[HOUNDS] CptTrips

That is some bling!

Understood. The only reason I continued is that the original question had already been answered so there was no more information to convey on that topic. I'm not a psychic. I can only go off what you've shown so far. I hope you have some other surprises to go along with the Corsair release. I'll hold on to my wallet and see what develops. <S>

Last reply. Yes, yes, yes. I'm sure you find a rare instance of anything. But That is not what a customer would be buying a Corsair for. I love the Corsair. My favorite plane of all time. Ever. Since the day I came running home from school announcing to the family I absolutely had the TV reserved that Thurs night a 7pm to watch the pilot episode of Ba Ba Blacksheep! I'm exactly the person who should bit at that in a sec. Yet I highly doubt I will. I can't see paying $60+ for a hangar queen I might take out occationally and do some touch-n-go offline. There isn't even an AI Zero in the WWII asset pack to shoot at. Much less a player flyable version to test it against. Sadly, I'm afraid that will be interpreted as "no one likes WWII" if the modules sales aren't sufficient. I hate to give that impression, but there is a kind of chicken and the egg dilemma here. I just bought a couple of hundred bucks worth of the other WWII planes, but you at least have a bare minimum of those ETO to create a satisfying user experience. PTO? I'm not seeing it. $0.02.

Fair points to an extent, but something has to be done about the process. Again, what would I do with a corsair? Fly offline? Airfield patterns? How many decades before Zero, Nate, P38, N1K2, SBD are modelled?

Exactly. When the Corsair is released, what am I going to use it for? Do I really need the engine cover to be removable? The problem is that as you see parts of the community think it has to have every single widget implemented before it sees the light of day. Companies are probably afraid of releasing and getting roasted if it is less than that. I used to have a boss who would say, "Don't try and build a 8 lane highway on day one. Lets get a two lane county road up and working and next year we'll expand it 4 lanes and a couple of years after that, we'll make it 8 lane."

True. So there is no argument. He is just suggesting a gradation of what we have. Even "Full Fidelity" has to make some dividing line on where to stop. Is the seatbelt buckle adjustable? Pfffft. I'm L333t! I only fly models with adjustable seatbelt buckles! WWII is especially thinly fleshed out. I'd like a lot more WWII craft reasonable implemented to flesh out good online play. I don't need the seatbelt buckle or cigarette lighter implemented yet. Those can come later and the aircraft upgraded to "Full Fidelity" once they are finished. I'd rather have stuff that is good NOW rather than wait a decade for something perfect. Half of us will be dead by then.

Does it have to be zero sum? A model could be released in "Relaxed Fidelity" first with reasonable flight model and the bare essentials of the clickable cockpit. Later upgraded to "Full Fidelity" once the cigarette lighter and every other cockpit widget is fully implemented. As long as they are marked so people know what they are getting and server setting to allow or disallow I don't see a problem. Good shouldn't be the enemy of perfect. It could merely be a step toward the destination.

This is what I refer to as toxicity: Luckily this Forum has a ignore tool to flush those that need it. Buh-bye.

Enigma, thanks for your server and ignore the toxic extremists. Every community has them. Why people would slam a guy who spent considerable time, money and effort to build a server that a large portion of the community enjoy is beyond me. If that configuration is not their cup of tea, they can go fly on a different one. You're probably blessed not to have certain people in your server anyway. You don't seem to have any problem keeping it populated without them and who needs to deal with that level toxicity. <S>

Nineline, The only reason I set that test up was because I had seen that behavior in a normal mission attack. Those missions were designed to reproduce the behavior one gun at a time in a controlled and completely repeatable manner for analysis. Which they did, unless you are saying that is a separate bug that this patch isn't fixing. Else it's the same bug no matter how you record it. Thanks for your help.

@EnvyC Great video. Show the issue perfectly. I just wanted you to know it has been reported now. I thought Nineline was going to merge your post in too, but maybe because I linked your video he didn't. Just wanted to give you a heads up. cheers.

@RafaPolit This guy videos something very close to what you were describing. Would you agree?

@NineLine I think you should review this thread as well. I think we are all seeing the same thing and I suspect the ridiculous aim and the not shooting at all are related.

