An inquiry to M3 about the SPO-10

I would like to ask when if at all the developers will start working to fix the SPO-10 RWR?

As seen in this link they've been aware of the bug to some extent for a while right, at least 4 years.

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=51

But they don't seem to do anything about it at all is it that they've possibly forgotten about it.

A dev response official or unofficial would be very nice

You do know that IRL that’s exactly what happens to the SPO-10 when powerful radars light it up. The F-14s AWG 9 can literally burn it out completely at 50nm with an STT lock. There are multiple accounts of this from both the IRAF and USN pilots testing captured MiGs

In other words it’s very crappy in real life too.

You do know that IRL that’s exactly what happens to the SPO-10 when powerful radars light it up. The F-14s AWG 9 can literally burn it out completely at 50nm with an STT lock. There are multiple accounts of this from both the IRAF and USN pilots testing captured MiGs

 

In other words it’s very crappy in real life too.

And? So does this mean when literally anything locks it up it should behave like this? No it does not.

I am not asking for a good RWR I am asking for an accurate one and what we have simply isn't that.

And? So does this mean when literally anything locks it up it should behave like this? No it does not.

 

I am not asking for a good RWR I am asking for an accurate one and what we have simply isn't that.

Can you provide documentation and real world testimony to support your views on how it should work?

Can you provide documentation and real world testimony to support your views on how it should work?

I already did its in the OP here is another thread that goes more in depth

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168915

I wonder if you can do the same for your claims

No I can't because I don't care. Your the one that does, so you do the research and fact check me yourself.

Also a couple of circuit diagrams and a pilots handbook are not going to tell you anything about how this system performs when subjected to radars designed and built well after they stopped making the RWR and the aircraft. The Devs don't have that data, and neither does the manufacturer it doesn't exist. But that's not my point.

My point is that four red lights and a beeper are not going to make one bit of difference against any threat currently modeled in the game. IRL a fighter like the MiG-21 is completely dependent on GCI to protect itself and get it where it needs to go. It is not the super fighter people here want it to be.

Ah ok so your claims are BS until you can prove them.

It still doesn't explain why SAMs and airborne radars from that era do not produce the same results from the manual and that is the crux of the issue something you just can't seem to grasp for whatever reason and resort to falsely attributing claims to me.

Damn it, its a study sim and you either have the info and do systems by the book(and don't spread petty bullshit about oh its old who cares), or don't bother trying to get into the business at all. And we do have legacy SAM and airborne radars in DCS. Besides, I dont see a difference between caring about a 1944 bird and about 1974 one. Because warbird crowd are much more rivet counting than the cold war guys here and its normally accepted.

And yes I heard a cool story from a Backfire crew member of how many AWG-9s did they fry by ECM - all such stories are good at beer until we have real docs.

Its really a miracle that such a niche market as jet military study sims exist, and expressing a neglecting attitude is just shooting oneself in the foot.

SPO-10 behavior is clearly documented and RWR should be fixed main thing wrong with the MiG in my opinion (your opinion may differ). So I hope M3 works on it soon.

Anyone trying to look for the targets knows how valuable it can be pinpoint source heading to 30 degrees (also a radar search width in MiG), now it is impossible... it also gives distance information... there are also Technics to figure out ground or air targets with the SPO-10... if implemented correctly it can give way more information then people think...

Why the negetavity toward OP? He asked a valid question, one thats been lingering for quite a while now. And he was simply asking for a dev response. Because he cares.

It would be nice to hear from the Devs, whatever they think. This same topic has been going on forever. A response is required.

Here's hoping that M3 fix the SPO-10 and bring it to its real-life counterpart.

+1 :)

Can you provide documentation and real world testimony to support your views on how it should work?

And why we need to provide documentation for every request. You did in your last statement about the burning SPO-10 by F-14? Or you have a personal bias against Mig-21, if so stay away from this forum please...

No I can't because I don't care. Your the one that does, so you do the research and fact check me yourself.

 

Also a couple of circuit diagrams and a pilots handbook are not going to tell you anything about how this system performs when subjected to radars designed and built well after they stopped making the RWR and the aircraft. The Devs don't have that data, and neither does the manufacturer it doesn't exist. But that's not my point.

 

 

My point is that four red lights and a beeper are not going to make one bit of difference against any threat currently modeled in the game. IRL a fighter like the MiG-21 is completely dependent on GCI to protect itself and get it where it needs to go. It is not the super fighter people here want it to be.

