Joni

Does this item in the last changelog have anything to do with this bug?

Update is not live yet, just got into steam seconds ago. How would you know?

Will this be fixed for today's update? I have some missions that require this feature to be working correctly and was really looking forward to see this fixed. Thanks.

Hi, could you read my reply @BIGNEWY? I really think there was a missunderstanding of the issue. Thanks.

Wow, I didn't know that. I assumed that if the a10c didn't have this feature then why would the Hornet had it with the same pod? Thanks.

Maybe this is fine, but what is 100% confirmed is that it's different than before. Before, you could hit a tiny ant in CCIP, now you may miss a whole tank. So maybe now it is more realistic, with the innacuracies of the real system. It is a bug for me though, based on how exact the errors are every single time, so I don't think it is due to innacuracies.

Track attached of a tank moving and followed by PTRK mode in TGP. After masking the TGP, it followed the tank perfectly and remained in PTRK and over the tank after unmasked. I think no more details are needed, this is not correctly simulated. If however something else is needed please let me know. Thanks. TGP magically knows tank movement.trk

changing coalitions once the mission has been created

So according to wags video on the viper tips about the TGP, the pilot needs to manually select INR before masking the LOS. I was wondering why in the a10c it is automatically commanded? And how about the Hornet? While in OPR mode the LOS doesn't change a bit after masking (realistic?), and during area or point track we can see the legend MEM flashing when it is masked. Neither of which shows any kind of deviation from original LOS, is that realistic too? Thanks.

Do we have to wait until next year to see this fixed?

YEAH

Thanks. What happens when you play the tracks we provided? You see a miss? I at least wasn't by any means trying to achieve precision guided munition accuracy.

I see. Considering these are single player I would have loved to see every red flag mission or campaign done the Baltic way. Otherwise it kills my immersion big time!

Oh, that's no HAFU bug but an MSI bug in attack format that I was talking about before. It's a pretty annoying one that I hate it hasn't been fixed yet. That happens when the contact is a PPLI one and you havent interrogated him. So SA page (no bug) shows the PPLI contact (green left dot) and radar page (bug) should show the same symbol correlated to PPLI but instead is showing the HAFU with no correlation. If you command IFF you will see it was friendly. IMHO, despite the bug the error was yours, you should have interrogated him way before locking. Thanks.

I have never seen that happen or reported. You should post a track, otherwise it may never be fixed.

They're not broken, actually they work almost perfect. It's LTWS+MSI what is broken. The topic here was more about the radar code. I guess we'll see tomorrow if they launch it. I hope not, I'd rather wait until it works fine.

I know how to create them, I was looking for a pre made one. I don't need streets, I just need something similar to a town or city like many mission designers do in Iraq. I just could not find them online. Thanks.

I couldn't find any in the user files section. Does anyone know of a template for a town or city? Maybe one using the structures category of the static units? I'm trying to put a couple of those in Iraq to create some Gulf War missions. Thanks.

Track attached. ccip bug.trk

I stand corrected. This bug does happen to me as well. Can we please change the tag? I think Wags changed it.

I see the issue. I don't have it in my missions only in yours. I wonder what that can be.

I agree, but if it works like that now, why would this auto iff thing be any different? That's why I was worried about a potential bug from the start that could be avoided.

Confirmed that currently all contacts dropped and regained, retain their HAFU status.

I'm not saying it works correctly now, but I was talking about TWS and not LTWS which is broken 98%. I'm gonna try dropping a contact and see what happens. I'll report back soon.

Why launch it in that state? I understand WIP but if that's the way it's gonna work then many of us would rather have it off until fixed. What's the point? I thought that as well, but the thing is that doesn't happen in the attack format. If it gets dropped it will be remembered anyway.