BarTzi

I don't even understand how basic features of this system are considered lower priority. What was even tested before release?

With the new update, changes to the appearance of bombs (nose tip and coating) are not synced in MP. This means the bombs I see on my jet will be seen as the "default" bombs by every other player, even if I change their visual appearance. I can't provide a track since this happens only in MP.

This might be your issue:

It's not a wish, so should not be on the wish list section. It's a proper bug, which I'm shocked was not reported during testing. It's a very basic feature of this system.

Thanks! I edited the post above to make it more clear and added some examples.

That's not entirely accurate. When I select the preset ahead of time (in the ME itself) and spawn the jet with the stores equipped, it does take all features into account (including fuzes). This is also supported by changes to the unitPayloads file for the jet, which shows the new features. This means that by design, all pre-set loadouts should take the new features into account. However, when I spawn a clean jet and then use the rearm menu (lalt+") to select a preset while the mission is running, it then ignores all previous settings. It looks like all settings for all stores are based on the "previous configuration" of the jet. So for a clean jet (that had no bombs on it previously), choosing any loadout will result in the "default" bombs being attached to the wings. Here's an example: In this picture I set up the jet with 2 GBU-12, both having the FMU-143 fuze. The loadout was made by me as a preset, and was selected using the ME when the mission was built. As you can see, all bombs are in their correct configuration based on the preset. Now, I wish to change this loadout to another loadout using the re-arming menu. I chose a different configuration of the jet with GBU-38 instead of GBU-12. The requested GBU-38's should have a plugged nose, and a FMU-152 fuze. This is also a preset made by me. However, as you can see, the bombs inherit the features of the previously mounted GBU-12's, which means they are added with the FMU-143 fuze, and no nose cover. Let's do the opposite, just to prove this point. This time I select my GBU-38 preset using the mission editor. The jet spawns with the correct configuration of bombs. Now while the mission is running, I switch to the GBU-12 preset, and as you can see, the GBU-12 inherits the previously mounted fuze.

That's an odd one, but it seems that if two (or more) bombs of the same type are equipped with different types of covers or fuzes, they will dud. Here's a quick example with the following: I have two MK82 bombs on the plane. Both are equipped with the M-905 tail fuze. One has a long conical cover, and the other one does not. They dud 100% of the time (can be seen in the attached track file called dud bombs). Swap the nose cone to be identical, and the problem is solved (see the attached file no-dud bombs, where I set both bombs with the long conical nose cover and they don't dud). Since it's a very simple CCIP drop, I don't think It's something on my end. The same result can be achieved if you select a different tail fuze (both bombs will dud until you set the fuze to be identical). dud bombs.trk nodud bombs.trk The same can be said for every bomb and almost every combination of covers and fuzes (Can be seen when using JDAMS and laser guided bombs as well).

More important than that, it seems like when two identical bombs are equipped with different types of cover or fuze- they DUD.

Hi Coyle, I noticed that one of the bombs in your track is equipped with a JPF. I found out that when you equip the same type of bomb with different types of fuzes, they all go dud if one of those fuzes is the FMU-152. Try changing all fuzes to anything but FMU-152. The bombs should explode.

As the title suggests, if you make your own preset (choose bombs with a different appearance, laser codes and what not) and then choose to load it in a mission, the bombs will always revert to their "default" form (resetting their laser code to 1688, their fuzes to the default and their appearance to USAF). In the attached pic you can see my preset loadout. Loading it in-game via the re-arming menu, will result in green bombs with default fuzes and the default 1688 laser code (instead of the values specified in the preset). If you want to reproduce this: 1. Create a new preset where the bombs are set to appear as USN bombs. 2. Spawn a clean jet, and then try to load the preset using the arming menu. 3. Watch the default bombs appear on your jet, unlike your preset.

As the title suggests, even after installing a JPF fuze, the settings menu for the JPF is not available. It should be a part of the JDAM display. The missing menu is shown in this thread:

What about the JPF menu, do I need to include a track? It's not available despite having the JPF installed.

Does not seem to be available even with JPF installed. How do you access it?

If it doesn't work in MP, or with a cluttered deck - please, do not release it. It's a nice to have feature, sure, but it's not worth it if it's going to force us to taxi to a certain cat using a very narrow path without taking obstacles into account.

Yeah, the ATC was never made for MP.

I don't think plane directors will solve this, since plane directors rely on this faulty logic that's causing issues for players since launch. Also, dealing with blocked cats and static objects should be within the scope of the features of the base module.

NineLine, this is not what I asked. I want to know which bugs are being worked on. This is very different than bugs submitted to the team. I'm sorry, but '+1 -ing' a bug report seems like the only way to get attention because some of those bugs just remain reported for years. The 'OFFSET' implementation is a great example of this.

The community does a great service to the devs by reporting bugs and providing the required documents. Sadly, we have no idea what bugs were assigned to the devs, and when - which is the downside of the bugs sub-forum. We also can't '+1' those threads anymore since they are locked after the bugs are reported. I think it's time to be more transparent about what bugs are assigned to devs.

How about wrong implementations, like the TGP offset? Will we ever see it prioritized?

What was your rate of descent? What was your weight?

To be fair, the structural limit is around 1500 fpm.

Sounds violent. I rarely go past 750, and the gear stays intact.

What is your descent rate when landing?

It's their first map, but they charged us for it, so we are allowed to voice our concerns. Here's what's going on - this map was released more than half a year ago, with many issues, as any other EA product. The difference is you usually see the third-party developer pushing to get hotfixes out the door and solve bugs incrementally. OnRe did not do that. Zero fixes. Zero updates. Some sort of weird fixation on a big update somewhere down the road, instead of fixing their current issues.

Didn't they say Jan was their goal for the update?