Jump to content

ECM 15sec fictional "warm up" - dear ED, time is to remove it


Falcon_S

Recommended Posts

As title said...

"Warm up" 15sec was fictional feature by ED after F15 pilots start complaining about losing lock becasue "damn Flankers".

 

All AI's can start ECM normaly and also "blink".

F14 also now blinking... ;)

 

So, time is to allow FC3 aircrafts to have normal start ECM.

 

Who blinking with macros can blink as much he want because anyway IMO no sense to lock target at +40km range ... so that was problem for loooong range TWS shots (years ago) by F15c pilots and that shots are past.

Quote

Немој ништа силом, узми већи чекић!

MSI Tomahawk MAX | Ryzen 7 3700x | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz | RX 5700 XT OC Red Dragon 8GB | VPC Throttle CM3 + VPC Constellation ALPHA on VPC WarBRD Base | HP Reverb G2

 Youtube Follow Me on TWITCH! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We still ask for these small things: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245991

 

I don’t call them bugs. Bug it is when you notice is not working properly and then after a decent time frame it become fix it. As you can see all those already have years... years... then it is not anymore call bugs. It is something more nasty...

 

Your ECM request is in the same trunk.

 

Why? Now in few seconds a F-18 or F-15 pilot will jump in this thread and will explain better. They have all the answers.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Warm up" 15sec was fictional feature by ED after F15 pilots start complaining about losing lock because "damn Flankers".

 

No.

The reason the 'blinking' was added wasn't long range F-15 TWS shots, it's that ECM blinking also defeats HOJ shots, & the problem exists as much for Su-27 pilots as for F-15 pilots.

 

Blinking turns the ECM as implemented into a 100% effective shield against radar guided missiles until 'burn-through', which wasn't (& shouldn't be) the intended behaviour.

Blinking the ECM as modelled in DCS makes BVR engagements impossible.

 

It was removed to eliminate an exploit that was crippling MP gameplay for both sides.

 

If your problem is that the F-14 now has this unrealistic effect, the more sensible thing would be to work to have that removed than have something that effectively removes BVR from the game applied across all aircraft.

 

It is something more nasty...

 

Maybe - just maybe, the process should be :

Research the issue, then if there isn't a reasonable explanation, move on to conspiracy theories.

not

jump straight to conspiracy theories...

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s explain this better. This is an example how should work and ECM when properly working:

 

When you get into combat with ECM on, the enemy should burn out your ECM to get a solid lock.

This ECM burning out happen at about 50km as a standard in DCS.

 

Now, If you make a hard maneuver with loops turning off and back on your ECM you should brake this lock and also avoid a second lock, together with the TWS will not work in this level of maneuver because you have not anymore approaching speed and a stable altitude together with all the ECM noise you are releasing that situation is a no go for a combat with ECM and if you turn it on and off could be even worst. That’s why there are passive head seekers in the Russian fighters weapons to avoid this situation. (Russian military already declare this passive missile exists from 90’s and still not in DCS)

 

As we don’t have such a option, taking longer the ECM activation this kind of tactics are not possible and F-15 and F-18 have TWS automatic lock very easy against Russian fighters in the combat situation mentioned above.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo, it would be better if it was similar to a RPG ''stat check'' performed every ''round'' or two. If you ''pass'' the lock is maintained, if you ''fail'' the lock is broken. Set it as a percentage modifier to lose lock that has a higher rate at longer ranges, gradually tapering off until burn through, which itself should vary from aircraft to aircraft. The ''check'' is performed every few seconds at longer ranges, to prevent unwieldy processor overhead. Since this all plays out at bvr ranges it won't cause any anomalous behavior, by the time the missile is in a kill profile the ecm will have already played it's role and it'd be up to the aspect and maneuvering as per usual. It also means 'blinking' serves no purpose as the effect has already been determined.

 

 

But yeah, if it's broken on other aircraft, fix it, not reintroduce it on older ''already resolved'' aircraft. That's just backasswards thinking.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Research the issue, then if there isn't a reasonable explanation, move on to conspiracy theories.

not

jump straight to conspiracy theories...

 

F15c lobby here with so many ed testers (F15c pilots) kindly ask ED to implement this and that happens by their initiative. That is fact. All that "cosmonauts" cry to ED every day becasue their TWS and HOJ not work because they losing lock on looong range (not medium)... they want make kills from 70-100km in that time.

