Flagrum

That was a part of it, imo, yes. And I liked it that way. But I considered myself as, hrm, "responsible repper". I tried to spread +rep generously and -rep only very deliberately in very special cases. The idea behind this was to make it easier to recognize posts of members that have proven to be an asset to the community - and to warn people of trolls and other kind of overboarding negativity before they spend too much time of not only reading but maybe even trying to argue with such individuals. Even for the poster himself it sometimes seemed to be a wake-up call when they saw their own rep and realized that maybe they were it who were on the wrong track ... In the end, a red box or a green box was never a dead end road. But, yeah, for proven trolls it sometimes involved a bit of work to get rid of that embarrasing red dot and others didn't really care. Unless they were so embarassed of themselfs, anyone could still keep posting anyways. It had in the end no real consequences.

Ok, that makes at least some sense then. Thanks for clarifying!

why does PTRK not update the designation? That makes it completely useless - what is the point of having the TGP watching a target move around if I can not do anything with that? If I PTRK a stationary object (i.e. building, whatever) it does not matter much as the AG designation and the PTRK reticle coincidence. But how would I, if not drop an LGB onto a insurgent scooter, but lase it for a MAVE?

Considering that your question is off-topic in this thread, you're probably right. :thumbup:

It's a structured collection of issues that were reported. If they are actual bugs, fixed bugs or "[CORRECT AS IS]" remains to be evaluated. For that, an organized list is in any case far better than just scattered forum posts in different sub-sections, many of them burried many pages deep in the forum's past.

Thanks for that! The splitting of the Bugs forum into "Problems and Bugs" and "Resolved Bugs" several months ago resulted in a huge mess. Many unresolved and even not acknowledged bug reports were dumped into "Resolved" and never made their way into the public bug tracker. Then bkthunder pulled off the enormous feat of collecting and organizing these bugs and provided the community with their own bugtracker: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269108 Please use this as your starting point. And if you require help, support or really anything from the community, just say so. I am pretty sure that here are still Harrier fans here around that are willing to help. All it needs is some ... communication. ;)

Check the public bug tracker - seems that there is not much left to do for the Harrier ......

Just use your mouse?

Thanks for the reply, Bignewy! But I am not sure I understand what you mean here. How do I "change the offset(cursor?) to ATRK or PTRK mode"? Earlier you said "The offset cursor should only ground stabilise once designated." and I confirmed that this was infact the case. What you see in the .TRK is: - I slew the TPOD to the taller building - I designate with TDC depress - I switch to PTRK mode - TDC depress to get the offset cursor - slew offset cursor to the shorter building - TDC depress to designate Result: video feed remains stabilized at the point of the PTRK reticle (as I would expect), but the offset cursor is fixed to the absolute position on the MFD. It does not remain at the designated point as the aircraft gets closer and the video feed gets enlarged due to the changing aspect(?, FoV?). While the TPOD's video feed is stabilized (ATRK/PTRK), I end up with an offset cursor that does not coincidence with the designated target (and nor does the PTRK/ATRK reticle any longer). This can not be the intended way of how the offset cursor works, right?

Ok.

The automagic restocking of the jet when using the "unlimited weapons" option with Zuni rockets does not respect the settings of the aircraft options in the mission editor. I have loaded Zunis and have set the fireing mode for outboard and inboard rocket pods to "single" in the mission editor. The SMS page then shows the pods as "10S" and are fired one by one. But once the pods are empty, the automagic rearming happens, but as "10R" on the SMS page, i.e. rocket pods in salvo mode (and actually do fire in salvo mode as well). The SMS page then either shows only 10R, or as in my last test, it shows both, 10R and 10S (where 10S is not selectable as no 10S are actually loaded then). OT: if someone of the tester team could also please give an update for https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278276 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=277747 Thanks! unlim ammo 10S vs 10R.trk

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/campaigns/

*bump* This is still an issue in the latest 2.5.6.53756 OB

*bump* This is still an issue in the latest 2.5.6.53756 OB

cheek station

I noticed a difference betwenn the Viper and the Hornet in regards to the gimbal limits of the TGP. When flying directly towards a ground target that the TGP is looking at, I reach the gimbal limits in the Hornet almost right after I overfly the target. So the TGP can only look roughly 90...95 degrees downward until it gets masked or hits the gimbal limits. I haven't flown the Viper much lately, but in Wags TGP update video I could see, that the small dot, indicating the relative point where the TGP is looking at, moves way past 90 degree downward - up to about half way between "straight downward" and "180 deg. backwards", i.e. about 130ish degrees. In the Viper, I am able to look backwards far further than in the Hornet. Why is that so? Differences in how the TGP is mounted (i.e. canted)?

Isn't the gun canted upwards a bit, i.e. not parallel to aircrafts center line? To counter a bit of bullet drop and/or help in turning into the enemy. That could explain what you see: if you shoot exact parallel to the ground, your aircraft attitude would actually be a bit nose-down - i.e. you dive under the traces/bullet path. Or the other way around: if you fly straight an level, you would shoot slightly upward.

I don't think that striving for being exact in what is simulated is a silly idea. But I also like to have options. So if our Viper variant was technically capable of employing the TFR, I am all for it to include it. I totally get the cool-factor, but the real question is: does our Viper variant have the necessary hard-and software to use the TFR?

I don't know much about all that, but you are saying, the more modern Viper (without a TFR), that deadpool is refering to, is not what DCS: F-16 is supposed to be?

Because you are discussing the DCS: F-16 Viper module here?

Which altitude does the F2-view status bar show? Is the difference always the same or does it change depending on the acutal altitude of the helo?

Afaik GPS always gives you all 3 coordinates in space as your position. There is probably a MFD format page for GPS information - which is not implemented, yet, iirc. How the GPS information is actually used in the hornet - directly as input to various systems or just for automatic INS nav fixes, I don't know. .

GPS?

Afaik the pipper indicates the center of the stick of bombs you are dropping. I.e. QTY=5 --> 2 bombs before the pipper, 1 right at the pipper and 2 after the pipper. Therefor if you change the intervall, you also change the total length of the stick of bombs ... and therefore the center of that stick also moves further out. So the jumping pipper seems to be legit.

If I had access to such documentation, I would not have posted "random thoughts", but a bug report. ;) But there is the posibillity that the devs interpreted their documents wrongly and if they are seeing a different perspective on how it is implemented now, they might realize this. Not saying, that I believe that this is the case, but it still is a possibility.