[Report Thread] Bugs of China Asset Pack

[RocketmanAL]

Bug: HQ-7 Launcher getting target acquisition radar data and PPI sticking

 

Currently, the HQ-7 displays a radar scope in the top left of the screen being fed with target acquisition radar information. The launcher by itself doesn't have a target acquisition radar, so it shouldn't have this radar scope. Not sure if this is meant to replicate the separate acquisition radar that is coming later. I tested with just one launcher though, so shouldn't have this radar feed currently. Screenshot for reference.

 

Also, going to the PPI scope gets you stuck on that screen and you are unable to get back to the regular view. You have to back out of the vehicle in F-10 and re-enter to get back to the regular view.

Edited August 29, 2019 by uboats

[pepin1234]

It is WIP need to be tuned. Yes the Radar is a separated unit still in development.

[RocketmanAL]

It is WIP need to be tuned. Yes the Radar is a separated unit still in development.

 

Understood, just want to make it known now rather than later. Very interested to see how they handle the off-board search and acq radar. AFAIK this will be the first controllable SAM with the acq radar on a separate vehicle. Hoping that some form of datalink and cueing is incorporated.

[uboats]

Currently, the HQ-7 displays a radar scope in the top left of the screen being fed with target acquisition radar information. The launcher by itself doesn't have a target acquisition radar, so it shouldn't have this radar scope. Not sure if this is meant to replicate the separate acquisition radar that is coming later. I tested with just one launcher though, so shouldn't have this radar feed currently. Screenshot for reference.

 

Also, going to the PPI scope gets you stuck on that screen and you are unable to get back to the regular view. You have to back out of the vehicle in F-10 and re-enter to get back to the regular view.

 

Thanks for the report.

 

Yup, that's just an initial test of HQ-7.

In next OB update, we will include HQ-7 STR. So for AI, you should have both STR and LN in the same group that LN can launch missile. But for player, you have to use optical sight to lock target.

[pepin1234]

here I attached the mission you can see when the closest ZBD units got destroyed when a different unit got hit around.

ZBD bug.miz

[uboats]

Thanks

Will check

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gierasimov]

Already reported

 

This

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=248697

 

.. and this...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3973855&postcount=8

 

Just saying...

Edited September 12, 2019 by Gierasimov
Already reported

[uboats]

thank you :)

[MobiSev]

Bug: ZTZ-96B getting "stuck" on open terrain

 

When driving it, it felt like it kept getting "stuck" on open terrain. It's almost like hitting an invisible wall or the terrain/obstacles are not in the right place for the tank.. really weird!

Edited December 19, 2019 by MobiSev

[Gierasimov]

Seems to be either difficult to nail that one or developers think its low priority. Still an issue in the current beta.

[cauldron]

2.21.2020 Submarine / torpedo bug

 

The new CHN sub has a bug when launching torpedoes:

 

About 90% of the time the torpedo detonates seconds after launch, doing minor damage to the sub. This is regardless the speed of the sub (tested at 3kts, and 26kts)

 

Also the successfully launched torpedoes are fired at wrong intercept angles and/or are not wired guided. When they enter a back and forth search mode they can pass within 100meters of a viable target (my test was with Landing craft from the wwii assets pack) and never acquire the target.

 

the whole thing is a very welcome addition, just needs the damage model/torpedo fails to get worked out.

 

Edit: did another test... torpedo launch reliable @ 1-2 knot speed maximum, yet they still only approximately fire in the proper intercept angle, and in search never acquire a target. I did manage to get a torp hit by adjusting target speed until the torpedo hit, where it did some damage, though not enough to sink a LS Samual Chase (about 80% damage to the cargo ship) with 1 hit.

Edited February 21, 2020 by cauldron

[uboats]

The new CHN sub has a bug when launching torpedoes:

 

About 90% of the time the torpedo detonates seconds after launch, doing minor damage to the sub. This is regardless the speed of the sub (tested at 3kts, and 26kts)

 

Also the successfully launched torpedoes are fired at wrong intercept angles and/or are not wired guided. When they enter a back and forth search mode they can pass within 100meters of a viable target (my test was with Landing craft from the wwii assets pack) and never acquire the target.

 

the whole thing is a very welcome addition, just needs the damage model/torpedo fails to get worked out.

 

Edit: did another test... torpedo launch reliable @ 1-2 knot speed maximum, yet they still only approximately fire in the proper intercept angle, and in search never acquire a target. I did manage to get a torp hit by adjusting target speed until the torpedo hit, where it did some damage, though not enough to sink a LS Samual Chase (about 80% damage to the cargo ship) with 1 hit.

 

That's something due to the torpedo scheme: the fuze is armed soon after launch that the torpedo immediately detects object.

already reported to ED

[Martin2487]

I'd like to report a bug on the anti-missile YJ-83. The missile is capable of sinking a Perry-class destroyer for the first hit. With all due respect, it is unrealistic. A single antiship missile is not able to cause such serious damage to the sinking of this class of ship. If we look at the real Harpoon tests on decommissioned ships and even this missile (even though it has a larger warhead) was unable to sink the ship on the first hit.

 

I would like you to look at it and give a serious answer. One thing is that ED has Harpoon degraded and causes very minimal damage (confirmed by ED), but the situation with the YJ-83 is the second extreme.

