So Let's Analyze That!?

Hello.

I'm really disappointed with today's practices in the simulation field, especially when it come to Sim. games.

I was testing in the game about how does the radar work in the so claimed Digital Combat simulator! and I found that even the core component of Radar in this Air Combat Sim. is not simulated! it's super badly scripted.

So, you find that Radar is able to see stuff from behind covers were it's impossible to see IRL situation or at even the basic under standing of LOS concept of RADAR.

There are a lot of stuff that should be simulated in this claimed sim and it's not! from Weather, Flight Characteristics of planes and missiles, Damage Model and the list goes on and on.

So, with the above said we know what's not simulated in the game. Now, the Question is what is simulated in the game?!

And for anything to be called sim it has to be of good high percentages of simulation happening to make it fair to be called a sim, or at least Basic core component of the game should be simulated!

My top 3 biggest interests in this topic is RADAR, Flight Model, Damage Model. So, while I was doing some research on the web about Radars I found RADAR being simulated in insane levels of realism like you find Below:

http://www.dennishancock.com/raytracing/index.html

So, I asked my self Why the Radar at least is not simulated in this game?! because regardless of how bad other things might be, but a basic good simulation of RADAR in the game will alter the overall experience for us all for Air, Land and Sea...

to be fair and honest to this Game, IMO it's the best in the market so far by big time. But I'm afraid that won't be for long as other good old companies are showing interests in going back into the market (I won't mention names...)

I believe the game did put it's big fingerprint in the industry by releasing high fidelity military modules, but I think it's about time now that we see more love to the core component of the game that are mentioned above. And as fans of this game we should be willing to invest and support such movement, and btw not giving an excuse to why we are not here yet as that should have been already worked on since day one!

Thanks for reading and I hope ED and the community to receive it with good intentions. And as a help to steer this into the right direction IMO.

Performance. The Hornet is setting a good trend, before we had mostly FC3 as the powerful AA radar, but Hornet as full fidelity seems to be changing that for the better. Even better once ground radar is implemented

Performance. The Hornet is setting a good trend, before we had mostly FC3 as the powerful AA radar, but Hornet as full fidelity seems to be changing that for the better. Even better once ground radar is implemented

I hope so! but not really, if you use ACM in the FA-18 it will allow you to see hovering helos at low altitude even behind tall big buildings...!

and same for any modules that have ACM!

Buildings are an issue. The helos are special, I think it’s actually good you can see them low. Right now the Doppler usually filters them out as the rotating rotors are not taken into account.

Hello.

 

I'm really disappointed with today's practices in the simulation field, especially when it come to Sim. games.

 

I was testing in the game about how does the radar work in the so claimed Digital Combat simulator! and I found that even the core component of Radar in this Air Combat Sim. is not simulated! it's super badly scripted.

 

So, you find that Radar is able to see stuff from behind covers were it's impossible to see IRL situation or at even the basic under standing of LOS concept of RADAR.

 

There are a lot of stuff that should be simulated in this claimed sim and it's not! from Weather, Flight Characteristics of planes and missiles, Damage Model and the list goes on and on.

 

So, with the above said we know what's not simulated in the game. Now, the Question is what is simulated in the game?!

 

And for anything to be called sim it has to be of good high percentages of simulation happening to make it fair to be called a sim, or at least Basic core component of the game should be simulated!

 

My top 3 biggest interests in this topic is RADAR, Flight Model, Damage Model. So, while I was doing some research on the web about Radars I found RADAR being simulated in insane levels of realism like you find Below:

 

http://www.dennishancock.com/raytracing/index.html

 

So, I asked my self Why the Radar at least is not simulated in this game?! because regardless of how bad other things might be, but a basic good simulation of RADAR in the game will alter the overall experience for us all for Air, Land and Sea...

 

to be fair and honest to this Game, IMO it's the best in the market so far by big time. But I'm afraid that won't be for long as other good old companies are showing interests in going back into the market (I won't mention names...)

