RWR Easy to Exploit please add to IC

[Hobel]

I'll use the F16 as an example here, but it's just as true for other aircraft.

 

Can you please add "RWR_ALR56" Lua file to IC? ( DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\F-16C\Cockpit\Scripts\EWS\RWR\device )
Reason you can remove any blind points or adjust as desired....

 

Also this list is in there, should be self-explanatory,
 

device_timer_dt = 0.2
MaxThreats = 16  
EmitterLiveTime = 11(: how long a RWR symbol will last after radar radiation is lost, i.e. you know immediately when the enemy plane goes cold which can be a huge advantage.)
EmitterSoundTime = 0.5
LaunchSoundDelay = 15.0

RWR_detection_coeff = 0.85

An example:   

 

[Flappie]

Request made.

[al531246]

I'm not so sure about this... A number of people, myself included, run sound mods for various jets RWR's using these luas. These sound modification are purely clientside and improve realism. By adding this file to IC to will cause 2 things to happen:

1. Annoyance
2. More servers will cease to run IC further enabling exploitation 

I think a better solution would be to separate those functions that are actually exploitable into a separate lua or better yet compile them. The sounds part of the lua is not causing any harm and locking it behind IC would further degrade DCS. 

[Flappie]

Why not requesting better sounds for the RWR instead?

[al531246]

5 minutes ago, Flappie said:

Why not requesting better sounds for the RWR instead?

We're about 10 years into that request, still waiting!

[Flappie]

I can help. So, what do you prefer?

[al531246]

5 minutes ago, Flappie said:

I can help. So, what do you prefer?

I would much rather the ability to mod. ED doesn't always get things right. Modding is an essential capability in any milsim sandbox. 

[Hobel]

18 hours ago, al531246 said:

I'm not so sure about this... A number of people, myself included, run sound mods for various jets RWR's using these luas. These sound modification are purely clientside and improve realism. By adding this file to IC to will cause 2 things to happen:

1. Annoyance
2. More servers will cease to run IC further enabling exploitation 

I think a better solution would be to separate those functions that are actually exploitable into a separate lua or better yet compile them. The sounds part of the lua is not causing any harm and locking it behind IC would further degrade DCS. 

Ah, a good clue

 

16 hours ago, Flappie said:

Why not requesting better sounds for the RWR instead?

Thank you for your help, we appreciate it very much.

The thing is, when will new RWR sounds actually come, 1-3 years or more?

and that's not the only problem we're waiting for in various areas, we're waiting for fixes that are 3-10 years old.And I'm not talking about little things here.

[Flappie]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

The thing is, when will new RWR sounds actually come, 1-3 years or more?

and that's not the only problem we're waiting for in various areas, we're waiting for fixes that are 3-10 years old.And I'm not talking about little things here.

I don't even know what it's about. Is there a single thread listing what is wrong with current RWR sounds? That would be a good base for me to start from.

Long-life issues are not forgotten.

[al531246]

1 hour ago, Flappie said:

I don't even know what it's about. Is there a single thread listing what is wrong with current RWR sounds? That would be a good base for me to start from.

More than a single thread, hundreds of posts. Numerous threads. A good start would be reading all 800+ of @Beamscanner's posts. The guy is dedicated to correct RWR simulation.

[Nealius]

@Flappie I also support leaving the capability for sound mods. If there were some way to separate the blindspots, etc. entries from sound, thus locking the stuff that matters for IC and leaving the sounds unlocked, that would be perfect. A good case in point is the Viggen's RWR, which does not have correct RWR sounds nor has there been any mention of officially fixing those sounds (IIRC--could be wrong). Currently the only way to get an accurate RWR sound is through mods, as there is clearly no interest in fixing it on the developer side.

[Flappie]

Understood. I'll edit the report accordingly.

[MYSE1234]

17 hours ago, Nealius said:

"... A good case in point is the Viggen's RWR...". "...clearly no interest in fixing it on the developer side."

My RWR mod has been added to the base module since the large patch in December to be fair. It did however take someone modding the sounds for more realism instead of HB doing it off the bat..

Edited February 21, 2022 by MYSE1234

[Nealius]

On 2/21/2022 at 7:39 AM, MYSE1234 said:

My RWR mod has been added to the base module since the large patch in December to be fair. It did however take someone modding the sounds for more realism instead of HB doing it off the bat..

I'm fairly certain I flew the Viggen after the December patch and the default RWR sound did not match your mod sound at that time. I haven't flown it in Jan/Feb to confirm that. 

[okopanja]

This topic is about cheating exploit, not about rwr sounds.

[=475FG= Dawger]

3 hours ago, okopanja said:

This topic is about cheating exploit, not about rwr sounds.

Not really. This thread is really about whether or not user mods will pass IC.

Without user mods passing IC, I am certain I would stop flying DCS. I don't fly single player and I use mods quite extensively. We went through a short period with IC preventing the use of mods and it was awful. A second iteration is not welcome.

