correct as-is RWR Emitter Power/Range

[NineLine]

Please make sure to follow the roadmap for most answers...
 

 

[Fuggzy]

PRF tones will be great.  Until then, my butt puckers for 15 seconds at a time.  Some cultures regard this as healthy exercise, so I'm sorta ok with it.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Fuggzy

[janitha2]

3 hours ago, Fuggzy said:

PRF tones will be great.  Until then, my butt puckers for 15 seconds at a time.  Some cultures regard this as healthy exercise, so I'm sorta ok with it.

 

Yes but do we have to wait until the F4 gets released to get prf tones?

 

[falconzx]

let's feedback the latest one. 

-Signal intensity interpolation, which was the most useful thing, is lost. 
-Major threat is so close to the center that you can't determine a precise relative bearing (so notching become hard)
-Often the missile indication merge on top of the priority threat locking you, so you can't read anything, it's all piled up into the center.

I hope there's data supporting these PRECISE changes because it is very inefficient compared to the previous update.

Edited April 13, 2023 by falconzx

[BIGNEWY]

Hi 

all changes are based on clear reference data for the ALR-56M, if you have public evidence for anything you think is wrong please PM me

thank you

[janitha2]

50 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi 

all changes are based on clear reference data for the ALR-56M, if you have public evidence for anything you think is wrong please PM me

thank you

pppst... are we geting prf tones when the F4 comes out?

[NineLine]

9 minutes ago, janitha2 said:

pppst... are we geting prf tones when the F4 comes out?

Check the roadmap. 

 

[janitha2]

8 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Check the roadmap. 

 

dont see a date regarding prf tones

[NineLine]

3 minutes ago, janitha2 said:

dont see a date regarding prf tones

We dont do dates, it will be added when its ready. 

[janitha2]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

We dont do dates, it will be added when its ready. 

ok got it! 

[SickSidewinder9]

I can't actually see what's different with the RWR after last update.  I guess the font is a little bigger, but what does it mean that it prioritizes threats a certain way?  Because I'll be trying to look in the direction of a MiG spike and it will get replaced in my HMD, at least momentarily, with E3 or AE if that is stronger, and those are friendly systems in the scenario.

[Moonshine]

This. Symbols stack on top of eachother and TGT step doesnt make a difference in many cases. This also occurs with RWR priority mode enabled to limit the amount of displayed emitter. Its hard to believe that this would be according to the manual

Edited April 14, 2023 by Moonshine

[skywalker22]

+ seem like the font is bold, that's why it's so hard to distinguish characters (6 for example, it looks like 8). Personally I would make font thinner (not bold) if possible.

It helps turning the brightness down, so characters don't shine that much, but still, because of the bold font it's hard to distinguish some characters.

 

[falconzx]

8 ore fa, Moonshine ha scritto:

Its hard to believe that this would be according to the manual

This and other obvious thoughts are the reason why i don't really like Bignewy's answer this time. I'm always, and i will always be the guy of: "If it's like the real thing, i'm happy", but: what's obvious for me is that we are talking about an advanced/not so old defensive system that someone have to sell and someone have to buy to try to save pilot's lives. The pilot safety relies on this system, and i can't simply believe it works so bad. If it's truly this, someone, and i mean in the real world, would have updated this thing to make it work better.

I don't have public evidences to say that it's not like this, but i have common sense, and it says: "nope".

ED have public evidences it works like that? It's ok, so why the version before this patch was mantained, updated, implemented so accurately, but so different from this? Maybe the evidences they had before this patch weren't so accurate? Explaining this better would help us to understand. At this point why should i have to believe that new evidences are more reliable now? 

The only thing i'm sure of is that the risk level of my flight is plummeted, and because of an instrument that should be built to reduce my risks only.

Edited April 15, 2023 by falconzx

[Rei]

On 4/13/2023 at 8:15 PM, SickSidewinder9 said:

...what does it mean that it prioritizes threats a certain way?  Because I'll be trying to look in the direction of a MiG spike and it will get replaced in my HMD, at least momentarily, with E3 or AE if that is stronger, and those are friendly systems in the scenario.

