Jump to content

RWR not showing locked radars in Search mode


Aries144

Recommended Posts

Another request for a fix here. Very strange to be needing to map Search switch to HOTAS to flip back-and-forth during combat to ensure not missing key threats.

 

Realism is the highest priority, so if this is how the actual F-5E3- works, then OK. But given the F-5E-3 shows the integration of so many other "lessons learned", seems surprising this is how the actual RWR works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Still waiting for a fix on this one. Its a pretty crucial piece of hardware for the bird. Will it get fixed?

My Rig: EVGA GTX 1070 x 2 | EVGA x58 SLI classified | i7 X 990 CPU | 24 GB RAM | Windows 10 Home 64 bit| Track IR Pro | CH Fighter Stick | CH Throttle | CH Pro Pedals |

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

been waiting since pre purchase...given up all hope lately and parked the beautiful f5

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]1000 miles of road will take you around town, a 1000 feet of runway can take you around the world...unless your in a Huey, you can go anywhere with no runway in a Huey!

 

multiplayer name ''DustOff=3=6''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I didn't even realize the Search function excluded locked radars. I wondered for a long time why they disappeared. There's just no way this is operated correctly, why in the world would Search mode exclude a critical threat?? It's obviously aware of the radar lock, but just decides that you don't need to know about that because you're in "Search Mode"?? I refuse to believe Northrop would include such a useless system.

 

As far as the RWR tones are concerned, I'd LOVE to see that implemented. The RAE mod is amazing but limited in compatible airframes. DCS suffers from an incredibly simplified RWR system although Heatblur did put some extra effort into the Viggen.

 

Until ED actually implements Radar Beams that sweep and return decipherable data instead of checking a box, RWR and EWAR will remain woefully inadequate toys. Right now we just get some math that says, is there a target somewhere in this cone between x and y altitude: if yes show the plane's info on the radar screen.... There's more to it obviously but it's not reading a return based on a beam's reflection. Hopefully the Hornet is going to significantly increase that complexity. If so, maybe we can expect some realistic approximations of RWR/EWAR in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to say, the F-5 is already a tough aircraft to fly in modern MP; this silly RWR representation just compounds its weakness. I don't think this plane needs to be arbitrarily nerfed...

competitiveness was not, and should never be, a consideration for dcs modules; this issue is a misunderstanding stemming from inadequate documentation. if you want to help resolve it, then start from a documentation standpoint and not from your competitive self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

competitiveness was not, and should never be, a consideration for dcs modules; this issue is a misunderstanding stemming from inadequate documentation. if you want to help resolve it, then start from a documentation standpoint and not from your competitive self-interest.

 

I could not agree more. I don't care about competitiveness or game balance, I'm flying on a milsim, not playing Overwatch.

There are only two types of aircraft, fighters and targets. - Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Even a year after I provided evidence, the RWR issues still haven't been addressed.

 

The only thing they have to the contrary of my sources is a NATOPS manual for the F-5N(which doesn't explicitly say that synthetic tones are the only audio; PRF audio would be addressed in a TAC manual not a NATOPS) from a Squadron who doesn't even have the RWR anyways.

 

"[F-5] has no defensive systems, no RWR nor expendable countermeasures" - https://fightersweep.com/129/flying-the-f-5-tiger-ii/

 

The only people who use and update that NATOPS don't even have an RWR!

 

 

Do they expect to re-sell this product (with MCG) without addressing the issues with their "simulation"?


Edited by Beamscanner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RWR is probably going to be generic, like they are in FC3 now. In fact, all avionics are probably going to get an FC treatment.

Could be nice to see this fixed in the module though.

 

Ughh...This is a full fidelity model that’s been in a release state for a long time. The avionics are fully fleshed out and functional with the exception of the rwr. This is a great module that is let down by a fairly glaring problem. I too would like to see it addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Some of the evidence that the current RWR has some issues have been deleted because they do not comply with rule 1.16, so I assume of course that before removing those posts the moderator cautiously sent those links/posts via PM to the devs as I would seriously loose patient if belsimtek comes by and says they don't see any sufficient evidence anymore.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Some of the evidence that the current RWR has some issues have been deleted because they do not comply with rule 1.16, so I assume of course that before removing those posts the moderator cautiously sent those links/posts via PM to the devs as I would seriously loose patient if belsimtek comes by and says they don't see any sufficient evidence anymore.

 

ED is already looking at solutions.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing they have to the contrary of my sources is a NATOPS manual for the F-5N(which doesn't explicitly say that synthetic tones are the only audio; PRF audio would be addressed in a TAC manual not a NATOPS) from a Squadron who doesn't even have the RWR anyways.

