Jump to content

AWG-9 development state


Noctrach

Recommended Posts

To what level is the current state of the AWG-9 final?

 

I'm noticing TWS-A mode being extremely unreliable for missile shots, particularly on servers that suffer from a bit of latency.

Missiles shot on contacts that aren't flying pretty much straight and level at high altitude are essentially wasted, since it takes almost nothing for the radar to lose track and generate false contacts.

Slight turning of a target seems to split off tracks that will go in wildly different directions than the original one, leading to the guidance never resolving even momentary loss of return.

Using SYM DELETE on these false tracks as they appear seems to only confuse the radar even more, forcing TWS-A to start tracking... essentially nothing.

This frequently drags the centroid to a position where it has quite a high chance of wasting any other missile shots that were in flight as well, before kinda getting stuck until I force it back into PD-SRCH or similar.

I saw a bug thread on a similar issue but it doesn't appear to have had any activity for a good couple months now.

 

I'm wondering if the current implementation is still suffering from some bugs and weirdness, or if this is how the actual device is supposed to behave, in which case I'll have to learn to work around it (i.e. only ever use TWS on fighters at relative co-altitude)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's .... complicated

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/285136-multiple-radar-awg-9-phoenix-issues-since-patch-2-5-6-52437

 

In general, yes, especially in multiplayer, you have no idea whether going into breach whether you are going to get Jester, the trusty guy who knows his stuff and is on the same page as you as far as what the job is and how to do it, or this guy ...

 

... less "Jester" and more (demonic lunatic villian) "Joker"

joker-phoenix-1135161-1280x0.thumb.jpeg.5a175538fc25616cc8adc226d16badc2.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iv'e been extremely irritated by this issue for a very, very long time. This issue has persisted with me for the past 6 game patches. Its literally been a gamble for me to even shoot off my missiles in the F-14. There are times when, as soon as I even pull the trigger, the AWG-9 just swaps to RWS, tracking nothing, and my phoenix flies off the rail tracking absolutely NOTHING. HB Pls fix, im beggin ya.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently false targets are a feature of the real radar:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iv'e been extremely irritated by this issue for a very, very long time. This issue has persisted with me for the past 6 game patches. Its literally been a gamble for me to even shoot off my missiles in the F-14. There are times when, as soon as I even pull the trigger, the AWG-9 just swaps to RWS, tracking nothing, and my phoenix flies off the rail tracking absolutely NOTHING. HB Pls fix, im beggin ya.

 

Agreed. I basically stopped playing the Tomcat and DCS because of this AFTER coming back from a long break to see the new stuff. The radar and locks were reliable since release until TWS-A dropped, now it's just a wet noodle floppin' in the wind. I can understand having "false" targets when you play with the filters and go into pulse but curently you have dozens of false contacts populating around real contacts and your locked track basically creating a line full of trackfiles sometimes. The Mig-21's and 29's radars are way more reliable than this. Hope this gets adressed when the F14A and Forrestal come out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently false targets are a feature of the real radar:

 

I have no doubt TWS would generate false tracks for pretty much any radar between the 70s and 90s but I'm sceptical if the resolution was truly this poor for the AWG-9.

One would think when generating 3-4 tracks within the scan volume where you were previously tracking only 1, it would be reasonably easy to create some logic to resolve this to the only track that actually has a return, even with 70s computing. Especially if that one return has a surprising tendency to be just like the one you were tracking before, but on a slightly different speed and heading. :P

 

I would expect there to be a significant difference between false tracks popping up while just in scan mode (random radar reflections) and false track generation just breaking the actual missile guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently false targets are a feature of the real radar:

 

The issue is not false tracks.

 

Read the thread that I linked to above.

 

False tracks have nothing to do with, realistically modeled or otherwise.

 

The issue is .... a bunch of things. It's documented It's replicated. It's known. It's been acknowledged to be a bug or set of bugs. The cause is not certain, but it might something to do with how HB is authentically modeling gates etc., which is great, but unfortunately this logic gets totally screwed when there are lag spikes or rubber-banding in MP. Maybe. It's difficult to fix because it is difficult to reproduce in SP or even predictably in MP, but HB says they are working on it. So, the reference to false targets IRL is not really relevant or applicable.

 

Fact is, the AWG-9 is totally borked, at least with Jester in an MP environment

 

It's sad, because the AWG-9 is the beating heart and raison d'etre of the Tomcat.

