correct as-is RWR Emitter Power/Range

[skywalker22]

1 minute ago, NineLine said:

Strange that you didnt supply a track, this is not helpful, sorry. 

Sorry, I did now  thats from the same track.

[skywalker22]

I did some more tests, using missiles. Now the threats go into the inner circle, but only when they fire a missile towards you. If this is ok or not, I don't know. 

 

f16_RWR_issue3.trk

[Moonshine]

6 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

I did some more tests, using missiles. Now the threats go into the inner circle, but only when they fire a missile towards you. If this is ok or not, I don't know. 

 

f16_RWR_issue3.trk 237.66 kB · 0 downloads

i observed similar using your track to test. nails -> outer most circle - spike -> middle circle - active missile launched -> center of RWR. the logic seems clear, however it might need some finetuning as in some examples, the symbology was "jumping" from the very center to the very outside in relative quick intervals

tested it with a buddy, note especially the rwr during the time i am low level defending a missile. the "16" is very jumpy

mobettametas_Dogfight_Arena_v1.73.2-20230418-194938.trk

[skywalker22]

41 minutes ago, Moonshine said:

i observed similar using your track to test. nails -> outer most circle - spike -> middle circle - active missile launched -> center of RWR. the logic seems clear, however it might need some finetuning as in some examples, the symbology was "jumping" from the very center to the very outside in relative quick intervals

I would say that jumping threat on RWR is caused by RWR lost track with it. You did evasive maneuvers, and RWR came into a blind spot, that's why it lost track, and appeared again when RWR got a signal back. But strange was a moment when the threat appeared for a second on left side of the RWR, although it should be always on the right.

--

Lets go a bit more in depth, using BVR missiles on the same example, and I did some evasive stuff to keep the fight going. Also mission file included.

Now RWR seems to work even better then in the previous example (where AI was only using Fox2 missiles). Only question is, what kind of threats come into inner circle?

@NineLine can you please explain if this is how it really goes, how it should go (as @Moonshineexplained well), or is somehow different?

nails -> outer most circle - spike -> middle circle - active missile launched -> center of RWR

f16_RWR_issue4.trk a2a_f-16_rwr_testing.miz

Edited April 18, 2023 by skywalker22

[AvroLanc]

55 minutes ago, Moonshine said:

i observed similar using your track to test. nails -> outer most circle - spike -> middle circle - active missile launched -> center of RWR. the logic seems clear, however it might need some finetuning as in some examples, the symbology was "jumping" from the very center to the very outside in relative quick intervals

tested it with a buddy, note especially the rwr during the time i am low level defending a missile. the "16" is very jumpy

mobettametas_Dogfight_Arena_v1.73.2-20230418-194938.trk

Yeah that’s still very simplistic behaviour that offers no similar situational awareness as the old implementation did.

At the very least the logic should be refined and a step added so that:

When a threat is within lethal range, (I.e not spiking or locking, just within a lethal range) it should move to the inner ring. 

The spiking and missile firing stages can be left as they are. But this additional movement of a threat from the outer ring to the inner ring…..obviously coded based on threat capabilities and it’s signal strength….with inherent range ambiguity if you wish…..is critical to a more closely simulated ALR-56. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by AvroLanc

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, skywalker22 said:

I would say that jumping threat on RWR is caused by RWR lost track with it. You did evasive maneuvers, and RWR came into a blind spot, that's why it lost track, and appeared again when RWR got a signal back. But strange was a moment when the threat appeared for a second on left side of the RWR, although it should be always on the right.

--

Lets go a bit more in depth, using BVR missiles on the same example, and I did some evasive stuff to keep the fight going. Also mission file included.

Now RWR seems to work even better then in the previous example (where AI was only using Fox2 missiles). Only question is, what kind of threats come into inner circle?

@NineLine can you please explain if this is how it really goes, how it should go (as @Moonshineexplained well), or is somehow different?

nails -> outer most circle - spike -> middle circle - active missile launched -> center of RWR

f16_RWR_issue4.trk 3.09 MB · 1 download a2a_f-16_rwr_testing.miz 11.41 kB · 1 download

 

I will flag the tracks with the team as soon as they have time to review. Thanks.

