Istari6

I just looked and you're correct! I must have looked at the manual just before the patch dropped. I remember clearly writing up in my Kneeboard that SA-6 would provide a launch warning, and I added that section very recently. But I'm glad to be wrong, and kudos to the Heatblur team for keeping the manual up-to-date with the patches.

Thanks - that's interesting that the SA-6/8 warnings were removed. They're still listed in the Heatblur manual. I believe you, just noteworthy how it's hard to keep up with the "actual state of play" in how these devices work. But that's the nature of Early Access, and glad that Heatblur is trying to get it right. Gotcha on SA-15. Makes sense that it detects guidance commands in the C/D band and that triggers it, regardless of what system so the SA-15 gets registered even on an older device. I'll mark this last response as the "Solution" for this thread, but appreciate everyone's input. Learned a lot along the way.

Yes, I'm sure I'm confusing lots of things. But let me see if I can mirror back what I've learned from this thread. I'd welcome any corrections: I started from the assumption that many of these systems were based on CW illumination guidance (SARH). Thus if the F-4 could detect some launches, why not others? What's become clear is that SARH is not the primary method of guidance for many of these systems. That detection of a launch often depends on detecting a separate command guidance signal being sent from the SAM site to the missile in flight. These can be on a variety of frequencies, and it's not as simple as detecting a CW signal bathing the target aircraft. Often the RWR needs to have specific circuitry to detect guidance signals for different SAM systems. That's why there can be "patchiness" with some missiles being detected and others not detected (see SA-6 vs SA-11). The fact that the mid-1970s ALR-46 can detect the SA-15, AIM-120, R-77 is just a happy accident (as you state above). The ALR-46 was a digital system, so reprogrammable for new threats. That's how it can display SA-19 or other modern threats. But if the RWR hardware (antennas and circuitry) don't cover the necessary bands, no degree of digital reprogramming can help you. That's why the ALR-46 seems to have this strange mix of blind spots to older threats with sensitivity to newer ones. How am I doing?

Thanks to all for the replies on this thread. I've read through all the responses, and it's deeply impressive how much expertise this community can bring to bear. I'm learning a lot about the APG-73, the differences between AIM-120 and R-77, the use of TVM and the challenges of identifying specific signals (uplinks, command-guidance, etc). However, I'm not sure the current discussion is answering the original question about the F-4E's ALR-46 implementation. Let me try to phrase the original question more tightly: -> Why can we see launches from the SA-15 and missile tracks from AIM-120 and R-77 (all modern systems), but we can't see launches from the MiG-23, F-4 or SA-11 (older systems)? 1. One hypothesis posted above is that we can't see the MiG-23 because this is a mid-1970s ALR-46 where we didn't have the ELINT data yet. But if it's a limitation of what was known ~1975, how does our ALR-46 know the SA-15, -19, and R-77 (!)? 2. Another hypothesis above from Ivandrov is "My understanding is that the circuitry responsible for sounding off launch warnings is specifically reserved for the guidance commands of certain C/D band SAM systems. These have very distinct signals." This seems plausible, but if we can detect SA-6 launch, why not SA-11 launch? Is the ALR-46 being limited to C/D bands the reason we don't pick up launches by airborne radars like MiG-23 and F-4? I guess I'm just confused on why the ALR-46 (as modeled for our F-4E) can detect some very modern threats that arrived well after the 1970s, yet can't detect serious threats that were present in the 1970s or early 1980s (MiG-23, SA-11). I do understand now (thanks to this thread) why the SA-5 might be a special case and not trigger the RWR, even though older modules like F-14 and F-16 did give an SA-5 warning on launch.