 

I believe the game did put it's big fingerprint in the industry by releasing high fidelity military modules, but I think it's about time now that we see more love to the core component of the game that are mentioned above. And as fans of this game we should be willing to invest and support such movement, and btw not giving an excuse to why we are not here yet as that should have been already worked on since day one!

 

Thanks for reading and I hope ED and the community to receive it with good intentions. And as a help to steer this into the right direction IMO.

1/ I don't want to be rude, but (which negates what I said before it), saying radar isn't simulated in the sim is silly. It obviously is - you have used the radar in the aircraft in the simulation.

What you obviously mean is that you think that if you were running things it would be simulated to a higher standard - which is a whole other thing.

2/ If you hadn't just walked in the door before offering your advice, you'd know that the radar modelling may not be great, but it's a lot better than it was, and improving over time.

Originally there was no modelling of radar modes, or PRF effects, or scan zones, or ground clutter, etc. etc...

Occasionally it gets buggy and AI can track through hills or buildings, but that's not how it's supposed to work.

Same with LOS for pilots - again, occasionally it gets broken & omniscience returns, but initially the AI pilots had instantaneous 360 * 360 FOV, but at some point they had that cropped to account for obstruction by their own aircraft, then had actual scan patterns and reaction times added, then adjustments for time of day etc.

And a bit like the FM's, which were initially all on a par with the current AI FMs, then went through various levels of improvement till they got to where they are with the F/A-18C - & I think nineline posted that the plan is for the AI are about to have their FM's upgraded to about the level of the Su-25 players' FM.

Essentially - what you want wasn't physically possible given the state of computing when LO/DCS started (Short of using a bubble system for events outside of the players view & rolling dice - which E.D. decided was a path they didn't want to follow) & as machines have improved, they've added detail to each of the areas you raised.

So -better PCs means more can be modelled - initially the FMs, but also the atmosphere (have you tried adjusting the turbulence ? it's much better than what was in DCS originally), the graphics, the size of the maps and the object density, the missile FMs (which some appreciate, but others saw as a step backwards as they didn't play nicely with the old guidance systems), missile guidance systems, projectile ballistics, damage modelling, system modelling, ground handling, and on and on... :)

Radar's still got a way to go, but it has been, and continues to be, improved.

Some people complain loudly that they want it improved faster.

There will always be some group of people who complain that they want what they want faster.

An FM for a plane that is entirely based around lookup tables, is still a simulation & can give acceptable results for a wide range of scenarios, even though there are more subtle ways to perform the simulation available.

A radar simulation that uses LOS, RCS, Aspect & some probability of intercept is still a simulation, regardless of whether it attempts to perform some ray tracing algorithm to determine the LOS or not.

The fact that the AI appear to know you're there is irrelevant (of course the computer program knows you're there, and they're in the program), if

1/ they don't take action while they couldn't detect you in real life

2/ their reaction once they should be able to detect you takes into account probably detection time and any warm up time etc.

Both those things are supposed to be implemented, and if the AI actually launch with a lock as soon as you come out from behind a hill - that's a bug, & should be reported (& hopefully - though not always - E.D. will fix it reasonably promptly).

If they're already 'looking' at you - or have swung their weapons around but still take the amount of time it should take before getting a lock and opening fire - it's only a problem for movie makers.

At that point a turning head or weapon is only as relevant to the outcome as is how far the stabiliser appears to move on a simulated aircraft - which is not at all if it's disconnected from the underlying mechanics.

Simulation, by definition/nature, implies certainly level of compromise. To that extend, it is almost guaranteed that one can always pick up missing details as long as he/she looks close enough.

Radar, or RF (Radio Frequency) in general, is very complicated in real world. It is far more complicated than just LOS. In some cases, LOS rule might not apply at all. Google for keywords like Multipath, Fading, you'll have some idea.

Fun fact: the Beam Forming technology used in 5G base station of a mobile network originally comes from military technology - phased array antenna, a category of radar tech that the well know AESA falls into.

Now, how many civilian companies in the whole world that have mastered that 5G tech?

