reported AN/APG-63 range is under-represented

[Breakshot]

1 hour ago, HiJack said:

You could have dug that up from 51st stats ages ago. But new guys, don't do homework
I can fly some F15 (in DCS), no worries. Great amraam bus for our squadron internal aggressor trainings.

Its FM is just not up to scratch.
 

I suppose its up to the F15 fanboys to push ED to do something about it?

Do you know someone who flies DCS and the real thing,@HiJack ?

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Breakshot

[Breakshot]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

You must have confused something. F-15C is PFM since 2014.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/#1512209

I suppose ED can shed light on this in more detail, but I think its not to the same standard as other FC3 models and FF models.

 

I guess we're getting sidetracked, lets get back to radar!

[GGTharos]

When you show how it differs from the -1 charts and the NASA research used to tune the FM, ED will fix it.   This FM went through more than a year's worth of changes based on those document and F-15 SME input.

[Breakshot]

Yeah it would be nice to have some love for the 15.

Its still the most potent fighter in DCS, but flying it should be a little harder.

Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, GGTharos said:

When you show how it differs from the -1 charts and the NASA research used to tune the FM, ED will fix it.   This FM went through more than a year's worth of changes based on those document and F-15 SME input.

 

Is stores drag modeled? G limits on stores? Curious mainly. I don't think I've ever broken the jet... 

[SgtPappy]

On 5/28/2021 at 5:25 PM, Harlikwin said:

 

Is stores drag modeled? G limits on stores? Curious mainly. I don't think I've ever broken the jet... 

I think there's a bit of miscommunication/misunderstanding here. the damage model and flight model are separate things. And I can appreciate the idea of a plane being "gamey" if it doesn't break as it should or if the stores drag isn't modeled right. Trust me, I wish I could over stress the thing too because I don't like pulling 13 G and then facing Eagle flyers who choose to do so (it's all fair but I'm not a fan of doing it myself). When the -1/NASA data is being referenced, we're talking about the FM of the jet - what G's it sustains, what AoA it can pull, what its TFSA is like, acceleration and climb rates, etc. and these match closely to the manuals. Are there disparities? Yes, but I don't believe they're any more off than any other plane and I dare anyone to find a plane that perfectly matches every part of the flight envelope. 

 

Back to the radar, it's great that it's being investigated/reported! If the MiG-29 can get some love, I hope the F-15 will soon too

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by SgtPappy

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

ED still needs to address the inconsistency in the manual

it says 63v1

So while adjusting it to a 1970s 63 or a 80s PSP would be technically still 'wrong'

 

Could ED in the future adjust it to have detection ranges like an APG-70 using (what might be) Razbams speculative APG-70 data and change the manual to say APG-70 as well?

As I understand a handful of C eagles did get the -70, so it wouldn't be an anachronism and still reflect the improvements in radar the eagle fleet had in the later half of the 20th century compared to its introduction.

[GGTharos]

All F-15Cs got an MSIP radar, be it the -70 or -63.  At that point the -63 didn't really resemble what had been there pre-MSIP.

The basic technology of note for A2A wouldn't change the range capability much between those, IMHO.

The 63v1 is, IIRC, an update to bring it up to -70 capability which includes the beefier processing unit and different manufacturing techniques.

Basically, if it's not possible to simulate the differences between the 63 and 70, they're essentially the same thing.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

All F-15Cs got an MSIP radar, be it the -70 or -63.  At that point the -63 didn't really resemble what had been there pre-MSIP.

The basic technology of note for A2A wouldn't change the range capability much between those, IMHO.

The 63v1 is, IIRC, an update to bring it up to -70 capability which includes the beefier processing unit and different manufacturing techniques.

Basically, if it's not possible to simulate the differences between the 63 and 70, they're essentially the same thing.

I do believe you may be missing the point of my post.

 

What I am saying is the radar being modeled as a 70s F-15A would be anachronistic

And should be modeled on APG-70 63v1 or PSP/MSIP figures at the very least if possible.

To reflect capabilities of the eagle fleet of the era.

 

Please reread my post I'm sure I made this clear

I am also curious as to what ED thinks about giving the FC3 air-crafts a Velocity search mode

[GGTharos]

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree with you.

For the purposes of clarity only:   It's really not modeled as any of the versions you described (or any version that we have documented).  Basically our FC3 APG-63/70 looks kinda like one of those, but a bunch of basic and useful stuff that would have even been in the original is missing.   TWS mode alone represents a PSP radar, I don't believe was implemented for the original version as it is a memory and processor intensive mode.

