[ALREADY REPORTED]Incorrect ranges of DCS MiG-29 radar

10 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

Not sure where you got the up to 15 s from, the manual says it can take 2-3 s, and 1.5 - 2 s for locking with radar.

From the MiG-29A manual.

Time to lock up a target.

For the radar lock:

• in mode "B" (ППС), 2-7s
• in mode "Д" (ЗПС), 1-4s
• in mode "БЛ. БОИ" (vertical scan), 1.5-2s

However, this time period can increase to 7-10s at large movements of the radar strobe or when maneuvering (horizontal/vertical plane) due to the errors in positioning of the search antenna's center in relations to the target.

Also, the radar can't track targets which are closer than 5km in ППС mode and in both ППС and ЗПС modes, the ranging error can be up to 8km. In ЗПС mode, false targets appear due to ground interference.

For the EOS lock:

• in mode "ТП(СТРОБ) (search mode)", 0.5-6s
• in mode "БЛ. БОИ" (vertical scan), 0.5-9s
• in mode "ШЛЕМ" (HMD), 0.5-15s

EOS gets the ranging data only from the laser ranger. Search and track information can be performed autonomously or supplemented by the radar complex.

12 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

From the MiG-29A manual.

Time to lock up a target.

For the radar lock:

• in mode "B" (ППС), 2-7s
• in mode "Д" (ЗПС), 1-4s
• in mode "БЛ. БОИ" (vertical scan), 1.5-2s

However, this time period can increase to 7-10s at large movements of the radar strobe or when maneuvering (horizontal/vertical plane) due to the errors in positioning of the search antenna's center in relations to the target.

 

Also, the radar can't track targets which are closer than 5km in ППС mode and in both ППС and ЗПС modes, the ranging error can be up to 8km. In ЗПС mode, false targets appear due to ground interference.

For the EOS lock:

• in mode "ТП(СТРОБ) (search mode)", 0.5-6s
• in mode "БЛ. БОИ" (vertical scan), 0.5-9s
• in mode "ШЛЕМ" (HMD), 0.5-15s

EOS gets the ranging data only from the laser ranger. Search and track information can performed autonomously or supplemented by the radar complex.

The section you are referring is times for engaging jamming targets 

38 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

 

The section you are referring is times for engaging jamming targets 

In the manual I am looking at, these are the normal operations and there is no mention of the ECM what so ever.

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

In the manual I am looking at, these are the normal operations and there is no mention of the ECM what so ever.

 

 

 

 

 

Well get to the end of it, 'dopune' section first since you are probably referring on VTU - 01. VTUP.001/01.0...

The pickup times take 2-3 s depended on the position of the radar... longer times need to build up firing solution >7sec and ranging errors are for jamming targets... also keep in mind that that manual is referring to an export 9.12b with slower processor then let say 9.13s...

EO times are correct and depended on multiple aspects... bottom line FC3 radars and EOS are quite simple and don't collate the real ones on many aspects but the range limitations are for sure under spec.

Yeah, the MiG-29 9.13S introduced the much better Ts.100M computer and presumably the older models have or would have been upgraded to those during depot maintenance.

So, for a later mission date (e.g. 90s), it would be reasonable to assume that some of the radar issues described in the 80's 9.12B manual would have been ironed out (like e.g. general unreliability of the SNP mode which IIRC was often overwhelming the capabilities of the older computer).

18 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

Well get to the end of it, 'dopune' section first since you are probably referring on VTU - 01. VTUP.001/01.0...

Yes, this was the section I was referring to (pages 01.0.264 and 01.0.265). But I still can't understand how is that connected to the appendix ("Dopune") section and the ECM environment. Am I missing something obvious here?

22 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Yes, this was the section I was referring to (pages 01.0.264 and 01.0.265). But I still can't understand how is that connected to the appendix ("Dopune") section and the ECM environment. Am I missing something obvious here?

Well longer times you were referring are not the norm, but an exception (new popup jamming target 120degress from where you were looking). 
Most lock will happen below 3sec.

And the section you are referring list all times but doesn't go into details how they are achieved... the appendix does list why longer times are needed for Jamming targets. 

the bottom line we all would love a Full Fidelty Fulcrum so we could really go into these details, till then, unfortunately FC3 is quite limited in such details. 

10 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

It shouldn't since it is not a constant illumination... RWR are much less accurate in real life that modelled in DCS...

RWS/TWS isnt constant illumination and it gives RWR pings. Obviously wouldnt be a spike though.

22 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

RWS/TWS isnt constant illumination and it gives RWR pings. Obviously wouldnt be a spike though.

Still it will send way more pulses while the target is in the mainlobe as the radar sweeps by.

Less accurate maybe, but identifying a threat is something they are fairly good at.  There has been discussions about the radar ranging feature and I recall that in the end this illumination is certainly long enough to trip the RWR.   In the end, it's a transmission that is known to it and the symbol will appear and possibly give a momentary lock tone as well.

