J-7D velocity vector is also hilariously wrong
Doesn’t work with head tracking. Seems to work with VR but not with head tracking. Which is ridiculous as them working in VR shows they’re not disabled by a technical reason but rather by a choice. Unfair advantage?
Would it be worth reorganizing Joshje’s list to include bug severity?
Some issues, like missing “ATA modes” or “elevation profile,” don’t significantly impact gameplay, while others—such as “dead zones, disappearing HUD after lock”—make the game unplayable.
This would help ensure that the most critical issues are fixed faster than minor ones. It would also give Gaijin a clearer understanding of what players find most frustrating and what would truly improve the game. I hope game master could help to pull the right strings to make this process even faster?
I’m happy to help OP on discord to include bug severity on the list and edit the original post.
1 Like
I was thinking about bug severity but I thought it’s a bit objective. Some issues that I thought were very important might not be for other players so I think I will stick to organising them by what type of issue and what country the aircraft is in.
After the Hornet’s Nest update I will update some of the reports that have been fixed/accepted and any new reports that come of the update.
Honestly I doubt the tech mods look at this thread for bug reports to look at. Only reason some of these issue have been fixed or accepted is by asking a tech mod or CM directly to bump them forward to get them accepted.
1 Like
Added some new reports as of 09/03/25
HUD Issues
Great Britain
Eurofighter HUD color Inaccuracy (Closed - linked to an internal report)
France
Rafale HUD incorrect altitude unit (Accepted - not fixed)
Rafale incorrect SHOOT cue modeling (Accepted - not fixed)
Rafale HUD incorrect speed unit (Accepted - Forward for review)
Rafale HUD inaccuracies in A/A modes (Accepted - Forward for review)
HMD Issues
US
JHMCS missing radar symbology (Open)
Great Britain
Eurofighter - HMD should display all friendly units (like A-10C) (Closed/Accepted - Forwarded as suggestion)
MFD Issues
US
F-14B Tomcat Incorrect TCS display symbology (Open)
F-14B Tomcat TCS outputs shouldn’t be full color (Closed/Accepted - Forward as suggestion)
F15 (A and C), missing missile HUD cues (Open)
F15 (All), lock/shoot indicators not glowing (Open)
Russia
Radar Screen Missing from both Mig29 and Mig29SMT MFD (Open)
Great Britain
Eurofighter - Radar MFD missing scan width symbology (Accepted - Forward for review)
France
Rafale missing tactical display feature (Accepted - Forward for review)
Will take a look at some reports for the aircraft added in the Hornet’s Sting update once it releases.
As always if anyone has a report that I haven’t included post a link to it and I will add it to the list.
1 Like
Created some new reports on the Hornet’s MFD’s and HUD, based on second Dev server:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i…
Please support! = )
3 Likes
Nice, after Hornet’s Nest releases and these are still problems I will add them to the list.
Also is there any chance you are able to make a report for the missing HUD lock box for TWS soft locks on the Hornet? The box is there when you hard lock a target but not using TWS. As far as I can remember it was working fine when the dev server first started but then after the first or second dev update it broke.
I thought that was reported already. Maybe will have a look tonight.
Problem with a lot of those things is that it’s impossible to find unclassified 1st source documentation about it. I have several thousand hour in the VRS Superbug, which may or may not be more authentic than DCS, and based on original sources of the US Navy, as the manufacturer claims, but those references are not considered by Gaijin, just as the documentation by DCS are not considered.
I also have good contacts in the Swiss Air Force with Hornet maintenance staff and specialists, but of course they also can’t provide much info for secrecy reasons. I just remember how shocked some people working on the Hornet and also flying the Hornet were back in the day where I was very active with the VRS Superbug, about how close that sim got to the real thing.
Sadly here the approach “if we can’t have clear, unclassified proof, we prefer to leave it out alltogether” is followed, which I believe is the basis for a lot of still unresolved issues especially also with cockpit systems and HUDs etc… = /
2 Likes
Yeah that’s the problem now with getting more modern aircraft. Anything broken you will struggle to get fixed just because the information needed is not usable by Gaijin. And often the stuff that is usable doesn’t have the correct information for the report.
