He said it twice! Children read this forum you utter beep.
1 Like
Alright, you can cut it.
1 Like
Okay, coming back to thread topic.
What information would be useful for the BOL report? -While there are plenty of photos (visual spectrum) there are less of countermeasures as seen in the IR/UV spectrum - certainly publicly available anyway.
And thats why we like it )))))
I don’t think much is needed.
I think it’s pretty clear it’s a ahistorical/fake change purely for the purposes of nerfing BOL for balancing reasons. More than sufficient data/evidence was submitted a year ago to get it fixed, both the flares and the chaff.
Aircraft equipped with BOL would have a notable CM advantage which is greatly mitigated by the poor performance currently. Whilst aircraft like the Gripen and Typhoon manage fine for the moment, everything else suffers greatly, but few care about the other aircraft performance and so it is ignored.
This is pretty clear when you consider aircraft like the Harrier Gr7 had 700 CMs for 15 months without issue, but then the Gripen started to do well, and the F-16/Mig-29/Su-27 were no longer meta and thus the Gripen needed nerfs. Reducing the size of BOL by 75% for all aircraft was their chosen method.
The only hope for BOL these days is for BOL to be truly modeled correctly and the only hope for that is a need for it to be modeled correctly, like for the F-15 which is currently missing BOL to defend against ASRAAM and IRIS-T. Until then, all others will just have to suffer the fake BOL nerfs
1 Like
Regarding the radar scanning speed.
I suspect that the low scanning speed may be due to the ultra-fast vertical scanning feature. If your radar is capable of vertically deviating at 333 degrees per second and updating contacts almost instantly even outside the current scanning line, then you don’t need high horizontal speed. With a scanning speed of 70 degrees per second, it will pass even the widest bar in 2 seconds, which means that all contacts will be updated very often and, as I already said, you don’t need high beam movement speed in the horizontal plane. I think this system can be simulated by adding a second radar beam, which will move synchronously with the scanning beam, but will not detect new targets, but will only update known ones. Oh, and of course the beam should be 120 degrees high to cover the entire vertical zone available to the radar.
1 Like
they could’ve balanced this by reducing the amount of rails you can mount.
the current implementation juts screws everyone over
it might be balanced for the jets that carry 4 rails but aircraft that carry less (or loadouts that result in less carriage like bombs and such) just mean you’re completely screwed, even more so than aircraft without BOL rails
1 Like
Some ppl have mentionned the ESA radars ingame already have a priority track mode implemented on them, with the radar updating targets even when the beqm isnt on them specifically at very short intervals. I havent looked into this much myself yet, but might be an avenue to look into.
If the claim is accurate, we could get P-track, and by extension a much better radar much quicker.
Yes, they update the targets that are within scan zone every time they switch bar.
if anyone can interpret the .blks here are the two radars (to see if there’s anything definite regarding the AESA updating targets):
https://github.com/gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine/blob/master/aces.vromfs.bin_u/gamedata/sensors/uk_captor_m.blkx
https://github.com/gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine/blob/master/aces.vromfs.bin_u/gamedata/sensors/fr_thales_rbe2.blkx
Had a thought. Should striker I still show IFF in the HMD overlay? Whilst I know the datalink IFF is a feature of striker II, I would figure that striker I could simply display the IFF information it receives from the radar. Currently it has the same marker for both friend or foe that the radar sees.
should probably have the same symbology as the HUD
but also this kinda goes into this direction
1 Like
idk if this is correct but uh
if you look over here for the captor-m
this is the track stuff for TWS, it just ‘selects’ or ‘designates’ a scan target
for rbe2 its different:
it gets an additional track property
of interest is the “scantrack” section; it shows a scan period update time of 0.01 seconds which is what you see in game and the reason for why the tws lock is rock solid and and speed/direction changes are immediately visible. imo this is also why the direction arrow jumps around a bit as the update rate is so ridiculously fast.
captor-m doesnt have this yet. i’d maybe think that the update speed for it would be at best half a second but thats just a guess
3 Likes
Soooooo a P-track…
@k_stepanovich any reason why CAPTOR-M wasnt given the same priority track as the ESA radars? Its sitting as a suggestion right now
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/P8Gb6ip55srm
3 Likes
Already displays HMD radar IFF, allies are circles and hostiles are diamonds.
They could set scantrack at the speed reqired to sweep 1 bar, so 1 sec for 70°, 2 sec for 140°, etc…
i guess
Either I have simply not noticed this or its not working on my end. I shall have a look next time I play and see
Ill take a screenshot later and post it
@Smin1080p_WT Can this answer be reviewed btw? As seen in the quote below, the feature DOES exist in-game, its simply limited to ESA radars like the Rafales RBE2-AA and Su-34 V004. Priority scan works the exact same way, itd just be a tad slower (updates once per bar, so dependent on the horizontal scan width).
Probably gonna tell you that the feature doesn’t exist like they did for radar based MAWS… even though they do exist, just on tanks with APS. Britain has one.