MagnumHB

We were discussing this here. Based on the results from that thread, we should see a general improvement in the effectiveness of the 97/105 in the next patch.

Sounds great, thanks.

Any updates Viper?

I wouldn't normally double post like this, but since I've just become aware of the desire to have error images annotated and there's been no response yet, here goes...

Here's a minor but annoying LOD bug that has annoyed me for some time. I haven't seen it reported before, but it could very well be known already (and perhaps fixed, hopefully along with the GBU-31 LOD issue), but I felt it was worth posting in the event it isn't. When using the LAU-131*3, past a certain point of zooming out, the triple rack model becomes a big block that intersects the launchers. Note that the LAU-68*3 does not do the same thing, and its model stays correctly detailed. Comparison screenshot is attached.

This is what I don't understand either. It seems to me that radar altimeter burst fuzing and dispenser parachute deployment should negate any effects of differing (reasonable) drop altitudes by placing the skeets in roughly the same place in 3D space, in the same attitude.

Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to use the laser when dropping GBU-38/31, although it can increase accuracy in certain situations.

Yes, and the differences in lasing vs. non-lasing accuracy described in that video are negligible in the scenario being discussed here. I haven't watched the tracks yet since I'm at work, but I'm very interested to see why your results are better than mine. I also had not seen that thread. I look forward to future developments in the next patch.

I'm sorry, but I don't find not lasing to be an adequate explanation for the behavior exhibited in my no-hit tracks. I don't think this stands up to reason as a confirmation of correct behavior as I understand it. In terms of horizontal accuracy, the slight accuracy bonus granted by lasing should be irrelevant for area weapons like the CBUs. As far as I can tell, the submunitions in my two no-hit tracks are in no better or worse overall horizontal position relative to the target group as a whole than the ones in the hit track. This leaves vertical accuracy as the differentiating factor between lasing and non-lasing methods. This then suggests to me that perhaps there is a bug or simply a flawed implementation related to the ability of the skeets to detect targets at altitudes that don't conform to some sort of "expected" value relative to the burst/pop-up deployment height.

I've seen some odd things ranging from non-detection of targets (especially in high elevations), penetrators bouncing into space, (very) distant targets being hit while leaving close targets intact, target clumping/overkill, and the full bomb canister tumbling end over end after being dropped. The problem is that some of these bugs/behaviors do not seem to be consistently replicable. Here are some tracks that I believe show inconsistent target detection and the mission they are based on. In the first, the center BMD is targeted, and 5 out of 7 targets are hit. However, in the second two, two different BMDs are targeted to compensate for the wind (submunitions drifting), and no targets are hit. I find it hard to believe that the skeet placement is so significantly different as to completely negate target detection. As a side note, I believe these tracks also illustrate some sort of CCRP range cue jumping bug, which I thought had been resolved, but may have returned, at least for the CBU-105. cbu105_breezy_hits.trk cbu105_breezy_nohits.trk cbu105_breezy_nohits2.trk cbu_hightgtalt_test.miz

While that is the intent, I'm still not convinced that all of the bugs have been worked out yet. I think further testing and tweaking of the skeet implementation is due, as they still have problems engaging targets in mountainous terrain, not to mention the likelihood of the skeets hitting things like infantry while ignoring armor.

Which is too bad for them considering the events of the last 10 years.

Who needs a track? This video should suffice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGAmpysnaxM

I played a bit of both currently released missions last night and enjoyed them. I like the mix of static and dynamic taskings. I also liked that the IR SAM threats are there to keep you on your toes, but not so heavy that you can never use your gun. However, I did notice that in one of the missions (probably the first, I don't remember exactly), the friendly forces got jammed up on a bridge and never seemed to progress.

I've noticed this as well since 1.1.1.1. I'm guessing it might have something to do with the "general fine tune of weight distribution" mentioned in the patch notes.

Ranger - After I crashed out of Redfish's server when you were there, I found another one running the mission from the beginning. I had no problem killing the SKP-11s and DE to trigger the spec ops teams. However, since I was not the host, I was unable to call in the WP2 SEAD flight (the F10 menu was empty). Unless you have some pressing reason not to, I would suggest automatically triggering them once the COBRA SAMs are dead. This would allow the mission to progress on servers being passively hosted. Fun mission so far though. I noticed (expanding on your suggestions) that you can follow the road/valley that shows up on the TAD map to the SW of WP1 for a good firing approach.

I believe this is the case. Changing the functionality directly via the DSMS for this and similar settings for other weapons is a compromise for in-sim playability and usability. The initial canister separation is based on a radar altimeter, and should theoretically be independent of target altitude. Now, if there are bugs with that implementation or how the skeets behave afterwards, I couldn't say for sure one way or the other. The 1.1.1.1 changelog does specifically say that CBU-97s should perform correctly in mountainous terrain, so maybe it's a non-issue now.

Correct. I've never shut down my engines to rearm/refuel in-game.

You guys really are gluttons for punishment. I like a good anti-ship strike, but a missile cruiser really is a bit much for an A-10.

If you're still looking at this, the rack for a triple rocket mounting may also have an LOD issue where it drops to a lower detail level much sooner than everything else.

FYI, I posted a thread about this in the tech support section: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81606

I'd like to add a few observations about the crashes. First, all of the client crashes I experienced happened on Rampant Bear (on both 104th and stallturn). Once we switched to Glowing Valley, I never got another client crash. Since Blackshark slots were added to Rampant Bear, this leads me to suspect that there are some lingering bugs in the BS/WH integration. I never crashed when dropping CBU-97, although I did crash right after firing a Maverick at one point. Second, the client crashes seemed to happen to random numbers of people per crash. As far as I know, for any (or at least the majority of) crashes, some people remained connected while others CTD'd.

That's what the PTO is for. See: Exhibit A, Exhibit B. Coincidentally, bringing that crippled A-20 back was one of the most epic things I've ever done in a sim.

Some people with even less experience participated last time, and were more than welcome.

I don't believe I've seen anyone mention the addition of actual building locations in the mission editor. Fantastic.