M1Combat

It doesn't work this way though. The door moves too slow. I don't know if it moves at a realistic speed or not but when you taxi it has some level of airflow and "auto" closes the door a decent bit from full open. It sits there and maintains and indeed works just fine.... Until you get on the power :). The heat ramps up quite quickly and the door doesn't keep up. Makes much more sense to do it like the manual states. Open it, then put it in auto sometime after going full power. Or just before or whatever...

This is one of my favorite subjects in DCS. It's clear that many people don't understand the workings of IC engines and how manifold pressure works and/or is generated and how actual requested power vs. maximum power (potential) relates to throttle settings (which we don't have control of BTW...) and how that mixes with prop pitch. I'm not saying DCS gets all of this perfect and that there's no "gaming" of the simulation going on :). Just for the record :).

#4 Within the first few years (like 5-8 ) of the angels adopting the 18 I went to an airshow at Elmendorf AFB. I saw one of the pilots "crawl" the aircraft down the flight line at SUPER low speed and SUPER high Alpha. Like 70 degrees. Like 30MPH it seemed like. I was quite young but I remember that like it was yesterday. Of course... I may have the numbers off... but it was WAY more impressive than what they do these days.

^^^ Exactly. It isn't even close. It "might" be close if you are only expecting it to be "close" in relation to saying "sometimes it locks and sometimes it doesn't". Aside from that... There's basically not even any similarity :). Also... I just read through the last couple pages of the "beef" between some folks here and it seems to me that almost everyone involved is being very petty. Lets just all sit back and realize that we want a more accurate simulation. Yes... "good enough" is, by definition... good enough. The targeting logic of ED's KA-50 simulation is not good enough though. It just isn't. I get that some folks want to argue the point from the "good enough" perspective. Fine. I also get that some folks want to argue the point that it's a "simulation" so should be as close as programaticaly possible. Fine. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread specifically with either of those statements. Everyone here generally falls on one side of that fence though. We're on the same team though :). Arguing over whether someone has actual experience with specific systems in an attack chopper vs. whether they just understand something more than the basics of an optical contrast based tracking system and are asserting that the current system CLEARLY does not approximate that is pretty crappy. To put it mildly. Honestly S.E.B... It really reads like you're intentionally trying to make a point to not read what Fri is saying because you've realized you were wrong a while ago... but now you're just unwilling to admit that you just didn't realize he was correct and now you're using the "this is way too long to expect me to read and you didn't answer some question a while ago so why should I anyway" lines so that you can excuse the fact. Or at least that's how it reads to me... coming in and just reading it from the middle. Just my 2c :).

Soon means 2 weeks...

Your point would be well made if you took the initial feedback about the Litening pod being "extra" to hold us over until we get the ATFLIR... but you didn't. You just kept talking about how it should be perfect and not Spanish because it's not a Spanish Hornet. I can understand your initial concern... As I said before... but after knowing the background of why we have the Litening you still continued to maintain your entitled tune. This invalidates your current attempt to take the high road IMO. I'll agree that communication is good :). I''d also like to throw out that I've watched this community push the devs into "hiding" a few times over the course of DCS's history. It sometimes starts about like this. sometimes it's best if you just get what you get, and don't throw a fit :). OK... point well made here... Well... except that... If they had said that then it's highly likely that people would have complained at the time about having a Spanish pod. Heck... there were people at the time that very vocally complained that NO dev time should have been spent doing ANY kind of pod that wasn't carried by the originally stated goal of a USN Hornet. Where would we be if that road was taken? See... This is the problem with your approach. ED could have taken that road. Easily. Also... catching any flak for taking THIS road can ONLY make them more likely to take THAT road in the future. It's not a good road. No sir. We are not. We paid for what was originally intended as the design goal of the Hornet. A USN hornet. Any MC additions are icing on the cake IMO. I know... plenty of people have purchased the Hornet AFTER it was migrated into being an MC Hornet.... But those of us who know WHY that happened should inform the other folks in such a way that they can then make fully informed decisions based on how we got where we're at. then... those people might appreciate where we are a bit better. You didn't seem willing to take that choice :).