 

And it sucks because such a beautiful modeled aircraft now cannot really do BVR in any capacity in an MP environment reliably. Sure, I take it up there sometimes. Spend a long time starting up, taking off, ingressing, building up SA, picking up targets, sorting them, getting tracks, and then comes the moment to fire, pickle the weapons and ...

 

it is totally russian roulette whether:

 

(a) the missile launches and tracks toward the target

(b) the missile launches and ALL tracks drop (I mean ALL contacts simultaneously --- which is why the suggestion that what we are seeing is modeling of false contacts is totally unfounded) and you get kicked to RWS

© the missile launches and ALL tracks drop and you get kicked to RWS and you cannot switch to TWS

(d) the missile launches and ALL tracks drop and you get kicked to RWS and you cannot switch to TWS and Jester (now in his full-fledged "Joker" persona) maniacally starts hammering away on his keys "clack-clack-clack-clack-clack" ...

 

And it's not even even odds on getting (a) on a busy server --- more often you get (b) through (d). If you are lucky, you can fly around and hope The Joker eats his Snickers and calms down and you can try again. But by this time you are in the other guys WEZ or somebody else is on you and by the time you are done evading your SA is zilch and/or you are down low.

 

So ... yeah.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree with Bearfoot on this, all the scenario's that he's recounted, has all happened to me. Its simply not viable at all to fly the F-14 in MP in its current state. Which is sad to say, because i poured my heart and soul into this module, I dedicated myself to it for over a year straight since its release.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely trust HB's commitment and competency to get it working right. I understand and appreciate that it is a tough challenge that they have to juggle along with all their other commitments. And know that it will come in good time.

 

But yes, until that time (for me, with no human RIO), the Tomcat has no teeth and is a more of a GA aircraft than a fleet defender. Practice air to air refueling and carrier landings with it. Pretend you are delivering mail. Sorta a like a jet-powered C2 Greyhound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really sorry to hear you have so many issues with BVR in the 14. For what its worth, I get very different results. I've flown a lot in SP (1v2/4) and a fair amount in MP, including a round in a comp, all with Jester and the only time I've seen the issue is on busy MP servers, ie. the TID is showing many contacts and was unusable anyway. In a 2v2, 4v4 or 6v6 fight, of which I've flown dozens over the last months, BVR has worked while using TWS-A and even with multi-shot engagements.

 

Jester has his issues (odd TWS target order and no easy way to say radar up a bit or down a bit being the biggest issues for me), but generally he works as expected and I've not seen the TWS->RWS switch and keyboard bashing in these fights.

 

I would post some tracks, but mine never replay correctly, usually appearing to crash while taxiing! Although there is this YT:

of a couple of shots missing for other reasons, not Jester.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is totally russian roulette whether:

 

(a) the missile launches and tracks toward the target

(b) the missile launches and ALL tracks drop (I mean ALL contacts simultaneously --- which is why the suggestion that what we are seeing is modeling of false contacts is totally unfounded) and you get kicked to RWS

© the missile launches and ALL tracks drop and you get kicked to RWS and you cannot switch to TWS

(d) the missile launches and ALL tracks drop and you get kicked to RWS and you cannot switch to TWS and Jester (now in his full-fledged "Joker" persona) maniacally starts hammering away on his keys "clack-clack-clack-clack-clack" ...

Uhm, those issues must be Jester issues then, not AWG-9 issues. I fly the Tomcat very regularly as a RIO in MP since release (200+ hours) and I NEVER had it happen that all my tracks just disappear out of nowhere (they do disappear of course if I or the pilot change certain modes or settings, but never without reason).

I've never flown the Tomcat with Jester (I've barely flown it from the front seat at all), so this sounds like Jester might be doing stupid stuff that destroys the radar picture.

 

Flying the Tomcat with a human RIO works very well. :joystick:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy to see the issue has been raised again, as there was no clear statement from HB for how much this behaviour is intended or not. In fact there was already the other topic (that should be moved in the bugs section - unfortunately moderation in this section is somewhat lacking).

 

@QuiGon

You said you had no issues in many hours, at https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/licensed-third-party-projects/heatblur-simulations/dcs-f-14a-b/285136-multiple-radar-awg-9-phoenix-issues-since-patch-2-5-6-52437/page6 i posted various records (video and acmi) of what it's bugging me, can you take a look at them? It's rather strange, because some people happens to experience the issue, other one seems not.

 

To my understanding there's something not working as expected with the MLC filter.