[okopanja]

20 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Not really. This thread is really about whether or not user mods will pass IC.

Read the first post. Primary topic is about the cheat exploit. Side effect: mods may get affected, but this is not on the same level o severity. Plus in this case its not about all mods, but rather a single file per aircraft.

22 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Without user mods passing IC, I am certain I would stop flying DCS. I don't fly single player and I use mods quite extensively. We went through a short period with IC preventing the use of mods and it was awful. A second iteration is not welcome.

Mods + multiplayer?

Which modes if it is not a secret?

 

[=475FG= Dawger]

23 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Read the first post. Primary topic is about the cheat exploit. Side effect: mods may get affected, but this is not on the same level o severity. Plus in this case its not about all mods, but rather a single file per aircraft.

Mods + multiplayer?

Which modes if it is not a secret?

 

No secrets.

I write my own modified autostart sequences for aircraft that allow access to the file (ED modules do, Third party developers generally don't, much to my chagrin)

I fly mainly in Alpenwolf's Cold War server, the ORIGINAL Cold War server. The F-5 is the mainstay blue fighter and the RWR requires a mod to operate in accordance with reality.

I use several cockpit mods that change the look or clean up the awfully dirty canopy glass.

I have also created mods for several of the WWII aircraft to fix various issues. Here are two that I actually published. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-mod/unit-is-p-51d/user-is-475FG HQ/apply/

Lots of folks use mods to drive components in home built cockpits.

People use all sorts of mods for all sorts of reasons.

Could some of them be considered as "cheating"?

I suppose they could if you take a very narrow view of what it means to fly MP in DCS.

If your only concern is the result, one could get severely wrapped up worrying about what other people are doing. My take is, generally, who cares? (Unless it is something blatant and over the top)

If some gottawin is modding his RWR in order to gain what he perceives as some sort of advantage, I would rather live with that than deny the rest of the community the joy and pleasure that modding brings.

If ED decides to once again include mods in IC, it will result in even more servers turning IC off and turning on passwords to keep out the riff raff.

Public servers will become even more rare.

Public MP in DCS is already tiny.

Worrying about the three or four jackasses who cheat using mods, resulting in punishing thousands of modders minding their own business is probably going to be counterproductive.

And my life experience has taught me that thieves think everyone else is stealing from them.

[BIGNEWY]

Dial it back a little please, the name calling does not help. 

The team are looking into solutions that will prevent cheats in this particular case and still allow for the mods, but it will take time, there is no simple solution here. 

Preventing cheating is important especially for the competitive players. 

thanks

[okopanja]

10 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

No secrets.

I write my own modified autostart sequences for aircraft that allow access to the file (ED modules do, Third party developers generally don't, much to my chagrin)

I fly mainly in Alpenwolf's Cold War server, the ORIGINAL Cold War server. The F-5 is the mainstay blue fighter and the RWR requires a mod to operate in accordance with reality.

I use several cockpit mods that change the look or clean up the awfully dirty canopy glass.

I have also created mods for several of the WWII aircraft to fix various issues. Here are two that I actually published. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/type-is-mod/unit-is-p-51d/user-is-475FG HQ/apply/

Lots of folks use mods to drive components in home built cockpits.

People use all sorts of mods for all sorts of reasons.

Could some of them be considered as "cheating"?

I suppose they could if you take a very narrow view of what it means to fly MP in DCS.

If your only concern is the result, one could get severely wrapped up worrying about what other people are doing. My take is, generally, who cares? (Unless it is something blatant and over the top)

If some gottawin is modding his RWR in order to gain what he perceives as some sort of advantage, I would rather live with that than deny the rest of the community the joy and pleasure that modding brings.

If ED decides to once again include mods in IC, it will result in even more servers turning IC off and turning on passwords to keep out the riff raff.

Public servers will become even more rare.

Public MP in DCS is already tiny.

Worrying about the three or four jackasses who cheat using mods, resulting in punishing thousands of modders minding their own business is probably going to be counterproductive.

And my life experience has taught me that thieves think everyone else is stealing from them.

First thank you for a rather long response. I really appreciate your effort into doing this.

Sometimes it is rather a thin line on the cheating: e.g. exporting displays (I do this for flanker/ka-50/f-16/mig-21) could be considered unfair advantage over the people who do not do it. However: I see 2 points here: they can do it as well, second when comparing the physical visual estate, it is clear the real pilot has likely a larger view in terms of instruments (and likely smaller in terms of surrounding), export brings that on similar visual level. In this case I think this customization is ethical. Extending RWR coverage clearly not.

I am totally not against mods, as long they are ethical ones. I even considered implementing player-to-player DL for FC3 (flanker/f-15c), and decided to stop, despite this being both feasible and controllable (by server owner).

In this particular case I think there is an issue to the specific array that declares the sensors, but I also understand that this can affect other mods. My hope is that ED will consider and find solution that does not hurt anyone.

