CaptJodan

Okay, after a few more tests.....seems to be working fine. Not sure what I was doing wrong there. Disregard.

That's what I thought as well. So let me ask you this. I've tried several scenarios. TOO Air start, C version: Hit. Works well. TOO Runway start on an airfield: Hit Works well. TOO Runway start on carrier: Miss. TOO Runway start on carrier with a GBU-31: Hit. Works well. Same procedure as far as I can tell for each of these. Can anyone confirm, or is it just me?

I'm having some difficulty as well. I'm sure it's operator error, but I've not yet determined what part I'm doing wrong. Target is located around Sochi. Follow Wags' video on using the C version. What seems to be happening is that the JSOW is going a few meters beyond the target. I noticed on the waypoint can only go down to about 98 feet. This makes me think the JSOW thinks the ground is at 98. tempMission.miz.trk

Thanks for the clear and honest update, Wags. Best of luck.

My first advice after a single aborted take-off? Lock that tailwheel! Pull back on that stick and plant it. Small wheel brake corrections (if necessary) and later rudder to correct.

Most anticipated aircraft for me. Bought.

I don't mean to speak for Buzz, but if I felt as he did, I wouldn't like all these people flying around having fun with a plane I really wanted and have to sit there and watch saying "Just wait till full release, just wait till full release..." I'd guess that's a good portion of why people complain about EA (and this isn't a dig against Buzz). They really just want a complete product, but they don't want to see half the product being played, wish they were playing it, but feel that business model is the wrong way to go so don't want to support it. Better everyone suffers with them. :) The only other reason I've seen is because it slows down or stops development on uncompleted modules when the team switches to a new one. Some teams have done that, and I get that frustration. But I have no evidence to suggest that that is happening with ED right now, as progress continues on the Hornet.

Ah, sorry about the misinformation. I thought I read that somewhere else. Thanks for clarification.

It was a typo on the Friday newsletter. Was supposed to say May 24, not 22.

I don't know enough about the history of the Viper and the different variants to know the full story behind those. I'd sure like to have them myself. If it's as realistic as the A-10's use of triple racks, I hope the community can convince them to put them in like they did on that module (that people argue isn't realistic, but we have it anyway). Either way, it can still be approached calmly. :)

And I think it's fine if you don't like the way they do things. But saying the community outrage will be solved if they just did things the way you wanted to, and dismiss everyone who might disagree with that as "whiners" isn't going to solve the underlying vitriol problem. I like EA. I like the trickle of features from the Hornet, as it allows me to understand and "master" (in so much as I am capable, which is not that much) a system before moving on to the next. The Hornet is a VERY complicated aircraft, and with some of the latest features coming out, I've been very happy to say "Well, I know how to start up, taxi, use the basic functions, having done it for 6 months. That means I can focus on this new content." Would I like progress to be faster? Sure I would. Be great if it was feature complete already, but it takes the time it takes. I'm just glad I can fly it and see the upgrades as they come out, rather than still being without a Hornet. It needs to be completed sometime in the near future, but progress is clearly being made. I don't know if the Hornet progress is drastically slowed because of the F-16. Only ED can answer that, though it's clear they are working on features of the F-16 already completed for the Hornet (exterior and interior modeling, systems we already have working for the Hornet (except maybe bugs), etc), so they may be different people. Phase 1 stuff seems mostly, if not completely is stuff we already see in the Hornet. Since you've been in development, you probably are aware of the fact that sometimes more people doesn't mean better progress, depending on the project.

That's cute. Then you'd have people complaining about the lack of any new content, the "when are we going to get the Hornet, M2000, Harrier, F-14 (there was plenty of complaints on that as it is), etc. The list is endless on modules that have not reached a completed state that would not be out to play now. And I get that that's fine with you. But that's probably not fine for others, and they would complain and vent and rant as much as those who hate EA. So really, simply changing things to the way you want would not change the tone of the community. And it's not like it was hidden knowledge before it was even announced that it was going to be an EA product, and it would be subject to change.

Oh how I wish it were. I always hoped that ED wouldn't come out with a pre-order or even announce when they were thinking of release until like a month or so before release, given the community's propensity to run a hype train right off the track and into the 9th circle of Hell. At least then it would be shorter.

I second this question.

Not sure if I remember saying things before now, but after some weeks of flying, I think it's a good time to get into it. I wholeheartedly appreciate all the work and dedication made for this module. I recently listened to the Alert 5 podcast that talked about the F-14 and heard Cobra's take on it all, and rest assured that you have a lot of happy people in community for all your hard work and dedication. That you think things can be pushed even further is hard to believe! Either way, I'm sure this project was a tough one to get through, but I know a lot of us really, really appreciate all the hard work in it. It's clearly the definitive F-14 simulation, and probably will be for so many years to come.

