I wonder why? Does the Igla maybe not have any rcs signature?
So for whatever absurd reason, in VR at least, targets are linked to the HMD. They don’t properly follow it and vibrate around when moving my head, and targets on the HUD are also linked to the HMD, making targets on the HUD unreadable as they drift around if i’m not looking perfectly straight ahead.
In other news, with the loss of the situational awareness present in air rb, the radar is abhorrent. It’s entirely unuseable in sim.
1 Like
Its been bug reported for 3 months and passed to devs for 1 month.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jejCVBF3bYbg
As for when it’ll be fixed, think 3-5 buisness years.
Thats being overly optimistic :P
Well…
I’m not going to nerf the Rafale or anything like that. I just have questions about its drag (I have no idea how a thicker airframe generates less drag than a skinnier one. The Lightning was built stretched upwards to reduce drag, the Typhoon is also slightly stretched upwards. The Rafale is stretched out to the sides, like the Sea Vixen.) and about the equipment. The Rafale in the French TT looks like the Indian one should look in our TT.
I think the problem with the radar is that it is like this. The radar ITSELF. But I don’t think it was designed to work solo.
I like this slide of the presentation because it shows the work of the Typhoon attack complex well. The pilot receives information not from the radar, on the MFD, but combined from the radar, IRST, ESM (as I understand it - RWR) and from other aircraft (which I do not expect in the game).
But this slide will tell you why I think that the RWR can also act as a source of target designation. It has the same cursor marker as the radar. Why is it there if it cannot highlight anything as a target?
There is something scary under this spoiler. My attempt to draw how I see the work of the Captor-M radar in the game.
I used the same colors as in the presentation.
Radar contacts - gray squares
IRST contacts - pink stars
RWR contacts - green diamonds.
Yes, it looks like a total mess and this is exactly the reason why the snail does not want to climb here. Because this needs to be made to work in the game somehow.
I will try to explain this mess. There are 4 scanning strips, each of which is numbered in order and has its own color so that it is possible (at least somehow) to distinguish the vector of departure from the scanning line to the contact from individual strips. On each scanning strip, the beam moves from edge to edge and, when it reaches the azimuth of the contact outside the scanning beam zone (if this is a contact from IRST, RWR or a radar contact that was detected earlier), the radar will scan it using the priority track.
I already said, I think in January, that there are 3 options for how the vector of leaving for contact renewal may look, but for the game I would choose the simplest one - with the radar stopping on the vector and waiting for the beam to return back to the scanning strip. But as I understand it, in the radar parameters we do not specify the speed of the radar dish, but the period during which the radar moves from edge to edge is specified. That is, not only do we need to make a fusion sensor for three systems, but we also need to create a separate radar operating mode in the game logic.
Such work of the attacking system (Radar + IRST + RWR) will allow Typhoon to be effective. All this information is freely available.
The problem is not that the developers don’t want to fix the radar, but that the developers don’t want to make a mechanic that will be used by 1-2 planes from minor TTs for now.
P.S.
Should also take into account the intakes. The Rafale’s intakes are semi-submerged while the Eurofighter’s is not. Submerged intakes offer not only reduced signature but reduced drag as well. It would be similar to how recessed pylons offer reduced drag for carried weapons.
Spoiler
1 Like
It’s still inexcusable for the rafale to be hitting its max speed in that config.
Who is excusing it?
1 Like
I get where you are coming from and that is certainly probably part of its IRL performance. But from a radar vs radar basis. Something feels wrong with how the radar acquires targets. I can live with the radar being slightly useless at tracking things. But when you point a radar into a bit of space where there is an enemy and nothing, even after multiple radar passes. Something is definetly broken. If it wasnt, the exact same thing would be happening with other radars, and it just isnt.
From my understanding. First maybe second sweep should locate a target and it should appear on the radar screen. next 1 or 2 sweeps would update direction of travel and IFF. But that can be accelerated by selecting the target and switching to narrower scan mode. That is all fine and I have no issue with having to do that until such time that IRST fusion and Priority track is modeled in game.
