4sec, and that means it can't be more than 3km, never mind 'at least 3km'. If I assumed that MiG was moving at M0.5, then it's 1.7km. If it's moving at M1.0, then it's 2km. At 4sec, assuming we're looking at an R-73, the missile might have reached +M2. Even if we assume it reaches +M2.5 you're not getting past 2.5km.

 

3km?!?

I'm sure the Georgian UAV was at least that and it wasn't even in burners. ;)

[*Rage*]

Read what I wrote. Jet fighters can completely mask a head-on IR signature, and this is what the sensitivity graph shows us.

 

We don't know the exact configuration of the UAV's engine, but it might not have been as well shielded.

 

I have no idea how you could be sure about the engagement range of the Georgian UAV. The flight time of the missile is 4sec, and that means it can't be more than 3km, never mind 'at least 3km'. If I assumed that MiG was moving at M0.5, then it's 1.7km. If it's moving at M1.0, then it's 2km. At 4sec, assuming we're looking at an R-73, the missile might have reached +M2. Even if we assume it reaches +M2.5 you're not getting past 2.5km.

 

 

The Mig pilot launched at similar ranges to what is now max LA range in DCS. How do you reconcile a prop driven UAV flying at jogging pace to an afterburning fighter at Mach >1+ ?