You asked me earlier to do a flying test manually. @NineLine Please review what I see from my view (note timestamps in description to jump to approaches.) All those passes and the debrief said the belly gunner never fired. (Attached log, trk, bebrief) Anyway here is something similar for the A20 top gun position. At timestamp 3:40 he briefly shoots, but the rest of the time refuses. Anyway, posting both because I think they are related. Something in the gunner targeting logic. TripsB17.zip

@RafaPolit are you running MT?

OK. I did the repair and didn't see any difference. You asked me earlier to try one flying instead of AI. This is one I was trying to repro what RasaPilot saw. Take a look at this track. Seems to demo what he said. Yeah, my flying sucks. Sue me. I haven't flow a fixed wing in 3 years. and never with track IR before. TripsA20.trk EDIT: THat is so weird. I'm seeing some squirts in that trk I never saw flying. He certainly never hit me I don't think.

Skewgear, Can reverify with this current version if you are still seeing the "no shoot" behavior?

So Nineline can shoot down my theory (see what I did there?) by telling me he WAS seeing the top and belly guns shooting in the original top and belly miz I posted. That would be an easy negative proof. But then I would be really confused.

I watched hogs track. I think I did see the far starboard buff top shoot. I'm seeing some top gun shots in the debrief. ********************************************************************************* Maybe there are certain angles and position he just won't shoot in and when I was in a stable formation, I just wasn't in that picky targeting zone. Ans since I stayed there I neve got into the shooting zone. When I was fiddling with it and moved stuff around, maybe I moved into that targeting cone and that's why that one shot that one time. That's one reason I design my cruddy missions the way I did. So that there would not be the chance of him not shooting to avoid friendly fire. Maybe that's what it is? The code won't shoot where another buff in formation might be sitting. Whether or not there is a buff there.

Thanks. I think we need some more data points besides Nineline. I don't mean that in a bad way. It seems to me, him and I are seeing different behavior somehow. Getting more data points and comparing the ones that work against the ones that don't might start to reveal the pattern. <S>

Yes. Here is what I saw. Tail gunner: Adequate. Pretty sad for ACE, but you know that already. Chin gun: same. Side: Shoots, but couldn't hit water if you threw him out of a boat. AS you now see. Belly gun. I've never seen shoot. You? Top: Out of 50 various runs I saw him shoot once somewhere in the general direction. All the other times no shoot. So how is the best way I can demonstrate them not shooting on my machine for you? Apparently we are getting different results. Again, did they shoot for you on my original top and belly gun miz? I'm trying to find which one work the same for both of us. So lets say my mission suck, but there is no rational reason they should shoot in those too miz regardless. I can get some vid recording software if thats best. I attached a trk earlier I assume you could play and see them not shoot. I'll try your a20 miz real quick before repair and then again after.

Re-read his posts. There are more than one.

I certainly can. Also, will you please attach the exact miz of your film? It's was modified from the tail miz right? I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying there might be some tiny difference that is the clue. I also had one vers of my miz where the top gun suddenly shot. If we can compare two that work with some that don't maybe we can see the underlying pattern. Accuracy is obviously sadly off. Even on ACE. On that we both agree. But accuracy doesn't matter until they first at least shoot. It seems to me the calculation of lead is the problem which is why the tail and chin gun are better. Less lead to calc. Also, I'm not trying to set you off, but a lot of info has been flying back and forth. Is it a correct statement when you ran my original top and belly gun missions (yeah I know you don't like them), is it a true statement that you did not see the top and belly guns shoot in that example? If THOSE two missions shot for you and not for me, then something REALLY weird is going on. Off to repair. I'm going to leave SRS installed for now. Hmmmm. One other data point. I think my mission_scripting.lua is modified to allow file system as I am writing some persistence stuff. I'm assuming that can't be it.

I ran the modified version of your tail miz again to make sure I'm not crazy and it's not a 1:5 kinda thing. Briefing says no top gun shot. Worse. This time even the chin gun didn't shoot. We're going backwards. lol. BTW, the only mod I have is SRS. dcs.log debrief.log

Did my post disappear? Weird. I was asking if in your opinion if you felt the behavior RafaPilot (OP) was reporting was correct and intended behavior? Because to me it looks very similar to the issue with the B-17 I reported. You don't think they are related?