correct as is JDAMS do not respect the PP

[Captain Orso]

46 minutes ago, Foka said:

You are referring to 4-years-old tutorial to new feature introduced to Early Access module. It is obvious that this may and probably will change.

You mean, to a feature introduce 4 years ago, because that was the event spurring Wags to make his videos.

46 minutes ago, Foka said:

HMD alignment have changed, AIM-120 behavior have changed and lots more.

Talking about 4-years-old video all the time is like arguing Pluto is a planet, because it's what you were taught in the school, like you would say there are countries Yugoslavia and USSR in Europe. World is changing, that includes games.

Changes to HMD alignment was documented, also by Wags, right?

The rescinding the status of 'planet' from Pluto, was well founded in scientific reasoning, and highly publicized throughout the world.

46 minutes ago, Foka said:

If you have any documented information how it worked in real F/A-18C, please provide it to developers. Insisting that it should work one way or another simply based on introduction video of this same developer is not a legitimate source.

I am following the statements of an official spokesperson for ED. You do not get to simply wave your hand and claim his statements are null and void because you think they are too old.

If you have documentation showing a change in the way JDAMs are programmed after mid-2019, please present it. I would be very glad to see something official of which I am not aware. I have provided official statements on JDAM programming. If YOU have anything which contradicts that, please present it.

[Tholozor]

I think the 'correct as is' tag on this thread kind of answers the question.

[Captain Orso]

3 hours ago, Tholozor said:

I think the 'correct as is' tag on this thread kind of answers the question.

Also what was said in every case before it was changed.

[rob10]

9 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

Also what was said in every case before it was changed.

So you've been arguing that everyone claiming something has changed is negated by no official word from ED since the 2019 video.  ED has now given you an official answer - CORRECT AS IS.  If you still think it's wrong, find publicly available evidence to prove it works the way you THINK it should.  ED isn't going to change anything without evidence.  Just because it doesn't seem logical to you doesn't mean it isn't right.  Realize that we may be missing some functionality that may be classified etc that maybe makes this completely logical.  Even just once we have the DTC (data cartridge) to load things from the mission editor might make it more useful as is.

[Captain Orso]

6 hours ago, rob10 said:

So you've been arguing that everyone claiming something has changed is negated by no official word from ED since the 2019 video.  ED has now given you an official answer - CORRECT AS IS.  If you still think it's wrong, find publicly available evidence to prove it works the way you THINK it should.  ED isn't going to change anything without evidence.  Just because it doesn't seem logical to you doesn't mean it isn't right.  Realize that we may be missing some functionality that may be classified etc that maybe makes this completely logical.  Even just once we have the DTC (data cartridge) to load things from the mission editor might make it more useful as is.

I have pointed to the statement of an  official spokesperson of ED stating that the PP is a mission. That has been countered by claims that that was changed by ED, and I asked for documentation to that, and NOBODY has provided it. It sounds to me like people simply discovered they way it currently works by trail and error until they figured it out, and now CLAIM that it was an official change, but can give NO EVICENCE of that.

IF it is a case of a lack of documentation, there is even LESS reason to not making the system work logically, reasonably, and usefully.

There have been numerous occasion in which a system was changed, because ED either discovered themselves that they had been doing it wrong for months or years, or were shown that what they were doing it was wrong. Saying that if ED does it a certain way, it is PROOF that is how it works, and ED is infallible is simply ridiculous and a point EVERY one should know is not true.

I do not expect ED to be perfect. While in my apprenticeship my boss had a saying, "if you work, you make mistakes, if you don't work, you can't even manage that". If you want to see evidence that ED works, look at the list of fixes in the patch notes. ED is working hard, and I'm thankful for it.

I hope neither you, nor anyone else thinks I should ignore what I see as being an error, or at the minimum, room for improvement, in order to get on the band-wagon that ED is infallible, when everyone knows--including ED themselves--that that is not even possible.

[Tholozor]

So this particular instance of ED not making an updated video/post detailing a particular change that multiple community members and ED have basically said (via the tag on the thread) the current implementation is correct completely negates all arguments?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/stable/2.7.14.24228/

Quote

• Fixed: JDAM TOO / PP behaviour when using QTY.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you now.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Tholozor

[Harker]

4 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

I have pointed to the statement of an  official spokesperson of ED stating that the PP is a mission. That has been countered by claims that that was changed by ED, and I asked for documentation to that, and NOBODY has provided it. It sounds to me like people simply discovered they way it currently works by trail and error until they figured it out, and now CLAIM that it was an official change, but can give NO EVICENCE of that.

IF it is a case of a lack of documentation, there is even LESS reason to not making the system work logically, reasonably, and usefully.

There have been numerous occasion in which a system was changed, because ED either discovered themselves that they had been doing it wrong for months or years, or were shown that what they were doing it was wrong. Saying that if ED does it a certain way, it is PROOF that is how it works, and ED is infallible is simply ridiculous and a point EVERY one should know is not true.

