Jump to content

FSKRipper

Members
  • Posts

    1227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FSKRipper

  1. Hey guys,

    encountered the following bug. Always repeatable in the Red Flag Day 3 mission in Nevada. I move to Battle Position South and order my flight to engage. No matter which command I use (Attack my target, Attack ground targets, Attack mission and rejoin) they will transmit unable and stay in formation (Screen attached). Comms channel is set fine, with a mission from the quick mission editor this works fine.

     

    Screen_220506_212453.png

  2. But the older stuff is hardly a match for even 90s variants of our DCS aircraft. I dont think anyone here is realistically expecting an Su-35 or smth. Simply a FF Flanker from the 90s w/ properly modeled missile's would be a HUGE improvement over what we have RN.

     

    You are right, missiles are another thing but as far as I know ED is reworking all of them. Regarding the flanker I would encourage you to search for some documentaries about the russian airforce in the 90's. Apart from their showcase models (25, 31) there was simply a lack of modern fighters and even training methods...

     

    Maybe you just look into some minutes of this vid...

     

  3. That said, the US planes we have are early 2000s models, at which time Russia was only just starting to recover from the Yeltsin era economic slump. They would've been stuck with the majority of their planes being 90s era at that time.

     

    Thats the point, you can't blame ED for a slow down in russian aircraft development during the 90's :music_whistling:

     

    BTW apart from the Viper, A-10C and our Hornet, most of the stuff like F-5, F-14A&B, F-15C is more than a couple of years older. If we ever see a AH64A it will also be probably also be a model from the past century.

     

    Regarding old russian jets, Mover had an interesting interview with "Bio" Baranek where he told that their primary concern where MiG-17 and 21's. They saw the 23 more as some kind of a joke from the red side.

     

    That said, Zhen answered his question himself. Even old russian jets (like early SU-24) are still classified and it would be some kind of suicidal act for a russian company to reproduce such a plane against the governmental laws.

    • Thanks 1
  4. This game is for simulation of NATO war games (F-16 vs F-14 etc.) only. Do not buy anything if you wish to play as redfor, with the exception of the KA-50 module.

     

    Take this warning from someone who has played for many years and many thousand hours. In this sim, you will not see any authentic combat between NATO and Russian/Chinese forces, and you will never be able to fly modern russian and chinese planes.

     

    Check again in 2 years. But given EDs priorities, chances are that it will not be any different.

     

     

    Simply BS!

     

     

     

    The 21 and older stuff is there, the MiG 23 in development, the Mi-24 on the front door. You want something new? You won't get the Su-34, the 35 and all the others for the same reason you won't see a F-35, a F-22 or fancy Block 70/72 Vipers. Please direct your complains to the Kremlin and the Pentagon.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  5. ED needs to not base development decisions based on feedback from the negative crowd over at Hoggit. That vocal crap fest doesnt speak for the community despite what they think over there. Believe it or not there is a strong single player base who enjoys the game and spends time flying rather then posting hate filled rhetoric on reddit.

     

    Amen to that :thumbup:

  6. Just something to think of regarding the use of bogey dopes in helos:

     

     

    1. Aircraft reports are normally given in the bullseye form. Helicopter pilots tend to use other card material (especially the scale) for their operations than fighter pilots. You can imagine the use of a report where you operate 130nm away from the bullseye? Until you have done the plotting, the bogey will be on top of your position.

     

     

     

    2. Reports can also be given in a ZZ format where ZZ is your ownship. For this Awacs needs your exact position. Can you imagine how this should work in mountainous terrain from dozens or hundreds of miles away when you opereate at tree top level? Even a normal radio connection would be impossible in this case and is done by other units relaying your requests.

  7.  

    i dont see the problem you mentioned about height and radar lock...even 1 meter over the water gives some miles of horizon, and ship is way taller on the sea than the harpoon flight path…)

     

     

    Correct, but with a wave height of 1m you will get a diving missile or a missile who can't seperate waves from ships beacause it can see only clutter as you estimated for the ships radar. To make it more easy I can simply citate Wiki:

     

    "The use of sea skimming increases the risk of water impact with the missile before reaching the target, due to weather conditions, rogue waves, software bugs and other factors. Sea skimming also hinders target acquisition, as many of the principles that hinder the target's detection of the missile also hinder the missile's detection of the target. Furthermore, sea skimming involves a significant computational load, increasing the required processing power and cost"

     

     

    The point is ship radars are far more sophisticated, even if it doesn't seem so because of their age (in our case 80's and late 90's). For sure the situational awareness makes 80% of the game. So if you don't know when it's comming and from where it's very difficult to see but there is a reason that modern sea wars (and maneuvers) are fought in good to moderate wheather conditions.

     

     

    still.. you didnt mentioned the exocet flight path height, thats is the whole point here.