 

"[F-5] has no defensive systems, no RWR nor expendable countermeasures" - https://fightersweep.com/129/flying-the-f-5-tiger-ii/

 

The only people who use and update that NATOPS don't even have an RWR!

 

Might help if you knew how NATOPS are written. Would make your argument look ridiculous, but it would keep you from continuing to make it.

 

"Squadrons" don't write NATOPS; program offices do. Offices that deal directly with the manufacturers and contractors who are designing hardware to Navy specification, and specify updated requirements to those suppliers as they come to pass. The authoring is coordinated with test and acceptance crews assigned to those offices who confer with those writing the technical publications that the details are exact, with multiple sets of eyes confirming the material every step of the way.

 

Your belief that these documents are authored by end users is likely only predicated on the understanding that updates can be suggested from the Fleet up. Fleet-side corrections are generally through Safety Officers for operational issues- not just some LT that got told to write up the handling of a section.

 

Corrections, which are intended to be distributed to all commands that deal with a given type as quickly as possible, every individual in the chain- from the Captain in the respective office at NAVAIR, to the authors, the test pilots, and the fleet-side representatives who are part of the annual board review of the document, sign off. Even in the event of a safety of flight update, most of that chain is still reviewing the material- and in most instances, testing it directly, prior to sign off and release to the respective units.

 

As such, when you state as a matter of opinion that the end user "squadrons" who are writing these documents are wrong, you're not simply incorrect on the basis of their production, but are stating that a long series of SMEs- every one of them who has direct professional experience with the hardware, software, and the operational requirements in question for the material they're responsible for, are full of it, because of uncorroborated opinion.

 

Following your recent Dunning-Kruger episode over the functionality of the F/A-18C's RWR having changed at least twice over its lifetime, I wouldn't exactly suggest that is a position of strength from which to operate. There is a world of difference between knowing how the radar equation works, how received power is interpreted by an analog system for which you have documentation or a video, and how a piece of software-driven hardware- which is coded for a specific role, and an operational environment you may or may not be considering (and may ultimately be the underlying cause for argument in this specific case), works.

 

Until you can provide later dated documentation for the software load in the F-5N versus that from the material Belsimtek worked from, you're demands are unsubstantiated. Doesn't matter how you feel on the matter- those feelings aren't supported by fact, but instead how you think the system should work as represented in this particular application of the type.

 

And that just isn't enough to be making demands without material support more substantial than a YouTube clip here, or an unrelated picture there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might help if you knew how NATOPS are written. Would make your argument look ridiculous, but it would keep you from continuing to make it.

 

"Squadrons" don't write NATOPS; program offices do. Offices that deal directly with the manufacturers and contractors who are designing hardware to Navy specification, and specify updated requirements to those suppliers as they come to pass. The authoring is coordinated with test and acceptance crews assigned to those offices who confer with those writing the technical publications that the details are exact, with multiple sets of eyes confirming the material every step of the way.

 

Your belief that these documents are authored by end users is likely only predicated on the understanding that updates can be suggested from the Fleet up. Fleet-side corrections are generally through Safety Officers for operational issues- not just some LT that got told to write up the handling of a section.

 

Corrections, which are intended to be distributed to all commands that deal with a given type as quickly as possible, every individual in the chain- from the Captain in the respective office at NAVAIR, to the authors, the test pilots, and the fleet-side representatives who are part of the annual board review of the document, sign off. Even in the event of a safety of flight update, most of that chain is still reviewing the material- and in most instances, testing it directly, prior to sign off and release to the respective units.

 

As such, when you state as a matter of opinion that the end user "squadrons" who are writing these documents are wrong, you're not simply incorrect on the basis of their production, but are stating that a long series of SMEs- every one of them who has direct professional experience with the hardware, software, and the operational requirements in question for the material they're responsible for, are full of it, because of uncorroborated opinion.

 

Following your recent Dunning-Kruger episode over the functionality of the F/A-18C's RWR having changed at least twice over its lifetime, I wouldn't exactly suggest that is a position of strength from which to operate. There is a world of difference between knowing how the radar equation works, how received power is interpreted by an analog system for which you have documentation or a video, and how a piece of software-driven hardware- which is coded for a specific role, and an operational environment you may or may not be considering (and may ultimately be the underlying cause for argument in this specific case), works.

 

Until you can provide later dated documentation for the software load in the F-5N versus that from the material Belsimtek worked from, you're demands are unsubstantiated. Doesn't matter how you feel on the matter- those feelings aren't supported by fact, but instead how you think the system should work as represented in this particular application of the type.

