SPO15 feedback

[ASW]

I'm reading this topic with great interest. I'm well versed in Soviet civil aviation, especially navigation systems, but I'm not an expert on military aviation. The MiG-29 was my dream plane since the mid-1990s, and I even bought a SEGA just for it. As for the level of electronics in the USSR, I got a color TV in the early 1990s. Nowadays, due to sanctions, Russian-made cars don't have ABS, automatic transmissions, or airbags. They don't even have electric windows. Therefore, I trust the DCS developers. You have to fly, enjoy, and learn how to use what you have.

[primus_TR]

3 hours ago, ASW said:

I'm reading this topic with great interest. I'm well versed in Soviet civil aviation, especially navigation systems, but I'm not an expert on military aviation. The MiG-29 was my dream plane since the mid-1990s, and I even bought a SEGA just for it. As for the level of electronics in the USSR, I got a color TV in the early 1990s. Nowadays, due to sanctions, Russian-made cars don't have ABS, automatic transmissions, or airbags. They don't even have electric windows. Therefore, I trust the DCS developers. You have to fly, enjoy, and learn how to use what you have.

If you have any materials related to the SPO15 and its operation in real life vs the implementation in DCS, please feel free to share them also. 

[Кош]

10 часов назад, Muchocracker сказал:

From the most recent wags video https://youtu.be/HyiWR8UYfS4

 

 

And other version of MiG-29 has toilet and hyper drive. Guys this is not a serious talk. If you have PRF vs Blanking timeline diagram proving your point please show it.

[sylkhan]

SPO is designed to not react to friendly radar (SAMs, Fighters...), but in DCS all friendly radar are a threat ?
I know that SPO can sometime do mistake (friendly as a threat) but it's all the time.
In fact for me this SPO has no utility, or i am missing something.
If at least it can do the difference between enemy or friend radar emission, i think it's a minimum.
It's for the 2 modes (automatic & stock WP)

Edited Sunday at 01:20 PM by sylkhan

[Yurec.orl]

7 часов назад, ASW сказал:

Nowadays, due to sanctions, Russian-made cars don't have ABS, automatic transmissions, or airbags. They don't even have electric windows.

This is not only a very poor argument on the topic of this thread - it's not even accurate information.

[AeriaGloria]

5 hours ago, sylkhan said:

SPO is designed to not react to friendly radar (SAMs, Fighters...), but in DCS all friendly radar are a threat ?
I know that SPO can sometime do mistake (friendly as a threat) but it's all the time.
In fact for me this SPO has no utility, or i am missing something.
If at least it can do the difference between enemy or friend radar emission, i think it's a minimum.
It's for the 2 modes (automatic & stock WP)

SPO will still show radars it does not recognize just not categorize them and thus give them very low priority. Then there are many radars it might confuse as enemy 

[sylkhan]

ah ok, i see, thx  @AeriaGloria 

Edited 5 hours ago by sylkhan

[zerO_crash]

On 10/5/2025 at 11:23 AM, primus_TR said:

If you have any materials related to the SPO15 and its operation in real life vs the implementation in DCS, please feel free to share them also. 

 

I cannot check this right now, as I'm on Mi-24P documentation. Let it be said though; don't get top frisky with posting documents, or else, you'll quickly learn of ITAR! At best, if someone wants to contribute specific information, unless you know that you are NOT violating ITAR, then reference document number and page. No pictures or extracts.

 

Also, I've said before on the Mi-24/Mi-8 forums, people forget that there are discrepancies between manuals and real world operation/outfit. This is not unique to the Soviet Union. Not long ago, I had it confirmed by a SME (former OH-58 pilot) that US army had lower MTOW than what the manual specifically stated, and that limitation was only circulated by complementary internal documents. Hence, it is not enough to point to the manual - you actually want an SME or former pilot to confirm or not, what was actually going on in the cockpit. This is especially true, if you understand the history behind MiG-29 pilot training. There were no unified manuals. Rather, IP were trained at Mikoyan, and then got certified to teach military pilots. The manuals were literally written individually by pilots themselves, as they went through the course of training. That already poses challenges.

 

That said, a more elaborate answer will come, I'm sure. I'll look for any info. in my docs.

Edited 4 hours ago by zerO_crash

[Harlikwin]

9 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

I cannot check this right now, as I'm on Mi-24P documentation. Let it be said though; don't get top frisky with posting documents, or else, you'll quickly learn of ITAR! At best, if someone wants to contribute specific information, unless you know that you are NOT violating ITAR, then reference document number and page. No pictures or extracts.

