umkhunto

BRM-90's definitely do not work as previously. They seem to be maneuvering far more erratically and miss most of the times. Tested a couple times from steep attacks, shallow attacks, point track or area track. The rockets are not reliably hitting targets at all. All on done on MP.

Hey IronMike, were you able to confirm this issue? I would just like to know if it is getting looked at.

Here's an excellent guide on using SRS. Please do not feel intimidated, we all started at the same place. You can also join Tactical Pascal's Discord, or Hoggit's Discord groups and people will be more than eager to assist with any questions you may have.

Do not discourage people from using SRS! That's just poor form. It's not that difficult nor complex. Rather discouraging people, you could have used the time you spent with your post productively, and helped him get settle with SRS.

Hi, Just wanted to touch base and find out if there's been any progress with this issue.

All 3 position switches. E.g. on the TM WH throttle there are 12x 3 position switches. Sadly it seems one binding was actually removed for the flaps. :/ Adding the 3 position switch for MM modes was great. Allowed me to free up a hat and rather use the boat switch. However, every single 3 position switch in the cockpit, should have a 3 position abstraction. The bindings I want the most is for the AA/AG A/G1 A/G2. Those are they most annoying things that can't be properly bound. At the moment, it's 4 separate bindings, where all it needs to be is: 1st binding: If on do A/G1 else A/G2 2nd binding: If on do A/A else A/G

Some much needed device bindings Deka, I beg you, pretty please, with sugar on top. Please give us 3 position switch bindings for the FCS mode switches. It drives me nuts that I have these 2 perfect switches on my WH throttle, that I would be able to use to bind the A/A-A/G and A/G1-A/G2 switches. In fact, make all the 3 position switches in cockpit bindable. As we have it in other modules.

Pressing the keybinding for swapping sides, also causes an immediate CTD.

Do you want a cookie?

That would be a great and everybody would agree with you, if ED could push the correct build to beta, which they clearly didn't do. How do we know they compiled and pushed the wrong build to beta? I'm glad you asked: 1. The Huey multi crew is in, when it is clearly not supposed to be. It's clearly in a very early, not intended for the public state. ED have stated this was unintended. 2. The cows are in. Terribly bugged, without textures. Again ED have stated that was unintended. 3. Tomcat's can't launch from the carrier, neither can AI. AI can't land on the carrier either. HB have stated in the bug report, that an earlier build had this effect on all naval aircraft, however in the later build that was fixed. Again, another telling sign that ED pushed the wrong build to beta. 4. Multiplayer hosted missions that spawn units crash in less than 10 minutes, with the dedicated client burning through all the RAM on the server, and a plethora of other problems. Those are tiny points, which screams ED messed up and pushed the wrong build to production, again, just like they did late last year. It would be great if could beta test the open beta build, but ED has to actually give it to us, instead of giving us one of their internal dev builds.

They compiled the wrong build again... How is that possible? I mean I know it can happen and have seen it happen in work as well, but usually when it happens once, everybody learns their lesson and it never happens again. smh.

Shush. This is not the place for logical deduction.

The F-16 can turn 360 in 13s. The S-300's missile is so easily spotted, since it is as big as an F-16, that it can dance around it. In the final few seconds before impact, the F-16 can turn 180 degrees in about 6 seconds. There is no way an S-300 could intercept an F-16. Do you see how silly that sounds? Every single argument that talks about the size of the AIM-54 being the disqualifying factor for its effectiveness, is exactly as dumb as what I just wrote there about the F-16, and what you wrote about the Flanker. Your 30 tonne fighter, will never, not in until the heat death of the universe, out turn a weapon that weighs less than 500kg, while it has an energy advantage over you.

A-6 > F-111 > Tornado.

The A-6E TRAM, obviously.

I think I've encountered a bug in the Tomcat, where the MiG-31 doesn't give a launch warning for the R-33, which it is supposed to. I tested it with several playable modules, where it worked as it should. Included is a link to a video showing the behavior and attached is the mission file. 31test.miz

Hook skips and improved carrier landings, is something I'll be happy to get after, in this order: TWS AUTO > Jester LANTIRN control > Digital EGT > Forrest Fire > F-14A > muh hook skips. Seriously, there are things that have far higher priority. You say they haven't implemented anything major in 10 months, but just 1 month ago they dropped NAVGRID, which was a very big missing tool for the RIO. Stop complaining, it will get done eventually.

I mean that's not entirely true. The R-33 is SARH, however the MiG-31 can guide more than one of them onto a target, due to it's AESA radar. In the case of the Tomcat, yes, the missile is a fox 3, but requires the go active command from the Tomcat's WCS, whereas an AIM-120, will go active a certain distance from the target, without requiring a go active command from the launching platform.

Far too late for that ol' chum.

If it's any consolation, wingman and I managed to get IFF working. We messed around with it while in transit, testing it on each other. We both set M3A for transponder and interrogation. We then both set a code for M3A, we just picked a number, and made sure each is the same. After that, we were able to IFF each other and other aircraft. Server was running magic iff. RWR and CMS however, definitely broken in MP.

You mean like they have in one of those F2P arcade flying games?

Can confirm. I was unable to unlock a friendly while trying to shoot a bandit off his tail, even when the friendly was outside of the scan envelope. In MP of course.

CMS and RWR not working in MP. Changing programs doesn't make an impact. Setting to auto will not start dispensing when locked up or when MAWS detects a missile. Voice warning does call whether tracked or a missile is inbound, however there is no indication on RWR when locked. Test in SP, all works fine. In MP however, it doesn't work. Repaired the installation, no change.

Had the same thing with a wingman. He ended up hitting a friendly. We got around it by both selecting mode 3 for interrogation and transponder, and setting a mode 3 code, we just picked 7777. Then it worked for some reason.

The current method really doesn't make any sense. It's cumbersome, and buggy. About 4/5 times I try to set the code, it will say that I don't have anything on the pylon. All the other modules that use the kneeboard to change the laser code, require engines to be off and imo simulates it sufficiently that the ground crew changes the code, with the current limitation in the engine.