Radar Cross Section ?

[TEOMOOSE]

Comparing the data with the picture above i found those values are way off. Focusing on RCS only.
 
For example:
the Su-27:                       - RCS is ~ 15m2;
Shenyang J-11:              - RCS is 15m2;
MiG-29:                          - RCS is 5m2;
JF-17 Thunder:              - RCS is 3m2;
 F/A-18C:                       - RCS of 2m2
F-16 Block 50:               - RCS is 1.2m2;
F-15 Eagle/F-15 E:         - RCS is25m2;
F-14:                               - RCS is 25m2;
Mirage 2000:                 - RCS is 1 - 2.5m2;

A B52 is 100m2.
The B-1 bomber is 10m2
The B-2 bomber has an RCS of 0.0001m2

[razo+r]

In real life the RCS constantly changes depending on the angle and stores loaded. DCS only uses one single value that represents an average when viewed from the front I believe. 

[skywalker22]

53 minutes ago, razo+r said:

In real life the RCS constantly changes depending on the angle and stores loaded. DCS only uses one single value that represents an average when viewed from the front I believe. 

Exactly, this is the major factor which is far off how RCS "works" IRL comopared to DCS. So it really does not matter much (It only matters head-on, so nose hot) if there is some ambiguity between RL and DCS.

Edited February 16, 2023 by skywalker22

[okopanja]

1 minute ago, skywalker22 said:

Exactly, this is the major factor which is far off how RCS "works" IRL comopared to DCS. So it really does not matter if there is some ambiguity between RL and DCS.

DCS's RCS can only be comapred with RL when head-on, so nose hot. 

Btw, this is updated version of RCS for DCS:

null

This is obsolete information F-15c has much longer range now.

Here:

[TEOMOOSE]

All of the mentioned numbers are from a clean, no stores, nose aspect aircraft. So the base values that Dcs World is currently using should be adjusted to match its real counterparts. 

 

45 minutes ago, okopanja said:

This is obsolete information F-15c has much longer range now.

Here:

This picture however ^^ is i believe its radar - radar wave related, how the radar supposed to work under different setups. If the claim is that the radar on ED modules are great but improving than RCS is as important to update. Therefore we get to enjoy a better more stable consistent functioning radar system.

[GGTharos]

18 minutes ago, TEOMOOSE said:

All of the mentioned numbers are from a clean, no stores, nose aspect aircraft. So the base values that Dcs World is currently using should be adjusted to match its real counterparts.

Where is the data showing real RCS?  Not some random internet thing, actual data.

[Dragon1-1]

ED has 3D models for all aircraft in DCS. There exists commercial software for simulating RCS, given the shape and material. It's certainly not a perfect simulation, but for our purposes, it'd do. I suspect those random internet things obtained their RCS data from something like that. Plugging a reasonably accurate 3D mesh into one of those algorithms would give you a good first order approximation of the aircraft RCS, and not only from the front, but from all directions. 

[LieutenantFalcon]

Hell, RAZBAM found a way to do changing RCS for the Mirage. ED could collaborate with them on a global system

[falconzx]

10 ore fa, TEOMOOSE ha scritto:

Comparing the data with the picture above i found those values are way off. Focusing on RCS only.
 
For example:
the Su-27:                       - RCS is ~ 15m2;
Shenyang J-11:              - RCS is 15m2;
MiG-29:                          - RCS is 5m2;
JF-17 Thunder:              - RCS is 3m2;
 F/A-18C:                       - RCS of 2m2
F-16 Block 50:               - RCS is 1.2m2;
F-15 Eagle/F-15 E:         - RCS is25m2;
F-14:                               - RCS is 25m2;
Mirage 2000:                 - RCS is 1 - 2.5m2;

A B52 is 100m2.
The B-1 bomber is 10m2
The B-2 bomber has an RCS of 0.0001m2

why looking at 2.5 table when there are newer tables?
go to this link. https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-charts/tree/master/Aircraft RCS and IR Values

[Pavlin_33]

This company did a F-16 RCS simulation, but I have no idea how to read the results:

https://wipl-d.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RCS_002_WIPL-D_Monostatic_RCS_of_Fighter_Aircraft.pdf

Edited February 16, 2023 by Pavlin_33

[GGTharos]

The numbers are scaled such that you can't tell, perhaps deliberately.   They have the RCS peak at 0db, which normally would be like 1msq (going off of foggy memory).

The RCS presented here is strictly for comparing computational methods.  If you knew what 0db corresponds to, you could immediately calibrate the graph to give you RCS in an actionable/comparable fashion.

[TEOMOOSE]

RCS Units: m2 or dBsm (decibels relative to one square meter), .i.e. RCSdBsm = 10 log10 RCS

RCS parameter attempts to capture, in a single number, the ability of the target to capture energy from the radar and to reradiate it back toward the radar.

[Scott-S6]

21 hours ago, TEOMOOSE said:

All of the mentioned numbers are from a clean, no stores, nose aspect aircraft. So the base values that Dcs World is currently using should be adjusted to match its real counterparts. 

