correct as-is RWR Emitter Power/Range

[TobiasA]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb 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)

This. Currently realism differs from module to module. We need HTS and the hornets HARM TOO is about as precise as that. Mavs have a limited power on time in the A-10, other modules don't care. There is a buggy mav alignment on the Viper, which other modules do not need. The TGP is the next issue with the litening pod being on many planes, now the RWR.

Or the thing with changing laser codes on bombs mid-flight.

It feels like different standards of realistic exist in the same company.

Some consistency would be nice, and precision which plays an important role in real life is underrepresented in DCS. The HTS pod is a nice example for that, however it is a bit strange that only some modules "suffer" from inaccuracies. 

I would like to see those realistic deviations on all the FF modules.

Edited April 19, 2023 by TobiasA

[Moonshine]

Interestingly, that one manual that has RWR information in it of a previous RWR version built in block 50 C/D did have so called „range rings“ (25nm and 50+nm).

this alone indicates that measuring range was possible even with an older version of the RWR.

however and rightfully so, someone came up with the reason that range alone isnt the only factor on how „dangerous“ something is. Hence the newer version does work with target priorities as explained by raptor.

is it too bold of an assumption that the range measuring „feature“ is added on top of that „priority“ feature to not only display „level of danger“ but also position the indicator accordingly on the RWR (2 identical emitter, both tracking my jet, yet one much closer to the inner ring than the other due to distance)? 
 

pre update the RWR felt like this was the case. The current one not so much

while i understand the exact function of the system itself to be confidential, simply "connecting the dots" based on the little information available of the arl 56m and the info on previous RWR, it does seem less like a "lucky guess" in modelling that, more an educated one. and ED did go down that road with other systems too which surely is the right approach

Edited April 19, 2023 by Moonshine

[NineLine]

4 hours ago, Mr. Wilson said:

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.

I assumed we were heading that way, no, no BMS is a game and we are not modelling another game. We cannot verify anything in that any more than we can on any other game. We are doing our best to model the real-world aircraft without Frankensteining it too much, or guessing, assuming to fill in gaps. BMS, War Thunder, etc etc all have set their level of simulation, they set the limits they are willing to go, the limits they are willing to fill in here or arcade there, we have our own rules we live by. 

You continue to insult instead of being able to provide real evidence, even a real-world SME comes on and tries to give some insight without stepping over the line it's met with disbelief or just plain ignored. So looking at the last few posts I see we are not going anywhere, you are all convinced based on your own "common sense" so I will leave this thread as it is.

If you have definitive proof of your beliefs you can send them to us via PM, the source must be valid and legal. At this point I am closing this thread, if someone does come back with some valid info I will reopen it and let everyone know. 

Thanks for your efforts so far, I know you are all passionate about creating the most realistic Viper possible, and so are we, sadly we have rules and guidelines to live by for what gets added and what does not. After all, you answered really your own concerns here:

Quote

in general, there will be no such nuances and a clear description of the operation of the system in open sources

One last thing, the comparisons to the Ka-50 are a little silly for the very reasons you list. But we have people with deep knowledge of a great many things when it comes to this and we feel we gave users/customers something, in general, we would not be able to give, which is a fierce Ru attack Helo within the rules and laws we must abide by in each and every country around. 

We do appreciate the efforts here, but we are not getting anywhere new now. Our DMs are always open.

Thanks
The ED Team

[Rei]

So It seems that regardless of range of the pitbull missile, the missile will always be extremely close to the center in my RWR. 

I believe this is intentional. The inner circle on the F-16C RWR is intended to be a “Critical Zone”, so anything inside that circle is an immediate threat to the aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[skywalker22]

The AN/ALR-56M RWR is not designed to directly measure the distance (range)to a threat. For this there are other systems onboard aircraft. Instead, it detects and analyzes the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the threat's radar system, and uses that information to determine the location and type of the threat. RWR uses a technique called direction finding (DF) to determine the direction of the incoming radar signals. This is typically accomplished using a combination of multiple antennas and triangulation.

ps: current DCS version of ALR-56M works way more accurate then it used to be in the past, although it's less practical.

Edited April 30, 2023 by skywalker22

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb skywalker22:

For this there are other systems onboard aircraft.

Btw what are these sytems on F16 and F18? Never really found much evidence about that, but I also havent looked too much into RWR/EW stuff either.

[skywalker22]

FCR - main radar (but not for missiles). For missiles, for example, some of F-16 have AN/AAR-47 system onboard (not block 50 which we have in DCS), that the MWS toggle switch

[Chain_1]

2 hours ago, Temetre said:

Btw what are these sytems on F16 and F18?

The Mk 1 Eyeball.

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb skywalker22:

FCR - main radar (but not for missiles). For missiles, for example, some of F-16 have AN/AAR-47 system onboard (not block 50 which we have in DCS), that the MWS toggle switch

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Chain_1:

The Mk 1 Eyeball.

Oh, so thats what that switch is for (on better F-16 variant)^^

Aight thx, guess well have to weight for the Eurofighter and the wondrous MAWS  

Assuming the F-15E doesnt got some of that stuff that is.

[Prime]

Bottom line why does the ALR-56M on the F-16 use 3 staged method of Search, Track and Launch for the rings. It does not use signal strength to determine lethality like the other sets modeled in DCS? The ALR-56M that the F-16 came with at launch acted like it's other ALR brothers but in recent updates it performs differently. These clips are straight from the DCS Manuals.

It doesn't make much sense to be merged with a Fulcrum for it to show up on the outer perimeter just because their radar is searching and not tracking you.

Why is that?

 

F-15E ALR-56C

 

 

 

 

 

A-10C ALR-69

 

 

 

 

F-16C ALR-56M

Edited July 30, 2023 by Prime

[rob10]

You might want to wander through this thread (especially the later pages).  Fair bit of discussion on this topic:

 

[Prime]

5 minutes ago, rob10 said:

You might want to wander through this thread (especially the later pages).  Fair bit of discussion on this topic:

 

Oh thanks. Reading now. Good to see that I am not the only one.