This type of attitude is one of the reasons these devs walk away with money in their pockets leaving 90% of the modules bugged and / or unfinished. Well done.

It would be really helpful in the Cold War server because the F-5 radar, for instance, is something that doesn't saturate the SPO-10 until very, very close to the Mig. Good for detecting gunsight radar locks.

Most Search/track radars from SAMs and the like would also benefit from this system, as well.

On modern fighters, not so much; theoretically modern pulse doppler radars like in the F/A-18C may not even be on the correct band to flash the lights. That's something that may need more research. However, in a lock you should be lit up enough to at least know which quadrant the lock is coming from. Which is really the problem all along.

No I can't because I don't care. Your the one that does, so you do the research and fact check me yourself.

 

Also a couple of circuit diagrams and a pilots handbook are not going to tell you anything about how this system performs when subjected to radars designed and built well after they stopped making the RWR and the aircraft. The Devs don't have that data, and neither does the manufacturer it doesn't exist. But that's not my point.

 

 

My point is that four red lights and a beeper are not going to make one bit of difference against any threat currently modeled in the game. IRL a fighter like the MiG-21 is completely dependent on GCI to protect itself and get it where it needs to go. It is not the super fighter people here want it to be.

Can I take a moment to point out this exchange? Because this is really is the forum experience in a nutshell:

• User 1: Are we going to get a bugfix for this problem that has been in the tracker for a while now?
  
• User 2: Don't you know that IRL this is how it works and you're being an entitled prick for asking about it? I have an anecdote about something that happened somewhere and I intend to tell you about it.
  
• User 1: it's acknowledged and documented that this is how it works. Here's the documentation and the discussion we had previously about it. Now, show us where it doesn't behave this way.
  
• User 2: Lol look at this nerd caring about things. I don't care about anything and it's your job to factcheck my anecdotes and hearsay. This doesn't matter anyway because I'm too cool for this conversation despite making the active choice to click the topic and get involved in it.
  

Really makes you think! I think that four post exchange should be pinned to the top of general discussion as a hint at what you can expect to see.

+1 on the SPO-10 and +1 on anecdotes getting BTFO out of the water.

i dunno what issue people have with the RWR, it reliably shows the direction of incoming radars from longer than any a2a missiles range in 8 directions, and tells you if something has you STT'd that's pretty much all it was meant to do...

it's easy to tell what's targeting you by the pulses... F-18s especially are whacky... it's like 4 or 6 beeps, then resets.... whereas the F-15's is a constant beeping sound, and if they're in TWS it's a faster constant beeping sound...

i dunno what issue people have with the RWR, it reliably shows the direction of incoming radars from longer than any a2a missiles range in 8 directions, and tells you if something has you STT'd that's pretty much all it was meant to do...

People tend to simplify the information the SPO-10 can provide do to it very badly design human machine interface (how it displays the info). SPO-10 can give you pretty much the same info as the SPO-15 apart from the radar type but for the single most powerful emitter.

So, all in all you got about 30% right, the STT part is the main issue.

It shouldn't light up all the direction when the enemy STT's you. But keep working with just direction light. Only if the source is close enough and powerful enough it should go to the 'all direction/merged' mode allowing you to keep SA and know where to attack or where from to runaway. That distance we are talking about radar dependent but very close (approx 5-10nm for Hornet).

The problem is if anything locks you from any distance you basically lose the RWR and it becomes useless. This means that in any complex environments with lot of radars like BF servers your RWR is always in merged mode all the time and useless. Per example even Hawk attacking a friendly aircraft in you direction 100nm away would kill your RWR..see the problem? That's let say 50% of the problem

Other 20% are blinking frequencies and SOD light display. Blinking frequencies should give you

a rough distance on the source (same as light bar on the SPO-15). SOD light should light up if the radar painting you is friendly radar that is IFF integrating you and so...

Generally if only the first part was solved I would be very very happy...

Other 20% are blinking frequencies and SOD light display. Blinking frequencies should give you

a rough distance on the source (same as light bar on the SPO-15). SOD light should light up if the radar painting you is friendly radar that is IFF integrating you and so...

I don't agree with that. There is no distance discrimination at all. The light blinks only when a radar ray passes over the sensor. In DCS, the frequency is artificially doubled to "simulate" the radar mode switching in TWS mode, with any aircraft type, always at the same distance. Which is another lame trick.

I don't agree with that. There is no distance discrimination at all. The light blinks only when a radar ray passes over the sensor. In DCS, the frequency is artificially doubled to "simulate" the radar mode switching in TWS mode, with any aircraft type, always at the same distance. Which is another lame trick.

to quote the manual, also attached at the M3 bug tracker.