The threat priority seems to just be the ALTITUDE/ALT threat button which just allows you to change between airborne (No amber LOW, only ALT) and ground contacts (amber wording: LOW seen on ALTITUDE button). Before this button was not implemented, but it essentially allows you to make ground targets a higher priority if you want, or leave it on airborne targets. See 1:18 in this video for more detailed info.

(Fixed link)

Edited April 15, 2023 by Rei

[TobiasA]

Am 13.4.2023 um 16:20 schrieb falconzx:

let's feedback the latest one. 

-Signal intensity interpolation, which was the most useful thing, is lost. 
-Major threat is so close to the center that you can't determine a precise relative bearing (so notching become hard)
-Often the missile indication merge on top of the priority threat locking you, so you can't read anything, it's all piled up into the center.

I hope there's data supporting these PRECISE changes because it is very inefficient compared to the previous update.

 

In general, RWR's in DCS tend to be too precise...

Edited April 16, 2023 by TobiasA

[falconzx]

Cita

Fixed: RWR Priority and priority rings:

• Changed the display of targets on RWR according to their lethality level.

 

 

Talking about this a little deeply for example, now if a 80's F-15 locks me from 60nm or 5nm there is no difference in visualization, it will end to the center in both cases giving me a wrong lethality information. The same happens in a modern case, in which the F-15 is just nailing me in TWS, from 60nm or 5nm, the visualization is the same, he will stay in both cases on the outward ring, and again i have a lethality level not correctly represented, at 5nm if he launches i probably die, at 60nm he's out of range.

Given what just said, the current "fix" does not display targets on RWR according to their lethality level.

The current fix display targets on RWR according their radar state. Which is not the lethality level.

To represent a real lethality level you have to consider ALSO the radar signal intensity.
Is something that the sensor can take in account for sure, even the old Mig-29 berioza does it.


what are the reference data for the ALR-56M about this point?
If they are for example, just a manual lemma saying exactly this "display of targets on RWR according to their lethality level.", it's clearly something that can be interpreted in a lot of ways.


Can we expect a further look on this?

Edited April 16, 2023 by falconzx

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, falconzx said:

The current fix display targets on RWR according their radar state. Which is not the lethality level.

To represent a real lethality level you have to consider ALSO the radar signal intensity.
Is something that the sensor can take in account for sure, even the old Mig-29 berioza does it.

A radar that is locked onto the aircraft represents a more lethal threat than any radar that is only in a search mode, regardless of range or signal strength.

This isn't a MiG-29. If you have any reference data that is publically available to support your claims, please PM BigNewy or NineLine.

[Mr. Wilson]

Tests have shown that changes in the signal strength of the incoming radar do not have any effect on the rwr system. This happened in the last patch before this function worked. 

Test conditions:

Two aircraft irradiate each other with airborne radars and change the distance between them. 

Test results:

The RWR system refuses to perceive the signal strength completely.

RWRbroken.trk

[Mr. Wilson]

"correct is as" -- how is this possible if the official manual completely denies this?

Could you post some documentation on which you are making this module?

[Mr. Wilson]

I would like to see comments from the development team on this...

[BIGNEWY]

54 minutes ago, Mr. Wilson said:

"correct is as" -- how is this possible if the official manual completely denies this?

Could you post some documentation on which you are making this module?

Hi, clearly the manual needs updating, we have highlighted it to the team. 

thank you

[Mr. Wilson]

19 минут назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

Hi, clearly the manual needs updating, we have highlighted it to the team. 

thank you

That is, you want to say that the development of the 70s SPO 15 "Bereza" on Soviet aircraft can determine the signal strength depending on the approach and distance of the radiation source, and the system installed on the aircraft of the 2000s years cannot do this ? 

[BIGNEWY]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Wilson said:

That is, you want to say that the development of the 70s SPO 15 "Bereza" on Soviet aircraft can determine the signal strength depending on the approach and distance of the radiation source, and the system installed on the aircraft of the 2000s years cannot do this ? 

If you have public evidence please feel free to PM me

thank you

[Mr. Wilson]

9 минут назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

If you have public evidence please feel free to PM me

thank you

Could you publish the manual according to which you are developing this module?