primus_TR

Glad to hear The fix wasn't mentioned in the notes, hence my post. Will give it a try.

Correct me if I'm wrong but based on the update notes, the fix you mentioned didn't make it into today's update Any timeline on when we can expect a fix?

lol Side or not side, it is unable to reliably track anything. I'm sure 'skill' may be also an issue, but the agm45 is perhaps the crappiest weapon in whole of DCS.

Yes. After the last update, taxiing has been marginally improved but remains problematic. It should spin readily with differential breaking and a very small amount of power. Currently, you need nearly full throttle for making a 180 turn when stationary.

A naval F4 from HeatBlur would be amazing.

I use the boresight/cage mode to lock a visual contact, which gives the most reliable lock for a sparrow shot. Locking and maintaining lock in search mode is unreliable. It's also great that I can IFF a locked contact to make sure I'm not shooting at a friendly. Aim7Fs work nicely both up close and at range. Flood method also works great if you have selected the correct aspect/speed gate and are within 10 nm of a hot target.

Why does the aircraft pitch up when I retract the flaps? My experience is limited to small Cessnas and flight sims, but normally retracting flaps causes loss of lift and the aircraft sinks as a result. Is this a peculiarity of the Corsair?

I have noticed that the AGM45 has a new setting in the seeker head settings screen: WP Marker Charge, where you can choose Installed or Not Installed. Does anyone know what this setting does?

For me, the bug has been resolved after this update.

Great to hear! Thank you!

The nav signals are all over the place. When I am north of the carrier, it broadcasts S, instead of an R. Half the time, the signal is accurate; in some cases, it gives you the opposite direction. They really need to look at this issue, as radio navigation over the ocean (without F10 gps) is a key attraction of this module. At this time, it is completely unusable.

I did more tests with the F4U and the F14, and based on my observations, I can confirm that a carrier trap will not cause a crash, only if an inbound contact has been made beforehand (as so previously reported by @Scotch75 and others).

I wouldn't touch any thing from Razbum with a 10 foot stick. They're done, but they lack the faculties to realize that lol

With the Corsair, I had had landing clearance (the stock instant action carrier landing scenario); with the F14, I always contact the carrier for landing clearance. But strangely enough, last night I tried an ACL approach and this time DCS did not crash. So, this is one weird bug for sure.

Since the last patch, F4U and F14 both cause a DCS crash when the hook grabs the wire.

Landing the F14 and F4U both causes a DCS crash for me, at the moment the hook grabs the wire. Touch and Gos are ok, but hook, no go. It looks like there is a major fukup with all carriers after the last patch. ED acknowledged the problem, and hopefully the next patch will address it.

Well, silly me. The reason it was empty was because the mission type was 'dogfight.' I selected a different mission type and all is good now. Leaving this here in case someone else needs this information.

When I try to change the loadout of own flight or the opposing flight, the loadout dropdown is empty, forcing me to arm each pylon one by one. Is this intended or am I doing something wrong?

Great to hear! Looking forward to trying it.

EWR calls are most of the time outdated and inaccurate, so seeing their location on the radar display would make a big difference.

Another problem is that most co-era adversaries of the F4 in DCS (e.g. Mirage F1, Mig 21 etc) have 'imaginative' radar modeling and capabilities, and that puts the F4, which realistically simulates a pulse radar, at a great disadvantage and voids the benefit of its relative BVR superiority. Of course, I can't imagine a practical solution to this problem other than ED setting ground rules for at least FF modules somehow, but even that could be a practice in futility. So, best to stay away from multiplayer with the F4, at least until other modules come closer to reality in their systems modeling.

Because ED abandoned maintaining it long time ago and left it lingering in a dysfunctional state. In its core, it was a very powerful and flexible tool, allowing creating missions of variable complexity by a few clicks using dropdown menus. It was great when it was working. Thankfully, we have extremely talented individuals in the community who have developed great tools and mission generators for FREE, like Through the Inferno (a great sandbox), Retribution (which can produce an entire area of operations a la Falcon 4.0), Briefing Room (basically, what the QAG should be) and many others, which are making up for the single major weakness of DCS.

Dynamic Campaign is not on the horizon yet (based on what little information has been released by ED about it), so if we have to wait for DC release for the QAG to offer some degree of randomization/dynamic elements, that is a bummer. The templates that the original Quick Mission Generator had was a brilliant idea. It provided great flexibility and randomization. Too bad, its development stopped many years ago. I remember the old days when it was relatively functional; I'd used it a lot. And honestly, I wish ED'd chosen to fix the Quick Mission Generator rather than axing it and replacing it with QAG.

The QAG needs randomization options. At this point, it is a large step-back from even the former Quick Mission Generator. The QAG, at this time, is simply the Mission Editor with 99% culled functionality. It does not provide any 'practicality' to the user, if the goal is to enable players to generate quick, fun missions. I understand that this is the first iteration of what is to come, but it is really not adding any value for the player at this time.

I could not find a specific place to report QAG bugs, so here goes: Cannot select F4E in any era (Coldwar I, II or Modern). Neither available as player or AI.