[Juancio]

I'd like to report a bug on the anti-missile YJ-83. The missile is capable of sinking a Perry-class destroyer for the first hit. With all due respect, it is unrealistic. A single antiship missile is not able to cause such serious damage to the sinking of this class of ship. If we look at the real Harpoon tests on decommissioned ships and even this missile (even though it has a larger warhead) was unable to sink the ship on the first hit.

 

I would like you to look at it and give a serious answer. One thing is that ED has Harpoon degraded and causes very minimal damage (confirmed by ED), but the situation with the YJ-83 is the second extreme.

 

 

Well, actually it's not entirely unrealistic. During the 1982 Falklands War, a single AM-39 Exocet (169 kg warhead) launched by an Argentine Navy Super Etendard struck HMS Sheffield, a Royal Navy Type 42 destroyer, causing uncontrollable fires which eventually doomed the ship. Yes, it's unlikely to happen, but under the right circumstances, it's possible.

Edited April 12, 2020 by Juancio

[danvac]

054A fires just 8 HQ-16 missiles at single target and stops shooting, it's that expected behaviour?

Tacview-20200414-195849-DCS-54A.txt.acmi.zip

[AeriaGloria]

Interesting everything I see says it has 36 HQ-16 VLS

[danvac]

@AeriaGloria, i see 32 launchers on that picture. Ship fired 32 missiles at 4 targets, but only 8 missiles at single target. There may be some bug limiting fires to only 8 at single target.

[AeriaGloria]

@AeriaGloria, i see 32 launchers on that picture. Ship fired 32 missiles at 4 targets, but only 8 missiles at single target. There may be some bug limiting fires to only 8 at single target.

 

Thanks meant to say 32:music_whistling:

[NeedzWD40]

[WIP]

 

Came across a bug with the Type 052C destroyer: after taking heavy damage, it loses the collision model, so no weapons hit it and aircraft can clip right through it.

Edited April 26, 2020 by uboats

[GumidekCZ]

At first, Im very sorry for my last post written in not good manner, will try to behave better next time.

 

Reporting, that almost all CAS missiles (especially those fired from ships HHQ-9 and HHQ-16) has almost none of drag causing to be able maintain great speed over large distances without almost no speed loss when compared with Russian missiles which these are derived from (SA-10 and SA-11 systems). Also when compared with other missiles implemented in DCS, these Chinese missiles not loosing speed when at higher Angle Of Attack (when turning or when flying stright at slow speed). These is big mistake made by Deka but without known reason to me, why did they released missiles like these into DCS. Why Deka didnt compared its missiles with those already implemented (Russian ones) and made similar ones? uBoats, can I get an reasonable answer please?

Edited May 12, 2020 by GumidekCZ

[paco2002]

Maybe that's because the Chinese Assets Pack missiles are well done, and the russia ones are badly done

[GumidekCZ]

Maybe that's because the Chinese Assets Pack missiles are well done, and the russia ones are badly done

If you see that in DCS code (not RL), than that is one way to look at it.

Second way is that both are wrong now - I think

Still there should be some joined ED command checking all 3rd party sensors, weapons, DM, performances, before released even into open Beta. The game needs improvments in many ways, but still we need to have compact game with same physics applied to every weapon/sensor. UFOs are not tolerable (neither FM like old Lockon French Matra Mica has now in DCS :doh:).

For example when online campaign CAP units are added, than whole US/RU equation is trashed by one nation asset pack. Both sides arguing what is correct and how it should be, mostly leads into early end. Is that what we want in DCS? :joystick:

[L0op8ack]

5V55 and HQ-9/HQ-16 both use SFM missile dynamics.

so, please tell me, which is better implemented?

[danvac]

For example when online campaign CAP units are added, than whole US/RU equation is trashed by one nation asset pack. Both sides arguing what is correct and how it should be, mostly leads into early end. Is that what we want in DCS? :joystick:

 

You are wrong with that statement. ED nor Deka is not responsible for what mission makers use in their missions. Everyone have freedom if he wants to use China Asset Packs units or not.

 

Also not everyone plays competive MP missions. Try to think about people which would be limited with their options due to your strict requirements.

Edited May 13, 2020 by danvac

[PE_Tigar]

5V55 and HQ-9/HQ-16 both use SFM missile dynamics.

so, please tell me, which is better implemented?

 

What is your criterion for defining "better implementation"? I can only talk about HQ-16 and compare it against 9M38 it's derived from/similar to. Currently they act very differently, especially when it comes to HHQ-16s apparent lack of drag. It seems to me that DIS didn't take air density into account at all when modelling this missile, making it able to reach its max engagement distance under any conditions. This does not seem to be the case with other missiles in the game, SFM or not.

 

Please see the attached tracks - 054A and SA-11 battery shooting at the same target, same altitude, same speed. The main problem - as I see it - is HHQ-16 being able to reach approximate target position close to its max range with very high speed. That's very optimistic. SA-11 in the other track looses speed very quickly after its motor burns out - as it should.

 

In the attachment please find some TAS charts for both missiles, in scenario described above. Tracks also attached.

SA-11 AJS37 test 1.trk

054A HQ-16 test 1.trk