Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 14 of 14 1 2 12 13 14
#4498706 - 11/29/19 11:33 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
QLD
Originally Posted by GrayGhost
Probably gets in the way of their narrative.

I'd like to see ED add the inaccuracies of TWS in ... I suppose people who complain and call it a bug at first, but this sort of stuff is the real differenciator between an MSA and AESA, among other things.

Either way, the switchology mechanization is nice to see. Now I'd love to see TPOD/RADAR/JHMCS/Link-16 integration for A2A smile


Nothing is a 'bug' it is either "not implemented yet" or "it missed the current update" or perhaps, "not applicable to the block aircraft which [said RL ED endorsed pilot] system was tested in" smile

if C.W Lemon did not mention it in a video update (or his books [author's note: not that I would invest in any of the books]), than it must "not be implemented yet". From what I see....many people take these RL pilot words as gospel and gripe in all forms of forums that if 'lemon' said it, then it must be true.

However, if you want the truth you will need to buy the Spectre series.

There must be a disclaimer published by ED if they are going to endorse these RL pilots to test these aircraft and publish video's on their opinion of how realistic these modules are.

A prime example of this disclaimer is, now I can not confirm if it is Gonky or some other RL noob. There was a bloke who is an actual F-18 pilot who posted video's of his flight experience both in RL and in DCS world. His mate was a 'RL' harrier pilot and they tested Razbam's harrier but in the video....this 'RL' pilot had no idea what the fk he was doing. They ran a systems test to dump fuel, yet the RL pilot couldn't remember any of the functions within the sim or how it worked in RL. I'm not having a crack here but if ED are going to endorse RL pilots to sell their modules or 3rd party modules, perhaps tell them to test the aircraft before uploading video's so they do not look like utter noobs. This in turn leads to the die hards reference these noobs in arguments on the forums.

Seriously, flying a plane is like riding a bike. As long as you follow the check list every time [and speak aloud the check list items], yell "clear prop" before turning the key, you won't have issues. CASA may some day call you to a staging area for assessment and you don't want to look like a fool.
I can not fathom how simple tasks can be forgotten when it comes to RL fighter pilots endorsing simulated aircraft. Perhaps dumping fuel does not take place often, however in the video....many of the commands are forgotten, just a shame I forgot who it was and when the video was posted. What I do remember, it was posted by some RL hornet driver where comments were based on his head positioning when pulling back on the stick. The breathing stood out in the comments, although he was at his home desk and commenting on the aircraft for the 1st time.

If you know the video or the RL hornet driver I am talking about, help me out because I can't find it in my watch history.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4498735 - 11/29/19 09:30 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by Winfield
Nothing is a 'bug' it is either "not implemented yet" or "it missed the current update" or perhaps, "not applicable to the block aircraft which [said RL ED endorsed pilot] system was tested in" smile


There are plenty of acknowledged bugs. smile

Quote
I'm not having a crack here but if ED are going to endorse RL pilots to sell their modules or 3rd party modules, perhaps tell them to test the aircraft before uploading video's so they do not look like utter noobs. This in turn leads to the die hards reference these noobs in arguments on the forums.


I know that Wags had been burned before by someone claiming to be an RL fighter pilot, but wasn't ... this was quite a while ago. AFAIK Wags checks credentials since, at least as far as EDs SMEs go.

Quote
If you know the video or the RL hornet driver I am talking about, help me out because I can't find it in my watch history.


Unfortunately I don't know it.


--
44th VFW
#4498750 - 11/30/19 01:00 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
QLD
Originally Posted by GrayGhost
Originally Posted by Winfield
Nothing is a 'bug' it is either "not implemented yet" or "it missed the current update" or perhaps, "not applicable to the block aircraft which [said RL ED endorsed pilot] system was tested in" smile


There are plenty of acknowledged bugs. smile

Quote
I'm not having a crack here but if ED are going to endorse RL pilots to sell their modules or 3rd party modules, perhaps tell them to test the aircraft before uploading video's so they do not look like utter noobs. This in turn leads to the die hards reference these noobs in arguments on the forums.


I know that Wags had been burned before by someone claiming to be an RL fighter pilot, but wasn't ... this was quite a while ago. AFAIK Wags checks credentials since, at least as far as EDs SMEs go.

Quote
If you know the video or the RL hornet driver I am talking about, help me out because I can't find it in my watch history.