Another fun fact: there are dedicated RF simulation tool for calculating RF coverage of a given 3G/4G/5G base station, or a bunch of them, on a 3D digital map. Google for keyword "Atol". Such tool usually runs on a dedicated high performance server, and to perform a single simulation/rendering task, it could typically take hours.

That would be the best practice that can meet your desired standard. But I can't imagine to implement some simulation mechanism close to that level while also in real-time in moderate PC hardware...

So, instead of complaining that wouldn't contribute much, the best course of action is probably to make a positive and constructive case in either the Wish List or the Bug Report sub-forum.

I think it's just a question of computer hardware, isn't it?

Building a complete radar simulation of all the aspects of radar returns from different materials and different angles, along with effects from climatic conditions and near and far broad spectrum Electromagnetic emissions etc, this would end up being a radar only simulator running at lower then real time, enthusiast level hardware would not be able to faithfully do that.

This combat flight sim had to simulate radar in some way but it can't be truly faithful to real radar, it can only really simulate what the display's would show, you have to have a limit somewhere or we'd all need super computers to run the game.

Yup.

Getting a "realistic" "simulated" radar in game is a hopeless wish, even with ray tracing. At best you will get some sort of simple approximation of what it should look like on the radar screen in DCS.

My main hope is that they actually script some EW stuff in effects wise. Its pretty sad playing 2000's era planes with some 40s or 50's era jamming tech implemented (in some of them).

Yup.

 

Getting a "realistic" "simulated" radar in game is a hopeless wish, even with ray tracing. At best you will get some sort of simple approximation of what it should look like on the radar screen in DCS.

 

My main hope is that they actually script some EW stuff in effects wise. Its pretty sad playing 2000's era planes with some 40s or 50's era jamming tech implemented (in some of them).

Man! well, I'm a helicopter guy. And the stupid RADAR in the game give away my position even behind freaking damn buildings...

Just spam ACM all time in the jets that have it and see it for you self!

Also the damn RADAR is when it's used by the damn AI well you know the rest the game is unplayable. F-14 AI (RIO)

Man! well, I'm a helicopter guy. And the stupid RADAR in the game give away my position even behind freaking damn buildings...

 

 

Just spam ACM all time in the jets that have it and see it for you self!

 

 

Also the damn RADAR is when it's used by the damn AI well you know the rest the game is unplayable. F-14 AI (RIO)

Now you are making a meaningful case... Yea, from jets point of view, I won't feel disadvantaged if I can find a helo behind a building... tbh, I might not even notice that from distance... Now if I sit at the other end, I can see why it is an issue...

You could've said that at the beginning actually. I think most people, if not all, thought you were complaining about the radar in DCS in general... :D

Radar simulation doesn't mean that it needs to be a raytracing with millions of rays etc.

It is enough that you simulate the narrow FOV that you move around the space, scanning. And only allow to react to stuff that gets painted by it. And then you start to process that information that is it valid to be detected or not. So even if there would be something in the range, it is just ignored unless it is painted, it is meeting the given requirements and so on. when there comes tracking, lock, guidance, jammers, chaff etc, is there required to be more deep simulation calculations done.

The whole radar system is still based to a rings, a jammer multiplier, a target attitude multiplier and then just lucky number generator for is the lock lost or is the missile tracking something else.

The DCS currently models greatly the cockpits and the flight. So you can fly the thing, operate the thing, but do not expect the simulation be deep when it comes to any mission, any combat, anything really where you are using those aircrafts in real world.

As there is such a unrealism going when it comes to combat, that all bets are off if the enemy is not an human pilot.

So everything that has "AI" in it, forget from being simulated deeply or great success as it is very very simple stuff going on.

But most people wants anyways to fly the missions that are super unrealistic, like 6 ship strike formation to fly behind a mountains to enemy supply harbor that is very lightly defended and spots the enemy aircrafts only few kilometers before the bombs drop, and six ships destroy a whole brigade in 10 minutes and then flies happily ever back to base.

ED has acknowledged this and they are improving the AI and especially Combined Arms module.