35 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Less accurate maybe, but identifying a threat is something they are fairly good at.  There has been discussions about the radar ranging feature and I recall that in the end this illumination is certainly long enough to trip the RWR.   In the end, it's a transmission that is known to it and the symbol will appear and possibly give a momentary lock tone as well.

Yes, most probably the symbol will trigger... but not a spike... radar can range out of SNP/TWS... it is not entering STT or DNP

ED you gonna fix this or release another Hornet video?

Maybe both if you're lucky..!

Radar performs now close to the specs.

Thanks alot ED!!

Now we just need those additional 15% of range for the MiG-29S!

14 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

Radar performs now close to the specs.

 

Thanks alot ED!!

 

Now we just need those additional 15% of range for the MiG-29S!

Neat! And yes the 29S adjustments would be great and much needed.

I already explained this 3 years ago  

On 12/3/2020 at 8:51 PM, dundun92 said:

RWS/TWS isnt constant illumination and it gives RWR pings. Obviously wouldnt be a spike though.

I am just guessing here, but shouldn't the RWR beep most of the time? Launch warning I mean. If the formula for it is STT + DL, then once some locks you up in STT any detected DL should trigger a LA warning.

DL from the same source, yes.  RWRs can be more dumb or less dumb, it depends on many things.   The SPO-10s and 15s have a poor user interface compared to what we're used to in western fighters, IMHO.  This fact is directly responsible for degrading their usefulness in an RF-dense environment.

1 minute ago, GGTharos said:

DL from the same source, yes.  RWRs can be more dumb or less dumb, it depends on many things.   The SPO-10s and 15s have a poor user interface compared to what we're used to in western fighters, IMHO.  This fact is directly responsible for degrading their usefulness in an RF-dense environment.

Also current DCS RWR overperform in many aspects so virtual pilots relay on them to a much bigger extent for SA

You're right, the SPO-15s in game should be mostly blind to 120s and also overwhelmed and unable to show reliable information once the shooting started.   As well, they shouldn't be able to show reliable ranges to emitters especially as radar modes change.  But that would lead to massive complaining, not to mention it's hard to simulate so may as well leave it as it is.

13 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

You're right, the SPO-15s in game should be mostly blind to 120s and also overwhelmed and unable to show reliable information once the shooting started.   As well, they shouldn't be able to show reliable ranges to emitters especially as radar modes change.  But that would lead to massive complaining, not to mention it's hard to simulate so may as well leave it as it is.

There are some things that should be easy to add to the sim. Maybe they're not strictly accurate, but they would be better than perfect sensors. The F-14's RWR doesn't show precise azimuth for emitters. We should add this to all RWR's I feel. As for the SPO, random noise added to the range display would keep it from being overly accurate in determining missile range.

42 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

You're right, the SPO-15s in game should be mostly blind to 120s and also overwhelmed and unable to show reliable information once the shooting started.   As well, they shouldn't be able to show reliable ranges to emitters especially as radar modes change.  But that would lead to massive complaining, not to mention it's hard to simulate so may as well leave it as it is.

Not only SPO-15s... all RWRs... hopeful that will improve with time

32 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

There are some things that should be easy to add to the sim. Maybe they're not strictly accurate, but they would be better than perfect sensors. The F-14's RWR doesn't show precise azimuth for emitters. We should add this to all RWR's I feel. As for the SPO, random noise added to the range display would keep it from being overly accurate in determining missile range.

That is why SPO-10 has only quarter symbols with 45 degree accuracy as it couldn't do better.

Why SPO-15 has about that 10 degree accuracy as it can't do better. 

What comes to ranges, it is easy to give a factor for radar mode that change the scale, and then use a range scale as you say with random error changes like +/-10% depending mode and angle etc.

7 hours ago, GGTharos said:

...  But that would lead to massive complaining, not to mention it's hard to simulate so may as well leave it as it is.

This is one of the things about DCS that teally grinds my gears. Instead of implementing RL systems and behaviours, we have a sim that is being driven by "political correctness" and user's delicate feelings.

Just curious: why would the SPO-15 not detect an 120? Also why should it fail to show signal strength?

7 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

This is one of the things about DCS that teally grinds my gears. Instead of implementing RL systems and behaviours, we have a sim that is being driven by "political correctness" and user's delicate feelings.

It's not like that all, but it is a factor.  The biggest factor is really ROI, IMHO - ED decides what to touch in terms of return on investment.

7 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Just curious: why would the SPO-15 not detect an 120? Also why should it fail to show signal strength?

Because the SPO-15 was originally capable of detecting up to 10Ghz frequencies, while the 120 radar begins at 12Ghz.

For the strength, I figure a mere change in PRF might throw the estimate out but I could be wrong.   I'm not saying that it should fail to show signal strength, just that it shouldn't be so reliable for range estimation.