"While the enemy interceptor is closing upon the aircraft, the frequency of the СПО-10 equipment operation increases from the one operating cycle per illumination cycle to three operating cycles per illumination cycle.

Once the illuminating radar has changed over from the SCAN to the LOCK-ON mode, the frequency of the sound signal sharply grows and the corresponding light start flickering"

I can't find the other manual that had this elaborated, but basically one blip - long range, two blips - medium range, three blips - close.

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/file_download.php?file_id=14&type=bug

I think the first sentence is wrong, I found nothing about it in the SPO-10 manual (yet?). The MiG-21bis english pilot manual may have some issues since some dudes who can read the Polish version noticed differences in translation.

About the lock-on, while the tone itself is fixed at 1000 Hz, the blip is indeed continuously flashing (non constant unlike what we have now in DCS). Note that my old SPO-10 simulator doesn't implement this.

From what I understand, a blip stays on for a defined time, then the circuitry resets itself. It is immediately switched on again by constant radar emission due to the lock, but I seriously don't think there is some magic inside the SPO-10 to measure if a source is approaching.

Attached to this message are a copy of the original manual found somewhere in the Interweb, plus an incomplete transcript I've made. You can use it with your favorite translation software.

:book:

SPO-10 Documents.zip

Closing distance is just increasing strength of signal. The manual's text suggests that a light can report strength in that channel at one of four strengths: zero, one, two, or three flashes per cycle.

How you could do this in circuitry is have a sense period which fills a capacitor with some energy proportional to strength of signal received. Then on discharge period you get variable quantity of flashes out of capacitor as it has energy.

If 100% full you get flash-flash-flash.

If 66% full you get flash-flash-blank.

If 33% full you get flash-blank-blank.

If 00% full you get blank-blank-blank.

I think the first sentence is wrong, I found nothing about it in the SPO-10 manual (yet?). The MiG-21bis english pilot manual may have some issues since some dudes who can read the Polish version noticed differences in translation.

I did check also the Yugoslav Military Manual for the L-17 (MiG-21), it has the same sentence.

It is highly unlikely that multiple translator would have got it wrong, especially military translations for the documentation labeled back then as 'military secret' used for pilot training.

About the lock-on, while the tone itself is fixed at 1000 Hz, the blip is indeed continuously flashing (non constant unlike what we have now in DCS). Note that my old SPO-10 simulator doesn't implement this.

 

From what I understand, a blip stays on for a defined time, then the circuitry resets itself. It is immediately switched on again by constant radar emission due to the lock, but I seriously don't think there is some magic inside the SPO-10 to measure if a source is approaching.

 

Attached to this message are a copy of the original manual found somewhere in the Interweb, plus an incomplete transcript I've made. You can use it with your favorite translation software.

 

:book:

Even from your documentation, as far as I can tell from the section 4. There are different impulses generated, some of them triggering "auto-reset" based on signal strength.

Designing a circuit that displays one, two, three blips based on the detected signal strength isn't rocket science even for the 60's.

I did check also the Yugoslav Military Manual for the L-17 (MiG-21), it has the same sentence.

 

It is highly unlikely that multiple translator would have got it wrong, especially military translations for the documentation labeled back then as 'military secret' used for pilot training.

I don't know mate :dunno:

Even from your documentation, as far as I can tell from the section 4. There are different impulses generated, some of them triggering "auto-reset" based on signal strength.

The french auto-translation is surprisingly good. I just checked again the chapter 4. And I'm still convinced that there is nothing about radar signal strength perception. The notion of strength (term generated by the translator, may not be accurate) is about a charge inside the "automatic dipolar reflector" (4.18 ), designed to generate sort of a pulse internal signal instead of a continuous one when the radiating radar is in lock mode, only.

Also there is a part about the SPO being paused while the host aircraft is emitting a pulse (4.16). The check button inside the cockpit disables that pause to test the SPO with the host aircraft's radar (4.17), which is interesting because in DCS this is not correctly modeled.

Another tactical aspect is described in the case when a radar comes from an angle exciting two sensors at the same time. It is possible to visually discriminate the origin of the radar because the two lamps should lit sequentially, not perfectly synchronized, although I doubt it is possible IRL.

Closing distance is just increasing strength of signal. The manual's text suggests that a light can report strength in that channel at one of four strengths: zero, one, two, or three flashes per cycle.

What manual ? which chapter ? which paragraph ?