Jump to content

Air to Ground radar?


Skaufman1974

Recommended Posts

Well, I'm sure they had shifting priorities since then which prevented them to work on it such as DCS 2.0/2.5, New weather engine, new flight models for bombs and missiles, new A-A missile logic, new ground units, new maps, new AI assets, Vapours, new damage models and much more.

 

I wouldn't call it lack of effort but rather too much at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I'm sure they had shifting priorities since then which prevented them to work on it such as DCS 2.0/2.5, New weather engine, new flight models for bombs and missiles, new A-A missile logic, new ground units, new maps, new AI assets, Vapours, new damage models and much more.

 

I wouldn't call it lack of effort but rather too much at once.

 

Didn't we just conclude that a radar engineer isn't used for graphics/weather/flight models/maps etc? Or is the gameplay here to use this excuse when it suits? Maybe we see a sling of those project leads that think using 9 women will produce a baby in 1 month?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about AG radar since 2015 ? My god....

There has been information on the AG radar since then, just no pics.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you doubt them.. after all we did get all that info back in 2015. Anyway slow the f18 , that's so last year. All devs get working the f16! By the time we're bitching about it not having a ground radar it'll be time for the Cobra to distract us. Lol. And so it goes:(:(


Edited by silent one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@QuiGon Can you point to post which will prove that engineer working on that left company or you are just trolling?

I'm not trolling, thanks...

 

I'm trying to find the original post where ED announced that their A/G radar engineer left the company, but it's giving me a hard time to find it again.

Here's a post of me and someone else talking about it a while ago: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3964088&postcount=7

 

 

Edit: Still can't find the original announcement, but here's a post from Wags, where he mentions it too: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3661070&postcount=80

Supporting tech like the A/G radar (we lost our original engineer on this) and an improved FLIR rendering system are in work and are fundamental to A/G radar implementation and the ATFLIR.

Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, anyway if he was working just on core technology in engine itself it should not matter that much. (if that was completed)

 

There is a difference between the core AG radar rendering technology and the implementation of that tech to a specific pod. The latter just started.

 

Thanks


Edited by danvac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, anyway if he was working just on core technology in engine itself it should not matter that much.

Well, the respective core technology is a prerequisite for the actual implementation of the Hornet A/G radar.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, anyway if he was working just on core technology in engine itself it should not matter that much. (if that was completed)

 

LOL... ASSuming he wrote understandable well documented code and some other guy can figure what sorts of simplifications from the basic physics he was trying to make based on whatever notes he did or didn't keep. My guess is they probably had to (mostly) start over.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL... ASSuming he wrote understandable well documented code and some other guy can figure what sorts of simplifications from the basic physics he was trying to make based on whatever notes he did or didn't keep. My guess is they probably had to (mostly) start over.

 

Which we should be happy about because it significantly increases the chances for clean code provided the requirements you correctly stated would not be met!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which we should be happy about because it significantly increases the chances for clean code provided the requirements you correctly stated would not be met!

 

I'm just pointing out one of the many very common issues in the programming world that DCS has to deal with. Yes I know folks are supposed to comment their code etc. But how well that happens and how readable and logically its presented still tend to vary greatly in my experience depending both on the programmers and on the company culture and management to some extent.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in the works. And it is a factor making me not having it. Yet (give me a Viper, please :) )

 

See here a summary of what's done and to do.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13

Cheers.

...

 

 

But it wouldn't be implemented in the Viper either at the first stages of development, or did I miss something :huh: ?!

 

 

Sorry, no offence, question comes just for clarification... .

 

 

All the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it wouldn't be implemented in the Viper either at the first stages of development, or did I miss something :huh: ?!

 

 

Sorry, no offence, question comes just for clarification... .

 

 

All the best.

 

Nope. Not in the viper at first. I'd hope the hornet got it first and then the Viper, that would save ED alot of PR headaches .

 

Interestingly Deka has shown a working ground mapping radar implementation for the JF17. But then again so does HB with the viggen.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just pointing out one of the many very common issues in the programming world that DCS has to deal with. Yes I know folks are supposed to comment their code etc. But how well that happens and how readable and logically its presented still tend to vary greatly in my experience depending both on the programmers and on the company culture and management to some extent.

 

I fully agree with you, in fact I already did with my previous post. I‘ve made the same experiences in my professional environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone tell me why JF-17 has a Air/Ground radar and ED planes not?

 

Because I guess that the A2G radar representation you are seeing there is not... ENOUGH, lets say, for ED standards. Or that is my feeling.

 

Note: I've seen DEKA video and the A2G mode you see there does not seem very realistic compared to RL footage ive seen, though I could be totally wrong. The Vigen A2G seems a better representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure we will see A/G radar and TWS come out for the Viper and Hornet at once - they are now probably in some kind of release sprint for the Viper, the systems have a certain commonality and they are working on modular design for plane's features so I'm thinking that's where a lot of the apparent "delay" for the Hornet comes from.

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure we will see A/G radar and TWS come out for the Viper and Hornet at once - they are now probably in some kind of release sprint for the Viper, the systems have a certain commonality and they are working on modular design for plane's features so I'm thinking that's where a lot of the apparent "delay" for the Hornet comes from.
I would love to hear after the TWS release a bit of insight about what have been the major difficulties and technical barriers pulling against an earlier TWS release.

I really thought that would take much less that what it has many months after the EA release.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a question of "Simulation" Vs "Emulation"

 

Given that the software already knows where every potential target is in space as well as the host aircraft's parameters and any potential degradation due to terrain / weather / distance / other voodoo, I would think that ED could EMulate how A2G radar should work (where all of the above are relatively static factors)

 

But I'd also like to think that they are shooting for the moon and trying to create an organic SIMulation where all of the above factors not only exist in real time, but affect each other in a fluid and realistic manner. And this can not be easy...

 

 

But what do I know? I just fly 'em. I don't "build" 'em...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

http://www.476vfightergroup.com/content.php

High Quality Aviation Photography For Personal Enjoyment And Editorial Use.

www.crosswindimages.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I guess that the A2G radar representation you are seeing there is not... ENOUGH, lets say, for ED standards. Or that is my feeling.

 

Note: I've seen DEKA video and the A2G mode you see there does not seem very realistic compared to RL footage ive seen, though I could be totally wrong. The Vigen A2G seems a better representation.

 

Viggen radar has a great simulation. But keep in mind the Viggen radar is different from Hornet and JF-17. The Viggen's radar only has one mode, and was specifically designed for air to ground mapping.

 

The JF-17 radar actually looks pretty good. What we saw was its poorest resolution mode, Real Beam Ground mapping. YT videos of the F-16 in air to ground mode show similar results as Deka's JF-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...