Bug Report on Maverick Behaviour
-
… some are ppl still using Maverick!?!
-
There even are people still using JDAM ;).
-
Sorry if I don’t understand your sarcasm or humor but why would people not use Mavericks or JDAMS ?
-
I assume Dee-Jay sarcastically means that there are more evolved weapons such as JDAM or LGB. I ironically take the opposite road by evoking JDAM are too easy to use for a challenge.
-
Sorry if I don’t understand your sarcasm or humor but why would people not use Mavericks or JDAMS ?
Don’t mind the sarcasm.
Mavericks are implemented in BMS and therefore should work as documented (or documentation should be changed to reflect the proper way of operation)
even if there are more suited and more boring weapons to useI don’t know if the report is indeed a bug or rather operator error as we often have seen before, or even documentation error.
but it’s worth investigating, IMHO. -
Got it, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something.
-
Guys … time to fart a bit. Why joking is necessarily always considered as a sarcasm here?! …
Time to go on DCS forum they are funnier than you are (joke or sarcasm ? … I let you guess)
Cheers!
EDIT: At least, this is a well made bug report!
-
EDIT: At least, this is a well made bug report!
Yep
When we have a bad bug report, we ask for a proper bug report
When we have a well done bug report, we joke about it.result: why would ppl take the time to actually make nice bug report as we request it?
Since in both cases, they are not taken seriously anyway…
Let’s reward the complying bug report with professionalism and maybe we should see more of them -
In the defense of Dee-Jay (which I purely reacted to), he may have identified, as I did, Phil as someone used to the way people react, without any doubt his report would be taken seriously. With the arrival of 84hd79 (5 posts as of today), more explanations felt right. If I offended Phil, I’m sorry, I was replying with a dose of fun to Dee-Jay, who, I’m sure, wasn’t trying to mock Phil - but he would tell you better.
But I see what you mean. Not necessarily Phil, but for other readers like 84hd79 who wouldn’t even ask.
-
@Red:
Yep
When we have a bad bug report, we ask for a proper bug report
When we have a well done bug report, we joke about it.result: why would ppl take the time to actually make nice bug report as we request it?
Since in both cases, they are not taken seriously anyway…
Let’s reward the complying bug report with professionalism and maybe we should see more of themYep
I take my punchline and let you forwarding it on Dev.
-
At any time ,the SOI can be changed from the WPN page to a sensor . Because the MLE is showing TD BOX range and not the AGM-65 range, the weapon range will be incorrect if the TD box is not in close proximity of the AGM-65 LOS circle. The only way to get correct ranging is to move the TD box close to the AGM-65 LOS.
To slave the WPN back to a sensor:
If you have a track, TMS AFT to break the AGM-65 track, and TMS AFT again to realign the missile to the selected BORE position. Then you can switch the SOI to a sensor and the WPN will be slaved again. Be careful not to slew the cursors before you change the WPN SOI. If you do, TMS AFT again.
-
Many thanks to Leech on the detailed procedures. Now the Maverick can be slaved to the SOI without a change in the Master mode. It would be nice should the procedures be documented so that similar queries can be avoided in the future.
However, the second question I pointed out (SOI changing to seeker after lock by non-TGP seekers) still remains. It would be nice should the devs be able to look into it.
-
Many thanks to Leech on the detailed procedures. Now the Maverick can be slaved to the SOI without a change in the Master mode. It would be nice should the procedures be documented so that similar queries can be avoided in the future.
However, the second question I pointed out (SOI changing to seeker after lock by non-TGP seekers) still remains. It would be nice should the devs be able to look into it.
Noted.