LS code

\

F8. Ground Crew...

F5. Configure aircraft...

This or kneeboard settings with the engine off and airspeed <40kias.

The mission designer is ultimately the one to blame but those two are the most realistic options.

You provided a Solution to something which is the correct behaviour for a Simulator.

If you are not an software specialist, how can you determine what is easier to implement.

On the F99th server we have a script made by one of our guys that actually sets you up as a FAC in a certain plane or helicopter, through menus you can switch it out to the laser code you need to drop on. Regularly we will have someone flick from 1113 for SU25's to 1688 for mirages if there are no A-10's around to buddy lase. Unfortunately like others have mentioned it's set on mission editor and there's nothing you can really do unless you have a script mentioned like the one above. This is also player controlled mind you by the pilot in the FAC aircraft.

You provided a Solution to something which is the correct behaviour for a Simulator.

 

If you are not an software specialist, how can you determine what is easier to implement.

Because DCS has enough other problems pending for years without a fix like wind, atc, .... so it seems they are busy enough. So it seems to be easier or faster for RAZBAM to remove this problem.

We understood your opinion, we just don't share it.

I agree it may (note: not "will") be easier and/or quicker, BUT it would also leave a "workaround" in the code, so:

1/ next module/aircraft having the same need will require the same workaround to be coded for it, and it only

2/ when ED changes its code, each and every previously coded workarounds will need to be de-coded

In the broad term, the solution you advocate for equals 3x (at least) the workload for the solution I favored (and that's also why I disagree with you).

++

Az'

Because DCS has enough other problems pending for years without a fix like wind, atc, .... so it seems they are busy enough. So it seems to be easier or faster for RAZBAM to remove this problem.

Seems != know.

Unwilling JTAC not cooperating with you, not RAZBAMs problem.

Workarounds only create more workload overall and make existing problems seem less problematic. Neither of the two qualities is something we should want I guess. :D

Doesn't matter.

This is a problem which makes the GBU part useless and it has to get fixed. Somehow.

If my boss says "Fly these people to this destination" I can not say "No, almost nobody wants to go to there".

This is not a discussion thread. I reported a problem with the product and that's it.

So we can stop bothering about this problem, it is reported and try to help to fix all other problems

Junge.... you guys should work in eastern Germany for a while:megalol:

And definitely done here.....unsubscribed. Tried to help you out bud but I guess you can be stubborn all you want.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Doesn't matter.

 

This is a problem which makes the GBU part useless and it has to get fixed. Somehow.

 

If my boss says "Fly these people to this destination" I can not say "No, almost nobody wants to go to there".

 

This is not a discussion thread. I reported a problem with the product and that's it.

 

So we can stop bothering about this problem, it is reported and try to help to fix all other problems

 

Junge.... you guys should work in eastern Germany for a while:megalol:

If it makes it useless for you you have a L2P issue. *scnr*

Yes you can, if its not part of your contract.

Well if you consider it a problem, then write a bug report and not a lousy thread in the general section. :P

Oh damn, I forgot, reporting realistic behaviour as a bug is kinda pointless in a simulator. It seems you are out of luck !

I do not even get as a german what you meant with that. But if you come from eastern germany this all makes a little bit more sense. ;D ;P /jk

The correct solutions to the various problems are:

1. The user must be able to reasonably reconfigure his aircraft on the ground to the point where there is no ability the mission maker has that the user does not up to and including applying a different paint scheme. The mission maker both cannot foresee the configuration the user will need and demonstrably does not have the competence, diligence, nor patience to set every single aspect of every single vehicle in the mission.

Since the vast majority of modules have editor-values that should be able to be changed by the user in mission runtime, ED should spearhead a general reconfiguration tool easily or automatically applicable to all module developers. This would also be a great time to combine the various reconfig (rearm, HMD/NVD, turbo gear, etc.) options which are available to a central location.

2. JTAC either 1st party, 3rd party, or another human user must adapt his laser designation code to the airborne asset's weapon code requirements. This is normal procedure in reality and it will function in the simulation just as well as it does in real life.

Before you fly you set your bomb to what you want and when you call JTAC he uses the code that you tell him. Anything less is complete nonsense. Relying on the mission maker to get anything right is inviting frustration.

If it makes it useless for you you have a L2P issue. *scnr*

 

Yes you can, if its not part of your contract.

 

Well if you consider it a problem, then write a bug report and not a lousy thread in the general section. :P

 

Oh damn, I forgot, reporting realistic behaviour as a bug is kinda pointless in a simulator. It seems you are out of luck !

 

I do not even get as a german what you meant with that. But if you come from eastern germany this all makes a little bit more sense. ;D ;P /jk

L2P? Could you stop using codes?

If there is a mission with a JTAC and a M-2000 with different LS codes - what could I do? Nothing! So it's a problem and it needs a fix.

You young guys should start to listening and stop discussing

You young guys should start to listening and stop discussing

:lol:

Sorry master, I didn't understood you were the one who know it all.

