RAZBAM_ELMO

But how am I to know that you're guarantee is 100%? How am I to know that you know all of this to be fact? See what I mean by why I can't simply draw information from unverified sources and expect it to be true. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

We could ask that, but we can't release that footage under contract. The devs get ALOT of information from our SMEs on functions and when the SMEs play the game to test things out trust me when I say there is not a single case where they don't find a tweak that needs to be made. I would love to take people at their word but because I cannot confirm the legitimacy of the information they are providing then RAZBAM cannot trust that this information is correct. Im not trying to come off as rude or stark but I'm just trying to be a matter of fact with things. Just because something should be a certain way or someone thinks it needs to be for ease of use does not mean that is how it works or how it is. The general thought and employment for some weapons is taken from some open sources but even the SMEs can't divulge tactics to us despite the NDAs and military contracts. We try to limit interpreting and guesstimating as much info as possible and work with 1st hand knowledge and feedback from verified sources. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Those are M2000D/N aircraft, designed and optimized for ground attack whereas the M2000 is a dedicated Air to Air platform and has the ability to do A2G but not in the same as a D/N is. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

How is it not possible for you? Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Alright. So i dont know who Ergo is, and while it is entirely possible he worked on the systems, I have no evidence supporting that. I hear alot of they wouldn't or I guarantee in the manual it says this or I don't think the AdA would ever do that. Again, EVIDENCE I see none of it so I'm inclined to believe the guy who we work with who flies them on a daily basis over someone on a forum speculating. Again, you guys are suggesting using them, in a precision one bomb, one target. So I did a little testing on my own. To show why this is not proper procedure and should be avoided. Attached are the track file so you can have a look. Lets start with the Parameters. Little wind, good temps, FAT jet. Awesome. I have multiple targets set up but the ones I'm going after are T-72s. x2 MK82Ses per drop, set to instantaneous. TAS and RS selected because level terrain for greater accuracy. First attack is done in a dive greater than -20 degrees. Release point is the center of the pipper. Right on top kill T-72 Second attack done from a low and level approach, compensating for the drop delay by releasing at the top of the aiming pipper. Within 1-2m according to my eye. No kill Third attack run matches Second only this time release point is center of pipper. Bombs fly long, missing target. Fourth run demonstrates proper use of CCIP in a low level attack on material targets. Beside the T-72s are some mean BMPs. Bombs now set to release 4 with a 10m spacing. Same parameters as above three runs. Roughly lining up with the row of BMPs I neutralize the first 1/4 of the convoy but dont kill every single one. This leaves us with our lesson learned. If we want to start dropping single bombs on single targets, we get a friendly A/C to lase for us or have a JTAC paint a target to drop a GBU-12 on MF'rs. We dont try using a snakeye dropped from low and level expecting to hit right at the turret ring and making roasted Ivan. If we want to use that method, we use it against a large group of light targets, infantry in the open, or a building. And if we want a concentrated pattern we come in low level, pop up, and make a dive into target dropping a large amount of munition to compensate for the fact that were using unguided munitions. Pilotas, I like when things are challenged and we start asking questions, but what you guys need to start doing is not just saying things but proving what you say is correct and providing evidence to your claims otherwise its just an opinion and not a fact. I deal with facts and absolutes. I dont deal in theories, possibilities or guesses. I'm trying to get more done for you guys and make sure that you guys get your voice, but what i wont do is bring I thinks and what ifs to the dev team and waste their time. We've already stopped development on projects to put more man power on crushing out the bugs left on whats been released and announced so lets work constructively so we can get these all done and move onto Mudhens and fly in the Falklands. MirageSnakeyeTest.trk

We need a trk file to process. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

We are currently working with Baltic Dragon to bring a full Campaign in for the Harrier. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Let me know what you find but it needs evidence in the form of a trk. Your "assessment" is incorrect. Yes the Mirage can use CCIP from both level and dive, just the idea that people are using Snakeyes as a precision munitions in a low level attack is incorrect and should not expect to get pin-point accuracy using that method. So no the manual is not wrong. The CCIP pipper is not wrong. I have a 50/50 split of people saying its inaccurate vs those who say its correct and its simply a matter of practice and method leading to inaccuracy. Therefore that is what guided my decision to label it as user error. The only other explanation is that the FM for the MK.82SE is wrong. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

None taken. Its all a balance tho of trying to release a product for those that want it early and can deal with bugs and issues over a period of time before it gets finished vs. those who would rather have a fully complete module when they buy it. Can't make both happy at the same time. I mean look at the A-10C, it had flight model issues for years and it finally got fixed and addressed. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Well firstly misquoting me as saying get lost our SME said so is wrong and incorrect so let's squash that bug off the bat. Secondly if you don't want to hear what I'm passing along from the team and from actual people who fly these things nearly everyday thats fine. Ignore me but do not try to detract FACT from what YOU personally want out of the game. We do this not only for the consumer market but for ACTUAL MILITARY PILOTS doing ACTUAL MILITARY TRAINING. It goes hand in hand, so while I appreciate criticism and every bug reported, when the resulting resolution is questioned its kind of silly. We spent all that time working and correcting a fault which was made and then it turns out its right but people don't like it one way. Now the idea of adding the threat codes in is a possibility and has been suggested, when and if it may appear depends on whats left to work on in the A/C and what else is on the plate. What were really hoping for is ED to add DTC capabilities to all modules in the future to correct these. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

If there is evidence to support it I might but as it stands, the Mirage was not designed to make level ccip attacks with snake's in a precision bombing role. Using it in a +20° dive I get within a 3m accuracy enough to heavily damage or kill a T72. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

*sigh* Well the manual is based on the actual manual and the actual tactics used. So while you are entitled to your opinion, youre idea of what happens in game vs. what happens in real life is incorrect so forcing the opinion onto others is not right. Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Nope. Time from trigger pull to bomb release is not accounted for on the CCIP pipper. You guys doing straight and level attacks on pinpoint targets with SEs is wrong. Only situation this is used IRL is when youre taking out a row of targets or a runway, the rest of the time you will be in a 30 degreee dive or greater.

As stated by both Prowler and Zeus prior to my arrival, no confirmation was made that it would be reinstated. It is under review and should the decision be made to add it then it will come in the form of a dedicated separate gun pod.

Weird. Its like we thought of exactly that and are testing it internally..... weird I tell ya.

Why need to customize it if we've received and updated the RWR based on AdA and active SME input? If you want to modify things outside of the base offering thats fine but if weve got it to the point where it as as realistic as it can be why do we need to add things that were not suggested by our SMEs and the AdA in the first place? Like i said above if and when A DTC becomes available to 3PDs then perhaps but were modelling a certain aircraft from a certain period of time with certain features on it.

Thanks pierre

As inteneded

Might be an issue with |DCS not recognizing something. Has this occurred in any other A/C? Regardless I will add this to the internal tracker.

Alot of this has to deal with having no DTC capability with the current DCS engine but hopefully in the future we can get something like this to happen and allow for more internal customization via ME or Special Tabs to make features more personal to the pilot or mission specific.

Well i know most people are on the OB so for this wed need a .trk from whichever version youre on. I would suggest moving to OB as stuff from there trickles down to Client

In the TACMAN does it state that that is from all four pods or just two. AFAIK doctrine is to use two pods at a time. Well do some investigating and inquire with the SME if needed.

Thanks, I'll pass this along to the team.

Will pass this along to the devs thanks.

This gradual increase and time req to build up pressure is as intended, moving to resolved