NeilWillis

For your information captflyby, Eagle Dynamics and Belsimtek are the developers of the F/A-18C, and an entirely independent group called Heatblur are producing the F-14 under license. The teams operate entirely separately, with their own staff and resources. So, the answer to your question is no, the F/A-18C will continue to be developed, without being affected by Heatblur's project. The only crossover is when the F-14 is handed to Eagle Dynamics for final testing before being distributed through Eagle Dynamics update system.

The alleged bug doesn't affect landing. It is an issue regarding take off without the correct flap setting. There are no issues at all with landing.

Knowing that Oculus has decided not to continue to develop a 2nd generation headset, I would be very reluctant to throw more money at them. I feel buying their system was a waste of time and money after the recent announcement.

VHS and Betamax all over again! Trust me to have bought the wrong one.

The velocity marker moves, but that doesn't affect AOA, and therefore pitch. What you are seeing is the rate of climb/descent changing the position of the indicator in relation to the longitudinal axis. It isn't an indicator of pitch.

"If I don't use the correct procedures, things go wrong!" Simple solution - take off using the correct configuration. Why is it even an issue? Personally, I'd far sooner the devs ignored an aspect of the flight model that is fundamentally irrelevant. Just bear in mind the fact that there are other far more relevant things being worked on right now, and even if there weren't, there is a switch that overcomes the problem very simply!

One thing I have done is to place the sounds files and the Lua in the root directory of my c drive, so the missions I create can be used by anyone without having to re-save the sound files in every mission to match their saved games directory. That way, anyone can use my missions simply by downloading your stuff plus any mission, placing the folder and Lua in their root directory, and saving the mission files to their usual location. Makes setting it all up much simpler. Thanks for all your hard work, this is truly a game changer with the Hornet and CVN. Thanks also for allowing us to use it as freely as you have. Great addition to the game.

It may possibly be that the carrier has passed a waypoint and reset the advanced waypoint options? I read it does the same with TACAN according to a post I saw on the forum. Might be worth trying to add the line again on every waypoint as a temporary fix? I may be talking out of the incorrect orifice, but it's worth a try I think.

But the 2080 will last a lot longer. Value for money isn't always the same thing as cost.

It is amazing how misinformed some people can be! Without naming names, the only reason you cannot remove the chocks when required is if the aircraft isn't correctly configured. In other words, after your four finger check, retract everything again! You don't remove the chocks until you need to move the aircraft, and you don't talk to the ground crew via the ATC frequency. The ground crew don't require you to get taxi clearance first. As for jiggling the radios a bit and hollering - just how do you holler in DCS World, I missed that bit in the quick start manual! Come on guys, get your facts straight!

I don't think that is what is happening at all. What he said was they couldn't implement Case 2 or 3 without comms. That isn't the same thing as saying comms for Case 1 are about to be implemented in the next update. Case 1 can be carried out in radio silence, so the training mission isn't reliant on radio calls - whereas 2 and 3 definitely need them. Nice try though!

Well, technically - VIFF means vector in forward flight, but you can fly backwards in a Harrier, and you vector the thrust in order to do so. So I guess it was just an incorrectly spelt VIF. The key was that he did explain viffing backwards, so it should have been pretty apparent.

Are you running the program as an administrator? If not, it won't save the settings.

The whole point we are making is that the developers are definitely not charging high prices for their products. What else can you buy that has the long-term viability of a DCS World module? Buy a car, and it instantly loses up to a third of its value and lasts around 10-15 years while incurring huge costs to keep it both roadworthy, and fuel to keep it going. Buy a pint of beer and it will last a very short time before its all gone. Go on vacation and you spend a large sum of money over a very short timeframe and have just pictures and burnt skin to show for it. Buy a book, and it is read in a few days. Buy the F-14 and you'll be able to fly the equivalent of the moon and back and still have a pristine, infinitely entertaining and dynamic world to entertain yourself in. And yet at the price, it far outdoes any of the other examples don't you agree? Another point that the majority of people have overlooked is that the cost only applies at this particular point in its lifespan. It will cost another 10 dollars when it is released, but it will be reduced to as little as half that cost in the foreseeable future. To all those out there who are reliant on low incomes, you only have to wait a little longer in the great scheme of things in order to enjoy the F-14. How is that so unfair given that those who pay the premium price are funding your future enjoyment? OK, you may wait longer, but I will also have to wait a while before I can save enough for a Ferrari. And that, you must agree is totally unfair! :music_whistling: The only alternative is to discuss politics, and as we cannot, I will not expound the virtues of the communist state! :megalol:

The whole point of this post was to discuss where we feel the right value of the F-14 falls. No one was taking offence. SS cheque or no SS cheque, commerce is a heartless and cruel mistress if you can't afford expensive toys.

The others we're thinking of are the developers, who don't want to join you and make the queue longer, and whom we'd all like to have the resources for their next project and take on even more hardworking staff. Much as we sympathise with your plight, it has no bearing on market forces and the worth of a product.

Ahhh I get it now - this is the Spanish Inquisition isn't it! :music_whistling: :music_whistling: What are your main weapons?

There are at least 6 other people who have bought DCS World products. How's that? Just a ballpark figure of course, but if it keeps you happy, I can publish weekly updates regarding the very widely estimated sales figures. Happy now? :music_whistling: :music_whistling: :music_whistling:

Yeah, unbelievable price! Far far too cheap for all the work put in, and pleasure I'll get out of this amazing lump of software. How do you guys manage to push it out of the door for so little!

It's easy enough to turn off the map when you need to read the data. I hear that real-world Hornet jocks turn it off most of the time too. Probably for exactly the same reason. No matter what you try to do to make it clearer, as long as the colours of the map match, or obfuscate the text, you will not be able to read the HSI. It can be worked around, so there isn't really a problem unless you want there to be one.

I guess the title of the thread could easily wind up some folks, it's the nature of the game. I for one would always try to be a little more circumspect, and not jump in feet first. I guess what it all comes down to is what you feel defines a realistic flight model. Is it close? Probably. Could it get closer - possibly? It all boils down to a few fundamental factors. How much does anyone know about real-world behavior? How much time and resources can be put into getting it closer? Can one aspect of the flight model be enhanced without destroying another? The bottom line will always be that this is a bunch of ones and zeros trying to replicate what happens to the prototype AV-8B. Razbam are definitely in the game to make things as realistic as humanly possible given their available resources. Fundamentally though, what you have is the best currently available, so it can't be all bad. The key is not to convince yourself it is wrong, but to fly what you have to the best of your abilities until something better comes along.

Failed miserably. Isn't it a shame when no one bites!

The only method currently is to modify the skin files. A search will throw up all the info you need on how to do that. It would be possible to make them dynamic graphic elements in a similar way to the bort number system, but I wouldn't expect any movement on such a feature from ED. In reality, of course, aircraft do have names on the sides, but the pilot takes pot luck as to which of the squadron's aircraft he flies, so although names are used, they are not personal rides.

Wouldn't combat bridging be a far better solution? Add a Bailey bridge, and vehicle launched bridging systems perhaps, along with other combat engineering support. Repairing any kind of civil engineering structure within the timeframe of combat is very unrealistic - repairs can take weeks or months, and unless you're involved with a seriously involved campaign, there is no chance of putting bombed out or reserve demolition removed bridges etc back into use.