correct as-is RWR Emitter Power/Range

[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?

[_SteelFalcon_]

The correct as is tag also contradicts the statements in wags video from january

 

[NineLine]

49 minutes ago, Mr. Wilson said:

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

Sorry, we do not generally share the documents we have. But we have publicly available sources, if you think you have something we missed we are always willing to take a look and you can send it to use via PM. Thanks.

[Mr. Wilson]

10 минут назад, NineLine сказал:

Sorry, we do not generally share the documents we have. But we have publicly available sources, if you think you have something we missed we are always willing to take a look and you can send it to use via PM. Thanks.

I very much doubt that such nuances of the system will be published in open sources. I think that it is more likely to get an answer to this question from living people who are pilots or people involved in the operation of these systems in life ... will this information be authoritative for you?

[Moonshine]

If the January 2023 video is accurate, then the current implementation is not accurate as it does not reflect what is being shown and said in that video.
 

would be appreciated if the infos ED provides about a system would be the same everywhere. Now we have a very new video saying one thing and Newy saying something different. Makes one question which one is now correct and causes unnecessary confusion amogst the playerbase. 

Simple as that.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Moonshine

[falconzx]

I sent to ED team PM with a lot of evidences, videos (both ALR-69, the one which was replaced, and ALR-56M) and public documents (a NATO unclassified one, and a publication) all speaking about AN/ALR-56m, all mentioning about signal intensity or "range".
All videos shows more than one "nails" and very probably not spikes in the center or intermediate positions of the screen.

They just answered those evidences are too vague to change the rwr from what is now, and they are just happy to leave it like that.

I don't know what to do anymore guys.

It's like they modeled a radar which you can find anywhere on web, that can measure
range, azimuth, closure speed and altitude, and they just forget to represent one of the parameters, the closure speed for example.
I have no words.

Even the ALR-69 on blocks.30 could do that, even the ALR-69!
 

Edited April 17, 2023 by falconzx

[NineLine]

15 minutes ago, falconzx said:

I sent to ED team PM with a lot of evidences

Yes, you sent us a lot of stuff, all of which we answered you about. None of it is actual documentation for the aircraft, all of it is vague representations or videos, none of which is good enough to suggest what we have is wrong. If you have anything else, we are happy to look.

[Mr. Wilson]

4 минуты назад, NineLine сказал:

Yes, you sent us a lot of stuff, all of which we answered you about. None of it is actual documentation for the aircraft, all of it is vague representations or videos, none of which is good enough to suggest what we have is wrong. If you have anything else, we are happy to look.

I have a feeling that soon some players will also be arrested like that twenty-year-old guy from the American army :))))

[Moonshine]

@NineLinesince you dont seem to want to provide the evidence you have (which you claim is public) it makes it really hard to argue any point. Not saying you might not be right, however it would also not be the first time some manual was misinterpreted, even more so since it bears the risk of getting mixed up in translation between languages.
Now with the current approach you guys seem to take about requesting undeniable proof from public documents before you even move a finger (yes its an overstatement but the tendency is pretty obvious) it is getting out of hand. 
i understand you get tons of bug reports. Some more questionable than others but the current approach will not keep any customers in the long run.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Moonshine

[NineLine]

19 minutes ago, Moonshine said:

@NineLinesince you dont seem to want to provide the evidence you have (which you claim is public) it makes it really hard to argue any point. Not saying you might not be right, however it would also not be the first time some manual was misinterpreted, even more so since it bears the risk of getting mixed up in translation between languages.
Now with the current approach you guys seem to take about requesting undeniable proof from public documents before you even move a finger (yes its an overstatement but the tendency is pretty obvious) it is getting out of hand. 
i understand you get tons of bug reports. Some more questionable than others but the current approach will not keep any customers in the long run.

 

Again, if you feel we have misinterpreted something, you are welcome to show us the reference with the proper interpretation, so far no one has done this. As for our documentation, even if it's public and shareable, we do not do that, it's not worth any hassles. If you don't trust us to create the most realistic aircraft within the legal restraints of the world's militaries and governments, I am not sure what I can tell you. 