Yeah, I'll echo the sentiment that it's only day 2. There are people out there who somehow magically know how to do it all first day, but not everyone does. But also, trim trim trim. I'm thinking of having to put the trim on a different controller than I normally do because this this is such a trim-happy plane. Any touch of the throttle? Trim. And I'm not going to say you're hallucinating. Sometimes I wonder why the plane is doing what it's doing with the slightest touch. But I know that's probably me. This is probably THE most full fidelity, non-fly-by-wire aircraft in DCS. It's a new bar, and we'll all have to take time to adjust to it.

Your words of wisdom will be appreciated. I've already made a mental note several times when flying "Hey, Victory was right about this". "There's what he was talking about". Really brings things into focus.

"Take that boat! Three wire!" First one I laughed out loud at. Though with some of these in this thread, I can see I'll be chuckling some more later down the line.

I didn't record my first attempt, so only a description. Took off on my first flight fully planning not to go to the boat, as I knew I wasn't ready. That lasted all of 5 minutes. Did not even try for a pattern, and ended up, I think, on the worst approach that has ever been seen in or out of a sim. No knowledge of the DLC, no idea where the E bracket was supposed to go compared to the hornet, excessive wing-rock, terrible speed management, massive altitude changes. Yet somehow, I managed to catch a wire on my first go (2 wire). However Jester did comment that I probably bounced the LSO overboard with that one. Still having some good and some terrible landings since then, but I haven't hit the back of the carrier yet or even boltered. If you're even remotely in the ballpark of where you're supposed to be, the Tomcat seems easier to catch a wire than the Hornet is somehow.

Seems to have lived up to the hype, and certainly has set yet another bar. Heatblur probably knew they had something special on their hands, but they must be very glad that overall, the community is very pleased with the quality they've put out. They certainly had an almost possible task of trying to meet expectations on such an iconic bird. So definitely take that bow.

Florida. Did you try to force an update?

Yay! Finally get to lock up my pitchfork, unused!!

Thanks for the update. I sense a possible maybe hint that it might be here before March 20th. But I will still hold to that until the date drops to avoid over-hype. Come on, ED, approve it already. :)

You have my word on that. (I see the former being less likely than the latter, and the latter being not too likely given the hints).

With respect, I hate sentiments like this. I'm a supporter of EA releases, and know things will take time. I know complex software development is never 100% perfect upon release, and fixes and additions need to be made. And I'm a supporter of a developer dictating when their product is released based upon the milestones they feel they need to hit. But this blank check attitude some people have about releases baffles me. We might as well say to the devs "sure, give us another year's wait, or two, or 6. Just want it to be perfect". I know there are people out there who want the software released without any bugs and missing features. "take all the time you need, no matter how long it takes" is not a mantra I would ever adopt. Some people had the same attitude about the P-40. And while I'd NEVER compare HB to VEAO, I'm simply not interested in companies being given this kind of blank check to get money, then "take as long as you want" to even release the product. And by the way, no matter how long it takes, it'll probably still have bugs. It's the nature of complex software development, especially DCS since DCS is always changing, and therefore is a moving target. I think it's reasonable to hold HB to the dates set. I would not be okay with it being a week late, because Cobra used words like "promise" and "you can hold us to it". He put his word behind March 20th at the latest, and I intend to keep him at his word. That's not being a hard-ass or internet asshole, that's me assuming that HB looked at what they had left, factored how much work they had left, factored an ample bit of extra time in case they ran into problems that they could use to clean things up, and said "we can deliver on this date, even with a worst-case-scenario situation". But that level of communication also puts responsibility on my end. I can hope that the release comes sooner, but I should not demand, be upset, or whine about the F-14 not being delivered before the 20th. HB shouldn't be badgered into releasing before the promised date unless they feel it's ready to be released early. Personally, I'm reasonably confident that HB will deliver by the promised date. I don't think I'll have to get my pitchfork bloody. I sure as hell don't think people should be bloodying theirs right now. The wait has been very frustrating, but HB has said what few devs in DCS have said, which is "We will release on this date, we promise". I appreciate that level of communication, that we as a community effectively have a "do not pass" date already in hand. I'd like to keep that, and not have a "release whenever" attitude prevail. I have to agree with your original point. I'm tired of hearing "soon". Now it's "soon we will tell you how soon soon may be". We, as a community, should know that they are working hard to get this out as quickly as they can. If it takes them going completely radio silent until the 20th to make sure it gets out, I'm fine with that. I know they're working on it. The next thing we hear really should just be the actual official date. Or, you know, just suddenly release it. That works too. (kidding, mostly)