Will EXP3 mode of air to ground radar be optimized and improved?

[sk000tch]

For security reasons, it would be inappropriate for Lex or myself to comment on any combat system or sensor. Even if those systems are old.

 

Hope nobody got in trouble, i was surprised to see comments re how employed/effectiveness. We are better off citing public domain docs guys, it provides something ED can actually use.

 

 

Curly - that is a cool way to represent/show how cell size effects IQ, but if I understand correctly its not accounting for supersamping like effect used. Google pixel spacing SAR resolution for a better explanation than I can give.

 

I am nowhere near as informed as ya'll about specific block we have or exactly when specfiic upgrades, etc., but if we have BRU-55's that is at least 05/06-ish iirc? That was a significant 8-years relative to 97-98. With SAR the tradeoff is latency vs. resolution, and latency is most prominently effected image processing speed, so...

 

No theorycrafting just pointing out the significant unknowns. If the legacy hornet's SAR was good enough for ATA terminal or mid-course updates for SLAM-ERs, which had the same or a modified version of block III TLAMs seeker, even if not ideal, there's plenty of public docs on optimizing cruise missile delivery and difficult of timely ISR that you can infer a minimum image quality from.

 

Anyway, I just came here to ask whether ED has said anything about this? I am not seeing anything that even acknowledges EXP 3 isn't just an additional zoom level of DBS patch?

[LastRifleRound]

Hope nobody got in trouble, i was surprised to see comments re how employed/effectiveness. We are better off citing public domain docs guys, it provides something ED can actually use.

 

 

Curly - that is a cool way to represent/show how cell size effects IQ, but if I understand correctly its not accounting for supersamping like effect used. Google pixel spacing SAR resolution for a better explanation than I can give.

 

I am nowhere near as informed as ya'll about specific block we have or exactly when specfiic upgrades, etc., but if we have BRU-55's that is at least 05/06-ish iirc? That was a significant 8-years relative to 97-98. With SAR the tradeoff is latency vs. resolution, and latency is most prominently effected image processing speed, so...

 

No theorycrafting just pointing out the significant unknowns. If the legacy hornet's SAR was good enough for ATA terminal or mid-course updates for SLAM-ERs, which had the same or a modified version of block III TLAMs seeker, even if not ideal, there's plenty of public docs on optimizing cruise missile delivery and difficult of timely ISR that you can infer a minimum image quality from.

 

Anyway, I just came here to ask whether ED has said anything about this? I am not seeing anything that even acknowledges EXP 3 isn't just an additional zoom level of DBS patch?

 

This is why I was asking GB and Lex, because I have no idea whether spending the time resolving a real SAR map would be worth the resources if the difference can't be noticed enough. From the descriptions from sources around here, what ED did seems to line up and be an accurate representation of what's been described, whether or not it's phase 1/phase 2 or the nature of SAR is actually being represented.

 

What kind of practical improvements were we to observe in DCS if EXP3 is just a zoomed in EXP2 and they then made it actual SAR? You seem to know a lot more about this than I do but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what you're saying the practical difference would be. Image processing isn't my thing.

 

G B/Lex - My apologies. The last thing I want to do is get anyone in trouble over a hobby discussion. I know why you say it's not worth it. We're just having fun chatting around the water cooler here, anything that could even remotely get someone in even a little heat I totally understand you wouldn't want to discuss. I don't know the rules, so any time I think I can get an expert opinion I try to but don't always know what's off limits.

 

Also, just want to point out cloud sync isn't asked for a whole lot because according to ED 80% of us don't go online, so we wouldn't know it's an issue in the first place to ask for it.

Edited August 22, 2020 by LastRifleRound

[Kev2go]

an example of objects that A/G isn't program to "see" yet

 

 

[jasonbirder]

Alot of the anti-AG Radar "mafias" arguments focus heavily around the limited resolution and utility of older AG Radars which obviously limits their ability to identify and target individual vehicles/units etc...

