Aircrafts' A-G fire control radar, correctly modeled?

[cns180784]

Ok i'm going to explain why i came across as disrespectful, though i had no intentions of being so. If you read through my original post at the top you can see that theres' no disrespect at all, and its just asking a simple question: how are the A-G radars simulated. Then the first response i got was:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Not sure how it should work, but not sure you should use another game as a reference to reality. Might also want to put a save up.

When i saw this, not sure how it should work, i just thought what? isnt it obvious? and at that point i thought this guy didnt have a clue about how sensors work. But since that post, he and others went on to explain that the GR1's radar cant pick up or have difficulty in picking up ground targets in dense areas, and i can clearly see why with the above image that Pergite! supplied (the bottom of the two, the AN/APQ-169). Comparing that to what i see with the AN/APG-68 A-G FCR in the F-16, well there's no comparison, the F-16's radar is much clearer.
So that explains why thewood1 wasnt sure how the radar worked....and hope you understand that i was frustrated by that response as i didnt know what you meant exactly by what you said, so apologies for saying radars in command are useless.

One more thing to note, this is a game, it shouldnt be taken over seriously to the point where when i load up a scenario i have to do external research to fully work out how a particular sensor(s) or weapon(s) works before deciding on my strategy. I'm sure there are others (not just me) who would have appreciated there being more info in the DB entry for the GR1's surface search radar not being able to detect contacts in a dense environment. Just something for you folks to consider regarding the DB and what info is noted there for a particular sensor.

Thanks all for your help and for clearing this up.

[thewood1]

But I think you are missing the point that has been stated in a bunch of posts...including this one.

There are some games like this that are sandboxes. so much effort goes into putting the infrastructure of the game that a concession has been that assumes a player is going to try to educate themselves a little. This game is not a complete tutorial on air and naval warfare. An expectation is there that the devs are deving as much as possible and users will try to learn as with the resources that are available. And most of those are external to the game. There are some great resources available, including google.

As to saves...not putting one up is the same as saying your time is more valuable other's. Even a simple scenario like yours requires trying to guess exactly what are doing and spending time launching aircraft, looking at all sides oob, etc. Much of that can be cut through by simply posting a save right when the issue happens.

The devs have been pretty clear even in your own posts that saves save them time. Willfully disregarding that is a sign of complete disrespect for other people's time.

[cns180784]

Understood then i'll be sure to include saves with any issues in future, thanks.

I do wonder why it seems some radars/ESMS/RWRs seem to be better than others. For example in the Annaba Constant scen, the frigate Le Brestois has an ELINT sensor (cant remember the name) and it was able to classify contacts numerous times that varied between something like 5 and up to 20nm away. The ELINT sensor on the destroyer didnt pick up as much as Le Brestois. It is interesting, and that interest prompts me to look them up do a bit of research, especially now what i know all sensors have their differences in being able to detect contacts based on their age and technology.

[Tomcat84]

ORIGINAL: cns180784

Comparing that to what i see with the AN/APG-68 A-G FCR in the F-16, well there's no comparison, the F-16's radar is much clearer.

In addition to what has already been said one more note: don't assume that everything Falcon BMS does is accurate. It's a great sim that gets lots of things right but it also gets plenty of things wrong.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: cns180784
I do wonder why it seems some radars/ESMS/RWRs seem to be better than others. For example in the Annaba Constant scen, the frigate Le Brestois has an ELINT sensor (cant remember the name) and it was able to classify contacts numerous times that varied between something like 5 and up to 20nm away. The ELINT sensor on the destroyer didnt pick up as much as Le Brestois. It is interesting, and that interest prompts me to look them up do a bit of research, especially now what i know all sensors have their differences in being able to detect contacts based on their age and technology.

Like every other electronic device, more modern generally means better. The receiver hardware itself gets more sensitive, the signal processing gets light years faster and more comprehensive, threat libraries are updated etc.

There are also other factors that may influence detection ranges. For example even a fantastic super-modern ESM will be limited by the horizon (unless it is OTH-capable).

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: cns180784
Comparing that to what i see with the AN/APG-68 A-G FCR in the F-16, well there's no comparison, the F-16's radar is much clearer.

Tomcat84 will probably correct me, but what I have seen in F4-BMS reminds me more of a late-90s/early-2000s standard as far as AG-mapping is concerned.

IIRC the BMS devs themselves had stated that the cockpit & avionics modelling is a mish-mash of different F-16C blocks (the LANTIRN stuff of Blk40/42, the HARM/HTS ability of Blk50/52 etc.). I don't know if they intend to switch to the common CCIP standard that the USAF is slowly converting to (might be worth asking them that, in fact).

[cns180784]

ORIGINAL: Tomcat84

ORIGINAL: cns180784

Comparing that to what i see with the AN/APG-68 A-G FCR in the F-16, well there's no comparison, the F-16's radar is much clearer.

In addition to what has already been said one more note: don't assume that everything Falcon BMS does is accurate. It's a great sim that gets lots of things right but it also gets plenty of things wrong.

Right, and i wont assume Command gets everything right too. But i'll still enjoy both sims....

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: cns180784
Right, and i wont assume Command gets everything right too.

Oh absolutely. We know it doesn't, and we're always open to corrections and refinements to our models and data.

[cns180784]

The main thing is we enjoy what sim we play and that it is as realistic as humanely possible in accordance with what real world data is available to the devs. I paid for Command mainly because of Baloogans' videos and finding out that it is a simulator and not a command and conquer type click fest. I also bought it as it was different in that it simulates air and naval combat in which you command your forces, done in real time. If command hadnt existed i would have probably bought command ops by panther games which i see as the ground based equivalent of CMANO.

[HaughtKarl]

I overreacted and my response too abrasive. Sorry about that.

It is a good community and CMANO is a fantastic sim and I always recommend it when others ask about it on other gaming forums I frequent. The level of detail that the team has modeled in this sim is mind blowing and when something doesn't go as planned it can usually be pinned down to player error/ignorance. I had no idea the F-111 received an upgrade to allow its radar to see ground mobile targets and quite frankly, I have no idea how anyone could find something like that out through just using Google.

[LuckyJim1010]

Part of the 'problem' is that most of us on here are hard core Naval/Air simulation veterans and a fair few have actually served.
So we are used to pausing the sim, flicking over to Google and go looking at stuff.
Have to confess many a time I've spent 30 minutes away from the sim as I leap through links on some piece of kit that does not seem to be working in-game.
Quite a few 'Ah, I'm using it wrong' moments.
Or in some of the modern scenarios I have no idea what the kit actually does/how it is used.
And given the Dev's and the community knowledge I try to make damn sure I know what I am talking about before I say 'This is not working as it should'
Otherwise you end up in threads like this [:)]

[FoxZz]

About, the aircraft system jamming capability , do you knwo it this will be included, and/or when ?

[cns180784]

ORIGINAL: FoxZz

About, the aircraft system jamming capability , do you knwo it this will be included, and/or when ?

Not sure what you mean, are you referring to OECM's?

[mikmykWS]

Jamming is very much included in the game. Could you be more specific?

Thanks!

Mike