Why would we want the DCS value which is supposed to be an average to match the best case scenario real number? How does that make any kind of sense?

At minimum it should be based on stores loaded numbers - how often are aircraft flying combat missions without pylons in DCS?

Edited February 17, 2023 by Scott-S6

[TEOMOOSE]

4 minutes ago, Scott-S6 said:

Why would we want the DCS value which is supposed to be an average to match the best case scenario real number? How does that make any kind of sense?

At minimum it should be based on stores loaded numbers.

Why ? - Realism  at best! Pushing the envelope to make it better. Eventually calculate stores rcs as well.
 

You gotta think outside of the box! Your average thinking will falls short very quickly if you dont looking to improve.

[Scott-S6]

8 minutes ago, TEOMOOSE said:

Why ? - Realism  at best! Pushing the envelope to make it better. Eventually calculate stores rcs as well.
 

You gotta think outside of the box! Your average thinking will falls short very quickly if you dont looking to improve.

Deliberately basing the RCS values on incorrect (clean) data is the opposite of realism. This isn't out of the box thinking, it is just a terrible idea which you have failed to justify in any way.

Additionally, you haven't produced any actual data, just some numbers with no source which are, therefore, worthless. To suggest that anything should change based on those is ridiculous.

[TEOMOOSE]

1 minute ago, Scott-S6 said:

Deliberately basing the RCS values on incorrect (clean) data is the opposite of realism. This isn't out of the box thinking, it is just a terrible idea which you have failed to justify in any way.

Additionally, you haven't produced any actual data, just some numbers with no source which are, therefore, worthless. To suggest that anything should change based on those is ridiculous.

I have the necessary documents to provide. It will be provided to ED. But that fact that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion instead, you going out of your way to attack about something is just plain wrong. IF you dont like the facts to improve for overall than stop participating in this discussion.

[Scott-S6]

13 minutes ago, TEOMOOSE said:

I have the necessary documents to provide. It will be provided to ED. But that fact that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion instead, you going out of your way to attack about something is just plain wrong. IF you dont like the facts to improve for overall than stop participating in this discussion.

That's the whole point, it is not an improvement. The clean values are simply not relevant. The frontal values alone are also not relevant. 

If you want to demonstrate that the average, loaded values are different to the value used in the game, that would be useful (because that is what the in game value is based on). This isn't.

What is your source document and why are you being evasive about what the source is? There's no reason not to identify the document. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Scott-S6

[ARM505]

Frankly, 'source' or 'documents' don't matter all that much at this stage, because the fundamental underlying model that ED uses cannot incorporate changing RCS values based on anything at all (let alone the discrete parameters of aspect, stores, pylons etc). Why argue about values when the actual model can't really do anything with them, and everything is based on an arbitrary baseline number, with the focus being on relative averages? Unless I'm misunderstanding the core of this debate...

 

A radar rework is a massive undertaking, involving all third party vendors etc - the sooner the better IMHO, but I don't even know if it's on the radar (ha ha, I see what you did there etc.)

 

[Scott-S6]

Since the current very simplified model uses a single value for RCS that value is (supposedly, I don't think ED have specified exactly how they come up with those numbers) an average of the aircraft's loaded RCS from different directions, which is a reasonable abstraction given the limitations of the current model (using the frontal clean value would not be a reasonable abstraction as it will be wrong in every circumstance that matters). That value can still be improved with better data, whether measured or simulated, but it needs to be RCS from several directions, loaded, and it needs to have or be able to generate data reasonably consistently for all aircraft in the game so that the relative values are meaningful. Changing only some aircraft based on a different methodology creates detrimental discrepancies.

if OP wants to say what document he's referencing we can at least talk about the methodology behind those numbers and whether there is something useful to be learned there.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Scott-S6

[Daerchanar]

The "one number fits all" idea that DCS uses one single number for all sides might just fall short. Yes, the model is very simplified, but we only have one side of it, that is, the config file with the RCS values.

What people are not considering is that the underlining hardcoded calculation might have some clever, albeit simplified, algorithms that multiplies that basic RCS value, whatever it is, to a given ratio according the plane's angle. If one compares any given numbers of RCS signatures for fighter aircrafts, it becomes quite clear that there is pattern, something like 0 and 180 are usually about 1/2 that of 270 and 90 degrees.

 

 

[QuiGon]

4 hours ago, Daerchanar said:

The "one number fits all" idea that DCS uses one single number for all sides might just fall short. Yes, the model is very simplified, but we only have one side of it, that is, the config file with the RCS values.

What people are not considering is that the underlining hardcoded calculation might have some clever, albeit simplified, algorithms that multiplies that basic RCS value, whatever it is, to a given ratio according the plane's angle. If one compares any given numbers of RCS signatures for fighter aircrafts, it becomes quite clear that there is pattern, something like 0 and 180 are usually about 1/2 that of 270 and 90 degrees.

This