 

 

Whilst I know in a 21st Century sense its mere "theory crafting" to suggest anything other than individual unarmoured or lightly armoured vehicles scattered amongst non-combatants and thus needing positive ViD, might be targetted...is it not even slightly plausible to suggest scenarios where say, Runways, Power Stations, Water Purification Plants, Railway Marshalling Yards, Bridges, Tank Farms (POL not T72s!) might be considered targets?

 

 

 

Also...if its absolutely impossible to use a radar akin to the APG-73 to perform Offset Aiming Point bombing...why do RCAF F/A18Cs routinely train for it?

[LastRifleRound]

Alot of the anti-AG Radar "mafias" arguments focus heavily around the limited resolution and utility of older AG Radars which obviously limits their ability to identify and target individual vehicles/units etc...

 

 

Whilst I know in a 21st Century sense its mere "theory crafting" to suggest anything other than individual unarmoured or lightly armoured vehicles scattered amongst non-combatants and thus needing positive ViD, might be targetted...is it not even slightly plausible to suggest scenarios where say, Runways, Power Stations, Water Purification Plants, Railway Marshalling Yards, Bridges, Tank Farms (POL not T72s!) might be considered targets?

 

 

 

Also...if its absolutely impossible to use a radar akin to the APG-73 to perform Offset Aiming Point bombing...why do RCAF F/A18Cs routinely train for it?

 

I think this is OT at this point. You're talking about tactics. OP was asking whether ED believes the image quality is WIP or finished. It's a legit question, since none of us seems to really know what it should look like. This thread should stay on that discussion, with the further sharing of official documentation and imagery. Discussions for tactics should happen in a different thread for that purpose.

 

As someone who likes to fix bugs in DCS, it's difficult helping out without any official insight into what we should be seeing.

 

I'm seeing returns in EXP2 at 20nm that don't show on EXP3 for example. EXP3 map size seems to vary, and sometimes during the same weather and altitude/airspeeds the map is good enough to pick out individual houses in a village, and other times everything isn't even a blob, it's just a tiny dot, same village. I don't know what to do with this. Is it a bug? Is it WIP? Is it really that way? I don't know and I need to in order to help ED beta test the feature.

 

Whether or not real pilots used it, use it, or even like it doesn't matter to me. Whether certain conflicts would have warranted it, or certain air forces train it or not is irrelevant. We're just figuring out what it should look like so we can make sure it gets to that state and move on.

 

Don't forget, this is an API. Every aircraft, including the F15E and Eurofighter (whichever ones you end up with), will be using it. It's worth getting right.

[G B]

Alot of the anti-AG Radar "mafias" arguments focus heavily around the limited resolution and utility of older AG Radars which obviously limits their ability to identify and target individual vehicles/units etc...

 

 

Whilst I know in a 21st Century sense its mere "theory crafting" to suggest anything other than individual unarmoured or lightly armoured vehicles scattered amongst non-combatants and thus needing positive ViD, might be targetted...is it not even slightly plausible to suggest scenarios where say, Runways, Power Stations, Water Purification Plants, Railway Marshalling Yards, Bridges, Tank Farms (POL not T72s!) might be considered targets?

 

 

 

Also...if its absolutely impossible to use a radar akin to the APG-73 to perform Offset Aiming Point bombing...why do RCAF F/A18Cs routinely train for it?

 

 

Recommend you join Lex's discord. Link in his signature.

[Lex Talionis]

I am not talking about tactics.

 

You are missing the nuance of my answers.

 

The radar alone was typically not used to ID a target, what does that tell you? We couldn't always tell what the heck we were looking at !

 

You can go down the road of how pixilated the image is, or if it should lock on and all of that, but at the end of the day the image was hit and miss to reliably ID a target. Isn't that the jist of this thread? that the image is "not that good" ? And what we all have been trying to tell you is " yup, it wasn't that good, carry on." ...

 

Has nothing to do with tactics, jstars, my "jet pilot unconcious biases ". I didnt say "absolutely impossible " and i am not "anti AG radar". There is a perspective between all and nothing. If you are trying to use the radar as a one-stop-shop for ground targets, especially as a substitute to even trying to find the target visually, it is going to suck, as you all have discovered. Welcome to " immersion ".

