Thirsty

Can confirm, same bug for me and 4 other friend as well.

Same bug, person also uploaded a YT vid as well.

Yup, same here. Whenever the switch is on, its a werid crackling / water running sound constantly.

Agreed, I never needed convincing in the first place. Especially not with the selective realisim that has been shown in your recent replays. If that would be the case, then there would be no proper technical exchange between Bignewy and Kosh about the synch between the L006 and the N019, but then the thread would be locked down and told "Correct as is". I have been following the thread, as it seems like you didn't. (No offense.) As I qouted above what exactly Bignewy said, in the end DCS:World is an entertainment product, and they only work with publicy avaliable declassified documents. Sadly few documents about this exact topic are still classified, what would slove the debate over that topic, Non the less, the primary simulation and the accuracy of said simulation has nothing to do with this thread, That as been constantly derailed by completly unrelated things. Since a mission editor function, doesn't interfier with people who wish the hardcore realism. Just like how the combat tree is on the F-4E II, a mission editor function that can be turned on or off, depending the need, and the realisim viewpoint of the mission maker. Additionally, they have option to see every aircraft with combat tree, inculding F-16, F-14 literaly every aircraft, completly uterly unrealistic, yet still and option. The same way why an option what people have requested for the SPO-15, to have a version that works simlirarly to the ones found in the Flaming Cliffs set of aircraft, is completly reasonable need for some people. Especially after looking at what we have within DCS:World. You are more than wrong about said thing, just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view, won't make them frustrated or disapointed in the developers, they are activly doing their best to make these aircraft the best in the market. I am only dissapointed in double standards.

"While we endeavour to be as real as possible DCS is a for entertainment product, it is worth remembering that." So again, what is being requested is nothing super unholy, but very much within the vision of DCS:World

I recomend deep diving into radar, and how SARH guidence works with different radars It is not as simple as "newer" RWR just picks up everything, it is a way more complicated. There is a reason even in today's operation standard, anykind of hard lock is treated like a launch. The difference is, in DCS like I mentioned multiple times, most of the RWR implemenation is magical, and is not even close how it would properly work. Many documents inculding technical and maintanace reports plus Pilot reports, are saying otherwise how the SPO operated. And again, nobody mentioned "air superiority" anywhere in my words, did I? Nobody is talking about anything to do with AMRAAMs. Additionally, by this time I think you know that well, that just becuase it works for one aircraft, it doesn't mean it will work for the other. Besides, I know the limiation of the SPO-15 and how it was when it came to detections of ARH missiles. Unlike how most of you act toward a mission editor function. If you wish we can talk about the combat tree implementation for the F4 is, and how even turning off the SRZO-2, it still detects everything, what is simply and physically would be impossible. That is way beyond realistic, again an other magical implementation. Or that is not something that breaks your realisim barrier? In the end, as a person who prefers realisim, also prefers my personal time, and enjoyment in the end. When I have the time, I wish to fly single player scenarios without spending a full workweek just to script missile launch voicelinces from EWR pickups. And the same time would not like to wait years for native ED implemenation, How long since we are getting Dynamic Campagin again? I can understand your concern, if people would be asking for a complelte removal of the existing system, but that's not the case. Please consider that not only your way exist, multiple options are present in multiple aircraft, such as the above mentioned F-4E II. Making your view very selective that what can go and what can not. If one aircraft needs to obey by being super ultra realistic, the other ones should as well, things go both ways. I would like to see the FF MiG-29 to be a sucsessful module, since if it does, we will see more eastern jets that would benefit everyone, and as for right now it is sitting in a very werid place.

This. Exactly that would slove all the issue, and people wouldn't be as upset as they are the current moment. There is a whole thread on the Whis List section asking for something exactly like that. I really hope ED considers this option, so this wouldn't be such a big issue as it is right now.

This mostly. I personally could give less about having a launch warning, since you threat a lock as a launch and I am fine with that. Not like how the magical DCS RWR's work that tell you about every single launch warning. But the fact that you are completly blind from the the full front 90 degree, is limiting the use of the fulcrum super badly, unless you have a person telling you to go defensive. And that in single player, campaign/story scenario is impossible. And this is only singleplayer, I could see the issue being even more bad in multiplayer

In this current mission editor, is almost impossible to make and implement a proper GCI control without having an actual human doing so, even if I go ahead and try to script every part, is borderline impossible. And since how many years now we are getting Dynamic campaign, it will like won't be for a long long time. I agree with you, would like to see that as well, but with all honesty and you know it as well, in DCS is impossible. There are even modules with capabilities that simply would never worked (MiG-21 module) Or upcoming things such as the J-8 Peace pearl or the "300 pound gorilla" the F-35. These are more than far away from realisi,- And exactly. Giving the option for mission creators, to let people use the SPO that is more in line with everything else. Or ED's modelling of the system. Not breaking the realisim for people who want it.

Neither does the 4x HARMS on the F-16, yet they still exist in DCS do they not? Just like the no INS drift what is already an option for so many modules, or so the full hardcore realisim only matters when you would like it? Or the magical RWRs that are currently in almost every module other than the F4. And I am not even going to relist all the options that others did already. Maybe hard to understand that a mission editor option is not a special menu option, neither a dumbing down of a system. But giving the freedom for people to set up their own scenarios as they like it. With this current limitation, seeing any singleplayer campagin is almost not possible since you can't even a human GCI alerting you for missile that are launched on you, can't they?

IF only that would happen, I think people wouldn't have such a big issue. Hopefully, since all you really need the SPO-15 for is not to get SA in a Air to Air battle, but to know if you get fired uppon (lock warning)

That summs up most people I agree, I would even go as far everyone since even the AI knows when they are getting shot at, but not you in the fancy new virutal jet, limiting the usability of what would be a great release for DCS. And I may add, I never said even once that they should put launch warnings into the SPO-15. Insted remove the launch warnings from their Magical RWRs(15,16,18, M2K etc ) that picks up things that it shouldn't. But as for now, you don't even know that you are getting locked, what is weird since every SME I heard speaking about the SPO-15, they said that the air threat identification was absulutly useless, it was better for SAMs however. but they know for sure if they were locked or not, even with the radar emitting. Meanwhile all the other side is saying such things like "oh, it is the start, every other module will be up to this standard one day" That's the issue "One day", that would realisticly can take over many, even over 5 years. Since for sure ED will not stop developement for their new upcoming cash bringer such as the F-15C and the F-35 just to go ahead and make all RWR behave realisticly as they should, neither that can be enforced uppon other developers to do so. And since there is still so many documents about the SPO-15 that is classified, the situation for Western RWRs are probably even worse. At this rate sadly it looks like it is a matter of time until that thread will be it with the "Not planned, Correct As Is"

Just like how many others mentioned. Having Hungarian bases would be really amazing, and most likely the one and only oportunity we will ever have having any Hungarian AB options in DCS. Giving home to our beloved MiG-29 at Kecskemét AB in DCS would be something all Hungarians would wish for. (Just a few important ones in a quick list: Kecskemét, Taszár, Szolnok, Csákvár, Pápa,)

And not even mentioning that how close range this shots are! I wonder how bad the resaults will be if the distances goes from the 2-5 NM to the 10 plus or even 20 plus distance. . .

Please can you get the Track file and send it to Bignewy here? Since I think that will help more with this case. We need to get this fixed