 

When ED change missiles "a bit" they stop flying at all and i saw some are comeback but now they use F14 and AIM54... (yes they rely only on that looong range shots, that's only bvr for them ;) )

 

Anyway... ECM on F14 is as should be. F15c and Flankers have fictional feature because some things years ago. I want to say that any ECM blinking above 40km have no impact on BVR. And of course that ECM must be allowed to pilots to use it when they need, not wait 15sec becasue F15c TWS/HOJ opportunity.

Quote

Немој ништа силом, узми већи чекић!

MSI Tomahawk MAX | Ryzen 7 3700x | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz | RX 5700 XT OC Red Dragon 8GB | VPC Throttle CM3 + VPC Constellation ALPHA on VPC WarBRD Base | HP Reverb G2

 Youtube Follow Me on TWITCH! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. When ED change missiles "a bit" they stop flying at all and i saw some are comeback but now they use F14 and AIM54... (yes they rely only on that looong range shots, that's only bvr for them ;) ).

 

I remember very well those moments. They disappeared from the multiplayers servers. Was the only moment we enjoy the closest real behavior in ECM environment combat. The F-15 pilots also were complaining a lot. TWS must be weaker in ECM environment depending always of the aspect and vertical maneuvers this TWS must be useless when the target do this level of combat.

 

They can’t work in this ECM noice and maneuvering target level, because this is a real statement. Ones the RU fighter broke lock those few seconds they need to search back again decide the combat in favor of the Russian fighters.

 

This version of DCS was roll back again for the easy level and now is not real level of simulation. It is a fact.

 

Edit: not only for TWS, but STT mode must be lock broken at this level of maneuver with ECM environment.


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blinking is just a symptom of the real problem, which is ECM isn't modeled well at all.

 

 

ECM needs an overhaul akin to how AFM missiles replaced the old missiles. Just hopefully it won't take as long to iron it out.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is DCS going to overhaul how it handles radar and ECM

Cant exactly call yourself the best Sim in town with arcadey mechanics like these

90s problem solving for 2019 problems

 

Because radar, ecm, and radar cross sections are some of the most closely guarded national secrets in existence, for starters, and all these more modern aircraft fall into the category that it would be expressly forbidden.

 

Radar emulation itself is possible, but to do it ''realistically'' would be a very resource intensive process.

 

It is one of the most accurate simulations ''in comparison to''. You can throw those ''sim'' terms around till hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact this is a video game, NOT a professional level reenactment, and it has to run on something you would actually find in a common man's house. The government and professional airlines can afford to have a glorified commercial grade server run their simulations, letting them accurately simulate all aspects to the extent possible. We do not. We have consumer grade electronics. If every ''HODOR! REALISM! SIM!'' rant miraculously was granted, not a single computer would be able to run the damn game.

 

DCS is a product of compromises regarding available information, legal permission, and technical capability. Not sure what's so hard for people to understand about that.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ECM is extremely variable in DCS and modelled in a very simple manner. I'd prefer if they just removed it entirely. If and when they want to do a deep dive on it then add it back in then.

 

Nop. Until now they are implementing ECM in a standard ~50 km for both sides but ignoring any type of vertical maneuver in TWS and this is play in favor of aim-120 combat style. We already got a standard distance which is not beyond of any secret information, so why keep leaving TWS as Working in so very easy clean environment without at least add the complication in vertical maneuver of bandit that impact in an easy combat stile as TWS and Auto-lock for F-18/15/14 do until now.

 

Also this thread is asking to remove the long 15sec interval to switch back on the ECM for FC3 fighters. This missed feature, play in favor of the full simulated modules, leaving the FC3 fighters in a ridiculous 15sec awaiting for ECM on.

 

Nothing here is about secret nothing. They know a target with ECM in some angle of vertical maneuver is a nightmare for TWS, and if the bandit switch on and off ECM this is another complication they are not bringing those to the game play.

 

Also pretending STT/TWS guide missile against a bandit with ECM on in vertical maneuver without lock brake is not close to any realistic combat and they still keep it this in a very basic and easy way to F-15/18 turn back so relax.

 

The leak for ECM in vertical maneuver simulation and this 15sec long wait for FC3 is putting the game very easy for aim-120 users


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nop. Until now they are implementing ECM in a standard ~50 km for both sides but ignoring any type of vertical maneuver in TWS and this is play in favor of aim-120 combat style. We already got a standard distance which is not beyond of any secret information, so why keep leaving TWS as Working in so very easy clean environment without at least add the complication in vertical maneuver of bandit that impact in an easy combat stile as TWS and Auto-lock for F-18/15/14 do until now.