Please forgive our poor sheep community, they did not see the light you were bringing to them.

But in the case of the Mirage we have a useless GBU-12.

L2P? Could you stop using codes?

 

If there is a mission with a JTAC and a M-2000 with different LS codes - what could I do? Nothing! So it's a problem and it needs a fix.

 

You young guys should start to listening and stop discussing

Yeah L2P, if you cant use the GBU12, which makes it useless to you by definition, you have an L2P issue. Its even usable in unguided mode and i have employed it multiple times in guided fashion.

Yes I agree, that needs a fix, but not breaking something which is right, sts no inflight lasercode change. The fix would be reworked JTAC.

should start listening and stop discussing. I mean okay, you are obviously trolling, unfortunately my counter trolling would get me banned for doing political jokes here. ;D So be happy you got spared of them ! :D

Yeah L2P, if you cant use the GBU12, which makes it useless to you by definition, you have an L2P issue. Its even usable in unguided mode and i have employed it multiple times in guided fashion.

What is L2P?

Ok then show me how you hit your target with a "guided" GBU-12 if your LS code is set to 1688 and the JTAC lases with 1534

"L2P" means "Learn to play."

Asking everyone to stop discussing their opinions on a public forum is futile because the very definition of forum means a place for people to do just that.

fo·rum

ˈfôrəm/

noun

1. a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

"it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research"

 

synonyms: meeting, assembly, gathering, rally, conference, seminar, convention, symposium, colloquium, caucus;

Ok then show me how you hit your target with a "guided" GBU-12 if your LS code is set to 1688 and the JTAC lases with 1534

Indeed a user can find himself in an impossible situation if the world conspires to put him in one. If you have no control over the code carried and the designator chooses a code without regard for your inventory, you're out of luck.

Choosing a code to carry is a bit of a luxury. It's not strictly a required ability except to deconflict codes. We should have it but if we don't we can make do. However the designator using a code without concern for what codes are aloft is unacceptable.

Guys: please simply stop!

 

This is getting far away from the point. Now some guy begins to talk about ILS :huh:

 

This thread is not for discussion, it's for a problem:

 

I flew on a server, the JTAC lasered targets for every unit (maybe per script IDK I'm pilot and not a software specialist) and he gave me a LS code and I was unable to set this LS code. And whatever you guys say - that is a problem.

 

To fix it there are two ways: Force the JTAC to my LS code (DCS work) or set my GBU to JTAC LS code (RAZBAM's work). And to implement the opportunity to set the LS code to the JTAC laser is faster.

 

So I've found a problem and brought a solution. No further discussion.

 

And for the guy who said "It's the mission builder's work" : yeah that solves my problem sarcasm out. It the mission builder's work to write the tanker tacan in the briefing and do you see it on every mission? Some builder put even a M-2000 in a mission but only a KC-135 tanker

Beruhig dich erstmal, meine Fresse. Deine Meinung ist hier nicht Gott.

You are on a PUBLIC forum, made a PUBLIC Discussion thread.

People are allowed to talk and you are not the StaSi that can prevent people from talking by throwing them into jail.

"I brought a solution." Your solution sucks and people don´t want it. Now :blow: off.

Get an A-10 to lase for you, or remember the code for the next time. "In real life" you would tell the JTAC to change to your frequency or he will get no bomb. Problem solved.

RAZBAM doens´t need to make the aircraft less accurate because you can´t be arsed to follow procedures. A work around or compromise is needed for when there is no solution to a problem. Your "problem" is working as intended, so no fix is required..

Otherwise, if you want to change the laser code mid-flight on a Mirage-2000C, try this:

Open Canopy.

Climb on your Wing.

Reach under your fuselage.

Set Lasercode.

This is going to get entertaining.

Adding the possibility to change the Laser Code in the M-2000C during flight would make no sense as it is not realistic how it has been mentioned more than a few times now and so there wont' be an option to change it anyway because the developers are also aiming for realism.

According to your handling of problems they should change the whole simulation then just because you don't like it how it works and how it should work.

If you don't want to discuss this anymore then you have to accept that it can't be added and probably won't be added that way just to make things easier for you.

btw, I'm both hands in for ability to change laser code by ground crew via F8

Yeah. Ground crew seems like the best compromise. Technically the laser code on the a-10 cant be changed in flight but due to limits of the sim it can be changed in the dsms.

There is no reason it shouldn't be configurable via the kneeboard when cold and dark like the F5. I've wasted a lot of time on servers hauling bombs I can't drop because the JTACs aren't using 1688.

I haven't seen a single JTAC with laser code different from 1688 online ...

So to take this thread further off track... just to confirm, outside of a third party script using Mist there is no way to change the jtac code right? Not even a .Lua edit in the .miz file?

You can change it in the mission editor for each plane. jeeez :D

Right. Aware of that, but the actual jtac...? Set freq and callsign, but no set laz code... just making sure I didn't miss it in an update or something