CaptJodan

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).

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.

You'll probably need something for T0 too. I felt like I didn't need T0 myself, and found out quickly when using mavs that when it auto-locked on targets I didn't want to shoot at, it wouldn't come off them.

Spent several hours last night practicing visual landings and takeoffs with different loadouts/weights. I feel pretty competent on those.....on a runway. I did a single quasi-successful landing on a road (only got stuck in the weeds at the end off the road). Tried out *most* of the weapon systems, but have mastered or are even competent in none of them. Tried out the navigation system and succeeded but I still wouldn't plan a trip with me without expecting to get lost.

Thanks for the known issue list. I'm a twist stick user so really glad to know about that one (and how to address it) if it hits.

I liked this video. I especially liked some of the performance tests you ran through. That drag race was fun and surprising to watch.

I'm going to reiterate this because it seems to be lost in the shuffle. Though I think I can only speak for myself, I think there's many on this side of things that probably feel similarly. I am disappointed. I am not raging. I'm not saying "down with Leatherneck". As others have pointed out, this isn't even their fault, and they DID warn us earlier than most might. And I appreciate Cobra's honesty. I do not think less of Leatherneck for this development. So charges like "people just want to find something to complain about" are misplaced. Blanket statements. Other people's mileage may very. I'm going to miss out on playing with the Viggen in MP, showing it off to a few of my friends who fly, but didn't buy the Viggen and don't want it. (was looking forward to showing them what they were missing, maybe convincing them otherwise). They won't update to DCSBeta. Why should they? They didn't buy the module and they don't want another different install or to go through switching back and forth, even if it's easy. They like the stable release. Sure, you can blame them for their stubbornness, but I wouldn't. There's simply no reason for them to disrupt their current stable installs. So for an as-of-yet unknown period of time, I won't be able to fly with them, and if I do wish to, I will have to bounce back and forth between installs (and one without the Viggen!). This, to me, is worthy of disappointment. There are a couple other reasons of lesser importance that make me disappointed. My mods were not installed with JSME so it could well break something going back and forth. Again, a minor issue, but a concern nonetheless. None of what I personally has said has been anything but respectful. People have various reasons for their feelings that may not be chalked up to "you're lazy" or "some people just want to complain". Truth is, I'll probably do the open beta because I want to learn and fly the Viggen on release. Leatherneck is delivering their product at the time they said they'd deliver it. That doesn't always happen, so I'm definitely happy about that. But I can still voice my disappointment on this issue. Especially when it seemed like it was going to be released on the stable version, and had a real shot at a release on 2.0 (though, again, not promised by anyone, so perfectly fine that they didn't get to put it in 2.0). None of this is the end of the world. But it does have an effect, and it does come as a surprise for some. "Everything is subject to change" does happen, but it doesn't mean I can't be disappointed by the effects of that. I'd also like to thank Cobra for saying "we're listening" and that they were thinking about options. Even if it still comes out on 1.5.6 open beta, just knowing they heard us and put thought into it....and wasn't dismissive, goes a long way. So thanks, Cobra!