OK thanks for the answers so far. Sounds like there are several hypotheses: 1. Our F-4E ALR-46 might represent a mid-1970s model, which didn't have the ELINT data yet to properly convey a MiG-23 CW lock. 2. RWRs of the ALR-46 era were focused strongly on ground threats, particularly the new SAM threat (SA-2, SA-3). So lacking warnings for radar locks from aerial threats is typical for the period. 3. The SA-5 uses a different guidance method than the more typical SA-2 and SA-3 systems. It seems to be a form of radio command guidance, not creating the characteristic CW tracking signal of other SAM systems. Thus it's not detected by the ALR-46? This is particularly weird, given that the ALR-46 seems to have been installed in B-52s, and you'd think they'd want warnings against SA-5s. Perhaps the B-52s had other ways of detecting an SA-5 launch against them, given they were primary targets for that system? As Ivandrov says, "It's an entirely different beast of RWR from anything else we've had before especially simulation wise". What seems odd is that the per the Heatblur manual, our ALR-46 has a library capable of identifying and showing the following threats: * SA-10 ("10") * SA-11 ("11") * SA-19 ("19") * Patriot ("P") * Rapier ("R") It's also capable of detecting Launch from the following threats: * R-77 (MiG-29, Su-27) * AIM-120 * SA-15 So the library has clearly been updated at some point to represent post-1980 threats. Anyway, thanks again for the info, helps make some sense of the unique behavior of this RWR system compared to others I've seen.

OK, thanks for the quick response! Given that diagram above, I may try seeing if I can get an extra 5 AoA on the aircraft when I'm flying the E and have it perform equally to the "hard wing" in this campaign. Only at the 3rd mission (just learned Lag Pursuit, Lag Roll and Butterfly Setup), but it's a fantastic campaign so far. Great job.

(First, apologies if this has already been answered in another thread. I skimmed all thread titles and didn't see this mentioned, trying not to read through each topic to avoid any spoilers for the campaign) I just completed the 1st mission (teaching STR, ITR, Loop and The Egg). Loving Reflected's careful attention to detail, teaching us exactly how to execute these different maneuvers in terms of precise speeds, AoA, etc. The solution of flipping the auxiliary switch to "lock out the slats" is a great solution to give us "hard wing" F-4B/J handling. However, I'm wondering how to apply these lessons when I return to my slatted F-4E after this campaign. Do I just add 5 units AoA for each maneuver? (e.g. instead of 15-16 AoA for STR, hold 20-21 in the F-4E). There's the Top Gun concept of "you fight like you train", and want to be sure I adjust my lessons so I'm not flying "hard wing" style later when the E might be max performed with different numbers. I came across the following chart in the forums which apparently comes from a McDonnell Douglas brochure about the F-4E:

It's a generational leap, and the Fulcrum wasn't just 4th generation, it was perhaps the best pure WVR dogfighter of the 4th generation. The Phantom was 3rd generation, and it wasn't even particularly good at WVR dogfighting in the 3rd generation - see MiG-21 for a better 3rd gen dogfighter. So it's not just 3rd gen vs 4th gen, it's "average" 3rd gen dogfighter versus the "best of the best" 4th gen dogfighter. That's a big leap in technological quality, and unless the other pilot makes major mistakes, you're likely doomed.

The Viper has had a lot of Early Access issues. My group experienced major issues with CCIP accuracy and GPS-guided weapons missing due to winds aloft. I even logged a bug report with ED showing methodically through a controlled test how inaccurate JDAM, JSOW and WCMD were with any winds aloft. They never replied beyond "we're looking into it", but I did notice that they listed a fix in a recent update, a year later. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Viper just had a bugged RWR earlier.

That's very strange. On the inability to detect the MiG-23s CW signal, I'm 95% sure I've heard MiG-23 launch alerts when I was flying the Tomcat. But it also seems strange that the USAF fitted RWR antennas that weren't tuned to cover the threat band of the F-4s greatest air-to-air threat in the 1970s. I trust Heatblur has done the research and this is how the real F-4E-45MC worked. Just trying to understand why the USAF would possibly implement such a system?

