A10 warthog problem

[HiJack]

PS: i made 5 of my friends buy this game, all 5 are experiencing the same problems.

 

That's too bad ralfi; I hope they use the A-10 anyway. I find the A-10 very enjoying to fly and operate over the battlefield. In my mind it’s mandatory to complete the A-10 campaign before patch and then redo the campaign after patching. That is a real challenge but definitely worth completing. Tons of fun there ;) At simhq you can find a nice report over all the campaign missions in the tread “All of BeachAV8R's FC2 A-10 campaign mission reports”; highly recommended. You can keep two versions of FC2 on your computer at once, one unpatched and a patched one. I also have one patched mod’ed version separate copy on disk.

 

(HJ)

 

PS! The A-10 has some weapons release problems before the patch so then it runs without any problems when run in “Windowed mode”.

[Moa]

To summarize, the workarounds suggested are:

 

For the missile seeker slew issue, manifested as the missile seeker slewing in a direction other than that commanded:

* use a mouse for AGM-65D seeker slew. Of course, this is completely unrealistic and will break using the mouse to change your view.

* don't use zoom. Of course, this is also completely unrealistic. Real Mavericks have no such limitation.

 

For the missile lock bug, manifested as the missile seeker refusing to lock on to air defenses and locking to terrain randomly around the selected target:

* There is no work-around. This appears to be done to deliberately to increase the 'challenge' for the A-10A in patch 1.2.1 and disregards the capability of the real Maverick to discriminate and destroy *all* targets at medium range (that is, what they were designed to do). This seeker 'feature' discriminates between air defenses and all other vehicles (which can be locked at longer range). Of course, this is completely unrealistic, and was probably done for the same reason as the AIM-120 is continually hobbled in the game (yes, despite the promises, it is still not as the performance numbers state even after patch 1.2.1) rather than perform as published.

 

Oh by all means go ahead - your attitude unfortunately necessitates me from not taking any further part in this 'conversation'.......jolly good attempt at 'baiting' though :thumbup:

I did not mean to bait, it was a result of being incensed by your responses negating the problems users were reporting - which is not what I expect from an ED tester, or any 'professional' tester for that matter.

 

I'm just disappointed that ED just don't come out and say, "yeah we adjusted the AMRAAM and Mavericks to maintain play balance" since that is clearly what was done. Then this argument would be moot and we wouldn't be stuck about arguing whether the observed behaviour was a 'bug' or not. If it is undocumented then it is a bug in my book - document it and it is not a bug. Whether or not it is a 'bug' it is certainly not what is possible with the missile in real life (except perhaps in the most disadvantageous situations imaginable).

 

Thanks at least for pointing out some of the information about the seeker degradation for SHORAD. Without it the situation would be even more confusing.

 

ps. The Mk-20 is also borked in game. I have supplied ED with a Naval Institute Press (Annapolis) publication (linked below) that says the minimum safe release altitude is 250 feet AGL in level flight or 100 feet in a toss delivery (of course release for optimum dispersion pattern is much higher). Unfortunately ED ignored this information (despite asking on the fora) so we get another weapon not simulated correctly. If you release a Mk-20 from below about 1000 feet in-game the canister will not disperse at all - yet the aforementioned document specifies the real-life dispersal pattern at 500 feet.

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=l-DzknmTgDUC&pg=PA265&lpg=PA265&dq=minimum+release+altitude+for+Mk-20&source=bl&ots=2riLD0p9Lj&sig=hnvJKx4pgEcfkUj2fH0SNmFXAH8&hl=en&ei=QaFvTJmhBIjksQOn1Y26Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=minimum%20release%20altitude%20for%20Mk-20&f=false

No this is not classified material, but it is clearly a reasonable source given the specific detail it is able to provide (and it is the Naval Institute Press in Annapolis - won't publish classified but if you publish bollox their naval readers will know straight away). If anyone has a publication refuting these figures I'd really like to hear about it. nb. dropping unguided weapons from 10000 feet or 8000 feet (as suggested in this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53418) is neither what the Hog is designed to do or what the pilots of the 1980s were trained for (at that time the NATO European Central Front meant you operated low or you were dead, whole systems were designed or redesigned to operate low [as I've stated before the B52 was redesigned to be low and it is the principal factor in the B1 design]).

 

This (unverified) source lists 500 feet AGL or 400 feet with pull up:

http://electrosphere.info/index.php?showtopic=861

 

According to this the Mk-20 fuze time (release height) is selectable (pilot can choose release altitude in flight).

http://www.ordnance.org/cluster_bombs.htm

So the in-game 1000 foot limit seems erroneous.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Moa

[HiJack]

:thumbup: You got that exactly right Moa! Well spoken.

