SPO15 feedback

[AeriaGloria]

21 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please stop ignoring what is being said, we have said many times if there is new data we can look at we are happy to. 

If the blanker removed becomes default option so it shows F category signals within 25-40 km and other signals as secondary beyond that range with radar on, I think many people will be happy. Make the ME triggerable option the ability to have the blanker on, or atleast make it click box option In normal spawn tab without setting up a trigger 

[Pavlin_33]

13 hours ago, okopanja said:

He flew without a wingman.

At Ponikve Air Base on April 6th there was a single Mig-29 with 2 pilots: Boro Zoraja and Dragan Milenković.

No need to answer to his posts: they are based on nothing and just making random assumptions. I am not really sure what he's trying to do.

[Кош]

14 часов назад, Logan54 сказал:

This is what I m talking about, there could be more then 1 truth. But ED think that should be only their truth. This is what we have here.
I read about 29 a lot, but never seen any SPO limitations. For me main source is russian manuals and I also checked different american and german articles and books.
When you read real docs and then go to DCS and understand that you not able to comply the way of how 29 should be used, this is generate this long threads.
I also want to check russian test pilots memoirs, to figure out.

Truth can be only one.

[AeriaGloria]

You are sitting on an option that would be realistic and make people happy, please make it default with blanker removed or atleast a check box item for slots. I think you will see a lot of happy people if they can see F category signals of search or scan type with radar on………and it’s perfectly realistic 

 

Having the blanker wire removed was perhaps not a defect! 
 

Make your wishes known! 
 

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/381927-

 

 

Edited November 24 by AeriaGloria

[Harlikwin]

On 11/22/2025 at 7:12 AM, Кош said:

Cool down.

Meanwhile, I've found that KJ1 is polled with checks if it's polling frequency is not drifting, and compensates timing errors against...something. Also KJ1(Blank SPO-15) and KJ5(Radar malfunction) are polled with separate logic from anything else, and, so far, seems to be connected to a signal that becomes the IZP signal in the sync block(turned out IZP passes through sync block but not originates in it).

Problem is everything change names from scheme to scheme. I'm still figuring out...

Yeah, at least based on the ED diagrams posted from 3 different sources, 1 with nothing connected, another with something with a specific pin 4, and the 3rd an unrelated power diagram that wouldn't bother showing stuff like synch circuits I have serious doubts about their interpretation of all of this.

Most likely the No19 "blank signal" is going to some intermediary device that is likely triggering the SPO15, ED mentions it at one point I think, but I forget what its called. 

Also I'm pretty sure the 40ms thing is either a very specific timing related to band switching (according to the text, its 100% about band switching) but it doesn't mean other timings couldn't be used for blanking. Most actual band switch relays would be somewhat faster than that, but there may be AGC timing stuff that needs to settle down, relays are on the order 10-20ms for this specific type of switching. 

But ofc a blanking signal could easily operate at much much higher on/off speeds as its not relay driven.

[Кош]

7 часов назад, Harlikwin сказал:

Yeah, at least based on the ED diagrams posted from 3 different sources, 1 with nothing connected, another with something with a specific pin 4, and the 3rd an unrelated power diagram that wouldn't bother showing stuff like synch circuits I have serious doubts about their interpretation of all of this.

Most likely the No19 "blank signal" is going to some intermediary device that is likely triggering the SPO15, ED mentions it at one point I think, but I forget what its called. 

Also I'm pretty sure the 40ms thing is either a very specific timing related to band switching (according to the text, its 100% about band switching) but it doesn't mean other timings couldn't be used for blanking. Most actual band switch relays would be somewhat faster than that, but there may be AGC timing stuff that needs to settle down, relays are on the order 10-20ms for this specific type of switching. 

But ofc a blanking signal could easily operate at much much higher on/off speeds as its not relay driven.

To be blanked SPO needs a purely logical low voltage low amp signal to 2 gate "macrochips" hehe.

How it's made. Central computer talks with everything via block 35M, and then via several async buses and external IO ports. SPO is connected to external IO port of block 35M. 

Computer sets all controls in this IO block but they are read or sent to devices they are destined for at the pace of sync signals from one of sync blocks which provide different clockings for everything.

Blocking signal scheme has states: "erase" - sent by computer, "start filling" "end filling" - basically it just writes a 1 into the register. And then there is "Broadcast" that is directed by something I can't find yet. But this "Broadcast" is sent not by computer. And has temperature drifting frequency correction. And latency compensation. Also, block tests if signals set by computer are polled. If not, they are sent at computer pace as a backup. It's complicated because half of stuff that interests us is "Here not shown for brevity", or "obvious and hence omitted".

