[REPORTED] RWR not showing locked radars in Search mode - Page 7 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2018, 09:40 PM   #61
33-DFTC
Member
 
33-DFTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by probad View Post
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
33-DFTC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 10:42 PM   #62
Beamscanner
Member
 
Beamscanner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: tatooine
Posts: 499
Default

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"?

Last edited by Beamscanner; 07-13-2018 at 10:46 PM.
Beamscanner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2018, 11:15 PM   #63
Svend_Dellepude
Senior Member
 
Svend_Dellepude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,536
Default

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.
__________________

Win10 64, Asus Maximus VIII Formula, i5 6600K, Geforce 980 GTX Ti, 32 GB Ram, Samsung EVO SSD.
Svend_Dellepude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2018, 09:16 PM   #64
Midnightzulu
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svend_Dellepude View Post
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.
Midnightzulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2018, 09:46 PM   #65
al531246
Member
 
al531246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Wales, UK
Posts: 313
Default

In this video you can clearly see search mode activated and the SA-2 has launched on the aircraft.

https://youtu.be/Q_VcNlOTu8g?t=4m57s
__________________
[spoiler=PC SPECS]
Intel i5-3570k @3.40GHz
EVGA GTX 970 4GB
Windows 10
Asus P8H61-MX MoBo
8GB RAM
250 GB Samsung 850 SSD
2TB Seagate SSHD
Some cool LED fans that light up
[/spoiler]
al531246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2018, 06:40 PM   #66
NineLine
Community Manager
 
NineLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 22,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beamscanner View Post
Even a year after I provided evidence, the RWR issues still haven't been addressed.
It is still a concern on our end, so it is not forgotten for what that is worth.
__________________
Nick Grey - "I have had the privilege of flying most marks of Spit, the I, V, IX, XIV, XIX and enjoyed working with Eagle to make this simulation of the IX the 'mutt's nuts'."
Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN
Forum RulesForum Rules Guidelines
ED Facebook PageED YouTube PageWags YouTubeMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine #0440
**How to Report a Bug**
NineLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2018, 05:40 PM   #67
Rex854Warrior
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: France
Posts: 391
Default

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.
__________________


http://veaf.org/fr/
Rex854Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2018, 06:27 PM   #68
NineLine
Community Manager
 
NineLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 22,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex854Warrior View Post
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.
__________________
Nick Grey - "I have had the privilege of flying most marks of Spit, the I, V, IX, XIV, XIX and enjoyed working with Eagle to make this simulation of the IX the 'mutt's nuts'."
Artist formerly known as SiThSpAwN
Forum RulesForum Rules Guidelines
ED Facebook PageED YouTube PageWags YouTubeMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine #0440
**How to Report a Bug**
NineLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2018, 12:49 AM   #69
lunaticfringe
Senior Member
 
lunaticfringe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beamscanner View Post
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.
lunaticfringe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2018, 02:17 AM   #70
Rex854Warrior
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: France
Posts: 391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lunaticfringe View Post
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.
__________________


http://veaf.org/fr/

Last edited by Rex854Warrior; 08-10-2018 at 02:25 AM.
Rex854Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bug, rwr

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:11 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.