[shu77]

Well said Moa! Nice to see you take the high ground

[Moa]

Also found this thread. Wags makes a comment about the change but doesn't mention SHORAD specifically. (I've updated an earlier post of mine to include this link).

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53750

 

GG: If you could provide more information it would be appreciated.

[HiJack]

Obviously I was mistaken and the “No more FC2 patch” was a comment from Moa in this thread.

 

Sorry Viper :music_whistling:

 

Based on Viper’s reaction I guess we are up for a patch sooon :smartass:

 

(HJ)

[Panzertard]

Based on Viper’s reaction I guess we are up for a patch sooon :smartass:

 

(HJ)

Viper and I wouldn't know. It's ED's call and they haven't made any statements regarding FC2 patches.

[HiJack]

Yes I know, I was just hoping for a new respons from Viper :P

[Panzertard]

Yes I know, I was just hoping for a new respons from Viper :P

You gave him a heartattach, he's having a day off. :smilewink:

PS: poor old man.

[ralfidude]

Apologies for the long wait, i have been away for some time.

 

Here are a few clips i made showing exactly what i mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7i-XqRyjz8

[Nerdwing]

Illustrates the problems very well. Thank you for taking time to make that video :)

[Steel Jaw]

So long as it does not carry over to the DCS A10C, I care not.

[GGTharos]

I'm sorry, somehow I missed this.

 

It's just like Wags said - me, I can't really tell you anything about the jammer to explain all this better ;)

 

Also found this thread. Wags makes a comment about the change but doesn't mention SHORAD specifically. (I've updated an earlier post of mine to include this link).

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53750

 

GG: If you could provide more information it would be appreciated.

[Nerdwing]

db_sensors.lua was modified by the patch. Could the change have taken place somewhere in there?

[Moa]

Apologies for the long wait, i have been away for some time.

 

Here are a few clips i made showing exactly what i mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7i-XqRyjz8

 

Thanks for making the video. I see similar behaviour with the Maverick D seeker (it seems worse in cities as you see). This doesn't seem realistic as it occurs even at close ranges (under 2 nm).

[ralfidude]

Yep.

 

In the very last clip, i just freaking gave up.

 

I had a CLEAR lock on the back apc, unlocked, and tried to lock another vehicle. But as you saw, a cold building was MUCH more preffered by the MAV.

 

 

Look, i keep being told that this is normal by a MAV due to lower heat signatures in certain vehicles.

 

Ok, to a degree I can understand it, and respect it, technology isnt perfect. However, there should be a variance in heat signatures then for these types of vehicles. Just like the buildings are not as hot, there should be a variance in the diff types of vehicles too. Or would it still show up the same?

[Moa]

Notes:

1) This is not a 'bug' per-se in the seeker code. It was deliberatly intorduced into the Maverick seeker model to make it more 'challenging' (although in effect, frustrating) to A-10A pilots since they otherwise dominate air-to-ground. Therefore, until ED decide differently this will not be fixed.This seems to be in addition to a more realistic Maverick seeker model where the seeker lock-on range was reduced (although the first effect applies even at very short ranges).

 

2) The Su-25T's Mercury pod does not appear to be affected by this (not that I can see, at least) despite being inferior technology to the Maverick seeker electronics.

 

Yes, this sucks. No, there is nothing we can do about it.

[sweinhart3]

My point being, have you used an IIR system in real life? Maybe, maybe not. But here is someone who has used one telling you how it was for them. Shame you are again appear unwilling to listen.

 

 

It's the same technology. I know, I've designed and built multi-wavelength imaging systems for scientific purposes. I know a huge amount about EO and CCD internals and operation (including specialist non-visible low and high wavelength operation) so if you think you know more than me, you don't. Sorry to be so blunt, I'm not here for a pissing contest I just want to head off any arguments about what you think you might know about advanced imaging technology. So please don't bother arguing this point.

 

 

I really hope this was tongue-in-cheek, otherwise this appears to be one of the most arrogant insinuations I've seem on these boards - I hope I'm very mistaken.

 

 

Yes. Can I say it any more simply than that. If I say it twice will that make any difference or will your mind remain closed to the possibility. I have watched cows and horses kilometers away through IIR from several thousand feet and they have a far lower signature than vehicles. IIR is so good you can see differential cooling through metal at closer ranges.

 

 

Blame? Who gives a damn about blame? I became a much better developer when I learned to take my ego out of my development and not worrying about blame. Sure I am proud of my work but I realized being defensive doesn't help - an open mind is far more valuable. So, from this I surmise that you acknowledge the possibility of a problem but don't want it to be made your fault. Absolutely cool with me - it is not your fault. Can we move on now please to addressing the issue at hand? I simply would like the problem looked at and a work-around determined if possible.

