norman99

DCS altimetry/atmospheric modelling is extremely simplified. AI aircraft will always fly around at exactly the same ‘height’ (as set in the ME), regardless of what the air pressure/temp is. These things do affect player aircraft however, hence there’s often a mismatch between what altitude a player will see indicated in their aircraft, and where AI aircraft will be.

Roll trim for asymmetrical loads. Note however that it’s speed dependant. The trim required to maintain wings level at 250kts will be different to that required at 500kts. It’s not as simple as set and forget. I’ve personally never tried, but I’d guess rudder trim would be used in an engine out situation.

Thanks. It's still EA, so plenty of room for improvements I guess. Ultimately I'm hoping for SAM sites similar to the Syria map with roads, revetments etc.

How do the old Cold War SAM sites look? I'm particularly interested in the SA-5 sites, but 2/3's were common in the area too. Almost all of these have been abandoned and are completely overgrown now, but I was hoping Orbx would model them in a usable state.

Re the discussion about a subscription model, I too am definitely not a fan of this idea. Personally, I’d prefer to go old-school. Relase a complete version of the base game every 2-4 years, for the price of a module, $60-$80. ED get funding to improve the core, and yet now also have an obligation to make each upgraded version worth the price. Include FC3 aircraft in the core so new users can play solely with a core DCS purchase.

The most helpfull tip for me when learning AAR (in the BMS Viper however), was to turn the HUD completly off. This forces you to look at the tanker and the horizon, instead of the FPV, which is a major cause of pilot induced osillations.

This has been one of the most common requests since the SuperCarrier was released 4 years ago. Not only has nothing changed, but ED are doubling down on the current spawn/parking/taxi/CAT selection systems with the upcoming implementation of plane directors. So the short answer is no.

I for one am hesitant to get excited about plane directors on the deck. Given the current SuperCarrier logic, not only will it mean each spawn spot will have to use a specific CAT, it will also mean for spawn location we'll have to use the exact taxi route that is pre-coded (so no deviating off route, or statics in front of the island etc, etc). Just imagine a plane director evenly spaced on the taxi paths below, with a very small trigger zone for the animation, and you can imagine what we're probably going to get. In a multiplayer environment, with 10+ aircraft spawning in at once, following a logical launch sequence will become almost impossible. My fear is the whole process will become even more restrictive, inflexible and buggy, than we have now. Hopefully I'm wrong, and ED surprise us with a system compatible with large MP launches. Edit: Some more digging indicates that after recovery, the plane directors are going to try and park aircraft aft of the island, just like AI aircraft attempt to do. This will mean back tracking aircraft and ground crew all fouling the deck during recovery. This will 100% not work for any MP squad conducting realistic 45-60s interval recoveries. There's a reason aircraft are spotted on the bow after recovery IRL. Anyway just an observation, here's still hopeing for the best.

I following this thread now, just to get the chance to watch this myself haha!

I know the SuperCarrier gets sporadically mentioned in the newsletters, but as someone who doesn't religiously read these as they're released, it's hard to go back and find updates afterwards. Seeing as we have a pinned "Mini-Updates" thread ideally placed for this, could I ask ED staff if they can post SuperCarrier updates here, for all to find? Seems the last update to this thread was 2 years ago.

Yeah, this just looks bad. I'm not going to argue whether all the EA features have been included/finished, but the optics are extremely poor. It looks like a company just trying quietly and discreetly to decide their product is complete, without publicity announcing it. The only reason this would be done, is because ED likely know there'd be substantial pushback form customers re the Hornet's present state. Again, not saying ED are right or wrong to exit early access, but they definitely keep shooting PR own goals...

Sorry, but you're out of luck. Not possible.

Couldn’t agree more Pikey. A Balkans map similar to the other sim, but with some additional eastern terrain would be amazing.

Honestly, without derailing this thread, localised weather is one of DCS’s most glaring omissions. The other major flight sims, combat & civil, have had this feature for decades.

The real question should be, why do we even see them? I’ve never seen a real world photo of a carrier under power with these visible.

I too would love an accurate IFF system, but realised with the current multiplayer experience, there’s absolutely no way to make it work. (I’m specifically thinking of Mode 2,3,4 codes and their application, not transmission range, strength etc.) If IFF systems truly relied on inputting the correct codes to function, then these would have to be provided to each aircraft in the mission briefing documentation, itself not a big problem. (The other sim we don’t mention handles this well.) BUT, given this information has to be made available to all players, there’s nothing to stop a RED player inputting a BLUE IFF code into his aircraft, and freely flying around enemy controlled airspace, and shooting at unsuspecting aircraft that view it as a friendly, due to the IFF return. Basically it would open a can of worms re dishonest usage that would cause chaos on multiplayer servers. Anything that attempts to prevent this, would by its nature, be fudging how IFF works.

If you’re clipping those approach lights, you’re coming in WAY too low. The aim point during the approach and landing should be the markings at approximately 1000ft from the threshold. In the above image, there are the rectangular markings, 3rd from the threshold. Also, there are plenty of places around the world where raised approach lights continue onto the sealed surface, right up to the threshold, as you can see below. (Not the greatest image to illustrate my point, but it’s the first I found with a quick search.)

Honestly, it seems Carrier comms are going backwards no forwards at times. It feels like there’s more bugs and idiosyncrasies now than a couple years ago.

This has been reported before, and acknowledged by ED, but unfortunately, we're still wait to see some improvements. Hopefully soon.

Are you sure about this, or are you referring to a DCS limitation not present in the real world? This is my understanding of ACLS Mode 1 ops. Mode 1 Approach - At 0.5 mile controller advises the pilot to call the ball. Report - SIDE NUMBER, HORNET, COUPLED, BALL or CLARA, FUEL STATE. At approximately 12.5 seconds before touchdown, the uplinked 10 SEC is displayed on the DDI and HUD. After touchdown, ACL and automatic throttles are disengaged.

This is actually more important for AI wingmen/flights. Especially when using the S-3 as mentioned above.

I couldn't agree more!

I'll give it a try now. Stby EDIT: Works for me too. My only advise is the following: Once established at 1200' and 250kts and exactly on the ILS lateral path, if using the A/P, ensure it's is in RALT and CPL HDG mode (check HUD), ATC engaged if desired. Just prior to 8nm, disconnect ATC and the A/P @ 8nm, gear, flap, slow to on speed AOA, maintaining 1200' (all manually, don't use the A/P) Only once established at on speed AOA, if you'd like, re-engage ATC and the A/P and CPL mode. (I prefer to ATC & A/P, but maintain manual control of altitude with pitch control, as I like to fine tune any deviation from 1200' whilst configuring now). The other option is to remain in complete manual control until the next step. At the "ACLS lock-on, say needles" call, deselect CPL, then re-engage CPL. (Or engage A/P & CPL if you remained in manual flight from above.) This should change the HUD indication from CPL HDG, to CPL P/R. Sit back and ride the jet onto the deck Just after the ramp, in the wires, the nose will start to drop, manually try to hold it up and add some power to avoid an _EGIW_ grade. (Good luck with this, it's almost impossible haha.) P.S. In the image posted above, you are 0.6nm left of the correct final approach track, this is WAY to much for the A/P to try and correct when only 6nm from the boat.

My original thread in the Hornet sub was closed and tagged “map issue, not a Hornet issue.” Does this mean ED are confirming this is a known issue with the map? If so, is it on the bug list? I would have thought not having buildings/objects detectable at all by the A/G radar would be a significant issue?

After the initial invasion, and for the subsequent occupation, these would be correct. I guess it depends on which type of scenario one is trying to simulate.