 

Also, I've said before on the Mi-24/Mi-8 forums, people forget that there are discrepancies between manuals and real world operation/outfit. This is not unique to the Soviet Union. Not long ago, I had it confirmed by a SME (former OH-58 pilot) that US army had lower MTOW than what the manual specifically stated, and that limitation was only circulated by complementary internal documents. Hence, it is not enough to point to the manual - you actually want an SME or former pilot to confirm or not, what was actually going on in the cockpit. This is especially true, if you understand the history behind MiG-29 pilot training. There were no unified manuals. Rather, IP were trained at Mikoyan, and then got certified to teach military pilots. The manuals were literally written individually by pilots themselves, as they went through the course of training. That already poses challenges.

 

That said, a more elaborate answer will come, I'm sure. I'll look for any info. in my docs.

Well, ITAR probably doesn't apply to documents from soviet times as its a US/NATO thing. Plus almost all of these are sitting in a library somewhere. But yeah probably run it by the mods if you aren't sure. 

[zerO_crash]

51 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Well, ITAR probably doesn't apply to documents from soviet times as its a US/NATO thing. Plus almost all of these are sitting in a library somewhere. But yeah probably run it by the mods if you aren't sure. 

 

ED treats sensitive documentation from both sides the same way. I had some documents that I wanted to post on the RU-side some one year ago, maybe less, and after contacting Chizh about it specifically, was recommended against it for the exact reason of ITAR. ED doesn't care about whether the document is found anywhere. As you post it, you are also obliged to show either a stamp along with the document allowing for public distribution, or eventually, make sure that it is not confidential. In addition to this, you need to make sure that the document is not newer than 1980s. 1.16 is fairly strictly enforced on both sides.

[Mainstay]

So will we see an improved version of the RWR system with launch detection and working continues instead of the “thing” we have now?

Realism is nice but since this is a sim it should be balanced as well.
I for one are really frustrated with the fact I don’t know when being fired at… don’t get proper warnings all the time while we have a whole fleet of modules that have a balanced suite of RWR systems unlike the real thing…. 
 

It just doesn’t make sense to put a brilliant module like the fulcrum in the DCS skies with such a weird choice of handicapping. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Mainstay

[Muchocracker]

The fact that it's a sim is why it is not "balanced". This is how the SPO-15LM worked. 

Pointing to other systems in the game is not an argument. ED themselves have said the SPO-15LM model will carry over into DCS core as a new standard for RWR simulation

Edited 2 hours ago by Muchocracker

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, Mainstay said:

So will we see an improved version of the RWR system with launch detection and working continues instead of the “thing” we have now?

Realism is nice but since this is a sim it should be balanced as well.
I for one are really frustrated with the fact I don’t know when being fired at… don’t get proper warnings all the time while we have a whole fleet of modules that have a balanced suite of RWR systems unlike the real thing…. 
 

It just doesn’t make sense to put a brilliant module like the fulcrum in the DCS skies with such a weird choice of handicapping. 

Read far enough back in this thread. You are not getting launch warning. Treat every lock as possible launch 

[primus_TR]

54 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

ED themselves have said the SPO-15LM model will carry over into DCS core as a new standard for RWR simulation

Now that would be the day. The number of folks complaining about the SPO15 would be far fewer, if blue also had realistic RWR. 

[Thirsty]

20 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Read far enough back in this thread. You are not getting launch warning. Treat every lock as possible launch 

For all the people whom have been flying MiG-21s and Hinds, (SPO-10 my beloved) not getting a launch warning is not a problem I think
 

31 minutes ago, primus_TR said:

Now that would be the day. The number of folks complaining about the SPO15 would be far fewer, if blue also had realistic RWR. 

And I hope this function will be pushed to all modules, inculding blue and red, so the case of the Magic RWRs that we have in most jets would not be the case anymore.

But sadly as for, that the RWR just not even possible to use, since it gives back constant lock tone from a ground search radar that is on the friendly side 100 plus KM away is absurd.

And this mixed with the unserviced SPO that can't work with a radar emitting (while it should, even if the reading could be chaotic in HPRF, but not even in MPRF there should be no problem)
and I don't want to get into details here about the R-27R API bug where the enemy rolls and the missile stop tracking, since this topic is about the SPO.

This things are core functions that needs to be fixed, since as for now other than enjoying the MiG in a traning server (what I have been doing greatly) you can't take it anywhere to fly in a digital combat setting, what ruins the point of a combat flight simulator.