Hawkeye_UK

14 months later......whats being done about this apart from zero?

Intended and has been communicated

Also some additional files here for pathfinding issues https://ufile.io/f/spr4f Had to use file share as another problem is the 5MB upload limit on the forums is way to low nowadays for showing issues in the Mission Editor - something else that needs to be looked at if you want quality bug reporting. Pay close attention to the first small scale test around Kobuleti where by the singe tanks are able to reach the target airfield alot faster. Units often freeze or look like they are stuck, this is especially true if the area to traverse has trees, with units that can go around in circles for hours and just stop completely never reaching their assigned staging area. This is prevalent in the first example however looking at track version 2 review the antics of both Ground unit 13 and 14 south of Gori (MM14 and MM24). Note that even this example is small scale with the distances involved being circa 20 miles. Try moving them 100 miles! Also to note the track also contains an example of units stopping on bridges (at Tuapse) ground unit 17. This is a major problem and has a separate bug report where by units also get stuck inside bridges. Link; The all combines to a very poor experience and if trying to stage a ground war its fair to say that by the time a convoy reaches an attack area your forces can be spread out over 50 miles and completly combat inneffective. Whilst many would say what does it matter its on the ground, i hold ED to their mission statement of wanting to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks and ground vehicles". At present we can't even get the convoy to a staging area reliably. That's before we even move onto the simulation. Note the fileshare link is only valid for 30 days from today. @BIGNEWY

Its not a hijack its all part of the same problem. There are numerous bug reports with tracks on these very issue's and zero progress or communication. Nothing against yourself @BIGNEWY but honestly a year later yes frustration is mounting within sections of the community with this issue especially as no apparent escalation or communication back.

Pathfinding is severely broke and has been for some time and alas its fair to say ED have done nothing about it. Its been nearly a year now of frustration and quite frankly how they can continue to sell Combined Arms at full price without a caveat is beyond me. It is completely unusable. There are numerous bug reports on this - all from experienced people within the multiplayer population and also some part of the closed beta testing team. Sounds harsh but when you can't even get a group of units to move along a chosen path, be it on road or off, its a poor state of affairs. What you will find is also that the formation of trail is the worst one it seems to confuse them completely, often if units are stuck changing formation will get them moving again or reducing the speed to 0 then back to 20mph. There is also an issue if the speed is set beyond the vehicle capable speeds, the unit will stop as a set period of time which is way before the destination. Try getting a group of units to follow a road, especially on caucasus is impossible. All maps suffer however with units suddenly off roading, if this is near a town or trees then they get totally lost and non usable, just clogging up CPU and server time. Believe it or not its that bad a poor or accidental waypoint set by a tac commander in Multiplayer can bring the whole server to its knees. Rediculous is being polite. This is before we even mention bridges that units get stuck on and actually in with units half inside the concrete (again all reported even with pictures). ED have zero interest in Combined Arms or resolving this major issue, if they had they would have done something by now. To note the problem got 3 x worse when the patch notes contained "units now able to move off road" - bizarre as they always were capable of this. Frankly its got to the stage where i dont think issues are being passed on to the russian devs with many issues on these forums not even receiving an acknowlegement. @BIGNEWY @NineLine How many more complaints / bug reports do we have to have on pathfinding for something to happen? What do we have to do to get some support or actual information on the status of this other than its being looked at, we are way beyond that now a year later. Do we need to start writing to Kate / Matt / Nick for this to get some escalation? Not good enough, not by a long way.

@Blackhawk NC "The JF-17, while very capable, is plagued by missile and avionic bugs that regularly spring up and are very slow to be corrected. " Of all the modules the JF17 is the one that is the least buggy and trouble free and certainly when there are issues Deka are way way faster than ED or any other third party supplier in bringing out updates. Look at how the JF17 was released, nearly feature complete and then the monthly change logs after release, those guys didnt stop and to be fair they are an example of how a module should be released. I think you should reconsider your statement as its really not based on reality. THE SD10 also im not sure what your doing wrong with it but its one of the most capable ingame if used correctly, not to mention the JF17's all seeing radar and DTT far outshines any bluefor aircraft. I know i play alot of MP with 18/16/JF17 modules on a highly competative PvP server which has very skillful players (well the regulars). "But we can make the AIM-120c..............track golf ball size maneuvering targets from 100 miles away after the guiding aircraft has turned and fled" Im really not sure how you are locking up a fighter at 100 miles in the F18 or F16, we must be playing a different game. Sorry you need to base your statements on fact or your points loses all credability. On the basis that we need more FF redfor aircraft i completely agree, however given the geopolitics of ED its not going to be likely. Put your money on Deka being the ones to bring further modules of balance. I'd expect a FF Mig29 in the next 18 months from ED but this would be an early A version no doubt.

errr ive seen it raining...... Your not expecting to see rain droplets collecting on your canopy at 450 knots are you?

