As a part of the new “Firebirds” update, changes have yet again been made to RWRs, aircraft have now received authentic RWR displays in cockpits, these include both digital and analogue displays
This also means that some RWR contacts were changed, for example
the ZPRK 2S6, was changed from “2S6” to “AAA”, and ADATS from “ADS” to “SAM”
Here is a spreadsheet of all the RWR contacts:
keep in mind these are from the files,
Modern Digital RWRs can distinguish between different SAMs and Fighter contacts (and be freely reprogrammed for expected radar emissions from threats), so this change is ahistorical. Honestly, it’s also unnecessary. While it is nice to have RWRs functioning inside the cockpit, the other change of turning 80% of radar signatures into “AAA, A, or F” is ridiculous, ahistorical and unnecessary.
Of course, fixing this once it is set in stone on live will be literally impossible, as the overwhelming majority of info on these systems is likely classified.
Hooray for bad changes.
The snail has to be having a laugh!! This is absolutely wildly stupid. Somehow DCS can accurately portray RWR with the correct functionality and accurately sourced, non-classified information without a single sensitive document leaked. This needs to be reversed ASAP.
Correct, they are now actively pandering for more people to be stupid and leak classified information.
Absolutely correct, the library of most of the modern systems can be reprogrammed with new threat data and are able to specify what threat it faces.
This is also correct, the threat catalogue and their specific symbology is classified. Meaning that this is not a change done with legitimate info.
I just wonder that this nerf base on which document Gaijin dig from ancient liberty of Russia?
Every NATO digital RWR after ALR-46/45F is programmable and update Emitter Identification Data or Threat Library to identify new threat.
This is not new technology.
The RWR change is not historical nor balanced.
Only pulse radars are impacted for AN/ALR-56+ RWRs, not pulse doppler, as shown in this video as well:
There’s no change for AN/ALR-56 RWRs except for Viggen being seen as F-16, and ancient radars it won’t see much of being unidentified.
And yes, I’m aware DCS is inferior to War Thunder in this regard.
There’s likely nothing to revert in regards to AN/ALR-56+ cause old antiquated radar sets weren’t a major threat to these aircraft IRL.
Don’t attempt to gaslight me or others, especially you showing a picture of a contact that is not affected by this change. You also have zero knowledge of how this system works in reality, in my case it is for AN/ALR-69. This is how I know they are doing this change with zero supporting sources, because such sources that would debunk this ridiculous change are classified.
No, DCS is actually correct in using symbology like the actual RWR sets use. I appreciate War Thunder making the contacts simple to understand for gameplay purposes, but DCS is much more accurate with the portrayal of contacts.
Please don’t have posts that blatantly lie about what Zenturion7 says in the video. At no point does Zenturion claim that AN/ALR-56+ was changed to not identify PD radars.
Zenturion’s video did not make ANY claims about PD radar identification on RWRs.
Please actually watch DCS videos and Zenturion’s video rather than attacking people that have known how these systems work for over half a decade.
IDK why you’re attacking people defending AN/ALR-56+.
All. Six. Images. Are. Of. Unchanged. Contacts. I’m not concerned with those, there is a table that shows every single contact change.
You are the one gaslighting, since you state:
Which is already flat out wrong.
This is the most credential bait statement if I ever saw one. You will never convince me you know more than I do in this area.
I do, and you saying DCS’s iteration is inferior to War Thunder is diabolical.
Apparently you didn’t watch, as Zenturion7 has the same conclusion. Literally, at 2:30, they say this sarcastic remark:
No one reading your comments will come to the conclusion you are defending the RWR’s actual function, they will see you specifically as a hindrance.
Full quote, which I’ve been stating in many areas, and I likely initially mistyped here since I don’t copy-paste statements across topics/servers.
So no, Zenturion, the changelog, etc are not all wrong about what’s changing in-game.
Calling me wrong for posting exactly what the changelog says is calling the changelog wrong, calling me wrong for posting exactly what the video showcases is calling Zenturion wrong…
That sarcastic statement in Zenturion’s video has nothing to do with PD radar identification.
not identifying old planes i don’t mind too much, since they usually aren’t a threat and one could consider the data being deleted when a plane becomes too old (even if i’m pretty sure that’s not how it works irl)
The SAM/AAA change is pretty bad though
And then there’s the whole “make RWR more realistic” issue. The threat libraries are constantly evolving and countries aren’t going to scream on every roof at 5 AM what they can identify, so i fail to see how one can say it’s more realistic…
That’s an opinion I can support.
I didn’t state my opinion correctly enough it seems.
I just want RWRs to be accurate personally.
Antiquated radars being removed from identification won’t cause issues, but if it’s inaccurate that should be corrected in the long-run.
If it’s accurate, which is plausible that it is, it can stay that way.
I’m calling you wrong specifically for you stating “There’s no change to ALR56+ radars (minus semantics)” when the point of contention is the stated changes are wrong to begin with. These RWR systems are capable of identifying what radar set is pinging them within their bands, oversimplifying SAMs to “AAA” is blatantly wrong and what everyone has an issue with. Not that the changelog has a discrepancy, the change itself is wrong.
All radar threats are cataloged, so deleting threats, even ones that are older, does not make sense unless the system is unable to hold that much data. In the case being shown, somehow the RWR identifies something is a fighter or attacker but yet can’t identify the radar set, which is laughable because if it can’t identify the radar it will show as unknown.
This change is unrealistic to begin with. Gaijin will never be able to source a threat catalog, so this change is based on their preference, not a source.
That’s why it’s plausible.
We don’t know the data storage, and we don’t know how much data each one takes up.
I do regret my lashing out at nothingness when in reality I was never upset with you.
on old computers it could be an issue
on modern day jet fighter, meh i don’t think so
it’s literally a string and a scan pattern, would weight a few Ko at most ? Even if it goes up to 1 Mo, that’s nothing out of reach for a modern database
No, it is not plausible. Not in the slightest. If the RWRs (the modern ones) are unable to identify the contact, it will show as “unknown”, not “fighter” or “attacker”. Same with the SAM systems being classed as “AAA” now.
Even with a data limitation, all militaries (not just NATO or Russia/China) will use a threat catalog of expected threats. In game terms, almost every radar set can be identified specifically with each new match, outliers would likely be ones with radar gunsights like Sabers.
To reiterate, my issue is that Gaijin is being arbitrary with these RWRs when it is obviously wrong. Yet the most we can do is pound our fists because the sources needed to show they are wrong (and that they didn’t use sources themselves) are classified, making this a change we cannot revert.
reminds me the Manpads trainwreck
ha fun times
from what ive heard they didnt hit any russian RWRs with any of these nerfs right?
kind of, at least on the SPAA part
Most are now identified as SAM only
i don’t have much info on those though
