Tank50us

No, the Hornet's always been able to lose its hook to battle damage. Sure, it's incredibly unlikely due to the way things currently are (you'd blow out the engines trying to hit it), but if ED were to consider that possibility, they'd have made sure that taking the barricade was something we could do. Also, I recently learned that aircraft low on gas will take it as well if the only other option is the pilot going for a swim. I guess the kicker is the collision model not resulting in an aircraft exploding on contact with the barricade.

Actually, Cease and Desist orders are very much a thing, and often involve stiff fines if they're not obeyed. Also, these contracts with the manufacturers are a thing that groups like Razbam have had to go through, and like I said, if the manufacturer says 'no you cannot do this', and it's clearly spelled out in whatever contract is signed, then you must obey them. Remember that when it comes to the F-14D, the US Government is deathly afraid of any usable data getting out, and winding up in Iran. Reasons be darned, but that's the facts. So ultimately, as much as any of us want the F-14D, or for that matter, any and all existing aircraft currently or formally in service with full clickable cockpits, just using the data available (pictures and public information), is not going to produce a detailed enough product. I strongly recommend watching TheChieftains video "The Joys of Researching Tanks", as it gives a good insight as to what anyone would have to go through as far as the research is concerned, and bare in mind, he talks about it in the context of a 15vs15 arcade tank game. This is stuff that would be taken up to 11 for a detailed simulator like DCS.

Personally, I think the best solution to this issue, is just to mount it on a vehicle and call it a day. Just have the thing 'deploy' when it enters 'red' condition state, and the problem should be solved. This would also ensure the launcher is nice and level if the truck parks on a hill.

Ah, but that might be an option depending on the mission that's set up.

Because we haven't heard anything in a while about it, and given that the two carrier aircraft that can land on the Supercarriers can both lose their hooks for various reasons, I just wonder why we don't have this feature yet.

Thanks.

I heard that the trailer had to be taken down... what happened? Was there some sort of copyright shenanigans pulled?

Why do I get this sneaking Suspicion that Heatblur will do part of this with the Forrestal anyway...

As well as a quick way to become a Soldier Suflet

Alright, here's something for a bit of fun... What are some planes that are so outlandish, and so "It was a good idea at the time..." that you would like to see in DCS? Rules: 1: It must be something that was conceived and can have at least some documentation for. 2: It must be something something designed by a real-world country 3: It must ask "who's nuts enough to fly this thing?" And my first candidate: The XF-85 Goblin. Yes, this tiny thing actually flew, and it was designed to be dropped out of B-36 Peacemakers as it's own escort fighter... I mean... it was the 50s after all. Now, I suck at Mid-Air refueling, to the point I have yet to make a single hook-up... could you imagine people trying to do the one thing this things single test pilot couldn't manage? Alright, let's see what wild, hair-brained aircraft you guys would like to see in DCS. Remember, this is just for fun, thus why it's not in Wishlist.

TbF, that's a good way to go. If you try to do too much at once, you end up in the same situation that got us here in the first place

Soon(tm)

Since HB added the ability for the hook to be ripped off, and it's possible in both the Tomcat and the Hornet for the hook to be shot off, I wonder when we'll get the Barricade so that we have a chance to bring our plane back to the boat and repair it.

fix one thing, break another... the life of programmers.

OK, everyone in here that is reaching down Heatblurs throats about estimates and such just needs to stop. Seriously. So many people act like this is an easy thing to do, like "File -> Make F-14B" Well, news flash: I isn't that simple. Sure, some teams can knock out a new feature in no time at all, for a mod. The difference is that mods are not held to the same standard as paid modules. The sheer amount of work it takes to make even a Fokker D.1 Triplane a full fidelity module is absolutely staggering. And we are the ones responsible for that. Sure, ED may set a bar for themselves, but the 3rd Party Devs have to do better, with less resources, and even less time per day to work on it. Heatblur, Razbam, all of them do this as a passion project, and not for a full time job like ED Staff do. Be glad we're getting free stuff as it is. I get that everyone is antsy to get their mits on these toys, I am too. But we have to let HB work on the project until it's ready to go. That being said... Heatblur I will load a Tomcats fuel tanks worth of cash onto Cat1 the second you guys open the Intruder and Typhoon up for pre-order!

