SteelPig

No one forces you to perform a 6-minute holding. As long as you are on your assigned alt and stay behind the approach fix you can fly whatever you want. Half standart rate turn will take 4 minutes for a full circle. The rest time to go till your push time is half downwind, half upwind. And so you hit your pushtime. You have your parameters, you have your dont's from NATOPS'S, you have your instruments and math. Rest is being a pilot.

And I don't. Eagle dynamics did. And they wrote their decision down. And now some guys come to the concert and want different music.

No. Not in DCS. Cause that's not what DCS want's to be. To say it should sacrifice a bit of what it wants to be for better accessibility is going to a concert for classical music and ask the piano guy for some hard rock. In the end, everyone knows what DCS is and what it wants to be. And if this doesn't fit for someone, than: Sorry, but not all has to change for you.

What you criticize is the reason why I am here. A few times you are talking about fun, and you do it as a opposite of the current approach of DCS. And that's a thing I've seen many times before. The main question is: What IS fun for you? For me? For other ones? It is not an either/or. What you describe is the source of what I consider fun in DCS. Everyone knows a simulation will always lack some things. But we don't take them as an excuse. We take them as a challenge. And many succeeded

Yeah, I see the "problem" that a lot of players wont really use this option. But I hope the implementation wont cost that much in ressources, so that ED could think about adding it for the "NATOPS-enjoyers"^^

Hello, me again! Another idea that could be cool for the SuperCarrier. The possibility to add launch and recovery cycles. In real there are 30 minutes cycles for both as far as I know. And I think it would be nice if there's an option in Mission Editor to activate those cycles and adjust the time for them between, for example, 5 and 45 Minutes. So everyone can decide if these cycles are wanted and how long they will last.

Where is this said or written?

And we should be aware of how hard we are in our words. Everytime when we hear about months of crunch in a studio we are so angry. We are so mad about the studio who's acting that way, just burning people for hitting a timeframe. A week later we are totally mad our shiny new toy will delay. And no, I don't want to deligitimze every form of critic. Just a reminder to think about your critic, and the ways you talk about. On the other hand ED could think about the way they talk about their modules, about the progress. The best example is the Apache. The status-video was supreme communication! As a customer I felt well informed about the state of the product and the reasons for the delay. Sure, such a video can't be made every week for every little detail. But maybe the basic idea of showing some more could help.

Like they wont come because of this. ^^

Before I show you my dream, there has to be a disclaimer. I've heard that with 2.7 the 1500km x 1500km aren't a thing that much anymore, now it's more about the assets. I don't know if this is right, the first map wish (or, maybe more "dream" ) assumes that this is the case. And now: The South-China-Sea Map (or Vietnam, or Taiwan.) In a modern day version it would be perfect for Vietnam Settings and modern missions. You could get all the SuperCarrier people, the coming F4 Guys, the Forrestal Fans...many DCS-Players could see advantage in this map. But, that would be a huge map and I guess such areas wont be a thing in DCS until "whole world" is there. So, a smaller Version of it could still be very usefull for many DCS-Pilots.

But, what do you expect from us now? What do you think how we should behave? Sure, you can't just push a button and it's ready out of the box. No one have this button. The vast majority of us know that. But I'm really curious if ED think we should just sit there and wait in silence, no matter how long? I really mean this as a question, cause I have a feeling there is a big misunderstanding between the community and ED. We are curious, and if there is no further information all we can do is ask.

Hi Admiral, first to say, your work is outstandig. In quality and quantity. I've found this thread cause I was searching for a wider range of naval assets to use for Missions. In my case, civillian ones from the asia-pacific area. Fishing-boats, big trawlers, maybe light armed civilian ships for the chinese "naval militias" Could this be something you would like to add? Cheers,and thanks for your work!

It's your own thing if you wanna guess what Developers may be or be not allowed to make at any point in time or the future, Unless you can link any evidence of something being forbidden, than it's not forbidden. If you speculate,and that's what you do, don't blame others for doing same.

I see your point about sophisticated military tech,but I guess you would have said same about the Eurofighter before TrueGrit announced it.

In reality, the launches are pre-planned and the planes are prepared for, lifted up and lined up as fragged by this plan. Would be awesome if we could have a representation of this for the SuperCarrier. The Ability to plan loadouts, then put the plane into a launch queue, jump into, start-up and lining up in the queue. I know, could be difficult. But...maybe,someday?

*Handshake* ...if that would be the SuperHornet I really like my legacy Hornet, it's my main Module. A SuperHornet would be..."shut up and take my money!"

right. But if you have destroyed the platoon, you have made the company disrupted. Not destroyed. But disrupted. Ah. Didn't seen your edit. Could there be a cup of coffee for me,too?

And,if the handover has worked, you shouldn't be able. The Maverick is locked to your target now and follows. The question of efficiency is related to the question, what you mean with it. If you carry 4 Mavericks and all hit and destroy a tank, you have stopped a whole tank-company. Cause for a military unit is considered to be disruptet when it has reduced to 70% of its strength. One Hornet stopped a whole tank company. Pretty effective, I think.

There is something in the plane you can "damage" by pulling G's. It's your alignment. That's why after the alignment process has finished you should switch to IFA (In Flight alignment). In this mode the drifting will be corrected by GPS Data. But: That shouldn't affect your flight path marker too much. Are you aware of your speed? That behavior sounds like you are way to slow.

Da fallen mir vor allem zwei Maps ein. Baltikum: Von "süd-westlich Berlin" bis "Nord-östlich Sankt Petersburg". 1200km x 1200km. Etwa die Maße der Mariannen-Karte, auch wenn die dank massig Wasser natürlich einfacher zu bauen ist. Wäre sowohl für Cold-War Szenarien als auch für aktuelles gut zu gebrauchen. Stichwort Suwalki-Gap und Enklave Kaliningrad. Süd-chinesisches Meer: Von Taiwan im Nord-Osten bis zum Golf von Thailand im Süd-Westen. Ebenfalls riesig, aber ebenfalls enormes Potential für verschiedene Szenarien. Immerhin liegen mitten in diesem Gebiet auch die Spratly-Islands.