     

     

    You are right, I didn't mentioned it. After a short popup (which we could not see because the starting platform was behind the horizon) it used a cruise altitude of roughly 10m (~30ft). It came up on radar at around 24nm and was attacked by Sea Sparrows at 10nm with 2 shots. The first came very close according to its telemetry head, the second damaged the MM38 at 4nm from our ownship by a direct hit. Debris came as near as 2nm (ditching on the water). It's really no magic to shot sea skimmers down. Maybe you should ask why your plane at 20ft isn't hurt by enemy fire :music_whistling:

  8. man, you answer like you dont get my point, maybe its my fault so i try to reformulate:

     

    the problem is just a cruise height setting on the missile . simple as that.

     

    its common knowledge that long range and medium range radar needed to guide missiles to incoming targets have troubles with targets under 20ft (more or less) due to waves reflections and many others factors (like radar being phisically placed on the ship at a Greater height than incoming missile and getting a huge sea waves clutter ecc..)

     

    here an example of what i mean:

     

    thanks anyway man, lets hope being WIP will be fixed !

     

    Sorry mate this is pure BS. We tracked an incoming MM38 out to 25nm with a WM25 and a TRS-3D radar during a missile fire exercise and this was in 2000 and without fancy track management systems.

     

     

    EDIT for better understanding: A ship from our task force fired an Exocet from out of range at our group so in case we miss, we won't get hit. We tried to bring the MM38 down with Sea Sparrow missiles (telemetry equipment instead of explosives) which were semi active guided by our ownship. When you know the threat axis and when it comes you can't miss these missiles on a radar screen.

     

     

     

    How do you think a sea skimmer would find his target in heavy sea state at 20ft with his tine nose radar?

  9. The linked document is a comprehensive view of multiple bugs plaguing the SA-342 Gazelle module for DCS: World, developed by Polychop Simulations. Many of these bugs have been brought to the attention of the developer and have either remain unaddressed or have been blown off. This document was made with the support and hard work of members of the community and as a result we ask that you share with members of the community.

     

    Document: A comprehensive bug report on Polychop’s Gazelle

     

    Written by: AveMe and Nightwolf

     

    Thanks to (in no particular order):

    • FoxAlfa (Missile FM analysis and editing)
    • Zhen (Code comment translation)
    • Quaggles (Missile FM analysis, general assistance, and proofreading)
    • Fragal (Missile comparisons, ED forum and Discord support over the past year)
    • Krippz (Proofreading and editing)
    • Varial (Proofreading and editing)

     

    Everyone who helped try to talk to Polychop and spread awareness of these bugs over the past year

     

     

    Hmm, I'm not sure what to say...

     

     

    My condolence for having a minor real life at all for some weeks. Some nice old reports and thanks for the time you spent but...

     

     

    4 mostly pictured pages about the FM, 10 pages about the RWR and the Mistral, 17 pages about "developer feedback"... I wouldn't call this a bug report. More than an indictment but thats pretty much the thing you intended right?

     

     

    To sum up your "bug report" I will use a direct citation from your text: "Whether due to sheer incompetence or malice" This sentence alone shows the nature of your pamphlet and the quality of your work. Nothing more to add...

  10. Be that as it may, the OP submitted it as a bug. Taking 20 seconds to write "the dev team considers it working as intended, but thanks for the input", would be better, even if nothing came of it at the end.

     

    Yeah but this isn't happening. Why? No idea, Maybe the number of bugs? I think the OP could be happy to make it into the wishlist. Could have been also tagged as "No Bug" and closed. I would also agree that the pictures are close to each other and the diagramm is way over RL. Never seen a wing which was bend from the root like this.

  11. Great that another modern high fidelity plane is being released but we really could do with one from Russia. I would love to see the Su-35 in the same detail as the F-18/ F-14 and this new F-16. I know there is a Su-35 mod about but a heatblur or ED backed module would be both fantastic and balanced.

     

    This get's boring. But for the 1000th time:

     

    There is no available data on modern russian planes. Break into the russian MoD. get it and stay alive long enough to bring it to ED. Wait , a russian company…., so no they won't use the data.

     

    Use mods or face the reality that we won't see modern eastern stuff until Russia and China become a little more relaxed regarding their secrets.

  12. I think this mod should stay alive, for single player purposes, like a....mod. In MP it should be disabled in general. People flying two seaters in MP solo? Hell, get some friends. Or at least some colleagues who share your hobby.

  13. Not every plane is affected tho. So far, I found that the F-18 and Su-27s have it, but the F-5, F-15 and F-86 don't have it.

     

    F-5 definitely have it. Try the F-5 free flight mission in the Caucasus.

  14. Let's hope so.

     

    In the Hornet Forum (JSOW thread) Wags stated that the new munition will be introduced with the OB patch on June the 12th so we should be ready for another 7 days of waiting.

  15. Look, M3 and the mig 21 are an interesting case, small dev team, the mig still has issues, and they do get worked on slowly. But as a customer I know for a fact I will get an update on what is going on once a quarter and that they do hear people bitching about the ASP and that they are trying slowly to fix it. I may not love the fact the fact progress is slow, but I know that once a quarter I'll get a damn update.

