[FIXED] GB-6 is still none functional (trk attached)

[My_Name_Jeff]

14_45_30.trkTime is listed as track name 14:45:30. Action is launching two GB-6 with PP coordinate. Really weird behavior.

[My_Name_Jeff]

GB-6.trkTwo more, the weapon was aligned, and was way off.

[My_Name_Jeff]

GB-6-1.trkThis time I made sure to align the weapon on the ground and checked the ins alignment, nothing wrong with the ins.

[My_Name_Jeff]

Tested on another server, it seems like GB-6 forgot how to turn

GB-6-2.trk

[supersylph]

• Known issue: LS-6/GB-6 broken due to scheme update (fixed internally)

[My_Name_Jeff]

2 hours ago, supersylph said:

• Known issue: LS-6/GB-6 broken due to scheme update (fixed internally)

When is it going to be fixed?

[Dr_Pavelheer]

If I were to guess next patch

[My_Name_Jeff]

12 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

If I were to guess next patch

Hopefully with the datalink

[My_Name_Jeff]

GB_6_3.trk

My observation is It's heading to the marked point as if it thinks it's gb-6 HE not sfw. Either that or something changed in terms of launching procedure, if so please point me out.

@uboats

Edited January 27, 2024 by uboats

[whorgleborgle]

Can confirm, GB-6 SFWs are navigating DIRECTLY at the target like a GB-6 HE would, which means that it prematurely releases the submunitions a considerable distance from the target. This presumably occurs because it reaches the fuse altitude before it reaches the actual target. The GB-6 SFW navigation needs to be fixed so it hits the fuse altitude as it's directly over the target area.

Please see attached screenshot, it shows the targets circled in red, plus the actual explosion area of the SFW. It's quite a bit short of the target.

Edited December 28, 2023 by whorgleborgle

[BigBorner]

And a track to second that. 

 

GB6 Short.trk

[Napillo]

so how much is it off? as a workaround, you can adjust the altitude to +500 ft of the PP, and see if that opens it at the right spot.

[My_Name_Jeff]

3 hours ago, Napillo said:

so how much is it off? as a workaround, you can adjust the altitude to +500 ft of the PP, and see if that opens it at the right spot.

Really? I'll test it out right at this session, it's been too long since I last used gb6.

@uboats

So when can this be fixed? as gb-6 sfw is pretty much our primary a/g weapon for jeff players.

[My_Name_Jeff]

4 hours ago, Napillo said:

so how much is it off? as a workaround, you can adjust the altitude to +500 ft of the PP, and see if that opens it at the right spot.

Nope, doesn't work;

[Napillo]

21 hours ago, My_Name_Jeff said:

Nope, doesn't work;

Alright, so that seems to tell me it's not the flying logic, but the 'open' logic.

[My_Name_Jeff]

32 minutes ago, Napillo said:

Alright, so that seems to tell me it's not the flying logic, but the 'open' logic.

I am too lazy to find the track, but the problem with opening higher, is that it still fly toward the target straight, with the only difference of opening earlier, basically more off than before.

[Napillo]

alright, so one more option might be to use OAP, set it to your current heading, and assuming it's a 45 degree angle downward, that means if it's going to open at 500, you can OAP it to your heading + 500 ft...

[Fraki]

Same, it is quite hard for me to understand how is it acceptable for a game developper to not bother testing 4 types of bomb for a patch supposedly fixing them before calling it a day.

I get it it is a small developper but it is not an excuse to not even take an hour to test if your fix is properly implemented… lazy work

[Napillo]

It's ED, not Deka, they changed the schema, they need to fix it.

[My_Name_Jeff]

2 hours ago, Napillo said:

It's ED, not Deka, they changed the schema, they need to fix it.

I've heard ed control the weapon file on some other topic, I just want to confirm since I've only been in the dcs community for less than 2 years. As in the developer has no right to access anything on that file even if all they want is to fix it, and it's solely because of ed that this is happening? 

[Fraki]

14 hours ago, Napillo said:

It's ED, not Deka, they changed the schema, they need to fix it.

It’s Deka responsibility to contact ED about that after testing it and seeing that it was broken. My money went to Deka for this

[Lunatica]

Hi, we apologise on the longer-than-expected delay. Both issues (DL & this) were well communicated and pushed through the internal system. At the mean time we look for workarounds when waiting for an API fix, as @uboats is striving to do.

Thank you.

[BigBorner]

vor 59 Minuten schrieb Lunatica:

Hi, we apologise on the longer-than-expected delay. Both issues (DL & this) were well communicated and pushed through the internal system. At the mean time we look for workarounds when waiting for an API fix, as @uboats is striving to do.

Thank you.

Thank you for the Info!

 

Can you say something to the runway bombs? Those are not functional for a year now. 

Are you also checking on the SPI Logic (AG Radar sets them by itself) and the TGPs CCD Mode, that for some reason has WHOT and BHOT modes? 

[antiload]

2 hours ago, Lunatica said:

Hi, we apologise on the longer-than-expected delay. Both issues (DL & this) were well communicated and pushed through the internal system. At the mean time we look for workarounds when waiting for an API fix, as @uboats is striving to do.

Thank you.

Thanks, @Lunatica  can you also look at the lack of ground rendering for the CM802 AKG cruise missile, I miss using it so much.

Edited January 1, 2024 by antiload

[My_Name_Jeff]

4 hours ago, Lunatica said:

Hi, we apologise on the longer-than-expected delay. Both issues (DL & this) were well communicated and pushed through the internal system. At the mean time we look for workarounds when waiting for an API fix, as @uboats is striving to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.