Having a hard time with the radar

I wouldn´t worry about the radar for now. It´s early access and they said multiple times that the radar system is currently very limited. Of course this isn´t how the real radar performs - give the team some time.

@G-con: ;-)

Have also hard time with the radar. With a lock, can't turn to the side 20 deg and the lock is lost, against a head on coming target . Am I missing something or is it WIP? Track provided

BUG RADAR ..trk

What kind a radar performance people here are expecting anyways?

Couple of things to aide in the radar usage....

 

 

Click on the horizontal azimuth OSB and set it to 60 degrees.

Click on the OSB and set the scan rate to 4 bars.

 

Next you want to click on the OSB for DATA and then in the top right change the number to 16 or 32. That is how long the memory will keep a target in the "system" before dropping it.

 

This is how I fly most flights and I generally don't have any issues picking up aircraft and staying locked. I will change the vertical and horizontal scan rate depending on what I am looking for and if I know a close approximation as to where a target is.

 

For instance if I am looking for an SU-27 flying low, and I got a recent BRA call, I will set the scan rate to 20 degrees with 1-2 bar vertical scan.

 

Since this is a more modeled radar system you have to get into the habit of operating the radar itself. You now also know why so many aircraft have dedicated radar operators in the back seat....

What I noticed so far: move the radar lobe up/down slowly and let it scan 2-3 passes seems to help. Often contacts appaer to be just a bit too high or too low.

Then again when you bank hard you often loose them...

I am currently just putting different sized planes in orbits at different altitudes and trying to do basic scans.

What I was wondering, is there a filter that blocks contacts that are very close?

I was in WACQ and sniffing on the exhaust plume of a friendly F-14 directly ahead and had nothing on the Radar. No blip, no lock, nothing. From further away, on a second pass they showed up.

Not yelling "bug" here, just curious, as I would have expected a return blip at the least.

What kind a radar performance people here are expecting anyways?

The thing is, we need to accept this is still worked on and in early access.

From my intuitive feeling the option to set all the details and not just a couple preset modes like in FC3 is amazing.

On the other hand, I can understand the "feeling" of the performance is currently not so amazing, yet I am sure this is not final yet.

What I am curious about though, will the finished, realistic F/A-18C with the correct settings and operated by the book, give us a similar or hopefully a little better performance than the FC3 planes?

If a MiG-29 needs to simply click two buttons to acquire and lock you, before it even shows on your radar, it isn't much fun.

But let's be patient and see what ED has in store. So far the Hornet is an awesome early access and sets new standards...

Something similar to the Mirage, I guess.

The thing is, we need to accept this is still worked on and in early access.

 

From my intuitive feeling the option to set all the details and not just a couple preset modes like in FC3 is amazing.

 

On the other hand, I can understand the "feeling" of the performance is currently not so amazing, yet I am sure this is not final yet.

 

What I am curious about though, will the finished, realistic F/A-18C with the correct settings and operated by the book, give us a similar or hopefully a little better performance than the FC3 planes?

If a MiG-29 needs to simply click two buttons to acquire and lock you, before it even shows on your radar, it isn't much fun.

 

But let's be patient and see what ED has in store. So far the Hornet is an awesome early access and sets new standards...

Yep something similar to the Mirage would be nice and competitive. I don't think anyone was expecting something like the F-15's all-seeing-eye, but definitely better than the initial performance we got.

Yep something similar to the Mirage would be nice and competitive. I don't think anyone was expecting something like the F-15's all-seeing-eye, but definitely better than the initial performance we got.

I think many are expecting exactly that all-seeing-eye.

What I was wondering, is there a filter that blocks contacts that are very close?

I was in WACQ and sniffing on the exhaust plume of a friendly F-14 directly ahead and had nothing on the Radar. No blip, no lock, nothing. From further away, on a second pass they showed up.

Not yelling "bug" here, just curious, as I would have expected a return blip at the least.

What was the range exactly? As I can very well get that when target is clearly in your "touching range" you don't use the radar as in BVR because target will be so huge that its different distances gets filtered out. So you need to change to different modes to guide radar to realize what it should be searching.

I spent today few hours just flying and operating radar for various targets and it was far more fun than on any other module. The Mirage 2000C was first one that started to show the realism about losing lock and having more challenge to find something, but F/A-18C puts it to another level. It is very nice to read "LOST" when the targets pull some maneuvers and puts chaff between and your radar goes blind.

