Stearmandriver

Not only nice for us all to be able to try out new releases, but this will absolutely encourage more people to try DCS in the first place, which means a larger playerbase, and that should benefit us all too.

Absolutely seeing this as well, with ACM modes. Just posted about it in another thread before seeing this; oops. But yeah, this one isn't hard to verify for ED. Just get in a turning fight with a bandit and try the ACM modes. Good luck.

Yep I've been told by former hornet drivers that MSI HAFUs should be on the AZ/EL page, but didn't realize that it was in ED's own documentation. That's funny. Oh well, thanks!

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure we don't currently even have VS mode modeled? And I thought there were suggestions we weren't going to get it either... wasn't it removed from the roadmap or something?

For sure! And, uh... any word on when Day 1 arrives?

This may actually be more realistic than before. Everyone I've ever talked to who's had to ditch an aircraft in the open ocean talks about the difficulty / impossibility of judging height above water for the flare; it's why many manufacturers' ditching checklists contain guidance to only flare slightly before touchdown. They're trying to avoid a full stall / drop in touchdown from a higher-than-realized height. There have been many accidents resulting from tactical aircrews' inability to accurately judge height above water. In one famous incident, a crew "skipped" an A-6 off the water and returned to base (this aircraft was plagued with mechanical issues for the rest of its days and ultimately became the subject of Peter Hunt's "The Lost Intruder" following an ejection west of Whidbey). Point is, yeah it's annoying from a game perspective, but real-world occurrences seem to indicate we shouldn't be able to easily visually judge height above water from very low level.

To illustrate reflections, here's one of those terrible muddy ponds.. This is a weird discussion. The ocean can be most any color, again dependent on water clarity, depth, bottom composition, and lighting/reflections. I mean, come do a wreck dive in Puget Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca with me and see how blue it is. (Spoiler - it's very not blue.) About the only appearance the middle of the Persian Gulf shouldn't be able to have is the cartoony tropical look it had before... that requires clear water and a shallow, coral-sand bottom.

There ya go... you can see how much darker the water is than, say, Bora Bora... which is closer to what we had before: https://www.google.com/search?q=bora+bora+water+appearance+aerial&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjfhvO-6OfwAhWtdzABHe8sDR0Q2-cCegQIABAB&oq=bora+bora+water+appearance+aerial&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQAzoECCMQJzoHCCMQsAIQJzoECB4QCjoECCEQClCHnwFYvsABYPrDAWgAcAB4AIAB9QGIAeETkgEGMC4xNi4ymAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=2n2uYN-xFK3vwbkP79m06AE&bih=630&biw=360&client=ms-android-verizon&prmd=inv Here's another aerial of the entire Gulf, for reference. Not exactly Hawaii...

I'm gonna guess you've seen a glass of water before. How blue was it? Water isn't really any color. What it is, is reflective and varying degrees of transparent. Thus, the color you see when looking at it is fully dependent on what it's reflecting, and to a lesser extent, how deep it is, how clear it is and what's at the bottom. That picture I posted IS sea water, for instance. I've seen a bit of it; I only live next to it, dive in it, and have spent a career flying over it . Is the current DCS water a little too dark in full sun, mid-afternoon on the Persian Gulf? Yeah, probably a little. Is it more realistic looking than the cartoonish tropical look we had in the Gulf pre-2.7? Yeah, a lot. That was ridiculous. The Gulf is not Fiji. Ask anyone who's been. (Please note that this does not mean you cannot find a photo on the internet of the Gulf looking blue; as stated above, any water can look almost any color depending on lighting. The question is whether that look would be the norm, especially to the uniform tropical extent we used to have.) What I definitely agree with is that the waves have been toned down too much. I'm in the habit of pumping the wind to at least 10-15kts on all my Liberation-generated missions, just to get some definition to the sea. I also find the water too clear; you can see the boat's screws and keel far too easily now. And as far as I'm concerned, they can make the water purple if they want as long as they give us a realistic wake lol.

I just don't understand why people keep insisting water can't look dark? Water can look like anything - dark or bright, blue or green or black etc... all depends on lighting.

Playing in 2D with Opentrack, and I get one big black square occasionally - as in, the entire screen goes black. Looking around fixes it.