     

    Maybe this is the point you didn't understood correctly. The most conflicting issue on the 21 is the FM, especially from guys in possesion of polish or russian documents of the plane. So that you also understand it: There will be no further tuning or modification of the MiG-21 FM since it is assessed as complete. Thats the difference! And please, show me a quarter were you did not got a Harrier update.

     

    I do have a pretty good idea what I'm gonna get with the F18, or tomcat, or the viggen. I have lots of questions what I'm gonna get with the harrier, in particular on the core bombing functionalities (CCIP/AUTO, LOFT, ASL line actually doing wind/mover compensation, INS innacuraices and how they all interact with this etc).

     

    Two Questions:

     

    1. Ever tried to do high drag bombing with the Hornet in 15kts crosswinds?

     

    2. You have a pretty good idea of the final state of the Viggen? Please share it with us, I would die to know if we get the campaigns, full training missions and a comprahensive manual covering all aspects (including jamming, counter measures and so on) more than 2 years after release. It's still listed on the shop page.

     

    Again, this is not to apologize the development of the Harrier but to open your eyes that all the devs you compare to the devilish Razbam Team also cook with water and have the same issues with some minor deviations.

  16. Ok here we go again…

     

    Over all, all Razbam systems are very gameish, and far away from real behavor

     

    Subjective - won't comment on this point

     

    Bugs in the Harrier are major, many game breaking bugs

     

    I don't encountered CTD's, nor completely useless systems or not working weapons so there is no game breaker at all until you bring evidence. Game Breaker is not the same as fun breaker…

     

    Developement in the Hornet may not be the fastesr, but it is consistent

     

    Let us talk about it when the Hornet is in EA for 2 years, ok? I think you will see what I mean.

     

    Stopping development, adding new bugs, not fixing old bugs and releasing a complete other module in the meantime is just not ok and shows what Razbam thinks about their paying customers.

     

    This one is simply a lie as it where shown to you by the changelog that development didn't stopped. Adding bugs is part of the game which happens a lot, even in the F-14 (Jester, Power reduction of engines…) I also showed you that every other developer is working on other projects in parallel. This could become an issue, thats correct from your side.

     

    If for you the Viggen and the Mig21 are bugwise and systemwise on the same level as the Harrier...

     

    You are right, the 21 is more finished Overall but like Bogey Jammer said this is another level because development really stopped. AFAIK there will be no further change of the FM or the ASP so we have to settle with it. This is something to be alerted of. Some People could call it gameish but that would be… subjective.

    The Viggen is also nearly complete but you should take the time and Count the missing Features of the module from the store page :thumbup:.

    Regarding the Hornet... Take a look at the to do list… On the Harrier page the JDAM is missing, I won't count up the other list. Let's see what is missing in June 2020, everything else would be guesswork.

     

    But if they are so perfect, and if I'm so alone with my feeling, why do they not offering a refund for unsatisfied Harrier purchaser?

     

    Because of the EULA with you agreed to during your purchase. If they start with you, who will be next? Maybe the people who only bought the Huey to play with their friends?

     

    Im not interested in defending Razbam, I only try to understand why you guys Focus all your rage on one dev where nearly all do the same stuff in minor deviations. Maybe most of you didn't get it yet but I think the full price module release of the new FW180-A8 vs the existing D9 shows where the path is going.

     

    Maybe you start to count the different Viper variants...

  17. As yet, on the Hornet is being constantly worked.

    Also on the Viggen. Bugs get fixed fast.

    The Viggen has a more complete and bug-free state then the Mirage.

    Its a shame to compare the Viggen with the M2K or, lol, the Harrier.

    Mig21 same.

     

    If they release a new module while the old one is feature complete and nearly bug free, while it is also being worked on, thats fine.

    But the M2K is far away from being bug-free and the Harrier is a joke.

    So the release of the Mig19 was a punch in the face for every customer who paid for the Harrier and M2K.

     

    Just an experience from my side: From my point also very subjective but I had Viggen bugs which took more than a year to fix. Campaign? Still waiting. Training missions for all weapons? No way.

     

    Mig21: Ask some people there about the ASP or the FM. But beware of getting tared and feathered.

     

    Hornet: small step progress (which is fine for me) but no big updates (TGP, TWS, AG radar, FM) so far. More complex systems like the fire bomb or towed decoys will take years until final completion since damage for ground units and ECM for DCS has to be recreated from the scratch. Are you aware that it could easily take 2-3 more years until this module is complete? With only 2 points missing progress will be unbelievable slow from the outside world.

     

    If you feel (aside from the bugs) that the Harrier with all his features (only JDAM missing completely) is a joke I can't help you but encourage you to stop playing, don't buy any module from Razbam in the future but raging through the subforum won't do anything good for you, the devs or the module.

×
×
  • Create New...