need public supporting evidence Any plans to make RWR more realistic and less accurate?

[Snappy]

Hi,

are there any plan to overhaul the RWR indications to make them more realistic with ambiguities and inaccuracies, similar to the Heatblur simulates this on their F-14?

As of now the Hornet seems to indicate threats with seemingly 1 degree accuracy.

I know the F-14 uses an older RWR system, but then again some inaccuracy is inherent due to the involved physics, as far as I understood it.

regards,

 Snappy 

[NineLine]

As always, if you think there is an issue, please submit evidence and we can take a look. When it comes to RWR, its best to submit via PM if you are unsure if its controlled information. Thanks

[Hulkbust44]

On 7/29/2022 at 2:16 AM, Snappy said:

Hi,

are there any plan to overhaul the RWR indications to make them more realistic with ambiguities and inaccuracies, similar to the Heatblur simulates this on their F-14?

As of now the Hornet seems to indicate threats with seemingly 1 degree accuracy.

I know the F-14 uses an older RWR system, but then again some inaccuracy is inherent due to the involved physics, as far as I understood it.

regards,

 Snappy 

Well that would be unrealistic, DCS is a little too perfect, but for now that makes up for the lack of INS stabilization...the Tomcat's is supposed to be crap. (based on the time period) Not to mention questionable design choices. I.e. putting receivers on the stabiltors that ya know, move all the time. 

We need to start with modeling radar correctly...

[Swift.]

2 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Well that would be unrealistic, DCS is a little too perfect, but for now that makes up for the lack of INS stabilization...the Tomcat's is supposed to be crap. (based on the time period) Not to mention questionable design choices. I.e. putting receivers on the stabiltors that ya know, move all the time. 

We need to start with modeling radar correctly...

Hornets RWR definitely has ambiguities missing, it wouldn't be 'unrealisitic' as you say.

What it's angular resolution is, idk. But it's ability to identify the emitter is frankly miraculous in DCS.

[Snappy]

8 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Well that would be unrealistic, DCS is a little too perfect, but for now that makes up for the lack of INS stabilization...the Tomcat's is supposed to be crap. (based on the time period) Not to mention questionable design choices. I.e. putting receivers on the stabiltors that ya know, move all the time. 

We need to start with modeling radar correctly...

No, ED needs to start modeling RWR detection deeper/correctly , if you had bothered to dig a little deeper, instead of putting out some simple "Tomcat is supposed to be crap" line,  you might know. Both aircraft use the AN/ALR 67  system .
This comment by Heatblurs Ironmike explains pretty well the differences between the stock ED RWR logic and what Heatblur did instead in their simulation of the RWR system . And no, the receivers on the moving control surfaces are not the only problem for accuracy. The system is not perfectly accurate in reality either.

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Snappy

[MARLAN_]

I'd love to see a much less accurate/reliable RWR, as far as I know our RWR is waaay too perfect in DCS but I don't know the exact specifics, just that it's too reliable. That said though, as far as I know we also shouldn't have top/bottom blind spots (except for a tiny cone directly in front and low) and we are missing INS stabilization.

[Red_Camarada]

No news on that @NineLine?

[NineLine]

Unless I missed it, no evidence has been sent. Sorry. 

[Xhonas]

On 12/16/2024 at 4:41 PM, NineLine said:

Unless I missed it, no evidence has been sent. Sorry. 

Hello there, while its imposible to know the angular accuracy of the systems in real life because they are classified, there are some OSINT information that indicates what the accuracy of those systems might be (an approximation of course), based on the techniques that they use to find the direction of a threat, i can send you the link of this document in DM. The F-16C, F/A-18C, F-15C RWR, and basically every RWR modelled in DCS uses amplitude comparison to determine the direction of a threat, the accuracy of those systems can be at around 3 to 10 degrees RMS. In DCS both the RWR in the F/A-18 and F-16 are ultra precise, there are simply no innacuracies on it, they give the exact angle of  the threat, which is very unrealistic. The only way to have the precision that we have in DCS is by using a phased interferometer system, which will give 1 to 0.1° angular accuracy. But we don't have any system like this in DCS, although you said that you will model this for the apache. We already have a module in DCS that simulates the limitations in direction finding that these systems using amplitude comparsion face, the F-14 Tomcat by heatblur, the HB ALR-67 simulation in DCS has an angular accuracy of 10-15 degree RMS. I will link the forum threads below so you can see how they modelled it.

Furthermore, RWRs in DCS are way too perfect in discriminating who is being shot at, while in real life a single threat may trigger the rwr's of an entire squadron, even if only one aircraft of said squadron is being shot at. See this video, an F-15E SME who has been shot by an SA-3 in real life talking about how his entire squadron rwr was triggered by an sa-3 shot despite the jets being several miles apart (video is timestamped): 

You probably know this, because you coded the AI to react the same way these guys did when they have been shot at. The F-14 RWR in DCS simulates this problem, to some extent. So, is it possible to implement these limitations to the player RWR? 

1. Reduced angular accuracy (way too perfect in DCS right now)

2. False alarms - triggering a spike / launch warning even if your aircraft is not being shot at, but the rwr is picking the signal of the enemy rwr either because your jet is near the jet being launched at or because the rwr is detecting the sidelobe emissions of the radar guiding the missile -.

 

 

Check this comment by IronMike and these two other threads to see how Heatblur modelled their RWR:

Some highlights of their modelling: 

• The direction is reconstructed in the 2D plane (the local aircraft frame of reference). For threats significantly outside that plane, their reconstructed direction may be inaccurate, and it usually shifts towards the 12, 3, 6, or 9 o’clock from the true position.
• The direction reconstruction accuracy improves as the distance from the emitter decreases. For the scan modes of the emitter (RWS/TWS), it’s somewhere around 10-15° RMS.
• For the emitters in scan modes, a misassociation of a known-threat with a new signal can happen, and it occurs quite often, especially at long ranges. It can result in:

1. ghosts (fake threats) appearing on the display – more probable if you or the threat do some manoeuvres;
2. merging a group of two or more threats of the same type into one threat. For example, a group of two Su-27 flying in close formation, both scanning with their radars, can appear on the screen as one ’29’ until they get closer.

IronMike comment

 

 

Edited January 22 by Xhonas

[falcon_120]

@NineLine this has nothing to do with specific documentation, its rather a physic based approach as your team is doing on the tire strut suspension. We just want systems that converge with the laws of physics and mathematics (and EM fields). You cannot have perfect angular accuracy with a limited number of antennas at relative close distance from each other, your team knows that. But i guess this is something not planned at the moment.

 

[Xhonas]

8 minutes ago, falcon_120 said:

@NineLine this has nothing to do with specific documentation, its rather a physic based approach as your team is doing on the tire strut suspension. We just want systems that converge with the laws of physics and mathematics (and EM fields). You cannot have perfect angular accuracy with a limited number of antennas at relative close distance from each other, your team knows that. But i guess this is something not planned at the moment.

 

Shouldn't be difficult to adjust this parameter. FC3 Flanker already has this limitation. False alarms might not be so easy tho. 

Edited January 22 by Xhonas

[Xhonas]

@Chizh