Unfortunately I don't know it.



The guy was Lex Talionis. Goes by the YouTube name of Lex.
Interesting that all his videos have been removed. All that remains is what is available in this post here

#4501134 - 12/21/19 03:41 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sobek]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Originally Posted by Sobek
There's really not that much that more processing power and memory can do for you on a mechanically actuated radar. The biggest progress has been made in the field of antenna design and power electronics, resulting in PESA and ultimately AESA antennae, which allows much faster beam steering and even splitting of the radar beam.


First of all, sorry for taking so long to reply but but I haven't been able to visit the forum lately.

Secondly and about you post, I have to say the following:
Really? How about combining modes (which I previously mentioned)?
For example, you can read the following in the F-16 MLU manual about the APG-66V2 (a Mechanically Steered Antenna or MSA radar, mind you) on page 126:

"TWS has been enhanced with a submode called SAM Multi-Target Track (SMT). SMT can simultaneously track up to 9 targets in the TWS scan volume and perform RWS SAM on a bugged target, which can be located outside of the TWS scan pattern."

So as you can see, in the modernized APG-66V2 mechanically steered Radar the TWS mode can be combined with SAM (which the "other gentleman" has been bragging so much about) which means that you can combine the advantages of TWS with SAM, all of this due to updates which are obviously and only possible due to advancements in technology such as processing power and memory.

As opposed to the "other gentleman", I'll post a link with the manual (F-16 MLU) which I'm referring above, here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwK-B4mRQeNLYUdSaDJjRXN1UlU

For what's worth a "pure TWS" mode (without combining with other modes) may have its disadvantages (never said otherwise) but guess what, so does RWS and SAM modes have their disadvantages (you can read about this in the same manual above) which is something that the "other gentleman" seems to ignore such as the TWS having the advantage to give the pilot a much better Situational Awareness, something that even ED admits with the latest TWS Hornet video description.

Finally, yes it's true that PESA but above all AESA radars brought big (massive in the case of AESA) advantages over MSA radars but you simple cannot dismiss the advancements that processing power and memory brought to even the MSA radars.
In the case of PESA, it's advantages are not that big over MSA, specially when compared to AESA. Yes, PESA has advantages over MSA namely being electronically steered (as opposed to mechanically) which has the advantage of faster scan rates but otherwise the technology behind PESA is similar to MSA.
AESA on the other hand is quite a different and much improved "beast" since it allows for example to have modules to emit on a certain frequency which other emit on other frequencies and the modules are programmable.


#4501154 - 12/21/19 06:53 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 621
Sobek Offline
Professional scapegoat
Sobek  Offline
Professional scapegoat
Member

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 621
SAM isn't so much a new processing mode as a different scanning pattern, sort of halfway between TWS and STT. So yes, more memory and processing power may have opened up the possibility to combine those two, it does nothing to alleviate the main drawback that TWS has though, which is that while the antenna scans the rest of the box, the target may maneuver so heavily that by the time the beam hits it again, the deviation from the track is too big and the track gets dropped.

TWS works ok-ish if you reduce the size of the box that is being scanned or you increase the steering speed for the beam so updates are more frequent. More processing power can not magically account for slow steering and therefore not enough updates per time. There is no way to predict what the pilot of a tracked plane will do at any given moment. TWS can only assume where the plane will be given its state when it was last scanned. If the state changes, then the track will accumulate error. This happens a lot more IRL than is currently simulated in DCS.

#4501295 - 12/23/19 02:17 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Sure, but you seem to forget that it's not only the TWS that has drawbacks (correct me if I'm wrong). SAM and RWS also have their share disadvantages which in many/most situations likely outweighs the TWS drawbacks.

And please again, look/read the F-16 MLU manual that I provided above, namely page 126. In this page you can read the following:

Quote
RWS has two track submodes named Situation Awareness Mode (SAM) and Two Target SAM (TTS). SAM and TTS provide a higher probability of maintaining target track for vertically maneuvering targets than TWS but at the expense of reduced search coverage and the numbers of targets that can be simultaneously tracked.


