bkthunder

[ADDED TO COMMUNITY BUG TRACKER] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gYpmYD4VVaTn1YkHd_K7CJxOysoOqdN-K5oZs_anX7c/edit?usp=sharing

[ADDED TO COMMUNITY BUG TRACKER] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gYpmYD4VVaTn1YkHd_K7CJxOysoOqdN-K5oZs_anX7c/edit?usp=sharing

Good question. Most of the bugs added so far are from the first 5-6 pages of the bugs section. If you scroll through, many of them have been submitted long ago, and bumped multiple times, so I am fairly confident most of those bugs are not solved. In fact, I have skipped the solved or dubious bug reports on purpose, as I wanted to have a view of what are the actual bugs existing as of today. Let me add that I am more than looking forward to hearing from community members and even Razbam themselves to update the status of the listed bugs. A simple way of doing so would be to indicate the line number and say solved/ackoweldged or else. The long answer is: 1. I can't possibly do it all by myself, hence why I'm asking for the support of the community (and why it's so aptly called Community Bug Tracker, lol) :D 2. There are 2 sections in this forum: Problems & Bugs, and Resolved bugs. Resolved bugs are supposedly moved to the proper section. However, few months a go a large number of posts were undiscriminately moved to the resolved bugs section by mistake, according to Decoy. So It's kinda hard. Bottom line is, Razbam should really be the first one to keep the sections tidy and mark bugs as ackowledged / solved, if they don't do it, I don't expect to solve the issue single-handedly. 3. I might be wrong, but I believe while the community can partly take on the task of reporting bugs, we cannot take the responsibility for testing and checking what is solved. It should be up to the developers to first acknowledge the reports and then report back what is fixed (chagelogs, changing the thread title with [FIXED], [CONFIRMED] etc.). Of all the bugs listed so far in the file, about 75% of them are not even acknowledged. I hope this is clear and of course, if you want to contribute, let me know.

Yeah, that's something that I also noticed and it's weird. It also happens at high speed, the elevators are significantly pitched up on a clean jet flying fast and level.

Not in the F-16 and most other fighters as far as I can tell. Lights are usually tied to the generator, the A-10 has them tied to the APU generator so you can have them on before engine start, kinda like an airliner.

DanielNL, if you PM me your emial address I'll give you access so you can add/edit your reports yourself, that makes it much easier to manage if we all help a bit. Also, you can check out the "Acknowledged vs. un-ackoweldged" for stats. There other sheets with stats and graphs at the bottom of the page. Thanks EDIT: one thing to note is that currently only a fraction of the reports is in there, there are a lot more old reports to include, so we might see higher acknowledgement rates as those are added.

The big FM errors make it pretty hard to accept the F-5 is not being neglected. Unless they've been there from the start and nobody ever noticed them (which I'm not sure would be better). I wish fundamental game-breaking bugs were dealt with quickly, no matter how old the module is, and actually the older it is the quicker you should fix it, since it is supposedly a fully released product that is supposed to be kept in a fully usable and enjoyable state at all times. Yes, I do consider the fundamental FM calculation errors to be game-breaking in a flight simulator...FM is pretty important. I hope ED fixes the big ones soon, at least.

Thanks guys, any help is welcome. FYI, I have gone through adding most of the bugs from page 1-5 in the AV-8B bugs section. There's still a lot to do, but we already have some stats that you can see in the various sheets of the file.

Added them to the bug tracker https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gYpmYD4VVaTn1YkHd_K7CJxOysoOqdN-K5oZs_anX7c/edit?usp=sharing

I noticed the exact same thing with L/G down. Almost crashed because I lowered the gear during the base to final turn once, and the landign gains kicked in removing most of the pitch authority. I can only say in that other sim whcih can't be named, it doesn't do this.

Can you post the link to the original report, so I add it to the community bug tracker. Thanks

Lol, actually I've been populating it myself mostly, so far. Would be great to get some help though, as I said PM me your email and I'll give access to edit :thumbup:

you mean this bugtracker? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269108 Or the official one?

Dear all, I would like to propose a "Community Bug Tracker" for the Harrier, that should help us and Razbam have a better view of what and when a bug has been reported, and if it is solved or not. Let me be clear, I want this to be a positive initiative and not a way to flame Razbam. The bug section is a mess, and Razbams own bug tracker doesn't include many of the bugs the community has reported. Hopefully this can bring in a clear overview. So let me stress this: this is not a way to create yet a new place to voice your frustrations, but it's a way to generate a useful (hopefully) overview of what is reported on the official channel. Nothing more. The OFFICIAL Razbam bug tracker is available on their website. Have a look here, this is how it looks for now. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gYpmYD4VVaTn1YkHd_K7CJxOysoOqdN-K5oZs_anX7c/edit?usp=sharing If you want to contribue, please PM me your email address and I'll give you access to edit. This bug tracker doesn't substitute the forum reports, in fact you have to paste the link to the report. So the idea is, we list in the tracker all the reports, while the discussion, track submission etc. still happen on the official forum channel. Note: the file is based ONLY on the forum posts (i.e. the official communication channel). If a forum bug report is not acknowledged, not tagged as [REPORTED], not tagged as [FIXED] or else there is no post from the devs inside the thread that says it is, it will appear as an open bug in the bug tracker. Looking forward to your participation and suggestions. EDIT: several reports added to the table UPDATE 4/15/2020 - Added several bug report from the bugs section (121 so far). - I had made a post in the first 30 bug reports on the list to "tag" them with [ADDED TO COMMUNITY BUG TRACKER], however according to Decoy and Bignewy, this creates confusion and I see that some of those posst have already been deleted. Decoy is hopefully adding those bugs to their official bug tracker, in fact at least two have already been acknowledged. This is good! UPDATE 4/17/2020 - Added 11 new reports to the list (total 132) - Added column to input date a bug is solved (no solved bugs so far according to the forum posts, but this could be due to bad forum-keeping and lack of feedback / tagging. I can't test them one by one, sorry). - Added stats to the bottom of this post. Dynamically updated stats can be found on the "Dashboard" page of the bug tracker UPDATE 4/19/2020 - Added 39 new reports (total 170) - Updated stats, see attached image in the OP / or "dashboard" sheet on the bugtracker UPDATE 6/8/2020 -Added 4 bug reports -Set several reports to solved according to latest patch notes - total bugs solved (of those in the list): 14

