Well.
Historical accurate details like this will make asymmetrical balance, and make game more interesting, giving the different nations (which don’t use clones) different W/L.
But in that case, u need to find details like this for almost all aircraft - not buff/nerf only a bunch of them, which you like/dislike.
And Gaijin need in this case, implement a lot of mechanics, simulating real battlefield (radar stations, SAM sites (on bases?), AWACS link, etc.).
It is exactly the same… It doesn’t indicate it, because the system can’t process it. The manual goes on to further illustrate that it gives you a set of light codes. Two lights on which indicates above, and one light on along with another pilot operated condition which gives you information its below. So no, it doesn’t determine direction when outside that 15 degree window.
I am quite familiar with why prohibited exists. In many cases you are more likely than not to cause considerable harm, or fail conditions. Which either should be conditioned in game, or locked out. Since they don’t have the coding in place to properly handle the damage or system failures this might cause, its easier to lock it out. But if they do have the skills (doubt) to implement them I would love to see fail conditions happen that gimp an aircraft.
it said, that info can be wrong - not “doesn’t indicate” at all.
About…
… it’s too, not meaning, that you can’t use radar with RWR - it’s just a recommendation, because if use both simultaneously - RWR can (not must) provide false info.
Or it will be just pointless - be forced to drop the lock, and go defensive, if you been attacked while you guiding missile that in air.
Look buddy.
As radio/electrical engineer (not best maybe, but still do my work properly) i make a bunch of things, which restricted by manuals, due to lack of tools/consumables/time, and so on.
But it works.
So i know, that when in manual written “necessary” (if it’s not a nuclear device manual - in this case better use all literally) it means “if the situation is urgent, you can violate it within reasonable limits”.
For weapon systems it works same.
Mostly.
When we put “necessary” in a manual it isn’t “lightly recommended” It means you will very likely influence a fail condition. I field phone calls everyday from one of the systems we designed because someone either didn’t RTFM or because they didn’t head the warnings.
What I do for a day job is in more than 4 dozen currently active systems. I actually know first hand many of the limitations and problems of Russian systems.
I am extremely careful to Google search before I say anything on this forum, and to never share anything that would cause us harm. But I know for a fact those limitations exist in the Russian systems, which is why I shared the most recent publicly known manual I could.
It doesn’t work. They know it doesn’t work, but they rely on gate keeping and users lack of access to information to play dumb. Someone needs to call them out. We have first hand accounts from Mig pilots saying exactly that as well. The RWR, ECM, and RADAR all conflict heavily with each other in the Migs and SU-27s.
