CaptJodan

Wags is too fast for me. Was gonna post pictures and everything, and he's already got it. :thumbup:

Fly her and find her limits in the air. Maneuvers, stalls, see if I can get it into a spin, probably waste millions of dollars in aircraft. After a couple of (hopefully successful) landings on a normal runway, go to the boat and rinse and repeat carrier landings.

Not speaking for anyone else, just myself here, but I wanted to add my two cents. I'm extremely happy that ED allowed EA for those who wanted it. Part of the joy of these aircraft for me aren't just in the weapon's and capabilities department, but the differences in flight. So I get a great deal out of simply flying the aircraft, testing its limits, practicing formation, AAR, landings, etc. There's plenty of content already here for me to keep me busy (especially when I have to relearn things bouncing between modules). Given all the hype and desire for something groundbreaking and new from ED before the Hornet's release, the thought of waiting 2-4 more years for it's "near complete" release would have been more than a little painful. The slow pace of development is slower than I expected, (and wished of course, we all want it all instantly). I can see how some might have thought development was further along and thought it was more a matter of getting most of these major systems across the finishing line. We saw screens long before the Hornet's release of examples of the radar, so the impression to some may have been that it, along with other systems, were farther. So I get that. But overall, I feel like Wags and ED have been pretty clear on what this was, and that unexpected delays could/would happen. But it hasn't dampened my enjoyment of the Hornet or made me think about refunding. I'm not even upset at ED about that. It may have been better communicated that these systems could still take considerable time, but it's a minor issue for me. I'm happy that every few weeks, a new feature for the Hornet appears and I get to run test it to see what it's all about, rather than still being in the dark about what it's like to fly a Hornet. I certainly don't feel ED operates on a certain space game alpha's level of "tactics". I don't feel there was a deliberate intention to try to deceive, and I have more faith that ED knows it has all it needs to get to the finish line. For the future, I strongly hope this experience doesn't sour them on making an EA release for the Viper down the road. There are many of out there who are thrilled to be playing with the Hornet at this stage of development, and who understand what an EA release means.

Thanks for the details Yo-Yo. I think that answered most of my questions (not issues, just questions) about some of the aircraft's interesting flight dynamics. You've definitely modeled some of those effects well as I've spent a good portion of the day checking her out, and I experienced most of them. Glad to have a more realistic portrayal of the aircraft, both the exceedingly good performance, and the surprises the aircraft has.

The aircraft also has a nasty tendency to bounce when the nose gear touches if not on speed. Not sure if that's intentional or not. But I would second the fact that it seems very sensitive, especially in pitch. Doesn't take much power at all to start rolling on the taxiway though. She has power. And Hornets will have something to fear in a knife fight.

I've been able to wait pretty patiently for this module for some time, but lately despite everything it's been harder and harder to be patient. Slipping dates and all that always cause some frustration. But I know whatever the wait (unless I'm dead by then) it'll be worth it. HB always strives for the highest quality, setting the gold standard to an almost fanatical degree (seriously, ever rivet? Was this necessary? Is my graphics card going to be able to handle this plane?). The frustration of the wait is almost intolerable now, but I just keep reminding myself it's gonna be worth it. And I'm happy to see we got another update as I've been looking for one lately. And now a date where something happens! Oh I'll be here on October 7th. Be sure.

Just want to add my voice to those looking forward to this module, whenever it appears. Another one not to have disappear.

Would be a purchase for me. I'm sure there are other aircraft that could do the role as well or better, but I've always liked the aircraft. Some devs like ED like to put out simpler modules to compliment their more advanced modules (need funds), and this is a good choice in my view.

Thanks for your hard work in addressing the issue and trying to get the fix out as soon as possible. Appreciate the effort!

I can confirm this bug still seems to be affecting me today after the latest patch.

Just want to say that I really appreciate Ralfi and HB taking the time to answer some questions and give us some more small tastes of what is to come and a behind the scenes look at the process. The elements you are developing sound simply amazing. I can't wait for the F-14, and the next project you decide to tackle. You guys really do set the bar for quality work.

While I don't fly reds that much, I'm glad another red aircraft is being brought in with full fidelity, especially for redfor fans. I'll be picking this one up. :thumbup:

Removing the option for players makes no sense, as in multiplayer servers, you're going to have some who want them on, some who want them off. Aerobatic servers are a good example of this. Putting pylons back on (say, to carry external fuel, or smokewinders (if that happens)) is not more ludicrous than repairing an aircraft with two wings sheered off and two smoking, on fire engines in 170 seconds. Which is all beside the point. The point is this feature isn't yet fully working as intended, even offline. As I said, if you have pylons off and go to refuel in mission, the game will put them back on for you, even if you ask for them not to be. If you object to them being taken off during a mission, then this should be equally egregious for you. So this is still a bug that will likely be fixed in a later patch.

I think what he means is when you use the rearm window, you can't remove them. Tested this in single player. If you initially had the pylons off the plane but go to refuel/rearm on the ground in mission, they will put them back on. You can select to tell them to be removed, but they will not be removed from what I can tell.

Thanks for moving the topic.

Not sure if this has been reported yet but..... I'd like to report that I've had two instances of exploding randomly on the Stennis after successfully landing on the aerobatic server. Typically it occurs after landing and while taxing on the deck. The first instance occurred forward of the bridge near the elevator on the starboard side. The second at the rear starboard elevator. Both times I was nowhere near any obstacles. No other aircraft were landing or taking off at the time (though there were F-18s on the deck). Be interesting if anyone else has experienced this. This was on the online servers, I haven't tested in single player yet.

Blast. Wouldn't you know the 3 days I'm out of town orienting for my new job, and that's the day they decide to drop it. ED....a 3 day window to avoid, and you hit it smack in the middle! How could you? Well, at least there's the PG map. And the Hornet is gonna get better later. But it's gonna be 2 loooong, insufferable days of orientation.

Cobra does such a good job of putting a human face behind game development. I have been continually blown away by Heatblur's work and passion for the products they work on. There's no danger in me jumping ship because of a slipped release date. The F-14 is much anticipated (as is the F-18 and Harrier) by me, but this 3rd party developer has, through it's previous products, earned my trust. When they say they're bringing a new revolutionary experience, I believe them. Each of their previous modules have been, after all. I'm also glad they're getting a Christmas/Holiday break for a change. :thumbup: Still exciting news and a nice update.

I'm not very familiar with the problems with the Mig-21 so I can't speak to that. I own the module but do not fly it terribly often. If those issues aren't being addressed, I can understand why people would be upset. But I'm in support of almost any module that brings full fidelity and a new flight experience to DCS. I understand a lot of people get hung up on the C in that name, but I'm just not one of them. I would actually be thrilled if some additional third parties came in and wanted to do civilian aircraft, and I don't understand the harm of it (note, additional third parties We do still need most of our current ones to keep working on military aircraft). If such aircraft aren't interesting to some, those people won't buy it. At the very least, the AI versions of those aircraft can still be used as targets or for mission making (there's certainly not enough AI civilian aircraft for mission making present yet). No one is forcing anyone to purchase what is produced, and no one is planning to take the C out of DCS. Count me among those who would be happy to have a Cessna, Cub, 737, or other aircraft in the sim *while* combat aircraft continue to be developed. The simple truth is that while people always say "if you want to do civilian, go to X simulation", there's sadly no better simulation engine out there right now than DCS. DCS provides developers the possibility to model any aircraft to a higher standard of fidelity than any other simulator out there. For my money, going back to those other simulators feels "gamey" and on rails. Can the community really be so surprised when GA enthusiasts look at DCS and think "I wish my aircraft could be modeled like that"? How about those who want to try an create missions where a 172 tries to run contraband past a patrol of F-5s in a high-density civilian traffic area? I certainly don't blame or begrudge anyone who says "that's not a module for me, so it's not one I'll buy". Makes perfect sense to me. I just don't understand those who feel the need to demand only their type of flight deserves to be included in the sim platform. I would never have guessed the Christen Eagle II, but I can see some players enjoying the experience. There are dedicated acrobatic teams in DCS who would find this module great. The aircraft fills a niche that no other aircraft can really fill (L-39s can be aerobatic, but can't do what this aircraft can). I look forward to seeing more on this, and I support Dolphin's efforts to expand DCS into new areas (while not forgetting the C).

Clearer image of the second image. (The first I just wanted to prove I was attached to the tanker). Incidentally, this was with a loadout of 14 GBU-12. Yes, an unrealistic loadout, but fun to try. Not sure if that would matter, however.

Tried to search the forums for this issue, and this is the closest I could find. Apologies if it's been brought up already. When refueling via tanker, it seems the twin tanks get reset to 0 fuel. The first included image shows my fuel status before tanking. The second shows my fuel state during tanking. Once you first connect, the counters set to 0. Total fuel count stays accurate, but the two tanks go to 0. This has a side effect of not being able to dump fuel, as each time I attempt to dump fuel after transfer, the buttons no longer function.

Yeah. It isn't the VTOL that's killin me, it's the tanking. If you're mindful and careful and paying attention, VTOL is very possible (if a bit sloppy on my end, but haven't crashed). Tanking though? Got too used to birds that aid you like the M-2000 and the Su-33. This one requires stick movement and counter stick movement. Plus the invisible probe (gotta break out my TrackIR). That's gonna take some hours to master for me.

Thanks Maverick. I'll be using those pointers you highlighted when I make my first attempts. I can definitely see why having the probe so far back would make this a more challenging experience.

+1 I also agree that going back to FSX, P3D, or X-Plane doesn't cut it compared to DCS. I have all three, keep going back because I want to fly some GA occasionally, and find the experience lacking. I wouldn't necessarily say that Heatblur or any of the other 3rd party devs should work on these aircraft (unless they want to, of course). They have their lists of military aircraft they want to do, and I say more power to them. What you need is a third party developer that from the beginning says they're not interested producing military aircraft. Or someone who wants to go out making GA aircraft that were converted for limited combat use. That way no one can accuse them of slowing down production on more military based aircraft. I'm a sucker for almost all aircraft, so there's rarely a bad AC to be included in the sim if it's well modeled. I'm really looking forward to the A-29, so it's natural that I'd love a 172 or Caravan, unarmed or armed.

Looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger cira True Lies piloting that thing! :lol: Thanks for sharing. Like seeing the progress.