Eurofighter Typhoon - Germany's Best Fighter Jet

[MythicPi]

That might be the only option tbh. I know the Tyhpoon has up to 8 bars irl, and can modify its bar height pretty substantially on very narrow scans but dont have a useable source for that unfortunately, so until then the Blue Vixen 6 bar narrow might be the only option.

The decrease in vertical scan area actually hits the Typhoon particularly hard imo because of the DASS display in the cockpit. One of the issues that can occur when trying to aquire a target thats already locking you is either getting the azimuth or elevation of your radar wrong long enough for you not to be able to retaliate. Digital RWR’s help a lot with nose pointing for azimuth, but the Thypoons DASS display actually allows you to ALWAYS get the azimuth right, even on a very narrow scan, which means the only issue you can have with trying to acquire a target thats on RWR is getting elevation wrong.

If the EFT’s had a large vertical scan volume narrow azimuth mode, theyd be able to mitigate this much better, but atm the 70x11.4 deg was the highest vertical scan volume BVR mode for the radar iirc, so it dropping to 70x8.4 deg stings.

Like I said tho, I rather a functional radar that scans less than an unreliable one that scans more, so ill take this whole change as a win for the time being.

[UH虎安东星第一可爱]

Hopefully, I can’t wait to see a perfect Catcher M (I made a vow that I would only play EF2000 the moment the Catcher M was restored.)

[Das_Jukes]

Any idea when this update is due?

[Gunjob]

No idea sorry.

[Sol_yt]

Ok looked like a nerf by just looking at the range numbers, but thanks for the clarification.

[Gunjob]

Reported it;

Spoiler

Issue

Presently Blue Vixen, PS-05A and CAPTOR-M share the same scan patterns, it has been raise with me by Air Simulator Battles players that scan patterns with more bars and thus more elevation are an advantage.

Our current options on the radars mentioned previously are;

• 70+/- Full Scan - 2 Bar
• 30+/- Wide Scan - 4 Bar
• 10+/- Narrow Scan - 2 Bar

Additional options could be;

• 70+/- Full Scan - 4 Bar
• 30+/- Wide Scan - 2 Bar
• 10+/- Narrow Scan - 6 Bar
• 10+/- Narrow Scan - 4 Bar

Affected Radars

• uk_ferranti_blue_vixen
• uk_captor_m_pirate
• uk_captor_m
• sw_ps_05a

Additional Information

Sea Harrier FA.2 Manual;

2B and 4B are available in any azimuth coverage, with 6B only being available in Narrow Scan (NS, +/-10 Degrees)

[Justgun17]

is there any date that is public, when the update drops?

[Sean74218]

IRIS-T end of 2025

[ARK_BOI]

Let hope it get better in the few days

[MythicPi]

Much appreciated!

[EurofighterPls]

I think more summer update like the fox 3s.

[F0x_Hunter]

@Gunjob

but until the repeating bar issue is fixed

Are there any prerequisites? As far as I remember, there have been reports since the summer and I don’t see anything that would change the developers’ opinion on this matter. In terms of characteristics, the Captor-M is minimally different from the PS-05 Gripen, which has been in this state for a year. As we can see from the example of the IRST Typhoon, this changes as in the meme “with one line of code”
And anyway, do the developers consider this a bug? It seems to me that they do not think that the radar dish can so quickly return from the lower position of the (conditionally) right corner to the upper position of the (conditionally) left corner.

[MythicPi]

Im pretty sure most if not all radars in-game have this same issue, its just more obvious on large bar count and slower scanning radars, so its most obvious on things like the CAPTOR-M and the russian radars. As for why gaijin has decided to model radars this way, I have no clue.

The bug report literally has a pic from a mig-29 manual proving this is absolutely not how its supposed to scan, along with an F-16 vid proving the same thing as well. Theres literally no logical reason why it should be doing this, rescanning the area of sky you JUST scanned makes no sense. That being said, the bug report is 7 months old, so I have little faith in it ever being fixed at this point.

