Thirsty

And not even mentioning that how close range this shots are! I wonder how bad the resaults will be if the distances goes from the 2-5 NM to the 10 plus or even 20 plus distance. . .

Please can you get the Track file and send it to Bignewy here? Since I think that will help more with this case. We need to get this fixed

The R-27 doesn't even need to be defended, since it will throw itself off from the target, no turning, no chaff, nothing has to be done. And this happened multiple times now. The API clearly works as inteded, defenetly not bugged. No worries in the end, its only all the BVR armament of the MiG-29, so it is very usable.

Yup, still locking very strongly. Also possibly the A-50 as well? Need to test that a bit more.

Is the reading 100% accurate? No, since its not magical as nothing is. Do you still get to know that you are locked? Yes, and that's enaugh information. And again, several people have provided counter evidence that the SPO works with the radar on in the frontal hemipshere, inculding service manuals, and declassefield manual about the SPO-15 as well. I am not going to qoute the countless point, have fun reading as you will.

?????????????????????? I am sorry, but again who is talking about servers here? DCS is not limited on servers only, some people (most) fly single player only. If you have problems with the servers that are on DCS, complain to their owners, who are running them or make your own, don't try to push your own nerrative down on people's throat, everyone has the free will and decision to enjoy DCS the way they want to, not like how you would like to. If you like to have it the way it is now, okay, then have the setting that way, and have fun. Currently there is a early acsess release that has bulletholes at parts that needs to be patched, people are going to voice their problems with a product that they have spent money on, since they want to be able to use it. This is not war thunder. I'm sorry, but you are just contradicting your own words. You say its okay to disable datalink since it is a timeline wise setting, but the SPO needs to be broken constantly? There isn't even an option between serviced SPO-15 and unserviced. Where does that make sense? You really think that soviet engineers were so dumb, that they couldn't impove upon the SPO-10 but make it worse ? Also, if you have been reading into different thread, and theards that are not only in English, there are multiple SME's that are saying that the SPO-15 is working with the radar on. Not even talking about the countless documents, and repair manuals about the SPO-15 saying things that are completly the opposite. I will kindly ask you to stop with this nonsense, since this is not going anywhere, and this is not proviading anything into this thread. Have a nice day.

I wonder if there's going to be any. There is radio silance about the R-27Rs gudince bug

Then let me rephrase my previous sentance. Lots of things are in a factor when it comes to msl guidence, but the fact that you can completly make a MSL loose tracking by rolling is not due to any glint. And I am not talking about a loaded roll, or with in the play chaff, or anything. Just a simple roll while maintaining heading, that should not be enaugh for a missile to lose complete guidence and miss. That doesn't sound like a radar glint, more of a API bug. Hence why people are waiting for a response from the developers. And I am not refering to the small gif that has been put in by GRY Money, I am talking about the general topic of this thread

With all due respect, the topic you sent it would make sense if its a loaded roll. but things get effect with just a little roll without any G input, that should not affect a tracking quality of a missile that also other support for tracking such as like datalink and igns.

I am sorry, but you clearly don't understand what people are saying or haven't even bothered to read the thread properly, and if you don't have any normal input to this thread anymore just don't even anymore, since this is not about some pseudo Fox 1 servers. If you so wish to have your harcore realistic experinace, good, nobody tells you not to, in the first place this is why options, settings exists, and everyone has their way to set up the scenarios they want their way. Now, why does that bother you so much? Hard to understand. And you can already disable features on jets, such as like disabling data link on 14, 18 and 16s, or even disable gyro drift for most of the aircraft, these are all options that impact realisim, however they still exist for a reason. It would be no different for the SPO either. And your example is the worst out of all. Before saying nonsense, please go ahead and do some research of your own, especially about the F-35's radar reflector that is used on the real jets. Since I can guratnee you, ED will add that option to the 35s, since they won't be able to model the stealth of the aircraft in the first place. Not even talking about the fact that the "simulation" of the 35 in DCS will be the miles away from a "realistic" simulation, since it is all a guesstimate, as they have said it as well. And again, you are talking competitive nonsense in the end that doesn't even connect to the topic of this thread.

I agree 100% I love to see better and better RWR implementations, however the 2nd part is the real problem sadly In a real aircraft, having told that you are being fired on from the GCI that is controlling you is there, where in most cases would be even more accurate than a lock warning what you would get from the SPO, (or any RWR since most of the launch warning for a SARH missile is not realistic in the first place) But in terms of DCS, you can't have a person with you every time when you go out to fly on some server for fun and telling that there's a missile coming, and having such an important thing as your RWR basically completly INOP in the full frontal section (even in MPRF where there should be almost zero interference) just makes everyone blind as a bat since there is not going to be someone guiding you from a radar station every time. So its not even about a launch warning, but we don't even know if there is a lock or not., since if we are going realistic we treat every lock as a launch. And I think this is what lot of people forget in the end of the day.

No, I think you need to read the answer again. And no again, might be lanauge barrier here, but what you saying is about something completly different. For following the logic that you are saying, everything that is unrealistic (labels, F-16s with 4 harms, magic rwrs, list goes on) or just a big estimation should be removed from DCS as a whole since they can't be authentic, what is never going to happen. cough cough F-35 And again, this is a toggleable options in the mission editor (potentionally in the special menu, but enforced by the mission editor) as the original creator of this post suggested Giving options to people how and what they want to implement, so it is kind of hard to see why it does bother you a lot.

