Gunz

Much obliged for your positive update. Looking forward to greater things as always

Thanks a ton for the swift response. Looking forward to your support and a possible fix soon

Upon digging into the provided channel, I surprisingly found out that the issue has been in fact brought to ED's attention since December 2024 and topic closed on Jan 9 (as per the below link). What's more surprising to me at least, is that ED managed to fix the JSOW-A in the last patch while overlooking the GB6 and LS bombs without indication. @BIGNEWY @f-18hornet perhaps you can weigh in and shed more light into the matter. Are we to expect a fix in the upcoming patch now that the JSOW-A has been fixed? Thanks in advance.

I believe it's the developer's responsibility to communicate with ED on certain bugs and/or required fixes, not the end user. As far as I know, this is how it works all over. Oh, and thanks for sharing the link..

I completely realize that mate, as you have indicated in the past. My question was directed to @JG54_NF2, being the ED tester in this matter, with the hope of getting a better insight on the hopeful resolution to this frustrating issue which is frankly drawing people away from the JF-17 imo. In simpler terms, is ED working on this fix, now that it has been determined or not?? @JG54_NF2 Thanks in advance..

Thank you for the swift follow-up and thorough investigation. Great to see this issue being worked on and hopefully resolved soon. Apart from what you've indicated, can you please shed light on the difference(s) in mechanics between the GB-6SFW and AGM-154A? In principal, I think it's fair to assume that both glide bombs rely heavily on wind correction. And since, the JSOW-A recently received a wind correction fix in the latest update, can't the same fix, or similar, be applied to the GB-6 and LS glide bombs?

@uboats Seven update patches have been released by ED and still this issue is not fixed.. Am I the only one here who thinks we're literally being given the cold shoulder treatment? If there's a way or channel for us [users] to take this further with ED, please provide a valid point of contact. For info, it's been nothing but a pinball relationship. Every time someone reaches out to ED, they point us back to Deka. Vis-a-vie, Deka points us back to ED.. Very Frustrating!!

Awesome.. Thanks a ton. That surely explained it a lot better

Can someone please explain this in plain simple English? Are we now supposed to request the ground crew to configure the laser codes before takeoff, rather than rely on the default configured 1688? I have several custom loadouts developed in ME with default code 1688.. nullnull

@baltic_dragon Given that the Flight Lead landing at H4 issue is known and being looked at as you mentioned in the Updates and Change Log forum, are we recommended to skip Mission 02? I would hate to do and break the storyline. But honestly, I've been itching and waiting for this campaign to get fixed ever sine the Syria Map issue surfaced to enjoy it, and get my money's worth at least.

My bad brother, I must have accidentally posted my reply here instead.. If ti's any consolation, I'm glad to confirm that "Weasels Over Syria - Mission 01" is all good and the AI is able to taxi and takeoff as per the mission design

Are you sure about that man? Even after the latest patch update, Mission 01 (The Arrival) is still broken. Lead flight never lands at King Faisal. Instead it will turn, climb, and land at Prince Hassan. Thus, leaving the rest of the mission hanging without the ability to land at King Faisal and ending the mission.. Is anyone else experiencing this issue as well?

I mostly agree with all you said. But obviously, there is a communication gap which ED, as main developers of DCS need to bridge. As a campaign developer, your main task is to focus on your own product. Same goes for Ugra as we both agree. My point is simple. If ED receives new update logs, while agreeing it's not their responsibility to test 3rd party products, such as campaigns, the least they can do is communicate these changes with you guys [3PD]. Surely yourself or any 3PD would love to get a heads-up of the upcoming changes to further enhance or update your products. The current comm gap does not only impact us users. It hurts all segments across the board and ED the most. Customer trust and confidence along with brand loyalty are huge drivers towards that negative impact. Measure the community's reaction towards the upcoming release of the Iraq map. Folks are slowly losing faith and trust in ED fulfilling their promises in producing a full product in a timely manner without hopping over to the next project and leaving the latter incomplete. A good work moto to follow is @Polychop Simulations with their release of the OH-58D Kiowa. True it took them much longer than anticipated due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. But when released, it was a complete module ands almost bullet proof. Plus, it was not associated with any of that "Pre-Order" non-sense for a price which will eventually be listed during a sale season sometime down the line. In the end, "we" (being ED, 3PD, and users) are all after the same objective. We all aim to have a feasible and an enjoyable platform that provides good immersion levels, a good range of airframes, maps, and scenarios for both enthusiasts and IRL pilots to enjoy. However, the objective cannot be achieved single handedly and definitely not with the "my way or the highway attitude".. Just my honest 2 cents along with some venting in parallel.. Wasn't referring to your directly as blaming Ugra. No offense if that's how you received my message. I was simply reiterating the ongoing vibe and impact on Reflected and Baltic Dragon's campaigns following Ugra update of their Syria map. Wasn't referring to your directly as blaming Ugra. No offense if that's how you received my message. I was simply reiterating the ongoing vibe and impact on Reflected and Baltic Dragon's campaigns following Ugra update of their Syria map.

