Horns

Heatblur were subject to some sort of community belief that the product should have been delivered by Xmas 2018 rather than anytime in Winter, and people got really upset. HB did a wise thing: they offered refunds to anyone who felt misled. I'm surprised that ED isn't offering refunds despite missing an original and revised deadline. They are within their rights, but right now people who are upset about the way things have gone with SC can't do much except come here and complain, myself included.

Thank you both for the assistance, I think I have it sorted now and have amended expectations. Bearfoot, I am breaking M1.0 pre-launch, the accuracy has been better and having that energy and altitude at the start of the dogfight is great. I can accept now that I won't get a perfect record with the Phoenix because of the factors involved. I can live with some cleanup. Draconus, thank you too for mentioning that AI fighters can and do evade successfully, nice to know it's not always my screw up. Your question on launch priority numbers was really helpful, I realized the numbers were a good way to work out if a bogey is going to be targeted, so now at least I can tell whether I should fire one missile or more. I also realized that selecting the AIM-54 earlier appears to make it more likely the radar will detect a multi target opportunity. Thanks again H

You're right about targets receiving warnings from the missile's radar, thanks for the clarification. Now that you mention it I don't think I am getting priority numbers. Any idea why that would be? Good to know that the Phoenixes not hitting their targets may be due to factors other than user error by me, so I'll enjoy my multikill successes without expecting them to work every time and amend tactics to expect cleanup :book: Thanks for the help!

AI Su-27s and MiG-29s at about Angels 30, not sure of their speeds. I'm at about M0.9 at Angels 26, sorry I didn't have that info in the OP. Early on when I was trying to learn how to use the AIM-54 I came across some advice suggesting it was best to be slightly in look up (due to some filter, I can't remember exactly what) and that going slower increased the chances of maintaining lock. What you say makes sense and is more in keeping with what I've learned elsewhere so I'm going to start doing it the way you suggest, makes sense to increase the missile's energy at launch and let it use less energy dropping onto the target. Thanks for the assist :thumbup:

Yes, sorry I should have said it was AIM-54s, I’ll update the OP

I'm finding it really tough to hit multiple targets in TWS, either in OB (with TWS-A) or stable. When two targets are highlighted (ie brighter) I wait until I'm within 15nm and fire, but I only hit one if I hit anything at all. When I've tried from 10nm or 20nm I even score one hit less often. I know the whole point of TWS was to allow the cat to engage multiple targets at once (and not give the targets radar lock warnings), so I must be doing something wrong. Anyone else having trouble with this, and any tips for overcoming it? EDIT: Should have mentioned I am using AIM-54s

Ah, understood, cheers

Hi, some time ago I read about these wing collisions happening where the player would spawn at the boat next to the AI wingman, and both would have their wings extended (ie 20 degree sweep), leading to immediate wing damage. This only happens in Open Beta so no biggie, just wanted to confirm it is still a thing.

Hi, can confirm this bug is still in effect.

If there's anywhere something will not be noticed, it's MySpace

If they're onto you, that might explain the minimal amount of intel we're intercepting now...

People can go back and see Beirut's comment " Telling the SP crowd (70% of DCS buyers) to wait just because the MP crowd would have had to wait anyway was a marvelously boneheaded thing to state in public" at #1791, and in #1792 you decide he's advocating a release that breaks multiplayer so single player people can have the module. Yes, that release Kate talks about considering (that you comment on in #1885) is exactly the one that was referred to! So now you agree that release would not break multiplayer? As far as your comment in #1887 goes, Kate does say work would be needed to separate the multiplayer from the single player, but she's probably better positioned than either of us to decide whether that is viable. In #1888 the comment I made was to TheGuardian, which is fine, but the comments were a response to his comment I quoted in that (#1800 if anyone still cares). So where does this leave us? Pretty much back where this started. Where Beirut referenced an idea Kate said would be considered under the circumstances where we were and are. Based on what you've now added, it seems like you've made a false assumption and termed his argument "the dumbest" as a result. In a sense we agree because, as I commented to TheGuardian, I'm probably happier with ED not separating the module, albeit for different reasons than you. I simply felt (and feel) that you were wrong to describe Beirut's argument as 'the dumbest' as it was reasoned, coherent and he was referencing an idea Kate said would be considered. Anyway, as promised I'll shut up now I've said my piece.

Please delete, it will be clearer if I just write a new post.

I'd think ED would have to fix the decksliding now, if only to retain plausibility. It would make some sense if ED were desperately trying to put together a band-aid solution but found the problem insurmountable. So hopefully we'll get a carrier sans the decksliding some time in May.

