is the symbology on a digital display not software that would change overtime as new threats were identified
3 Likes
Obviously this is a stupid question. The SA-22 entered service in 2006, and we all know that the Americans have acquired one of these systems, and obviously NATO is familiar with the SA-22’s radar. But the document on the RWR symbol for SA-22 must be later than 2006. Without discussing how to obtain such undeclassified documents, GAIJIN now does not acknowledge documents that cannot be proved declassified after 1994.
3 Likes
I think a solution that would suit everyone is to add all the viehical presented in the game to the EID table without disturbing the realistic structure of the display, for example, make SA-22 on the RWR display as “22”, which will not spoil the realism and will not interfere with the gameplay. So far I don’t see any real reason or document claiming that SA-22 and others could not be added to the EID table and identified in real life. Sorry for the bad English, I’m just using a translator.
4 Likes
It is clear that even the DCS has compromised in this regard. No one can legally obtain this information.
5 Likes
US doesnt even have to acquire one to program an RWR to identify it. The US has giant SigInt satellites and plenty of EW planes so they would have been able to pick up the specific signals of how a radar operates even when it is just being used in some other countries territory.
1 Like
thats kinda what the old system was but Gaijin wanted to get more classifed documents on radar threat tables so they are doing this change.
2 Likes
Repectfully, the full symbology and threat ID table for RWRs (at least for ALR-69) are classified. I will not be convinced that a SAM system is classed as a generic AAA, nor does it make sense that a reprogramable threat receiver shows a generic threat for pulse radars. If an RWR knows the threat is a fighter, attacker, or bomber, it knows what the actual threat is, otherwise it would be shown as unknown on the RWR screen. This makes me question what is being used as a source, because how it was before this was actually accurate.
4 Likes
the source is probably the original threat table of one of the first digital RWRs to enter service and they said that it doesnt have symbols for x vehicle that was made 20 years after the RWR so clearly no RWR can ID accurately
3 Likes
It doesn’t give you an estimate range. But Strength only, though you can say strong signal = close weak = far. But there are differences in radar power. AWG 9 has almost twice the peak and average power of the APG-63 but they have almost the same range. If the SPO-15 displays the same “distance” for them, and you conclude that then you are wrong. The F-15 will much closer than the F14.
Bc it’s not. They are identified as early from AN/ALR 46.
Spoiler
These are examples of symbol/type files that were given to the author as real were/are classified.
And not only that, unlike SPO-15 , it seems it could actually calculate the range to the emitter. Pretty nice for late 70s/early 80s tech.
Spoiler
From Starbaby.APR-47 display( with variations/ differences to the real one due to restrictions) from F4G WW.( with range identification again, 1/10th of a nautical mile precision it seems). Though this system is muuch much much superior to what most planes had due to its job.
2 Likes
I missed this, apologies. I appreciate it, thank you!
1 Like
To me they have given in to all the crybabies that do not get enough airkills, and so eliminating the effectiveness of RWR increases those chances. Why would you nerf the RWR in a BR13 in particular, when it is just a whole different battle than the other BRs? To me its incredible. Anyway, good luck to you Bishop
4 Likes
Yet another “Call of Duty” move, instant gratification, new players who havent earned their stripes with new money
1 Like
Hi, I received a reply from gaijin about RVR under my report after streaming about the problem. “Good afternoon. Almost immediately after the dev server was closed, we made changes to the upcoming RWR edits, and when the patch is released, top-level aviation RWR, which are able to identify specific targets and could receive updates to threat libraries, will be able to identify even the newest targets.
Of course, the limitations of specific RWRs on detection still apply, that is, if the RWR cannot detect radiation, then it will not be able to identify the source.
In particular, the changes affected the AN/ALR-56, 67, 68 and 69 air defense systems, as well as the AH-64D air defense systems, which will be able to detect SAMs.”
My report: Community Bug Reporting System
and last stream: https://www.youtube.com/@Russian_Ded/streams
12 Likes
Thank you so much for your contribution to the community, making our game feel even more realistic! I appreciate your issue, and I’ve already supported it. Thank you!!! You are our hero!! :3
2 Likes
Thank you so much
1 Like
Thanks for the nice words, it’s hard for me to assess how decisive my report was, but I want to say that thanks to the entire WT community and my subscribers who supported me and helped spread the report. This is our common victory.
2 Likes
Thank you for the nice words. <3
1 Like
Thank. The. Lord. This should go for any modern and in-service system, so many thanks for making a report.
4 Likes
Heat signature is tied to thrust produced, not engine temperature. Otherwise F-5 and Phantoms would have near identical IR signature, yet we know its not the case, despite having pair of afterburning engines running at ±660c.
2 Likes
You mean RWR yapping was miniscule compared to US mains yapping about F-15E not having 229 engines.
Then in Sim awareness advantage thanks to those RWRs was absolutely busted when best opposing side could bring was SPO-10, maybe 15 on lucky day.
1 Like