[_SteelFalcon_]

It is also to note that the M for the missile stays in the high threat area close to center even if it has been defeated long ago. It did not do that before. Before you could tell you defeated the missile if the M started „walking“ outwards on the RWR

Edited April 18, 2023 by _SteelFalcon_

[Raptor9]

In the first Top Gun movie, the radar in the backseat of the F-14 was shown to have 360 degree coverage, like an airport radar. In Top Gun Maverick, the F-18 radar was shown in a forward arc, but it pulsed outward like a sonar. I've seen a lot of movies, TV shows, and video games that show radars in similar fashion, in a 360 degree sweep as well as that sonar-like pulse; sometimes both.

    

Years ago, I had a young man try to convince me that the RWR antennas placed around an aircraft was its radar. In his explanation, he explained that an aircraft needed multiple antennas so that it could see in all directions since it couldn't mount a rotating radar like ground-based systems. To him, it seemed to be common sense based on what he had seen in an arcade video game (that I will not name) and the fact the antennas had "RADAR" in their labels painted on their base mounts. Obviously those antennas were not the fire control radar in the nose, but in his mind it was a perfectly logical and sensical explanation based on what he "knew" on the topic.

The reason I bring these things up is the fact that there are a lot of assumptions being thrown around in here about real-world RWR systems; in how they function, what information they provide, the format that information is displayed, and how that information is used. Obviously these systems are sensitive in nature, everyone knows that, and I am not commenting on the realism of the RWR in DCS. But it seems that many individuals are so confidently sure in their logic and personal common sense that they haven't asked themselves: "Could I be wrong? Could the information that drives my opinion be wrong?"

I'm not saying this from any position of righteousness, but as someone that has seen first hand (both with other people and myself) how off the mark a person can be when they don't know what they don't know. If a person's frame of reference is something like Top Gun, and they don't know anything else that would challenge that frame of reference, it is quite possible that anyone saying something otherwise would sound absurd and outside of common sense. And to be clear, I'm not saying anyone in this thread is using Top Gun as their reference, it was just an analogy.

Regarding the F-16 manual. The manual is written to support the use of the module in DCS. When new features come out, or behaviors of existing features change, the manuals require updating. This doesn't happen immediately, but just because the DCS F-16 manual does not reflect an update to Open Beta that came out last week, it does not constitute evidence that anything is wrong.

As it stands, the current logic of the DCS F-16 RWR after the latest Open Beta update is as follows:
1) Outer area of the display: radar threats in search mode.
2) Inner/middle area of the display: radar threats in track mode.
3) Center area of the display: radar threats in missile guidance mode/active radar missiles.

[SubVision]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

In the first Top Gun movie, the radar in the backseat of the F-14 was shown to have 360 degree coverage, like an airport radar. In Top Gun Maverick, the F-18 radar was shown in a forward arc, but it pulsed outward like a sonar. I've seen a lot of movies, TV shows, and video games that show radars in similar fashion, in a 360 degree sweep as well as that sonar-like pulse; sometimes both.

    

Years ago, I had a young man try to convince me that the RWR antennas placed around an aircraft was its radar. In his explanation, he explained that an aircraft needed multiple antennas so that it could see in all directions since it couldn't mount a rotating radar like ground-based systems. To him, it seemed to be common sense based on what he had seen in an arcade video game (that I will not name) and the fact the antennas had "RADAR" in their labels painted on their base mounts. Obviously those antennas were not the fire control radar in the nose, but in his mind it was a perfectly logical and sensical explanation based on what he "knew" on the topic.

The reason I bring these things up is the fact that there are a lot of assumptions being thrown around in here about real-world RWR systems; in how they function, what information they provide, the format that information is displayed, and how that information is used. Obviously these systems are sensitive in nature, everyone knows that, and I am not commenting on the realism of the RWR in DCS. But it seems that many individuals are so confidently sure in their logic and personal common sense that they haven't asked themselves: "Could I be wrong? Could the information that drives my opinion be wrong?"

I'm not saying this from any position of righteousness, but as someone that has seen first hand (both with other people and myself) how off the mark a person can be when they don't know what they don't know. If a person's frame of reference is something like Top Gun, and they don't know anything else that would challenge that frame of reference, it is quite possible that anyone saying something otherwise would sound absurd and outside of common sense. And to be clear, I'm not saying anyone in this thread is using Top Gun as their reference, it was just an analogy.

Regarding the F-16 manual. The manual is written to support the use of the module in DCS. When new features come out, or behaviors of existing features change, the manuals require updating. This doesn't happen immediately, but just because the DCS F-16 manual does not reflect an update to Open Beta that came out last week, it does not constitute evidence that anything is wrong.

