Request for a legacy SPO-15 realism option

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/1402701497678168084/1427363998382162000

Development Highlights on official Discord

Thanks pretty much just related the change log note 

 

“

• The detection range now depends on radar peak power not its own detection range, older radars will be detected from further away purely because they use higher peak power to compensate for bad processing and low PRF (and it's the peak power that matters for this device not the average, average power matters for the radar, not the RWR).
• Directivity patterns now are simulated, so the FOV of each sector changes with signal power and thus range - at low signal power there are deadzones at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock, at high signal power you will have like 3 sectors lit by the same signal
• At high signal power level, particularly against slow-scanning radars you will see the effect of side lobes passing over (either multiple pings, or visible gradual increase and then drop in power level as evidenced by additional sectors lighting up and dropping while the sector closest to source stays lit)
• Radar scan period is now replicated
• SPO-10 will reject any radar with PRF below 780
• Radars with PRF below 8000 will have their detection range drop with the increase of PRF
• CW radars (Hawk) will not be detected”

[=MiG=karapus78]

20 hours ago, Thirsty said:

And again, then what about this few just as a quick example:

 

Plus all the magical RWRs, these are all "casual" when it comes to your term.
int, all of this should be removed as well?

This is not asking for making everything work like the previus one does. but allowing people of making a choice.
If you want your missions to have the more "realistic" SPO-15, then you can set it in the mission editor, or if you don't then you have other options.

In the end you are still playing a game flying virtual jets.
There is no such as "casual" or "hardcore"

And you're asking for more simplifications to be added to the ones you've already listed? 
 That's an interesting approach.

[Lyrode]

After all the resource into developing a proper RWR, some people hate it, for it being too bad to actually do anything.

Mean while another bunch of people criticize ED for not realistic radar, magically picking up things.

Hence, this mixture of semi-realistic state of the implementation is actually good fitting both crowds' needs, lol. Dcs is not for competitive gaming anyways.

And after ditching easy flight and easy avionics, I can't see why unrealistic rwr should be an option. In fact, all modules should update their rwr to be realistic.

[AeriaGloria]

4 hours ago, Lyrode said:

After all the resource into developing a proper RWR, some people hate it, for it being too bad to actually do anything.

Mean while another bunch of people criticize ED for not realistic radar, magically picking up things.

Hence, this mixture of semi-realistic state of the implementation is actually good fitting both crowds' needs, lol. Dcs is not for competitive gaming anyways.

And after ditching easy flight and easy avionics, I can't see why unrealistic rwr should be an option. In fact, all modules should update their rwr to be realistic.

I think some are just unsatisfied that it wouldn’t work with radar from the factory, the implementation of the RWR itself is fantastic, when radar is off

[=MiG=karapus78]

On 10/14/2025 at 11:51 PM, Thirsty said:

And again, then what about this few just as a quick example:

 

Plus all the magical RWRs, these are all "casual" when it comes to your term.
int, all of this should be removed as well?

This is not asking for making everything work like the previus one does. but allowing people of making a choice.
If you want your missions to have the more "realistic" SPO-15, then you can set it in the mission editor, or if you don't then you have other options.

In the end you are still playing a game flying virtual jets.
There is no such as "casual" or "hardcore"

You're mixing everything together. Authenticity and casualness are different concepts. You need to understand this. 
Again, don't ask for additional improvements in a game that's not about that. There are other games for simple "three-button" modules.

[Mainstay]

Well left or right imo a legacy SPO-15 would make the player base enjoy the best of both worlds on flick of a button... 

[Thirsty]

21 hours ago, Lyrode said:

all modules should update their rwr to be realistic.

That would be the way to go to in my opinion , however realisticly speaking that could very easly take years not months sadly.

On the side, this "unrealistic" or "legacy" option would also slove the most issues that are currently going on the forum, with the radar operation synch with the SPO.
What is currently dividing the community with also statements of real pilots saying that the SPO can work with the radar on . . .

Edited 14 hours ago by Thirsty
Missing info.

[Thirsty]

On 10/15/2025 at 7:00 PM, =MiG=karapus78 said:

And you're asking for more simplifications to be added to the ones you've already listed? 
 That's an interesting approach.

