correct as-is Dual Target Track Gives Instant RWR Launch Warning

[Night]

In the F-16, when using RWS dual target track (DTT) mode, which is acquiring a soft lock (to be able to lock up to 2 targets simultaneously), targets are getting instant RWR launch warnings, even for 32nm shots. The missile should not be going pitbull at such long range, correct?

In previous versions, targets would only get instant RWR missile warnings if you had them in an STT lock. In  I don't know if a track file would be very useful for this, it's a pretty easy thing to reproduce, but I can upload a track file if it would be useful 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Night

[llOPPOTATOll]

They shouldnt get instant launch warning even in STT

[dorianR666]

the whole launch warning mechanic is messed up throughout dcs. i dont think it will ever be corrected.

 

8 hours ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

They shouldnt get instant launch warning even in STT

indeed.

[BIGNEWY]

13 hours ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

They shouldnt get instant launch warning even in STT

Please PM any public evidence. 

thank you

[Moonshine]

27 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please PM any public evidence. 

thank you

while that is cool, i hope you did take note of the initial bug report as per the OPs post as this puts any aircraft firing a missile at a severe disadvantage since everyone already knows you fired, even though DTT was used..

[BIGNEWY]

Hi Moonshine, 

we have not seen any clear public evidence for this at the moment. 

thank you

[rob10]

11 minutes ago, Moonshine said:

you need evidence for this??? (why was this rather significant change it not in the patch notes either...)

Pretty sure he's looking for public evidence of how it should be, not evidence that it's currently behaving the way you are describing (which you quote).  I do agree that ED needs to be more verbose in including changes in the changelog.  This wouldn't be the 1st time where ED gets around to "correcting" an existing behaviour to what ED believes is correct behaviour (I have no clue which is the correct behaviour in this case, but people feeling like it should be one way or the other, or claiming it's common sense it should be one way or the other is not evidence ED will change something based on).

[Moonshine]

2 things; first the bug is about launch warnings in DTT (in some manuals referred as TTS (two-target-SAM, a submode of the SAM - Situational awareness mode)), which is the initial bug report as that should not be a thing.

 

Then llOPPOTATOll said it shouldnt even trigger a launch warning in STT.

newys answer regarding the need of public evidence does not clarify to which part (the DTT behaviour being wrong or the STT post from llOPPOTATOll) he needs the evidence, thats why i referred back to the original bug report, the way it is since the last patch is wrong and should not need any evidence. neither was that change listed anywhere in the changelog

about the STT i understand his request. sadly his answer is not specific enough, neither is his second response

Edited January 29, 2023 by Moonshine

[skywalker22]

Just one question here, how about STT, or while having target in Bugged mode (tws soft lock)? Does it act the same? Its strange only happens in DTT soft lock.

[Raptor9]

55 minutes ago, Moonshine said:

defeats the whole purpose of having a Fox 3 missile in the first place.

The purpose of employing active radar-homing (ARH) missiles is to ensure a higher probability of hit against a target and to facilitate a higher tempo of engagements when faced with multiple opponents.

Whether or not the target aircraft receives a launch warning when an ARH missile is initially fired is subject to how the launch platform's radar functions when employing that type of missile, and how the target aircraft's radar-warning equipment is programmed to interpret such emissions from that type of threat. If you have public and unrestricted evidence stating how these events should occur, then please PM them to @BIGNEWY. But if this data is somehow gleaned from restricted documentation (even if it has been somehow leaked online), this cannot be shared or posted anywhere.

[Hobel]

Am 28.1.2023 um 03:45 schrieb Night:

In the F-16, when using RWS dual target track (DTT) mode, which is acquiring a soft lock (to be able to lock up to 2 targets simultaneously), targets are getting instant RWR launch warnings, even for 32nm shots. The missile should not be going pitbull at such long range, correct?

In previous versions, targets would only get instant RWR missile warnings if you had them in an STT lock. In  I don't know if a track file would be very useful for this, it's a pretty easy thing to reproduce, but I can upload a track file if it would be useful 

 

Was the target an f16? or  Does every aircraft get the warning?

[skywalker22]

25 minutes ago, Hobel said:

Was the target an f16? or  Does every aircraft get the warning?

Based on OP's 1st post, it any aircraft, he didn't specify any.

[_SteelFalcon_]

server-20230129-192334.trkserver-20230129-192650.trk.

Seems to be working as intended. at least i didnt get any launch warning until the missiles from @Moonshine really went pitbull

STT gives a spike but no missile warning until she's pitbull (test with the hornet).
DTT does not trigger any warning until the missile really is pitbull.

looks fine to me

Edited January 29, 2023 by _SteelFalcon_

[Moonshine]

yeah based on the recent test i will retract all statements and question if OPs gamefiles are as pure as they should be.

[skywalker22]

9 minutes ago, _SteelFalcon_ said:

server-20230129-192334.trkserver-20230129-192650.trk.

Seems to be working as intended. at least i didnt get any launch warning until the missiles from @Moonshine really went pitbull

STT gives a spike but no missile warning until she's pitbull (test with the hornet).
DTT does not trigger any warning until the missile really is pitbull.

looks fine to me

 

Awesome test guys, this was needed. So its all fine!

[Raptor9]

So everyone can put away the pitchforks now?...

[CaptPickguard]

9 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

So everyone can put away the pitchforks now?...

I think so, but I'm a bit disappointed that everyone jumped on the "no evidence" train when it was already functioning this way in-game.

Understandable mistake, I get these kinds of things mixed up in my mind all the time, but this was definitely a bit of a slip up.

[audax]

32 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

So everyone can put away the pitchforks now?...

If you have public and unrestricted evidence stating how these events did occur, then please PM them to @BIGNEWY.

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, CaptPickguard said:

I think so, but I'm a bit disappointed that everyone jumped on the "no evidence" train when it was already functioning this way in-game.

It was a reminder that if a claim is made that something isn't modelled correctly in game, there needs to be evidence to back it up. There were multiple posts following the OP's that were claiming how these systems should function compared to real-life, and too often these claims are made based on personal opinions, assumptions, and interpretations.

Certain individuals on the forum have been known to repeatedly demand that things need to be changed without any evidence to back up their claim, or evidence that applies to the version of aircraft being modelled. The original post stated that something seemed to have changed, and then the thread was quickly diverted into claims that other aspects of the game needed changed entirely, as stated within the 2nd and 3rd posts.

Was it a little unclear as to how we got here? Sure. Is it really so unexpected given how quickly these threads delve into wild assertions about how broad concepts "should be"? Given how the thread progressed, is it so surprising?