Santi871

Not a bug for now. Eventually should be az/el page when that is implemented as far as I know.

The attitude indicator looks weird, I agree, but it matches the one found in the sources. Perhaps an earlier Litening or MC software than the one in the videos, I don't know.

Pretty sure the manual is wrong, I think mvsgas might now for certain

Not saying you are wrong, but the duty cycle of a waveform is determined by the PRF, not whether it's in a scanning or tracking mode. In either it's still a pulsed signal at a certain PRF or set of PRFs so the duty cycle will be below 100%. I think the term you are looking for is dwell time.

Yeah, no, it is a bug according to my info, but will happily be proven wrong.

Reported, thanks!

Just an update on this - it's fixed internally that designating while in CCIP should only show AUTO symbology on the HUD while the program in the stores page remains in CCIP, and thus undesignating will return to CCIP.

Yes, I think it's a reasonable ballpark. The only problem now is figuring out what target RCS those range estimates are for, cause even if we're only talking fighters, the RCS difference between something like a clean viper and a flanker is still pretty sizeable.

Allegedly yes, but only brochure "improved detection range", haven't been able to find any numbers. Given that forecast international estimates the 66(V)2 detection range at a maximum of 48nm in look up, I don't think outright doubling the detection range from the 66(V)2 to the 68 to 80 miles for fighter sized targets is a reasonable assumption.

Thanks for chiming in. The current detection ranges are also particularly questionable considering the 68 only operates in MPRF while in RWS (at least as far as non classified sources state).

If you can PM me the evidence I can try to get it reported (although I think I have an idea of the proof you're talking about).

Instead of instantly dismissing this bug as speculation, it would be great to get some insight from ED's side into why the detection ranges for the Viper (and Hornet) are so much greater than expected values. As a note, it's highly doubtful that ED has reliable sources on detailed detection ranges on the APG-68 and 73, so it would be great to hear on what grounds these approximations are being made. As an example to follow, Chizh on the russian side of the forum does engage in such discussions and provides insight, so it would be nice to see something similar over here.

Reported, cheers

Reported it, thanks!

Seems like it's trying to use GPS time when it's not available (in red team) so it doesn't work. I'll have to check if it's correct that it has to be manually disabled. Thanks! And yes, the TIME field is blank when it's using GPS time.

Both 65 and 73 are EXP3/MRSAR capable.

In the same vein as in https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4309445, I have the report and track ready to post but there's currently a dev build bug that prevents me from testing this in the dev build, so when that is fixed I'll report this.

Hey, I can reproduce this quite clearly in OB, but there's currently a bug in the dev build that prevents me from reproducing there, so I have the track and report ready, and when the bug that's in the dev build is fixed, I'll circle back on this and report it.

Not sure about the mav behavior but I can tell you that that part is right, in the undesignated state the pod is pointed to -7 degrees below the horizon line.

When you are within radar gimbal limits, try putting the target inside the helmet oval and press TMS fwd short. It locks quickly for me.

There's currently a very similar bug related to TGP aligning with the SPI, I will check this when that bug is fixed since it may just be the same cause

will test, thanks

Reported, thanks for pinning it down.

If the label doesn't matter, then it's better to just keep the EA label until it's feature complete. Why? Because gamers are wary nowadays about EA titles. This has nothing to do with ED in particular, it's just a matter of fact that in the industry, many developers have burned customers in the past by not fulfilling their EA. This has led to many people being unable to trust developers' words. Why does this matter if ED has nothing to do with those other developers? Because regardless of what ED is like, people are extremely wary of anyone who seemingly tries to scramble to finish an EA product, be it ED or anyone else. It is perceived as untrustworthy, again because so many have been burned by others before. Given that ED has never had an EA project of this magnitude, it's reasonable that people ask, at least for this first time, that it remains in EA until completely finished. That will solidify people's trust in ED. With more trust, people will be less wary of the EA model in the future. This is just a trust building exercise, and not needlessly doing anything that could be perceived as untrustworthy (even if it's not actually, it may just look that way, and sometimes words aren't enough). I personally trust ED, but I can understand if others don't feel the same way after having bad experiences with other games/devs.

While this obviously makes sense for formats and sensors that aren't there, it's also worth noting there are formats/sensors that are there, with HOTAS functions still missing. For example: in A/A and A/G mastermodes, SCS right should bring up the Attack page on the RDDI if it's not already displayed. In all mastermodes, SCS aft should bring up the HSI page on the MPCD if it's not already displayed. If it is displayed, TDC priority is assigned to it, and further SCS aft actuations toggle the MPCD between HSI and SA formats. Those are a couple of examples of functions that could already be implemented and do not depend on new sensors or other missing things.