And then there is nose fusing........

3 months and still not even an acknowledgement, not just on this thread but others raised as well. @NineLine@BIGNEWYDo we need to start posting in the russian forums to get an acknowledgement on issues or requests being raised?

Probably until one of us learns russian and the devs read it i would say....or so it would seem

The key to the matter here is getting the AI to have some artificial Intelligence It would be beneficial if the AI would only enter afterburner (the reason i feel that they always run out of fuel) for emergency use only. As in fighting a missile that is actively on them, or during aerial engagements within visual. Also as a tip fly a circuit or two after take off to allow all flight members to get airborne otherwise again they just enter full afterburner to catch up.

Exactly this.

Video is set to private so cannot be reviewed @StevanJ

Just to wrap up yes the water is most definately been tweaked - and it looks so much better! Thanks Ugra, work you can be proud of its an amazing map and Cyprus being released makes the map fantastic for scenario's and mission building. I particularly appreciate the more detailed digital terrain mesh in Northern Cyprus with the rock outcrops, i wish these where present on in DCS world more often, it makes the whole scenery far more immersive also. Best map without question.

Couldn't agree more the only reason for dropping would be, 1) Pre planned - Operating on the very limit of endurance and required to fulfil primary tasking of strike (although this would be devolved through the ATO and given to another platform so in itself would be some emergency action) 2) Unplanned ground operations with Troops in contact and in a position of being overun and requiring emergency additional loiter time until additional CAS platforms can brought to the AO, either for direct strike, show of force, awaiting Medevac etc. 3) Inflight emergency, either through damage sustained to aircraft from hostile action or birdstrike causing instability or equally things such as unexpected fuel burn performance through various technical issues or unanticipated and adverse winds aloft (again unlikley with modern metar forecasts). However given a primary concern of running out fuel and not being able to RTB or divert your likely to have a tanker divert anyway. 4)Engaged and bounced by hostile aircraft (again unlikely given who the Harriers are operated by, there is CAP present) There seems to be some mystical myth amongst the community that dropping tanks suddenly give you a massive range increase, its not true on the Harrier. Reality is on this type of loadout id only expect a 20NM mission radius difference on a Lo-Lo-Lo sortie with jettisoning the tanks taking it just north of 290NM mission radius at max range mach 0.4 flight profile, hence why its not viable to drop them. This holds true pretty much through the mach spectrum. Equally on a CAS typical profile of say 200 NM radius from homeplate an extra 10 mins on station (either side of 100 mins). However away from the OP's original point on a typical CAS profile flight with hi transit operating on max range you'd squeeze out an additional circa 50 NM on mission radius. Anyway i see all the time F16's taking off with 10 CBU97's or 6 and 6 Mav D's on public servers so dropping the tanks on a Harrier its the least of our issues lol.

Edit - sorry in summary i should have stated the range would be bang on for Lo-Lo-Lo if the aircraft had followed the criteria i mentioned above.

Ok so for your range quoted you would meet this range if you had 1000lB additional in ordanance (6x snakeyes for example) but the caveat to that is you'd have to be crusing at sea level of around mach .4 in the real bird. At mach .5 you would expect your range to drop to circa 275 yet i note you had less weight and you landed with a good reserve. The lo lo lo profile generally allows for a 150 second from brakes off max continuous thrust (+15 at short lift wet rating), tank dropped when empty, a 5 minute max mil thrust on ingress and egress from target and leaving a reserve of 5% initial plus 10 minutes at sea level loiter on return. Perhaps refly in this manner and i would suggest that your range will be below parameters. I have made some comments on the razbam discord as there are issues currently with the Harrier. I was i think the first one to voice issues when it was apparent the fuel flow had been tanked to which they then released the patch with the engine improvements however the jet is still off on many aspects of its performance data. I couldnt believe it had been passed by the SME so i did ask if it had been tested by their SME given its a "final" model (re patch notes) as on my tests around a month ago it could not reach real world parameters with basic endurance. The response i got back was reassuringly that he / she hadn't (which is pretty obvious). I left it with them that i wasnt going to comment on any further aspects of Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi, Hi-Hi-Hi, Lo-Lo-Lo or CAS standard operations until they had actually had their SME fly the module. Otherwise its pointless. Personally speaking i do not think flight models should be released into Open Beta prior to SME validation as it just makes a mockery of the entire product. I do wonder sometimes if Razbam think they they will not get picked up on shortcomings and its acceptable to just put out what a coder thinks is right (which is often wrong). The model also has issues with its EM state, fuel flow in general and certain flight characteristics (a real easy one to spot is in level flight roll full stick to port, around the longitudinal horizontal axis noting its roll rate keeping level flight, then foll to starboard - notice the difference in rates, also some very interesting g readings lol). Repeat with SAS off also and some very interesting results. Anyway as i indicated lets allow Razbam to test with their SME as its definatly has to be a work in progress at the moment, as this cannot be final as they indicated in their patch notes. Well not unless they are serious about modelling the actual aircraft. I also look forward to some of the sub systems being correctly modelled also.