No, I think you need to read the answer again.

 

15 hours ago, =MiG=karapus78 said:

You're mixing everything together. Authenticity and casualness are different concepts. You need to understand this. 
Again, don't ask for additional improvements in a game that's not about that. There are other games for simple "three-button" modules.

 

And no again, might be lanauge barrier here, but what you saying is about something completly different.
For following the logic that you are saying, everything that is unrealistic (labels, F-16s with 4 harms, magic rwrs, list goes on) or just a big estimation should be removed from DCS as a whole since they can't be authentic, what is never going to happen.
cough cough F-35

And again, this is a toggleable options in the mission editor (potentionally in the special menu, but enforced by the mission editor) as the original creator of this post suggested

Giving options to people how and what they want to implement, so it is kind of hard to see why it does bother you a lot.

[Mainstay]

9 minutes ago, Thirsty said:

That would be the way to go to in my opinion , however realisticly speaking that could very easly take years not months sadly.

On the side, this "unrealistic" or "legacy" option would also slove the most issues that are currently going on the forum, with the radar operation synch with the SPO.

Exactly, either we get all the systems as they should be or postpone it till you can implement it in the way it should be. Otherwise a legacy button is the best way to go. 

[Thirsty]

16 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

the implementation of the RWR itself is fantastic, when radar is off

I agree 100% I love to see better and better RWR implementations, however the 2nd part is the real problem sadly

In a real aircraft, having told that you are being fired on from the GCI that is controlling you is there, where in most cases would be even more accurate than a lock warning what you would get from the SPO, (or any RWR since most of the launch warning for a SARH missile is not realistic in the first place)

But in terms of DCS, you can't have a person with you every time when you go out to fly on some server for fun and telling that there's a missile coming,
and having such an important thing as your RWR basically completly INOP in the full frontal section (even in MPRF where there should be almost zero interference) just makes everyone blind as a bat since there is not going to be someone guiding you from a radar station every time.

So its not even about a launch warning, but we don't even know if there is a lock or not., since if we are going realistic we treat every lock as a launch.

And I think this is what lot of people forget in the end of the day.

Edited 14 hours ago by Thirsty

[zerO_crash]

On 10/8/2025 at 11:48 PM, Thirsty said:

+1
Seems like the best option since ED didn't seem to care a lot about the contradicting documentation and information about the function of the SPO-15

 

If ED were to answer every post on these forums "attempting" to challange realism, then they wouldn't pump out zip of a module. Instead, they'd be up their shoulders sitting and replying to, often lackful insight, and inside know-how. 

 

The truth of the matter is, as I have always stated; manuals and written documents are never a 100% followed IRL. However hard that might hit on you, that is among the reasons why a student pilot doesn't jump from a simulator or a book straight into a single seater without any support from a IP.

 

It should also be pointed out, that while not in this case (SPO-15), but in many other ones, the argument constructed based on documentation is posted by someone who simply doesn't know how military politics (social standards, practices and norms, etc...) work in a given country/culture. Not going too deep on this, but communism is famous for having a high deviation ratio between codified word and actual practice. Don't think for a second that this bureaucracy didn't translate to armed forces. (While capitalism is more by-the-law, it suffers similar problems). 

 

ED has already replied to this matter, and apparently, they have SMEs to back this up with.

[Ramius007]

Problem rather lies with how PvP servers are designed currently, than FF Mig itself. Single players can adjust mission/campaign and tune threats to what Fulcrum could realistically expect IRL, but servers, naturally geared towards modern modules are the issue, just a reminder that Contention CW have Ka-50, apache, A-10C and Su-25t as playable modules. We basically lack single one offering realistic early to mid 80's experiance, that removes planes with 90's and 2000's upgrades, supprise even FC F-15C is from 90's with APG-63 (V1) it wasnt really the case for original APG-63 to track low altidue threats, at least according to real Eagle drivers, and then we have F-16, F-18, Jeff, SE, even more important, such server should remove aid defence threats from late 80's or 90's, and some assets names may be misleading, our Avengers and sa-13 use all aspect 89 made missiles.