Very generically speaking I would say that it attempts to represent a mid or late 90's version.  Maybe early 2000, so 63v0 with all the upgrades it had or a 70.

 

IMHO the Vector Search mode is superior to Velocity Search - it will give you range, but at the cost of halving antenna sweep speed for +20% range or so, IIRC.

[SgtPappy]

On 6/5/2021 at 3:22 AM, GGTharos said:

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree with you.

For the purposes of clarity only:   It's really not modeled as any of the versions you described (or any version that we have documented).  Basically our FC3 APG-63/70 looks kinda like one of those, but a bunch of basic and useful stuff that would have even been in the original is missing.   TWS mode alone represents a PSP radar, I don't believe was implemented for the original version as it is a memory and processor intensive mode.

Very generically speaking I would say that it attempts to represent a mid or late 90's version.  Maybe early 2000, so 63v0 with all the upgrades it had or a 70.

 

IMHO the Vector Search mode is superior to Velocity Search - it will give you range, but at the cost of halving antenna sweep speed for +20% range or so, IIRC.

 

I would think that the velocity search was an older school tool that predated the 80s TWS right? I don't see myself using it today if we had it over TWS which I'm guessing is only an approximation to what an actual F-15 of the time could do.

 

The TWS in the F-14 is much more limited (and a fun experience in and of itself) so I will often use velocity search there just to build a picture but I dont think you'd need to in the F-15. 

 

I'd really like supersearch, sniff (maybe if it could be used like a sneaky way of finding targets) on top of the proper detection range increase. Some have mentioned the "notchability" of the radar being too easy but that I feel is too hard to verify.

[GGTharos]

TWS notch is the problem, AFAIK STT operates on the fixed track/MEM timer (which is variable based on distance IRL) so you don't just lose the track when the target passes through the notch momentarily.

[Harlikwin]

48 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

TWS notch is the problem, AFAIK STT operates on the fixed track/MEM timer (which is variable based on distance IRL) so you don't just lose the track when the target passes through the notch momentarily.

 

The problem is that DCS doesn't actually model "trackfiles" or if it does they are badly done. The F15 and most modern radars should "track through a notch" for several seconds, sometimes also called "coast mode". Track files should also be degraded if the radar doesn't get a "hit" every few seconds. 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

6 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

 

I would think that the velocity search was an older school tool that predated the 80s TWS right? I don't see myself using it today if we had it over TWS which I'm guessing is only an approximation to what an actual F-15 of the time could do.

 

The TWS in the F-14 is much more limited (and a fun experience in and of itself) so I will often use velocity search there just to build a picture but I dont think you'd need to in the F-15. 

 

I'd really like supersearch, sniff (maybe if it could be used like a sneaky way of finding targets) on top of the proper detection range increase. Some have mentioned the "notchability" of the radar being too easy but that I feel is too hard to verify.

If they're simple enough to implement I'd like them for the novelty and to experiment

 

planes like the MiG-29 might get more use out of them given how weak that radar is by comparison

[Harlikwin]

6 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

 

I would think that the velocity search was an older school tool that predated the 80s TWS right? I don't see myself using it today if we had it over TWS which I'm guessing is only an approximation to what an actual F-15 of the time could do.

 

The TWS in the F-14 is much more limited (and a fun experience in and of itself) so I will often use velocity search there just to build a picture but I dont think you'd need to in the F-15. 

 

I'd really like supersearch, sniff (maybe if it could be used like a sneaky way of finding targets) on top of the proper detection range increase. Some have mentioned the "notchability" of the radar being too easy but that I feel is too hard to verify.

 

Notch gate on the F15 radar is like 55kts. 

 

[henshao]

7 hours ago, SgtPappy said:

 

I would think that the velocity search was an older school tool that predated the 80s TWS right? I don't see myself using it today if we had it over TWS which I'm guessing is only an approximation to what an actual F-15 of the time could do.

 

The TWS in the F-14 is much more limited (and a fun experience in and of itself) so I will often use velocity search there just to build a picture but I dont think you'd need to in the F-15. 

 

I'd really like supersearch, sniff (maybe if it could be used like a sneaky way of finding targets) on top of the proper detection range increase. Some have mentioned the "notchability" of the radar being too easy but that I feel is too hard to verify.