 

Thats the best i can do, i dont know what else to say.

Edited August 22, 2020 by Lex Talionis

[jasonbirder]

The radar alone was typically not used to ID a target, what does that tell you? We couldn't always tell what the heck we were looking at !

 

I guess the question is...to what extent does the "can't ID what the Radar is looking at" apply...

Does that apply to ALL targets? Point Targets? Vehicles? Individual buildings in urban areas? Recognisable substantial structures such as docks, railway/motorway junctions, substantial bridges, Power plants, Refineries, Runways etc? Distinctive elevation based landmarks that would enable an INS fix in the absence of GPS?

[MacEwan]

I think the point is that if you can't properly ID a target, even so much as to distinguish a civilian vehicle from a military vehicle, then you cannot engage a target using the ground radar alone. It may have other uses, and yes, it is another tool in the toolbox, but like any tool one has to consider its purpose, its strengths, and its weaknesses.

[FoxOne007]

I guess the question is...to what extent does the "can't ID what the Radar is looking at" apply...

Does that apply to ALL targets? Point Targets? Vehicles? Individual buildings in urban areas? Recognisable substantial structures such as docks, railway/motorway junctions, substantial bridges, Power plants, Refineries, Runways etc? Distinctive elevation based landmarks that would enable an INS fix in the absence of GPS?

I think you're missing the point here my guy...

[Sarge55]

So basically as I understand it. In the absence of specific Intel on a target/area it can come down to;

 

Find blob with A/G radar,

slave TGP to blob for VID, and

attack or not (based on ROE).

 

I doubt there is a situation where you would be authorized to attack an unknown/unidentified "target" these days.

 

Still, a very useful tool for searching a wide area fairly quickly to help focus other sensors in our fictional conflicts.

[Swift.]

Still, a very useful tool for searching a wide area fairly quickly to help focus other sensors in our fictional conflicts.

 

How is that, searching a wide area with the radar will mean you are using map. Which is a big green smeary mess, how are you going to be finding anything other than geographic features with that?

 

I doubt there is a situation where you would be authorized to attack an unknown/unidentified "target" these days.

 

By 'these days' do you mean since the Geneva convention? The problem with bombing a green blob, is that the green blob will more often than not end up being a hospital or school building. Last I checked it's not exactly kosher to bomb those.

[chaos]

...By 'these days' do you mean since the Geneva convention? The problem with bombing a green blob, is that the green blob will more often than not end up being a hospital or school building. Last I checked it's not exactly kosher to bomb those.

 

During the late 60's early 70's, aircraft routinely used radar bombing "from up-high" to "down low" to attack bridges, truck parks etc.

 

I get that the the current gen of pilots are bound to very specific ROE and are only allowed to bomb what they can positively ID. However, as DCS is not bound by those rules since it is a game that caters to all time-frames, I welcome the feature even though it is far from an ideal tool.

[jasonbirder]

The problem with bombing a green blob, is that the green blob will more often than not end up being a hospital or school building. Last I checked it's not exactly kosher to bomb those.

 

 

I suppose the question I posed earlier (and I am happy to hear a definitive answer) is that will a Radar akin to an APG 73 be able to distinguish between a "green blob" that may be a school or hospital or a radar return that identifies a bridge/motorway junction/railway marshalling yard/pier/Power Station/Runway etc...

Edited August 23, 2020 by jasonbirder

[falcon_120]

I suppose the question I posed earlier (and I am happy to hear a definitive answer) is that will a Radar akin to an APG 73 be able to distinguish between a "green blob" that may be a school or hospital or a radar return that identifies a bridge/motorway junction/railway marshalling yard/pier/Power Station/Runway etc...

I think the answer has been quite clear already:

-No, not reliably. You will see things, and probably very distinct structures (railways and ports) are distinguishable, but nothing else to the degree you need to employ weapons (ID) .

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Edited August 23, 2020 by falcon_120

[G B]

The resolution is lousy. It's all blobs to me. *Personal opinion* is that it is virtually useless.

