Ground Mapping Radar

[AG-51_Razor]

Any news on the progress of this? It's been very conspicuous by it's absence in the forum here. :music_whistling:

[Wags]

Two weeks ago:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3947387&postcount=159

 

Please consult the mini-updates for the most recent news.

 

Thanks

[QuiGon]

"Initial work"? I thought the A-G radar had been worked on for quite some time now? There has even been screenshots in the news updates about it years ago? :huh:

[Hog_No32]

"Initial work"? I thought the A-G radar had been worked on for quite some time now? There has even been screenshots in the news updates about it years ago? :huh:

 

Seems you missed an update between that one years ago and the recent one:) The engineer at ED who was responsible for A/G radar development in the past left the company (think more than a year ago). So while obviously there was some code existent and developed (hence the screenshot you mentioned) but not finished, it‘s quite likely that it didn‘t make any sense for the new guy to take those old bits of code, trying to understand them and further developing it to completion from there.

It usually is more efficient and you get a much cleaner code (better testable, modifyable) if you start from scratch again than trying to complete a year-old code that someone else wrote. It‘s about the long-term health of the code and the ability to refine it further at a later stage. Thats is how it is usually done for a rather complex and integral software.

[tintifaxl]

First mention of A/G radar progress was in 04/2015 with screenshots and Wags comment: "making good progress". https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2386306&postcount=1

 

Maybe the changes in DCS World 2.0 made the work done then obsolete?

[tintifaxl]

...

It usually is more efficient and you get a much cleaner code (better testable, modifyable) if you start from scratch again than trying to complete a year-old code that someone else wrote. ...

 

Why wouldn't the former developer have written clean, well documented, testable code? Why would the new developer do so?

[QuiGon]

Seems you missed an update between that one years ago and the recent one:) The engineer at ED who was responsible for A/G radar development in the past left the company (think more than a year ago). So while obviously there was some code existent and developed (hence the screenshot you mentioned) but not finished, it‘s quite likely that it didn‘t make any sense for the new guy to take those old bits of code, trying to understand them and further developing it to completion from there.

It usually is more efficient and you get a much cleaner code (better testable, modifyable) if you start from scratch again than trying to complete a year-old code that someone else wrote. It‘s about the long-term health of the code and the ability to refine it further at a later stage. Thats is how it is usually done for a rather complex and integral software.

I do have seen that update, but, that doesn't necessarily mean that the work had to be restarted from scratch. Apart from that, the update about the new engineer has been several months ago, so there was already quite some time to do initial work.

 

I'm not meaning to criticize ED. I'm a software developer myself, so I know very well how the business works and what problems can arise. I'm just saying that from what we have heard from ED, there are various possibilities on what has actually happend with the work on the A-G radar. I can do a lot of guesswork on that on my own. The fact that there has been no word or even pictures on progress of the A-G radar for several years and then the news that the egineer who worked on that has left sounds like work on that task isn't going well at all, but I would rather hear from ED directly what is going on there, instead of making uninformed guesses.

Edited June 28, 2019 by QuiGon

[Eldur]

I was under the impression that the dev who "left" was Olgerd who now is back in service, luckily. After all he's the avionics guy. That's simple 1+1 for me... could be wrong though

[Pikey]

I hope he's recovered from his return party hangover. Someone of his experience is a massive boost to ED, these guys don't grow on trees. It's probably too sore to discuss, but he did say he was looking forward to returning to work. He's not the only person that is!

[Wags]

There is a difference between the core AG radar rendering technology and the implementation of that tech to a specific pod. The latter just started.

 

Thanks

[Raven68]

There is a difference between the core AG radar rendering technology and the implementation of that tech to a specific pod. The latter just started.

 

Thanks

 

Is it safe to say the foundation is in place for the AG radar then? I am probably assuming way too much when I say it's a matter of taking what is rendered and making is useful information for the systems and weapons of the F-18 to digest?

[Revelation]

Is it safe to say the foundation is in place for the AG radar then? I am probably assuming way too much when I say it's a matter of taking what is rendered and making is useful information for the systems and weapons of the F-18 to digest?

 

It can be that easy. Based on the old posting back in 2015 showing a Pulse-Doppler radar scan they chose to go the route of simulating a radar actually detecting things on the ground and rendering those returns on the MFD.

 

This is a more authentic experience and it would make it much easier to simulate/emulate radar jamming in the future should ED decide that they have the resources to devote to such an endeavor.

[Santi871]

The A/G radar is really complex not only in the processing of returns like in real life but also from a software perspective it's challenging to implement a real time ground radar simulation that isn't performance heavy.

 

I don't think the A/G radar will be very useful, at least until they implement the expand modes that allow for higher resolutions. Without any expand modes it would look something like the viggen's ground radar which isn't very useful for locating units (other than ships).

 

So I think it will be quite a while until we have an useful ground radar.

