And it has been acknowledged under every possible closure. It’s been “acknowledged”, it’s been listed as “not a bug”, and it has its duplicates.
acknowledged as a problem instead of “not a bug” label
Developer information* mistakes are still bugs
2 reports were made in 2.29, 1 was not a bug and the other was acknowledged.
1 report was made in 2.23, duplicate.
1 report was made in 2.21, listed as not a bug.
Again, what fault in design is there? The M151 rocket is modeled as it should be
The one i linked was listed as the core bug report which is the one to be used. Everything else is irrelevant as stated by suggestion mods, they point you towards the one i linked.
The lack of other rockets in a place where they should exist. Them not existing is incorrect because they are expected to be there, it is a fault that falls under the terminology. Especially when they mention intent of expectations.
You did not link any bug report?
Munition additions fall under suggestion. Much like missile / pylon compatibility, and just the same as missile / rocket variants.
To put the lack of AGM-114R as a “bug” for the AH-64D is not acceptable. To make a suggestion for AGM-114Rs is.
To put a bug report out for the lack of S-13Ts on any Russian plane / helicopter would be unacceptable. To put a suggestion for S-13Ts is exactly how it should be done.
To put a bug report out for the lack of M429 fused M151s is subsequently unacceptable. That is what suggestions are for, not bug reports. The M427 fused M151 is working as it should.
Ignorance, simple as that.
lack of agm-114r appears intentional or otherwise busy in development, you can read the suggestion mods replies.
Again, bugs can come from developers lack of information when expectations of intent for something are clear. On the other platforms it is obvious that intent is for these missiles to be not there.
Yeah, I’m sure it’s not the fact that you haven’t posted a single link in this thread!
It’s most definitely me being ignorant.
And M429 fused M151s are not? By your own standards and justifications the lack of AGM-114R is considered a bug.
Yes, and bugs would be that of the JAS39’s reynolds number being egregiously low.
Bugs would be improper missile guidance or the improper order of APRF in the dev server. They would be things such as the R-27’s max overload being 15% too low.
Bugs are not the lack of munition variety on a vehicle. As I’ve said, suggestions are for the implementation of new munitions, vehicles, or mechanics.
To make a suggestion, you provide information. You do not base the suggestion on some reductio ad absurdum argument, nor do you simply say “this should be here because I feel like it”. You give the proper and relevant information as to what munition is being added, its capabilities / specifications, and what systems differentiate it from other variants of the same family.
That is wrong.
Intent of expectations, again. 114R is not intended to be there as of right now for whatever reasons.
Just because you have one type of mechanical bug does not mean that other types of bugs that exist mainly due to expected intent can’t exist.
Looking closer, the fact that the M429 works as a proximity fuse is probably erroneous, if not questionable in itself as it appears to be listed as an Airburst fuse
The M429 fuse being corrected would make the F-89D defunct and so would likely never get fixed anyway.
Are you not talking about this?
Neither was M429 / M151.
A lack of munition variety or variant on a vehicle is not a bug. It is simply an absence of weaponry, and suggestions are what are used to pledge specific variants of weaponry for a vehicle. Not bug reports.
Are proximity fuses not airburst fuses?
Last I checked it was a transistorized doppler-type proximity fuse. The presence of this fuse is what makes it an airburst munition.
It seems to work perfectly fine IRL and in-game.
What needs correcting about it?
Have you considered scrolling up? The screenshot is not the link.
Pretty much was based on how it was dealt with by suggestion mods.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915006936?via%3Dihub
that TrickZZter Screenshot makes me sad :(
1 Like
Not in their construction or functional methodologies, they should be almost identical.
They would have different automatic gain profiles and be looking for different parts of the return signal to time the triggering of the warhead.
Since for Airburst you are looking to detonate at a preset height you would be looking for some particular combination of phase offset & signal strength combination in the return signal (e.g. via FM-CW ranging techniques).
Proximity fuses on the other hand want to either detonate slightly ahead of, or at the point of closest approach to do the most damage(depending of the design of the warhead; Blast, Fragmentation, Continuous rod, Directional, ect.), or otherwise at a some offset to permit the warhead to be most efficient.
So they are almost certainly looking for fundamentally different triggers, and so probably wouldn’t function properly if the target sets were swapped.
2 Likes
Do you mean airburst to be a conventional timed munition then, instead of a variably timed munition?
Well then I meant what I had been saying in laymen terms. Proximity fuse warhead, airburst in the sense that it… Yknow… Bursts in the air.
Still a variable fuse
No, the time of flight before the fuse function is still variable. A timed / distance fuse will function after a set time elapses / distance is traveled from the point where they were launched regardless.
it’s variable in the sense that it will continue to travel until the conditions the fuse has been set to satisfy are triggered, so the location where actioning occurs is not fixed in space by the launch location.
Proximity fuses for example might use the leading edge of the return signal to function since once the distance to the return being to decrease, it has obviously arrived at the point of closest approach and so should function.
Now if one were to point said proximity fuse at the ground, its not exactly going to start traveling away from it, is it? And there in lies the problem, that there is no point of inflection.
In the case of the Airburst fuse, either it functions at some preset distance away from the aircraft of which the warhead is likely not optimized for, or the signal strength never reaches the cutoff (the ground has a much larger effective RCS than an aircraft) and fails to function.
1 Like
I see, so instead of fixed specifications such as a certain time, it’s distance / altitude dependent.
A little confused as to what you’re trying to say here.
Are M429 fuses still in use?
As I understand it they were developed for the F-89 using the FFAR for air-to-air use. But air-to-air rockets went out with the advent of air-to-air missiles, and years later FFAR rockets were replaced completely by Hydra (WAFAR) rockets that are the basis of APKWS.
While the warhead natures are common between FFAR and Hydra, air-burst in air-to-ground use of Hydra is primarily achieved using remote-set time fuzes such as M439 nose fuze or the M446 base fuze in WDU-4 rockets, rather than proximity devices.
I’m not sure whether M429 would have transferred to Hydra since the proximity distance is fixed, offering no variation on fragmentation spread against different target types, proximity fuzing with a small warhead may not be suitable in some environments such as those with foliage canopies, and it’s understood that rockets with M439 could not be ripple-fired because they could trigger in proximity to other rockets fired alongside them.
1 Like