This really should be the number 1 radar “bug” on the devs docket and they havent seemed to show any interest whatsoever in fixing it, so I dont expect its going to be fixed anytime soon unfortunately, if ever…

[Morvran]

[Grimtax]

The bug is nothing more than someone accidentally changing how what the default bar scan order is. The default used to be restarting from the top. If any scan pattern was supposed to restart its scan from the bottom, than it would be explicitly specified, if not, nothing was usually written (so the default behaviour held). After the default got changed to restarting scan from bottom, most radars started to behave like that, since most radars did not have that line explicitly mentioned.
Right now there is actually at least one airborne radar that restarts its scans from the top, and that is the F4D, because for some reason its scan pattern has the correct order explicitly specified.
This bug is what caused some SPAA radar dishes to spin funny, btw.

[Grimtax]

While it is an important bug, it won’t make as big of a difference as some people might hope once it is fixed. The main downside of the current scan pattern is that the target update time is not constant (even if the average is the same as the preferred scan pattern).

Say, scan period is 3 seconds. If the target is in the middle of the scan zone, then it will be revisited every 3 seconds, no matter which way the beam is moving.
If the target is near the top left, then the revisit time will be ~0.6 seconds if the beam is moving towards the top left and ~5.4 seconds if it is moving towards the bottom right. 5.4 s is obviously a lot. For a 3.7s scan this figure may go up to 7.4s.

Targets selected in TWS have the scan zone centered on them, so there will be no difference, whether the bug is fixed or not. The difference would be there for targets near the corners.

Russian radars were very slow even before this bug, it just made them even worse.

[MythicPi]

I think you’re significantly downplaying the effect it has on radars, that could be understandable tho if you play RB, as the spotting system and 3rd person view + freelook are a perfect crutch to make the reliability of TWS effectively pointless.

In sim however, radar reliability is literal life and death, particularly since having your radar on in the first place is already a double edged sword, as it allows you to engage targets in BVR (if you find them first), but also broadcasts your location to everywhere your main beam and sidelobes reach, effectively putting a giant neon sign over your head in a game mode where there isnt a spotting mechanic. Not only does this proverbial neon sign broadcast your location, it also lets everyone know what jet you are, and the fact you are an enemy, due to RWR’s not displaying friendly radar spikes.

There is more to TWS than the “track” part, if we just wanted track reliability, we’d just switch to STT, the entire point of TWS is the ability to track while scanning. An unreliable radar means an unreliable situational awareness, and an unreliable response time in situations where seconds matter, such as when someone sets up a preferential intercept of you due to the information they acquired from your radar being on, and you need to fire back at them or risk being rendered entirely defensive, which means almost certain death, which is itself also significantly more penalized in sim than in RB due to the reward mechanics.

[UH虎安东星第一可爱]

Gaijin hasn’t updated .41 for so long, does that mean there are still changes to Catcher M?

[Grimtax]

I do agree with you, it does help a lot with consistency of track files for anything that is (un)fortunate enough to not be in the center of the scan zone. Maybe I overbent the stick a bit too far, but the reason I wrote that was, what seemed to me, an exaggerated expectation of some players here. Some claimed that the scan periods went up to twice the normal, which is not quite true. (Could be that they understood the issue properly, but because they kept it short, I thought they did not).

But most importantly, Soviet radars were still bad (just not as bad as now) even before the bug appeared. Many expect that Captor-M will eventually be buffed to perform at least on part with APG-63/66/68, in terms of scan rate. If all that will change is the increase to 70^{\,\circ}/s (it is 65^{\,\circ}/s right now) and bar order bug fix, Captor-M will still be underwhelming compared to American radars.

Honestly, the bigger issue here are the scan patterns themselves. APG-63 scans at 70^{\,\circ}/s, APG-66/68 scan at 60^{\,\circ}/s, and N001/N019 scan at 57^{\,\circ}/s (could go up to 70 IRL, but those are not available in manual scan mode). As you can see, the speeds themselves are not that different, but the differences of in-game performance is massive.

Take the APG-66 and N019, for example. The former has a scan mode 57^{\,\circ} wide and 2 bars, while the latter is stuck with 4 bars. Even if the 2 bar scan is not very tall, it is completed in 1.5 seconds, while the 4 bar scan is in 3.7. (Why does APG-68 still not have the quintessential 3 bar 50 TWS scan yet?)

Getting a 3 bar 60 or 4 bar 40 scan would probably be the best change for Captor-M, in Air RB, at least.

Long story short, the bug fix would be a big, or even a massive, improvement, but that alone won’t suddenly make things good.

[Dontkev]

Somewhere at 42k feet...

Also, you can cook your own Engines at these alts… (is this accurate?)