 

 

 

That's based on multiple lots of Legacy Hornet.

 

 

Enjoy!

[Kev2go]

I think the answer has been quite clear already:

-No, not reliably. You will see things, and probably very distinct structures (railways and ports) are distinguishable, but nothing else to the degree you need to employ weapons (ID) .

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

 

neither is a TGP have good enough resolution to reliably VID certain targets past a certain distance. IN DCS we have far too optimistic representation of A TGP. WE don't have degradation of resolution that would result in very considerable blurring in flir or optical sensor that you should have at high level digital zooms. Remember the Litening 2 only has 1024x1024 on its CCD. FLIr is only 640x512. We don't that that ultra modern TGP's.

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277517&page=2

 

 

This is what 171x171 would look like ( wrong estimate should be 99x99 ).

 

 

Can you tell that those 2 blobs are enemy T90 tanks? i dont think so.

 

Although the above was an incorrect estimate at lvl 9 zoom resolution would be not 171x171 but a mere 99x99 pixels, which would be even worse then the image above. With such degradatio So GL trying to properly VID ID vehicles at maximum stand off ranges with your Targeting pd.

 

When ED does more realistic TGP emulation then perhaps an A/G radar will be looked at by the naysayers for long stand off strike with JSOW or SLAM ER, as considering that SAR level resolution for target was intended to generate a minimum enough level for the softwares target recognition to an IIR image from the weapons POV.

Edited August 23, 2020 by Kev2go

[Fri13]

The resolution is lousy. It's all blobs to me. *Personal opinion* is that it is virtually useless.

 

I have actually found it to be fairly accurate in some cases, little too accurate compared to what I would expect it to be. But that is always when I know that where I am searching and knowing exactly that what I am searching. Like example I know that at middle of the specific desert valley there is a compound next to a small hill. It is easy to have a "hit" with radar. But so do I know it to exist there with a map as well, as visually. And if I set there a random number of clear objects like a roadbases or even a multiple parked vehicles that would really "pop-out" visually, I have no idea really that what I am looking on the radar screen. It is just blobs of the blobs.

 

That's based on multiple lots of Legacy Hornet.

 

Happy you few here who have experienced the real one, but sad that you can't really talk much about it.

 

Enjoy!

 

I do already, but likely some will not as they expected to "see more".

Where I am utilizing the radar is navigation. It is sometimes "easier to read" than a map in VR... As a wide area that I know "that mountain over there is the one".

 

Compared to the real F-35 simulator (the public one in various airshows etc) the radar on that one is leaps and bounds far better than anything we have now. Would be so nice to see it in real action that how much one can really do with it.

 

I have a feeling that after some time when the new feature experience is wearing off, I stop using it all together.

[Fri13]

When ED does more realistic TGP emulation then perhap an A/G radar will gaint have some relevance for long stand off strike with JSOW or SLAM ER, as considering that SAR level resolution for target was intended to generate a minimum enough level for the softwares target recognition to an IIR image from the weapons POV.

 

Hopefully ED will as well improve a lot the bombs effectiveness, as now when one needs to have direct hits or just inside a crater, the bombs are not useful by the manner as needed.

We as well need terrain engine to be capable for a sub-level resolution to offer the ground units their proper cover and concealment. Simulating their standard concealment training methods to hide from FLIR (and radar), so it really becomes real challenge to find the targets on the ground.

[LastRifleRound]

This is the post Kate made about FTT that clued me in that the terrain needs some work still with respect to the radar. I referenced it earlier but couldn't remember where I saw it. Whether this translates to any changes in the image itself, I have no idea whether it will or if the image itself should change. From real pilot input, their descriptions ("blobby" and "impossible to VID") align with the imagery I'm seeing. The scant few images publicly available on the APG73 look similar, if not a bit more "zoomed in" and less pixelated (but that could be because the display output is better than the one in the Hornet).