The radar really requires you to master better the fighter maneuvers as all the FC3 kind hard turns, quick rolls etc are just causing more trouble for radar head to compensate for the motion as well trying to perform its scanning or accuracy.

As well finally to get a far better radar operations in scanning where the target maneuver can drop it out of track or you just have wrong modes going on.

Once using the different modes at different situations where each has their optimal use, it is easier not to lose a lock or get the lock quicker, but it is nothing like in FC3 where you just "aim and lock".

Going just for gun fighting it is now so much more fun when you need to get yourself to the position to get the lock and wait the solution be computed.

There are some odd things as I was flying 1400ft behind F-15C and the gunsight calculated lead and all bursts went over. I needed to use the boresight cross to hit the target flying straight and level in front of me so I didn't shoot over.

The Hornet radar (RWS mode) far more powerful than.... let say Eagle radar right now IMO. I can track the other Hornet at 80 miles away, can lock a single jammed M2K at 30 miles and a Huey that in hover really low. Try that with the Eagle. You just need to adjust radar elevation, wide area scan (dont remember the name) and bar scan, thats it.

What was the range exactly? As I can very well get that when target is clearly in your "touching range" you don't use the radar as in BVR because target will be so huge that its different distances gets filtered out. So you need to change to different modes to guide radar to realize what it should be searching.

 

I spent today few hours just flying and operating radar for various targets and it was far more fun than on any other module. The Mirage 2000C was first one that started to show the realism about losing lock and having more challenge to find something, but F/A-18C puts it to another level. It is very nice to read "LOST" when the targets pull some maneuvers and puts chaff between and your radar goes blind.

 

The radar really requires you to master better the fighter maneuvers as all the FC3 kind hard turns, quick rolls etc are just causing more trouble for radar head to compensate for the motion as well trying to perform its scanning or accuracy.

 

As well finally to get a far better radar operations in scanning where the target maneuver can drop it out of track or you just have wrong modes going on.

 

Once using the different modes at different situations where each has their optimal use, it is easier not to lose a lock or get the lock quicker, but it is nothing like in FC3 where you just "aim and lock".

 

Going just for gun fighting it is now so much more fun when you need to get yourself to the position to get the lock and wait the solution be computed.

There are some odd things as I was flying 1400ft behind F-15C and the gunsight calculated lead and all bursts went over. I needed to use the boresight cross to hit the target flying straight and level in front of me so I didn't shoot over.

I'll have to look up the exact range in the Tacview, but the F-14 was close enough so I could identify the exhausts.

Not maneuvering, just flying up on its tail from behind.

I never really did much in FC3. The first real experience with Radar is from the Mirage 2000C.

So my "expectations" are not any "arcade instant lock".

I was just surprised I didn't get a return on my radar so close in.

I didn't do a quick roll, I just wanted to do a standard turn and move in the direction of the supposed contacts I saw on the radar. When I rolled past about 30° the contacts dropped and I couldn't get them back.

Guess it really needs deeper understanding of the different modes and detailed settings.

Adjusting the contact history to 16sec solved 80% of the problems I had when I started...

I'll have to look up the exact range in the Tacview, but the F-14 was close enough so I could identify the exhausts.

Not maneuvering, just flying up on its tail from behind.

Glad to read that some of my previous points helped. In regards to this scenario...

Without knowing exactly the situation; one must keep in mind that the radar extends as a cone from the nose. Small at the A/C and gets bigger as it extends out. So it is possible to be close enough that the aircraft in front of you is not within that radar cone.

One thing to look at is how far you are scanning, i.e 40NM or so; pay attention to the "space" that is scanned - low versus high altitude. Then pan your cursor down to the bottom of the radar page. Take a look again at what altitudes are "visible" in this part of the "cone."

I've vaguely recall seeing a good 29k foot separation at roughly 35NM and only about 2k when at the bottom of the page. In your situation the "target" may have fallen within that cone or it may have just been outside of it.

Part of the problem is trying to figure out what is a limitation of the current radar implementation and what is a limitation of our understanding of how the radar works.

Glad to read that some of my previous points helped. In regards to this scenario...

 

Without knowing exactly the situation; one must keep in mind that the radar extends as a cone from the nose. Small at the A/C and gets bigger as it extends out. So it is possible to be close enough that the aircraft in front of you is not within that radar cone.