 

Vector can be summarized as a half-speed search mode which allows greater detection range especially of low RCS targets

[KenobiOrder]

The velocity gate is also too high. Lowest setting in for the 1980s manual is 50 knots, with 70, 90, and one that is over 100. Later manuals indicate similar capabilities. 

 

DCS velocity gate is like 100 knots.

Edited June 10, 2021 by KenobiOrder

[henshao]

9 hours ago, KenobiOrder said:

The velocity gate is also too high. Lowest setting in for the 1980s manual is 50 knots, with 70, 90, and one that is over 100. Later manuals indicate similar capabilities. 

 

DCS velocity gate is like 100 knots.

 

 

As I understand it, a variable velocity gate was introduced at least partly so that F-15's stationed in Germany would stop getting locks on Autobahn traffic

 

what's the RCS on a BMW m3 I wonder

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 hour ago, henshao said:

 

As I understand it, a variable velocity gate was introduced at least partly so that F-15's stationed in Germany would stop getting locks on Autobahn traffic

 

what's the RCS on a BMW m3 I wonder

Must explain why they went with a sleeker less boxy design on later models, planform alignment perhaps?

[KenobiOrder]

2 hours ago, henshao said:

 

As I understand it, a variable velocity gate was introduced at least partly so that F-15's stationed in Germany would stop getting locks on Autobahn traffic

 

what's the RCS on a BMW m3 I wonder

It's still a capability. There can also be cars in Germany going faster than 100knots. It should be reduced to the 70 knot option.

[Vekkinho]

Well, if we got B and C AMRAAM available to F-15C and we got TWS radar mode this means we should have a AN/APG-63v1 radar, just like the Belsimtek manual says. This means we have post 1990 version of the Eagle. First major test of a AN/APG-63v1 and AMRAAM A was during Desert Storm. AMRAAM failed to perform as expected if launched from Eagle Claw stations on L and R engine nacelle. These operate in such manner that they literally push the missile away from a jet, rip away it's datacord and missile would start it's engine once it's cleared (~10ft) from launcher. Eagle claws would generally develop icing at altitudes Eagles would operate (FL350+) and lots of AMRAAMs turned into a hung store (back in early 1991).

 

However, TWS as it is modelled for the last 18 years (read since 2003 Lock On) allows simultaneous tracking and engaging of only 4 targets unlike a 63v1 that tracks 6. It's too prone to notching because of no trackfile so as soon as you notch you spoof that AMRAAM useless. RL AMRAAM (A thru C) should guide to a last known position of a target and once you reacquire the target receive a guidance fix. 

 

So what ED decided to do in LOMAC is addition of simplified and misinterpreted TWS to original AN/APG-63 performance charts made with 1970 P-3 testbed tracking a subsonic T-33. None of the P-3 don't go 35.000ft and it don't go beyond 350KIAS so radar performance charts differ a lot from the ones you'd get in a 1991 with modernized 63v1 equipped F-15C at 40.000ft scanning a 3m^2 Fulcrum flying M1.5 or more, hot.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Vekkinho

[GGTharos]

It tracks 8, it's plainly written in the -34.

ED matched the radar performance of the Eagle to the Flanker back in LOMAC, the 1970 testbed actually shows more range in tests than we have right now.  That information was not available back then.

[henshao]

I also find it dubious that a jet as big and angular as a Fulcrum would only be 3m^2 especially with stores hanging off it but I digress

[Vekkinho]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

It tracks 8, it's plainly written in the -34.

ED matched the radar performance of the Eagle to the Flanker back in LOMAC, the 1970 testbed actually shows more range in tests than we have right now.  That information was not available back then.

 

Can we like get this thing a rolling and sign a petition for DCS: F-15C MSIPII $49.99 module. There's like a decent amount of folks with decent amount of official data and lot's of folks with time to test and evaluate a product. FC3 F-15C requires no major overhaul of external and cockpit 3D model and animations, upgrade of avionics, fix of taxi and nav lights would be all it takes. There's folks doing magic with all the freeware mods, I especially liked the work done on T-45 and A-4 so if they could only get their hands on a F-15C. 

3 hours ago, henshao said:

I also find it dubious that a jet as big and angular as a Fulcrum would only be 3m^2 especially with stores hanging off it but I digress

Oh, I guesstimated 3m^2 figure of a Fulcrum. It's not official by any means.

[SgtPappy]

It looks like there's good news on the horizon! See Chizh's reply on implementing the correct APG-63 ranges: 

 

Edited September 20, 2021 by SgtPappy