[RESOLVED] Very low IR signature

Hi!

The F-14 IR signature seems very wrong:

Without afterburner the F-14 shows up in EOS at about 10 km, which is the same value as the much smaller and weaker F-18. A Flanker shows up at about 15 km, which would mean that the Flanker produces about twice as much power in the IR spectrum.

With afterburner the F-14 shows up at 35 km!! The F-18 shows up at 41 km, while the Flanker shows up at 65 km. This would mean that the Flanker produces almost 4 times as much heat as the F-14 in afterburner.

The F-14 is the largest fighter in DCS with the most powerfull engine. You don't get high thrust and a big plane for free, the IR signature should be huge!

From this changelog it appears as if the current values were adjusted intentionally: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3852980&postcount=2

In my opinion the current IR stealth of the F-14 is totally wrong and inconsistent with the other planes in DCS. It should be on a similar level and even higher than a Flanker.

I hope to see IR coefficients fixed.

Ofc it was adjusted intentionally, randomly would not be so good... But it was adjusted to values that made sense to the data available to us, not to give it an advantage or to make it "stealth".

I'm really not a fan I have to say of these suggestions that we would do anything on the tomcat to give it an advantage. It is being brought up again and again, mostly by DCS players who do not fly it. It is not true, I just wanted to state this here very clearly.

We do make mistakes however and we are willing to fix them. In that sense, we will take a look ofc, thank you for reporting it.

It was not meant as an accusation, I just wanted to express that some thought went into the current values, but that the ideas behind it are not in line with the rest of the planes in the DCS universe.

Good to hear that you will take a look at it!

Thanks for clarifying, I just wanted to make sure that it is known that we‘d never implement anything to give it an advantage or any of that sorts. Accuracy comes above all, hence we‘re more than happy to take a second look. Thanks again for reporting it!

Hi!

 

The F-14 IR signature seems very wrong:

 

Without afterburner the F-14 shows up in EOS at about 10 km, which is the same value as the much smaller and weaker F-18. A Flanker shows up at about 15 km, which would mean that the Flanker produces about twice as much power in the IR spectrum.

 

With afterburner the F-14 shows up at 35 km!! The F-18 shows up at 41 km, while the Flanker shows up at 65 km. This would mean that the Flanker produces almost 4 times as much heat as the F-14 in afterburner.

 

The F-14 is the largest fighter in DCS with the most powerfull engine. You don't get high thrust and a big plane for free, the IR signature should be huge!

 

From this changelog it appears as if the current values were adjusted intentionally: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3852980&postcount=2

 

In my opinion the current IR stealth of the F-14 is totally wrong and inconsistent with the other planes in DCS. It should be on a similar level and even higher than a Flanker.

 

I hope to see IR coefficients fixed.

In real life engine IR signature is not as straight forward as you might think. Smaller sized engines that produce less total trust doesn't mean cooler IR signature. You called the Hornet smaller and weaker but do you know how hot its IR signature really is? Just food for thought.

Hi!

 

The F-14 IR signature seems very wrong:

 

Without afterburner the F-14 shows up in EOS at about 10 km, which is the same value as the much smaller and weaker F-18. A Flanker shows up at about 15 km, which would mean that the Flanker produces about twice as much power in the IR spectrum.

 

With afterburner the F-14 shows up at 35 km!! The F-18 shows up at 41 km, while the Flanker shows up at 65 km. This would mean that the Flanker produces almost 4 times as much heat as the F-14 in afterburner.

 

The F-14 is the largest fighter in DCS with the most powerfull engine. You don't get high thrust and a big plane for free, the IR signature should be huge!

 

From this changelog it appears as if the current values were adjusted intentionally: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3852980&postcount=2

 

In my opinion the current IR stealth of the F-14 is totally wrong and inconsistent with the other planes in DCS. It should be on a similar level and even higher than a Flanker.

 

I hope to see IR coefficients fixed.

Every plane in DCS should have values and capabilities the same as they have/had in real life.

Where data is unavailable educated guesses should be used.Based on what IronMIke(Gvozdeni:smilewink:)has said maybe values for Flanker and F18 are off.Should be checked.

On a similar note,i have read on numerous posts something along the line of;can not implement this on X plane because we on Y plane would be in serious disadvantage.

DCS is a Simulation,not a multiplayer game.Balancing has no place in a simulation.

How are the IR signatures determined? Is there actual data somewhere about this?

My educated guess is they are top secret esp. for airframes in service so devs do educated approximation according to docs they put their hands on.

 

 

DCS is a Simulation,not a multiplayer game.Balancing has no place in a simulation.

Preach! Most air-quakers always cry about "balance". :lol:

Preach! Most air-quakers always cry about "balance". :lol:

Yeah, this is off-topic, but I agree with you. I expect these modules to be as true to life as governments and technology allow. Otherwise I'll just go back to Il-2.