As I said, we are 100% open to feedback, and evidence showing an error, and we will 100% change it if pointed out, so far we have not seen anything to do that. Threats of not buying our products will not get things to change or us to press the rules and dig into things we shouldnt. 

Thanks. 

[falconzx]

@NineLine I know, it's a miracle i've found something, i will spend more days searching, but i don't think i will find a 4k resolution video showing that instrument functioning in a combat/exercise arena. And i don't even get paid for that lol
So on some thing we need to use the flexible approach. What is the most probable behaviour of that instrument? Let's use some of common sense, all documents, even not exacltly specific (the one on ALE-43, mentions exactly the AN/ALR-56m, so it is specific) speak about ranging, so we can't have an implementation that ignore completely this evidence. All the "vague" evidences says we were closer before the latest patch. And i think a lot of users here think the same.

In latest patch the ranging has been removed, this mean that your specific, public, an/alr56m manual says explicitly "the range of scanning radars is not visualized".  That's a pragmatic and simple way of see this. 

And, after all my research is highly unprobable that your manual say that, it would say at least something vague that has been interpreted in a way that leaded the team to remove any type of visualization of the "scanning radar ranging", possibly even unintentionally.

But now this is a problem, because, even without a precise evidence, it's obvious from a lot of sources that this is not accurate.

Edited April 17, 2023 by falconzx

[NineLine]

Nothing was removed, just got merged. 

[falconzx]

I noticed that, on spikes there are differences, but they are static, the position of a spiking symbol is related to the type of radar, and not related to range.
In fact i said 

21 minuti fa, falconzx ha scritto:

even unintentionally.

because maybe the the signal intensity visualization has been removed from scanning radar/spiking radars by mistake following the intent to move symbols also by radar state (for example scaling the convergence to center factor by a multiplier which activates only on spiking symbols.)

[Mr. Wilson]

1 час назад, NineLine сказал:

Nothing was removed, just got merged. 

Yes, of course, we can spend a lot of our time looking for documents with seals for you... But we are talking about things that are completely obvious. I will give you an example from your new logic that you have now patched.

Your opponent is 2 f16 aircraft:
1st plane - f16 is 50 miles away from you and takes you into radar capture, you get a mark near the center of the radar - that is, this target becomes extremely dangerous for you (although you perfectly understand that this is the safest target)
2nd aircraft - another f16 (with the same radar) but at a distance of 10 miles it irradiates you without radar capture, in this case your RVR will show this as the most non-dangerous contact (although you yourself understand that this aircraft is catastrophically dangerous for you)

That is, from this example, we conclude that the American army specifically made the device in such a way as to specifically misinform the pilot about threats in order to hasten his death?

Doesn't it seem strange to you that you are defending just such a logic of the operation of this system in your update, which is in complete confrontation with common sense?

 

[_SteelFalcon_]

It is impressive how this point is discussed from ED side, unless we can bring up the exact evidence for this specific device, it seems it is not being looked at. Even if basically anything one can find about even older RWR devices suggest that there was always some sort of range information displayed either directly or indirectly (based on lethality). Common sense would lead to this also being a key feature for the alr56m but here we are, talking to a wall that basically denies it all, but refusing to provide their apparently „public“ data on this implementation. 
If the display is like the alr 67 in the hornet and it‘s not necessarily displaying „distance“ itself, but instead „lethality of the threat“, why is everything classified as absolutely lethal and thus closer to center, yet nothing as „potentially lethal“ and thus less close to center of the rwr?

If this is the general approach on all features going forward, it does make one question the accuracy of simulation of those systems in general and does not necessarily make me have a lot of passion or support for future modules.

please reconsider this approach and look at the rwr again. Would the AF really buy such a thing if the older version gave the pilot much more information, providing a higher chance of survival?

Edited April 18, 2023 by _SteelFalcon_

[NineLine]

3 hours ago, Mr. Wilson said:

Yes, of course, we can spend a lot of our time looking for documents with seals for you

I suppose this was supposed to be a "sick burn" and you meant "looking for documents "like" seals". But no, we do not need you to look for documents at all, in fact the team is quite happy with what we have now based on the available documentation. Now if you want something to change then you need to look for documents for yourself so that you can prove your point, I would dare say based on the info I have seen from the team that it's more of a misunderstanding or a taking of things too literally. Anyways, no we do not need you to find documents for us, but we do need you to prove your suggestions that something isn't right. 