 

One thing to look at is how far you are scanning, i.e 40NM or so; pay attention to the "space" that is scanned - low versus high altitude. Then pan your cursor down to the bottom of the radar page. Take a look again at what altitudes are "visible" in this part of the "cone."

 

I've vaguely recall seeing a good 29k foot separation at roughly 35NM and only about 2k when at the bottom of the page. In your situation the "target" may have fallen within that cone or it may have just been outside of it.

 

Part of the problem is trying to figure out what is a limitation of the current radar implementation and what is a limitation of our understanding of how the radar works.

Jepp, that is a big part of it, understanding how the radar is supposed to work.

For that specific situation I am pretty sure he was lit by the cone. He was directly ahead a tad bit above the horizon line, the radar not elevated.

I am not sure, but I remember reading something about a filter eliminating the returns from very(!) close contacts, to prevent false returns from a lead or wingman close by and ahead. Though I think this was only for the side lobes... Really no expert here.

At the moment it doesn't make sense to try deciding if it is a bug, unless you have flown and experienced the real thing, anyway. That's why I am more interested to understand the general operations and am very reluctant to decide if something is real or a bug.

But this was so strange, as I had perfectly good locks in Gun mode at similar distances, I was curious if there is a reason why this "should" happen close in, with RWS, that's where the hint with the height of the cone at different distances comes in.

As I said before, your tip with the basic settings for a normal scan helps a lot.

As well, as understanding the warped cone of the B-scope display. After I realized closer targets nearer to the edges are basically short of leaving the cone and when moving across your course this happens fast(!).

So I need to not turn some 5°, but way more to have them in the center of my cone, compared to contacts showing at 20-40 NM... :)

I am not sure, but I remember reading something about a filter eliminating the returns from very(!) close contacts, to prevent false returns from a lead or wingman close by and ahead. Though I think this was only for the side lobes... Really no expert here.

I suspect that in this instance, what you were experiencing was a limitation of the way that DCS models radar returns from co-airspeed contacts - it treats them the same as a target in the Doppler notch and makes them disappear from the B scope.

I suspect that in this instance, what you were experiencing was a limitation of the way that DCS models radar returns from co-airspeed contacts - it treats them the same as a target in the Doppler notch and makes them disappear from the B scope.

That's a pretty sound thought.

Indeed I was coming up from behind slowly and yes, we possibly were at a veeery low closing speed.

As mentioned before: the radar is currently very limited so don´t jump to conclusions using the current version. There´s some weird theories out here explaining stuff that´s really just "not implemented yet" or simply a bug.

Speaking of the real Radar: There is no "short range filter" dropping contact due to them being "very close". The radar doesn´t loose track of targets travelling co-speed. Ownship maneuvering doesn´t drop locked STT-contacts as long as they remain within the scanned volume of the radar. And so on.

In real life working the radar (air-air) is quite a complex thing, even more so in singleseat fighters. There is a whole lot of coordination going on within a formation as to which radar mode to use when, who scans which part of the sky, sorting, targeting etc. pp. And those "standards" differ between different users/nations of the same radar/weapon system.

Bottom line: wait until this radar is more functional.

As mentioned before: the radar is currently very limited so don´t jump to conclusions using the current version. There´s some weird theories out here explaining stuff that´s really just "not implemented yet" or simply a bug.

 

Speaking of the real Radar: There is no "short range filter" dropping contact due to them being "very close". The radar doesn´t loose track of targets travelling co-speed. Ownship maneuvering doesn´t drop locked STT-contacts as long as they remain within the scanned volume of the radar. And so on.

 

In real life working the radar (air-air) is quite a complex thing, even more so in singleseat fighters. There is a whole lot of coordination going on within a formation as to which radar mode to use when, who scans which part of the sky, sorting, targeting etc. pp. And those "standards" differ between different users/nations of the same radar/weapon system.

 

Bottom line: wait until this radar is more functional.

Second I am very sure I've read about a software filter that eliminates returns of your lead/wingman aircraft reflecting parts of the beam if they are close and a bit in front of you... But IIRC that would not filter anything and only very, very close.

Not sure it is a feature in every radar or if I couldn't get a lock because of the co-speed, whatever. As I said ED has experts at hand and they will likely point out what is or is not realistic for the Hornet, as far as they are allowed to disclose such information.

Still I am happy for any information about operating this nice piece of hardware, even if it doesn't work in DCS currently or works differently/wrong.