So, while RWS/SAM have the advantage of better maintaining target track for vertically maneuvering targets, this is done by having a reduced search coverage compared to TWS and of course a much smaller number of targets that can be tracked. So both modes have the following disadvantages compared to each other:
RWS/SAM --> Less/reduced search coverage and much smaller number of targets that can be tracked.
TWS --> higher probability of breaking target track for vertically maneuvering targets. (horizontal maneuvering targets shouldn't pose a problem for TWS)

So two (2) main/big disadvantages on the RWS/SAM side versus only one (1) on the TWS side.

And you can also read in the same page that TWS has another big advantage over RWS/SAM:

Quote
However, TWS is less susceptible to triggering the adversaries’ RWR gear than the other submodes.


This means that if you're tracking an enemy aircraft using the TWS mode the enemy won't likely know that it's being tracked (namely when compared to RWS/SAM modes) which means that the probability of the enemy aircraft to perform evasive vertical maneuvers (for example in an attempt to break track/lock) are much lower compared to RWS/SAM and thus drastically reducing the TWS main drawback/disadvantage.


So and bottom line:
- Every MSA radar mode has its advantages/disadvantages and IMO (backed by the F-16 MLU manual) it seems that TWS offers more advantages compared to RWS/SAM than otherwise. And the TWS mode which combines with SAM (called SMT submode of TWS) seems to be the best/"most interesting" of all these modes, this when it comes to the F-16 MLU (and Block 50/52, I'm sure of).


#4501309 - 12/23/19 04:35 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
GrayGhost Offline
Hotshot
GrayGhost  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by ricnunes
Sure, but you seem to forget that it's not only the TWS that has drawbacks (correct me if I'm wrong). SAM and RWS also have their share disadvantages which in many/most situations likely outweighs the TWS drawbacks.


When it comes to attacking targets, SAM is superior to TWS.

Quote
So, while RWS/SAM have the advantage of better maintaining target track for vertically maneuvering targets, this is done by having a reduced search coverage compared to TWS and of course a much smaller number of targets that can be tracked.


It's actually reduced coverage compared to RWS. Increase TWS coverage, lose track intergity. Simple. A 2 second revisit time allows you to deal with a 6g maneuvering target. You'll also have issues with 120s trying to sort targets if you launch on multiple and the tracks are coasting through each other for any reason.

Altitude in TWS is determined by which bar scanned the target ... so if it's detectable by a couple of bars guess what -that altitude's going to change constantly.

SAM dwells on target sort of like STT (though more likely it's a mini-raster), but for a very short time. Just enough to get accurate altitude and vector information. It revisits the target on schedule, interrupting the search pattern and then coming back to it, so your search pattern loses some integrity.
Either way, as the distance is reduced, STT becomes preferred as it can deal with maneuvering targets better than anything else. And that distance is anywhere between 10-20nm, depending on tactics, radar capability etc.

Quote
However, TWS is less susceptible to triggering the adversaries’ RWR gear than the other submodes.


We've already discussed this. Real pilots don't worry as much about triggering RWRs, they themselves not being perfect instruments anyway, and likely saturated in a real EW environment, unlike their ungodly ISR-like capability and 'silent skies' that we have in games.
The other guy already knows you're there, he knows you're engaging, so what if you lock him up?

Quote
This means that if you're tracking an enemy aircraft using the TWS mode the enemy won't likely know that it's being tracked


Why, is he brain-dead?

Last edited by GrayGhost; 12/23/19 04:36 PM.

--
44th VFW
#4501467 - 12/24/19 11:00 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Winfield]  
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 78
Chaos Offline
Junior Member
Chaos  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by Winfield

I can not fathom how simple tasks can be forgotten when it comes to RL fighter pilots endorsing simulated aircraft. Perhaps dumping fuel does not take place often, however in the video....many of the commands are forgotten, just a shame I forgot who it was and when the video was posted.


It's amazing how quickly one forgets how certain tasks were completed in a particular aircraft. If you learn to fly a different aircraft, *all* of the previously learnt procedures are thrown overboard. You *have* to in order to make way for the new ones. It really is like a memory dump and starting all over again. Trust me, it is not just me. I once found myself doing a simple engine start on a new type. For some odd reason I tried to remember how it was done on my previous type (which I had flown only weeks before). For the life of me, I couldn't recall the steps and I felt really stupid. I'm not saying you have to learn flying all over again. However, the sequence of actions to manipulate the various systems or follow certain procedures vary greatly from one aircraft to the next and they're the first things that get thrown overboard when you're learning something new.

