Jump to content

Question: simulated/imitated systems.


AJaromir

Recommended Posts

This is more like general questions about all modules in DCS.

I've found that some systems are not "simulated" but only "imitated"

 

E.G.

L-39C module is "simulating" RSBN because it works with becaons located "physically" in the map.

 

BUT

Mig-29 module is "imitating" RSBN because it works with beacons that are saved in the module so they are just "virtually" located in the map.

 

I guess in most modules the systems like IFF, RWR and radar systems are just "imitated" and not simulated. But that is just my opinion because I have no data about this.

 

To the radar imitating - I mean they just imitate spike detection based on target distance, "attitude" of target, stealth factor e.t.c. But they are not simulating the real radio wave beam, the ability of the material to absorb or reflect the radiation, the angle of the reflected beam from the surface of the aircraft, e.t.c....

 

I would like to know how it really is in DCS. Thanks to all answers. I'm sorry if my text is incomprehensible. I'm not a good Englishman.


Edited by AJaromir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can vary quite a bit from module to module, depending both on the level of simulation of the module itself, and the agreements made with the IP holder.

 

For example, it's reasonable to expect that FC3 modules involve more imitation than simulation, just by their nature.

 

However, I remember one of the key things that put the kaybosh on the Eurofighter 2000 was that the developers were given classified info on how some things worked. They were NOT allowed to simulate the processes themselves, although they were allowed to emulate the end result. They could not show this base reference data to anyone else, which ED requires access to the references so as to verify the accuracy of the end result.

 

With that last point in mind, it's reasonable to assume that all of the more technical aspects of military systems are emulated rather than actually simulated, at least in areas where the technology is still in use, such as with the F/A-18C.

 

Exactly how detailed something like the radar is, it's hard to say, and I don't personally know. For a lot of systems, I know they to some extent model particle airflow over control surfaces, fuel sloshing in the wings, among many other things. There's a LOT of minute detail in there. They probably to some extent in the more advanced modules DO simulate a radio beam, but to what extent *shrugs*

 

With the FC3 aircraft, you have to remember the base systems driving the aircraft are pretty old, and some things that are in play on the maps and such now did not exist when they were first coded. Especially in the case of the MiG-29, it's the oldest of the flight models and the only one still waiting on an update. To get a better idea of what they're doing in FC3 aircraft, look at the Su-27 or F-15 instead, as those are both aircraft that have received full updates to a Professional Flight Model, and in some cases updated systems functionality, also.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can vary quite a bit from module to module, depending both on the level of simulation of the module itself, and the agreements made with the IP holder.

 

For example, it's reasonable to expect that FC3 modules involve more imitation than simulation, just by their nature.

 

However, I remember one of the key things that put the kaybosh on the Eurofighter 2000 was that the developers were given classified info on how some things worked. They were NOT allowed to simulate the processes themselves, although they were allowed to emulate the end result. They could not show this base reference data to anyone else, which ED requires access to the references so as to verify the accuracy of the end result.

 

With that last point in mind, it's reasonable to assume that all of the more technical aspects of military systems are emulated rather than actually simulated, at least in areas where the technology is still in use, such as with the F/A-18C.

 

Exactly how detailed something like the radar is, it's hard to say, and I don't personally know. For a lot of systems, I know they to some extent model particle airflow over control surfaces, fuel sloshing in the wings, among many other things. There's a LOT of minute detail in there. They probably to some extent in the more advanced modules DO simulate a radio beam, but to what extent *shrugs*

 

With the FC3 aircraft, you have to remember the base systems driving the aircraft are pretty old, and some things that are in play on the maps and such now did not exist when they were first coded. Especially in the case of the MiG-29, it's the oldest of the flight models and the only one still waiting on an update. To get a better idea of what they're doing in FC3 aircraft, look at the Su-27 or F-15 instead, as those are both aircraft that have received full updates to a Professional Flight Model, and in some cases updated systems functionality, also.