Edited 13 hours ago by Ramius007

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Thirsty said:

So its not even about a launch warning, but we don't even know if there is a lock or not., since if we are going realistic we treat every lock as a launch.

Yes, this is study simulation of the aircraft with all its strenghts and weaknesses. You don't like it - you can load FC version that works exactly like you want or head to the mods section.

[Creampie]

30 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes, this is study simulation of the aircraft with all its strenghts and weaknesses. You don't like it - you can load FC version that works exactly like you want or head to the mods section.

Thats a pretty small minded way of looking at this situation. At the end of the day it is a video game. Some people want to have that fidelity and little quirks the go along with it. But also want it to be practical for their gaming experience. It's just encouraging people to not buy it after all the hard work thats gone into making the module. "Red" modules need all the support they can have for the sake of having more of them. I respect the want of accuracy but at the same time understand it is a video game. There being basically something along the lines option wise of "FC3 like RWR" is nothing but a positive thing. Especially considering it could be changed then. 

[swartbyron]

I’ve tried to fly the MiG-29 on a few popular servers this morning and had a constant lock tone from start up to shut down!

Can’t it tell if I’m being locked up by an enemy SAM or aircraft since I’ve had a constant lock tone and all bands flashing since I flipped the power switch on the SPO-15 while still in the blocks back at base.

Even friendly Tu-95 vaguely pointed in my direction gives me a constant lock with its AG radar from nearly 200 nm away along with the friendly A-50.

BVR is impossible against anything that can shoot Fox 1 or 3 because I can’t notch or evade as I cant tell the difference between search, lock, launch or the overwhelming signal emitting from something friendly miles away.

SEAD is impossible against anything except short-range IR.

Any kind of situational awareness is just impossible.

Is that my wingman locking me or an F-14 100 miles away?

Maby he hasn’t locked me and is just searching but my SPO-15 being as cleaver as it is thinks he has locked me?

Do I evade his search anyway?

Is that still the friendly SAM at home base locking me, or perhaps it’s the Tu-95 or AWACS on the other side of the map?

Just a local radio station perhaps? Maybe a traffic officer with a radar gun in the village on the horizon for all I know as they are bound to set this thing this off.

Do I evade or ignore it?

Boom! I guess I should have evaded this time.

I find it really hard to swallow that a 1980’s MiG-29 had such a useless RWR installed and just want my old faithful SPO-15 that gives me bearing, search, lock and launch indications restored so I can play DCS in my new clickable MiG-29. 

Edited 11 hours ago by swartbyron

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, Creampie said:

Thats a pretty small minded way of looking at this situation. At the end of the day it is a video game. Some people want to have that fidelity and little quirks the go along with it. But also want it to be practical for their gaming experience. It's just encouraging people to not buy it after all the hard work thats gone into making the module. "Red" modules need all the support they can have for the sake of having more of them. I respect the want of accuracy but at the same time understand it is a video game. There being basically something along the lines option wise of "FC3 like RWR" is nothing but a positive thing. Especially considering it could be changed then. 

 

He looks at it precisely the way it's meant to. DCS is first and foremost a simulator, afterwhich it is adjusted for the commercial market (hence the "entertainment" in the name, it's a moniker to avoid a whole set of legal problems and disputes). But that, only after it is a simulator. FC, stemming from the original former simulator (going back to LOMAC), is what has become the DCS-light version. 

 

While the question of implementing FC SPO-15LM isn't outright a bad one, it goes against the idea of ASM. While it might seem similar to having your INS not drift over time, it actually isn't. With INS not drifting, ED is not changing the workings of the instrument, rather treating it as if the pilot constantly updated (fixed) its position. 

 

Making the SPO-15LM work unrealistic (FC - there is no "legacy realism", it is "legacy - unrealistic"), means changing the workings of the whole system. People not aware of how modules are made, believe that you need to change a couple of lights and algorythms, and all is done. Nothing could be further from the truth. ED actually simulates the connections and workings of different onboard computers. Asking to change the logic of one component, means simulating it completely anew. Worse yet, in order to have all the instrumentation and onboard equipment to come together in a FF (Full Fledged) module, or as it's officialy called ASM (Advanced Systems Modelling), you have to assimilate it with all the other systems. The SPO-15LM on FC3 is not interacting with any system onboard (SSM - Simple Systems Modelling). Therefore, it is not a copy paste from FC3 to DCS MiG-29A either. 

