[FIXED] F-4G Wild Weasel w/ AGM-78 Standard ARM not working at all (Build 440)

[Der Zeitgeist]

Great news everyone, new bugs have been found in Build 440! [:D]

I just tried testing out some SEAD missions with the new Build, since these were supposed to work better now.

The F-4G Wild Weasel / Standard ARM combination however seems to be entirely nonfunctional right now, since the missile doesn't seem to be able to aquire a target, even if its radars are happily emitting away (see screenshot).

[Jakob Wedman]

Great news everyone, new bugs have been found in Build 440!

Thanks! New bug added to the list.

[mikmykWS]

Thanks we've replicated and are taking a look.

Mike

[ComDev]

Ah... okay.

I'll release an updated database, hold on...

[Der Zeitgeist]

It actually seems to affect several US anti-radar missiles, not just the Standard. Hard to pin down, sometimes they seem to aquire, sometimes not...

[mikmykWS]

Yes same results here.

Mike

[Der Zeitgeist]

While we're at it, some further observations from that test scenario, that seem to be a bit off:

1. The F-4G seem to have some awfully bad ESM gear, for a dedicated SEAD plane. Acting alone, they are practically unable to correctly classify enemy radar emissions. It seems they only have very basic radar warning receivers in the current database. Here's some Info about the actual avionics: http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Weasel.html

2. The EF-111 suffer the same problem, they don't have any real ESM systems either, and are unable to classify radar emitters with their basic RWR gear. I was under the impression that the EF-111 had comparable capabilities as the EA-6B has. That's why everyone was freaking out when the Air Force was phasing them out. [&:]

EDIT: http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclo ... ry470.aspx

Actually, your old database had it right, why not the new one?

[mikmykWS]

Its a new game and the underlying logic is more complex.

We're working on the current issue. Lets see what happens when its resolved..

Thanks!

Mike

[Der Zeitgeist]

Sure, thanks for looking into it!

Still I don't see why DB3000 actually introduced database errors that weren't present in DB2000. Some of the database errors I mentioned (missing loadouts like B-61 for lots of planes, WE.177 missing from British Tornados) were not present in DB2000. Why not use the correct information that is available for almost 10 years?

For the F-4G, the problem with the ESM gear seems to be that the flags "classification" "range information", "bearing information" are not set in the DB3000 version, but they were in DB2000:

F-4G in DB2000:


F-4G in DB3000:


It's pretty obvious where the missing SEAD capability for these planes in CMANO is coming from, I think. [&:]

[mikmykWS]

The games are significantly different so lots of reason's there are differences between one game's database and the next.

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for out of Ragnar but I would expect a fix[:)]

Thanks

Mike

[Der Zeitgeist]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

The games are significantly different so lots of reason's there are differences between one game's database and the next.

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for out of Ragnar but I would expect a fix[:)]

Thanks

Mike

Well, the problem right now is, there's a whole army of customers out there that paid pretty good money now essentially doing unpaid work for you in finishing your product.

Now I'm not asking my money back, I'm not even complaining about the state of CMANO right now, because I generally expected something like this.

All I'm asking is that you give us players better indications about where the boundary lies between "sure, we already know about this issue, we're working on it" and "oh, that seems to be a genuine bug, thanks for letting us know, we'll put it on our list".

CMANO has been out for about two weeks now, and most of the things I'm doing with it is testing out situations to see what is not working right now. If I'm looking for bugs or errors that are essentially known to you, because your database isn't finished yet, then I'm basically wasting my time reporting things like that.

I don't have a problem looking for bugs in CMANO, but I have a problem having my time wasted doing so when I paid 80 Dollars for a product that was supposed to be out of Beta. And the issues with the missing loadouts on planes that were available 10 years ago in DB2000, or the EF-111A and F-4G that are unable to classify radars tells me that there's some areas where the database right now is simply incomplete, and we don't have to report those things because you are hopefully still working on it anyway, without us players finding out every single error in thousands of database entries.