 

33 minutes ago, _SteelFalcon_ said:

If this is the general approach on all features going forward, it does make one question the accuracy of  simulation of those systems in general and does not necessarily make me have a lot of passion or support for future modules.

Once again, if you do not trust that we have been doing this for many years, we have many many years of experience and know-how in this field and you have no confidence in our product I can understand you might not want to buy a new module.

But let me be clear, we will not change our minds on something with no evidence based on a hunch because of you think it should go like that because X was this so I should be safe to assume Y should be that because you are now suggesting that you won't buy a future module, that is not how we work.

Let me also be clear that we are talking about defensive systems of military aircraft, some of the MOST protected systems around, and some of the most avoided subjects that SMEs would be less than thrilled to be caught talking about. Sure we could guess or make it like player X wants, but again that is now how this works, we want to make the most accurate modules possible with legally available documents. 

Let's play a scenario, let's say you guys guessed right and what you say is correct. Now let's say that this isn't something that is publicly released, which so far is proven by the lack of info people have brought to us. Now we put that into the game, something we should not any about, how does that look? We just made a good guess, lucky us? Forum member X told us this is how it is?

The point is, this stuff is not cut and dry, which is also why I am moving this to the wishlist section and keeping it open. Hey maybe you guys will be so passionate about this that you will find a smoking gun and then we will change it and be happy to. Right now there is no evidence one way or the other, so this is where we are at.

I will keep this open but if the posts are just going to be "Ah damn I guess ED doesn't want to make good modules so I guess I won't buy the next one" Then there is no point keeping this open. Any future posts should be on-topic, mature and constructive. If you have info, PM me, if you don't, understand you have tried but it's just not available unless you want to join an Air Force flying Vipers.

[LTU]

@BIGNEWY very very interesting what ED will respond to this

6 hours ago, Mr. Wilson said:

Yes, of course, we can spend a lot of our time looking for documents with seals for you... But we are talking about things that are completely obvious. I will give you an example from your new logic that you have now patched.

Your opponent is 2 f16 aircraft:
1st plane - f16 is 50 miles away from you and takes you into radar capture, you get a mark near the center of the radar - that is, this target becomes extremely dangerous for you (although you perfectly understand that this is the safest target)
2nd aircraft - another f16 (with the same radar) but at a distance of 10 miles it irradiates you without radar capture, in this case your RVR will show this as the most non-dangerous contact (although you yourself understand that this aircraft is catastrophically dangerous for you)

That is, from this example, we conclude that the American army specifically made the device in such a way as to specifically misinform the pilot about threats in order to hasten his death?

Doesn't it seem strange to you that you are defending just such a logic of the operation of this system in your update, which is in complete confrontation with common sense?

 

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

5 minutes ago, LTU said:

@BIGNEWY very very interesting what ED will respond to this

 

 

read above comment from Nineline

[LTU]

43 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

read above comment from Nineline

@BIGNEWY There is nothing about @Mr. Wilson case: 

1st plane - f16 is 50 miles away from you and takes you into radar capture, you get a mark near the center of the radar - that is, this target becomes extremely dangerous for you (although you perfectly understand that this is the safest target)
2nd aircraft - another f16 (with the same radar) but at a distance of 10 miles it irradiates you without radar capture, in this case your RVR will show this as the most non-dangerous contact (although you yourself understand that this aircraft is catastrophically dangerous for you)

Edited April 18, 2023 by LTU

[skywalker22]

23 minutes ago, LTU said:

@BIGNEWY There is nothing about @Mr. Wilson case: 

1st plane - f16 is 50 miles away from you and takes you into radar capture, you get a mark near the center of the radar - that is, this target becomes extremely dangerous for you (although you perfectly understand that this is the safest target)
2nd aircraft - another f16 (with the same radar) but at a distance of 10 miles it irradiates you without radar capture, in this case your RVR will show this as the most non-dangerous contact (although you yourself understand that this aircraft is catastrophically dangerous for you)

 

What are you saying, that lethality level depends solely on the distance? I assume you guys are only doing test against AI, right? You don't even know exactly how are they paint you in which mode (tws, rws, azimuth deg, numnber of bars) and so on. Lethality level depends also on more other things such as the type of radar or other emitter being used by the threat, to determine the level of lethality. Therefore, if two threats are emitting signals at different strengths, but one is using a more lethal type of radar or emitter, the AN/ALR-56M will prioritize the more lethal threat over the other. The point is, there is numberous of things that determine the level of lethality, and its far from being simple.