 

Then if you go MP with servers going crazy, obviously, other strange things might happen, but in my opinion we are talking about two different things: odd behaviour of the simulated AWG-9 vs limitations of the DCS engine itself (that in turn might require some mitigation on the simulated AWG-9 - dunno if it's possible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QuiGon[/mention]

You said you had no issues in many hours, at https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...-6-52437/page6 i posted various records (video and acmi) of what it's bugging me, can you take a look at them? It's rather strange, because some people happens to experience the issue, other one seems not.

 

To my understanding there's something not working as expected with the MLC filter.

 

Then if you go MP with servers going crazy, obviously, other strange things might happen, but in my opinion we are talking about two different things: odd behaviour of the simulated AWG-9 vs limitations of the DCS engine itself (that in turn might require some mitigation on the simulated AWG-9 - dunno if it's possible).

I said I never encountered the issues described by Bearfoot above, where ALL tracks get dropped.

There is indeed another issue with ghost contacts, that sometimes appear when you track someone in TWS (usually right after you launched a Phoenix). This issue might be related to the MLC filter and/or rubberbanding in MP. I described it in the other thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...39#post6358439

However, this is a different issue than the issues described by Bearfoot above and is not nearly as severe as what Bearfoot described.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad, i lost Bearfoot message in the discussion, i was thinking about OP issues.

 

Bearfoot issue seems the one of Jester switching to RWS... that is a well acknowledged bug, again, as other issues it's puzzling how someone experience this regularly and someone almost never (had it just once in not so few MP sessions lately).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said I never encountered the issues described by Bearfoot above, where ALL tracks get dropped.

There is indeed another issue with ghost contacts, that sometimes appear when you track someone in TWS (usually right after you launched a Phoenix). This issue might be related to the MLC filter and/or rubberbanding in MP. I described it in the other thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...39#post6358439

However, this is a different issue than the issues described by Bearfoot above and is not nearly as severe as what Bearfoot described.

 

I really highly doubt it has anything to do with rubberbanding. Whenever I experienced this the server was not lagging and the server-side tacview file didn't show anyone lagging out, rubberbanding or teleporting, everything seems pretty normal. Not to mention that in the past even if there was some major server lag and people rubber bending, these issues were not present. It only started happening after TWS A was introduced. It's kind of like that old Flanker issue with fake, 0 velocity contacts on the DL, but much worse and more frequent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Since the switch to RWS and tracks being dropped happen almost simultaneously, it's possible that the second is just the effect of the first -- i.e., not so much that all tracks get dropped and therefore Jester switches to RWS (which is what it seems like), but that Jester switches to RWS and of course then all TWS tracks get dropped.

 

(2) Yes, it is the particular combination of Jester + TWS-A + busy server that brings out these issues the strongest. At the heart of it all is the TWS-A, in fact. Before TWS-A these problems were not there. The Tomcat was a supreme BVR predator, multiplayer or otherwise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) Since the switch to RWS and tracks being dropped happen almost simultaneously, it's possible that the second is just the effect of the first -- i.e., not so much that all tracks get dropped and therefore Jester switches to RWS (which is what it seems like), but that Jester switches to RWS and of course then all TWS tracks get dropped.

 

IIRC, yes, it's the switch to RWS that makes you lose tracks, it's not a bug on itself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The issue is not false tracks.

 

Read the thread that I linked to above.

 

False tracks have nothing to do with, realistically modeled or otherwise.

 

The issue is .... a bunch of things. It's documented It's replicated. It's known. It's been acknowledged to be a bug or set of bugs. The cause is not certain, but it might something to do with how HB is authentically modeling gates etc., which is great, but unfortunately this logic gets totally screwed when there are lag spikes or rubber-banding in MP. Maybe. It's difficult to fix because it is difficult to reproduce in SP or even predictably in MP, but HB says they are working on it. So, the reference to false targets IRL is not really relevant or applicable.

 

Fact is, the AWG-9 is totally borked, at least with Jester in an MP environment

 

It's sad, because the AWG-9 is the beating heart and raison d'etre of the Tomcat.

 

And it sucks because such a beautiful modeled aircraft now cannot really do BVR in any capacity in an MP environment reliably. Sure, I take it up there sometimes. Spend a long time starting up, taking off, ingressing, building up SA, picking up targets, sorting them, getting tracks, and then comes the moment to fire, pickle the weapons and ...

 

it is totally russian roulette whether:

 

(a) the missile launches and tracks toward the target

(b) the missile launches and ALL tracks drop (I mean ALL contacts simultaneously --- which is why the suggestion that what we are seeing is modeling of false contacts is totally unfounded) and you get kicked to RWS

© the missile launches and ALL tracks drop and you get kicked to RWS and you cannot switch to TWS

(d) the missile launches and ALL tracks drop and you get kicked to RWS and you cannot switch to TWS and Jester (now in his full-fledged "Joker" persona) maniacally starts hammering away on his keys "clack-clack-clack-clack-clack" ...

