To each their own!
And the “zoom” crutch shouldn’t exist either …
Not sure why you think “your preferred crutch” (zoom) should be preferred by everyone over other crutches (radar display).
I should probably make a suggestion for the ability to see the actual MFD pages as overlays!
Imagine Rafale’s MFD radar display as overlay …!
Isn’t it sad that you can’t see that nice radar MFD when you play in 3rd person view in RB?!
@k_stepanovich Please read my suggestion below:
In the game we have radar and RWR overlays, that are used in 3rd person view (AB & RB) and even in the cockpit view (SB) by many players (because the actual cockpit MFDs are not easily readable when looking at the world through a computer monitor with a limited resolution):
However these overlays (For radar and RWR) are generic and look the same for all planes.
While there are valid reasons that some players might prefer to use these simpler generic interfaces for all planes, I think there should be an option to allow the players to swap these generic interfaces for the actual historical interface that is shown on the plane’s MFDs in the cockpit view.
I.e. to see the historical MFD radar and RWR interface as overlays in 3rd person as well as cockpit view, instead of these generic radar and RWR overlays.
And make it two separate options (one for the radar overlay and another for RWR overlay) for maximum flexibility.
As the game has progressed into more modern planes, we now have planes with such nice looking MFD interfaces for radar and RWR display in the cockpit:
Apart from the fact that these MFD radar and RWR interfaces sometimes provide useful information that are not provided by the generic radar and RWR interface, given how much effort the devs put into designing and modeling these historical MFD interfaces, isn’t it truly a pity that most players (in AB, RB and even many in SB) don’t have the option to use these nice looking historical interfaces from their favorite aircrafts, instead of the bland generic ones?
you can add a thread on the suggestion board, it may be ignored here and this would be a pretty cool feature imo so be sure to suggest it there !
AASM Hammer is missing ability to hit targets behind aircraft // Gaijin.net // Issues
Thanks to @totolescargo for a good source of his that was included.
Never get on the bad side of Safran
There is a bad side? 👀
Question: Is there a specific reason why the SU30 has a faster radar scan speed than the Rafale?
Is that based on sources or just balancing reasons?
You should see a report on this in the next week or so rectifying the radar scan speed.
Yeah the one in the ground when there’s AASM around
I think they should make the scan speed dependent on the selected range scale, which is probably something in the development pipeline I would imagine …
Even then, as an AESA radar, the rafale should be able to disco ball the shit out of the sky, with multiple beam scanning at the same time in different direction, since it’s AESA
Thank god
I don’t understand why they would implement AESA radar if they reduce their capabilities to balance them
TWS Narrow:
CAPTOR-M: 20x4.2 deg / Period: 0.6s / Scan rate: 66.67 deg/s / Update rate: When scanned
V004: 30x10 deg / Period 0.92s / Scan rate: 130.43 deg/s / Update rate: 0.01s
RBE2-AA: 30x15.75 deg / Period: 1.7s / Scan rate: 123.53 deg/s / Update rate: 0.01s
NO11M: 25x4 deg/ Period: 0.4s / Scan rate: 125deg/s / Update rate: 0.01s
TWS Medium:
CAPTOR-M: 60x8.4 deg / Period: 3.7s / Scan rate: 64.86 deg/s / Update rate: When scanned
V004: 60x10 deg / Period 1.85s / Scan rate: 129.73 deg/s/ Update rate: 0.01s
RBE2-AA: 70x15.75 deg / Period: 3.96s / Scan rate: 123.74 deg/s / Update rate: 0.01s
NO11M: 45x6.67 deg / Period: 1.1s / Scan rate: 163.64 deg/s / Update rate: 0.01s
TWS Wide:
CAPTOR-M: 140x4.2 deg / Period: 4.3s / Scan rate: 65.12 deg/s / Update rate: When scanned
V004: 60x20 deg / Period 3.69s / Scan rate: 130.01 deg/s / Update rate: 0.01s
RBE2-AA: 70x31.5 deg / Period: 7.92s / Scan rate: 123.74 deg/s / Update rate: 0.01s
NO11M: 80x7.5 deg / Period: 1.5s / Scan rate: 213.33 deg/s / Update rate: 0.01s
The BARS radar is kind of weird honestly, it doesnt have anywhere near a consistant scan rate now that I look at it. I wonder if that was a mistake. Its narrow scan rate is in the same ballpark as the other ESA’s, but its wide scan rate is in a league of its own.
Nobody understands why they gave the Rafale AESA in the first place.
There’s absolutely no context nor prooper form to these calculations, and I’m not versed enough in jet thermodynamics to fill the blanks. If you could clarify it to me I’d gladly read it.
Really bro ?
Beides that current Scan rates on RBE2-AA and N011M seem to be based on nothing concrete (maybe on T/R count, but would that even make sense…), I hope they give AESA Radars multiple Scan-Volumes which are scanned at the same time and independed from each other.
I dont really see any reason the RBE2-AA needs any improvements atm, its still the best radar ingame by a country mile atm.
The NO11M needs some fixing tho, there shoulsnt be such a massive discrepency in its scan speeds, but at the same time theres no source to say its “wrong”, it just doesnt fit with all the other radars ingame. Personally id drop it to its lowest scan rate, but increase its scan area to match the report put in earlier this week.
I just like things perform correctly )))
However, yea - MICA range rather needs adjustments. After some SB rounds recently, the R-77-1 seems to be quite realiable and 'bit than AIM-120B in practice. The MICA EM is not bad rn, but I do see AIM-120C-5 coming sooner than later, while MICA being limited way too much compared to IRL.
Edit: After playing more SB (just now), MICA EM absolutely needs its proper range.
