Currently, Gaijin calculates RCS as based on wingspan. They take the diameter of the sphere around the aircraft and multiply it by a multiplier set for front, rear, and side aspect. I understand this is a simplified way to calculate RCS but with 5th gen coming in a year or more, I think now is a good time to implement RCS calculation realistically for players to practice, adapt, and get comfortable so they can adapt to 5th gen better and make the game more realistic. Also aircraft design is a beautiful piece of art but people forget about the dedication that is put into aspects that matter IRL other than looks.
RCS calculation is hard IRL so I want to use this thread to talk about ideas to improve RCS without making it too complicated. (Do not turn this thread into comparing individual plane’s RCS please)
I will suggest below what I’m thinking.
Total surface area of plane facing enemy radar calculated. (For example, a plane exposing the whole wingspan is more visible than a plane flying horizontally flat to the enemy radar.
Composites and RAM coating have a stealth multiplier similar to how different materials in tanks have different multipliers.
Engine inlet exposure, not sure how to implement but maybe RCS being changed by percentage of compressor face reflected.
Number of fuel tanks and missiles increasing RCS.
Edge integration and right angles. I feel like this would complicate things too much but feel free to discuss ways to simplify this.
If you guys have more suggestions feel free to list them as well.
For some aircraft (F-117), there are a few 4th / 4.5 gen that should have a RAM coating which isn’t implemented at the moment (e.g. The Have Glass Family of programs for the F-16C / -AM & -BM).
This would be for the determination of angles where the airframe shaping produces corner reflectors and other significant elements and so reflects radiation back towards to an emitter, effectively spiking the RCS at some given frequency for a given angle should the relevant feature(s) be large enough.
Some radar return is also reflected off the airframe’s edges this is strongest in the Surface’s normal direction, which is why sawtooth edges are a thing since they break up long chords and spread it in space.
I believe composites in air frames are not modeled yet.
It shouldn’t be modeled. But I think it will be a good balancing change to help planes that have to bring a limited missile loadout.
Thanks for the explanation, but like noister said I am also worried about server client desync and complexity. I believe maybe the front side and rear aspect multipliers can be modified for each aircraft based on their design.
RCS is only really “modeled” on the F-117 and RAH-66.
All other aircraft just largely use placeholder RCS figures. For example Typhoon and Tornado have the same RCS signature (and even the Tornado is technically wrong as it got RCS reduction for OP Granby) as it appears to be done via size alone. Typhoon should be around 10x smaller than the Tornado
If you don’t already notice it interacting with Missile guidance, launch or Radars in general its not going to be outwardly notable.
Pre-computed results could be baked into the files to reduce the need for live computational power but it’s basically just replacing the existing multipliers based on which sector the 2D Nose Aspect Angle of a contact with a mapping that is looked up.
The issue is in some sense that there are too few sectors (Multipliers exist for the :Nose, Side, & Tail ), and Pitch angle ignored completely , and that it is a basic linear interpolation between values (and that Frequency is not accounted for at all).
Actually it would, quite a bit, it would make defending against ARH seekers even easier as it would reduce the relative difference between airframe and chaff. Especially for something like the F3 Late which is mostly using BOL at the moment and its current terrible state and is having issues at its current BR.
Probably would do the same for SARH as well, but the impact would be less noticable at shorter ranges
Modeling it now will be helpful. There’s no downside to it. Label modules in x-ray with %composites and multipliers.
Right now, I think composite and especially missile/fuel tank rcs calculation need to come first. Both won’t be hard to implement and can be implemented across all jets similarly.
What do you mean by this? If you consider an aircraft flying head on to you as “exposing the whole wingspan” to the radar then that’s usually when RCS is lowest. Most aircraft have a side profile RCS that is one or even two orders of magnitude larger than the frontal RCS.
No fixed wing aircraft in game apart from the F-117 has an RCS multiplier. Every other aircraft shares the same default multiplier regardless of construction material.
Pretty sure he means the planform, not wingspan. so the orientation between the two states is a difference in the Roll axis where Pitch and yaw remain the same .
That would just make top tier air balance worse, by a particularly high magnitude. Increasing the capability gap between 4th gens and 4.5 gens, to an even worse magnitude.
Detailed RCS implementation should be added only after 5th gens introduction (which, hopefully, is at least a few years out), where it will positively impact balance.
I could see it being added once the final 4th gens are here like Su-35 and F-15EX, and right before full-stealth aircraft since it would just be low-observability characteristics and not VLO like the 5th gens.
Plus, if players notice over time that their missiles have less of a chance of getting kills on a Eurofighter compared to an Su-27, which one would they subconsciously prefer to fire their missiles at next time?
RCS reduction on certain airframes may lead to enemy players choosing not to fire missiles at those airframes if better juicier options are available.
If Gaijin make RCS vary by aspect angle in a realistic way, it might actually make notching way harder. Most aircraft have a side on RCS which is up to around 100 x larger than their frontal RCS. So if you don’t get your notching quite right then turning side on might actually reduce the RCS difference between you and the chaff.
Maybe, but some planes are already at a disadvantage where they can be given a better RCS value to help offset their cons. For example, the F2 in Japan is 4th gen but uses lots of composites and RAM coating which could help it since it only has 4 fox3 at 13.7.
Very good point. This would be a downside in making planes with worse RCS being targeted more.
It’s just that alot of players just turn and not notch realistically. This could help with them being forced to learn how to actually notch and learn about stuff like angle gating and the likes.