MagnumHB

More like .

Ensure that you are within the DLZ before firing. In-sim, you can easily launch at 9-10 nm with force correlate if you have enough altitude (20k+ feet), authentic or not.

I would think not.

A-10C definitely has this problem too when doing gun runs, where vehicles will be a solid block before the proper LOD model kicks in. Luckily, Mustang seems to be on the case in this thread.

Here you are. Made in World 1.1.2.1. LAU-131_BadLOD.trk LOD_test.miz

Can you take a look at this?

Glad to be of help.

The RWR doesn't display distance, the rings represent the current threat level. The closer to the center, the more threatening it is.

An excellent point, and inspiration for me to do a bit of testing in World 1.1.2.1. With regard to the current direction of this conversation, the animations we see here are certainly no longer relevant. I've posted further observations here, and I'm quite curious to hear from the testers on some of the questions I've raised.

I know we've had quite a bit of discussion on the behavior of CBU-97/105s already, so my apologies if this is getting to be a bit too much dead horse beating, but the CBU-97 thread currently ongoing in the A-10C section inspired me to check out the current state of the CBU-97/105 in World 1.1.2.1. After doing a few tests with AI dropping CBU-105s, here's what I've found, both good and not so good: 1. The animation and effects are now much more detailed and accurate to video I've seen of the the CBU-97 in action. A fine improvement. 2. Overall, target detection seems to be much improved. My high terrain stress test from this thread, showed 5 out of 7 targets engaged on the first drop both with and without wind, which is quite good considering the hilltop target area. 3. Total coverage area per single drop seems to be decreased, but probably more realistic. Target detection exhibits a clear preference for targets as close as possible to the center of the dispenser pattern. Repeated drops tend to engage targets at an increasing radius to the pattern center as closer targets are eliminated. Seemingly random engagement of targets at extreme ranges also appears to be a thing of the past. Although somewhat disappointing in terms of potentially decreased kills/drop ratio, I assume this behavior is as intended, as it jives with what I've heard about target detection "clumping". 4. My most worrying observation: The penetrator itself seems to have been nerfed. At first I thought they were simply missing their targets (although this may still be an issue with targets that start moving), but more testing with slow-mo revealed that while the penetrators have no problem dealing with trucks and light armor (BMD-1s for example), they perform quite poorly when engaging heavy armor. The images below illustrate how ineffective they seem to be against T-80s, and their performance against T-55s is only somewhat better. Is this by design, or is it a bug? Two tracks illustrating this ineffective behavior are attached. 5. I also encountered an odd issue where the CBU would be dropped followed by the AI immediately diving into the bomb, at which point the bomb would be "absorbed" into the plane, never to be seen again. I encountered a total game freeze while testing that may have been a result of this, but the second track exhibits this behavior without crashing. It can be seen on the second drop. I welcome any and all dev/tester commentary on these observations and possible issues (mostly items 3-5), especially if these things are already noted as WIP or known issues. World1121_CBU-105_PoorPerformance1.trk World1121_CBU-105_PoorPerformance2.trk

I've also seen a sort of midget cloud that seems like it hasn't fully expanded to its proper level of fluffiness. I realize this isn't the most technical description, but it's fairly odd. It doesn't happen that much, but I'll try and get a screenshot next time I see it.

Either you are not being clear enough with what you mean, or you aren't getting how the CBU-97 works. Here's a handy diagram: Now, if by "bouncing", you are referring to stage C in this diagram, this behavior is as intended and correct. The OP was referring to poor target detection in stage D which results in no targets being engaged as in stage E. The only bug that I have ever seen related to "bouncing", and it happens only rarely is when the EFP itself (the "beam" in stage E), somehow bounces or is launched into the air and continues for several thousand feet. Is this the bug you are referring to?

This all being said, the current CBU-97s have some bugs where they often have a problem engaging targets in mountainous terrain. Hopefully this will be improved in the next patch, whenever that comes out.

A couple raw from the beginning of Operation Hacienda:

A-10C has had those black static structures in place on the map since at least the last patch.

They even have it available for free as PDFs here.

The Arrow and the Excalibur have a glide function. Be sure to take full advantage of it. Anyway, I finished the game this morning, and overall enjoyed the whole thing immensely. If I had any complaints, the biggest would be a few over the top characters and some "talkiness" that I thought was excessive. Still a worthy experience for sure though.

Obviously. Have you been fighting the broken Maverick slew this whole time? Issue is not the word for that. Feature is. Anyway, UP is the correct direction to command a force correlate lock, just as it is for a contrast lock. The position of the boat switch determines which you are commanding. No you can't. If you launch further out than the high end of the DLZ, the Maverick will not reach the target. You can, however, fire at the extreme range of the DLZ without waiting to get close enough for a contrast lock, which is most useful for stationary SAMs.

I have to say I was pretty surprised to see this thread on this forum just now. I had been looking forward to Saga for a while, and I've gotten a little more than halfway through the campaign at this point. Any fan of the original series should definitely give this a go.

Noted. This was more an observation than complaint. I've encountered plenty of timeouts on Lynx before with Op Switchblade, etc. Nothing you can do about it, I know. Good to know. Luckily I had switched my loadout to include a few H model Mavs to take care of some of the peskier SAMs in the area. Oh, I have no problem with long flight times in general, and I'm certainly aware of things not going to plan. What irked me was the implication in the briefing that RVing with the Hornets would make my life easier, when in fact I could have gone directly there and done exactly what I ended up doing anyway. Now that I'm more aware of the design philosophy behind this mission, I will adjust accordingly. Let's just say that you will definitely be seeing plenty of me in the future. This mission is a much needed boost to the current server/map rotations that are out there.

I played a bit of this last night, and overall it looks quite promising. Unfortunately, I was hit by a server ping timeout right as I was really starting to make progress shooting up the base at Kutaisi. If I had one complaint about the mission itself, it's that I spent a lot of time flying out of my way and waiting for the SEAD Hornets to show up (I beat them to the RV by a few minutes), only to have them utterly fail their mission and get shot down.

This looks like a fantastic change of pace from the drudgery of the limited mission rotations currently available. I'll be trying this out ASAP.

18,000' AGL is my usual baseline, and I take higher if I can get it. In the case of known threats, or at least general threat areas, you can go lower if you maintain adequate lateral separation.

Luckily, the series of 0s and 1s that form civilian traffic that blindly strays into a virtual combat area cannot try you for war crimes.

More like 97/105. 87/103 have standard dumb bomblets.