Oh good so I wasn’t losing it when I tried 1v1s. I was so confused when it went off.
More critically it’s not even actually modelled as a radar. It functions the exact same as IR MAWS, just using the radar signature values instead of the IR signature values. It’s not a real “sensor” lol
Triggered by flares or triggered by chaff this time around? Would be funny if we went from a faulty IR-MAWS, which got triggered by flares, to a faulty PD-RF-MAWS which gets triggered by chaff. Wouldn’t be too far off as a theory as we have enough PD-Radars in-game which love to lock onto chaff which they actually should ignore. Or is the PD-RF-MAWS seeing ghost targets too?
@Gunjob are you aware/can say if the UV-Filter is coming with he major Update for the EF or if currently the DASS/Captor-M are more on the focus?
2 Likes
Flares. Had warnings from the MAW during a dogfight which were definitely erroneous and confirmed afterwards that there was no chaff launched whatsoever.
where can we find proof of that so we can report it ?
that’s the thing, the proof is not available publicly from what i could find, look around for public mentions of emergency pitch control.
1 Like
Report with no Pantsir Launch Warning: Eurofighter cannot identify Pantsir track radar // Gaijin.net // Issues
Rafale report got acceped instantly, EF should be the same right? 🗿
Ask a tech mod, it’s probably why it got accepted this fast.
nvm your report got accepted.
Just a heads up, the new MAW/RWR fusion is currently only on test on the German EFT (ef_2000_block_10) so if you notice any inconsistencies on FGR4 or F-2000A it is expected.
10 Likes
For an First test it seems pretty good allready, just needs some fine tuning here and there :)
ooooh that explains a lot thanks
Again, shouldn’t happen, being a PD radar against more or less static Chaff
Well, I don’t think I can report the opening angle of the MAW radar antennas without having a primary source on that even if the “logical thought process” would say that a symmetric AESA antenna should have the same scan area in azimuth and elevation…
(Not from a bug report I made, but it describes the way gaijin handles things where they don’t have exact data on: Throw all logical deductions away and go by pessimistic gutfeeling… Or don’t implement the functionality at all)
Yes… That’s what I wrote?
Funnily enough the datamine suggests they’ve actually modelled it as two radars, each with a 180 degree azimuth coverage which shouldn’t even be possible.
What, really? Not three with 120° which positions are clearly known (wing roots + under tail)?
The problem is there’s not even anything to confirm whether it is definitely AESA or not.
1 Like
(keep in mind, its currently just an test)
It doesn’t really make any difference to how it works in game. Most RWRs are modelled as just two antennas.
I wouldn’t know how to implement a non-AESA radar with a static antenna which is able to scan ±60° in azimuth and ±45° in elevation. Can a PESA steer its beam in azimuth and elevation at the same time without moving the antenna? A mechanical can not AFAIK.
Yes, it’s just a logical deduction that the antennas are AESA, but if it’s impossible to implement otherwise, it has to be so.