 

Then there is the question of someone else maybe wanting the realistic (not "legacy") SPO-15LM on the DCS MiG-29A, but instead, having simplified radar modelling (FC3) for easier target acquisition... Between us, I'm almost 100% certain that ED will tell you to chose either DCS MiG-29A or FC3 MiG-29s at this point. Recreating components from scratch would take simply too much time and manpower to make, for such a niche wish.

Edited 10 hours ago by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

On 10/9/2025 at 5:01 PM, Schmidtfire said:

Since we’re already asking for a fictional/modified SPO-15, we should also ask for R-77.

Name the option ”MIG29 modified edition” and call it a day. Not much worse offense than KA-50 with 3 pylons, MIG-21bis with Grom or F-16C with 4 Harms.

Or we can accept the MIG-29 for what it is with the limitations it had in real life.

 

Exclude Ka-50 BS3 with 3-pylon wing from there. It's a repeated lie. While no official photos exist, there are multiple accounts claiming that Ka-50s that were used as test beds for Ka-52 indeed were test-flying with the 3-pylon wing. The problem is, those are anecdotal, and far too unspecific in order to deduce whether the onboard fire computer was updated to handle six pylons, as opposed to four (the one in our Ka-50 bort #25 only supports four). Hence, the wing was for sure tested, but the firing computer is an unknown. Still, Ka-50 being as experimental as it was, and having had its own run in the military, as well as serving as a test bed for what is now a in-service attack helicopter, one might argue will allow to presume certain things.

 

As to MiG-21Bis (Grom, UPK-23 and even R-55 (technically possible, unrealistic timewise) and F-16C (4x Harms), that's something I've been warning ED/3rd parties will come to bite them in the future. Good news is, they've avoided such faults since.

 

On 10/14/2025 at 10:51 PM, Thirsty said:

Plus all the magical RWRs, these are all "casual" when it comes to your term. 
At that point, all of this should be removed as well? 

This is not asking for making everything work like the previus one does. but allowing people of making a choice.
If you want your missions to have the more "realistic" SPO-15, then you can set it in the mission editor, or if you don't then you have other options.

In the end you are still playing a game flying virtual jets.
There is no such as "casual" or "hardcore"

 

It's normal for new members and assume much. It's obvious you haven't been here long enough to understand the difference between what has been technically possible at the time of LOMAC/BS/A-10C/DCS, vs. what is doable today. Obviously, there are many parts of the simulation still which are waiting for refreshments due to new technologies and better hardware being available. That doesn't discard them from being viable until improved. It all takes time. Your deduction, is however, completely wrong. 

 

In the end, you have no idea what and who, and in which way they treat this simulator. Some treat it seriously, some don't. One solid testimony to its quality though, is the mostly silent community consisting of former military pilots that are able to relieve their moments in a simulation that apparently get's most of it right. That goes beside the many commercial/private pilots, controllers, mechanics, technicians +++ who also see the apparent similarities.

 

There is no problem with requesting - everyone wants theirs first. But just because you treat it as a game (narrow view based on the complexity of what you can simulate here), doesn't mean that others aren't using it to its fullest capacity. 

[Ramius007]

8 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

As to MiG-21Bis (Grom, UPK-23 and even R-55 (technically possible, unrealistic timewise) and F-16C (4x Harms), that's something I've been warning ED/3rd parties will come to bite them in the future. Good news is, they've avoided such faults since.

There is more of this I suppose, like Aim-7M on Phantom or "swedish" Maverick B on Viggen

[swartbyron]

Spawn in to any popular server and all the Flaming cliffs players have basic bearing, search, lock and launch warning information.

Spawn in to any popular server and every AI MiG-29 both FC and FF have basic bearing, search, lock and launch warning information and behave and react accordantly.

Its only those players in the new MiG-29 with the click able cockpit that happens to have the dodgy SPO-15 that are the only ones without this vital information and left handicapped.

