Flagrum

I have not yet made my mind up on this topic. But I want to urge very strongly that nothing gets deleted here! If the "clean slate" approach is to be established, then only move the old bug reports to a (read-only) subforum so that they still can be searched and referenced. Do not delete anything.

Der Bugtracker spiegelt nur die Situation wider, wie sie in den verschiedenen Bug-Subforen vorzufinden ist. Es kann doch niemand erwarten, dass jemand, der viel Zeit und Mühe investiert, um dort etwas Struktur und Übersichtlichkeit hineinzubringen, auch noch dafür verhaftet wird, auch ja jeden einzelnen Report zu verifizieren und regelmäßig nachzutesten. Es war und ist Razbam's Aufgabe, da für Ordnung und Fortschritt zu sorgen, und eigentlich nicht die von freiwilligen Helfern der Community und Kunden. Ein Bug ist gar keiner, sondern ein DAU Fehler? Kein Ding, einfach "[NO BUG]" getagged und gut ist. So, wie es in den allermeisten anderen Bug Subforen auch passiert, wo auch alle Nase lang Nicht-Bugs geposted werden. Oder wie immer Razbam das sonst organisiert hätte (Decoy alleine hat da leider auch nicht viel gebracht, tbh). Der Bugtracker war nie dafür gedacht - und mMn auch nie dafür benutzt worden - um Razbam schlecht dastehen zu lassen. Die Bug Reports an sich und wie Razbam damit umgegangen ist (oder eben nicht damit umgegangen ist), sind es, die Razbam schlecht dastehen lassen. Und ob da nun von 190 Einträgen nur 180 oder vielleicht nur 100 noch echte offene Bugs sind, ist da nichtmal so wichtig. Auch 100 echte Bugs wären noch 10x mehr, als zuletzt noch im Razbam Bugtracker als offen gelistet waren. Wir haben nun also den Bugtracker als Zusammenfassung des Chaos, das Razbam in den Bug-Foren hat entstehen lassen. Hätte es den ach so schlimmen Bugtracker nie gegeben, dann hätten wir jetzt was? Das Chaos, das Razbam in den Bug-Foren hat enstehen lassen! Und das wäre dann so viel besser?

Ticket Alter ist eine durchaus nicht unübliche Metrik. Was hilft es z.B., wenn bei gleicher Schwere eines Fehlers immer nur die neu reingekommenden abgearbeitet würden (z.B. weil's einfacher ist da man sich nicht so lang zurückerinnerm muss, etc.) und damit die alten Bugs aber nie gelöst werden? Du sagst also, was bkthunder da gebaut hat, war eine gute Idee, nur er und/oder der Rest der Community haben es verkackt und zu einem "hate tool" verkommen lassen. Richtig so in etwa? Wäre es dann also besser gewesen, keine Initiative zu zeigen und Razbam unkommentiert weiter vor sich hin wurschteln zu lassen, nur damit ja niemandes Gefühle verletzt werden? Ich sagte bereits, dass der Community Bugtracker nicht perfekt ist. Aber deine Sicht, es würde nur hate gegenüber Razbam fördern halte ich immer noch für eine polemische Übertreibung von dir. edit: gepatchte bugs werden vermutlich nur nachgetestet, wenn es einen Hiweis darauf in den Patchnotes gibt. *shrug*

Der bugtracker war has hilfsmittel gedacht, mal ein MINIMUM an struktur in die über zwei subforen verteilten bug reports zu bekommen. Nicht um mit Fingern auf Razbam zu zeigen "bäh, guckt mal, alles kaputt!", sondern um sie dazu zu bringen, endlich mal farbe zu bekennen. Zuletzt war im Razbam Bugtracker etwa 5-6 offene Bugs für den Harrier verzeichnet. Klar, da ist es einfach zu sagen "wir sind so gut wie fertig". Mit dem Community Bug Tracker wäre es nicht mehr so einfach möglich, die hälfte offenen Bugs in "Erledigte Bugs" subforum zu verstecken und den Rest nur widerwillig in den Razbam Bugtracker aufzunehmen (hab sogar bisserl Verständnis dafür - wer will sich schon duch den seit monaten angehäuften wirrwar von bugs und postings durchkämpfen? Na, außer bkthunder vielleicht ...? Der community bugtracker ist bei weitem nicht perfekt, ganz klar. aber 100 mal übersichtlicher und besser, als das, was wir bisher bei Razbam hatten. Das manche dort gemeldten Bugs gar keine sind - klar hätte das z.B. von dem meldenden - oder jedem anderen in der community, der darüber stolpert - später per update an bkthunder korrigiert werden können. Hast du bkthunder zu deinem lieblings nicht-bug eine PM geschickt?

Hate Tracker? Das ist doch ausgemachter Blödsinn, sorry. Dein erster Link zeigt auf einen "Correct as is" Bug-Report der vor offenbar einer Woche geklärt wurde. Beim zweiten Link hat sich das Problem anscheinend vor 2,5 Monaten geklärt. Das bkthunder nicht jedes Posting in all den momentan 192 erfassten Bug-Reports einzeln durcharbeitet, nachtestet - und nach Möglichkeit auch noch tagesaktuell nachzieht - ist für dich "hate"? Oder meinst du hier eher, dass ein Anfänger besser keine Probleme ("hate"?) reporten und besser still sein sollte?

It might sound alien to you, but there are people out there who love to read, especially if it is about something they like and love. "Studysim" is actually a thing. How can you tell the operating limitations of your aircraft? Without a manual, this academical nerd question will become quite interesting quite quickly if you try to land on a carrier with dry tanks and yet some ordnance under the wings? Good luck finding a YT video for that. Also please consider, while it might be ok for you if product features are not delivered, others might have a different view on this. (semi-OT, @mods: can we have the rep system back ... please?)

