CaptJodan

Shop is open for all. Purchased.

Out of curiosity, was this day? Night? Dusk/Dawn? Were you looking at a recently destroyed target that was burning?

Not a woman, but I'm in full support the idea of more voices/models/skins of various nations and voices when applicable (IE, when we can see the pilot's face/skin/contours).

Color me wrong about the action. Thanks Wags. I know it won't be popular, but I appreciate you looking into it and revisiting it.

I think we in large part agree here. The only caveat is where I draw the line, I suppose, and I imagine everyone draws their line a bit differently (including ED). We saw the picture of the 4 HARMs on a test jet. But that only proves you can fly with 4 HARMs strapped on. No idea if you can actually fire them off the jet. So my personal line in the sand would be if you could just stick 2 HARMs on the jet and go to war with minimal/no modification required, then I'm onboard. If the plumbing/software isn't there to support it, then no. You know, in this purely academic discussion.

I do think that either way this goes, it'll probably stay as is. Just as despite all the salt thrown around for the triple racks around here didn't change that they're including it, I don't think we'll see 4 HARMs for this edge case included. I'm sure it's more complicated than just adding two missiles. They'd have additional coding for how the system works. All for a edge case/never operationally used feature. ED made its decision, and I think they'll stick with it. I just hope moving forward there would be consistency in how this is applied, because it seems confusing to me on first glance.

The reason cited by BIGNEWY is: So the obvious questions are: Does the F-16 manual say the LAU-88s are a valid loadout? Does the A-10C manual say the LAU-88s are valid for the A-10C (are mavs on triple racks not also in danger of damaging the aircraft?) And so on for all these edge cases. Personally, I am a fan of the LAU-88 decision they made. I have the option. And I hope there will be options for mission givers to disable it. I'd be a fan of the 4 HARMs option as well IF the two stations we're talking about is capable/wired to fire them effectively. If the stations don't support them except to hang them off the jet, then that's game over. I think that'd be consistent with what ED has done in the past. I have no idea the definitive answer to that question with all the conflicting info out there.

Awesome work. Thanks for the work and the sharing. :thumbup:

This is where he lost me as well, though it wasn't the only red flag, it was the largest. To compare ED to CR and Star Citizen is laughable. Both come out with new patches that can tend to break things, but the breaks are far, far more severe in SC. SC has infinitely more resources than ED does as well, and I always get a chuckle when people complain about the high price for modules in DCS when they could be facing those SC prices for less actual systems and flight dynamics fidelity (as someone who backed more than any sane person should before finally stopping myself). He would have been on much more solid ground had he compared it to another flight sim that putters around in the WWII genre. As for his overall points...meh. He's decided he's going to go back to Stable and fly there, and he's not going to advertise for ED anymore. Fair enough. It's his platform. There are plenty of content creators who will continue to review copies they get, and SOME of which will still give honest impressions. If ED caves to the pressure given by the community and starts pulling back releases till they're near perfect (which would certainly slow down releases), I hope I can be slipped into the closed beta team. I understand why a lot of people don't like Stable intrinsically because it doesn't offer the latest and greatest kit, or because Stable isn't as stable as they want it to be, and would rather everyone be forced not to get new toys until its near-bug-free. But as long as ED doesn't become the true dumpster fire that SC is most of the time, I'm fine with being a part of OB, being annoyed at the bugs, but not the existence of OB itself. I accept OB for what it is and prefer to get that first look and occasionally throw a bug report up or support other reports. ED claims this helps them immensely, and I don't doubt their good faith on that.

I can confirm this bug. The Horizontal bar never seems to come up giving us a very deadly glide slope.

I could certainly understand the need for something like a Zero before the P-38 (to have some foes), but this aircraft should probably be near the top of the WWII development list. It would certainly round out the top 3 late war US land-based aircraft used during the conflict. A childhood favorite of mine, to be sure.

A longtime DCS flyer who has every module, I can say that the F-14 just doesn't stay long in the virtual hanger for me (thank goodness I don't have to sim flight maintenance costs). Almost a year on, and I still find HB's F-14 to be my favorite module. It's not just about the plane (though it probably has something to do with it), it's about the attention to detail and the "feel" that HB put into the module that makes it so great. I've always loved the F-16 as a favorite aircraft, but sadly it has to slip to second-ish place when up against the Cat. I still find moments of awe on what a good job was done on this module (especially when compared to some others). Plus learning things about an icon I never knew. Listen/"feel" the aircraft. I've been playing DCS for so long, but I was always terrible about pulling too hard in most other aircraft. The FBW birds let you do this all day long, and even some non-FBW birds don't give you too much grief over it. Enter the F-14, where over-pulling has major effects, both at high speed (wing snap) or even low speed (just losing control) and I finally started to get through my thick skull that you have to pay attention to AOA, pulling, airspeed, etc. The best part is, all that shaking is telling you something. The Cat as modeled is incredibly effective at giving you warning before a stall. Watch your AOA indicator and fly around seeing what about 15-17 degrees of AOA sounds/feels like (F-14 masters can give you the exact numbers). Listen to the sounds of shaking and how much shake, and you'll eventually learn where the plane is just warning you, and when it's screaming at you to stop being an idiot.

