Snappy

Yes an official update on this would be nice. Regards, Snappy

Thank you very much Fat Creason, appreciate the quick answer. Kind regards, Snappy

Did the internal fix make it into EDs hotfix today? The patch notes seem to indicate no, but they re not always complete as to what was fixed and what not. Kind regards, Snappy

Any update on the big M2000 changes that were supposed to roll out with the patch before the last one? Kind regards Snappy

Yes thanks, that works as a crutch, but I hope this gets fixed / improved on the release version. because contrary to a clear symbology(according to manual) that signals when exactly to shoot , now you have to guesstimate how much time after wings appearance to pull the trigger, which certainly degrades accuracy and increases ammo usage to ensure hits. Especially in scenarios where you don’t like to do a second pass due to threat presence. Wishing for a bit more developers presence too in the Viggen forums. The Viggen is a fun plane , but many smaller annoying bugs mess it up at times, though it is likely still in a much more refined stage than other modules out there. kind regards, Snappy

Hi TLTeo, no , I think theres a misunderstanding or more likely I formulated badly/incomplete in my explanation : The ground unit that’s offset to one side of the runway will NOT transmit the localizer signal on the correct runway heading with only a slight parallel discrepancy. With „Offset“ I meant, the localizer signal direction angle is offset, (by 3 degrees from runway heading) , so the antenna actually transmits its signal slightly „across“ the extended centerline of the runway. The localizer signal actually intersects the runway centerline approx 900m before the runway threshold. Thats why you get that sight picture from the cockpit in your screenshots.So at around a little less than 1km from the runway you would be exactly on centerline but heading is off by some 3 degrees if you would fly a perfect approach according TILS guidance. I just read it up again, its page 140 of the RC2 Viggen manual, if you want to look it up. Thats also the page where it mentions the system is / should not be used for the last part of the approach, due to the above system design . kind regards, Snappy

It’s stated somewhere in the manual, that the TILS guidance will not be exactly onto the runways centerline but slightly offset to one side, due to it being a deployable mobile system, as the mobile ground unit for the combined localizer & glideslope antennas is parked offset to one side of the runway’s beginning. For obvious reasons it cannot be parked on the centerline ;) or beyond it (because then the Glideslope guidance would be wrong, which probably would present much larger issues) I think traditional commercial airport ILS avoid this by using two antenna systems installations for localizer and glideslope , one offset to the side at the runways beginning for GS and one on the extended runway centerline beyond it for LOC guidance . As for the late sideways shift of the guidance, I‘d have to check again , had not noticed it before myself , but I also was under the impression that you were to use visual landing mode for the final part of the landing once below cloud ceiling and with runway in sight. Have to re-read the manual on this.Hope I could help a bit. kind regards, Snappy

deleted

No, sorry thats not true. You can access the higher ranges (160&320NM) via the TDC slewing, yes, but nothing lower than 10NM even if you slew to the bottom edge of the VTB screen at the 10NM setting. Also the 5NM is referred to as a selectable range via the radar range selector switch in the manual. Quote from the latest manual: "17. RADAR RANGE SWITCH. Used to cycle through preset ranges displayed on your VTB. Available options are: 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 miles)." So what is wrong? The manual&radar training mission explanation or the module at present state? Kind regards, Snappy

According to the current updated manual, the radar training mission explanations and even mentioned in the campaign again, the smallest selectable radar range is 5NM. However that can't be accessed as of now, the lowest selectable range is 10NM. Is this a bug in the radar simulation of the Mirage or an error in the manual and training missions ? I don't have a real M2000 aircraft manual, so I can't check it against that. Kind regards, Snappy

Hi IronMike, no , unfortunately that doesn’t seem to work at present.If you are in TWS auto and then go into Jesters BVR menu -> radar mode and select TWS , Jester switches back to TWS auto.He doesn’t go into TWS. Therefore the TCS stays in wide FOV as well. Besides, it would be very welcome/practical to have the option to command a TCS FoV setting independent of selected radar mode.But thats only a request of course Kind regards, Snappy

Dear Heatblur team would it be possible to add a command for Jester (in his present BVR menu ) to switch between the TCS' FOV wide and narrow ? Or alternatively a selectable default setting in the crew contract under special options, if thats easier to implement? I get that often the wide FOV is useful, but for early as possible VID of bogeys it would be nice to be able to command Jester to switch to narrow for more magnification. Unless I'm missing something here and this is already possible(without switching to the backseat) from the pilot role , without using any reachback. Kind regards, Snappy-

Could someone kindly cross-check the OPs issue in regards to the AKAN gunpod? Because I have the same issue. Even after setting QFE for target and just to be sure disabling target motion via CK37 again ( think its off anyway by default) the bullets always end up short of target, when they are fired at latest firing cue , i.e. wings cue according to the manual. The ARAK rockest seem to be fine , or the spread and fragmention compensates for error, I dont know. But the AKAN seems to me as well to end up short of target, even if flown according to manual. I tried a lot of times now and I cant really say I got it to function reliably. Kind regards, Snappy

Off-the-scale cool :) :) ! Am looking forward so much to this campaign. Thank you very much for making this campaign based on realistic ACM training for the F-14. That you managed to get Bio onboard and that he is voicing it over brings it to a whole new level! As for the squadrons, personally I lean towards the horsemen, as the splash of color just looks cool on the aircraft. Maybe it would be possible to give the player the choice of his squadron at the beginning of the campaign, if you use one non-specific callsign for all of them? But I also understand if its too much of a hassle.It will be fun either way! One more question, with heatblur‘s recent announcement that they actually make 2 variants of the US Navy F-14A an earlier one with the old RWR and other things and a newer one, have you thought about which variant this campaign will feature? Kind regards, Snappy.