When things get closer to the release some will change, anyway.

Well, never heard about such a filter. Maybe for stuff on the radom etc - definately not outside the range of more than a few feet. The real APG-65 has no problem locking up wingmen or keeping them locked in formation (considered bad form though...). It even has a "VI"-mode to guide the jet into a position for "visual identification" - and that is QUITE CLOSE...

So for anything that´s relevant on the B-scope: there is no such filter ;-)

And for the co-speed: that doesn´t annoy the real APG-65 at all. Been there, done that.

I'll have to look up the exact range in the Tacview, but the F-14 was close enough so I could identify the exhausts.

Not maneuvering, just flying up on its tail from behind.

When you are tailing, High PRF that we currently only have, is not optimal one. It is optimal for targets that is coming toward you. But there is something that needs checking in it in close range as the ACM mode doesn't seem to work as quickly as should, like the radar is scanning 45 degree up angle as it gets lock when target is way above HUD but nothing when in HUD.

I never really did much in FC3. The first real experience with Radar is from the Mirage 2000C.

So then you know these?

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=145348&d=1469824779

So my "expectations" are not any "arcade instant lock".

I was just surprised I didn't get a return on my radar so close in.

Should be about flying on similar speed and close range with a high PRF that confuses itself. (Why I couldn't get a valid range for my target at 1400ft while flying at similar speed). And considering the beam width can be adjusted between 3.5-0.5 degrees the typical should be around 2 degrees cone (IIRC) as that was the one bar height (6 bars = 12 degree scanning of space)

I didn't do a quick roll, I just wanted to do a standard turn and move in the direction of the supposed contacts I saw on the radar. When I rolled past about 30° the contacts dropped and I couldn't get them back.

What is "standard turn"? I tested about the rolling speed and turn speed and if going fast, it dropped lock as the radar did need to try compensate your motion around its gimbal as well predict the target motion (even when it is flying in straight with same heading, it is changing relatively to your position) and if doing smoother and slower turn, no lock was lost. I could do full barrel roll without problems when doing it slowly (like 5-7 seconds) but doing it quickly (max roll or like 2-3 seconds) it was lost lock.

You can easily see from the radar scope that radar tries to reacquire the lock by scanning the previous radar scope position, not the place in space. Meaning if you have a 140 degree scan going from left to right and you turn a 15 degree a second, and you move the TDC over target after last sweep and try to lock it, it is trying to find the target in relative position in degree from your nose, not the placement in space front of you. So if the target was found in sweep 25 degree left from your nose, then in one second that target is actually away from that history position regardless where the last sweep was based your movement and you moving TDC on the target.

The more complete radar target locking requires that the radar gets multiple sweeps from the target to start building a track for it, to predict where it will be in X time. Each sweep will increase the accuracy of predicted area for guidance and locking. But each time the target is not center of the predicted area, the prediction grows or even lock is lost. You don't want to maneuver a lot when in scan mode as you are throwing possible target positions off.

It is actually nice on Hornet now to see how doing maneuvers you get "LOST" and the target gate turns dashed. The radar tries to find the target in the last known relative position of your targeting angle, but if it ain't there, it resumes to full search. If you are rolling/turning/pulling when it happens, you can react to it by quickly going little back to put the target back to position and radar should relock target and keep going.

Did this with the AIM-7M couple times that I rolled to right and pulled to dive (target went to dive as well) too quickly while guiding and got the warning, lost the lock. What I did as I hit the lock again so radar kept scanning the last known angle on scope and I steered that position back to where target was now and radar relocked target and missile started to guide again toward target.

Guess it really needs deeper understanding of the different modes and detailed settings.

Adjusting the contact history to 16sec solved 80% of the problems I had when I started...

The radar requires more hands-on time to operate it. Why you even have the simple flight path marker and horizon to help in heads down time to keep you going steady while managing targets and tracking them.

I have myself even kept in memory the targets locations after losing them on scope, as I could simply just move TDC there and try to acquire a lock, and sometimes I find it from there if I just kept myself steady and target position didn't move too much (easier when they are coming toward you than some other direction).

So what you do with the STT locking with TDC blindly is that you just point it some angle of you and tell it to perform full vertical scan in 8 degree azimuth in that space and lock if there is something. This makes it possible to hunt targets just by getting the single update from them, quickly get on level flight and focus scanning on the general area of the last position where echo was.