That would be the way to go to in my opinion , however realisticly speaking that could very easly take years not months sadly. On the side, this "unrealistic" or "legacy" option would also slove the most issues that are currently going on the forum, with the radar operation synch with the SPO. What is currently dividing the community with also statements of real pilots saying that the SPO can work with the radar on . . .

And again, then what about this few just as a quick example: Plus all the magical RWRs, these are all "casual" when it comes to your term. At that point, all of this should be removed as well? This is not asking for making everything work like the previus one does. but allowing people of making a choice. If you want your missions to have the more "realistic" SPO-15, then you can set it in the mission editor, or if you don't then you have other options. In the end you are still playing a game flying virtual jets. There is no such as "casual" or "hardcore"

I would as well, but since there is no realistic option for those jets, this is the best option of the two worlds, a simple mission editor setting.

That is in many many years. Think about it. F-16, F/A-18, F-14, M2K, JF-17, F-5, all FC3. (And correct is a big word, yes the lack of a launch warning is correct, but that's all about it. It doesn't turn off with the radar on) This can't be a change that goes through a year, this is a multi layer change where all the logical simulation of that RWR system needs to be reworked. So again, having that option would solve the problem until everything will be added and updated to the proper simulation standard

Sure I have no problem, but that means all the aircraft should be what limitations in had in real life. Just like the ones you mentioned above Additinonally, that all aircraft in DCS (other than the F-4 and the FF 29) has a magic RWR that picks up SARH launches that it shouldn't. In the end, next to the study level simulation, people are using these aircraft to fly in virtual PvE or PvP combat scenarios. And right now, you can't take the 29 anywhere, since everything has magical properties. This is why a switch option like that what is mentioned on this thread would be really good or would solve all the current issues with the only full fidelity Soviet 4th gen aircraft.

+1 Seems like the best option since ED didn't seem to care a lot about the contradicting documentation and information about the function of the SPO-15

Yeah, it is multiple people that have been experiancing the "just roll and the 27 is dead" bug. And it is not due to chaff, clutter, or anything some above responded. Its simply losing all tracking capability with good solid locks, when the enemy aircraft just rolls a bit. Honestly, I am suprised we haven't gotten an offical reponse to this yet. . .

For all the people whom have been flying MiG-21s and Hinds, (SPO-10 my beloved) not getting a launch warning is not a problem I think And I hope this function will be pushed to all modules, inculding blue and red, so the case of the Magic RWRs that we have in most jets would not be the case anymore. But sadly as for, that the RWR just not even possible to use, since it gives back constant lock tone from a ground search radar that is on the friendly side 100 plus KM away is absurd. And this mixed with the unserviced SPO that can't work with a radar emitting (while it should, even if the reading could be chaotic in HPRF, but not even in MPRF there should be no problem) and I don't want to get into details here about the R-27R API bug where the enemy rolls and the missile stop tracking, since this topic is about the SPO. This things are core functions that needs to be fixed, since as for now other than enjoying the MiG in a traning server (what I have been doing greatly) you can't take it anywhere to fly in a digital combat setting, what ruins the point of a combat flight simulator.

Since I know you know a good bit about the 29, I wonder what is your take on the mentioned comments by ED. Since I find it hard to belive that the radar was ment to work this way, without any proper way to set Delta H

I agree, it would be a nice addition, even if it doesn't have the same usebility as on a western jets, its enaugh for having minimal Like, we already have a civilian navigation system fitted on it, so it wouldn't be out of palce to have a NVE. Plus, would be just fun flying around in a MiG-29 durring zero light condition and being able to see outside, even if the instruments won't be readable with the NVG active. Implementation could also be simple as in the ground crew menu, just like for other aircraft that has can use NVEs

Exactly, not even mentioning the SPO-15LM to my knowledge was the better varraint of the SPO-15 family of its time (for example: SPO-15LE) I could see that being the case of having a run down export varriant, since the soviets ripped things such as like the LAZUR/LASZLO GCI datalink from the export ones. And there are records of German MiG-29 pilots talking about after the reunification of Germany, LASZLO system got removed from the jets before it was given to them. But I don't even see any records of the SPO-15LE having such a issue with the radar that it needs to completely block the whole frontal section off.

Since it was the easiest to make without properly modelling it, that's what it feels like at this current moment, and how most of this topic is being ignored. There are so many documents and SMEs that proves the complete opposite that what is implamented. I would rather have the "chaotic" readings in HPRF, and properply working RWR in MPRF Insted of being blasted by an aircraft that we don't even know that is locking. Currently a MiG-21 has more SA than a way more advnaced MiG-29. But hey, more importantly that all other jets have magic rwr that detects things that it shouldn't even, but the SPO can't even work with it's radar on (that was designed to operate it)

This looks very much like a bug with the new missile API. I have noticed as well that all you need to do is roll and pull a little and the R-27 just lost all abilitly to guide, and no chaff is needed at all. Especially if anykind of hard roll is intruduced. ColdClaws report and yours shows the same exact bug. Hope this gets fixed soon, since this is some warthunder levels of "just roll and the missile misses" kind of bug.