If you knew the reality behind the Litening (which I hope you just didn't...) then the right way to bring up your point would have been to say... "Hey Devs... Thank you for putting the unplanned Litening pod on the 18 so we could use the A2G functionality... So you can sell more aircraft... and so we can test all the A2G weapons... It's really nice. I've uncovered a minor issue though. If you feel like it and you want this corrected on this item that you've given us to use before the ATFLIR is added to the early access product... Take a look at my vids. If not it's cool... We'll just wait for a completed ATFLIR like was the originally planned targeting system :)." I mean yeah, sure.. maybe the wording on that's a little ridiculous :)... but hopefully you get the point. Take out the entitlement. You think you're owed a perfect Litening pod. You aren't. Take the Spanish one and be happy you have it before the ATFLIR.

Nah... I'm not buying it. You're feeling ashamed of trying to push the devs into a corner based on your lack of understanding of why we have the litening pod in the first place... And you're STILL trying to blame them for not going far enough in some way.

That's almost exactly what happened... Aside from the fact that ED didn't plan to put the litening on the 18 prior to early access... But then they added it when the community begged for it and SPECIFICALLY said that it was s a stop gap measure until the ATFLIR was done. Maybe also just read this thread. this has been stated and is the truth a few times. So...

Lemme just stop you right there ;)... The Hornet was never supposed to be a USMC bird. It ONLY is a USMC bird because that was the only way ED could justify trying to get a USMC targeting pod to us to increase the capability of the airframe in game during EARLY ACCESS. They did this because the community wanted it. Not because it was originally what the community bought or what they decided to model. If you don't know what you're talking about... Don't. the ONLY fruit of your labor will be that ED, in the future, will not feature creep their products to appease the community because YOU will train them that the effort is not worth the BS they take later. Just stop.

Well... OK. but... It needs to be put in context IMO. It could be meant either way. It would be in the grey area for sure. Until you put it in context. that context being that ED was going to make a USN F18 for us. They did mostly and released it into early access (still there BTW :)). We got into it a littleways and people decided to ask for an A2G solution because they were getting bored of A2A. that's fine. People get restless. It's cool. Just be respectful. So... ED decided to feature creep the 18 and say OK... we'll call it a USN/USMC aircraft because we can kinda roll with that in an effort to get you guys a litelning pod that wasn't really used much aside from specific limited usage cases but yeah... it makes sense and hey... it'll maybe sell a few more 18's too and that's a bonus. Now... people are like "but it's not perfectly real and perfect. ED should change it so it has the right letters on the screen and maybe arotatey arrow. Because PICTURES!!!! Nah... I'm sticking with "whining" and "EGO stroking". By all means though... If you find problems with the ATFLIR and can prove it's wonky in some way... Then I'd be 100% willing to bet that EDwill either listen... or they won't :). But at least you won't have to listen to ME tell you about the entitled undertones of the request :). All USMC features of the jet are "extras" given to us just because they were trying to skirt the hardline approach to realism to get something done to make the Hornet a better airframe in EA. Let's not fault them for it eh? Gift horse.. mouth... looking... <--- Look it up :).

Two reasons... As I mentioned above. They wanted to drive sales, and people bitched about not having any reasonable A2G capability. Now... People are trying to force ED to go EVEN FURTHER down that rabbit hole while ALSO talking out the other side of their mouth about why they don't understand why this hoohaa had to happen. Do you really not see that happening here? Or... Is your goal public EGO stroking for the sake of it? Seriously. I'm not trying to be a jerk. That is ACTUALLY how it appears. The Litening pod aws never part of the package until the community asked for a solution, and ED provided (for our benefit as well as theirs I'm sure...). Now it's not perfectly perfect (I feel like it does the intended job both in game and out) so you dig up a few pics and say look... see... we want more and it's not right. Waaaah... Like I said... when the stated goals are released (ATFLIR)... Feel free to make sure it's speaking the right language and there's a rotating arrow... Great... I'll even appreciate it... It's all good. But... Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. It looks entitled. My vote... Delete the Litening pod and go full bore on the atflir. See what the community says then. You can't have your cake and eat it too boys. And I mean boys in the strictest sense of the word. Grow up please :). You know... As I recall... on this particular subject... there was no word play until someone decided that the Litening pod they were given to tide them over until they got a proper atflir wasn't good enough for them and decided to take issue with what effing LANGUAGE it spoke... The constant bull-shittery, whining and entitled outlook on life is what's draining my friend :). Do you folks REALLY think that giving ED employees hell about something that they chose to go above and beyond about is the best way to get them to keep listening to reasonable community feedback?