[TOMCATZ]

Hello,

I´m very very happy with the MiG29 and I really enjoy that aircraft. But the obvoisly not working SPO15 (intended or not) makes this lovely nice aircraft pretty much UN-USEABLE against other fighters. 

I just try to be logical here:

1. The Soviets buildt an aircraft that can`t detect threats or defend himself as soon as the radar is turned on? 

2. If I can`t detect any incomming threats, why does every AI MiG-29 or AI Flanker defend enemy radar missiles? And why then every MiG-23 and MiG-21 can detect AMRAAMs as well even with their Radar on?  

So if there is a rule, that rule should be law to all competitors. 

Cheers

TOM

[Flyout]

On 11/24/2025 at 11:58 AM, Pavlin_33 said:

No need to answer to his posts: they are based on nothing and just making random assumptions. I am not really sure what he's trying to do.

My posts are based on studying various aircraft manuals, of which I have many. I don't write unfounded, emotional posts, as some do.

[Flyout]

2 hours ago, TOMCATZ said:

1. The Soviets buildt an aircraft that can`t detect threats or defend himself as soon as the radar is turned on? 

Why does this surprise you? Soviet doctrine differed significantly from American doctrine and envisioned constant ground control of aircraft. From the ground, the group lead was told who to attack, who to defend against, and so on—assuming, of course, the enemy was within ground radar coverage.

Furthermore, MiG-25 interceptors and even Su-33 aircraft didn't have any RWR systems at all.
 

2 hours ago, TOMCATZ said:

2. If I can`t detect any incomming threats, why does every AI MiG-29 or AI Flanker defend enemy radar missiles? And why then every MiG-23 and MiG-21 can detect AMRAAMs as well even with their Radar on?  

That's a very good point. I hope they'll remove the all-seeing RWR system from the AIs.

 

[Pavlin_33]

On 11/26/2025 at 12:12 PM, TOMCATZ said:

1. The Soviets buildt an aircraft that can`t detect threats or defend himself as soon as the radar is turned on? 

They didn't hence why so many posts on this thread.

Edited Thursday at 09:54 AM by Pavlin_33

[AeriaGloria]

AIM-7 is a very smoky missile! 

[Logan54]

В 26.11.2025 в 14:43, Flyout сказал:

Furthermore, MiG-25 interceptors and even Su-33 aircraft didn't have any RWR systems at all.

MiG-25P was build for high speed target intercept scenario. It was not build for dogfighting. Btw, Iraqy 25`s had SPO installed, if you will find iraqi MiG-25 pilot report, there is mention about enemy lock. MiG-25BM and RB versions also had SPO.
Su-33 was finalized in service and if you have old cockpit pics w/o SPO this not means that it was not installed on final Su-33. Also there were 2 types of SPO on Su-33.
MiG-29 was designed as air superiority fighter, with secondary AG task. It was designed mainly for dogfighting.
R-27R rocket was designed to defeat AIM-7 via radiocorrection stage, that should let the pilot to do 1st shoot from bigger distance. 
But this SPO blanking is somethig that was not noticed by any public data I had read. And people fairly ask what caused this restriction in the game.

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, Logan54 said:

But this SPO blanking is somethig that was not noticed by any public data I had read. And people fairly ask what caused this restriction in the game.

We have shown you the data you missed in your search here on the forum, we have clearly shown why it works the way it does in DCS, I am waiting for data to show us otherwise. I am happy to look at data and show the team. 

thank you 

[AeriaGloria]

Not aware of second Su-33 RWR you mention. I think the first piece of public data that made me go “oh no” was the manual warning of RWR chaos and the British tornado dogfight report saying “they jammed their own RWR.” 
 

Pastel was always intended for MiG-29/Su-27 family. But it also doesn’t show missile launch warning. 

Edited yesterday at 08:07 AM by AeriaGloria

[okopanja]

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

We have shown you the data you missed in your search here on the forum, we have clearly shown why it works the way it does in DCS, I am waiting for data to show us otherwise. I am happy to look at data and show the team. 

thank you 

We thank you for the effort and passion in bringing this module to us. It's certainly one of the most visually enjoyable modules.

Still I am wondering why:

- technical documentation is not in full alignment on the matter (if i got it right we are still here in domain of several probabilities),

- there are non technical testimonies that are also not in full alignment.

I must say this irks me, I kind of expect the these things to fit in(akin to what @Kosh said about a single truth), and they clearly don't.

I know the company has it's own realities and has simply to move on, but still for me personally this is one permanent question mark.