The decision to only give Scorpion equipped aircrafts datalink capability and then deny its existence altogether gotta be on the top 10 list of most BS decisions by Gaijin.
They could at least say that “we are working on adding it to other aircrafts”.
Or perhaps the person responsible for modelling the HMDs, truly doesn’t understand how the Scorpion can show friendly contacts, including friendly ground vehicles … (Their response in the bug report suggests such).
I looked at @DirectSupport’s report briefly, and seems like he’s asking for radar display to show IFF responses even if the enemy isn’t scanned or detected by the radar.
And to the best of my knowledge not only is this realistic, but not even such advanced technology.
I remember from naval Phantom manuals that even their primitive radar can still show IFF responses even if the radar contact isn’t shown (e.g. in the clutter or notch etc).
This is actually something that has to be fixed for all planes …
@k_stepanovich
It would be nice if you could implement this.
Friendly IFF responses should be shown even if the radar hasn’t detected or scanned the friendly contact.
Except the A-10C, it should be removed as it has no dedicated interrogation devices to speak of and relies on the datalink which is not supposed to be modeled.
I rather they just implement datalink for all planes that have the capability. Especially with the advanced planes that we have in the game now.
Then the A-10C would only have information datalinked to it from others
I mean, that’s how it works right now.
It doesn’t show enemies; Only friendlies (send you their own location via datalink).
Now you could make an argument that not all air and ground vehicles have (compatible) datalink capability to send you their location, but then again, in the game, even I-15 gets both Soviet and NATO compatible IFF transponder. (And for obvious reasons)
So A-10C is fine; Other planes should get their datalink capability. Both in terms of showing friendly contacts, but also sharing radar contacts.
Yes, this will change the nature of the game, especially in SB but also in RB to some degree (especially if they add radar contact sharing), but so be it … It’s realistic and the nature of the beast (modern air combat).
Please do NOT attempt to do moderation on your own, or in other words, personally.
He won’t. He swore he won’t make anymore bug reports. Don’t get scared by him and do more bug reports for French planes please.
istg if we end up with an ED F-16 gps whitepaper i’ll be … very unhappy
Saint Patrick day I suppose… I also think it is quite ugly. Supposed to have a Gallic/celtic style I guess.
TV slaving to the radar is inconsistent in implementation // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale’s IRST sensor should cue the TV sensor // Gaijin.net // Issues
God those got forwarded for review quick. But yeah the implementation of TV tracking cueing to your radar is so inconsistent. Not only for the Rafale but on everything else that can do it. F-14B, Su-34, Eurofighters, Kurnass 2000 all also have this feature but it barely works. In the case of the Kurnass 200 it doesn’t work at all. The only aircraft that has this working properly is the F-15E with the LANTIRN pod equipped but I’m not entirely sure if it is meant to even have it.
would be way to op with reduced RCS, it already dominates top tier
Didn’t F-14B have this working correctly at launch? Seems something changed since then.
Yeah at launch it worked. No idea what changed.
@k_stepanovich First off, sorry if I tag you too often, but considering that you are present and active on the forums, I assume you are willing to engage in discussions.
I had posted this in F-16 thread:
RBE2 AESA brochures also list and illustrate a similar capability:
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/pubs/aesa_rbe2_5_juin_val_def_bat_ok.pdf
https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/aesa-rbe2-product-brochure-june2006.pdf
Which @DirectSupport has bug reported here.
And even the older RBE2 PESA brochure lists a similar capability:
And this magazine by Dassault and partners clarifies that this is one of the inherent advantages of the electronically scanned radars over mechanical radars:
Considering that multiple AESA and PESA radars are shown to have this capability (which results from the inherent high speed of electronic beam steering), don’t you think it’s reasonable to give this capability to all AESA and PESA radars unless proven otherwise?
To the best of my understanding the way this works is that because electronic beam steering (both PESA and AESA) allows you to steer and move the beam to an arbitrary position very rapidly (unlike a mechanical antenna which takes time to move due to its mass), you can essentially “pause” your regular scan pattern briefly, move the beam outside the scan volume to update a track, and then return and resume your scan pattern.
In fact, even sufficiently advanced mechanical radars seem to have a "discount version’ of this capability:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/P8Gb6ip55srm
Of course on a mechanical radar it doesn’t work as good and for as many tracks, since it takes more time to take the mechanical antenna outside of the scan pattern and then return it again, compared to an AESA or PESA which can steer the beam electronically, very rapidly.
It is a result of the ability to split and use multiple separate beams I’d think, not the speed alone… or am I not understanding how this works?
PESA would be unable to split the beam into multiple directions I’d think, or at least not in the same way the AESA could as it has individual transmit and receive modules.
That’s pretty much what I’ve been thinking as well.