 

And it's not even even odds on getting (a) on a busy server --- more often you get (b) through (d). If you are lucky, you can fly around and hope The Joker eats his Snickers and calms down and you can try again. But by this time you are in the other guys WEZ or somebody else is on you and by the time you are done evading your SA is zilch and/or you are down low.

 

So ... yeah.

 

 

Well, you can balance all that especially in MP by either using a human RIO. And the fact the Phoenix is still vastly overmodeled in terms of its effectiveness vs fighters, especially for the A model. Frankly you should be getting MP kills against anyone other than noobs that don't defend with A models.

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, you can balance all that especially in MP by either using a human RIO.

 

If HB had advertised the module as "you have to have a Human RIO to play online in busy servers", then sure, it would not be a bug. But as it stands, it is.

 

And the fact the Phoenix is still vastly overmodeled in terms of its effectiveness vs fighters, especially for the A model. Frankly you should be getting MP kills against anyone other than noobs that don't defend with A models.

 

In my experience, even before the bug, if a driver on the other side half-way knew what they were doing, they could easily evade Phoenixes.

 

Easily.

 

At least, those fired at from more than 30nm out. And without a human RIO the SA in front cockpit is too bad (and I am not good enough a Tomcat driver) to close in more than 30 nm.

 

I found there were two types of players --- those who knew to dodge a Phoenix and those who did not.

 

The former started evading early and well. The latter ... well, they were the ones that made the mission pay off. If you find yourself routinely eating a Phoenix in online play, then you are my favorite type of MP player! Of course, as time wore on and people got more and more experienced, I would find fewer and fewer of these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And you know and say that based on what?

 

I'll talk about the A primarily, the C is a different kettle of fish being much more of a modern missile.

 

The A as you know was designed to intercept Russian bombers and high velocity cruise missiles right? It was also designed in the 60's much like the AWG-9 radar, and it helps to think of the seeker head as a simplified/more primitive version of that system. So... Based on its mission the use case is as follows:

 

Bomber: Big fat high RCS target, not particularly maneuverable, but can be "fast" depending on which one you mean.

Missile: The AS-4 is a big ass missile, lets call that a fighter sized RCS. It also goes very fast in a straight line.

 

So, the phoenix flight profile is to loft and dive onto the target. So, its looking at the ground when its diving in. That means it needs a doppler shift to track the target.

 

Given that its a 1960s era radar system, it means its not very sophisticated in terms of filtering as we see with the AWG-9 which has way more space and power for that. So ask yourself how well the AWG-9 does versus notching targets that are below it? The answer is quite poorly. So I think its a fair assumption to consider that the missile, with a simpler radar system is going to poorly as well. And this doesn't really bring into question any of the other issues with radars of that era and the "logic" which I'm sure was pretty simple, i.e. could the seeker go from a hi-PRF to a low PRF. I.e. if you go cold to the missile it may miss as well or at least have a harder time of it. And frankly I'd be surprised if it even had a way of changing PRF.

 

However in both of those use cases it was designed to do, it will should largely have a good doppler shift, particularly from something like the AS-4, as its likely going to be fired head on towards them or at least in their frontal arc. Same case really with the bombers, and if they turn and try to run, its likely a mission accomplished situation anyway.

 

Now I know someone here is gonna say thiis: Butbutbutbut IRAN! They used them against fighters!

 

Well, context there is also critically important. They were used, and they certainly got kills with them, exactly how many is a bit murkier subject. However the general context tends to be less murky. The Iranians mainly successfully used the missiles during the early parts of the war when the Iraqi AF lacked decent RWR gear, mainly they were using sets like the SPO-10 that reportedly couldn't detect the AWG-9 nails. And given what a crap system it is, even if they could it would probably be lost in the noise of a million other radar sets. So, most of those kills, those guys kept on truckin, again, the use case where that high doppler shift existed. Later in the war Iraqis got more advanced SPO-15 RWR's that were useful against the AWG-9 and you saw successful engagements plummet. Also the Iraqis received advanced ECM equipment (for that time) and the claim at least is that no plane equipped with those pods was ever shot down by a tomcat. I'm not gonna drag ECM into this as its pathetically modeled in DCS, but suffice to say that the A models should be pretty vulnerable to ECM techniques from the 80's and 90's and beyond.