Would you be willing to share this knowage?

See, here's the funny thing... I would like to make the F-14E, but that's because I'd also like to make many of the aircraft that never got off the ground (figuratively speaking). Whether they existed as a design document, or as a pre-production aircraft ready to enter service, I think they all deserve a place in the sim. Why? Because that's ultimately what simulation is all about. None of us here now will ever know what it's like to fly an F-16, F-4, Su-27, etc. Ok, maybe a few of us will, but does that mean we should just draw the line at aircraft that only entered service? Or heck, just the aircraft that are in service right now? I personally say "no". If a team wants to make an X-Plane, something that lost a competition, or something killed by a politician to get votes, then by all means, let them make it. If you don't like the idea of the aircraft being in DCS, then you don't have to buy it. Seems simple enough, right?

*looks up from the radar screen as four Aim54s go off* "I'm sorry, what?"

Some units already do this, but to do it properly would have to be modeled into each unit specifically. For example, if an M4 Sherman is moving at full speed, it cannot fire accurately on the move, so it would have to either slow to shoot accurately, or, stop and fire.

Yeah, if you can see the guy with the AK before he can raise his rifle and shoot, and shoot him, you won't need the protection, or, you can get into cover and avoid taking the hit in the first place.

Heck, it'd be nice to have every version of USS Kidd, from the Fletcher Class Destroyer now on display as a museum ship to the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer that's out now patrolling the waves. As for the Battleships themselves, I personally like the idea of not just the actual fits we got irl, but in a delve into the "Almost happened so why not?", having the hybrid carrier Iowa concept as an option. I'm sure the Harrier pilots would enjoy it (since that's what the idea was built around.

Yeah, last time I checked, if you're waiting for a missile warning to start turning, you're already dead. It doesn't matter what that missile is, the time between the warning and you becoming a pretty meteor shower is measured in seconds, and let's not forget that there are several missiles that don't give a warning at all. The key to dodging missiles in DCS is the same as dodging torpedoes in World of Warships, you have to be proactive, not reactive. Your radar has quite the angle to it, so you can make aggressive notches towards the target while still keeping him lit up. Jester makes it easy in the Tomcat, and the Eagle has no issues in this regard (being FC3), some aircraft require you to fiddle with the radar controls, but other than that, you should be able to maintain TWS or STT while remaining aggressive towards your target. The only time it's appropriate to wait for a MLW (Missile Launch Warning) is if you're being attacked by a radar guided SAM since that means their track radar has a solution, and a missile may soon be on the way and now is the time to start working to evade it. But when it comes to counter Tomcat and the Phoenix, it's simple: keep changing your speed and heading while keeping the Tomcat in your radar scope, and if he's not doing the same, your missile will hit him, and knock him out, and the missile will go semi-stupid as it's no longer receiving updates before going pitbull.

I get the feeling that the issue may not be something that's reproducible on mostly stable internet connections, it may be something that only occurs when someone is comparatively unstable internet like those that live in areas where fiber-optic cables just aren't around or available. There's a host of possibilities here. Yeah, ED seems to have an issue where one one person of high standing says one thing, but then someone else of equally high standing says something completely different. The ones I think people should listen to the most are Nineline, Wags, and Nick (the freaking CEO!). They're the ones pushing hard for multiplayer, and have even championed it on a few occasions (Wags did so in the 10 things trailer). But, for the kind of Multiplayer balancing many people want to have, ED would have to have a bunch of dedicated servers hosting 'quick drop' games where people pick a plane, and hop in War Thunder style. But odds are we'll never see something like that until maybe MAC comes around.

even if they were just eye candy

I grew up in the Sega G. Era, and I distinctly remember the very rockish midis that came with certain games.... but the Strike games had a pretty dang good soundtrack for the time, and given that the first game (Desert Strike), and last two games (Soviet and Nuclear Strike) featured the Apache, I think it would only be fitting if we got the music to fit as well (even if it's a remaster with proper instruments). Sure, the example below is from Jungle Strike, but the theme is largely the same between 4/5 games (Urban Strike had a different tune that... while decent, didn't sound the same) Come on ED... go with this music!