need track replay Please fix the RWR so emitters don't move with the plane

[SickSidewinder9]

What I mean to say is, if you change compass heading, the emitter stays in the same spot on the RWR as though it was moving with you.  It used to work normally.  At some point it started working wrong, people have mentioned this, and it hasn't been fixed.  How did QA not notice this is a problem?  How would that even happen?  It works correctly showing the priority emitter in the helmet mounted display.  It's like the code for this plane is mushy ramen and no one who worked on it talked to anyone who worked on the Hornet.  It's long past time to fix the weird inconstancies between the two.

Edited February 23 by SickSidewinder9

[NineLine]

You know I want to help you, but these posts are very rude. Please include a track, evidence and I will take a look but please post bugs with all the info required such as tracks and without all the extra insults and jabs. Please. 

[Voy]

4 hours ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

What I mean to say is, if you change compass heading, the emitter stays in the same spot on the RWR as though it was moving with you.  It used to work normally.  At some point it started working wrong, people have mentioned this, and it hasn't been fixed.  How did QA not notice this is a problem?  How would that even happen?  It works correctly showing the priority emitter in the helmet mounted display.  It's like the code for this plane is mushy ramen and no one who worked on it talked to anyone who worked on the Hornet.  It's long past time to fix the weird inconstancies between the two.

 

As far as I can remember, the symbols always acted as they do now, I made a post in wishlist about it a while ago. So I don't think it ever worked "normally".

Regardless, I'm also of the opinion that emitter azimuth should update when aircraft heading is changed, not just when that emitter scans the aircraft again. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will show up with publicly available documents saying so, it is more of a common sense thing.

 

[SickSidewinder9]

On 2/23/2024 at 6:47 PM, Voy said:

As far as I can remember, the symbols always acted as they do now, I made a post in wishlist about it a while ago. So I don't think it ever worked "normally".

Regardless, I'm also of the opinion that emitter azimuth should update when aircraft heading is changed, not just when that emitter scans the aircraft again. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will show up with publicly available documents saying so, it is more of a common sense thing.

 

No, it used to show the location of the emitter and not move with the plane.

[Lord Vader]

Hi @SickSidewinder9

We will require a replay track example of this occurring.

[SickSidewinder9]

13 hours ago, Lord Vader said:

Hi @SickSidewinder9

We will require a replay track example of this occurring.

I'll see what I can do

[WHOGX5]

On 2/24/2024 at 2:47 AM, Voy said:

As far as I can remember, the symbols always acted as they do now, I made a post in wishlist about it a while ago. So I don't think it ever worked "normally".

Regardless, I'm also of the opinion that emitter azimuth should update when aircraft heading is changed, not just when that emitter scans the aircraft again. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will show up with publicly available documents saying so, it is more of a common sense thing.

 

Well, I think that the thread that you yourself created in the past (linked below) where you found flashcards regarding the AN/ALR-56M is very solid proof, even though it's only based on a document and not the document itself. There is such a large amount information in those flashcards that are verifiably correct, that I think it's safe to say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that all of the information in those flashcards is correct, including the part which states that the AN/ALR-56M uses navigation data to update emitter symbol positioning during maneuvering.

[Viper33]

The 56M is pretty wrong in DCS.

[BIGNEWY]

Please PM any public evidence to me. What we have now is very accurate based on available references.

thank you 

[Voy]

Since OP never attached a track of the issue, I'll provide one and be as clear as possible of what the issue is.

Issue: Symbols on the RWR's azimuth indicator do not change their position while the aircraft is maneuvering. In fact, aircraft heading is not taken into consideration when displaying emitter symbols. The only way emitter azimuth is updated is when the emitter scans the aircraft again with their radar. This means if the emitter has a slow scan rate, or is placed into the RWR's blind spot, the symbol will stop moving entirely until the emitter is re-detected.

Expected Behavior: Symbol azimuth should update when aircraft heading is changed.

See this thread explaining why this is a little more than just a hunch.

Until the ED Team explicitly says that this behavior is correct, we'll continue to assume this is a bug due to how much of a huge oversight this would be in the real aircraft, given how it is a huge hit to situational awareness, and being able to properly defend against radar threats.

F-16 RWR Symbols While Turning.trk

[Lord Vader]

Thanks for the track @Voy

If you read above,@BIGNEWY actually said the current behaviour is "correct based on available sources". I don't think we could be more clear.

Again, we would require publicly available documented evidence that the RWR contacts should rotate with the plane's own rotation. We can't commit to changes that just "sound" logic for the users. Unfortunately, flashcards are not an accurate source for our simulation. 

[skywalker22]

@Voy sorry, but thats one strange test indeed, it does not show anything, we can't even see where you are heading, you are just spiraling downwards. For the contact to show correctly on the azimuth display, it surely needs some "steady" time/reading from the sensors. If you are constantly in the motion, it is just impossible to show it correctly.

Anyway, I tested RWR a couple of days ago, and as far the contact is not in the blind spot, it is shown correctly on the IP-1310 azimuth display.

Btw, does anyone know what the blind spot angle on top/beneath the plane is? Based on my tests it seems the sensors cover 120deg on each side (so 240deg in total). Which means the blind spots are 60deg on top and 60deg beneath the plane. Am I correct?

Edited April 1 by skywalker22

[Voy]

On 3/4/2024 at 12:52 PM, skywalker22 said:

@Voy sorry, but thats one strange test indeed, it does not show anything, we can't even see where you are heading, you are just spiraling downwards. For the contact to show correctly on the azimuth display, it surely needs some "steady" time/reading from the sensors. If you are constantly in the motion, it is just impossible to show it correctly.