 

Compare that to the use case in DCS. Your 2000's era plane has a sophisticated RWR so you see the F14 coming no problem. You might have a TGP that can spot the launch of a phoenix at range, and even if not, you'd probably assume the guy launched by ~30nmi. Or worst case, you are an idiot and keep going hot until you get the phoenix on your RWR. So you defend, you notch it. Boom, it zooms by wondering where the hell you went. But currently the A model is quite hard to notch in DCS.

 

Of course, thats not even talking about the near 2 years of abusing "magic INS" which of course the A model never had. Or the fact you have to tell the A to go active manually. Or that the AWG-9 is reasonably straightforward to notch which at a guess would also likely result in a miss IRL.

 

Frankly IMO alot of online tomcat players want the big magic "I win" button, and HB has largely accommodated that with the phoenix as well as some other tomcat "features".

 

I'll grant that the C model is better modeled in these regards, as its basically a proto-aamram. But the A model does way better than it should vs an aware maneuvering fighter, even one without actual ECM gear which would also reduce the pH significantly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If HB had advertised the module as "you have to have a Human RIO to play online in busy servers", then sure, it would not be a bug. But as it stands, it is.

 

 

Things break in DCS all the damn time, If I had a dollar for each time something broke a "module" in DCS for a patch cycle or more, I'd be able to afford a real fighter jet and be able to afford to fuel it, maintain it and fly it.

 

In my experience, even before the bug, if a driver on the other side half-way knew what they were doing, they could easily evade Phoenixes.

 

Easily.

 

At least, those fired at from more than 30nm out. And without a human RIO the SA in front cockpit is too bad (and I am not good enough a Tomcat driver) to close in more than 30 nm.

 

I found there were two types of players --- those who knew to dodge a Phoenix and those who did not.

 

The former started evading early and well. The latter ... well, they were the ones that made the mission pay off. If you find yourself routinely eating a Phoenix in online play, then you are my favorite type of MP player! Of course, as time wore on and people got more and more experienced, I would find fewer and fewer of these.

 

On the MP side, I just got really tired of F14 drivers, hosing off a phoenix and immediately going cold (like 180), and it still working. In that situation it should be dead (A) or so easy to defeat © that this tactic shouldn't exist. Yet it has for like 2 years. In all cases both the A and the C require actual support from ownship to actually hit anything. But I have yet to hear ANY tomcat driver complain about that "lack of realism".

 

Also, forcing a guy defensive with a phoenix shot and then following up with a closer shot with an AIM-7 or Aim-9 seems like a reasonably effective overall tactic. But it does actually require a bit of skill compared to just "I win button". So while I see a few good F14 pilots doing it online, the majority just yeet n run.

 

 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Things break in DCS all the damn time, If I had a dollar for each time something broke a "module" in DCS for a patch cycle or more, I'd be able to afford a real fighter jet and be able to afford to fuel it, maintain it and fly it.

 

I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make is. That there are so many bug in DCS? Sure. That there are so many bugs in DCS that we shouldn't be discussing bugs? Nah. I mean, as I've posted above, I have full faith that HB is going to fix them eventually and appreciate the complexity of the task. But we are damn well going to talk about them until they do!

 

On the MP side, I just got really tired of F14 drivers, hosing off a phoenix and immediately going cold (like 180), and it still working. In that situation it should be dead (A) or so easy to defeat © that this tactic shouldn't exist. Yet it has for like 2 years. In all cases both the A and the C require actual support from ownship to actually hit anything. But I have yet to hear ANY tomcat driver complain about that "lack of realism".

 

Also, forcing a guy defensive with a phoenix shot and then following up with a closer shot with an AIM-7 or Aim-9 seems like a reasonably effective overall tactic. But it does actually require a bit of skill compared to just "I win button". So while I see a few good F14 pilots doing it online, the majority just yeet n run.

 

And some people load up 10 AMRAAMs on a Hornet and spam them all and go and land again. And some people mix their whiskey with cola. And some people put one sock on and then the shoe and then the other sock and the shoe. And some people don't wear shoes at all.

 

What's all that got to do with the price of fish???

 

This thread is not about realism. This is about a documented/acknowledged bug with TWS-A and Jester not working as intended in --- and I will say it --- a game. That "intended" bit might or might not correspond to something realistic, but whether it does or not does not make it any more or less broken.

 

Furthermore, sure --- there are all sorts of "unrealistic" gamisms provided for by this game, and there are both features and bugs that make this game less realistic and more gamey. And sure, lots of these should be fixed. But you know what?? None of those other bugs change the fact that TWS-A + Jester is borked right now! Not sure what the relevance of any this is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...