 

 

 

Again, you are not listening. Earlier posters mentioned they cannot achieve a lock even at close range. Ignoring the fact that guiding the seeker it 'doglegs' (one fault), you can ground stabilize over your target with little clutter but when you lock the seeker it jumps to a random location off the target (second fault). In some situations amount of retries will put it back on target. Naturally, sometimes you can lock after a couple of attempts - which is why you haven't had riots so far.

 

Artificially degrading weapon systems is something we saw with the AMRAAM but I didn't know it was done to the AGM-65D as well. Isn't it bad enough that there is no player flyable Western aircraft that can launch HARMs (meanwhile the pet Su-25T can kill all manner of stuff from 60 km away) and the A-10 has to do SEAD with a Maverick. The Maverick is a devastating weapon against all targets, witness Gulf War I where it was indeed a 'Turkey Shoot' after the first few days. Big picture, at that time (80's - 90's) there were four thousand F-16s and F4 Wild Weasels to do the job for the Hog. It's bad enough to make the Hog do SEAD but to degrade the weapon system further is totally misguided. IMHO no product aspiring to be a 'simulation' should be doing this.

 

 

 

To show you the fault as it appears for us. To show you that the seeker will not lock up a Tunguska at 2 nm when there are no other viable heat sources in the seeker's field of view. Clearly you think all of EDs customers are wrong and are unwilling to read and re-read the posts on this thread until to understand what they are trying to communicate to ED. Perhaps a video of the problem might help show you the issue, or give you an opportunity to state what you believe we're doing wrong (although I think even you finally might become convinced of the former).

 

[reply to another poster] BMPs are nothing. The ground fire from BTRs in this game is far worse. I fear BTRs far more than Shilka - there is something very wrong with that picture.

 

Thanks Moa. Im glad someone else recognizes the issues Ive seen and is standing up for it. I bought FC2 specifically to fly the A-10 and I find it very frustrating and mostly pointless to try flying. Mavs are total joke here except against tanks. BTRs are too good. Ill gun run shilkas with decent success, but against a BTR 95% Im dead before Im in range. And at least in campaign, your AI wingman is useless since he always dumps his ammo at the first sign of a sam launch.

[Sarge55]

I gave up on the A-10 and stick to the Su-25T or the Su-25. Actually a better choice wpns wise, much more capable A/C. Once you get use to the flight characteristics it's fun to fly.

[sweinhart3]

Im really peaved that noone in the ED loop will acknowledge that there is something wrong with it. Its all just user error and "modified to reflect accuracy", and even with posted tracks as proof, they still wont admit it. And Im sorry but saying use the mouse is a fix to the slewing problem and therefore it doesnt need their attention is plain and simple bull**** to avoid taking responsibility. I generally respect the ED tester's opinions and experience, but I'd agree that a certain person's remarks in this thread is plain and simple denial of problems or acceptance that actual real life behaviours are not necessarily accurately portraid in the sim and that everyone's understanding of the issue beside's his own is incorrect. I think that most people here would agree that if the real thing behaved as badly as it does in the sim, the A-10 would not be a weapon of choice in a CAS combat situation. Shorad may well indeed be harder to lock than a tank, but it does not explain the combined behaviours in FC2 version of the maverick system. Lets all pray that DCS:A-10 fixes these issues. While Im aware of the fidelity differences, I think most of us will agree that the same bugs in some of their titles tend to find themselves in other titles as well unless they are specifically addressed.

Edited September 15, 2010 by sweinhart3

[sweinhart3]

I gave up on the A-10 and stick to the Su-25T or the Su-25. Actually a better choice wpns wise, much more capable A/C. Once you get use to the flight characteristics it's fun to fly.

 

I thought about that, but that aircraft never appealed to me. Ancient design and russian cockpit lol. Blackshark either, but I play it to get a decent flight experience out of it and because its challenging. I need to find a decent BS server because Ive only been on 104th and its pretty much pointless when it comes to survivability in a chopper. I tried flying A-10 on there and was told to turn off my ECM when I was going up against a sam because a fighter jock wanted to shoot me down.

[slug88]

Notes:

1) This is not a 'bug' per-se in the seeker code. It was deliberatly intorduced into the Maverick seeker model to make it more 'challenging' (although in effect, frustrating) to A-10A pilots since they otherwise dominate air-to-ground. Therefore, until ED decide differently this will not be fixed.This seems to be in addition to a more realistic Maverick seeker model where the seeker lock-on range was reduced (although the first effect applies even at very short ranges).