 

Realistic, maybe but not what Eagle Dynamics games have been about for the concomitantly for over 20 years.

All those those training missions, watching all those videos and reading all those articles and then practising how to fly advanced BVR, SEAD and missile evasion in the MiG-29 are useless now as they all relied heavily on information supplied by the RWR.

Skills I learnt flying the MiG-29 in Flanker 2.5 that I then applied in Lock On and then applied for years in DCS I can no longer use in the latest full fidelity MiG-29.

No missions or servers are set up with the the FF MiG in mind and neither are the missions that ship with this module to be honest.

 

While a small percentage of the community were hoping for rivet 456A that came lose after pulling 4G to be modelled in exacting detail.

*The rest of us were just waiting for click able version of the aircraft we have spent so may hours learning to fly and perfect and to continue flying it in the manor that we always have and using the skills we have built in ED games over the years.

 

I love our new FF MiG-29, its a dream come true to an old flight simmer like me and it is an absolute pleasure to fly. 

When it comes to fighting with it and playing the game DCS as I've played it for years,

I feel lost, confused and helpless with this new SPO-15  

Edited 10 hours ago by swartbyron

[Creampie]

33 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

He looks at it precisely the way it's meant to. DCS is first and foremost a simulator, afterwhich it is adjusted for the commercial market (hence the "entertainment" in the name, it's a moniker to avoid a whole set of legal problems and disputes). But that, only after it is a simulator. FC, stemming from the original former simulator (going back to LOMAC), is what has become the DCS-light version. 

 

While the question of implementing FC SPO-15LM isn't outright a bad one, it goes against the idea of ASM. While it might seem similar to having your INS not drift over time, it actually isn't. With INS not drifting, ED is not changing the workings of the instrument, rather treating it as if the pilot constantly updated (fixed) its position. 

 

Making the SPO-15LM work unrealistic (FC - there is no "legacy realism", it is "legacy - unrealistic"), means changing the workings of the whole system. People not aware of how modules are made, believe that you need to change a couple of lights and algorythms, and all is done. Nothing could be further from the truth. ED actually simulates the connections and workings of different onboard computers. Asking to change the logic of one component, means simulating it completely anew. Worse yet, in order to have all the instrumentation and onboard equipment to come together in a FF (Full Fledged) module, or as it's officialy called ASM (Advanced Systems Modelling), you have to assimilate it with all the other systems. The SPO-15LM on FC3 is not interacting with any system onboard (SSM - Simple Systems Modelling). Therefore, it is not a copy paste from FC3 to DCS MiG-29A either. 

 

Then there is the question of someone else maybe wanting the realistic (not "legacy") SPO-15LM on the DCS MiG-29A, but instead, having simplified radar modelling (FC3) for easier target acquisition... Between us, I'm almost 100% certain that ED will tell you to chose either DCS MiG-29A or FC3 MiG-29s at this point. Recreating components from scratch would take simply too much time and manpower to make, for such a niche wish.

There are more "arcadish" things about DCS than not, but that's neither here nor there. I don't fly the MIG29; I don't care if something is adjusted on its RWR or not on a personal level. I do care for the experience of the users who are enjoying this video game and are massive enjoyers of the Fulcrum. It's sort of like a difficult setting, if you will. They want to have the clicky cockpit, the cool helmet, see the nice watch the pilot has, and the phenomenal textures they've put into the module. At the same time, they recognize it for what it is: a game.

There being a "legacy" RWR isn't an absurd request or anything, probably not even a hard one (but I wouldn't know; I don't code anything).

I appreciate and respect the desire to keep things as close to their intended design as possible. But there are too many examples of what is unrealistic with a lot of mechanics and modules to deem something like this as just out of the question. You are 100% right; there is an option for either, so I certainly see your point, but it tends to negate progression, which is the very last thing I personally want to see for future red of modules. 

I think it is safe to say a lot of us saw specifically this coming; Fulcrum enjoyers going back to the FC3 version after the new car smell wore off which seemed rather quick, honestly.

[Schmidtfire]

32 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

As to MiG-21Bis (Grom, UPK-23 and even R-55 (technically possible, unrealistic timewise) and F-16C (4x Harms), that's something I've been warning ED/3rd parties will come to bite them in the future. Good news is, they've avoided such faults since.