I do not expect ED to be perfect. While in my apprenticeship my boss had a saying, "if you work, you make mistakes, if you don't work, you can't even manage that". If you want to see evidence that ED works, look at the list of fixes in the patch notes. ED is working hard, and I'm thankful for it.

I hope neither you, nor anyone else thinks I should ignore what I see as being an error, or at the minimum, room for improvement, in order to get on the band-wagon that ED is infallible, when everyone knows--including ED themselves--that that is not even possible.

There isn't a lack of documentation on the subject, but that also doesn't mean it can be posted here. I very much understand this is frustrating to hear, but this is a sensitive topic. What I can say is that QTY is actually meant to be used with multiple target coordinates, and like I mentioned before, it will enable the calculation of the common ILZAR for all targets. That function contrasts directly with what you're proposing (QTY sharing the same target across all stations).

[Captain Orso]

8 hours ago, Harker said:

There isn't a lack of documentation on the subject, but that also doesn't mean it can be posted here.

Why?

8 hours ago, Harker said:

I very much understand this is frustrating to hear, but this is a sensitive topic.

Now I am intrigued. How so? 

8 hours ago, Harker said:

What I can say is that QTY is actually meant to be used with multiple target coordinates, and like I mentioned before, it will enable the calculation of the common ILZAR for all targets.

If there is no mission--ie a PP defining which targets belong together*, and you pick and choose as you wish, there is no constraint preventing the pilot from picking one target in Anapa and one in Sinaki and then expecting a IZLAR to be produced from that.

How do you know what target is programmed where, when you basically only know Station [2, 3, 7, 8] and , [A, B, C, D, E, F]? You will need a cheet-sheet at all times to pick your targets. Sounds like extra work and a great source for errors.

*Of course, if the PP is the mission, while entering the PP you must insure the entered targets are also grouped together, lest they also be illogical and impossible. At some point, someone must take the responsibility and insure the targets are valid and grouped viably together for JDAM usage. The difference with what my interpretation is, is that once done correctly, there can never be an error, because the grouping is programmed into the PP. Just select a PP and do your work.

8 hours ago, Harker said:

 

That function contrasts directly with what you're proposing (QTY sharing the same target across all stations).

What???

No matter what, you can program targets completely illogically, all over the place. QTY nor anything else will prevent you from doing that.

I am not proposing that QTY share any targets across stations!!  QTY is only a filter. It restricts to which stations you can program  targets, and from which stations you can drop bombs. Only those stations are viable for either action when selected in QTY*.

*The only exception is that when nothing is selected in QTY, everything is allowed. Why? Who knows. They could have masked JDAM DISPLAY unless at least 1 station is selected, but they didn't.

 

 

 

[Captain Orso]

12 hours ago, Tholozor said:

So this particular instance of ED not making an updated video/post detailing a particular change that multiple community members and ED have basically said (via the tag on the thread) the current implementation is correct completely negates all arguments?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/stable/2.7.14.24228/

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you now.

 

Yes, I've seen that entry, but thank you for posting it. It lacks any reference to specifics. Anyone can interpret anything they wish into it.

Quote

• Fixed: JDAM TOO / PP behaviour when using QTY.

 

What was changed? From what, to what?

Additionally, since it was apparently wrong before--proof positive that ED makes mistakes, just like everyone else--, it is completely erroneous to assume it is now correct, without evidence.

[rob10]

3 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

Additionally, since it was apparently wrong before--proof positive that ED makes mistakes, just like everyone else--, it is completely erroneous to assume it is now correct, without evidence.

I don't think anyone has claimed that ED never makes mistakes.  However, in this case you have provided no actual evidence (just your thoughts/logic) on why the current implementation is wrong.  ED has been burned before changing things based on posts without hard evidence and finding out it was correct in the first place, so they are highly unlikely to change anything unless you can provide them with evidence it's currently wrong.  And no, the proof isn't on them to prove it's currently right.  There is no way they could keep up with requests to provide details to prove everything someone disputes.

[Shimmergloom667]

9 hours ago, Captain Orso said:

Why?

Take a look at Forum rule 1.16

Unless you provide any documentation on how PP should work instead of how it is implemented now, and PM that to the relevant people (Wags, Bignewy, 9Line) the entire "discussion" is moot.

That said: any sort of RL conflict loadout of legacy Hornets with JDAMs that I have seen amounts to one or two carried. There is not a lot of confusion with that in conjunction with the various PPs, also Pilots carry "cheat sheets" all the time, in form of mission details and any other kind of information on kneeboards etc.

What you see as "possible source of errors" may very well still be absolutely fine for the government contractor.

[Foka]

Since 2019 JDAM behavior, including flying, programming, accuracy, changed several times. Some changes where minor, some where huge. Some where argued by users as incorrect and were reverted (for example programming targets in TOO). You're not up to date with changes for 4 years... You just chose to pick on one (minor) change, that took place long time ago, and you're making  your life goal to prove everyone you're right.