[falconzx]

Lethality is a mix of things. Something out of range is not lethal, regardless of lock or not. USAF and F16 operators knows this because you know the range of the weapons a certain threat uses. The same we can say on this sim.

An/Alr56m is programmable by crew operators, so it's safe to say you can also adjust the span of intensities associated to the range positions, a specific type of threat, have on the display. How do i know? It's mentioned in the public brochure on Baesystems official site. (I don't think i have to pm that)

Anyway i also found a document which confirm an/alr56m is unclassified. So i don't think ED have to be so strict on some evidence interpretation. But i don't know, by the way i appreciated the Nineline explanation, many people maybe doesn't know the weight of some matters.

Anyway, responding to Nineline, in this specific case i think there is nothing complicated, what the community here is asking is not a change with something new, maybe classified or maybe you cannot keep in this simulator or because some player asked without a precise evidence. The community is just asking to roll back on something you have sell for years and you still have in the stable release, because we're all convinced that the previous implementation was more correct from all the evidences we can find.
And probably this convintion is the same ED had for YEARS since F-15 has been modeled, and then the F-16C, someone found wags video, someone ED manuals, you still have F-15C another USAF rwr in the sim which act in that way(so if it's a legal problem it would persist).

I don't want to go offtopic but think about hotter topics like ECM or IFF. We all know that we are not getting those systems simulated high fidelity because of classified info and so on, but the sim has a simplified version of them.

So given it's an instrument hard to see in function clearly, is being strict on interpretation of "we dont know which manual" the best approach? No. And this was your answer, you confirmed this with all the patches before this, for years.

In fact we had for years an instrument which nobody complained about(specifically to this topic) because in-line with many, you can call "vague", info and evidence you can freely find.

[AvroLanc]

5 minutes ago, falconzx said:

Lethality is a mix of things. Something out of range is not lethal, regardless of lock or not. USAF and F16 operators knows this because you know the range of the weapons a certain threat uses. The same we can say on this sim.

An/Alr56m is programmable by crew operators, so it's safe to say you can also adjust the span of intensities associated to the range positions, a specific type of threat, have on the display. How do i know? It's mentioned in the public brochure on Baesystems official site. (I don't think i have to pm that)

Anyway i also found a document which confirm an/alr56m is unclassified. So i don't think ED have to be so strict on some evidence interpretation. But i don't know, by the way i appreciated the Nineline explanation, many people maybe doesn't know the weight of some matters.

Anyway, responding to Nineline, in this specific case i think there is nothing complicated, what the community here is asking is not a change with something new, maybe classified or maybe you cannot keep in this simulator or because some player asked without a precise evidence. The community is just asking to roll back on something you have sell for years and you still have in the stable release, because we're all convinced that the previous implementation was more correct from all the evidences we can find.
And probably this convintion is the same ED had for YEARS since F-15 has been modeled, and then the F-16C, someone found wags video, someone ED manuals, you still have F-15C another USAF rwr in the sim which act in that way(so if it's a legal problem it would persist).

I don't want to go offtopic but think about hotter topics like ECM or IFF. We all know that we are not getting those systems simulated high fidelity because of classified info and so on, but the sim has a simplified version of them.

So given it's an instrument hard to see in function clearly, is being strict on interpretation of "we dont know which manual" the best approach? No. And this was your answer, you confirmed this with all the patches before this, for years.

In fact we had for years an instrument which nobody complained about(specifically to this topic) because in-line with many, you can call "vague", info and evidence you can freely find.

Agree with all of this.