It is ED's responsibility to test the map for compatibility before releasing it to the public. After all, none of us are buying any product from Ugra directly and/or any 3rd party developer. I don't understand why everyone is blaming Ugra. They have all the right to evolve their map as they see fit and within the engine's capabilities. Sorry to say, but ED have seriously dropped the ball here, and now we are forced to wait "two weeks" as usual.. smh

Personally, I salute you for your dedication and efforts in improving our experiences via your work and campaign developments. Furthermore, your approach towards calming the situation down. I personally spent nearly 35$ on 2 different campaigns which turned out to be bugged from the get go. So I'm pretty much on the same wagon as @Chibawang. However, correct me if I'm wrong, and the floor is totally open for any ED official to do so as well, the main purpose of eliminating the Open Beta platform was to avoid such experiences. In other words, all products released will be ensured to have passed the testing phase by ED or dedicated testers and are ensured to be bug-free. So when you say that Ugra updated/upgraded their map, which they are fully entitled to do so, are we to understand that ED have released the map without testing its compatibility with the AI and/or previously released products? Technically, wouldn't that take us back to Open Beta era? Therefore, is Ugra is to be blamed for not communicating their changes in advance, or is it ED and testers that failed to spot this bug and released the map prematurely? Regardless it was ED or Ugra, in a nutshell, 2 wrongs don't make a right. So there is no need to polish ED's image in this situation but call for more attention to be paid towards existing and uncompleted projects. The main reason driving me personally to dwell over this issue is not the financial impact, but rather the dedication, passion, and admiration of the potential of DCS in general. Once again, I hope my words are taken as constructive criticism and not finger pointing (blame culture).

Sorry to say this man, but you guys really need to pay more attention to your customer centricity approach. I say this wholeheartedly because this is not the first time a "cold" reply from an ED official has been given after receiving a customer complaint. As paying customers, we have all the right to raise complaints and blow out some steam, in an orderly manner of course, and you guys as developers need to accept and respect that. If a product is faulty, broken, or buggy at times, the least you can do is apologize for the inconvenience and try your hardest to give us some indication or a glimmer of hope that our issues are being attended to and will be fixed asap, As I personally see it, the tone of your message above is simply translated as "tough luck. We'll work on it whenever we feel like it or have the time to do so". I realize you may not like what I'm writing here, but honestly, this was my first impression upon reading your reply. In parallel, I am fully aware of the hard work you guys, as a team, put in towards developing a variety of products to us users, and we fully appreciate that. However, a more professional and appropriate response from a senior official and a "public figure" within the community is very appreciated and in order in such situations. This reply however is a brilliant example of a professional response. Genuine, honest and attentive. I simply wish I never read your previous post man. Hope you take this as constructive criticism from a user trying to evolve with you guys parallelly.

Thanks for the heads-up. Looking forward to the fix and the campaign as a whole

I'm just starting the campaign post patch update 2.9.9.2474. However, at mission start Sword 1-1 never takes off and that leads to a stalemate for the entirety of the mission. Despite me running the mission over a number of times to ensure I haven't done anything wrong during the startup, comm check, and taxi procedures, the issue remains. Has anyone been experiencing the same?

Laser rockets are now obsolete because of this bug

oh! that would make perfect sense.. My bad for dropping the ball like that. Thanks for clarifying though

@uboats not sure how you labeled the issue as "fixed", because the problem still persists. I'll be attaching another short TRK file soon.

Please view my trk file and emulate the step sequence I took until the issue occurs. I f you end up getting the same issue, then I believe it's good reason for Devs to investigate in the root cause of the issue. 1. Load module with GB-6-sfw 2. designate a ground target 3. launch GB-6 4. Adjust MSL Vol knob

The "dididi" warning is not an issue. I'm perfectly aware of its purpose. It's the audible warnings like "Fuel" and "Altitude, Altitude" that start playing without indication (master caution) and can't be turned off until you land. This only happens while you're airborne, with master switch armed, and after adjusting the MSL Volume knob. I'll attach another TRK file, but shorter this time for everyone to view. I'm also doing a slow repair to DCS while drafting this reply. Hopefully the repair would fix the issue Edited: Slow repair didn't fix the issue. Please watch the track up until the time I lock on ground target, launch the GB6-SFW and adjust the MSL Vol knob. @JG54_NF2 and @uboats Pretense_PersianGulf_5am-20231128-212339.trk dcs.log

Spot on!! You hit the nail directly on the head.. No warning light flashing, and the warning sounds never stop. This will continue throughout the track the minute I am airborne and rotate the MSL Volume knob while master arm switch set to on. However, the issue doesn't occur on the ground regardless of master arm switch's state.