But you know that DCS is a flight sim, right? (yes, I know that there is Combined Arms ... ) Anyhow, map is too big, that's probably the first time that this was said on these forums...

Advertised was a manual and a pocket guide. There is currently no manual, only the pocket guide exists - which is lacking a lot of details and complete chapters to be considered a proper manual. (and is probably too exhaustive for a mere pocket guide).

The thread was only a tool to help bkthunder managing the Community Bug Tracker. The Community Tracker is only listing bug reports that are already posted here on the forums and the thread was sometimes used to help focussing on what is going on on the forums. No bugs were (exclusively) reported directly in that thread. That said, if now proper handling of forum bug reports will take place, then this might not be much of an issue (time will tell, I guess), but it would also not do any harm if the thread could be reopened again. (PS / OT: thanks & BIG props to bkthunder for putting so much efford into this! VERY much appreciated!)

Thanks for the assistance here, but unfortunately that is not correct: The actual manual is missing, only that so called Pocket Guide is available The existing documentation lacks a lot of details and even whole chapters. The TPOD consists only of a few sub-headings and is otherwise completely empty! It has 125 pages in total. To put that in perspective: the Fw-190 manual has 181 pages, the (ea!) manual for the P-47 has 216 (201 without the sponsors list) and the CC-101EB has less pages, 118, but that aircraft has no combat related system (C-101 has 155 pages).

Your guys really don't get what "optional" means.

As I said, I like to have options - to explore "what if" scenarios. The nice thing about options is that they are not mandatory. You (and the server, the mission maker) can choose to use or not to use it. A "reasonable" indication that a system or weapon would technically work would be good enough for me to have such an optional feature. The Sea Eagle might be debatable, but as for the LGB, I would have no issues at all. But for you, everything that gets implemented, has to be documented in official papers beforehand, right? No options, no educated guesses. You would probably also not allow to strap thermal coated navy MK-82s under a A-10?

That is not necessarily a direct consequence of the tests - we don't really know the actual outcome of the tests, do we? Maybe the decision was not made as a direct result of some negative technical tests. Maybe they decided to not use it as, i.e. the whole system of airframe and missile was not suitable for the needs (range? costs? doctrine?). I mean, if we want to be precise with what we have in our sim, we should also be precise with our argumentation! :smilewink:

What do you do with C# in DCS? Without the SDK you won't be calling any API functions anyways, be that in C# or more likely C++.

I don't know if that is the official stance of ED in this matter, but you are right, the DCS Viper can not load MK-83. I don't know anything about the missiles, but if the only reason why nothing, of what you mentioned, is available for the DCS Viber "because the USAF never used it", then something is wrong with this sim, imho. If there are technical restrictions/incompatibilities, I fully support to not allow such fantasy loadouts. The moving map requires a different software version, the missiles also need specific software and probably different rails? And even the MK-83 might require a software change to accomodate for slightly different ballistics compared to MK-82 and MK84. If not, then I would find it disappointing to not have it included for the DCS Viper. In general, I am "pro options", as long as this doesn't contradict the physics/technical reality and I can't understand why someone finds it desireable to artificially restrict the capabilities of what could technically be done. And btw, the argument "XY never used it" is really flawed: the Viper was also never used with Flagrum on board - and yet I sit here, 5000 ft. above Georgia ... :smilewink: edit: the C-101 does not have any CCIP/CCRO capabilities, no software involved. All there is to it is to hang the weapon under the aircraft. It can carry the weight, it can release the weapon - all technical requirements fullfilled, correct? edit2: one could argue, that it is technically possible to strap a pig under the Viper so we want that implmented! Yes, somewhere someone has to draw a line of what will be implemented and what won't. If ED says, we can not implement every weapon that one can think of, even if they would be technically feasible, then that is a valid point. It would have to be discussed, if a certain unconventional loadout should be available or not. But MK-83 and LGBs are not really that uncommon ...

It seems that you missed the real life part here: DCS simulates the aircraft, not a specific airforce or their doctrine of how to use it. So if it is technically possible, what is wrong with letting us do it?

Do you think that people who don't bother to look up what has changed when an update was released will care about it more if they find it in their mail inbox?

I was asked if I were being sarcastic. Well, I thought I was - until I saw this: I think, Razbam should reconsider this. They don't have to work on the Public Bugtracker, but to save some work, the community manager could import it to their official bug tracker. ... erm, o wait ...

How does a downwind approach (i.e. with the wind) mask your audibly? The wind will transfer the noise towards the target, making the helo easier to hear, right?

You just killed an innocent wife and child instead of the evil war lord. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It means that it is dangerous, when it comes to weapon systems.

I went through the mentioned threads, but I might have missed it: what function does the FLIR/FOV switch perform with an MAVE? What Harker said, makes some sense to me: but does not apply to MAVEs, as there is no FLIR and afaik no FOV (maybe search pattern/volume?) that could be changed?

I know. But back in the day, we also had to walk to school, with bare feet, through the snow storm, uphill on both ways - to and back from school!1

+1 for Syria map on cassette tape for my SCSI Datasette!

Yes, perhaps the system was not perfect, but maybe it was not the idea behind it that was wrong. Maybe it was just lacking some balancing, i.e. to avoid "rep tanks" with 100 times the rep power than any average community member. Iirc many of such rep tanks got their ... fire power in the early days when gaining rep points was easier / too easy. But ok, maybe balancing all aspects of the old rep system would be as much as a task as balancing PvP in DCS ...