The recent changes to the AN/ALR-56M are a massive mistake. The one good thing about the ED F-16 vs the F/A-18 was that the RWR was somewhat better modeled. The very fact that your initial implementation was based on signal strength and range was clearly based on documentation you must have had (maybe......you've still got it)..... The -56M was clearly not just a port over of the Hornet RWR. You went out of your way to model it (correctly) in 2019....  Now this had changed. Why? What has changed in the reference documentation?

The ALR-56M is now modeled as a incredibly simplistic RWR that only differentiates between presence / lock / firing. It's supposed to be more advanced (Wild Weasel CJ/CM remember). This is clearly not how it should behave. ED knows this (or did, why did they model it correctly in 2019?). 'Other sims' know this for about the last 22 odd years as well.

To me this is a cynical butt-covering exercise that has nothing to do with simulation accuracy. It's by ED's own admission about reducing exposure to possible legal concerns. We all understand security concerns but please just be honest and upfront and give that as the reason for the change. That would be preferable over the frustrating butting of heads over the interpreting or mis-interpreting of reference manuals. You've just seriously handicapped a core F-16 sensor/system and we're all adult enough to deserve to know why..... 

This really highlights the folly of trying to model the more modern aircraft without really thorough research first. Hard to acquire reference material, and its interpretation has been a serious frustration throughout the DCS Viper's life and is now really spoiling the quality of the simulation. 

 

[falconzx]

Yea F16 experience now is really distorted in all operations, when i got painted suddenly by a search radar if an airborne, in a no AWACS situation or no intel situation if a SAM, i just can't know if i'm going to die in seconds or is just a 100nm thing which popped on.
The decisionality of the leader on new threats can only be conservative to not risk the packet safety. It's all to be changed, even our wing procedures.



I give ED a tip, an idea, for this matter and for all kind of.
Change the name of the instrument.
Call it An/alr-56ED
Put "ED" suffix to the instruments you need to model with some flexibility in the sources, for sure unclassified but just to pick all what is public viewable and use a bit of common sense in modeling it.

Then you can specify with a note on the bottom of the selling pages that ED instruments are fictional and just inspired to real versions.

In this way you will be relaxed, no legal problems, the community will be relaxed, no modules getting distorted from real ones, happy ending.

And also you make a good step for the future problematic implementations, speeding up the work and sleeping better.

Think about it.

Edited April 18, 2023 by falconzx

[_SteelFalcon_]

5 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

What are you saying, that lethality level depends solely on the distance? I assume you guys are only doing test against AI, right? You don't even know exactly how are they paint you in which mode (tws, rws, azimuth deg, numnber of bars) and so on. Lethality level depends also on more other things such as the type of radar or other emitter being used by the threat, to determine the level of lethality. Therefore, if two threats are emitting signals at different strengths, but one is using a more lethal type of radar or emitter, the AN/ALR-56M will prioritize the more lethal threat over the other. The point is, there is numberous of things that determine the level of lethality, and its far from being simple.

You are correct, however 2 identical emitters doing the exact same thing at different distances should not show up on identical position on RWR simply based on distance and thus a likely difference in signal strenght. The device should react to that and classify a different lethality based on the difference in signal strenght due to different proximity of the emitter. 
the current implementation does not. Everything is basically critically lethal or absolutely harmless.

this is not just irritating in the game but also unimagineable that an airforce would buy this and consider it an improvement over the previously used system. I seriously question the current implementations accuracy

Edited April 18, 2023 by _SteelFalcon_

[skywalker22]

ED, I think what guys are saying here are 100% correct. Just check this image, which means RWR in current version in USELESS!

pic: each line represents one moment (f10 map and rwr situation at one point)

I was really suspicious about RWR behaviour, specially on Sunday's TACT Persian Gulf mission , I just couldn't get any decent info from RWR, now I know why. Thx guys for all the contribution, I hope ED sees their error.

And now I did this simple test of comparison real situation from F10 map, and RWR. And here is the strange result. There is no threat that EVER comes into inner circle. Strange, right? From so close distance that the bandit shots at me.

f16_RWR_issue.trk

Edited April 18, 2023 by skywalker22