I mean, sure, but we know you guys can make auto-mode switching code, and the source provided details exactly what kind of mode switching the radar does in this specific scenario…
Not giving the AIM-7M the ability for PD launch in HPRF despite having all info for it, and most of the code for it required in-game seems a bit like avoiding modelling a feature thats advantageous to the 7M because other missiles do do what it does?
You could simply make it so that the current MPRF → HPRF → CW priority list turns into HPRF → CW (omitting MPRF entirely) when thr selected weapon is the AIM-7M for example?
Also important to note, its a bit late at this point as the ER has been in-game for a long time and brutally unbalanced ever since its addition, but the AIM-7M being able to be launchdd in HPRF with no launch warning would be a fantastic way to balance it vs the ER. One get vastly superior kinematics, the other is launched with no warning.
You expend all your sidewinders and now only have AIM-7M left as your selected weapons, you’re now effectively locked out of MPRF. For which you now need to use the binding for exiting selection mode and then select them again once you want to use them again, then off, on, off, on, off etc etc etc.
This would be a massive pain to manage, especially for the average player.
Ok, maybe just make it so it changes to omitting MPRF when you initially activate thr 7M seeker then instead?
You could alternatively allow players to still have manual radar control so the radar attempts to lock in the preferred mode (HPRF/CW) with the sparrow selected but still can be changed to a different mode if the player uses the key to change radar modes, which would give them access to MPRF for gun leads, but would lock them out of an HPRF launch and would only use CW for the sparrow in that circumstance.
I feel like theres a lot of options for how this could be implemented. This kind of reminds me of the situation where the devs said they couldnt make the Puma IFV’s MUSS react in a 360° arc because there wasnt any other systems in-game that worked that way, completing ignoring the fact iron fist reacts in the exact same way MUSS would, but the end effector is different. It sounds more like “I dont wanna let the 7M fire with HPRF and no launch warnings”
Player has a side aspect MPRF lock, they select and warm up a AIM-7M, radar switches to HPRF and loses the target. Player comes to the forum/CBR to complain. We then have to explain to every upset player the mechanics of the various PRF’s and how they relate to AIM-7M usage. Repeat ad infinitum until the heat death of a universe.
Wouldn’t it revert to Memory tracks to support the Antenna train angle at that point? Which should be good enough for the 5~20 seconds of flight that it supports as keeping the nose on the target converts to to a Rear Aspect track restoring target tracking.
Also the lack of a launch warning effectively already happens with the MiG-23 as most contemporary US derived RWRs (ALR-25 / -26, (early) -46) do not detect into the J band which the FCR uses to provide tracking and missile guidance, so practically already occurs in many match ups.
To a point sure, but you’re at the mercy of how good that memory track is, as I’m sure you’ve seen sometimes the memory track inertia sends the lock off in the other direction.
If the target is incidentally abeam / notching without a Launch warning there is no specific reason for the target to remain within the Notch ellipsoid that maintains the Notch, also there isn’t really a reason for the rates to diverge sufficiently to drop the track either as a 3.5 degree cone at (5.5, 11, 22km) still subtends hundreds of meters(+/- 330, 670, 1345).
And its not as if it couldn’t be improved with more advanced predictive modeling, but then we are running into novel solutions (at least in game terms).
If we’re talking about a completely unaware target sure. But I doubt anyone is going to fly nose hot to and F-15 in a straight line that has them locked up. And if they are a lack of launch warning isn’t going to have changed much.
Also the F.3 tactics manual states “with current software” or something to that affect. I’m guessing there is some difference with the HPRF guidance wave as apposed to a normal HPRF lock? If that’s the case its only a software update away to detect it.
There isn’t a difference between the waveform for guidance and track, that’s part of the point for moving to PD-ILL methods
If it was something basic they would have done the same thing for the TWS / LPIR warning by looking at duty cycle and average received energy once it rises above some comparison level, trigger the warning regardless, which trips up AESA radars which can dedicate the full duty cycle of sets of T/R module zones to specific targets and so can telegraph their status since the phase of the transmission can probably be derived as well(depends on the antenna type and layout), and tends to be automatically managed for optimal performance and number of concurrent tracks.
The way to deal with it is probably set up a WEZ warning based of a number of known constraints for the launch (its not as if the UK lacks info on the Sparrow / AMRAAM guidance methods, and launch constraints), and so trigger the warning when a number of them are fulfilled, similar to the way the SPO-15 does (practically nothing useful, but is conservative).
A simple solution then, when the sparrow is getting warmed up. Just give a warning here then as its “selected and ready to fire” then for advanced RWR under certain distance. You know, the grey/red circle
Thats a how things are issue. Correct modeling was done, its on user error/understanding beyond that. Its an issue similar to energy management, it gets abstract and you need to understand it to properly use it.
Set up a guide and voila.
By memory, if a missile is inflight it goes to MEM and if it cant relock the antenna drops down and the flood horn gets used TILL the expected missile flight timer goes to 0s +5s. Giving guidance for the complete flight tme plus couple seconds for error
There’s no difference in signal. PRF is high already to prevent velocity ambiguity(which is the point of HPRF and switching to HPRF is done for the guidance)
It could be telling that a lock independent of distance or prf, or just distance.
Yeah forgot about it. You could, however, say if apg69 MPRF track no warning, MPRF+ extra HPRF could mean missile is coming. But this would depend on rwr being able to say its coming from the same plane and not just another unkown plane.
Yep, 90° plus chaff is all thats known. You’d need to do a more than full intro course on radar systems, explaining the frequency response to a pulse train and the specific radar set. A direct link to the post where I explained the prf thing should be enough
In that case, it would switch to CW lock though, which could maintain the lock but could be chaffed…
Also, i might be misunderstanding, but is there anything stopping a radar that has a seperete CW emitter from emitting CW for the missile track while holding the lock for the radar in MPRF?
Thats the whole reason you guys implemented weapon system tutorials though…
Refusing to implement something with some slight nuances that still conforms to the current in-game systems and could be implemented with code already used in-game because “the average player wouldnt understand” is just punishing players that take the time to actually learn game mechanics. Dumbing down game systems to pander to bad players is just poor game design and annoys good players.