 

Also this thread is asking to remove the long 15sec interval to switch back on the ECM for FC3 fighters. This missed feature, play in favor of the full simulated modules, leaving the FC3 fighters in a ridiculous 15sec awaiting for ECM on.

 

Nothing here is about secret nothing. They know a target with ECM in some angle of vertical maneuver is a nightmare for TWS, and if the bandit switch on and off ECM this is another complication they are not bringing those to the game play.

 

Also pretending STT/TWS guide missile against a bandit with ECM on in vertical maneuver without lock brake is not close to any realistic combat and they still keep it this in a very basic and easy way to F-15/18 turn back so relax.

 

The leak for ECM in vertical maneuver simulation and this 15sec long wait for FC3 is putting the game very easy for aim-120 users

If you're facing AMRAAMs it means you're already in the burn-through ranges and your ECM doesn't help you at all.

You keep repeating some magic "vertical maneuver" - what is it? If you turn into ground (still vertical, right?) with proper angle you're basically notching and it works not only against TWS but any doppler lock/search.

How do you know turning ECM on and off is any realistic and better soultion to just keeping it on when needed?

Aren't you forgetting that using ECM also comes with disadvantages and can actually help to keep you locked in closer ranges no matter your aspect/doppler shift?

Pilots use AIM-120 to their advantages to win a fight (what's wrong with that?), not to make you mad, or do they?

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Pilots use AIM-120 to their advantages to win a fight (what's wrong with that?)...

 

Wrong is that ED give them 15sec "NO ECM time" from target.

Quote

Немој ништа силом, узми већи чекић!

MSI Tomahawk MAX | Ryzen 7 3700x | 32GB DDR4 3200MHz | RX 5700 XT OC Red Dragon 8GB | VPC Throttle CM3 + VPC Constellation ALPHA on VPC WarBRD Base | HP Reverb G2

 Youtube Follow Me on TWITCH! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give him... he is posting here supporting this fake combat behavior. While we claim things have to do with real combat. Also he post with arguments we already have but should be tuned for more simulation level, instead of a Luxor no ECM complication in your onboard radar reading. Weak up you will see how many fail in electronic warfare. As ED is introducing many ultimate modern weapons, also the high difficulty for those that carry this high tech new weapons should be simulated.

 

15sec gift in your purchase promotion? That’s cool


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For realism you'd have to implement and develop the completely different individual variations between how specific aircraft are affected by various kinds of ECM, for example the specific reason the Smerch doesn't use solid state but has cumbersome valve electronics is because in 1970, in any country that was the only thing capable of handling the wattage it is capable of generating, to burn through any known ECM attempt at that time at 30km (solid state simply couldn't handle the same power, anyone who owns a guitar amp will tell you it still can't handle the same power as valves with smooth, clear overdrive and gentle fuzz, transistorized or digital breaks down the sound like nails on blackboard and this is today's tech level, a digital electrocution will stop your heart, a valve one will pop your eyeballs and burn them out in their sockets, I grew up with valve electronics), although the warhead seekers really needed to be about 15km for a solid, unbreakable lock. Bring an F4 with AIM7B onto the same EW aircraft area and just watch those Sparrows go heading in random directions or just ballistic at any range, point blank if you want. They weren't that reliable without any ECM at all.

 

Compare to simple, ranging fire control sets like the F5 and early MiGs in service for DCS mission periods. An F104. And the whole point of the F4N/F4E are improved target discrimination and ECCM for better Sparrows with improved reliability, well terrain modules for the E but along those lines. F4N has a strong dish, but still a fraction of a Smerch which has no target discrimination or doppler and is just sheer wattage. I had the weight of a Smerch once, 1.2 tons iirc and really big up close.

 

Sapphire and Topaz radars are fairly conventional, contemporary doppler types, Sapphire simply remaining in service long after F4 Phantoms were retired in the USAF but the Topaz is contemporary with the teen series fighters main production period. Maybe you could characterise them as the analogue and digital MiG doppler sets, Flanker sort of gets its own category. Mostly Russian avionics suffers in data handling with frontal aviation fighters in particular, a MiG29 can only handle 3 navigation waypoints for example in reality, whilst contemporary NATO fighters of any type can enter complicated flight plans. The MiG29 fire control set is considered inferior to NATO contemporaries in target discrimination purely because it can't process the data from its own radar in a high traffic engagement. The Sapphire is outdated but still a contemporary of most small nation air force equipment/avionics, so even a MiG23MLD can be an imposing, modern threat to one of the downgraded F16A early series the US gave Pakistan with AIM9P or the F5E still kicking around in service around the world. But having an MFD is like having the space shuttle compared to a MiG23.