Not technically possible, MiG-21bis cannot use Kh-66 or RS-2US. It requires a different radar (RP-21).

I respect your knowledge on the KA-50. But there's a lot of "what if" sort of solutions added to the KA-50 III. The MWS integration into the ABRIS, the firing computer etc. For all we know the wing could just have been tested for aero, without any new technical integrations. And that's okay. Creative licenses within plausibility of reality.

That said. My preference is to make modules as close to reality as possible. But if a couple of minor options adds to making DCS: MIG29A a popular and commercial success I'm all for it. For fans of the Fulcrum and possibly future "Red Aircraft" we really need this module to do well.

[swartbyron]

Again, it’s just an option being asked for here.

An option won’t hurt or affect anybody’s realism or take away anything from the SPO-15 modelling we have now.

It could be off by default and could be enforced off by the mission creator, so it won’t put anyone at a disadvantage.

4ya servers have their labels, others have them enforced off.

Some have external views; others make sure it a as real as it gets experience and enforce them off.

It could be the same for a legacy SPO-15 option and would keep everyone happy.

Edited 9 hours ago by swartbyron

[AeriaGloria]

This thread has been murdered so hard. What’s the point the request is made

[Ramius007]

1 hour ago, Creampie said:

There are more "arcadish" things about DCS than not, but that's neither here nor there. I don't fly the MIG29; I don't care if something is adjusted on its RWR or not on a personal level. I do care for the experience of the users who are enjoying this video game and are massive enjoyers of the Fulcrum. It's sort of like a difficult setting, if you will. They want to have the clicky cockpit, the cool helmet, see the nice watch the pilot has, and the phenomenal textures they've put into the module. At the same time, they recognize it for what it is: a game.

There being a "legacy" RWR isn't an absurd request or anything, probably not even a hard one (but I wouldn't know; I don't code anything).

I appreciate and respect the desire to keep things as close to their intended design as possible. But there are too many examples of what is unrealistic with a lot of mechanics and modules to deem something like this as just out of the question. You are 100% right; there is an option for either, so I certainly see your point, but it tends to negate progression, which is the very last thing I personally want to see for future red of modules. 

I think it is safe to say a lot of us saw specifically this coming; Fulcrum enjoyers going back to the FC3 version after the new car smell wore off which seemed rather quick, honestly.

I dont think that this "video game" designers, have to bow to small minority of arcade pvp servers participants, and balance modules around arcade style servers. For many people, only thing that DCS have going for them is realism, if you remove it, you can fly FC modules, free DCS mods or other game forever, there will be no diffrence with FF modules made in a way you like them to see. Issue is not realistic Fulcrum, but enviroment made by pvp server admins, that is balanced around assymetrical early XXI centaury conflicts, and made for majority of XXI centaury jets, and people who belive that Sparrow=CW. When they get actual CW technology they are shocked. This version of Fulcrum should compete vs F1, F-4, 530D less M2k, Tomcat without Aim-54, and all CW Fox-2 only fighters, and a lot of helos and attack planes, still plenty of platforms to choose from, and potential for great REAL CW server, where FF Fulcrum would be top of the food chain, yet difficult to master plane.

[Creampie]

2 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

I dont think that this "video game" designers, have to bow to small minority of arcade pvp servers participants, and balance modules around arcade style servers. For many people, only thing that DCS have going for them is realism, if you remove it, you can fly FC modules, free DCS mods or other game forever, there will be no diffrence with FF modules made in a way you like them to see. Issue is not realistic Fulcrum, but enviroment made by pvp server admins, that is balanced around assymetrical early XXI centaury conflicts, and made for majority of XXI centaury jets, and people who belive that Sparrow=CW. When they get actual CW technology they are shocked. This version of Fulcrum should compete vs F1, F-4, 530D less M2k, Tomcat without Aim-54, and all CW Fox-2 only fighters, and a lot of helos and attack planes, still plenty of platforms to choose from, and potential for great REAL CW server, where FF Fulcrum would be top of the food chain, yet difficult to master plane.

What?