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… = /
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.”
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.
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?
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
Hehe, if the availability of VR goggles is the issue: I’d even be willing to invest a bit in a crowdfunding project…
Su27 and SM HMD donuts only show up inside the front canopy ring if you zoom, and the lock crosshairs rarely appear when looking at normal magnification behind the canopy ring. Still.
And the EF2000 STILL has the deadzone from 12 to 10 o’clock, meaning you cannot IFF or lock anything for almost 2/3rds of your gimbal limit, and I have to hold a right banking turn to try to lock IR and ARHs.
And TV missiles/targeting pod screens are still jarring, jerky, and disorienting.
Awesome working through some of the bug reports collected from the Dev Server and the TWS lock box seems to be working on the F/A-18 HUD now.
Would be nice now for the other radar lock boxes to be fixed for the AV-8B+, AMX and JHMCS for the F-16C/C Barak/D/F-15C/E equivalents/F/A-18C.
Actually in the Su-27s the HMD lock crosshairs do appear…for the fraction of a second before your entire HUD disappears. <3
Gone through my list of bug reports collected during the Dev Server. I am pleased to say that a few issues have been fixed from then including some issues present before the Dev Server.
However as expected there is still a large number of issues are still present on Live including some new ones found after the release of update Hornet’s Sting. Here’s the changes made to the list:
US
[DEV] F-18C Late wrong HUD
[Dev] Filenames indicated on MFD’s and HUD (F/A-18C early)
Great Britain
Sea Harrier (All) Using wrong HUD (Fixed!!! (Added in update Hornet’s Sting))
Second Sea Harrier wrong HUD report (Fixed!!! (Added in update Hornet’s Sting))
Sea Harrier HUD gunsight starts in the wrong location (Open)
[DEV] Sea Harrier FRS1e/FRS1/FA2 - New HUD Issues (Open)
Ha I bet you thought the new Sea Harrier HUD’s would actually be finished when added. It’s more likely to win the lottery than have a Harrier Fix.
China
[DEV] J-11B HUD - IR Seeker Circle & Track Indicator (Bug) (Accepted)
(DEV) J11B’s HUD need to be remake (Accepted, Forward for review)
France
[DEV] Rafale HUD Missing BREAK Indication (Accepted)
[DEV] Rafale HUD Missing OUT OF AMMO Indication (Accepted)
[DEV] Rafale HUD Missing Out Of Bounds Arrow (Accepted)
[DEV] Rafale HUD Mispositioned Weapon and Ammo Indicator (Accepted)
Rafale is missing HUD lead-indicator for missile employment (Closed but still an issue)
[DEV] Rafale HUD Missing RELEASE STICK Indication (Accepted)
(Community Bug Reporting System) (Accepted)
Mirage 2000s HUD issue (Open)
France
HMD on the Rafale C F3 (and A-10C) not scaled to edges of screen (Now fixed but the HMD activation seems more one sided now than before)
[DEV] Rafale HMD Target Marker Not Working (Accepted)
Rafale HMS (Open)
US
[Dev] F/A-18 Hornet: inversed positioning of radar lock boxes (Forward to Devs)
US
[Dev] Exagerated cockpit reflections (F/A-18, all variants) (Open)
US
[Dev] Filenames indicated on MFD’s and HUD (F/A-18C early) (Open)
[Dev] Missing RWR page on MFD’s (F/A-18, all variants) (Open)
China
[DEV]Pilot display on J-10A’ s MFD wrongly (Open)
[DEV] J-11B Chinese cockpit display (Open)
【Dev】JF17 Cockpit screen display wrong view (Open)
As always if there’s any reports of HUD/VR/Cockpit/HMD/MFD issues please reply with the link and I will add it to the list.
Also it would be great if everyone could check out the reports in the list and support them by commenting or just by clicking “I have the same issue”.
I am glad that they finally got to the AH-1Z CCIP for rockets working in cockpit view. Unfortunately in the process they somehow removed (point of interest icon that was working fine without the aiming reticle) so now you have no clue where your POI is in cockpit view. Can we please fix things without breaking others? D it Gaijin I just want to use my Viper through the cockpit with stuff working!
I just was able to get it to show up but it isnt where my actual point of interest is at all? It is off to the left underneath the base icon while my POI is to my 3 o clock.