And they really need to bring their top A game to that. Not one AI, but dozens of AI. Like military officers responsible for a given task. A communication officer, individual for each side. A radio communications simulation, how quickly and effectively can different units report their intelligence and receive it, building a overall picture what is happening around. A supply officer that is responsible only to plan an schedule supplies being transported and distributed across battlefield etc etc etc.

Now we have one huge AI that does to do it all, and cheats by simple design.

If you are talking about the buildings I am guessing you are playing on Persian Gulf, you can fly trough the buildings, that's why radar sees trough them.... behind terrain ? nah, it goes into memory, but pretty much you loose radar lock when target is masking.

Also, I am noticing you are talking from your experience of playing vs AI, well ... what do you expect ... it is AI, they are pretty basic and need assistance, they don't use the systems nor have a flight model which you would have if you were to fly a module.

Also it depends about what module are you talking, the flight models are one of the best out there. Excluding some of the low quality 3rd party developers

Radar simulation doesn't mean that it needs to be a raytracing with millions of rays etc.

 

It is enough that you simulate the narrow FOV that you move around the space, scanning. And only allow to react to stuff that gets painted by it. And then you start to process that information that is it valid to be detected or not. So even if there would be something in the range, it is just ignored unless it is painted, it is meeting the given requirements and so on. when there comes tracking, lock, guidance, jammers, chaff etc, is there required to be more deep simulation calculations done.

 

The whole radar system is still based to a rings, a jammer multiplier, a target attitude multiplier and then just lucky number generator for is the lock lost or is the missile tracking something else.

 

The DCS currently models greatly the cockpits and the flight. So you can fly the thing, operate the thing, but do not expect the simulation be deep when it comes to any mission, any combat, anything really where you are using those aircrafts in real world.

 

As there is such a unrealism going when it comes to combat, that all bets are off if the enemy is not an human pilot.

 

So everything that has "AI" in it, forget from being simulated deeply or great success as it is very very simple stuff going on.

 

But most people wants anyways to fly the missions that are super unrealistic, like 6 ship strike formation to fly behind a mountains to enemy supply harbor that is very lightly defended and spots the enemy aircrafts only few kilometers before the bombs drop, and six ships destroy a whole brigade in 10 minutes and then flies happily ever back to base.

 

ED has acknowledged this and they are improving the AI and especially Combined Arms module.

 

And they really need to bring their top A game to that. Not one AI, but dozens of AI. Like military officers responsible for a given task. A communication officer, individual for each side. A radio communications simulation, how quickly and effectively can different units report their intelligence and receive it, building a overall picture what is happening around. A supply officer that is responsible only to plan an schedule supplies being transported and distributed across battlefield etc etc etc.

 

Now we have one huge AI that does to do it all, and cheats by simple design.

Yes! You are right!

I would bet that it's way simpler than a full camera in the came, after all it should be a camera where the width is 1-5 pixel and the length is the real length of the RADAR beam. it's going to be Black/White (Include Shades of gray!) as well so it's even faster at rendering/analyzing stuff and the 1pixle*270pixles sweeping left and right at spec. speed and the Scanning Patten is divided vertically into RADAR Sectors of Spec. depending on the Fighter specs... And finally using the right equations and filters. and other couple of other needed stuff and we will have a damn RADAR better than anything in any game in the market nowadays.

So, come on ED focus and do something about it.

There are pictures in a past newsletter with the real beam mapping mode

they always dress up the reasoning with serious concepts like authenticity when in reality all they really care about is whether or not they're getting owned

Man! well, I'm a helicopter guy. And the stupid RADAR in the game give away my position even behind freaking damn buildings...

 

 

Just spam ACM all time in the jets that have it and see it for you self!

 

 

Also the damn RADAR is when it's used by the damn AI well you know the rest the game is unplayable. F-14 AI (RIO)

Well you should generally be pretty visible on RADAR in a helo. That giant spinning radar reflector that keeps you airborne is why.

This particular topic has been done to death by the way.

Well you should generally be pretty visible on RADAR in a helo. That giant spinning radar reflector that keeps you airborne is why.

 

This particular topic has been done to death by the way.

I don't know from where are you coming?!

no one here mentioned what you are talking about!

So, please open your eyes and start again.