 

2) The Su-25T's Mercury pod does not appear to be affected by this (not that I can see, at least) despite being inferior technology to the Maverick seeker electronics.

 

Yes, this sucks. No, there is nothing we can do about it.

 

Where in the world did you read that?? In this very thread, Viper admits that the slewing problem IS A BUG.

 

The only bug/issue at present is the slewing problem. As stated in the threads linked to, all other behaviour is well within reasonable parameters. Inability to obtain lock can accordingly not be attributed to a bug/shortcoming of the Sim.

 

If you're referring to the difficulty of locking the seeker onto smaller targets, then I ask, where in the world did you read that it was done to make it more challenging for A-10 pilots?? You yourself posted a link to a thread in which Wags explains quite clearly that seeker logic was adjusted to better reflect reality, not to "provide a challenge":

 

Yes, target size plays huge role in seeker lock range. Just like the real thing, it is a function of target size (x number if mils) in side the tracking gate in center of cross hairs. Nothing to do with IR level.

 

 

 

Just about every one of Viper's posts following the above quoted is asking for evidence of a bug other than the slewing problem. Again, Viper acknowledges the slewing bug, but contests the assertion of a seeker lock bog. I repeat it because it seems that the majority of the people posting in this thread so far have failed to actually comprehended Viper's posts.

 

 

Im really peaved that noone in the ED loop will acknowledge that there is something wrong with it. Its all just user error and "modified to reflect accuracy", and even with posted tracks as proof, they still wont admit it.

 

Someone in the ED loop acknowledge that there is a bug in the first page of this thread! I know you didn't read it the first time, so here it is again:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=962004&postcount=8

 

 

Viper's contention in this entire thread has been that yes, there is a slew bug, but no, the difficulty in locking on to AA units at medium-to-long range is not necessarily a bug. He supplied two different tracks showing how he successfully locked on to said targets, and then repeatedly asked for tracks to counter his own. He asked for tracks, not videos, because tracks can be closely analyzed with one's own FC2 installation, and unlike youtube videos are actually useful for debugging purposes. Yet not a single person actually posted a track to counter.

 

Somehow Viper's repeated attempts to make the above points were interpreted as personal attacks and denial. This post in particular is an example of one of the most acute misunderstandings in the entire thread:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=962704&postcount=24

 

Moa, I urge you to once again read over Viper's posts, and then to revisit the above post. Viper states that your experiences with IR imaging may not be relevant to assessing the effectiveness of the Maverick's seeker head, and you reply:

 

Sorry to be so blunt, I'm not here for a pissing contest I just want to head off any arguments about what you think you might know about advanced imaging technology. So please don't bother arguing this point.

 

Sorry to be so blunt, but if anyone was taking a piss at that point it was you.

 

Furthermore, you write:

 

Again, you are not listening. Earlier posters mentioned they cannot achieve a lock even at close range.

 

Vaguely written bug reports are useless without tracks to analyze. If you had listened, you would've realized that Viper was asking for evidence in the form of tracks, and until presented with such he had no reason to believe there was a bug, based on his own experience with the game's Maverick seeker.

Edited September 15, 2010 by slug88

[Moa]

The slew bug is a problem but what is driving the users nuts is the lock bug where it jumps to an incorrect target or location, even if there is only one target in the field of view. It is the lock bug we are trying to get some action on - since the slew bug has been already acknowledged. Let me be clear, I am not discussing the slew problem.

 

slug88 please take a look at the video posted by ralfidude. I experience the same effect in a systematic manner. If you have a criticism of the video I would be interested to hear it - I do have an open mind. Until you look at that video there is nothing much we can discuss in a productive manner.

 

Yes, a video is not a good as a track. Point taken. However the video cannot be dismissed as it is experienced by many users. Dismissing any evidence just because it is not in your preferred format is weak and the sign of an inexperienced tester I'm afraid.

 

We can dance around who said what but I'm not interesting in playing forum lawyer. I urge you to please look at the video. Since it is not peculiar to a single user but, as I said, is widely experienced by many users it should be treated as some kind of evidence (despite not being a track). Again, the thread keeps getting deflected/derailed instead of critically examining the user's experience (eg. asking questions would help).

 

> Vaguely written bug reports are useless without tracks to analyze. If you had listened, you would've realized that Viper was asking for evidence in the form of tracks, and until presented with such he had no reason to believe there was a bug, based on his own experience with the game's Maverick seeker.

