I was a bit hasty with half of that, yes.
Do I understand correctly that the RWR is now fully spherical?
Its a copy and paste from the Gripen, it should be a unique modelled Radar with its excentricities otherwise whats the point?
May aswell give every new jet the same Radar
Yes
600 Pure rofl
Reported it, should be 1250w.
7 Likes
BTW, that TWS bug is still here (don’t know if it is coming in todays micropatches, but thought I would let you know):
Oh, and do you have the British/Italian EFT yet (or maybe test drive). I am not close to any of them, can you test this IRST bug, please?
This bug is also still a thing
[DEV] EF-2000: Enemies not Displayed on TWS HUD in Sim Battles // Gaijin.net // Issues
1 Like
Is the cockpit RWR display bugged? I remember it looking different on dev.
In game CAPTOR_M is an improved version of the Blue Vixen in game (the Gripen’s radar being a Blue Vixen C&P).
The ECR-90 (the original name for CAPTOR-M) in real life was a scaled up (larger / more powerful) and improved Blue Vixen, you could apparently trace every component of ECR-90 back to a corresponding component in Blue Vixen. The overall design and architecture of the radars are very similar:
ECR-90 had improved radar processing for stuff like NCTR and better ECCM, but it is to be expected that where the stats of CAPTOR-M are unknown Gaijin will fall back to using Blue Vixen stats, because of how similar the radars are in many respects.
ah yes its now a microwave oven
Update on this, @Gunjob:
It is not just uk_captor_m_pirate that is affected, but also fr_thales_rbe2 (and su_v_004 to some extent).
A bit of speculation that might be helpful:
Seems like the some of the ESA code was taken from V004 to be used on RBE2, but it was accidentally used on Captor-M with Pirate (mechanically scanned and the regular Captor-M does not have this).
V004’s scan rate permits to have such a short clear time, more or less (not in wide scan, it is too slow for that, so there it faces the same problems as the other radars above). However, Captor and RBE take longer to complete their scans, so 4 seconds is too short for them to update a track file, resulting in that track file being cleared. It is likely that the ESA code was taken from V004 and then worked upon, but they forgot to change that value.
Edit/Update: This should now not apply to RBE2, as it is now (or very soon) constantly updating targets. It also did not apply to V004, as that one already had that ability, so I was wrong about this issue affecting V004 (it only affected Captor-M Pirate and RBE2).
Hey, we’ve got a report in for the fr_thales_rbe2 as well as uk_captor_m_pirate. Hasn’t been forgotten about don’t worry.
9 Likes
Nice (don’t forget the V004, tho).
Was just trying to pass onto this bit of info. Scouring the configs for bugs can take a long time, so a hint might speed things up (assuming I am correct).
Nah. My microwave is one and a half times more powerful. 900 watts. :D
So there was such a rush that they didn’t even add camouflage?
1 Like
Wait is that the pulse power of the radar or what is that value? If so the pulse power should be ~9 kW as it was stated to be reaching double the pulse power of the APG-65 which has a pulse power of 4,5 kW.
(and shouldn’t “transivers” be “transceivers”?)
If I understand this value correctly - then yes. For comparison, for Tornado F.3 this parameter is 2000
Those who know what’s wrong with it - can someone explain it to me like im 5 as to what is actually wrong with the radar currently
Just had a test fly of the F-15E and the difference is night and day in terms of tracking performance, even the F3 Late seems to be considerably better at engaging multiple targets
Then shouldn’t the pulse power be ~9 kW as it was stated to be reaching double the pulse power of the APG-65 which has a pulse power of 4,5 kW.
Because it is almost 3.5 times less powerful and 2.5 times slower. And the current radar has a half-sensitivity angle of 4, while Foxhunter (not me) has 2.8.
That is, AI.24 is more powerful, faster and more accurate.