So please, just let us know about

1. the areas where you actually don't know if there's any bugs

2. the areas where your work as developers is not finished yet and you still have to add things that were there 10 years ago in Harpoon 3 DB2000.

Please, don't take this the wrong way, I really appreciate the work you guys were doing all those years, but right now it's really hard for us players to see what things you actually picked up from our suggestions.

For example, a few days ago I posted some things in the database wish list. One of them, the missing weapon loadouts for German RF-4Es, was picked up by your CWDB database developer, and he put it in. But it's not in the DB3000, and I have no way of knowing if you actually put it on your list now or if it has been ignored because the sources I provided were insufficient for your DB3000 database developer. The same thing with the missing retarded bombs for German Tornados and the missing nuclear loadouts. No one ever acknowledged these, and there's no way to know íf you will ever put them in.

So please, give us a chance to review what things you put on your list, what things are already on your list anyway, and what things you will not include in the forseeable future. That would make it easier for all of us. [:)]

[mikmykWS]

We appreciate all the help you've been giving and are working toward giving people much of what they ask for.

If you look in this string you can see what we've been working on:

tm.asp?m=3424520

I'd expect a larger one to be posted with the official patch when released.

While we post fix lists we will not be posting our to do/worklists as they do provide a competitive advantage. If you have a specific question feel free to ask. If you do wish to go further you can join our internal beta but will be required to be under a NDA etc. This of course gives you further access and insight into our development process.

Mike

[Der Zeitgeist]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
If you do wish to go further you can join our internal beta but will be required to be under a NDA etc. This of course gives you further access and insight into our development process.

Thanks, I'll get back to you on that. [:)]

[ComDev]

Have updated the dbs, you can get them here:

http://www.warfaresims.com/commandscena ... ase396.zip

Thanks! [8D]

[Dimitris]

Fixed in Build 441.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

Everyone take a look at the timestamps on the posts in this thread.

Bug identified present in BETA build: 10/6/2013 9:57:54 AM

Replicated by developer: 10/6/2013 10:24:08 AM

Database update start: 10/6/2013 10:28:42 AM

Database update release: 10/6/2013 1:48:27 PM

Bug fixxed: 10/6/2013 2:25:52 PM

[SSN754planker]

THIS! +1

One big reason this sim has the potential to become the masterpiece we all want it to be.

[ExMachina]

Very well done gentlemen! [:)]

[ComDev]

ORIGINAL: Der Zeitgeist

While we're at it, some further observations from that test scenario, that seem to be a bit off:

1. The F-4G seem to have some awfully bad ESM gear, for a dedicated SEAD plane. Acting alone, they are practically unable to correctly classify enemy radar emissions. It seems they only have very basic radar warning receivers in the current database. Here's some Info about the actual avionics: http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Weasel.html

2. The EF-111 suffer the same problem, they don't have any real ESM systems either, and are unable to classify radar emitters with their basic RWR gear. I was under the impression that the EF-111 had comparable capabilities as the EA-6B has. That's why everyone was freaking out when the Air Force was phasing them out. [&:]

EDIT: http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclo ... ry470.aspx

Actually, your old database had it right, why not the new one?

Sorry for the delay responding to this post, I'm currently a little bit busy implementing a couple other (rather complex) features you requested in-code [8D]

I'm not surprised the DB3000 for Command is missing things that were in the DB2000 for Harpoon3 as the Command database is a whole new db built from scratch. It will probably need a little time to mature but we'll get there.

I'm re-researching the SEAD equipment in between writing code, so please give me some more time.

If you find other things that you think should be adjusted please post up!

Thanks!

[CoffeeMug]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan

Everyone take a look at the timestamps on the posts in this thread.

Bug identified present in BETA build: 10/6/2013 9:57:54 AM

Replicated by developer: 10/6/2013 10:24:08 AM

Database update start: 10/6/2013 10:28:42 AM

Database update release: 10/6/2013 1:48:27 PM

Bug fixxed: 10/6/2013 2:25:52 PM

QFT

Keep up the great work, devs! And you people who are finding issues, too!