I do think at some point now they will have to start considering some sources that aren’t from official military documents. Like you said VRS and DCS might be able to provide accurate enough information to get issues like broken HUD’s or cockpits fixed.
Yes, start to add/correct some stuff based on secondary and third sources and assumptions based on common knowledge, experience and deduction.
I mean it’s War Thunder, where a lot of mechanics are already introduced in an either simplified way, or otherwise unrealistic way, not a high fidelity Sim like MSFS or DCS, and features a lot of simplifications as it caters to a completely different clientele for a big part.
Take for example the SAS system: You toggle between manual, damping and altitude hold, manual being default. In a real aircraft damping would be default, and you override this if you have an issue with it. And altitude hold is a function of the autopilot, not the SAS. And furthermore, engaging SAS makes it impossible to trim, which is completely nonsensical and unrealistic as well.
Yet that is how it is implemented since when this system was introduced, and that’s certainly not based on first level sources…
They could just implement some (more) stuff and say “hey, we have no reliable unclassified 1st level source on this, but we can assume it should be something like this, that ok with you?” and most would be happy…
Instead of “hey, we have no reliable unclassified 1st level source on this, so we leave this one out.”
2 Likes
It did disable it for me last time I tried, as I was particularly interested in the up/down adjustment when I saw there was one.
I use TrackIR, perhaps that’s different? I’ll try again later; recently got a new v5 TIR after my close-to-20-year-old v3 gave up.
Oh, you’ve checked… bugger. Well, I’ll check anyway.
I can see it now, F-22 added in the future and the HUD is just a black screen but any reports are shot down because they haven’t added an unclassified flight manual which simply doesn’t exist.
Also they should be using checklists when developing aircraft. For example so many HUDs are missing functions and it seems that the particular developer working on the HUD just enables stuff from memory, and almost always forgets something. To avoid this everything should be enabled by default, and stuff should be disabled afterwards by the developer. For example the Hornets right now are missing target marker diamonds in the HUD in TWS. This is terrible for me as a sim player. And it could take up to 2 years before it’s enabled through bug reports.
Maybe you as a GM would have a channel to communicate this important thing to the developers?
got a new one for you haven’t made a report for it, but with my a6e the sight is screwed up and has the bomb sight stuck on it in standard and bombs mode (rockets mode is fine)
Nevermind about making a report for the Hornet’s missing TWS soft lock radar box from the HUD. I decided to make a quick report with just some in-game screenshots.
All F/A-18’s missing TWS lock box on HUD
Thought I might as well see if it will be accepted with just that given the lack of documents that are fully declassified and sources that they approve of to prove it’s a bug.
[Edit] Ok then it just got accepted and forwarded to the devs, hopefully something comes of it.
1 Like
Cool, added my “+1” too, of course.
Btw, do you also notice that when in TWS and having soft locked a target, trying to hard lock it, often (feels like 75% and more…) the hard lock fails, and the target for a few seconds disappears completely from the radar screen?
1 Like
Wha’?!?
I got several report open (including the ones I mentioned here today) which never got looked at.
Yeah all the time, some days it works fine but some days it just refuses to lock properly.
Yeah I am surprised too. I asked if Smin could bump it and before he saw it it got accepted. Was surprised himself aswell. Just seems like whether your reports are seen relies on pure luck tbh.
It’s amazing that another update in a row and we still can’t get the basic VR related bugs fixed, in the new machines HMD deadzone is the same as for the old machines with no changes whatsoever which is still not usable ( bugs with the EF hud has also not been fixed, still also no on-board weapon sight on the hud ) . With all the money raised on pre-orders and machines for 80 euros, developers still can’t afford to buy VR goggles to test the update before its release? @Smin1080p_WT
2 Likes
Hehe, if the availability of VR goggles is the issue: I’d even be willing to invest a bit in a crowdfunding project…
1 Like