 

Nice reply and explanation.. I was going to reply, but after that...

 

Umm..

 

What he said!

:thumbup:

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its useless to ask why flight modelling and aerodynamics is so varietly different from module to module even its strictly geometry based and geometry is perfectly fine. That means that DCS flight modelling is not geometry dependent aside from systems interface operation and ordinance deployment workflow. From my perspective, its waste of time and resources.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the radar imitating - I mean they just imitate spike detection based on target distance, "attitude" of target, stealth factor e.t.c. But they are not simulating the real radio wave beam, the ability of the material to absorb or reflect the radiation, the angle of the reflected beam from the surface of the aircraft, e.t.c....

 

Not sure how much progression we will see actually but I remember a post from Zeus in the Razbam forum stating that even the M2000 (maybe all?) modules will benefit from the new F-18 AA radar model. So maybe we get a real beam detection sooner or later...

 

The other points regarding material composition, detailed angle reflection mechanics...

You are right! Sorry to say but this is something you won't see in a open commercial available product. Even engineer study simulations are dealing with only a part of your points.

 

For reasons of computing power and a balance between secrecy and available data we will see nothing more than an educated guess on these mechanics. If you would go further into radar detection, you would have to take factors like weather conditions into account. If I remember correctly weather simulations are the main excuse for nations to install supercomputers :music_whistling:

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for reply.

 

Yes, a lot of things can be pre-calculated like it is and the result will be the same. - it just saves a lot of CPU power.

I just wonder to know how realistic the radar is.

And I hope the Mig-21 will once work with the RSBN/PRMG becaons that are saved in Beacons.lua which is located in the map folder. E.G DCS\Mods\terrains\CaucasusBase. - But this shoul'd be in Mig-21 forum.

 

Once more, thank you all for your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always a deeper level you can go in simulation. Imitation vs simulation A vs simulation B is never going to have discrete boundaries.

 

That's one of the challenges with DCS modules in general. If a module behaves properly in all test vectors, the internals of how they got there are black magic and really don't matter. It could be newtonian equations, fluid dynamics, or a giant lookup table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, after all that have been said. Why you need to be simulated and not imitated, anyway the output will be the same and will work almost on the same way than simulated and saving CPU.

 

I don't know how long you play DCS but maybe you remember the old flight model from LOMAC, so called "SFM" It just was the lookup table and a lot of things was heavily scripted. But for nowday level of entertainment simulation it is just not enough. I remember that every aircraft had 2 models. One for ground moving and one for flying. It was very annoying, specially in crosswind. Just when you touched the ground, all flight dynamics gone.

 

So I wonder to know if anything has been changed in radar modeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how much progression we will see actually but I remember a post from Zeus in the Razbam forum stating that even the M2000 (maybe all?) modules will benefit from the new F-18 AA radar model. So maybe we get a real beam detection sooner or later...

 

The other points regarding material composition, detailed angle reflection mechanics...

You are right! Sorry to say but this is something you won't see in a open commercial available product. Even engineer study simulations are dealing with only a part of your points.

 

For reasons of computing power and a balance between secrecy and available data we will see nothing more than an educated guess on these mechanics. If you would go further into radar detection, you would have to take factors like weather conditions into account. If I remember correctly weather simulations are the main excuse for nations to install supercomputers :music_whistling:

 

I think razbam said they will benefit from the AG radar from the f18.

 

Cant remember exactly, but I think that was what they said.

 

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radar is emulated.

No beam is uttered.

DCS knows everything, it just filters things based on the code, like range angle, aspect etc.

How do I know?

I reported the bug on the late activated units. No unit was there, but shown in the radar scope.

Sorry if there are illusions shattered.

To be fair it can approximate things quite accurately if the data algorithms are well documented so it's not a big deal.

 

Same with Viggen a2g.

 

How do I know?

 

I made a periscope and set the lua files as a big ship.

Radar shows big ship.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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