 

And that just isn't enough to be making demands without material support more substantial than a YouTube clip here, or an unrelated picture there.

 

Yeah you would have gotten more if you didn't come by after the 1.16 wipe, there was an official manual about the Swiss version of the same RWR, which proved that the tones are not realistic, and alot more, the interesting posts were removed from this thread, also ED has a single piece of document that says the functionality is as it is in game, the YouTube clip shows otherwise, so does a video on the F-4E RWR training video, and also a piece of documentation about the B-52's RWR showing that the search button is just used a declutter, to remove the "S" spike, not a hidding vital information to the pilot when engaged button, on top of that use your brain, can you think OF ANY reason why a button, not on the hotas, that deteriorates situational awareness by removing all emitting radars except the ones tracking you when engaged (you could literally turn into another ennemy while defending) and lastly when in search mode, hides radars tracking you ??? Add that and a flawed tone logic and you get a misleading piece of equipment.

 

EDIT : I'm sure Beamscanner will correct me and detail what I've said, without manuals because posting them now is forbidden, so much time wasted.


Edited by Rex854Warrior
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add that and a flawed tone logic and you get a misleading piece of equipment.

 

No, you don't. You get a piece of equipment that has been programmed to operate in a specific environment, for a very specific purpose, and the documents they worked from represent that specific nature.

 

So as I've said previously- document later, or document a different implementation. But move beyond saying that the SMEs that authored the manuals Belsimtek worked from were wrong, because they aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you don't. You get a piece of equipment that has been programmed to operate in a specific environment, for a very specific purpose, and the documents they worked from represent that specific nature.

 

I'd very much like to know what that environment was, that wasn't the same for the B-52H operating at the same time and I think we had a document describing how the search button works on the B-52H (exact same RWR), which showed again that there is a problem.

 

But move beyond saying that the SMEs that authored the manuals Belsimtek worked from were wrong, because they aren't.

 

Well I don't think the data they have is wrong, I think it has been misinterpreted, because in a way, the switch we have now is a declutter, just everything instead of just "S" spikes. And you could prove us that the current logic is correct, we've got plenty of data, alot more then what belsimtek showed and talked about, if you get something that's undeniably a proof that the AN/ALR-46 or enough data to prove us wrong then we'll shut up.

 

P.S. : Also Belsimtek might not have had good information on the RWR, the activity and launch lights don't work at all, could indicate that.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd very much like to know what that environment was, that wasn't the same for the B-52H operating at the same time and I think we had a document describing how the search button works on the B-52H (exact same RWR), which showed again that there is a problem.

 

Ask yourself a question:

 

What doesn't a USN/USMC F-5E/F/N do that a B-52H, or any other configuration of the F-5, does?

 

Then ask yourself the reciprocal question:

 

What does the USN/USMC F-5E/F/N do that a B-52H, or any other configuration of the F-5, don't do?

 

It spends its days doing something very specific- and its software loads are going to be optimized for that.


Edited by lunaticfringe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask yourself a question:

 

What doesn't a USN/USMC F-5E/F/N do that a B-52H, or any other configuration of the F-5, does?

 

Then ask yourself the reciprocal question:

 

What does the USN/USMC F-5E/F/N do that a B-52H, or any other configuration of the F-5, don't do?

 

It spends its days doing something very specific- and its software loads are going to be optimized for that.

 

What is a RWR supposed to do ? Warn from potentiel threats and give proper situational awareness to the pilot about what is emitting around his aircraft, you are engaged by an SA-2, you set search mode off by releasing the stick while a missile is flying at you and pressing the button because like this you see where from and what is launching at you :) isn't that great ? You break left and start notching the SAM, suddenly you hear the new spike tone, probably no big deal right and anyways you're evading so no time to press the button and since the tones aren't correct, you won't know when the missile has been defended because the tones only play right after lock or right after launch. You've defended the SAM so you press the button again and you have another SA-2 in front of you that you have been flying towards for the last minute with full throttles. You might say that you could have gone back in your lines, and you could have certainly, but with the way the RWR should work, at least how the data we found says, you wouldn't have this problem, it would have warned you, if shit goes down, how the hell do you expect this search button to help, the F-5 is an interceptor/fighter, at that time airborne radars were just starting to get effective. In a dogfight, you hear a tone, you might not have any idea where or what is shooting at you, I'll repeat my question :

 

What environment was this logic made for ?


Edited by Rex854Warrior
  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Guys, this is a bug reporting thread, report what is wrong, and data from the game about what is happening or not. This isn't a thread to debate on how things should work or to argue with each other.

 

It's been reported, and ED is looking at what to do to fix it.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...