Mig-21 Lookdown-shootdown capable, Working as intended? - Page 2 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-17-2017, 08:10 AM   #11
Vatikus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 99
Reputation power: 1
Vatikus is on a distinguished road
Default

Non-doppler radars are very poorly simulated in DCS. Ground clutter problem is a tad better simulated in f5 than in mig21.
The processing excuse is just that - an excuse. We do not need SAR ground mapping done, all we need is noise picture when radar points toward the ground.
Vatikus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 08:19 AM   #12
asla36
Member
 
asla36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: In a little country in the Baltic (Eesti!).
Posts: 344
Reputation power: 1
asla36 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vatikus View Post
Non-doppler radars are very poorly simulated in DCS. Ground clutter problem is a tad better simulated in f5 than in mig21.
The processing excuse is just that - an excuse. We do not need SAR ground mapping done, all we need is noise picture when radar points toward the ground.
Luckily that excuse will not last for long. If everything goes to plan, they'll get this fixed by Christmas.
__________________
DCS: MiG-23

Make it happen, and take my money!
asla36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 08:53 PM   #13
_Randolph93
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 94
Reputation power: 3
_Randolph93 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asla36 View Post
Luckily that excuse will not last for long. If everything goes to plan, they'll get this fixed by Christmas.
Meanwhile, expect slightly more players using the "inverted tactics" after this thread
__________________
AMD Phenom II X4 965 - M4A88T-V EVO - 8GB DDR3 Corsair - MSI 7850 - Seasonic 500W - SSD Crucial, HDD Seagate
_Randolph93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2017, 11:59 PM   #14
Frederf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Campbell, CA
Posts: 2,847
Reputation power: 36
Frederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to allFrederf is a name known to all
Send a message via AIM to Frederf
Default

It's not so much as inverted but position below nose. I have contact on an AI MiG at >12° below horizon at ~17km slant and horizontal and +3.7km height (5700 v 2000). The only requirement is that he was above the -1.5° point on my HUD which a 14° dive wings level served.

There seems to be some kind of range penalty applied to detection which wasn't present in a previous version. At 10km I find a peer MiG at ~23km where before I detected co-alt 2km at ~16km. My memory is all contacts of any RCS were being shown out to 30,000m in all conditions. It looks like the devs are working on this one quietly.

It's weird though as if devs are modeling the radar as a Doppler kind with some sort of detection range penalty based on geometry. A large number of tests that find out how nose position, relative position, and range determine detection would really help to have insight into the mechanism here.
Frederf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.