[Jak525]

I hope one of the first modes we get will be Air-to-Ground Ranging (AGR). This will allow us to designate a TGT via the HUD / HMD (although I'm not sure what happens if you try to designate with the HMD beyond the radar gimbal limits; might be impossible, or it will be pretty inaccurate).

[silent one]

"Initial work" Great to hear the in depth info on progress since 2015. I cant cope with the info overload.

[Santi871]

I hope one of the first modes we get will be Air-to-Ground Ranging (AGR). This will allow us to designate a TGT via the HUD / HMD (although I'm not sure what happens if you try to designate with the HMD beyond the radar gimbal limits; might be impossible, or it will be pretty inaccurate).

 

This already works but is a bit buggy when you use the ball and chain for any bomb in AUTO mode (even JDAM/JSOW) and then slew the designator around. For some reason sometimes the AGR outputs 0ft elevation so it's off, but when that doesn't happen it's reasonably accurate (think it would be accurate enough to target a large building).

[QuiGon]

There is a difference between the core AG radar rendering technology and the implementation of that tech to a specific pod. The latter just started.

 

Thanks

Thanks, that explains a lot :thumbup:

[Hog_No32]

The A/G radar is really complex not only in the processing of returns like in real life but also from a software perspective it's challenging to implement a real time ground radar simulation that isn't performance heavy.

 

I don't think the A/G radar will be very useful, at least until they implement the expand modes that allow for higher resolutions. Without any expand modes it would look something like the viggen's ground radar which isn't very useful for locating units (other than ships).

 

So I think it will be quite a while until we have an useful ground radar.

 

Indeed I think many folks have very unrealistic expectations on what the A/G radar allows to do, not only in the sim but also in real life. There is a reason why most RL fighter pilots I listened to said they rarely use it at all except for missions like anti-ship.

 

It is true that Strike Eagles used the A/G radar a lot during Desert Storm. But...

...that was mainly done (and only successful) for striking pre-planned strategic targets at night. Would they have had JDAMs or JSOWs back then, they likely would have hardly relied on the radar to refine their targeting solution or update their position.

 

So once we have a targeting pod (and that will apparently happen before the A/G radar), I personally could really only think of using the A/G radar in the sea mode in conjunction with employing the Harpoon...but not much beyond that.

 

P.S.: Have to admit that I am really looking forward to this particular capability though since it is already so much fun in the Viggen :smilewink:

[Raf]

Should not A/G radar spot immediately moving columns, in the moving target submode? Because of the pulse-doppler and all.

[Eldur]

There is a difference between the core AG radar rendering technology and the implementation of that tech to a specific pod. The latter just started.

 

Thanks

 

 

Kinda guessed that. Just like the (FL)IR rendering tech and Mavs / TGPs.

[Fri13]

Should not A/G radar spot immediately moving columns, in the moving target submode? Because of the pulse-doppler and all.

 

A-G radar doesn't detect what is moving, it detects what has changed from previous scans in memory. And then it filters out all that that is still same, and what is left should be the positions that has vehicles moving.

 

The pulse Doppler shouldn't be required for that at all.

 

The vehicle mapping is another thing in attack helicopters and their millimeter radars. Detecting vehicle by the shape of the vehicle. That you can break by using nets etc to reshape vehicle.

[Beamscanner]

The F/A-18C does indeed have GMTI and GMTT modes, so yes it can spot and track moving ground targets. (even stationary targets if they have a spinning antenna). But being that it is an indicator, the moving targets are displayed as bricks, and are not imaged like you would see with SAR or ISAR.

 

I do not think its possible for the F/A-18C to use Ground Mapping and GMTI at the same time. Its one or the other.

 

As for the term "Pulse Doppler".. That's more of a layman term describing High/Medium PRF capable radar.

 

That being said, Doppler is in fact processed in most ground mapping modes like DBS, SAR, GMTI, GMTT. With the exception being Real Beam Ground Mapping (RBGM).

[Raf]

The doppler effect is what I meant

[toilet2000]

A-G radar doesn't detect what is moving, it detects what has changed from previous scans in memory. And then it filters out all that that is still same, and what is left should be the positions that has vehicles moving.

 

The pulse Doppler shouldn't be required for that at all.

 

The vehicle mapping is another thing in attack helicopters and their millimeter radars. Detecting vehicle by the shape of the vehicle. That you can break by using nets etc to reshape vehicle.

 

 

Nope, the Hornet's radar has full GMTT/GMTI (Ground Moving Targets Tracking, Ground Moving Targets Indication) with synthetic bricks using Doppler-based tracking.

 

 

In fact, like Beamscanner said, most AG radar modes actually use the Doppler effect as a mean to produce an image.

[Santi871]

Presumably the ground radar tracking modes are only compatible with real beam mapping so they are not able to resolve small targets from range (no DBS or SAR available).