hein22

It is indeed. Makes me wonder.

The consistency of the issue makes you think there is something going on here. Same result every time?

As the title says. After todays update I can no longer see anything in the radar page. Track attached. radar bug 57.trk

This needs to be revised guys, it makes the weapon have a very consistent issue.

Yes, we may very well need that as well. But we would be already standing in a much better position now if we had a correct coding for the screens, and the need to do what you suggest would be much lower.

You missed the point... It is indeed more realistic, but prevents you from seeing anything because of the incorrectly modeled text. If we had that it would read much better. All you said is true, but has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

So should it or should it not have an mfuze nose setting in cockpit?

Concur. The actual effect on the DDI now is very realistic and well simulated. But the text is drawn incorrectly so that makes a strange effect of wash that all of us feel unrealistic and hard to see.

Roger, thank you Bar. How does the electronic fuze activates in an LGB when it impacts? Does it have some sort of accelerometer?

Care to expand?

Mmm, the hornet has the option for N/T in the Mfuze subpage. I see a possible mistake in your logic, maybe you can tell me if I'm correct: You said that the instructions made by wags and EA manual refer to a redundancy (which is totally fine and common practice) and that only one of the fuzes is needed. So the same should be true for the LGB? On the other hand setting any mech fuze for an LGB in dcs makes the bomb dud and can't drop it of course.

Thanks Avro. I didn't quite understand the LGB thing. Do we or do we not have a bug in LGBs fuzes?

Friendly Bump

Friendly Bump

I noticed that the general purpose bombs do not follow Wags video or manual, they will explode as long as one of the fuzes is set, instead of needing both mech and electr fuzes set to nose and inst respectively. Track attached. fuze.trk

If that's the case then the A10c and many other aircraft have a flaw that only the Spanish TGP overcomes? Mmmm, sounds more like a missinterpretation of docs.

It doesn't for me. For me it stops lasing at about 1 or 2 seconds after TTI reaches 0, which 70% of the times makes the bomb miss, so not very well simulated IMHO.

So we now know how the offset works. What I don't quite understand yet is why would anyone choose to go to ATRK instead of the stabilized snowplow where I can slew wherever I want. And locking moving targets (I'm not talking about the distance thing Wags mentioned) looks like something is very different from its real life counterpart.

If all of open beta testers did that then we'd end up not having a good bug report base as we have today.

Yeap, that has happened way more than it should have. Well, it does mean that ED listens, but it also means that their management methodologies are pretty bad, like there is no need to fight the community for so long (with the unfair treatment that comes with which Nick has talked about in the past) just to do exactly what they initially reported. One time ok, but if it happens so many times then some course correction is needed, maybe Kate can bring that to us, she seems to have an extremely strong hand.

If the error is always the same then it is most likely due to a code bug. If the error is erratic then we could talk about a CEP simulation. But unfortunately the scenario is the first one.

Hi. Can you tell me what that means? Thanks.

Gamma shouldn't be even an option. Things have to look as real as possible on a simulator, without breaking other stuff.

Can you imagine pilots having to do this stuff IRL? XD

Santi?