Are you asking in relation to DCS or reality? If the latter I found this page has interesting info on the various aim-9 variants: https://www.456fis.org/AIM-9_SIDEWINDER_STORY.htm regards, Snappy

Thank you for the comprehensive update on Razbam s various developments‘ status. Nice to get an overview on the state of things. Good on the Harrier customers, they get a much deserved sizable improvement for their aircraft with the coming update it seems. What about the „big changes“ for the Mirage that you also announced would be coming in this update? Regards, snappy

No you misunderstood me Elmo, or I formulated badly. Its a bug in the Mirage, definitely.I just meant the bug appears when you use the mouse to click on the actual radar range increase/decrease switch in the Mirages cockpit(the virtual one, in the simulation). I have no pit. (If you , instead of clicking the switch with the mouse, assign the range increase/decrease function to joystick or hotas buttons , that seems to work). Regards, Snappy

Hi Elmo, just checked again, the bug is still present in the current DCS open beta version 2.5.6.55960 Attached a new track file showing it. Method was the same. Click on radar range increase toggle switch position which only has effect until radar range is 80NM . Then using TDC slewing to increase range through 160NM and then 320NM. Then pressing the "increase radar range toggle switch " again the range jumps immediately down to 80NM again. Just to re-iterate , the bug seems to be related to the actual clickable toggle switch on the Mirages radar control panel. If you assign keybinds to radar range incr/decr, those seem work normally up and down to the range limits. Kind regards, Snappy RangeBug2.trk

Hi Nineline, appreciate that you’re being open-minded towards this and thank you very much for forwarding it to the team! Kind regards, Snappy

Save your facepalms for better opportunies.If you actually read my post I wrote "just an idea" and not "ED you have to do this" . They can decide for themselves what do with it. Besides, now matter how long you are in business, its good to keep an open mind and not get stuck in the line of "we know everything there is to know and we have already thought of every good idea there ever could be" - thinking.. Regards, Snappy

Dear ED Team, just a suggestion / idea: Given that many older modules (basically everything thats not Hornet, Viper or SuperCarrier , i.e. F-5, Helicopters ,Yak-52, Combined Arms , FC3 aircraft etc..) currently receive very little to no bugfixing much to the frustration of their customers, how about this: Designate one your (ED's) modules as "legacy" module of the month and set aside two , one or even just half a work day of your developement team's capacity to tackle the reported bugs for that module. Just do whatever you can in the assigned time. Some smaller things can probably fixed completely and bigger things , well just do what you can and then carefully document what still needs to be done for the next time. Then rotate to the next Aircraft in the next month/update. Once you been through all your modules , begin again at the first one and pick up whats left of bugs or couldnt be completed the last time. So with each monthly DCS update, one module would receive some attention/bug fixing. Believe me, this would do A LOT for the customers of that product and regain trust in product sustainment.You could even publish the order of modules in advance so everyone had something to look forward to. Plus you would likely slowly regain income from people that currently say, "I m not longer buying your stuff until you fix the my old module XYZ". Its not about how much bugfixing can be done in the assigned time in one month, its about that something does get done and that it gets done for every module when it gets its turn. Reliably. Anyway its just an idea of mine. Kind regards, Snappy

With 14G you may expect to see some serious damage. Plus, even if the wings dont come off right away, they still have to withstand the airload and flow for the remainder of the flight with their possibly severely weakened internal structure. They might still fold later in the flight. Its not like you pull 12+ G and all the maintenance crew has to do is an extended check and off it goes again. You likely have to exchange entire parts of the aircraft. Regards, Snappy

Did you even actually read Metzgers post, two above your own? The issues are so fundamental that posting tracks makes no sense.Its not like the AI has issues, the AI itself is the major issue and it has been that way for years. It should get a major overhaul and not cosmetic bug fixing. Regards, Snappy

Have you checked on ebay for used stuff?Me personally I wouldn’t be too focused on the prominent big names like warthog etc. True, quality has its price , yes, but if the alternative is throwing in the towel completely, then probably any HOTAS or even standalone USB Throttle plus Stick is easier and more fun to fly with than keyboard plus Stick. There are sometimes good deals to be had for used stuff and you certainly don‘t need to shell out north of 400$ to get a starter combo to get you going into the multiplayer game AND have some fun. I use an old throttle and even older joystick without fancy extensions or ten million castle switches and still have tons of fun. Regards, Snappy

First of all you have no idea what I do or don‘t , so don‘t make baseless assumptions. As for proof , neither do you have any, except words from ED, which doesn’t mean much either without documents to back it up and I mean for the ANG airframe they constantly point out they‘re modelling. So you can‘t prove anything either. Its not like ED wasn‘t wrong with some of their claims before, see M-61 gun dispersion issue. Also I think you misunderstood me, personally I have no big issue with you loading on 4 Harms or triple Mavericks if it absolutely floats your boat.I personally think the whole DCS realism tag should be taken less seriously. The thing I took issue with, is people acting like ED is somehow the gold standard for for module realism, as opposed third party developers, which it is not. ED takes the same dips into the hypothetical as other developers from time to time. Anyway we‘re getting OT so I‘m quitting here.Lets see whether they stick to authenticity with Scorpion Helmet sight. Regards, Snappy