So, just because an SME cannot recall certain things that he had done routinely for many years previously doesn't mean he's a fraud...


"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage..."
#4501836 - 12/29/19 01:18 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: GrayGhost]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,829
Portugal
Originally Posted by GrayGhost

When it comes to attacking targets, SAM is superior to TWS.


I don't know why I keep at this since you seem to be a lost case.

Anyway, SAM is not necessarily superior to TWS when it comes to attacking targets!

Again for the "millionth time" TWS allows the pilot to engage much more targets at the same time when compared to SAM. SAM in the F-16 allows the pilot to engage two (2) targets at the same time tops. Also in the F-16 TWS allows the pilot to engage up to 10 (TEN!!!!) at the same time. So here's a HUGE advantage of TWS when it comes to attacking targets, this compared to SAM.

At the same time TWS doesn't trigger the enemy targeted aircraft's RWR suite which means that the these same enemy aircraft are likely to not know that they are being engaged and as such won't execute evasive maneuvers and deploy countermeasures (until it's too late) and as such ensuring a much more successful attack!
SAM has much more chance to trigger the enemy aircraft's RWR (as you sort of "admit" down below) which means that the enemy aircraft will soon know that it's being engaged and as such can employ evasive maneuvers and deploy countermeasures soon which means that the attack is much more likely to fail!


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

It's actually reduced coverage compared to RWS.


Go read the manual for Christ sake!

So lets see. First you talk about a magical (F-15) manual which supposedly supports you rhetoric which nobody else ever seen. Now I posted an official F-16 MLU manual which fully supports what I've been saying and you dismiss what it's written in the manual! Way to go for a discussion indeed rolleyes
Guess that you're one of those who don't care about learning about anything usefull - you are just one of those guys that want to always be right even when you aren't...


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

SAM dwells on target sort of like STT (though more likely it's a mini-raster), but for a very short time. Just enough to get accurate altitude and vector information. It revisits the target on schedule, interrupting the search pattern and then coming back to it, so your search pattern loses some integrity.
Either way, as the distance is reduced, STT becomes preferred as it can deal with maneuvering targets better than anything else. And that distance is anywhere between 10-20nm, depending on tactics, radar capability etc.


We've already discussed this. Real pilots don't worry as much about triggering RWRs, they themselves not being perfect instruments anyway, and likely saturated in a real EW environment, unlike their ungodly ISR-like capability and 'silent skies' that we have in games.
The other guy already knows you're there, he knows you're engaging, so what if you lock him up?


What the f**k are you talking about?!
When you're being tracked by modes like STT and even SAM, the RWR will light up like a freaking Christmas Tree and this well before the actual missile release which will INEVITABLY prompt the enemy pilot to perform evasive action which can defeat the attack. As opposed TWS won't trigger the enemy RWR which means that a successful attack with a missile like the AMRAAM is likely to be much more successful.
Guess that terms like "sneak attack" or "alerting the enemy until the very last moment" are completely alien to you, go figure rolleyes

Also your:
"Real pilots don't worry as much about triggering RWRs, they themselves not being perfect instruments anyway"
rhetoric is indeed for laughs! Yeah RWRs are so useless and unimportant to the point that every and all combat aircraft nowadays have such suites, go figure genius! duh


Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Quote
This means that if you're tracking an enemy aircraft using the TWS mode the enemy won't likely know that it's being tracked


Why, is he brain-dead?



Well if you don't understand what was being explained to you earlier on then it starts to become clear who's the "brain-dead" here, that's for sure! rolleyes

#4501840 - 12/29/19 02:04 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: Sokol1]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
QLD
Originally Posted by Chaos
....


You're only a month late to the party...I forgot about this thread.

What aircraft are you referring to that you 'had flown only weeks before"? in your post?

#4501841 - 12/29/19 02:13 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
Winfield Offline
model citizen
Winfield  Offline
model citizen
Member

Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 855
QLD
Originally Posted by ricnunes
Well if you don't understand what was being explained to you earlier on then it starts to become clear who's the "brain-dead" here, that's for sure! rolleyes


Who are you referring to as "brain-dead"?? It's not quite clear to me.