You people are ridiculous... Do any of you remember back when we had no way of targeting aside from rader (that lost lock if you moved...) and ED was kind enough to do EXTRA work just so we could run the lightning until the atflir is done? WTF is wrong with you effing dumasses? <-- Red Foreman voice I mean seriously... I appreciate the research and all of that for a module where you're actually making it more realistic... That's fine... but our bird was NOT originally supposed to be a USMC bird. That was only added because WE wanted a targeting pod and THEY were nice enough to push one through for us... Now you have the entitled audacity to sit here and bitch about the fact that the implementation of something they just did to be nice and, yeah... help sales... because it wasn't a good idea to release with no pod... is not perfectly accurate? Holy cow. Look... just put your research time into a subject that makes sense and doesn't ask for another inch when you've been given a mile ok?

Clearly a hit job...

I know I'm a little late... but... It's "Early Access"... Not "released". Very different things.

I'd start a new map and drop one and see what it does.

That's what I'm saying :)... I don't think I've seen it not smoking :)

Isn't the Kuz always on fire???

So... I applaud your posts and all :)... but unless we have a comparison we can't really compare :). Just posting the stat by itself doesn't really mean anything.

:( Think about it. Out of all the possibilities... Putting SC missions in an "SC" mission area... or Putting Missions in an area dedicated to a specific aircraft... Like they've ALWAYS DONE WITH EVERYTHING EVER... or Mandating that... say... Any mission that used a B17-G be placed in the "WWII Assets Pack" mission area... to be consistent with a "Super Carrier Missions" section mind you... Really.. out of ALL the possibilities... Which one IS actually the easiest? Me... I feel like they've hit the nail on the head...

The missions will be in the aircraft missions if they exist.

I mean... seems like a reasonable request until you put yourself in the shoes of those working a job. They need to be efficient...and you don't actually need the info. You want it. I get it :)... there needs to be a balance. I'm not advocating that ED stop giving us info :). On one forum I'm a member of there is a USER who goes through each day/week and searches posts made by employees who make interesting comments (it's easy to search)... then the USER keeps a thread with all of the interesting posts and links to where they're said in one neat and tidy place. I like that method. I'm not interested in it enough to do it myself... Which is why I don't. But... the fact that some people ARE interested enough in having the information to suggest that someone ELSE do it while also NOT being interested enough to do it THEMSELVES brings me, again, to the second part of my post.

So... each ED employee that posts on the forum should search the forum to find out if anyone else has posted a similar bit of info... then, if not... They should copy their comment to some "repository of comments made" that should be placed in a weekly report of some type that will be handled likely by some other employee? OR... Should that other employee take the time to search the forum and find all "new" comments by employees and create said database on their own... All while making sure they read ALL of the ED comments and make sure they weren't just repeating things in the weekly update? I mean... I feel like we could just be appreciative of new information when we get it... Whether it comes from the weekly update, some rando forum post or some other grapevine all together. It amazes me how much people think everything should be served up on a silver platter for them. Just MHO... No offense :).

LOL... You guys and your first world problems. I fly VR. Everything is a pixel until it shoots at me. Then it's an enemy pixel. Kinda kidding... That said... With the old HTC Vive it was really like that. Haven't tried WWII with the reverb yet.

I don't have my settings available but as I recall I have had good luck using "user curve". It should be fixed for sure though. Not sure what's wrong with it and honestly the post up there saying "this should be the easiest thing in the world to fix" is a tad rude ;).