1.5- A-10c missile warning system bug

Was flying Georgia Hammer mission 2-3-1 destory mobile command center. Completed mission then on approach to wp6 I hear a explosion, turn my head a su-25 was on my 6, see a 2nd missile launch. No warning for both. From what I understand about the MWS no matter the missile there is a warning thanks to cameras around the plane that detect launches. Also ordered wingman to engage bandits and then the a-10c wingman disappeared no shoot down or crash.

Now the weird thing about all of this while in mission on the attack of ground targets I was getting middle warnings off my wingman, but not the enemy.

Hey raptor, a track would be helpful. From what you have said there seem to be many reasons for this behaviour which could be others than a bug (which is still possible)

AFAIK the MWS on the A-10C is based on UV sensors. Here is an older but short thread on this topic: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82321 (Page one, last post)

This system has many advantages but also some shortcommings:

"To detect approaching missiles, the rocket motor of the missile must be burning – it requires the high effective burning temperatures associated with solid fuel rocket motors.

IR-based systems are probably better at altitude but UV is better against surface-to-air missiles.

Cannot provide actual range information but can derive TTI from the rapid increase in amplitude of the approaching missile’s signal.

Detection range could be limited against future new technology low IR/UV emission rocket motors." from the Missile Approach Warning article in Wikipedia

To be sure you would have to check that some factors (like burning engine) are given. Since everything stands or falls with the used rejection algorithms, it is nearly impossible to give a valid judgement about bug/feature category without confirmation from a developer(even knowing that it could have been changed intentionally).

Hey raptor, a track would be helpful. From what you have said there seem to be many reasons for this behaviour which could be others than a bug (which is still possible)

 

AFAIK the MWS on the A-10C is based on UV sensors. Here is an older but short thread on this topic: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82321 (Page one, last post)

 

 

This system has many advantages but also some shortcommings:

 

"To detect approaching missiles, the rocket motor of the missile must be burning – it requires the high effective burning temperatures associated with solid fuel rocket motors.

IR-based systems are probably better at altitude but UV is better against surface-to-air missiles.

Cannot provide actual range information but can derive TTI from the rapid increase in amplitude of the approaching missile’s signal.

Detection range could be limited against future new technology low IR/UV emission rocket motors." from the Missile Approach Warning article in Wikipedia

 

To be sure you would have to check that some factors (like burning engine) are given. Since everything stands or falls with the used rejection algorithms, it is nearly impossible to give a valid judgement about bug/feature category without confirmation from a developer(even knowing that it could have been changed intentionally).

wasn't sure the track system was fixed, never replayed my tracks in 1.2.16. I flew another mission and lost the data since post.

I noticed that the MWS responds only ~3/10 times and mostly very very late while testing some SAMs and practicing missile evasion in the A-10.

Saw videos from earlier DCS versions where it would go off 9/10 times, right on missile launch. One of ralfidude's videos I think.

Right now, it is next to useless to be honest.

Hhmm?

In hotfix 2 I got a warning on almost every launch.

I'll try again in hotfix 3 and see if I can replicate the issue

Verstuurd vanaf mijn XT1068 met Tapatalk