 

Anyway, for what it's worth here it is:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4337181&postcount=186

[Kev2go]

This is the post Kate made about FTT that clued me in that the terrain needs some work still with respect to the radar. I referenced it earlier but couldn't remember where I saw it. Whether this translates to any changes in the image itself, I have no idea whether it will or if the image itself should change. From real pilot input, their descriptions ("blobby" and "impossible to VID") align with the imagery I'm seeing. The scant few images publicly available on the APG73 look similar, if not a bit more "zoomed in" and less pixelated (but that could be because the display output is better than the one in the Hornet).

 

Anyway, for what it's worth here it is:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4337181&postcount=186

 

I had a PM discussion with another user Curly when comparing WIP screenshots of pre release WIP Batumi airfield SAR map then, and how it looks like post release . Hypothesis that maybe it has to do with the fact ED is using pre RUG 2 documentation for the APG73 or perhaps that since they have been admitting to using specifically Spanish documentation for the Hornet certain weapons related procedures and avionics Like the lightening 2 TGP. Either SAF are using older APG73 or maybe a export derivative (downgraded) APG73's kind of how Saudis got downgraded APG70's in Strike eagles that were limited to 1.3NM x 1.3 NM SAR patches. Although not discounting that possibility, Im not certain the latter is the case given the Saudi case is a more unique as example they are considered a less reliable ally, and Spain in turn is an actual NATO member.

 

 

Furthermore like you said ED never really said if we truly have SAR emulated right now in EXP3 rather than just DBS with more magnification.

 

"Added Doppler Beam Sharpened (DBS) EXP -1/2/3 modes"

 

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.5.6.53756/

 

 

https://www.radartutorial.eu/20.airborne/ab07.en.html

 

 

Besides whereas EXP1/2 DBS are very dependent on angular offset and distance to target where the resolution improves as you get closer to target, EXP3 should not nearly be affected as much by this. Resolution can improve as you get close to target area since more energy is reflected back, but a given constant resolution should be guaranteed.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Kev2go

[Swift.]

The SAR from EXP 3 is still using DBS btw, its just applying the SAR processing to the information provided by the DBS.

[LastRifleRound]

The SAR from EXP 3 is still using DBS btw, its just applying the SAR processing to the information provided by the DBS.

 

This is true. I think the issue isn't how blobby the returns are, rather how resolution seems to drop when moving to EXP3. This doesn't fit the descriptions offered in how the system should work. The returns in EXP3 seem like the pixels just "blow out", making the returns fainter than they probably should be. The resolution should still be crappy, but I don't think it's supposed to drop

 

Kind of like digital zoom vs an actual telephoto, if that makes sense.

 

Again, maybe a big deal in the Hornet maybe not, but definitely a big deal in the mudhen.

[Fri13]

Expand 3 (EXP3), commonly known as "Medium Resolution SAR", is the highest resolution expansion mode available. The EXP3 mode format, is similar to that of the EXP1 and EXP2 modes and contains the same options and indications. The EXP3 mode has a fixed range perimeter coverage of approximately 1.2x1.2 nautical miles, resulting in a constant area and resolution regardless of range. Unlike EXP1/2, the size of the EXP3 corral changes with range because EXP3 is a fixed range perimeter coverage mode while EXP1 and EXP2 are angular. For this reason, the EXP3 coverage becomes the same as the EXP2 coverage at approximately 6nm range, and EXP2 actually covers a higher resolution patch below that range. As with EXP2, EXP3 is a ground stabilized mode regardless of whether a visible designation exists.

 

Simply said, better use EXP2 at closer ranges.

[Swift.]

This is true. I think the issue isn't how blobby the returns are, rather how resolution seems to drop when moving to EXP3. This doesn't fit the descriptions offered in how the system should work. The returns in EXP3 seem like the pixels just "blow out", making the returns fainter than they probably should be. The resolution should still be crappy, but I don't think it's supposed to drop

 

Kind of like digital zoom vs an actual telephoto, if that makes sense.

 

Again, maybe a big deal in the Hornet maybe not, but definitely a big deal in the mudhen.

 

I suppose it is possible the EXP2 resolution is higher than what it should be, making it akin to the EXP3.