Mr. Wilson

Do you have any news for us?

got it thanks yes, I already found the bug report

I am very grateful for your provided links. Please tell me at the moment what setting should I choose to get rid of this screen clutter?

Yesterday I went to a multiplayer server and was very unpleasantly surprised... I haven’t created bug report tracks yet because first I would like to understand whether these problems are only mine or whether other people have also encountered them. So I will list all the problems and also add screenshots that show them. - The AWACS plane is marked with a green icon without a dot, as if it does not provide information. Previously it was indicated by a green ring and a dot inside. - Information from datalink is not transmitted to the radar screen. - Sometimes a huge number of targets appear on the radar screen and it is not clear what to do with them or how to filter them. - On the HSD page on the mark of my plane some green mark is duplicated as if some friendly plane is flying with me, but in fact there is no one near me. - Sometimes the target status is determined completely incorrectly and you don’t know are you going to the red target or the green one.

I wrote about this problem a long time ago in the spring, I would like to know at what stage this problem is now because it was previously reported that this bug was confirmed and transferred to work, but DСS 2.9 was already released and the problem remained in the same place... Thanks

If TOR can shoot down GBU-38 bombs, then he should be able to shoot down all bombs of that caliber. As you can see, he doesn't. This suggests that your game doesn't have a model that factors in the size of the bomb. Before the patch, your munitions were categorized as bombs and missiles, and TOR would only shoot down missiles, ignoring bombs regardless of their size. Now, it seems as if someone just labeled a bomb as a missile in the game code, and TOR started shooting it down. Please be honest here. Some people have dedicated more than 10 years to this game, and we are very familiar with its mechanics.

Do you understand that in this case you are contradicting yourself? You are talking about big bombs, but at the same time they are trying to convey to you the information that TOP shoots down a small bomb...

Is it possible to invite a person from the development team who is involved in the maintenance and development of air defense systems to this chat?

This is with all the missiles now

@BIGNEWY @NineLine in the official patch note there was not a single line regarding reforms in the field of air defense operating principles. Could you explain what this is connected with?

Well then tell me what it should shoot down and what it shouldn’t so that we can understand what now works correctly and what is wrong... Also, could you tell us what other old air defense systems that were already in the game have changed their operating principles?

Dear RAZBAM team, make the topic f-15 module roadmap so that we can clearly understand what systems and types of weapons you will implement ... we are tired of learning everything from gossip... I would like to see If you did everything according to the standard as ED it would be the most logical. It has long been necessary to make mandatory standardization for all third-party developers so that there are no differences in informing and other issues. As an example, I show the f-16 roadmap

Where did you read about missile guidance from me? please read carefully, it was not there

We're talking about the radar that captured me at 50 miles being displayed near the center while the aircraft at 5-10 miles is displayed at the farthest radius (i.e. it is safe). Do you think this is normal?

@Raptor9 Please explain, from the point of view of your new logic, how correct it sounds that the device that you are modeling for a dangerous contact says that it is as safe as possible And for the most safe, on the contrary, it says that it is dangerous

I guessed that the answer would be exactly like this... in general, there will be no such nuances and a clear description of the operation of the system in open sources, I wrote to you about this from the very beginning... in the same way, there is not a single confirmation of your theory in the same open sources. We still have sources, this is the f-16.net forum and the BMS game, these data will be authoritative for you ? And it’s also very annoyingly that the basic logic and common sense are not taken into account in any way when modeling systems, while you create a non-existent module on the planet ka-50-3 and there show miracles of flexibility in approaches to the implementation of secret documentation systems about which you cannot have within the framework of the legislation.

That is, in all your modules where the RWR takes into account the distance is all science fiction?

@NineLine I sent you data from an open source and it is clearly written there that the distance to the emitter is taken into account... What's next?

Yes, of course, we can spend a lot of our time looking for documents with seals for you... But we are talking about things that are completely obvious. I will give you an example from your new logic that you have now patched. Your opponent is 2 f16 aircraft: 1st plane - f16 is 50 miles away from you and takes you into radar capture, you get a mark near the center of the radar - that is, this target becomes extremely dangerous for you (although you perfectly understand that this is the safest target) 2nd aircraft - another f16 (with the same radar) but at a distance of 10 miles it irradiates you without radar capture, in this case your RVR will show this as the most non-dangerous contact (although you yourself understand that this aircraft is catastrophically dangerous for you) That is, from this example, we conclude that the American army specifically made the device in such a way as to specifically misinform the pilot about threats in order to hasten his death? Doesn't it seem strange to you that you are defending just such a logic of the operation of this system in your update, which is in complete confrontation with common sense?

I have a feeling that soon some players will also be arrested like that twenty-year-old guy from the American army :))))

I very much doubt that such nuances of the system will be published in open sources. I think that it is more likely to get an answer to this question from living people who are pilots or people involved in the operation of these systems in life ... will this information be authoritative for you?

Could you publish the manual according to which you are developing this module?

That is, you want to say that the development of the 70s SPO 15 "Bereza" on Soviet aircraft can determine the signal strength depending on the approach and distance of the radiation source, and the system installed on the aircraft of the 2000s years cannot do this ?

I would like to see comments from the development team on this...

"correct is as" -- how is this possible if the official manual completely denies this? Could you post some documentation on which you are making this module?