QuiGon Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Cobra847 said: Re the flaps lever; we will actually be reverting this change. This was a case of SME feedback causing us to change it, but based on further SME feedback, it was indeed correct as it was. Good to know, thanks! 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven (Elysian Angel) Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, captain_dalan said: 1. F-14A free flight mission and F-14A aerial refuel mission, in both cases the in-mission plane is an F-14B. 2. F-14A guns-only dogfight mission (the one with the F-16C), the F-14A starts with a full fuel tank (16200lbs). 1. Quite odd: on my end both missions have the F-14A-GR-135 as player-flyable aircraft 2. Good catch. Edited August 12, 2021 by Raven (Elysian Angel) post got duplicated Spoiler Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2 Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golo Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 3 hours ago, Cobra847 said: Re the flaps lever; we will actually be reverting this change. This was a case of SME feedback causing us to change it, but based on further SME feedback, it was indeed correct as it was. You mean if Victroy didnt back me up on this, you would just dismissed me (like you actually did, even tho there was a bug with it anyway) based on what? Because someone said/remembered it was like that? Did whoever told you that gave you some technical evidence backing up his case? If you get one sided/conflicting information you need to evaluate the evidence, and scientific studies strongly suggests that "eyewitness" evidence has tremendous fault rate. If your SMEs give you some clarifications, pointers, some corrections that somewhat logically correlates to hard evidence its one thing, this one was another from my point of view. Also dont forget that we users are your last line of defense against any kind of f-up you might put in, especially if the report against it has some kind of evidence and is logically sound. It should not be just dismissed because "this is not a bug as it's clearly an intentional change from our side" like @Naquaii stated. I would hope it would get looked at even without backing up from any SMEs. I hope Im wrong but Im starting to see change in your development attitude of becoming more like ED, less like the ones who developed this masterpiece and art of the software. If I make a bug report I very unusually take it lightly, and try to do my part of a research about the issue first so I dont present you with BS so I would like you to take them seriously. In the end if Im right about it - excellent, we get correctly functional airplane, if Im wrong about it - excellent, we get correctly functional airplane. I hope this is your attitude as well. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain_dalan Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 11 hours ago, IronMike said: Thanks, those are all indeed bugs. Will fix for next patch. Thanks again! Always glad to be of service! <salute> 1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said: 1. Quite odd: on my end both missions have the F-14A-GR-135 as player-flyable aircraft In the mission editor yes. But as soon as i select the mission through the instant action, i am sent to the F-14B equivalent. Even the loading screen says F-14B Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sLYFa Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 40 minutes ago, Golo said: ... Hb looked into it based on your report and admitted they had it wrong and now you p*ss on them, way to go... 3 i5-8600k @4.9Ghz, 2080ti , 32GB@2666Mhz, 512GB SSD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golo Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 6 minutes ago, sLYFa said: Hb looked into it based on your report and admitted they had it wrong and now you p*ss on them, way to go... As I understand it (and I might be wrong), they actually did not look at it based on my report, or very vaguely. That is the issue. And I do not p*ss on anyone, I reasonably criticise. You have a problem with that, fine, have one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ustio Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 after a short hop in multiplayer. it seems that the Radar doesn't instantly loose track anymore after launch if you fire a long target. so good job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra847 Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 (edited) 18 hours ago, Golo said: You mean if Victroy didnt back me up on this, you would just dismissed me (like you actually did, even tho there was a bug with it anyway) based on what? Because someone said/remembered it was like that? Did whoever told you that gave you some technical evidence backing up his case? If you get one sided/conflicting information you need to evaluate the evidence, and scientific studies strongly suggests that "eyewitness" evidence has tremendous fault rate. If your SMEs give you some clarifications, pointers, some corrections that somewhat logically correlates to hard evidence its one thing, this one was another from my point of view. Also dont forget that we users are your last line of defense against any kind of f-up you might put in, especially if the report against it has some kind of evidence and is logically sound. It should not be just dismissed because "this is not a bug as it's clearly an intentional change from our side" like @Naquaii stated. I would hope it would get looked at even without backing up from any SMEs. I hope Im wrong but Im starting to see change in your development attitude of becoming more like ED, less like the ones who developed this masterpiece and art of the software. If I make a bug report I very unusually take it lightly, and try to do my part of a research about the issue first so I dont present you with BS so I would like you to take them seriously. In the end if Im right about it - excellent, we get correctly functional airplane, if Im wrong about it - excellent, we get correctly functional airplane. I hope this is your attitude as well. Sorry you feel that way, I do not condone our team dismissing anything, ever, as that is not our way. We do appreciate feedback, always! You are strongly mischaracterizing why the change was made. It was the recollection of maintainers, who have been exceptional in their knowledge previous to this, that led to the change. We have revisited the issue and will revise based on further feedback for Victory. You must certainly understand how much undocumented detail is in the F-14. We cannot dismiss anecdotal evidence from experts who have replaced every bolt on the real jet. Mistakes happen, we didn't spend development resources for the fun of it. We have better things to spend them on, trust me. We will continue to trust our SMEs however and we will consider future mistakes, that are bound to happen, as a fact of life and development. Thanks for the feedback! It is appreciated, don't take the above to mean any different Edited August 13, 2021 by Cobra847 8 1 Nicholas Dackard Founder & Lead Artist Heatblur Simulations https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyMikey Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 11 hours ago, ustio said: after a short hop in multiplayer. it seems that the Radar doesn't instantly loose track anymore after launch if you fire a long target. so good job If you drop the track after launch it is probably because the target's aspect has changed and they have turned into the notch. The radar has been working just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ustio Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, ShinyMikey said: If you drop the track after launch it is probably because the target's aspect has changed and they have turned into the notch. The radar has been working just fine. no back then you could loose a track even if the target just keep flying straight. like when you fire it became x once the target reappear, the trajectory was the same before i fire it. and again this is 40+ miles so getting out off the radar elevation scan is not a factor However it seems that it still happen if you are flying multicrew Edited August 13, 2021 by ustio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory205 Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 14 hours ago, Golo said: You mean if Victroy didnt back me up on this, you would just dismissed me (like you actually did, even tho there was a bug with it anyway) based on what? Because someone said/remembered it was like that? … I didn’t “back you” personally, I referenced the way the system works, I don’t care who or how it came to my attention. It’s about finding the truth. Heatblur is dedicated to getting the module correct, period. They are doing their best in the midst of what is often nuanced, conflicting information. They don’t take what I say or what any SME says at face value- they seek to cross reference my inputs, as they should. That’s exactly what occurred here. To quote a beloved instructor- “beware, there is bullshit everywhere”, and often you gents succumb to that phenomenon by demanding what you saw in a sea story somewhere that contains unprovable, extreme fringe rhetoric for one reason or another. I constantly look for and invite other sources who bring perspective on such matters. Generally speaking, everyone here would do well to stop taking things personally, grow thicker skin, take yourself less seriously, and stop making every trivial thing into a personal offense. Last damned thing we need in the world right now is more people who believe everything is about them. If you think you have an anomaly, bring it up where we can all see it and think it through. Stand on your hind legs like a man, make your case, hold forth in a professional manner, firm and always polite. Those last four words were a life long gift from one of my bosses, and have served me well for decades. 12 2 Viewpoints are my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golo Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Cobra847 said: Sorry you feel that way, I do not condone our team dismissing anything, ever, as that is not our way. It was my impression when I red Naquaiis replies, that only after Victorys post it was given any weight, so I wrote what I did. If it is in fact not true then I apologize. Edited August 13, 2021 by Golo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxsin72 Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 On 8/12/2021 at 10:27 AM, maxsin72 said: Are there news about work progress on the flight model? Will still take a long time due to its complexity or are you close to the solution? Thx I would really appreciate an answer, thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FWind Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 Flap axis On 8/12/2021 at 2:10 AM, Naquaii said: No they didn't. The F-14 only had full flaps or maneuver flaps, nothing inbetween. IRL the flaps handle couldn't be used for anything other than up or full flaps. Flap axis only for Flap handle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory205 Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 (edited) The D taking a field arrestment appears to have sustained a Combined Hyd failure. In the Final Countdown image the pilot has manually moved the flap handle to a partial position. The system functions as described, extending full AUX flaps and wing flaps commensurate with the handle position. My guess is that they either had inop maneuvering flaps, or wanted a bit more flap extension that the maneuvering flaps offered, but not full flaps for aesthetic movie star reasons. The aircraft had just experienced a level six Time Warp, so who knows how that affected the onboard systems? I mean, PD radar hadn’t been invented in 1941, so I doubt if the electrons were behaving correctly. Edited August 13, 2021 by Victory205 3 Viewpoints are my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naquaii Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 1 hour ago, FWind said: Flap axis Flap axis only for Flap handle? Not sure exactly what you're getting at but we've already been proven wrong by Victory205 and it'll be reverted next patch as mentioned here and in the bug section. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skysurfer Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 Yeah, I have mine on an axis on my CM2 throttle and have not noticed any difference - I have always been using them either full DOWN or UP and never in any position inbetween. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxTwo Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 Thank you for the TID brightness change, it's significantly better in bright daylight missions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven (Elysian Angel) Posted August 14, 2021 Share Posted August 14, 2021 19 hours ago, FoxTwo said: Thank you for the TID brightness change, it's significantly better in bright daylight missions. Indeed, it's perfect now Spoiler Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2 Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UWBuRn Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 I can confirm Sparrows are still quite bugged. Tested against rookie AI Su-27 with and without ECM, always shooting around 18 nm. AIM-7F => ECM: no track - straight off the rail AIM-7F => No ECM: the bigger the distance the smaller the chances it tracks, over about 10 attempts just once tracked correctly at 18 nm, 16-17 nm it's more or less the limit for reliable shots AIM-7M => ECM: no track - only executes loft maneuver then goes straight AIM-7M => No ECM: ok but is lofting AIM-7MH => ECM: ok AIM-7MH => No ECM: ok Didn't test thoroughly ACM cover and flood mode, but for sure 7F don't track jamming targets even there. @IronMike thoose issues have been around for a long time now: are they being actively looked into or there's some blocker before them? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxsin72 Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 On 8/13/2021 at 11:21 AM, maxsin72 said: I would really appreciate an answer, thx I think asking politely is allowed and answering is courtesy. But no one is responding, so do I have to deduce that courtesy is no longer part of HB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt_Jaeger Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 22 minutes ago, maxsin72 said: I think asking politely is allowed and answering is courtesy. But no one is responding, so do I have to deduce that courtesy is no longer part of HB? Hmmm....in my part of the world it is a weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxsin72 Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lt_Jaeger said: Hmmm....in my part of the world it is a weekend. Hmmmmm.... I asked my question last thursday at 10.27 AM and they answered to others questions asked after mine.... hmmm...... Edited August 15, 2021 by maxsin72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoorMouse Posted August 15, 2021 Share Posted August 15, 2021 Still a massive number of game breaking issues with the Phoenix. New as of this patch: Phoenix RCS is Excessive and is intercepted by missiles with alarming accuracy. https://youtu.be/zU7kSd2r3R4 Old: TCS sync between multi-crew RIO and Pilot is poor. The camera bounces around for the pilot, rendering it useless Old: TCS and Radar slaved sync between multi-crew RIO and Pilot can create a situation where the pilot is locking a target, but the RIO's client did not get that information Old: TCS and Radar Sync between multi-crew RIO and Pilot can create a situation where the Lock Diamond is placed off the Hud, or locks an area of blank space behind the target Old: Phoenix Hold Tracks still do not always pitbull. Extremely frustrating when this happens 1 or 2 seconds before pitbull and there is no way they have moved 3 miles away from last known in a few seconds (Which is the currently implemented work around) Old: TWS Shots often show no TTI after firing Old: TWS Shots often drop (X) immediately after firing at non maneuvering targets I Love the Tomcat and its flight model is amazing -Weapons operation has consistently gotten worse every patch it seems though 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyrovague Posted August 16, 2021 Share Posted August 16, 2021 On 8/15/2021 at 11:15 AM, UWBuRn said: I can confirm Sparrows are still quite bugged. Tested against rookie AI Su-27 with and without ECM, always shooting around 18 nm. AIM-7F => ECM: no track - straight off the rail AIM-7F => No ECM: the bigger the distance the smaller the chances it tracks, over about 10 attempts just once tracked correctly at 18 nm, 16-17 nm it's more or less the limit for reliable shots AIM-7M => ECM: no track - only executes loft maneuver then goes straight AIM-7M => No ECM: ok but is lofting AIM-7MH => ECM: ok AIM-7MH => No ECM: ok Didn't test thoroughly ACM cover and flood mode, but for sure 7F don't track jamming targets even there. @IronMike thoose issues have been around for a long time now: are they being actively looked into or there's some blocker before them? AFAIK, these issues have not been reproduced or logged as issues on our side. However, we have finally gotten rid of the copied AIM-7 lua. We previously had to copy those because the 45deg axially rotated sparrows used to eject diagonally, but this has been fixed on ED side. Our copied versions were sometimes out of sync with upstream updates, so it may be that sometimes strange things could happen Hopefully () now that we're using the ED AIM-7, the behaviour of them will always at least be the same as the AIM-7 on the other aircraft. This should be available in the next openbeta. ____________ Heatblur Simulations [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts