FC3 Bug thread

[Teknetinium]

Sorry Alfa, but that is incorrect. There is a toggle between manual and automatic target selection on the left hand panel. СНП can and will suggest target priority assigning numbers 1 though 4 to the targets and displaying them on the MFD regardless of this toggle.

 

 

Excerpt:

 

 

 

Thank you Soviet. I assume its a bug, Its logical that you don't want to lock the bandit every time you are in TWS scan, and why would such option not be there if you have automatic one.

 

The work around between this two modes was made in FC2 by having target designator close to the target where it locks automatic, or take the target designator to the side father away from the target so it doesn't lock automatic. TWS for Su-27 was more correct in FC2.

 

at the moment in close ranges you are not able to use TWS for tracking bandit whit out locking them, witch beets TWS point.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Teknetinium

[159th_Viper]

Thank you Soviet. I assume its a bug....

 

Did you miss the part where it has been established that what is applicable to the SU-27 is not applicable to the Mig-29, which for the purposes of TWS, is the only airframe that is relevant at present, ergo no bug.

[Teknetinium]

Did you miss the part where it has been established that what is applicable to the SU-27 is not applicable to the Mig-29, which for the purposes of TWS, is the only airframe that is relevant at present, ergo no bug.

 

Im talking about Su-27 witch has modes for auto or manual lock in TWS mode.

FC2 had more realistic presentation of su-27 TWS since you had a choice for auto or manual lock.

You probably missed that Im talking about Su-27.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Teknetinium

[volk]

Thats how it works Tek - SNP(TWS) is an automated mode.

Ошибка. "Бортовой комплекс самолетовождения, прицеливания и управления вооружением самолета МиГ-29Б", стр. 61:

 

 

Для Google Translate:

Летчик, нажав кнопку управления КУ-31 на ручке РУС, может снять строб с цели, выбранной по вышеприведенным критериям, и наложив строб на интересующую цель, произвести захват этой цели

Сейчас мы имеем баг. Жесткий баг.

[Teknetinium]

Ошибка. "Бортовой комплекс самолетовождения, прицеливания и управления вооружением самолета МиГ-29Б", стр. 61:

 

 

Для Google Translate:

 

Сейчас мы имеем баг. Жесткий баг.

 

Good info on the Mig-29 Volk.

Im referring to Su-27 where TWS at the moment does not serve its purpose, witch even whit out reading any documents appears as a bug if you think logical.

Thank you Volk and soviet for digging it up.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Sov13t]

Спасибо Волк что подключился :) а то по МиГу особо не вчитывался. :thumbup:

[159th_Viper]

Soooooo...........anybody gonna translate the document so that I can submit a bug report if necessary as it pertains to the Mig or are we all happy enough to agree that the document is for interesting reading only and currently only taking up forum space?

 

And yes, I don't do google translate - it's useless :D

[Alfa]

Ошибка. "Бортовой комплекс самолетовождения, прицеливания и управления вооружением самолета МиГ-29Б", стр. 61:

 

Для Google Translate:

 

Сейчас мы имеем баг. Жесткий баг.

 

Well in that case I stand corrected :) .

 

But even with the possibility for the pilot to "override" the system's target selection, I would still consider SNP an automated mode by nature.

[Sov13t]

The pilot using the slew control on the stick can move the targeting box away from the automatically selected targets and select/lock the one he deems necessary.

 

So unlike the 27, the MiG-29 by default operates in Automatic Lock mode but the pilot can override target selection, upon which it becomes Manual lock mode.

[Gözcü]

Hi guys

formation may be closer than close.it's a choice.

[Frostie]

Soooooo...........anybody gonna translate the document so that I can submit a bug report if necessary as it pertains to the Mig or are we all happy enough to agree that the document is for interesting reading only and currently only taking up forum space?

 

And yes, I don't do google translate - it's useless :D

 

In FC2 the ability to use TWS as a track while scan tool worked well. You could freely track the aspect of all targets within your scope at all times. With autolock the gate would snap onto the nearest threat and then lock at a mid% of rmax range. This auto lock could be stopped by moving the gate off the target.

 

That is how removing auto lock is described in the Russian document for the MiG-29.

 

How it is supposed to work in the Su-27 is similair but there is also a switch to turn off the autolock feature.

 

Now in FC3 we have non of this, the TWS auto locks whether you like it or not, there is no stopping it so making the intended use of TWS redundant.

 

If i've mis read somewhere please flag me up.

[Alfa]

The pilot using the slew control on the stick can move the targeting box away from the automatically selected targets and select/lock the one he deems necessary.

 

So unlike the 27, the MiG-29 by default operates in Automatic Lock mode but the pilot can override target selection, upon which it becomes Manual lock mode.

 

Yes thats also the impression I get. Thinking back I do actually remember having read claims and counter-claims as to whether the pilot can override the automatic target selection - I guess I should have studied the MiG-29 manual a little closer :) .

 

At any rate, it raises an interesting topic about the extend of differences between the WCS of the MiG-29 and Su-27 - i.e. although the basic design of the sensory is very similar, there is no doubt that the Su-27 has more sophistication in terms of options available to the pilot and information displayed on the HDD.

[Sov13t]

At any rate, it raises an interesting topic about the extend of differences between the WCS of the MiG-29 and Su-27

 

I absolutely agree, this is a very interesting subject to study as both the MiG and Sukhoi bureaus were competitors in each other's eyes. There are those that will state the opposite, that the MiG-29 is a lot more intuitive, ergonomic and sophisticated than the Su.

 

I personally try to stick with one aircraft, the Flanker, as figuring it's bells and whistles is already proving to be quite a task.

[Alfa]

I absolutely agree, this is a very interesting subject to study as both the MiG and Sukhoi bureaus were competitors in each other's eyes. There are those that will state the opposite, that the MiG-29 is a lot more intuitive, ergonomic and sophisticated than the Su.

 

Yes but I think the differences are down to their intended specialised roles - the MiG-29 as a "counter-air" fighter to make short dashes relying heavily on GCI for tactical information and SA, while the Su-27 was expected to penetrate deep into enemy airspace to establish airsuperiority and therefore required a higher degree of self reliance.

 

I personally try to stick with one aircraft, the Flanker, as figuring it's bells and whistles is already proving to be quite a task.

 

Yeah I know what you mean Sov13t - I have concentrated on the MiG-29 myself, but sometimes it can be beneficial to look at other aircraft types to put things into perspective :) .

[Corrigan]

For completeness, I guess this should be posted here too:

 

Aircraft cannon impacts on the ground produce no sound.

 

So, how about this? ED, any news or at least acknowledgement?

Also, it seems to me that all cannon impact sounds are broken, even from vehicle-mounted ones.

[Wags]

I just looked at this in our current internal build, and I am certainly hearing ground impact sounds for the GAU-8.

[Quirkitized]

I just looked at this in our current internal build, and I am certainly hearing ground impact sounds for the GAU-8.

 

Wait i'm confused? Is this for A-10A in FC3 or the A-10C module...or both?

 

just wondering because you posted in the fc3 bug thread and not the a10 one http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=95168

[Corrigan]

Thanks for the reply Matt. That's odd -- I haven't heard any GAU-8 impacts (or indeed other cannon impact sounds) for several versions, as detailed in these threads:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89067

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=95168

 

Regarding the report placement: As FC3 shares environment with all the other DCS stuff, I suppose this bug is relevant to both. As I saw the blue smoke bug (which applies to all DCS stuff) on this list, I decided to post here.

[Wags]

Thanks for the reply Matt. That's odd -- I haven't heard any GAU-8 impacts (or indeed other cannon impact sounds) for several versions, as detailed in these threads:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89067

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=95168

 

Regarding the report placement: As FC3 shares environment with all the other DCS stuff, I suppose this bug is relevant to both. As I saw the blue smoke bug (which applies to all DCS stuff) on this list, I decided to post here.

 

"I just looked at this in our current internal build, and I am certainly hearing ground impact sounds for the GAU-8."

[Corrigan]

Well, in that case I look forward to the next patch :)

[Corrigan]

However, it should be noted perhaps that the Vulcan on the F-15C, for example, has no impact sounds either. I'm pretty sure this extends to most, if not all, cannons in the game.

I dunno if this is intentional, or if it's all to be fixed.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Corrigan

[Breakshot]

Hey gents,

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the Su-27 TWS situation brought up by some of our guys above. In its current state it is quite broken.

 

The simplest solution would be to restore it to FC2 parameters, or introduce an auto-lock switch to the control options!

 

@ED, please note this issue as it is quite a big factor to current combat effectiveness of the system!

 

The only other issue I can think of is lack of slewable EOS for the Flanker, and perhaps a Time To Impact timer for missiles. With those things sorted, and with the new 3D pit, the flanker would almost get a rebirth in the DCS world! Please make it happen! (keeps fingers crossed)

 

Cheers

[104th_Maverick]

The simplest solution would be to restore it to FC2 parameters

 

Unfortunately to my and your dismay it is not as straight forward as that mate. There are things modeled in FC3 that affect the missiles that are not present in FC2, making it near impossible to 'restore' any missiles / systems! (edited because nothing gets past GG :) )

 

I know it's not great at the moment but the missiles / systems are still WIP, it has not gone un-noticed that there are problems with them. No one from ED at any time has said ... 'here you go it's nearly finished', FC3 is still very much in it's BETA stage and as a result some systems are not going to work properly until it is either out of BETA or getting close to it.

 

The improvements/fixes all you guys want to see will come lads..... we just have to wait a little longer I'm afraid.

 

Please rest assured lots of work goes on behind the scenes with regards to the missiles and weapons systems, practically every day adjustments and tests are being carried out to improve them.

 

I know personally it can be frustrating, especially online when your weapons platform doesn't perform/work as it should, but these are early days in FC3 and we all must accept it's BETA nature.

 

Later on down the line we will all be killing each other with much more efficiency... it WILL be worth the wait gents...... it just might not feel like it at the time!

 

Hang in there!

 

S!

Edited March 11, 2013 by [Maverick]

[GGTharos]

I believe BreakShot is talking about avionics, not missiles.

Edited March 11, 2013 by GGTharos

[104th_Maverick]

 

Get back in the testing box GG! ;)

 

Yeah good point, sorry Breakshot, that's what I get for posting just after getting out of bed. Im not sure on how simple it would be to implement the same Avionics coding to the Su27 from FC2 to FC3, if it was simple I think it would have already been implemented by the devs. I will ask about this at the next test session though.

 

Anyway my waffling on still stands (sort of), the systems are WIP and will get better as we march forward, with all the changes that are planned for the Flanker its a great time to be a Flanker pilot, I'm looking forward to seeing more people flying them online as things get better!

Edited March 11, 2013 by [Maverick]