Can you explain in more detail which forces you think change and in what direction during a split S? I really don't understand what you mean here. Do you really think an 8g pull in a centrifuge or in a split S or in a loop are different? I'm trying to understand, because I have the suspect you think that the vector of the force always points towards the center of the earth or something similar, which is of course wrong. Have you ever pulled some g in real life? It's not "even" the body positioning, it's JUST the body positioning relative to the axis of the g-force that changes how g forces affect the blood. Hence why the F-16 has a reclined seat. If the pilot was lying flat, he would suffer no grey-out/black-out at all.

Yeah, fundamentally I agree with you, and that's why in my previous post I said this is not a module that satisfies an audience that wants realism and autenticity to a "DCS Level". We all know this is a computer game and shortcuts have to be made, however the issue arises when you have a brand / label that, as DCS does, comes to stand for a certain level of fidelity. If you wear that label but then present a different, less realistic or less accurate modeling, then you have two options: 1. It shouldn't be called a DCS module or 2. It should live up to the DCS standard. The Harrier doesn't live up to DCS standard we've come to expect, but it was sold as such. See where the problem is? In this case "works as expected" means that major systems, avionics, weapons etc. work to the same degree of fidelity expected from a DCS module, and we have plenty of examples of what that means. So this is not a subjective measure. I can open up the F-18 Natops and follow the startup procedure for example. I mean, the flight path marker in the Harrier's HUD still doesn't work properly! I can hardly imagine somethign more basic than that.

:doh: It felt like talking to flat-earthers, lol!

Speaking from personal experience, you are absolutely right ;)

The governor switch, should be spring loaded up-center-down, doesn't work propelry anymore with keybinds or joystick. As of now, Right CTRL+PG DOWN pushes the switch down incrementally and the switch stays there. Right CTRL+PG UP does nothing. The result is, you can't control rotor RPM and if you press down, your RPM continue to decrease as if the switch was held down. By mouse click it works normally.

+1

I am honestly baffled by some of the comments here, the length to which you go to justify the sim's shortcoming is amazing. I'll try to make sense of it: 1. The F-16 has a reclined seat which means the pilots handles g better than in a MiG-29. Fact. 2. Yes, at micro-level there would be minutely different g-forces in the feet, head etc. Again, the F-16 provides better g-resistance. 3. Do you seriously think DCS simulates local g-forces on the pilot's body? That's delusional. Also, it would make no big difference, if it did, there would be a separate g-meter for every part of the seat. 4. Air forces use centrifuges to train g-resistance and check pilots out. Why would they do that if g-forces were so different in every maneuver? Asnwer: G-force is an acceleration, it doesn't matter how you acheive that acceleration, what matters is the amount. You could be sitting in a very fast elevator, or in F-16 doing a loop, or in a centrifuge. 8g is 8g. Period. The ONLY difference is your seating position relative to the vertical g axis, hence, the F-16 has the edge here. 5. Formula 1 drivers get up to 6 lateral g, 5 negative g when breaking and 2 when accelerating, read up on it. No g-suits and no breathing technique necessary since these g are all but on the vertical axis. Sorry, this is physics, and you are wrong if you think anythign other than vertical g can make you black out. PLEASE do yourself a favor and read. This is starting to look like the airspeed vs grounspeed thread.

My God, the corroborations some in this community go through when thinking about some stuff... g force is pretty simple actually: there's a g-meter that measures g-force on the vertical axis, whcih is by and large the only one that counts when it comes to affecting a pilot during a maneuver. Lateral and longitudinal accelerations don't displace the blood in your body in a way that can make you unconscious (otherwise Formula 1 drivers would be wearing g-suits...). Split S, loop, turn, whatever. As long as the g-meter reads 8, it means 8. There are no differences between 8 g in a split-s or 8g in a loop or whatever other maneuver. In a split S you experience positive g as soon as you pull, which is what happens in the video.

There's A LOT wrong with g-tolerance in the game, I think this is widely understood and is acknowledged by ED. The "instant gloc" bug has been around for a long time and besides that, the average F-16 pilot doesn't black out after 2 literal seconds at 9 g. EDIT: I see 8.5 g in both F-16 and Mig-29 in the video, where's the negative g you're talking about? Plus, speed ha NOTHING to do with blacking out, g is the only measurement of y-axis acceleration whether you are doing 300 kts or Mach 5.

Sarcasm? What you wrote it the simple truth. Hint: there is a difference between works, and works as expected.

Just wanted to say, even though it's wonky and you can fly at 35 degrees AoA since last patch, at least that's a sign of life from M3! I am a critic of the Mig-21 in general, and especially the FM. It's been stuck for years, with bugs and subpar sounds etc. Please, don't stop now, continue to develop the FM, this module really deserves it! You have possibly the best 3d model and cockpit together with the F-14, close the circle :thumbup: