reported Laser code validity not matching documentation

[Nealius]

According to the manual:

Quote

the first digit of the series must be a 1 and the last three digits must be between 1 and 8

But try to enter 1776 and you get an input error. It seems that the second digit is limited in some way and cannot be higher than 6, however this is not stipulated in the DCS Warthog manual. 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Nealius

[Yurgon]

As far back as I can recall, the second digit could only be chosen from 1 through 6, making the default 1688 the highest possible laser code in our A-10C and A-10C II modules. Not sure why the manual indicates otherwise, but I'm also not sure why you chose to ignore what it states right in that exact same paragraph that you quoted...

Quote

Laser Designation Code (L), data entry OSB 18. Using the scratchpad, you may enter the laser designation code. The entered value can range from 1111 to 1688, but the first digit of the series must be a 1 and the last three digits must be between 1 and 8.

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Yurgon

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

you chose to ignore what it states right in that exact same paragraph that you quoted..

How is the user to know which statement is incorrect? The one that says last three digits can be 1-8, or the one that says it can range from 1111 to 1688? 

The manual is clearly at fault for giving conflicting information.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Nealius

[SpectreBit]

4 hours ago, Yurgon said:

As far back as I can recall, the second digit could only be chosen from 1 through 6, making the default 1688 the highest possible laser code in our A-10C and A-10C II modules. Not sure why the manual indicates otherwise, but I'm also not sure why you chose to ignore what it states right in that exact same paragraph that you quoted...

 

 

Why not just say "oops, we worded this weird. Sorry!"  Instead it's always the whole act that ED does where you're all exempt from ever being wrong. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by SpectreBit
Magic

[shagrat]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Nealius:

According to the manual:

But try to enter 1776 and you get an input error. It seems that the second digit is limited in some way and cannot be higher than 6, however this is not stipulated in the DCS Warthog manual. 

 

 

As the physical third dial on the real live GBU-10/12/16 to set the code for the bomb to load, the laser designator on the TGP matches this limitation. IRL there is even more limits, as different services (USAF, Army, NAVY/USMC) have designated ranges of codes...

The third and fourth dial on the bombs range from 1 to 8 so Laser Codes on these LGBs can physically be set between (1)111 and (1)688.

Seems the manual has that wrong. Should say "the third digit between 1-6 and the last two digits between 1-8"...

May take a while to be fixed, but good spot.

Thanks.

 

 

[Soeren_Haudrup]

Hi everyone

I dont´t know if i´m wrong here, but IIRC the second dial from the left has only three options from 5 to 7.

Maybe nowadays there are MAUs with a wider range, but i only know about MAUs where you can select between 5,6 or 7 on the second dial.

 

If i´m wrong here please disregard all i´ve said.

 

[Giskvoosk]

It's quite confusing which exactly is the upper limit when there's conflict in the same paragraph for A-10C w/ and w/o expansion. I haven't been actively playing with the new C but I distinctively remember 17XX being available beforehand because I was regularly using laser codes of this range to deconflict. Now just been from a quick in-game test, it seems that 1688 has also been applied to non expanded C as the upper limit, for LSS, designation, and the DSMS store page. And what baffles me is for designation and bomb code it might be attributed to hardware limitation, but why the same is applied to LSS mode as well? Other Litening-equipped aircraft do not have such restriction.

It would be appreciated if devs could talk us through the changes and the reasons behind.

[Yurgon]

11 hours ago, Nealius said:

How is the user to know which statement is incorrect?

By your own observations, you already figured it out before posting.

7 hours ago, SpectreBit said:

Why not just say "oops, we worded this weird. Sorry!"

Who is "we" in this context? I don't work for ED and am certainly not in a position to make any statement on their behalf.

More to the point: As OP stated in his reply, there is conflicting information in the manual. That looks like a mistake and it should be fixed; I'll check if that's already reported and otherwise I'll submit a report.

It's just that he quoted the manual that literally has the answer in the exact same sentence that he quoted, but chose to omit that from his report/question. Why not just say "oops, I should have read the full paragraph. Sorry!"

[shagrat]

vor 54 Minuten schrieb Yurgon:

By your own observations, you already figured it out before posting.

Who is "we" in this context? I don't work for ED and am certainly not in a position to make any statement on their behalf.

More to the point: As OP stated in his reply, there is conflicting information in the manual. That looks like a mistake and it should be fixed; I'll check if that's already reported and otherwise I'll submit a report.

It's just that he quoted the manual that literally has the answer in the exact same sentence that he quoted, but chose to omit that from his report/question. Why not just say "oops, I should have read the full paragraph. Sorry!"

I did report, earlier today.

[shagrat]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Soeren_Haudrup:

Hi everyone

I dont´t know if i´m wrong here, but IIRC the second dial from the left has only three options from 5 to 7.

Maybe nowadays there are MAUs with a wider range, but i only know about MAUs where you can select between 5,6 or 7 on the second dial.

 

If i´m wrong here please disregard all i´ve said.

 

Yep, correct the 3rd dial is the limitation for the bomb, but the thing I am not sure about, is the limitation for the code set on the TGP, as it is determined by the "software checking and validating inputs". So in theory you should only enter valid codes, but maybe the software has different limits than the bombs. I always understood it is a validation that prevents entering anything higher than 1788, though.

So it should be validating for possible bomb codes, or not. If it does, there is conflicting information in the paragraphs.

Edit: and just checked some documents IRL the PRF range is indeed 1111 to 1788, or 111 to 788 for three digit designators (used by army ground forces IIRC).

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by shagrat

[Yurgon]

4 hours ago, Giskvoosk said:

I haven't been actively playing with the new C but I distinctively remember 17XX being available beforehand because I was regularly using laser codes of this range to deconflict.

Not sure how long ago that was. Over here there's a report (in German) about A-10C TGP LSS and L codes only ranging up to 1688 dated December 2017.

11 minutes ago, shagrat said:

I did report, earlier today.

Huh, didn't find that, but I just added a Closed Beta Tester report.

Well, maybe that means its priority'll get bumped up. 

[shagrat]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Yurgon:

Not sure how long ago that was. Over here there's a report (in German) about A-10C TGP LSS and L codes only ranging up to 1688 dated December 2017.

Huh, didn't find that, but I just added a Closed Beta Tester report.

Well, maybe that means its priority'll get bumped up. 

Edited my last post. It should indeed be 1111 to 1788 for the TGP.

[Nealius]

14 hours ago, Yurgon said:

By your own observations, you already figured it out before posting.

No I did not. You are putting words in my mouth. Please stop with such straw man fallacies.

12 hours ago, shagrat said:

Edited my last post. It should indeed be 1111 to 1788 for the TGP.

Tangential question, is this then a bug with the A-10's GBU code range? Today I did some digging through the ME laser code presets, and in every module except the M2000C the second digit limitation is 5-7. Should this be the same with the A-10?

[BIGNEWY]

23 hours ago, SpectreBit said:

Why not just say "oops, we worded this weird. Sorry!"  Instead it's always the whole act that ED does where you're all exempt from ever being wrong. 

 

Hi, 

welcome to the forum 

The volunteers above were trying to help, and they have, the issue has been reported. 

Appreciate you may not think a lot of us, but dont make blanket statements that are false, and please read our forum rules at the top of the forum for future posts. 

 

thank you