No, my point about it being a game is that it's not reality; therefore, it does not exist in some immutable form that is by necessity the same for everyone. You have control over it, is what I'm saying. Honestly, if you think operating software bears much resemblance to flying an actual aircraft, you're in for a world of more disappointment than just where a pod is hanging ;). But it is fun of course; that's why we're all here. But you're not answering the question; I'm honestly curious: if you want there to not be a pod on the cheek, why would this require dev action? You, yourself, have 100% control over that, don't you?

This, uh... is a video game ;). So again, if you want your Hornet to not have a pod on the cheek, why can't you just not put a pod on the cheek? Why would this seem to require some response from the devs?

Sure. With some weapons / sensors / tech from earlier blocks, and some from later blocks, and mostly US tech, and some Spanish tech lol. That's what I'm saying... worrying about 1 pod mounting system with all the other mish-mash seems a little bit picky. If you're simulating a Hornet that can't carry a pod on the cheek in your particular mission, isn't it easy to just not put a pod on the cheek?

I believe that, and you're making my point. We don't HAVE a 2005 US Hornet. We don't have ANY particular Hornet. We have A Hornet lol.

Well, except for the fact that the Lightening pod ours is modeled after in the first place is Spanish, and other examples... Point is, our Hornet is a bit of a mishmash of tech from different eras and services. It's just a matter of where data could be found.

What about other countries though? US funding doesn't necessarily tell us what other operators were doing.

... does it strike anyone else that this is not in fact fixed? I'm still seeing incorrect EGIW critiques that are dropping my pass grade, unless I make the pre-touchdown power addition. Is anyone else seeing the same?

Sounds like how the ATTH mode has worked the whole time I've been using the DCS Hornet??

You're already using Bankler's Case 1 trainer which I think is the best... if you want traditional LSO grades, you might look into the Moose Airboss script as well, which contains its own LSO scoring system that does not get as picky with the eased gun and 3pts grades, and can keep a trap loogbook for you. It's a bit fiddly to set up, but works pretty well. I agree with you though, I'd really love to see this idiosyncracy in the Hornet fixed. It's a small thing in the great scheme and I think the flight model feels good otherwise (I've certainly never flown a Hornet, but it feels like a jet for the most part), but this pitch down just before landing is bizarre, and it unfortunately makes it difficult to fly carrier passes with somewhat realistic techniques and grading, which is frustrating for a naval aircraft. My bug report / question is here:

Well, the thing is, you didn't do anything wrong. The bug is that the DCS Hornet's nose drops sharply just before touchdown, for no reason. It should not do that, it's a bug in the flight model. So, yes, the LSO is correctly critiquing a 3pt landing; but the airplane itself is doing something it should not do. I asked about this a while back in the Hornet subforum, and Bignewy said he thought it was one of the things being looked at in the flight model review. The only way to somewhat prevent it is to make a significant power addition a second or so before touchdown. This is a way to trick the system; but it can obviously destabilize the pass and push you into a 4 wire. Frustrating, but that's what it is right now.

Without watching the trks yet, can I guess that these cut paases are accompanied by some flavor of EGIW, 3PTS, EGTL comments? If so, the short answer is that it's a bug that's existed with the Hornet since the Supercarrier released. Those critiques are normally given unless you cheat to avoid them by adding power before touchdown when you don't need it... and they'll push your pass grade into a Cut.

Have you tried the free community mod of the A-4E? I'm just now getting into it, and it is FANTASTIC. Absolutely payware quality. If you're a Vietnam - 80s naval air fan, I strongly recommend! I'm greatly looking forward to the Intruder, and contrary to an earlier comment, it definitely won't be a short-time fling for me. In a Liberation campaign with era-appropriate factions, it's gonna be great.

I agree with that and believe me I'd love to see it fixed for all aircraft. But I think there must be less of a size / geometry difference for the Skyhawk, because when I can (very occasionally) managed a stable pass with a centered ball, it results in a 3 wire and a decent grade.

I keep wanting to get the Tomcat, and then I keep reading about these bugs with the supercarrier and I decide I'll wait till they're fixed. I mean, based on these complaints the free A-4E now works more smoothly with the SC than the Tomcat, so I'll fly that for my 70s carrier aircraft fix for now...