I don't often have bad things to say about ED, and after I get this off my chest I hope to return to regularly scheduled programming... Anyone else find it difficult to believe the carrier physics are the only major problem that prevented release? If it was, it would have been clear from long before the revised April 15 deadline that there was weeks of work required before the release could go ahead, so it wouldn't have come down to the final hours. If the carrier physics were the problem, why not mention that work item in the roadmap update? Carrier physics have been the source of a lot of angst and news that they were doing anything about it would have been welcomed by players, regardless of whether they owned SC. I don't like being the guy who waits eagerly for a reason and doesn't accept the one given, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either way, I'll leave that here.

Airhunter called it!

Sure, you too

Dude, honestly, please try reading what I post properly. I didn't say you called someone dumb, I said "Try figuring out what's being talked about before throwing words like 'dumb' around." I'll try rephrasing - I'm not trying to start an argument, but I would like us to actually communicate on this. The idea of releasing the SP was dependant on the multiplayer code being removed, and the bugs with it. If that can't be done then obviously it can't be released, but that's not a reason for them to explore it, as Kate suggested they will in circumstances such as those we find ourselves in. The argument of "but what if it kills multiplayer anyway" can be attached to every single module. If the SP or anything else kills multiplayer, they should definitely not release it. Believe it or not, I would rather they didn't release it piecemeal, I'd rather they use all available resources fixing the module and releasing it once that's done rather than trying to change plan at this point. All I've been saying since my first post in this thread is that Beirut expressed an idea that made sense and didn't deserve to be called "the dumbest idea". Read back through your first comment in this exchange and tell me again how I fall below the line of showing respect. If you don't like participating in the thread feel free not to, but I won't be vacating to suit you.

No one is talking about releasing a bugged module! All of this was predicated on the SP being released separately, *without* the bugged multiplayer component, as spoken of by Kate in the roadmap thread here, here and possibly elsewhere. Try figuring out what's being talked about before throwing words like 'dumb' around.

I'm not too sure what you're getting at when you call the argument that 70% of customers would be served by a single player release "the dumbest argument". You get that the 30% of customers waiting after a SP release would be waiting exactly as long as they would anyway, right? And that those people would at least be able to use the SC themselves in SP while they wait? I'm exclusively SP and I'm fine with waiting, but Beirut makes a valid argument, and is certainly entitled to more respect than having his argument called 'dumb' by you. I suspect that either there is a lot to improve in the SP module too, or that separating SP, launching it separately and then rejoining them would take a prohibitively large amount of work, but after the communications pooch screw around this they don't want to come out and potentially sound like they're trying to shirk work that would mitigate some of the damage.

Any way to use AIRIO to specifically select TWS Manual or Auto? When I try switch to the wide azimuth in TWS-A the radar resets it just as fast, so I'd rather (Jester) keep control of that (for) myself.

Kate's comment has me confused. She said "I have to admit that the release of the update last week didn't meet our expectations at all. We still have a lot of work to do with performance issues before we will be able to release it to the Stable branch." The thing is, as far as I'm aware, there was no stable update due a week ago, so she has to be talking about SC... am I wrong? It also seemed like the point of the roadmap thread was specifically to break the news that SC wouldn't be launching yet (although she did keep the scope broad to be able to inform us about the other things ED is doing) and provide information as it became available. Would she think a comment about stable would bring a natural conclusion to the thread without making a final mention of SC? I'm starting to get that headache I get when I watch parliament question time. I have no idea if I'm right or wrong, I'd just like to read the latest information on SC - or be told I already read it.

Sorted, please delete

I've seen mentions of squadrons flying multirole a/c specializing in air-to-air or air-to-ground. I'm curious about: whether that happened with navy squads, and how likely it was in day to day warfare that an air-to-air squadron would be tasked with ground targets and vice versa. To me it seems a little impractical to have an air-to-air squadron on a carrier and confine them to CAP, recon etc once air superiority is achieved...

I'm trying to find reference books that provide information on optimal turn performance of modern fighter aircraft and the speed and altitude regime to achieve it. Can anyone suggest where I would find that information? I'd like to get real-world data and apply it to DCS rather than trying to generate data experimentally in-game which may be inaccurate in real-life. I expect to have to buy books for this information, but I've already spent a fair amount with minimal success, so if you can steer me towards books that you know have this information that would be greatly appreciated. If I have a choice of where to begin I'd probably start with the MiG-29 and Su-27, but I will gratefully jump on data for any modern fighter aircraft I can get my hands on. Thanks for reading, I await your suggestions. H