So while scanning space and you see something front of you visually from a 20-30km distance but nothing is on radar scope, you can just try to scan the area to find it.

And that is fun actually as you don't have all seeing eye and weather conditions etc becomes more important. One day if we get a GCI/AWACS capability so player could be there operating the all seeing eye and vectoring fighters to intercept and general heading and even talk to pilots what maneuvers the enemy is doing in merge, it will make the modern combat far more fun.

How great the Lock-On was about 20 years ago, to me it was just annoyance how you basically were shooting targets without ever seeing them. Compared that to WW2 era flight sims where you were totally in visual range, the Lock On with its ultra simplified radar operations were boring after while.

Why this Hornet module is actually very much fresh air even after Mig-21Bis and M2000C that brought first time improvements to radar operations. Now if we get next the missiles, their guidance and other tactical operation capabilities, we can actually get away from Air Quake.

@Fri13: Going to say it one more time here: There is a false perception of real radar here!

Talking RWS:

The real radar DOES NOT drop a STT locked target due to your maneuvering until reaching gimbal limits. You can roll and pitch all the way you want - the (real) radar will track just fine.

Also the real radar doesn´t "want to reaquire a lock via looking at the old position". If the contact is lost the radar will revert to the search pattern used before.

In real life you hardly ever see something at 20-30km - and if it hasn´t been on the scope before you really screwed up you radar work.

There is so much stuff wrong here:

The more complete radar target locking requires that the radar gets multiple sweeps from the target to start building a track for it, to predict where it will be in X time. Each sweep will increase the accuracy of predicted area for guidance and locking. But each time the target is not center of the predicted area, the prediction grows or even lock is lost. You don't want to maneuver a lot when in scan mode as you are throwing possible target positions off.

Once again: Don´t pretend the current radar would be "more realistic" due to it dropping contacts and stuff -it´s not. The real APG-65 is WAY more capable than what the current build here in DCS offers.

And yes - I did work with the real APG-65 in a real aircraft.

@Fri13 I agree with most of your analysis of what is happening in the sim, but I have no experience with which to determine whether the current behavior accurately represents the real-world behavior of the hornet radar. I think Raytheon ripped us off if it is that touchy in real life though.

In any case, it's going to present issues in multiplayer if all the FC3 aircraft are able to fire and crank at 7 Gs maneuvering all around to defeat your missile, while in the hornet you lose lock if you breathe too heavily and have to keep returning to your previous course to get the radar to reacquire. Not having an active homing missile at the moment only exacerbates the issue.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

... while in the hornet you lose lock if you breathe too heavily and have to keep returning to your previous course to get the radar to reacquire.

Don´t worry - the real radar does not work that way and therefore this DCS-simulation will probably become more realistic as updates come along.

I'm not having problems with it, in fact i get locks at 100nm sometimes, and i find the way it locks in beam mode allows you to wiggle the beam to try to get it if you are manouevering.

Lack of interleave and med prf annoying though for tail aspects and beam.

My biggest gripe is in design of the Hornet itself, that the bar selector and azimuth are on OSB's ... I change these constantly, especially at the meld and when trying to get faster updates, and they even only cycle in one direction > 1B > 2B > 4B > 6B > 1B. In VR, or in the real pit with a right handed attack radar, that would be an awful long time crossing hands and not easily achievable.

Mirage pit is more user friendly and ergonomic in this way imho. So I cheated and put the OSB's on my throttle (VR user). Minor irrelevant gripe in design.

Now that crazy AIM-7M - is disappointing and feels like it chases targets on a constant lead pursuit sending it seriously wide and killing it's performance.

But radar, humbly feels better than Mirage for range and holding of tracks imo.

Once again: Don´t pretend the current radar would be "more realistic" due to it dropping contacts and stuff -it´s not. The real APG-65 is WAY more capable than what the current build here in DCS offers.

And yes - I did work with the real APG-65 in a real aircraft.

Not to mention the fact that the DCS Hornet actually features a late model APG73, so it should be even more capable I would have thought (?).

I never really did much in FC3. The first real experience with Radar is from the Mirage 2000C.

 

So my "expectations" are not any "arcade instant lock".

I was just surprised I didn't get a return on my radar so close in.

 

What are you babbling about, the Mirage has the most arcade instant lock in DCS.

Seems the Hornet wip radar issues gives a pitiful excuse for peeps to rag on FC.