IR signature directly affects the ability of an IR missile to track the target.

The current IR missile sensitivities are in DCS are designed for the current IR coefficients to have realistic lock on ranges.

The F-14 needs an IR coefficient that is in line with all the other modules (IF it emitts more radiation than the hornet, then its IR coefficient needs to be bigger) so that the missile has a realistic tracking ability.

Also, are you all saying that ED or any other module developer has done no research to come to the values that they currently have in DCS?

But you don't have any data so what to discuss about?

Also, are you all saying that ED or any other module developer has done no research to come to the values that they currently have in DCS?

Someone already answered this question and it looks like you missed it ;)

Ironmike already said they will take a second look into it, and none of you have anything to add as you don't have any data either.

End of story.

You and nobody else asked a question:

Also, are you all saying that ED or any other module developer has done no research to come to the values that they currently have in DCS?

So I answered you, and the answer is no:

My educated guess is they are top secret esp. for airframes in service so devs do educated approximation according to docs they put their hands on.

End of story.

You're not the one who decides when a discussion is over. Anyway, if you're in bad mood, I kindly suggest you Sir go for a hike.

Just a little update: With the latest Open Beta patch the F-18 IR signature got adjusted. The head on detection range in EOS is now 55 km with afterburner.

The very low F-14 head on detection range with afterburner (35 km) is now even stranger.

Mind you that it is true: while generally yes, smaller engines still does not mean 100% smaller IR signature, but that said, I do not want to make any educated guesses.

Nerfing, balance, etc are not part of our vocabulary, at all. We need to get it as true to real life as possible, how that fits in with everything else, is not really a concern for us. Don't get me wrong, it is not like we do not take note or think it is not important. But it is a trap any dev who is in the business to make "realistic simulations" can quickly step in.

If it is too small, and at the moment it points towards that, we need to adjust it. But please keep in mind that this cannot be done in comparison to any other module, but only to the real life F14, which then needs to be adjusted accordingly to the capabilities of DCS (in terms of how precise and complex it can be made I mean, this is nothing for us to change). I guess it is much more important to compare against how one would expect the missile in DCS to behave against an F14.

Please give us the time to check it, it will take a bit till we get to it.

It is a good staring point to adjust the two IR signature valies in comparison to existing ED modules, as they achieve quite realistic results:

The Su-27SK manual states a head on (PPS) detection range of afterburning targets with 90-100 km. It also says that the lock on range is about 70% of the detection range.

It is very likely that the OLS-27 (IRST of Su-27) was tested against other russian fighters, which would be other Su-27 or MiG-29, to come up with the values in the manual.

The Su-27 in DCS can find and track another afterburning Su-27 in a head on aspect at 65 km, which is pretty much the 70% of 90-100 km. So this value is spot on.

The F-14B can now be adjusted relative to the Su-27 value. Depending on how much power (not temperature) the afterburning F-14 is estimated to radiate in the IR spectrum compared to the Su-27 the IR signature values can be chosen.

I don't want the F-14 to be "nerfed", I just want to be able to have realistic tracking ranges when engaging the F-14. The current IR-coefficient with afterburner suggests that the F-14 emitts about 1/4 of the, as I explained, pretty realistic Su-27 radiation, which does not seem correct.

It is a good staring point to adjust the two IR signature valies in comparison to existing ED modules, as they achieve quite realistic results:

 

The Su-27SK manual states a head on (PPS) detection range of afterburning targets with 90-100 km. It also says that the lock on range is about 70% of the detection range.

It is very likely that the OLS-27 (IRST of Su-27) was tested against other russian fighters, which would be other Su-27 or MiG-29, to come up with the values in the manual.

The Su-27 in DCS can find and track another afterburning Su-27 in a head on aspect at 65 km, which is pretty much the 70% of 90-100 km. So this value is spot on.

 

The F-14B can now be adjusted relative to the Su-27 value. Depending on how much power (not temperature) the afterburning F-14 is estimated to radiate in the IR spectrum compared to the Su-27 the IR signature values can be chosen.

 

I don't want the F-14 to be "nerfed", I just want to be able to have realistic tracking ranges when engaging the F-14. The current IR-coefficient with afterburner suggests that the F-14 emitts about 1/4 of the, as I explained, pretty realistic Su-27 radiation, which does not seem correct.

That kind of comparison is of course very insightful (and well put to together I might add), but what I meant, it cannot be the only reference for us to make an adjustment, that would simply equal an educated guess. But it surely does point us in a direction and gives us reference, I'll stand corrected in that. :)

With todays update the F-14 behaves very similar to the other big fighters in DCS when it comes to IR emission. It seems alot more reasonable now.

Thank you for the adjustment!

With todays update the F-14 behaves very similar to the other big fighters in DCS when it comes to IR emission. It seems alot more reasonable now.

 

Thank you for the adjustment!

Our pleasure. :)