Anyway, I tested RWR a couple of days ago, and as far the contact is not in the blind spot, it is shown correctly on the IP-1310 azimuth display.

Btw, does anyone know what the blind spot angle on top/beneath the plane is? Based on my tests it seems the sensors cover 120deg on each side (so 240deg in total). Which means the blind spots are 60deg on top and 60deg beneath the plane. Am I correct?

Check track attached, it seems quite right.

f-16_rwr_angles.trk 1.99 MB · 2 downloads

 

I'm not sure what you mean... I think you might be confused what this thread is about.

[SickSidewinder9]

Did an instant action mission on PG map since it seemed like something where I could get SAMs to shoot at me.  RWR emitter position does seem to update faster now, but not as fast as I'm moving.  RWR display in HMD updates in real time.  It should be showing the direction the antennae are triangulating in real time, no?  I am aware that sometimes it is dropping because of the blind spot straight up and down.  That is not what I'm talking about.  I'll try to get a track of the Hornet RWR display and you'll see what I mean.  I don't understand why the Hornet and Viper RWR displays would work so differently since they're literally the same device IRL, right?  You guys don't build objects or API's on the back end that have a certain amount of universal functionality to get plugged into the appropriate modules?  Is that why we still don't see wind info in the Hornet but do in the Viper?

rwr lag.trk

[SickSidewinder9]

Same mission.  Hornet.  Notice how the direction of the SA-6 radar is moving much more smoothly as I change direction.  Practically in real time other than when it enters the blind spot.  Although there is one point where it gets a little wacky and shows it somewhere else, but maybe that's a real effect?  You can see in both that I am checking to map to confirm, in the first, that the direction displayed is wrong/not updating fast enough, and in the second, is correct.

These aircraft would be using more or less the same hardware, no?

rwr not lagging.trk

[SickSidewinder9]

And regardless of whether or not the RWR uses aircraft INS data, if the plane is being continuously illuminated by an enemy missile guidance radar, the RWR emitter symbol would be smoothly and continuously updated for it's direction since the system is getting a continuous signal.

So don't tell me there's no evidence of a bug when that is certainly not what is happening in the Viper.

I understand sweep time may cause some delays, but that wouldn't be an issue with some kind of launch guidance signal from a command guidance or SARH system.

As the system works now in the Viper, but not in the Hornet, the position of the emitter firing at you doesn't update anywhere near quickly enough to work and it ruins my SA and therefore my chance of evading the missile.

And isn't the Hornet using essentially the same system?  So why is there such a big difference between the 2 planes?  There isn't a single RWR class for them to both use on the back end?

[SickSidewinder9]

Or, if the RWR on the Viper really does work that way, and this is an accurate representation of errors and delays of the system, is the Hornet RWR so meaningfully different?  They are the same generation, technologically, no?

[SickSidewinder9]

Also, was the target firing at me even moving toward the middle of the display?  I honestly can't remember right now other than that it seems to show a scanning E3 as the same priority/power ring as an enemy type SAM system scanning.  An E3 and an SA11 shouldn't be shown as the same level of priority unless the sa11 is far enough away for the signal to be very weak.

[Viper33]

On 3/3/2024 at 3:58 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Please PM any public evidence to me. What we have now is very accurate based on available references.

thank you 

The HAF -1 should be more than sufficient for this as it clearly discribes how the system works in its fundamental form. 

Edited March 17 by Viper33

[BIGNEWY]

42 minutes ago, Viper33 said:

The HAF -1 should be more than sufficient for this as it clearly discribibes how the system works in its fundamental form. 

Not a discussion for here as it is a restricted manual, If you do have unrestricted and unclassified evidence please PM me 

thank you 

[Viper33]

40 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Not a discussion for here as it is a restricted manual, If you do have unrestricted and unclassified evidence please PM me 

thank you 

Then what unresticted source did you use for the Viper? I DM'd you something - if you can get me in touch with the devs working on said system I'd be happy to assist.

Edited March 17 by Viper33

[BIGNEWY]

11 minutes ago, Viper33 said:

Then what unresticted source did you use for the Viper? I DM'd you something - if you can get me in touch with the devs working on said system I'd be happy to assist.

 

Hi, 

I replied to your DM, I didnt see any evidence that it wasn't correct.

thank you  

[_Hoss]

The ALR-67 is connected to the Quad Reciever, the Quad receiver is connected to four antennas, two in each wingtip. One on the leading edge one on the trailing edge, that cover 360⁰. The Quad Reciever is basically a signal multiplexer that takes those received RF signal and sorts them to range and bearing to your plane in real-time space. The ALR-67's threat library tells you what type of threat it is and it's priority. Think of the RWR indicator as a moving map display with you in the center. It's constantly moving in relation to yor position in the battle space.

AT1(AW/SW) USN ret.... 1977-1997... DECM technician W/C 64C.

[Tholozor]

3 hours ago, _Hoss said:

The ALR-67 is connected to the Quad Reciever, the Quad receiver is connected to four antennas, two in each wingtip. One on the leading edge one on the trailing edge, that cover 360⁰. The Quad Reciever is basically a signal multiplexer that takes those received RF signal and sorts them to range and bearing to your plane in real-time space. The ALR-67's threat library tells you what type of threat it is and it's priority. Think of the RWR indicator as a moving map display with you in the center. It's constantly moving in relation to yor position in the battle space.

AT1(AW/SW) USN ret.... 1977-1997... DECM technician W/C 64C.

This version of the F-16 uses the ALR-56.

[_Hoss]

Same principle.