As it stands, the current logic of the DCS F-16 RWR after the latest Open Beta update is as follows:
1) Outer area of the display: radar threats in search mode.
2) Inner/middle area of the display: radar threats in track mode.
3) Center area of the display: radar threats in missile guidance mode/active radar missiles.

So 21 century fighter dont have any single chance to estimate distanse to emission source? if enemy radar is tracking in outer circle wont move a nanometer after emission power change? 10$ anti radar for personal car can measure emission power, but 999.999$ radar waring receiver dont have this ability in any single mode just for fun? it's serious development of serious simulator? its complete bull<profanity> and all you sorced should be fired immediately.

[Mr. Wilson]

@NineLine I sent you data from an open source and it is clearly written there that the distance to the emitter is taken into account... What's next?   

[Mr. Wilson]

1 час назад, Raptor9 сказал:

 

As it stands, the current logic of the DCS F-16 RWR after the latest Open Beta update is as follows:
1) Outer area of the display: radar threats in search mode.
2) Inner/middle area of the display: radar threats in track mode.
3) Center area of the display: radar threats in missile guidance mode/active radar missiles.

That is, in all your modules where the RWR takes into account the distance is all science fiction?

[NineLine]

21 minutes ago, Mr. Wilson said:

@NineLine I sent you data from an open source and it is clearly written there that the distance to the emitter is taken into account... What's next?   

One, it's Global Security it's ok to post here, two, I am not sure I would call that a definitive source. Based on what we have and understand, this is not enough to exact any change currently. 

[Raptor9]

37 minutes ago, SubVision said:

So 21 century fighter dont have any single chance to estimate distanse to emission source?

9 minutes ago, Mr. Wilson said:

That is, in all your modules where the RWR takes into account the distance is all science fiction?

Why is it all or nothing? The way an RWR detects threats does not directly equate to how information is displayed on the RWR display itself. Why would one assume all RWR's work the same way?

Btw, sites like Wikipedia, Globalsecurity.org, FAS.org, Deagel.com, etc, they all essentially circular report the same info that are rarely from credible sources.

[SubVision]

6 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Why is it all or nothing? The way an RWR detects threats does not directly equate to how information is displayed on the RWR display itself. Why would one assume all RWR's work the same way?

Btw, sites like Wikipedia, Globalsecurity.org, FAS.org, Deagel.com, etc, they all essentially circular report the same info that are rarely from credible sources.

emission power is a thing that can not be left unmeasured. If you detect signal theres absolutely no way that its power is unknown. So if its known and display can provide this information its impossible that this should not be available to the pilot. Fighter pilots are not made by monkeys unlike some simulators

[GGTharos]

4 minutes ago, SubVision said:

emission power is a thing that can not be left unmeasured. If you detect signal theres absolutely no way that its power is unknown. So if its known and display can provide this information its impossible that this should not be available to the pilot. Fighter pilots are not made by monkeys unlike some simulators

All you know is received power.  And that can vary with a lot of factors, distance of course, and possibly other things like PRF etc, potential amplification or cancellation in the appropriate environment etc.   Power output does not measure distance accurately.

If you want accurate, weapons quality passive tracks you need something like an HTS pod or the raptor's ISR suite.

Edited April 18, 2023 by GGTharos

[SubVision]

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

All you know is received power.  And that can vary with a lot of factors, distance of course, and possibly other things like PRF etc, potential amplification or cancellation in the appropriate environment etc.   Power output does not measure distance accurately.

If you want accurate, weapons quality passive tracks you need something like an HTS pod or the raptor's ISR suite.

 

nobody saying that its accurate. that's information that can be interpreted by the pilot.
it's not like you need to measure +-10 meters distance. But how you can comment inability to know if 1st source is 5nm away and other is 80nm? is it unimportant for pilot?

[Mr. Wilson]

46 минут назад, NineLine сказал:

One, it's Global Security it's ok to post here, two, I am not sure I would call that a definitive source. Based on what we have and understand, this is not enough to exact any change currently. 

I guessed that the answer would be exactly like this... in general, there will be no such nuances and a clear description of the operation of the system in open sources, I wrote to you about this from the very beginning... in the same way, there is not a single confirmation of your theory in the same open sources. We still have sources, this is the f-16.net forum and the BMS game, these data will be authoritative for you ? And it’s also very annoyingly that the basic logic and common sense are not taken into account in any way when modeling systems, while you create a non-existent module on the planet ka-50-3 and there show miracles of flexibility in approaches to the implementation of secret documentation systems about which you cannot have within the framework of the legislation.

