[NOT A BUG] Wrong designation SA-19 (Tunguska) on SA page

[Martin2487]

On the SA page, the Tunguska SAM system is designated S6. Which probably comes from the Russian designation 2S6. I think it's wrong because the US Navy will probably not use the Russian GRAU index. It also contradicts logic because other SAM systems are identified by NATO codes. So I think that the designation of Tunguska SA page should be based on NATO codes SA-19 Grison.

[lucky-hendrix]

No it is correct. It is because the 19 is already used by mig19 and it would be confusing

 

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

[Martin2487]

That would be a strange logic. Please think about what I wrote. I mean SAM cirle on SA page, not RWR information.

[Emmy]

Even stranger logic: An F/A-18 encountering a MiG-19 in combat...

[Fri13]

But that is the point of the symbols, you just don't use numbers but you use as well the symbols is it air or ground emitter.

 

Now when it is two different symbols on RWR and then in SA you have two different threats instead one. So you need to translate both to all the time to either direction.

 

If of course it is correct for it is now.... Then it just is so, but sounds stupid that it is not across everything that one and same designation.

[Tholozor]

In my opinion it's better to have it separated in this manner as to completely avoid confusion. Take the SA-15 and the F-15 for example, there's no distinguishing designation for the Tor to use as a two-character identifier the way the Tunguska has with S6, so a 15 on the RWR could be a SAM or a fighter. Separating 19 and S6 is better to say that '19 is a MiG, S6 is a SAM' than it is to say that '19 could be a MiG or a SAM.'

Edited November 16, 2019 by Tholozor

[104th_Maverick]

I think it's wrong because the US Navy will probably not use the Russian GRAU index.

 

Please find data on this rather than just having a guess at how you think it should be (no offence)

[Bunny Clark]

That would be a strange logic. Please think about what I wrote. I mean SAM cirle on SA page, not RWR information.

 

You think it's more logical for the EW page and SA page to use different codes for the same threat?

 

In my opinion it's better to have it separated in this manner as to completely avoid confusion. Take the SA-15 and the F-15 for example, there's no distinguishing designation for the Tor to use as a two-character identifier the way the Tunguska has with S6, so a 15 on the RWR could be a SAM or a fighter. Separating 19 and S6 is better to say that '19 is a MiG, S6 is a SAM' than it is to say that '19 could be a MiG or a SAM.'

 

There are other crossover codes between SAM systems and aircraft too. It's doesn't seem to be a huge deal since airborne threats get an icon over them to distinguish them from ground systems.

 

Ultimately what we think makes sense has no bearing here, only the way that the system works in real life. Without presenting any evidence calling this a mistake is silly - why would ED program something to not follow the pattern if they didn't have documentation that it really works that way?

[Martin2487]

There are other crossover codes between SAM systems and aircraft too. It's doesn't seem to be a huge deal since airborne threats get an icon over them to distinguish them from ground systems.

 

I agree with what you wrote. When I first saw the SAM circle labeled S6 it surprised me. It seemed strange to me. As for the confusion so we have 6 (SA-6) and S6 and it seems confusing. I doubt that if there were 19, it would be mistaken for air to air contact Mig-19. The SAM circle is clearly distinguished, the output from the RWR is displayed differently on the SA page.

 

It is not a question of whether developers know something or what they are based on. Anyone can make a mistake. We have seen such minor errors during the development of the module :shifty: The effort is to provide developers with feedback. It is interesting that it identified as it's not a bug but it would be good if we wrote why we let a little smarter. :)

[Emmy]

In DCS, it's entirely possible. Stranger things have happened. After all, two F-14's shot down two Zeros on 6 December 1941.

 

:thumbup:

[Ziptie]

In DCS, it's entirely possible. Stranger things have happened. After all, two F-14's shot down two Zeros on 6 December 1941.

 

:megalol::megalol:

 

 

Cheers,

 

Don