Also: I do not think this is a reason to stop playing DCS.

[DAZnBLAST]

Interesting thread. The above OP does need to be addressed.

In SP, mod until your heart is content. In MP however, ask yourself, is the mod giving you an advantage over the other players running vanilla?

[=475FG= Dawger]

3 minutes ago, okopanja said:

 

Also: I do not think this is a reason to stop playing DCS.

On the face of it, you are correct.

There is a lot that goes into my personal opinion on this subject, however.

First off, my only interest in DCS is MP PvP, which is a very limited area.

Further, I don't have any interest in BVR so that limits it even further.

I enjoy servers that pit two sides of human players against each other with a maximum amount of teamwork and cooperation required to achieve the objectives.

Such servers are few and far between and getting fewer all the time.

I definitely do not like the trend exhibited in this and many other threads focused on the assumption that "cheating" is even a serious issue in DCS.

Over the past year there have been multiple threads addressing what seems to be mostly imaginary "cheating".

The servers I fly in have community solutions for the occasional player who tries to game the game.

The idea of a heavy handed approach to something that is currently taken care of at the server level by the community that uses the server and the server operator rubs me the wrong way.

Basically, ED is telling MP server operators, who invest their own time and money into servers, what game play is acceptable on private servers. So, to avoid that, server operators turn off IC and put the server behind a password.

The problem with that is it is very hard to have a vibrant PvP, 24/7 server of the sort I enjoy behind a password.

So I don't think I would continue to fly DCS if this trend continues. In reality, I think there would be no place left for me to fly should this continue down this road.

[Beamscanner]

This is not an exploit.

 

IRL the pilot would in fact be able to know if the enemy radar stopped looking his direction via the raw diamond audio (PRF audio). He would know this instantly. The RWR display holds the emitter for a few seconds to provide last know direction to the pilot. 

 

IC locking the lua file also prevents modders from adding high fidelity radar audio. 

 

If you really dont like this, the only thing that would need to be locked to prevent this (its not really an exploit IMO) is to move the "EmitterLiveTime" line to another lua file that gets locked. 

 

Keep in mind that PRF audio, which we will get, should only play when the emitter is actually looking at you. The audio would not play if the emitter had turned away. So this "exploit" is an actual tactic / piece of knowledge in the real jet that should also be in DCS. You would use the audio instead of the scope though. 

 

EDIT: There also other useful information provided to the pilot via RWR audio. For instance, the pilot would also be able to hear the enemy radar switch to a narrow scan. ie you could potentially determine if the radar switched from a wide RWS to a narrow TWS via the audio

Edited February 24, 2022 by Beamscanner

[Hobel]

On 2/22/2022 at 1:34 PM, DAZnBLAST said:

Interesting thread. The above OP does need to be addressed.

In SP, mod until your heart is content. In MP however, ask yourself, is the mod giving you an advantage over the other players running vanilla?

If they see no more contact in the RWR, they can turn back in earlier, among other things.
they see earlier if a rocket is dead.

and and and.

and I also like to use mods, only individual things should be moved in IC like this example here

 

 

 I can only underline   @Dawgers fears, but I don't think ED will lock sound mods and other things again.

Only cheats like these should be out.

 

 

  

On 2/24/2022 at 1:14 PM, Beamscanner said:

f you really dont like this, the only thing that would need to be locked to prevent this (its not really an exploit IMO) is to move the "EmitterLiveTime" line to another lua file that gets locked. 

That is the goal.

And if you follow the path you can also edit other luas and thus create an RWR without dead zones

  

On 2/24/2022 at 1:14 PM, Beamscanner said:

IRL the pilot would in fact be able to know if the enemy radar stopped looking his direction via the raw diamond audio (PRF audio). He would know this instantly. The RWR display holds the emitter for a few seconds to provide last know direction to the pilot. 

but it is not yet so simulated in DCS?

Edited February 26, 2022 by Hobel

[Beamscanner]

The dead zones in most DCS RWRs is pretty inaccurate as well...

 

I made a thread on this years ago, but in short, RWR antennas are not cameras. They dont have a black and white FOV. their 3dB beamwidth is what is modeled into DCS. outside of that 3dB beamwidth, DCS stops them from working. 

 

IRL, RWRs work well outside of their 3dB beamwidth. They just arn't as sensitive. 

 

That being said, RWRs should work great against a missile 6 miles away from you while you even if you are in a 90degree bank. The only thing is that the bearings would be off as the amplitude comparison is ineffective in the vertical plane. 

 

ie It is unrealistic for you to lose missile indications when in a hard turn in DCS. 

 

and no, we are still waiting for the first official PRF audio simulation from ED. It will be worked on at some point for the DCS F-16 and hopefully back filled into the A-10, and F-5. (not holding my breath)

Edited March 1, 2022 by Beamscanner
wording