Vertical scan in a Mig29

Ok whats the deal here, locked up targets between 30 and 40 km away anyone else have this happen? or is the secret society of the mig not tellin all ;)

Note this is cac vertical scan not lngt mode.

I have had locks with vertical scan at about 50km but you have to be tailing the target. Head on I can't get a lock until the target is about 15km(sometimes it's <10km which I think is rediculus), usually well after I can clearly see the plane.

Wow 50km from tail aspect in vertical scan.

then its a bug?

anyone else?

Wow 50km from tail aspect in vertical scan.

then its a bug?

anyone else?

A HUGE one... Vertical Scan shouldn't work by design at more than 10-12 km

Octav

please explain, afaik VS is just a narrow radar band, so why wouldn't the radar work at 20km?

I guess VS is programmed to ignore targets beyond a certain range. Since this is a mode you usualy use in close combat, you don't want your radar to lock up some contact that is miles away. Would be quite annoying.

please explain, afaik VS is just a narrow radar band, so why wouldn't the radar work at 20km?

Being a close combat mode (that's actually it's name in Russian), this mode has to go thorough a lot of challenges. It has to be able to track both recceding and approaching targets, attain and maintain lock even in the case of zero doppler, and avoid beng fooled by ground reflections. In order to do that, it uses medum PRF (same as in D mode), it has a different set of doppler filters, to avoid loosing contact of a zero-doppler target, the radar receiver is set to a lower gain, in order to reject clutter, and the computer rejects any reflections beyond about 10 km.

Octav

Head on I can't get a lock until the target is about 15km

Turn your radar on while in VS and you can get get a lock on the nose for as far as the radar can see.

All the F-15 Eagle's AACQ modes are still all locked in at 10 miles though. Some say the AN/APG-70 AACQ modes should work out to 15 miles, plus there is a 40 mile long-range boresight AACQ. That's not quite what is modeled in LOMAC though, our Eagle has some kind of unique radar hybrid between the 63/63v1/70.

Suffice it to say that all the AACQ modes in LOMAC are modeled a little funny.

The phenomenon with VS picking up a tail-on target out to 50km but head on less than 15 sounds more like it's an issue of using EOS rather than the radar, in which case it's correct - not a bug.

I don't know what to say about the radar one. To me it sounds like it would jsut introduce too many false returns and lock onto anything it bloody well pleases, which is why the ranges are limited on these modes, AFAIK.

The MiG-29 radar's history is fraught with clutter problems and inadequate processing power, neither of which, AFAIK, is modelled in LOMAC. Incidentally the Su-27's radar, being essentially the same, should be suffering from the same problems. It's probably pretty difficult to model however, and who the heck knows what the false positive rate was on the Eagle's radar, so may as well ingore the whole thing....

The MiG-29 radar's history is fraught with clutter problems and inadequate processing power, neither of which, AFAIK, is modelled in LOMAC. Incidentally the Su-27's radar, being essentially the same, should be suffering from the same problems. It's probably pretty difficult to model however, and who the heck knows what the false positive rate was on the Eagle's radar, so may as well ingore the whole thing....

And this is comming from a beta tester....

I think I'm starting to lose my motivation..

I don't think you understand - this is data they don't have, or we only have for one side.

Under those circumstances it's much simpler and indeed fair to just make the performance equal rather than attempt to program one side being worse of better 'just because' - it's also a waste of time. Should data for both sides come in that gives us a realistic performance estimation, then things can be implemented by the devs with relative certainty as to the accuracy of the things that are being implemented.

If we KNOW that a particular radar has problems (power/clutter) then this should be modelled ... just saying we don't know about the 63 therefore we'll treat them as the same is silly! This is a sim ... it doesn't need to be fair! Thats the challenge ... fly to the strengths of your a/c and weakness of the opponent ... if we model them all the same ... why bother with different a/c at all?

No what YOU are saying is silly, logically and from a development perspective.

This simulation not ONLY attempts to model an aircraft's performance, but also its relative performance to the OTHER flyables in the sim.

You thus absolutely CANNOT model one without knowing the rest - it is incorrect as potentially puts one aircraft at an advantage or disadvantage over another WITHOUT actually knowing wether the other aircraft has the ability to counter these problems in some way. Get it? In other words, it is the FAIREST way of simulating something that you CANNOT KNOW wether it is the way you simulated it or not.

Performance is a little different .... everything is down to physics and aerodynamics which we CAN model fairly accurately.

In reality, we know almost nothing about how AMRAAMs, AA-10s, R-77s, Jamming, TEWS, 63s work it is all classified! But we try and model based on what we DO know. If you say a radar has always suffered from problems regarding x or y then this should be modelled! Just ignoring it IS silly! Otherwise everything gets modelled the same

ahem getting back on topic a cac vert scan mode should not be picking up targets 40 -50 km out thats 24-30 miles.

Performance is a little different .... everything is down to physics and aerodynamics which we CAN model fairly accurately.

 

In reality, we know almost nothing about how AMRAAMs, AA-10s, R-77s, Jamming, TEWS, 63s work it is all classified! But we try and model based on what we DO know. If you say a radar has always suffered from problems regarding x or y then this should be modelled! Just ignoring it IS silly! Otherwise everything gets modelled the same

No, it's not silly, because we don't know the 63's performance at all - maybe IT had problems too? Maybe it had more of them? This is why you actually have to ignore the problems of the other aircraft - becauseif you don't, you may end up not simulating what was really happening. When you have the choice of making one aircraft realistic and not know the other one, the correct choice is to make the 'fair' assumption, not the other way around.

Souless, maybe, maybe not. I don't think it should, either, at least in radar mode. For EOS ... its different.

Sou1ess, I haven't done tests in the MiG. Is this in radar or EOS mode?

If it is EOS, does EOS pick up a tail aspect target at that range in other modes?

was radar head on

MiGs are evil. :P

the secret society of the mig ;)

My locks were through EOS, I find it much more reliable than the MiG29s radar (in 1.02 atleast, I don't have 1.1 as of yet) and I don't like to give away my position unless someone already has a lock on me. To answer GOYA, yes the EOS can pick up tail aspect contacts at at least that range in the other modes.

i think you people have gone off on a tangent here....

The original question was...

Why does the Mig29 lock onto targets at up to 50km away in Vertical Scan mode in 1.1?

GGTharos, if your reasoning is correct, and we dont know this to be true to life or not, you should set it to the same distance as the F15 (maximum of 10nm in VS mode) to make it fair.

I agree with you that this is what should be done ... the rwhole 'what should be simulated vs. what shouldn't be' debate was an aside.

Anyway, ED has the MiG manual, as wel as the Su-27S Manual so they should know the actual ranges.

Anyway, ED has the MiG manual, as wel as the Su-27S Manual so they should know the actual ranges.

Sounds great .. if only ED would jump on here to tell us which it is.

Also, just because they have the info, doesn't mean they implemented it correctly (ie a bug!). Take the ARH missiles as point in case , im sure they know how they are meant to work, but they certainly arent doing that in the game!

Agreed, the realism vs playability debate should be taken up else where.

Till then we can only wait for a response from ED.

:)

Stop pushing for a response from ED - if they feel the need to they'll respond ... they're looking into all these issues anyway, and they've got their hands full ;)