 

But the digitally scanned, phased array of the MiG31 is a completely different ball park. Before the AESA and keep in mind this type was introduced into service in 1989, the only radar set that compared to it in a service aircraft was the B1-B, no fighter in the world had anything like it. The Foxhound is capable of locking up a target on radar which is situated anywhere around the aircraft, other than directly behind the jet nozzles, using the phase scan array, described as sections of the airframe functioning as part of the digital antennae system. Whilst this all makes the Foxhound one of the most expensive export fighters in the world and killed its export market, it is also advanced, powerful and developed enough to perform at the very front line of modern fire control set capabilities, despite apparent age, in part due to massive initial expense and continuing development budgets to maintain the Foxhound position as Royal Prince of the Russian Air Force. Russians never skimped on expense with that particular aircraft, only Sukhoi private development projects compare, making it still contemporary with a Berkut. Modern combat role is a lightning strike fighter: high Mach, pack of AGM, outruns missiles on egress.

 

Point being and this applies to Tomcats and Hornet D with a WSO instead of tandem, some expensive, high grade avionics and a dedicated operator. Eagles have a powerful set, as do Flankers, Hornets and Vipers have top shelf digitalization and constant upgrades, other sets like Sapphire have extremely poor target discrimination to begin with and then just get tossed in the bin with any ECM in the area. Then different missile seekers can be individualistic with ECCM capabilities, combined with whatever issues of the launch aircraft in an EW environment.

 

And this is all before we get into the aircraft handbook, service records and pilot reviews of each individual aircraft, EW pod and missile's typical ECM/ECCM behaviour on the modern battlefield. Lateral tactics don't break the lock on non-doppler sets, but diving does. AESA raw data handling capacity probably does as much to increase performance as the radar set development itself. Wattage and burn through is one thing but so is a dedicated operator and advanced, modern digital processors and programming shells. The amount of power a SparkVaark can pump out in 4 hours would probably power a small town for a year.

 

I'm sure it's been pointed out but just outlining the logic of realism if this barrel of monkeys is opened. You'd need a dedicated ECM simulator to correctly sim ECM, it's a question of processing requirements shy of a supercomputer. Real life doesn't have a limit we can view other than to call it physics, we have to compromise with map population, rendering, flight models, avionics modelling, weapons modelling, you could spend all of those resources on just a realistic ECM simulation but that'll take up an entire modern computer's resources by definition. Electronic warfare is literally everything electronic you can throw at it using the maximum current digital-strategic potential, to adapt Clausewitz. I'd even say one correctly modelled modern ECM attack would be all of the resources a high end computer is capable of, by definition. It's useless if it can't overwhelm the target's capacity to deal with it using the same electronic-digital constraints of current technology. To characterise: here deal with this...and maintain flight operations, that's the disadvantage of the defender. And don't forget datalink carriages have been part of the ECM environment over the past two decades so that's all part of the current equation. Want to mess with the USN boomer fleet? You'll need current intel on locations but toss some green lasers at it saying things like das vydania to interrupt their satcomm action orders, this is where ECM is pointed at these days.

 

I get you just want to change the ECM behaviour of FC3 but one has to appreciate a dedicated effort really needs to pointed in that direction to create a sim generated semi-realistic-feeling system using value checks and RNG to give what amounts to popular celebrations of general characteristics, this is a big project in itself and at the end begin all the arguments of all the intrinsic variations contained within any grouping such as popular impressions...

 

It might be a bright side to consider it probably not nearly as difficult to render a Vietnam era ECM environment without too much resource drain, but it wouldn't be modern-realistic. Pretty much anything owned by a wealthy, if not large military will just walk through it with a bit of crackle over the radio speakers. Maybe like Iran would have trouble. :D

 

Realistic? A Kirov can supposedly shut down local e/a mission capability with its ECM suite and down a quintillion of incoming missiles with its datahandling capacity combined with kashtan/kynzhal defense screen. How would somebody even model that? How do you ECCM nuclear powered ECM from a gigantic warship? I'm going to go ahead and guess it out-powers a SparkVaark.


Edited by vanir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pointless, against amraam users your ecm blinking is useless since missile afm their range is 10 - 15 miles at best while burnthrough is 30 miles.

 

This ecm mechanic should be removed since its silly anyway. What they did on the tomcat is fairly reasonable for an spj given the available tools but fc jammers are just stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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