 

I'm calling BS on this one. Part of my consulting development job is to analyze faults in complex systems where you have restricted access and can't get all the logs you want. The world is not always ideal. You don't simply dismiss people's reports because they haven't given you what you exactly what you wanted but instead gave some other evidence. Instead you carefully examine the evidence to see whether it is a user fault or could actually be some fault in the system - even if you cannot see in your own development or test environment (it took some time in my own experience before I stopped being arrogant enough to realize this can happen quite often - I'm merely trying to impart the same wisdom I acquired the hard way). If you think about it hard, a track won't give evidence about the problem we're trying to report (except if you think that it could only be due to user error when they try to lock from too long range - which I assert is not the case).

 

> Sorry to be so blunt, but if anyone was taking a piss at that point it was you.

 

Wrong. It was obvious 159th_Viper was preparing to assert that we/I knew didn't know anything about seekers. I was trying to stop the thread getting derailed by that argument as I have a great deal of theoretical and practical experience in that area, including military grade IIR sensors from the era in question.

 

In this case, the user's are trying to help each other and ED by reporting bugs to the best of their ability (in my case, I don't have more time to devote to chasing this down - since I spend a large amount of my spare time getting software going for LockOn, often working past FC1/FC2 bugs and bad design decisions, but I digress).

 

You can chose to try and listen (watch the video, please!) or you can choose to only focus on perceived flaws in forum posts while completely ignoring the thrust of the discussion. All we are asking is that you watch the video with a mind open enough to consider what is shown may be occurring on other user's systems (even if it does not occur on your own).

Edited September 15, 2010 by Moa

[sweinhart3]

Did you even bother to watch the previously attached clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7i-XqRyjz8

 

It not only proves everything that has been previously claimed and complained about by several people including myself, but it proves our point that the maverick behavior in this sim is not realistically portraid and there are serious problems with it that make this aircraft basically a waiste of time. Slewing is one out of several problems with it. You play A-10 for more than 1 or 2 missions and than you can come back and say there is nothing wrong with it. Tracks have been posted, we have proved our points, and at this point, I feel that I could post more tracks and you will continue to deny there is a problem. I can tell you for myself that in real life, if I wasnt sure I stood even a small chance of taking out a short range sam before my own weapons could hit it, no way would put my own life on the line. I'll take my chances with Russian aircraft built with less technological advantages that can get the job done. Dont be naive.

[Moa]

Thanks for re-posting the clip link sweinhart3.

 

Readers please also note that a track is actually worse evidence than a video - at least for the issue being discussed.

 

A video shows exactly what was seen by the user, provided it was recorded at the time of flight.

 

A track does not necessarily show what the player saw during the mission. All sorts of weird things happen: the player can be killed early in replay, yet they survirved a whole mission, or vice versa. This was a well known bug in FC1 but seems to have gotten worse in FC2 - but this thread is not to discus this bug. All I'm trying to say is that a track gives some evidence but it is not as good in this case as a video recorded at the time of flight.

 

 

@slug88: note that 159th_Viper posted that the Maverick seeker behaviour was 'tweaked' by ED to be more 'realistic' (that is, the changes are deliberate)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=912988&postcount=3

"Depends on the Vehicle you are attempting to gain a lock on. Values/Parameters tweaked to accord insofar as possible with behaviour in the RW - No 'Majik Mav' any more - gotta work a wee bit harder now

 

And again from 159th_Viper, indicating that the tweak affects different vehicles (hence, I conclude that the degradation is not accidental, but affects SHORAD):

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=913161&postcount=10

"Strela-1 does that. With the Strela-10 you will obtain lock timeously. As I said - as with RL, all depends on the vehicle's characteristics as to when the parameters will be satisfied to enable the Mav's seeker to obtain lock - nothing untoward"

 

Perhaps I read these wrong, but given the paucity of information about the changes (are they mentioned in the official 1.2.1 patch changelog? I didn't see them) then I don't feel that the conclusions I drew were unsubstantiated. I'm not trying to rag on Viper, he's doing the best job he can as a volunteer (and I appreciate his contribution - which is committing a significant amount of his personal time to testing for no pecuniary gain), merely saying that these were posts from an ED Tester and that's all we had to go on since ED itself did communicate these changes or comment definitely on them (better communication would help a great deal). Actually, later in the thread Viper admits it was a guess on his part based on trial-and-error (thanks for venturing the guess), so I doubly don't want to seem like I'm blaming him.

 

Please just watch the video and watch the seeker slew incorrectly and also jump to a wrong location when 'locked' :) No need to say anything and lose face, if you agree after watching the video then be silent and we're all cool. Otherwise, tell us where we are going wrong/what is happening and we'll listen.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Moa