I've had crashes at various stages of flight, from just loading up a mission from the editor to the JF, to starting the plane, all the way to being in mission. Usually included with many air and ground units. I also crashed several times from the AO server where obviously no missiles are flying. As others have reported, sometimes I get a crash log to send to ED, other times nothing. The crashes were non-existent to very few in the first couple days of play, but got progressively worse as time went on until finally the JF crashed in 80% of the missions I ran on or offline. I did a repair and I have yet to experience another crash so far, but I've only had a limited amount of time testing (the mission in question had a lot of air and ground units of different types included, however, over 300 units of various types). Here's hoping a simple repair made it play nice.

Agreed. And I think we all would prefer equally realistic. I'd strongly prefer Deka not have to dumb down their missiles from realistic values to conform to ED's dumbed down missiles, but rather ED to step up and make their missiles as accurate as possible.

Yup, it's definitely an air-start vs ground start issue. I can confirm sideshow's results.

Having the same issue. Look forward to seeing who identifies what we're doing wrong. Followed Wags' video. Using the weapon without the pod.

I second this. While there are quite a few who feel disappointed in the current state of things, a not-inconsiderable group are enjoying the Viper now and know it only goes uphill from here. And yes, I am starting to learn things I want to know at this slow pace now. So I also stand by Wags' decision, and appreciate it.

I was curious about this stuff as well. I take it that simply caging the TGP to the front then uncaging and moving it to a target is not implemented yet, and that's why we're having trouble. You need those waypoints right now to be in the ballpark.

I hesitate to post first impressions as there's so many dynamic factors involved, especially with an EA product. In no way is the product finished, so it's hard sometimes to tell what is intended and what is not intended, especially in FM. I'm happy to have the EA access, though. I'm thrilled by how ED kept the actual release date hidden until they were sure they could hit it. They controlled the hype train well and avoided (as much as you can with the community) salt of a missed release date. And I lost less sleep being on the hype train by only obsessing about the F-16 for 2 days instead of 2 months of anticipation :thumbup:. The issues about the aircraft's performance I'm confused about. I'm not at all a great pilot, and even the AI can cause me to struggle quite a bit in many planes, but testing both with AI last night and with another pilot in the F-18, I found I could easily slot in behind him and stay there when maintaining 300+ to 450ish knots. When he slowed down, I went up over the top to keep speed. There's a lot of factors to this, so I might have just gotten lucky, but I've been surprised by people talking about how its under-performing, especially since I'm such a crap pilot. This isn't to say those observations are wrong. I don't know. They could well be right. I'm going to sit back and see how it all turns out by people more knowledgeable than I (SMEs and the like). There are quite a few things that feel weird or off, (roll rate or the stiffness of the controls in roll? Performance in full burner after dropping 12 Mk-82s?) but that could be how it is. But it's EA, so I expect some tweaks. Even the F-14 didn't come out of the box without tweaking the FM, and it was designed to be further along. There's clearly a lot to be done left on the Viper. There's lots of known bugs. There are questions ("is this really how it is?") that I have. But I want to avoid kneejerk reactions. I want to understand the plane as it is now and try and get as close to doing what I'm supposed to do in the cockpit. So my first impressions are: I'm thrilled to have it in my stable. I'm glad to have EA access. I look forward to the plane's continued development and learning more about it. I will have questions in the future, but for now I am happy to learn.

I don't know if ED or Wags will read this, but THIS is how you do it. I approve. Give us a general time frame when release might occur that you know you can hit between, keep mum on the actual day release until you know you can hit it, then wham....release date the week of. Gives you the time you need to hit the mark, avoids missed marks and an unnecessarily angry community. You controlled the hype train much better this time, I think. Now we can finally take the brakes off this sucker and go full steam all the way to October 3rd.

His answer to that question was paired with the video in mini-updates.

To be fair, he posted the relevant section where it literally said "we should be back with one next week." in the newsletter. I guess they decided to hold off that patch until the Viper because it's so close and want to work on the same branch to avoid introducing more bugs when it comes out. Still, it's a legit point.

Since I don't want just free reign by those who don't support EA, and potentially destroying the genre I enjoy, I second this. I've gained great enjoyment flying the Hornet even from the first day it was released and have enjoyed the incremental addition of systems as we've gone forward. I'd hate to imagine that we still wouldn't have the Hornet even now if it was "wait till it's completely done". I know I'll have plenty to do in the Viper learning best performance maneuvering, landings and takeoffs, generally most everything to do with flight before I absolutely need every system implemented. Maybe it's because I work with developers of software, but I also know how development of complex software that's constantly adding new features goes. I immensely respect Heatblur, but I remember the long wait for the Tomcat (and look, still not done). This is better for me. If waiting is better for you, more power to you. But I won't be taking any advice that tells me not to participate in EA.

Sorry to necro this, but has there been any movement on this issue? I've noticed it's still around. Track file included. Tald.trk

Anyone's whose seen the effectiveness of the Ticonderoga class firing its harpoons in game should not be surprised that these missiles aren't too effective. Harpoons seem too old to be effective in a modern day (or even slightly earlier day) battlefield. As for their explosive damage if they hit, Wags said that was being worked on. They know that isn't right yet.