Rubberduck85

Thank you @BIGNEWY, I understand this is not game-breaking but I hope ED finds the time/resources to rework the current implementation. Regards

Any feedback for this? Regards

Less accuracy? Yes definitely. Better yet coupled with less awareness. I find it hardly believable that a tank column (just tanks/APC/trucks, nothing with radar anywhere on the map) can see me approaching from behind/front at 500 kts / 300 ft AGL and react in any coherent manner... This is just how the all-seeing AI works.

@BIGNEWY hi, did you have a chance to review the documents pm'd last week? Any update on this? Regards

This was done last week, let's see ED's reply.

Guys/girls can we stay on topic? This was started to understand the difference, avionics-wise, between master arm/off/sim and understand if DCS: F-16 simulates correctly. It is not a post for sharing individual/squadron/real/realistic/anecdotal SOPs on master arm, even if they are truly interesting! Thanks

@BIGNEWY sent you a PM as requested. Regards

@BIGNEWY @NineLine the logic of the Master Arm / off / SIM in the current implementation is apparently incomplete, is this a W.I.P.? Are the devs going to revisit it? Thanks!

So the current functionality of SAFE is not correct due to that fact that shows the simbology?

Hello, To me it's clear the goal of SIM mode, which is to enable weapons related avionics use/interaction but ultimately preventing ordinance delivery. But what does the current simulation of SIM offer vs leaving the switch in "off/neutral" position? Example: Currently if i engage A-G master mode while in ARM, i get all the delivery hud simbology (ccip/ccrp/dtos) with bombs and access to WPN camera feed from mavericks or HAS for Harms. The same if i engage SIM. But the same also in leaving the switch to "off". Shouldn't leaving the switch to "off" inhibit all weapons employment symbology/MFD pages, while engaging ARM/SIM enable it? Regards

Or...remove cmds_ale47.lua from the integrity checklist until DTC is developed and deployed. It would take less than a minute to add the exception. As @Falconeer said, no possible cheat/exploit is possible in this regard. And the initiative of pure client is laudable, but this looks extreme. I see your point but we already have BYPASS for how "95% of us" supposedly use CMs. 1 press= 1 chaff + 1 flare. Long story short: imho the cascaded effects of pure client enforcement on this specific file, while not having a DTC, is a QOL decrease if you wanna use custom programs. Unless someone has a fetish for data entry... Regards

+1 no time to enter custom cms programs via DED every time...

Hello Devs, I kindly ask you to re-open this bug report (opened by me). It was marked as fixed and indeed there was an improvement: when in Crus->Home interacting with the rocker to change the HMPT now does not change "active" STPT (thanks!). However i've found this: airstart, flight plan of 3 STPTs (#3 being the landing airbase) if I go to Crus->Home and change the HMPT to #3 it does not change the active STPT (correct behaviour). But when I exit Crus->Home, reach STPT #1 and switch to STPT#2, when i go back to Crus->Home the HMPT is now #4. Again if i exit and change active STPT (#2->#3) when i go back to Crus->Home it will now be #5. Apparently if I change the HMPT and exit the Crus->Home page, every increase (or decrease) I make to active STPT will be reflected to the HMPT, but this should not happen, HMPT should remain what i set it to be indipendently from what i select as active STPT in navigation. This bug does not occur if i leave HMPT unchanged, only if I interact with the sub-page and change it to something different from #1 Track attached. Same behaviour with cold and dark start but track was too large. Regards F-16_CRUS_HMPT_BUG.trk

Thank you ED for implementing this! null

Hi, I have no track to offer, but during a closed multiplayer session 2 months ago i singlehandedly shot down 11 F-16 all at the same time, just by sharing a markpoint. Sadly they were on my side, so no "double ace in a day" badge There might be some issues on the receiving end of data link transmission. Regards