#4502062 - 12/31/19 06:40 AM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,584
Force10 Offline
I'm just a
Force10  Offline
I'm just a
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,584
CA
Originally Posted by ricnunes


Well if you don't understand what was being explained to you earlier on then it starts to become clear who's the "brain-dead" here, that's for sure! rolleyes


This is making it personal ricunes. You should know better...next time I'll have to do more than just give you a warning.


Asus Z87 Sabertooth motherboard
Windows 7 64 bit Home edition
Intel I5 4670K @ 4.4 ghz
16 gig 1866mhz Corsair Vengence Pro memory
EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked 4gb Video Card
Intel 510 series 120gb SSD (boot drive)
Samsung 840 1TB SSD
Onboard Realtek sound
______________________________________________________

Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "If we're late, it's cause we're dead"



#4502110 - 12/31/19 04:10 PM Re: DCS: F-16C Viper [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 621
Sobek Offline
Professional scapegoat
Sobek  Offline
Professional scapegoat
Member

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 621
Originally Posted by ricnunes
Originally Posted by GrayGhost

When it comes to attacking targets, SAM is superior to TWS.


Anyway, SAM is not necessarily superior to TWS when it comes to attacking targets!


As it is modelled in sims, you are correct. With its RL limitations, TWS can not be trusted to successfully guide a missile. As GG has explained, in TWS there can be huge altitude ambiguities. You don't have those in SAM because the target is essentially STT locked for a short time, giving the radar the opportunity to determine the exact height of a target.

Originally Posted by ricnunes

Also in the F-16 TWS allows the pilot to engage up to 10 (TEN!!!!) at the same time. So here's a HUGE advantage of TWS when it comes to attacking targets, this compared to SAM.


Unless they are flying fingertips off each other, it is a given that TWS won't be able to cover the entire box that contains those 10 aircraft without constantly dropping tracks. If they start maneuvering, TWS stops working unless you have very short refresh times.

Originally Posted by ricnunes

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

It's actually reduced coverage compared to RWS.


Go read the manual for Christ sake!


If the manual states this, then it is either a mistake or willfully wrong. There is no way that TWS can have a larger coverage than RWS. It could hypothetically have equal coverage, but in practice that just doesn't work.

Originally Posted by ricnunes

What the f**k are you talking about?!
When you're being tracked by modes like STT and even SAM, the RWR will light up like a freaking Christmas Tree and this well before the actual missile release which will INEVITABLY prompt the enemy pilot to perform evasive action which can defeat the attack. As opposed TWS won't trigger the enemy RWR which means that a successful attack with a missile like the AMRAAM is likely to be much more successful.
Guess that terms like "sneak attack" or "alerting the enemy until the very last moment" are completely alien to you, go figure rolleyes

Also your:
"Real pilots don't worry as much about triggering RWRs, they themselves not being perfect instruments anyway"
rhetoric is indeed for laughs! Yeah RWRs are so useless and unimportant to the point that every and all combat aircraft nowadays have such suites, go figure genius! duh


Nobody said that RWRs are useless. What is being said is that RL pilots don't depend on their classification as much as sim pilots do because RL RWRs aren't as perfect in picking up locks, etc. A RL pilot has enough SA to know he is in range or not, he doesn't wait for the RWR to start going nuts, he just reacts on the actual situation. If you are in range of a bandit that is hot on you, you should expect a missile in the air. TWS isn't a sneak attack. The bandit still sees you are there. If it magically made you not appear on his RWR, things would be different. However, he knows you are there and if you are in range, a competent pilot should expect missiles, whether his RWR indicates STT or not.

Last edited by Sobek; 12/31/19 04:23 PM.
Page 14 of 14 1 2 12 13 14

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Ratnik shovel mini review
by Crane Hunter. 02/26/20 06:27 AM
Smithsonian Open Access?
by Rick_Rawlings. 02/26/20 05:21 AM
When the live song beats the studio version...
by Zamzow. 02/26/20 03:55 AM
Mussolini speaks in Engish!
by PanzerMeyer. 02/25/20 05:08 PM
Brut force melody hacking
by Red2112. 02/25/20 11:41 AM
I just had a threesome at the doctors!
by Ajay. 02/25/20 04:59 AM
Original Longbow Gold on Win 10?
by TerribleTwo. 02/25/20 12:39 AM
What's the longest movie you've seen in the theater?
by PanzerMeyer. 02/24/20 04:18 PM
'Microjets' are so cool.
by MarkG. 02/24/20 05:41 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0