miguelaco

I tried CBU-99 w. FMU-140 fuze after the latest patch and it seems accurate at the least. I would like to fiddle with different burst altitudes and default time-based fuze (MK 339 Mod 1), but I didn't have time to do it.

I didn't find any public document related to the issue. However, I don't think it's needed since the behavior is not consistent. To put things simple, HUD designation with no target works the same irrespective of the selected weapon (designates roughly 6-7 degrees down the FPM) but in some cases you get the symbology (i.e. dumb bombs) and in some others you don't (i.e. Mavericks). Being a visual acquisition mode, it doesn't seem logical to have a cue for aiming only in some cases. However, if this is how it works in RL, I'm fine with it.

I tested again following your indications and managed to get a track file showing the issue. I tried with MK82 bombs and IR Mavs so the difference is clear. MK82: IR Mav: BallAndChain.trk

I think I see your point now, thank you. I'm going to test it later after work, but it definitely looks like something is broken or missing.

There are two fuzes available for cluster bombs in the Hornet: MK 339 Mod 1: it is a time based fuze with two settings FMU-140: can be programmed so that the canister opens at a given altitude above the ground (it has a radio altimeter) MK 339 Mod 1 is the only option available for MK-20 Rockeyes whereas CBU-99 can be equipped with either. As it is now, we can conclude the employment of cluster bombs in the Hornet is broken due to the following issues: CCIP calculation is wrong for the FMU-140 as noted by @Tholozor . MK 339 Mod 1 fuze is difficult to use in practice and the CCIP calculation may be wrong too. Using a time based fuze is tricky as the dispersion of the bomblets depends on the bomb flight time, which cannot be calculated easily. Hope it gets fixed for the next patch.

Hmmm, If this is from the manual, I think it is outdated. This is supposed to be displayed whenever you select a weapon in AUTO mode and no target is designated. I started with the Hornet a few months ago, so I may be wrong, but I never seen these kind of symbology with any weapon.

After giving it some testing (with static targets to make it simpler), I think there are two issues here after firing the first Mav: When second missile is not locked yet, MAVF indication is correctly crossed out, yet it is possible to fire it and surprisingly, it tracks and destroys the target. If you cage/uncage, the lock is achieved (you can tell because the crosshair is collapsed on the target) and yet MAVF stays crossed out. Again, it is possible to fire and the missile will likely destroy the intended target. In the provided track, I fired 3 Mavs. Second one illustrates point 1 and third corresponds to point 2. Hope it helps. AGM65 lock test 2.trk

Sorry I don't know what's the issue here. Watched your track but didn't see anything wrong. Out of curiosity, what's the exact bug you're referring to? The designation under de FPM or the missing symbology? What is the "ball and chain"? Maybe it would be easier if you post a screen capture of the symbology with other weapon selected and Mavericks/JDAMs so that the difference is clear.

Just watched the video you posted and if I’m not mistaken, you drop the center tank before release. It seems it’s already reported here and here So maybe this is the same problem you’re experiencing.

Already reported in this thread and two short tracks provided: I only tested with VT1 and noticed the burst altitude set in ME not being honored. Didn't formally test VT2, though.

Rockeyes don't have the FMU-140 as an option (should they?), they only have the MK 339 Mod 1, which seems to be a time based fuze. I didn't test this fuze thoroughly, but it seems they work ok and burst after the time set in the ME. However, this fuze is quite difficult to employ in practice without bombing tables and strict delivery patterns, since the dispersion of the bomblets depend on the bomb flight time.

Moreover, I find the FMU-140 is not working as expected for the CBU-99. It opens the canister pretty soon, and is not honoring the airburst altitude set in the ME. Find attached a couple of tracks showing the issue. As a result of this, the delivery is innacurate as you may see in the provided track files, probably because the computer accounts for a later burst. cbu-99-fmu-140-300ft.trk cbu-99-fmu-140-3000ft.trk

No word still on ATC improvements? I'm eager to see those implemented in the sim.

I purchased Blackshark full of doubts (I've never been an helicopter guy) but enjoyed it a lot. I bought the Warthog with great enthusiasm and even the Mustang although only because of curiosity. In all of these products I have had enough disappointments because of the bugs and unfinished or incomplete features. I understand that ED needs to raise cash from time to time to keep funding the projects and until now I have been willing to buy the products regardless of my interest in them, always with the hope that one product that really excites me sees the light in a relatively short period of time. Checking the roadmap that has been presented to us I have to say I am seriously thinking not buying those. There is no sense in contributing to developments that I have confidence that won't meet my expectations. I think there are many interesting things that could be addressed instead of doing a once again improved Su-27 and F-15C. I'd happily purchase those if they were planned as full DCS level simulations, but I'm not going to pay for an improved flight model and some touches here and there. This of course is just a personal view based on my preferences, so I'm not going to criticize ED's policy, which may be perfectly valid from an economic standpoint.

Awesome, thx!

Thx! Just in time!

I envision today a short afternoon once I arrive home :-) Noticed too that all stuff have been upgraded to 1.2.0 version. Any changelist for already existing modules?

Happy birthday and keep up the good work!

+1 Eagerly awaiting the next beta patch...

Thx for your answer. I was not taking into account temperature effect on baro altimeter. I had the opportunity to test the same mission changing temperature setting, and the variation increases with lower temps, which I think is consistent with RL behavior. Also, found the following thread that expands on the subject: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=86133 Thx again!

Sorry but I think it does not explain why I have the same figures at 4500' and not at 500'. Radar altimeter always measures AGL. I'm flying over the sea, so AGL = ASL in this case. If you manage to equate both (adjusting pressure in barometric alt) at 4500', why aren't they providing the same reading at 500' with that same pressure setting?

Found it! See attachment. Test ALT.miz

I'm not in the same position, but both screenshots are taken over the sea in the same mission. Pressure setting in the mission editor by default and standard weather, so I believe pressure is the same at any point of the map (760 mmHg). All settings in the mission were by default, so 20º C and no wind and turbulences. Actually, it's quite simple to reproduce. Just fire up the mission editor, place your A-10C over the sea and you're ready to test it. That's why I had not provided the .miz in the first post.

For some time I tried to understand and consolidate all altitude readings, in cockpit ones with external view and even that reported by Tacview. Looking only at the readings the cockpit provides (barometric & radar altitudes) I cannot understand some variations and lack of consistency. For example, set up a very simple mission over the sea. Establish level flight and set pressure so that both barometric and radar altimeter give the same reading (4570' AGL = ASL in this case): Go down to 500', and look at both altimeters. Barometric reports 70' more than radar altimeter: OK, 70' is not a great amount of error, but keep in mind I simplified things a lot. If you add external view altitude reading to the equation which I believe is measuring ASL, you can extend the altitude range and observe a few hundred feet variation between 500' ASL and 20000' ASL. Why are we seeing these variation? Is there some kind of effect or error modeled in the sim that induces it?

Aerial refueling in MP, for example. Many threads reporting tanker weird behaviour (specially when starting turns) and tanker responding to wrong player. Also, tanker not refueling more than 8000 lbs in some situations. Breakaway message as introduced in latest patches is also not working properly (too sensitive), but this is just my opinion. See these for some more info, but I'm sure you already knew :smilewink: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1264229&postcount=18 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1256873&postcount=2