Muchocracker

There are a million different causes for any issue. You did not provide sufficient detail of your failure case to give an answer of what is causing it. So i asked for a track showing the issue happening to do that. To give you the right answer of what the issue is and what do do about it. None of that has anything to do with me playing the mission (which does not guarantee that i get the failure case in the same exact way you did), none of that has to do with confirming does or does not exist. Do you understand that?

I'm just going to repeat myself until you understand my words. There are a million different causes for any issue. You did not provide sufficient detail of your failure case to give an answer of what is causing it. So i asked for a track showing the issue happening to do that. To give you the right answer of what the issue is and what do do about it. None of that has anything to do with me playing the mission (which does not guarantee that i get the failure case in the same exact way you did), none of that has to do with confirming does or does not exist. Do you understand that?

How mother of god bro how many times do i have to keep repeating this. Your initial post did not give me enough information to give the right answer to what's causing your bombs to DUD because there are many causes for it. I asked for a track to do that. What is so hard to understand about this? None of this has absolutely anything to do with whether the bug is repeatable or not, nor does it have anything to do with if it's tested before a patch release or not. It was to give you the right answer, not to confirm or deny the bug existed of which it was already reported and i was one of the first to confirm it was a known issue.

Nice ad hom. Where did i say that they had to post a track? I said it makes it easier, espeically when there is no further detail of the failure mode. you should look at yourself and ask that question. You went on an angry rant about a completely irrelevant topic screaming at ED when all i prompted was for you to post a track producing the issue so i could give you the proper explanation of what is causing it in that case and the workaround. How do you know what is reported and not reported in testing before an update release?

Not a single other thing in your pointless ramble about being asked to provide a track was relevant. Of course i'm not going to address it. You really must be a miserable person to be around if you can't possibly fathom that something you're doing is wrong and it's everything else. Idek what you're talking about anymore, this is all entirely irrelevant to this post and my request for a track to diagnose the root cause of the issue through your playing of the mission. Your report on the A/G radar designation is reporting that the bug even exists. Do you not understand that those are 2 different things? And it was acknowledged by ED that it's reported at that, if the bug is acknowledged and reported there's no reason to need to post more tracks. You just raise the issue to get it pushed to be fixed. Completely irrelevant whether it's an ED made mission, or your own, or a 3rd party campaign. What matters is the process of how the unintended behavior happens, that is why tracks are asked for. So the process of how the bug is produced can be observed and determine the root cause. Even just one example tells you why; A player has an issue with CBU-99's not dispensing the submuntions. Not other detail is given except they used VT1. There are a number of reasons that it may be happening; -They loaded another pylon of CBU-99's with the mk-339 and caused an MC LOAD fault -they chose VT1 2 instead of VT1 because of a prior issue where the settings were reversed and they dropped the bomb inside of the DUD envelope making the munition impact the ground before the timed function delay was reached -the jet was an air start and so it had the old bomb config -the jet was a ground start and used an old saved loadout which causes the same thing to happen. Different causes for the same effect. And that can multiply when you go outside of this scope and look at other weapons and systems. Every single detail matters matters when doing diagnosis, and tracks make that easier for everyone. For me, for other people trying to help, and for the developers.

Post a track of it happening

Post a track showing it not dispensing.

For one I'm not an ED employee nor did i make the training missions. Second that's not what you said you're getting the issue on. You specified campaigns. No. They are also for determining if the issue is user error. Or if problem is caused by a different bug. I dont know if those missions are air starts or ground starts and if you reloaded the bombs (a solution that i was the first to put out there for the record, you can check my posts), i dont know what your weaponeering process is, i dont know what fuses are loaded and what settings were used, i dont know the SMS selections you made. There are a million different variables that can cause the end effect of your bombs not detonating. That is why tracks are asked for when reporting issues. "My bombs are dud'ing on X and Y missions and i set X" is not enough for me to tell what the root cause is.

Don't even touch the EFUZ, it should already be off. Only select MFUZ and VT1 for the AGL burst height.

read the date if you don't post a track nobody can diagnose what's going on

Do not touch the EFUZ. It shouldnt be there and got introduced into the last patch. That is what is causing DUD's

no, the rockeye only has 1 fuse available and that's the time based Mk-339

When setting up the bomb in SMS don't touch the EFUZ option it's just going to DUD the bomb. That bug got introduced with the patch and shouldn't be there it should only be MFUZ.

There is a bug with bombs that doesn't properly re-load them with the new fusing configuration. Wait for a patch.

The size of the target has nothing to do with the seeker setting. The seeker setting is for changing the activation range from the expected target location. Large search volume, medium search volume, and small search volume.

When you spawn in cold start. Remove all the bombs and load new ones. It doesnt have to be done in ME

If you're not getting fusing options in the SMS then you've caused an MC LOAD fault by putting different fuses on the same bomb type. You'll also see a crossed out LOAD in the advisories. All 3 fuses on paveways function as expected in my tests. The 139 is a general target fuse, 143 is a high impact G threshold hard target fuse, and the 152 is the fully digital fuse that can do the functions of both. But the in cockpit programming is only available with JDAM's using the JPF page.

That's dependent on what seeker setting you picked broski.

They're working just fine in my own test Harpoons.trk

Please get another track that is more brief like an air start, and better keep the displays in the camera view. If i can't see anything going on in the SMS page or whatever else you're doing with the weaponeering and i can't diagnose if what is happening is a bug or improper procedure. From what i am able to see you're firing them way too close. Well within their acquistion range even at medium seeker search volume setting.

This is not an F-18C module issue.

Post tracks of the issue

The MC LOAD fault that happens when you load different fuses on the same bombs is correct. I'm not able to play these tracks at the moment, but the OP didn't specificy if he meant that one bomb had a nose cone and the other had a different nose cone or if it was one had a nose cone and the other had a fuse. If it was in fact the former then in that case it would have been a bug. Fuses are what matters to the SMS.

The issue is known. There is no automatic conversions of bombs and loadouts from old missions made before the fusing update. So it's still using the old scheme. To fix it just deload all bombs from the loadout in mission editor and load new ones, then set your fuses as desired (or in the rearm menu if you spawn in cold start)