yeah Kinda crazy but this is Gaijin
1 Like
Please do, it should function as a rough distance to threat indicator.
For anyone curious about what I’m talking about, here’s an image.
2 Likes
That’s good to see.
Now we just have to make them undo the threat library changes.
2 Likes
But it might just only show like 0% or 100% and nothing in between. Im pretty sure that the actual “strength” of the radar itself emmiting on the target is not modeled. If u can figure out what I mean
1 Like
very appreciate!!! :D
agreee, in a lot of soviet and chinese aircrafts, RWR could tell the pilot “main threat signal strength”, i think gaijin should add this, instead of nerfing all RWR.
yeah we need this on users third party view gaijin not only in cockpit
That’s the kind of funny thing I see about most of the posts in this thread.
The SPO-15 was gimped when it came out (not visually modeled in cockpit), and is still gimped (3rd person does not show half the information it can actually show), yet somehow, Russian bias lol.
The SPO-15 is old, but it shows a TON of information, including high, low, and level threats, a general count of threats, indexing of threats based on their type and range, they can identify TWS by tone, they can identify a fox 3 launch by a plane using TWS (if the plane has a PD radar), they give a general idea of the model you’re being fired upon by, as well as range and they have filtering, by which you can ignore secondary threats. They were the most advanced RWR for a short period of time after their introduction.
But people look at it, the Mig21 in the center of it, the LED cluster, and say “is bad”.
3 Likes
This new RWR change is complete bull***". We are going to have ASRAD-R whose missiles are completely invisible. We are also going to have Pantsir who cannot be spotted till it’s too late to notch his missiles.
3 Likes
Do we have this submitted to gaijin as an issue?
1 Like
Well someone seen the general lee video. Why push it to the mode based around realism? It NEEDS to be specifically RB/AB to cater to equality, and a more average skill level. The “push it to sim” take is “i would hate for this change to effect me, so im gonna push it to a game mode i never play”
Its not realistic, its not simulating anything, and theres 0 reason to do this. Either its across the board, or nothing, and if this finds its way to a minority i just wont play.
3 Likes
My personal issue with the SPO-15 is that it’s more defensive in the info it gives you.
It tells you all the info you want in order to defend from something (“here’s what emitters are transmitting, if you are locked I have a rough estimate of your distance from that emitter”), but NATO RWRs let me see “okay these are my potential threats for BVR, I can prioritize the one best at BVR combat and fly to minimize closure on the others”.
If this RWR nerf goes through, they must add NCTR functions to radar systems capable of that. Something more than just simple IFF interrogation.
2 Likes
If it’s already difficult to get non-classified data on RWR’s, it will be near-impossible to get non-classified data on NCTR…
1 Like
Then snail should’ve thought about that before screwing up modern RWR functions, lmao
2 Likes
Can u elaborate a bit more? You got my attention there
1 Like
Instead, SPO-15 was enhanced. The Universal RWR UI allows SPO15 to handle multiple deadly threats at the same time, whereas on Earth you can only handle one deadly threat at a time. Blocking friendly radar signals prevents your RWR from being filled with tracking and illuminating signals from friendly forces. Also according to the known manual, SPO15 does not seem to distinguish between HPRF tracking signals and irradiated signals, which means that when you are attacked by ARM and AIM7M you will only have tracking warnings but not launch warnings.
In the game, SPO15’s signal strength indication is also incorrectly reduced to a distance indication. In fact, you should get different results for different radar powers.
1 Like
Typically IRL, a pilot will narrow the sweep radius in TWS before launching a Fox 3. The SPO gives tones based on sweep rate, so a dramatic increase in tonal response would signify that there’s a high likelihood that a fox 3 has been launched. That’s in essence, the “launch” warning. The 15 does distinguish between tracking and searching, but this is only applicable to launches when fire upon by a plane that’s not using TWS. A TWS launch requires pilot interpretation, even for a SARH (though I’m not sure if any plane in game can launch and guide a SARH with TWS? Maybe the coming Su-34 can given it’s a PESA? Also not sure how the beam splitting is interpreted by the SPO-15 - it could well see it as a hard lock)
You’re right about the signal strength, but there’s a caveat - the data cards loaded preflight will be based on projected threats. Thus, given the radar bands that are detected, the SPO-15 will generally correspond their strength in an equivalent manner. Distance/closing rate can roughly be extrapolated, as the signal strength indicator is adjusted based on the threat detected.
The filtering does allow a pilot to switch the primary threat (outside of the HAWK, but this likely is not the case in current SPO-15s).
The UI in game fails to show the most important feature of the SPO-15, that being the high-level-low indication. You need to go in-cockpit for that, which is a hinderance in RB.
1 Like
I probably shouldn’t do this on this forum.