[Mr. Wilson]

38 минут назад, SubVision сказал:

nobody saying that its accurate. that's information that can be interpreted by the pilot.
it's not like you need to measure +-10 meters distance. But how you can comment inability to know if 1st source is 5nm away and other is 80nm? is it unimportant for pilot?

23 часа назад, Mr. Wilson сказал:

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?

 

@Raptor9 Please explain, from the point of view of your new logic, how correct it sounds that the device that you are modeling for a dangerous contact says that it is as safe as possible And for the most safe, on the contrary, it says that it is dangerous

[Raptor9]

32 minutes ago, Mr. Wilson said:

@Raptor9 Please explain, from the point of view of your new logic, how correct it sounds that the device that you are modeling for a dangerous contact says that it is as safe as possible And for the most safe, on the contrary, it says that it is dangerous

Is a threat radar that is guiding a missile on toward your aircraft not a more dangerous threat than a radar that is in search mode?

[Mr. Wilson]

8 минут назад, Raptor9 сказал:

Is a threat radar that is guiding a missile on toward your aircraft not a more dangerous threat than a radar that is in search mode?

We're talking about the radar that captured me at 50 miles being displayed near the center while the aircraft at 5-10 miles is displayed at the farthest radius (i.e. it is safe). Do you think this is normal?

[peanuts0441]

42 minutes ago, Mr. Wilson said:

We're talking about the radar that captured me at 50 miles being displayed near the center while the aircraft at 5-10 miles is displayed at the farthest radius (i.e. it is safe). Do you think this is normal?

Yea it is normal, the radar that is actively guiding a missile towards your aircraft is the most dangerous threat, an aircraft that isn't doing anything (whether it is closer) is not a threat

Once the closer aircraft starts tracking you, it will show up around the center of the RWR display as well

Also 50mi is well within range of some missiles, so it makes sense that even that far out an aircraft tracking you is considered a threat, AIM-120D for example can definitely be fired from that sort of range & the AIM-7 can also achieve that range under specific conditions and most surface to air missiles have that range too

2 hours ago, SubVision said:

emission power is a thing that can not be left unmeasured. If you detect signal theres absolutely no way that its power is unknown. So if its known and display can provide this information its impossible that this should not be available to the pilot. 

Also without making it too complicated, the F22's RWR (AN/ALR-94) uses this exact method to determine range to a target, but it requires way more data than just emission power

The F22's RWR alone can provide enough information for a Single Target Track

[Mr. Wilson]

5 минут назад, peanuts0441 сказал:

Yea it is normal, the radar that is actively guiding a missile towards your aircraft is the most dangerous threat, an aircraft that isn't doing anything (whether it is closer) is not a threat

Where did you read about missile guidance from me? please read carefully, it was not there

[_SteelFalcon_]

5 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

As it stands, the current logic of the DCS F-16 RWR after the latest Open Beta update is as follows:
1) Outer area of the display: radar threats in search mode.
2) Inner/middle area of the display: radar threats in track mode.
3) Center area of the display: radar threats in missile guidance mode/active radar missiles

Based on what does the DCS RWR now assign the priority of threats if multiple emitters are in track mode yet none have launched? Proximity/signal strenght? Emitter type? Both? None?

Is the position of the emitter within 1 area of the RWR always the same or, since it is an Area and not a fixed stage, does the position vary within said area based on any sort of information and if so, what‘s the criteria?

Edited April 19, 2023 by _SteelFalcon_

[peanuts0441]

1 hour ago, Mr. Wilson said:

Where did you read about missile guidance from me? please read carefully, it was not there

Ok I didn't see that part

But even without any active launch, an aircraft that has a lock on you is still more dangerous than an aircraft that isn't locked on to you

The aircraft that is locked on to you can fire a missile at any point with high accuracy, while an aircraft that isnt locked either has to use a firing solution which doesn't require a lock (which has a lesser chance of being successful), or it has to first get a lock and then fire (more time required)

It's also done for better situational awareness

[MARLAN_]

I personally can't wait until realistic error is built into the RWR making it realistically less omniscient/perfect (including the F-18 RWR too of course)