Having learned to fly the F-4, I'm now moving into learning the weapons and defensive systems before diving into Reflected's "MiG Killers" campaign. Just diving into the ALR-46 and how it operates, and was surprised to see the wide array of threats where the ALR-46 cannot detect a launch. In particular, I was struck at the tables in the Heatblur manual that listed the following threats as providing no warning on launch: * SA-5 * SA-11 * MiG-23 * F-4 Wouldn't all these systems work by SARH? Why wouldn't a mid-1970s RWR be able to detect the CW signal of weapon guidance and alert the pilot? It seems like fighting the MiG-23 in particular will be more challenging without knowing we've had an Apex launched at us. (BTW - I know that there's no warning for IR-guided systems like SA-13, that's understandable)

So an update two months later... I've been using a Quest 3 headset to workaround the CTD issue. It's much inferior to the Varjo Aero, but at least I could continue to fly with my friends. I was reluctant to buy a new CPU until I could prove it was malfunctioning, but none of the tests were showing anything. The news of the Trump tariffs forced me "off the fence", and I bought a new i9 14900K before prices rose. It was a bit of gamble, but I really miss flying DCS with high-resolution and a stable framerate. The good news is that it worked. I've now flown multiple hours in DCS without any CTD, including several missions that were reliable triggers in the past. I think that SharpeXB and others on this thread were right, and my original i9 was damaged due to incorrect BIOS settings. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, it's great to be flying DCS "properly" again.

Hi all, I've encountered exactly the same problems. I actually went to the trouble of spending many hours analyzing the issue, isolating variables, generating track files. I found a reproducible issue, and ruled out many others. I tried to be as helpful as possible, explaining my methodology and offering to add track files. See thread here from January: @Lord Vader replied and stated it was raised internally for analysis. But the thread was locked and I've seen nothing else on this issue since.

Yup, it's a 14th Gen Intel CPU: Intel Core i9-14900K. No other games are having the same problem I'm having in DCS. I was hopeful that updating the BIOS would solve the problem (perhaps due to the microcode fix), but I just updated the BIOS from the Corsair Support site, and boom. DCS crashes again. So updating the BIOS hasn't solved the problem. OK thanks @Flappie. Updating the BIOS hasn't worked, I'll next dive into the BIOS and see if I can adjust the settings around 253W for PL1/PL2 as you're suggesting. More once I try that... @SharpeXB - thanks for the background on your issues with the 14xxxx chips. I'm starting to wonder if my CPU was similarly damaged, given I had solid performance from this machine for almost 12 months, now it's a continuous problem that i can't seem to fix. I've just updated the BIOS, hasn't helped. Crashed again within 5-10 minute of mission start. Do you know if there's any way to verify a damaged CPU? I've run Prime95 and several other benchmarking tests that stress the CPU, and they haven't shown anything. My Corsair machine has a 2-year warranty, wondering if I can prove the CPU is damaged if I can get a new chip under warranty. Not that you'd know how to navigate Corsair's warranty, but I likely need to demonstrate that the chip is damaged to get a new one sent out.

(Apologies if this has been answered already. I've searched all topics back x 2 years and didn't find anything relevant for this problem). ------------------- I currently use the Thrustmaster Warthog joystick, Warthog throttle and TPR rudder pedals. I've used these with the TARGET software for years without any issues. However, last week I had to "factory reset" my PC and reinstall all software from scratch to deal with a nagging technical issue in DCS. Now I'm encountering problems with my Thrustmaster Warthog joystick that I've never had before. Here's the problem: The Warthog joystick, throttle and TPR pedals are all recognized by Windows in the USB Game Controllers window on bootup. All show OK, and when I check them in Properties, they all work properly. However, when I load a profile in TARGET, my PC "loses" the Warthog joystick. It becomes unresponsive. The throttle and TPR seem to work OK after loading a TARGET profile. When I unload the TARGET profile and close the application, the Warthog joystick shows up again in the USB Game Controllers window as OK, but it is unresponsive. Going to Properties and moving the stick or hitting buttons has no response. Only rebooting the PC restores the Warthog joystick back to working normally, until the next time I load a TARGET profile. I've built up a large library of TARGET profiles, and want to keep using them. But right now I can't. In terms of troubleshooting, I've downloaded the latest version of TARGET software, latest version of Warthog drivers and I've updated the firmware for all three peripherals. The problem remains. What can I do to fix this problem? My hardware hasn't changed at all, it's just something that happened with the factory reset and reinstall of the software that's causing a new problem. Thanks for any pointers!