But from my experience. It takes at least 3 sweeps before the target might be located and even when it is, I can never seem to get my radar to hook the contact and I usually have to rescan the target a few times to actually locate it. All-in-All. It might take up to 5-8 sweeps of my radar before i’ve even gotten my radar looking at the target in a narrow search mode. Something I have never, ever had to worry about when using any other radar. Heck, even in the Blue Fox feels like a more reliable radar for finding a target im pointing the radar straight at, even when battling ground clutter. Which is just insane to me.
I have a few theories for why its not locating targets, like the TWS being in PD when the target is running laterally and it takes a few scans before switching to a non-PD search mode or something. But I just have no way to test. No way to prove or disprove it.
So, Im just going to keep doing what im doing. If/when I play it. record clips where I know my radar was pointing at the target (ideally with VID) and straight up not seeing the anything. Record the footage from in game using ReLive and then check on Replay that the target was actually 100% in the scan beam.
And then just go from there. Relying on people with far better understanding on the core mechanics to try and determine a logical explanation for why what happened, happened. And maybe in time we’ll get a solution and CAPTOR-M will feel like CAPTOR-M, not a Korean ERA A2A radar
1 Like
nobody except maybe Gaijin.
I had a random "shower thought " on this. A major disadvantage of the side stick is that you can only control the aircraft with your right hand.
With a central stick you can take control with your left hand and do whatever you want with your right hand.
This might be something as trivial as resting it after a long flight, but could also be in things like taking down a 9-line onto a knee board whilst writing with your right hand for example.
Even just being able to the grab the stick with both hands in an emergency must be handy at times. Even with more modern Fly-by-wire systems.
No the problem is very much the Devs not fixing the radar. Sensor fusion would be very nice to have for Eurofighter and Rafale, but even without it the CAPTOR-M should be a very capable radar by itself. Not a downgrade from previous M-scan radars.
6 Likes
As can be seen here, the DASS format MFD does not display incoming missiles in the cockpit, which effectively makes all the MAWS changes the EFT got during this update worthless if you fly in sim without the in-game RWR overlay. I have a short clip and will be making a bug report for this critical missing feature.
One thing I need to test quickly first is that maybe its due to the ranges involved, since the DASS format is permanently locked at 40NMi (good for irl, not so good for in-game), so maybe the missile range was too short to have it show up at all, but I’m pretty sure thats not the case and gaijin has just once again forgotten to model stuff in the EFT’s cockpit properly…
As a sidenote, tho it likely wouldn’t be accurate to IRL (at least afaik), the ability to downscale the DASS display range would be nice… 40NMi (~74km) is massive, and makes it ludicrously hard to figure out where threats are when within ~15nmi, which is when the vast majority of WT engagements occur.
The 40NMi likely wouldn’t be an issue irl either since the HMD would presumably be displaying all friendly and hostile targets real time locations, alongside missiles using the data from all available sensors, but seeing as that’s not the case in-game, its a bit more of a significant problem for situational awareness…
I have some clips of the radar in action and they’re likely to just about make you throw up ngl. Too big for the forums tho, I’ll see if I can send it on discord.
Edit: couldnt send them on discord, so here’s 1/4 for an example:
CAPTOR-L(iability) spends more time tracking thin air then enemy jets when using TWS, and this is with a relatively slow jet, flying towards me, in a predictable pattern. I’d hazard a guess at saying if you arent using STT vs an actual player, you might as well just not use the radar at all. Otherwise, have fun trying to not get your missiles notched when the radar is by default pointing the AMRAAM’s seeker at the chaff instead of the enemy jet…
2 Likes
Alright this is getting incredibly annoying. is there an existing report in for the MAW being unable to correlate SARH missiles to radar warnings, and dumping flares as a result?
-I walk into the room after thermonuclear explosion. Gosh darn it! The switch is broken!
Not that I’m aware of. I suggest you make one.
1 Like
I’m surprised you haven’t already
Not that I know of, however I’d be interested to know how far out of the main beam the missile is when the MAW picks it up and ID’s it as an IR missile. I’m wonder if its far enough off from the CW beam centre if it loses association with the emissions, after all the SARH missiles don’t emit.
1 Like
I’ve barely had any time to play the Eurofighter (or WT in general) since the update. Besides I’d rather not have the WT community rely on me to single-handedly report every issue with the Eurofighter.
6 Likes