Alex_Weyland

Many thanks!

Opened another one in CH thread. This one can be closed.

Hello, Tracks are attached. Same scenario - 24 launched BGM-109 from 4 ships coming towards SA-22/SA-15. SA-22 does look like it can't track them properly and basically switching from one to another. SA-15 is capable to shoot 4 missiles simultaneously. SA-22 according to official public sources must do the same. But it rarely shoot 2 at the same time. Another problem - should skill level affect automated systems like SA-15/-22? There is a difference between amount of time between launches and amount of targets attacked. E.g., "average" Tor-M2 managed to launch only 3 missiles simultaneously. Can you please check this? Kind regards sa22__excellent_4thts.trk torm2__excellent_4thts.trk

Bump.

A little bit more I shall add: It can shot down lofted munition from 1 nm distance. Instant launch. So, lofting isn't the solution either. However, Tor-M2 can be destroyed by setting impact angle for JDAMs up to 80-85 degrees. It will penetrate successfully and hit the radar dead zone. Requires to drop from 42000+ ft though.

Hello everyone, Tracks are attached. Same scenario - 24 launched BGM-109 from 4 ships coming towards SA-22/SA-15. SA-22 does look like it can't track them properly and basically switching from one to another. SA-15 is capable to shoot 4 missiles simultaneously. SA-22 according to official public sources must do the same. But it rarely shoot 2 at the same time. Another problem - should skill level affect automated systems like SA-15/-22? There is a difference between amount of time between launches and amount of targets attacked. E.g., "average" Tor-M2 managed to launch only 3 missiles simultaneously. Can you please check this? Kind regards. sa22__excellent_4thts.trk torm2__excellent_4thts.trk

I don't think the topic of this discussion is about ED and RB relationship as it was mentioned earlier. Topic must be closed now once answers are given already.

Well, we aren't talking about adding a single or multiple lines for missing emitters. I want basically 1 file being excluded from IC check and being editable for any Mudhen user. So, no support from ED or RB needed. And looking at EULA it shouldn't interfere with anything except that Mudhen is paid module which shouldn't be altered / edited / reverse engineered etc.

First of all, this topic isn't about RB and ED consensus achievement or resolution. This one is about a minor issue that, probably, doesn't require any significant changes and discussions between ED and RB as well. Stay on course. Secondly, @BIGNEWY, could you please share a comment regarding the possible solution in this case? E.g. ED team can add very particular file in exclusion to avoid IC being compromised once that file was edited. However, that will allow users to maintain RWR library on their own and add whatever signature they have, both vanilla and from mods. As I mentioned earlier, we already have F-4E as "UK" on TEWS page. If that's not possible - it is what it is.

Bump.

Bump.

Unfortunately - it doesn't work like this in case of RWR library. NTCR and ALE45 programs can be overridden by files in Saved Games directory though.

Hello there! Since we haven't received any updates, but still have this wonderful airframe, we need an updated RWR library. For example, we currently don't have an entry for the HB F-4E, which only appears as "UK" / Unknown. In the logs, we see the following: 2025-04-26 16:53:38.283 INFO F15E_CPT (Main): ATTENTION: Unknown RWR contact type "H-6J" This can be easily fixed by adding a line to the ALR56C_LIB.lua file, like: rwr_codes["S-300V 9S19 sr"] = { code = "12", coal = 2, desc = "SA-12 SR" } —or something similar as needed. Unfortunately, modifying this file currently breaks IC. Is there any chance we might get an option to edit this file, or will it be officially handled by ED? It would honestly be a huge improvement! Edit: Answer is given - nothing can be done due to RB / ED current relationship. Once problem is resolved - there will be a fix. Please refrain from posting unnecessary things not related to highlighted issue, thank you.

Confirmed. Track added. f-18_brokenelevation_markpoints.trk

Checked with GBU-31V3 x2 on the right CFT. Both were programmed to strike at 85 degrees. Rear CFT GBU-31 came off and used kinda strange trajectory and tried to hit the target by reverse angle instead of programmed (like 95 degrees) - whole trajectory was broken.