useless

Thread is 3 and a half years old - ive just checked not once has this topic had a reponse from ED - not good enough! Also, in the sales blurb, Accurate Bf 109 K-4 model, squadron markings, and weapons. Detailed modelling the Bf 109 K-4 instruments, weapons, engine, radios, fuel, and electrical systems. So where are the gunpods? Why is not even a moderator replying to WW2 threads, do we need to post in the Russian forums where things get read and responded to by the devs?

yep it makes no sense to me either why the list populating has such an FPS hit - i can cycle from 45fps to 5 fps and everything inbetweeen. Then again the 3D hanger makes no sense at all either in the background - especially when you just want to check F10 or are playing in tac command - its a huge overhead and ive yet to be able to prove if its the F10 map or the hanger itself causes lock outs in FPS (that are only recovered by opening another full screen application on the PC such as task manager and then alt tab back in). That said what i am learning recently anything to do with VR, that is posted on the Engligh forums falls on a large deaf ear. Your actually wasting your time posting. Do not expect anything from ED on this one, its been said many times in the past and many times its ignored. Then again VR is very much a poor relative and its not a priority for ED in anyway, which is a shame as they risk getting left behind. Release of the open Beta 2.7 for me was the final proof required that VR is just not a priority for them in any way (vibrating clouds on such a long awaited improvement, clearly this would have been evident early in the dev cycle - and before that rotating clouds. They say its a top priority to resolve but it should never have been an issue to resolve in the first place if VR had any significance).

Last seen going into an S&M dungeon to polish his new thrustmaster stick and something went wrong ?

For a topic your "not following" hank your reaction times of under 10 mins are pretty good lol. As I've stated not sure why you keep posting in a thread you have no interest in or berate other users requests. Asking for users to create their own is an utter nonsense for most as I've already stated, not all of us are pc tech geeks. Every payware map, dating back over the last 5 years are desert. Asset is needed for MP operations when constant throughflow of new users.

Lol there are many aspects not realistic and I could start with air to ground weapon effects and lethality, or how some of the flight models don't meet real world performance and loiter capability but that's a whole other topic of which I'm not going down.

If we take past history its fair to say even if it was released this year, which I doubt, it would be 2024/2025 before functionality is ready to leave early access. Combine this with the other modules they are committed to develop, completing the ones they already have and with the small team its hard to see anything inside of this time frame. Way too early to start asking this question, encourage them to finish the modules they already have for purchase rather than encourage further stretching of limited resources.

All you will ever get is that its a trial and test function not stable for current release and not officially endorsed. As you say though 2 years on you have to wonder the point. Of late i have started to wonder whether actually the devs read the english forums, or whether they are even passed information that we raise. I mention this as often you will see devs replying directly in the russian forum posts but never in the english ones. I have quite a few posts now that have gone unanswered for 6 or even 12 months, some requiring a 10 minute dev fix! Also i do wonder if we have to wait for more Russian's to fly in VR then it will be read more on their forums, and complained more about. I have been left with the opinion that for whatever reason at this junction VR is very much on the back burner with ED. I can only base this given the lack of development and the eagerness to update the engine with more visual treats (clouds and lighting) yet they are not really fit for release even into Open Beta. It is worrying that such a big update in the weather engine has been developed that it would not perform in VR, this surely must have been a week 1 issue when testing and writing the code to see how it looked. Add to this that Vulcan should really have taken priority to actually use more than 1 core ( i do not count the very minor useage of the pathfinding and sound offload). I actually wonder if another well known flight sim had not been released with such amazing clouds (that incidentally work really well in VR without killing performance) then we wouldnt have them at all at this point. ED need to start really putting emphasis and resource into VR and the actual engine of the game to run much more efficiently. Problem is until enough people start banging the drum, oh and by all accounts unless there is some flame mail on hoggit (still dont understand that one) then things just go on and on, and on. Also considering most heavy users are over $1000 invested in the product (ED software alone) i would like to see an operational directive to state that nothing is fit for release unless it performs both pancake and 3D. Need to get the mindset right.