Horns

You can hardly be blamed for not knowing you'd catch the flu ;)

Ah awesome, cheers :) lol indeed :)

Hi everyone, When the hornet is ready to transition to Early Access, are we likely to get warning ahead of time, and if so, how (eg weekend news)? The only other release I’ve been around for is the Harrier, I think I remember having some warning but I can’t remember the circumstances. Thanks.

I just happen to have the exact same controller setup (although my pedals are MFG Crosswinds). I don't have your eye issues but I almost gave up DCS because I couldn't locate ground targets when I was using the Su-25T in 1.5, and what saved me was switching to the Viggen so I could fly closer to the ground. If you are waiting to purchase until those questions are answered, feel free to PM me after EA has started and I will be able to answer your controller questions, and I should be able to provide an opinion on ease of target location, albeit from a different viewpoint (no pun).

Wags says here that we will get the -C

I asked that here, the short answer seems to be that 1998 was the build year, with upgrades that bring it to mid-2000s.

At least we know some content creators won’t be waiting for release to start their work, that’s something, thanks :)

I haven't been able to find any list of features that might not be available for this map at launch, can someone enlighten me or point me to the answer? I did look for a definition of Early Access on the forums and the product page on the site but I couldn't find it, if someone could point me to that too I'd appreciate it. When the PG map moves to EA, are we likely to see DLC campaigns soon after its available, or will having the map in EA only allow us to make our own fun with no provided content for the first month or two? No wrong answers, just deciding when to buy this.

Nvm

Please delete

Oh ok, I see why my comment would have caused offence now, especially as I used the word "worms" on its own originally. I didn't have such a deep knowledge of the meaning of "Pandora's box" before, but I do know someone speaking English could replace one with the other. I'm glad we got that figured out, happy Easter :)

Indeed, we have voiced our opinions, I'm happy to let the debate rest too. I'm sorry that my initial comment appeared dismissive. I'll try to explain better: There were several suggestions earlier in the thread about different things that the civilians could be doing, adding different coalitions and even animals, so when DieHard used the expression "can of worms" I just did the deliberate misunderstanding thing, a common comedic device in English but perhaps not in French, pretended to think he was literally talking about including worms as well and 'agreed'. It wasn't meant to suggest the original request was frivolous or reflect on any comments made in the thread. I was just seizing an opportunity for what I'd hoped would be a light-hearted joke.

I didn’t consider that the reference to the expression might have been lost in translation, so I apologise. I understand the point you and Weta43 are making about civilian traffic, I think people may respond differently to images of people (as opposed to vehicles) being engulfed in flames. ED may approach things differently to Rockstar (makers of GTA) and other parties because they require permission from governments, who may be affected by public reactions, where other games don’t. I agree that we don’t have a Call of Duty type player base, but in any large group of people one would expect a few idiots. What I can say is that if the development and technical impacts can be minimized it may be worth doing. I have no personal problem with civvies being in there and I would love to see ED have relationships robust enough to withstand the possible effect of a few idiots.

You are incorrect about my statement, but I'm not sure explaining the joke a second time will help. The only one who has made any assumptions about how people think - or worms, as you mentioned - is you. I actually spend my virtual life below 1500 feet and much of the time I'm below 100 - admittedly, not as low as a heli would be, but certainly low enough to notice what is or isn't happening on the ground. While I hadn't actually formed an opinion before now, Wilsonov eludes to something very relevant in civilian casualties. Along with all the extra assets ED would have to create, all the extra logic that would need to be coded, all the extra processing power that users' PCs would use and all the extra mission outcomes that would be required, there would be a huge risk that some people would create missions that were strikes against civilians and post the outcome on YouTube. ED requires agreement from government before releasing a module, and a lot of governments would be hesitant if there was community anger towards DCS, not to mention the fear that the next civilian kill video would feature their hardware. Instead of making this thread even more about our disagreement I'll yield the floor now in case anyone else would like to write re Wilsonov's suggestion.

So tell me, what are my needs? What did I say that pointed to what my needs may or may not be?

I think you might have missed the fact I was playing on the “can of worms” expression being used. If anyone has a right to get offended it’s DieHard. If you think I’ve breached forum rules take it up with admin.

+1, we should totally have worms too :P

Ah, I gave the order too late. Good tip about being on my flight’s frequency, I may not have easy comms checked any more. Thanks once again :)

Apologies in the delay responding, I wanted to fly the mission again before replying. Thank you both very much, turned out I was mistaken about which group to target. For some reason I presumed waypoint 4 was a target waypoint, despite the briefing and the dialog stressing that the situation was unclear. Further thanks to Zabuza, I'd found early on that Viggen tracks didn't play back correctly, so I hadn't even considered trying to use them as a learning tool. I didn't know that we could change options for the track in the Mission Editor too. Really wish I could +rep you for that valuable information. I do have one more question: did you do anything beyond issuing the order to engage to get the AI Viggens to attack? That still escapes me...

I'm firing on the most northern group I can see, but I might try looking further north. Thanks, much appreciated :)

I've run this mission many, many times and I just don't wind up hitting a target. I don't really know what else to say... I've tried firing in single and group, impulse and series, made sure I'm in range and pointed dead at the target and confirmed that missiles actually fired with both F2 camera and in the debrief, but the debrief still doesn't credit me with any hits. Anyone else having this problem or have any ideas?

As others have said, learning to fly through the Su-25T is a tough way to start. I found the Su-27 easier (although you need to be careful not to increase your dive angle when bombing or you wind up bombing yourself), it allowed me to apply what I had learned of cockpit and HUD symbology, and it has interactive training very similar to the Su-25T. Knowledge you gain flying the Su-27 should be easy to apply to the Su-33.

I did miss that part of your earlier post, apologies, but then if you're for removing the +/- I'm not sure what you're asking for, we can post any length reply from one character upwards...

To speak to your example: 1. No problem posting "dude read the manual page 100" 2. Not a reason for negative rep

It appears to me that you (admin) had to respond to an emergent issue, and suspending the rep system was the best rapid response available. I'm really glad that you guys act decisively when the need arises. I believe it is very important to avoid exposing people to abuse, and if the question must be an either/or I accept it may be best to continue without the system. Ultimately, I do hope we get some kind of rep system back, and that people who had a large amount of positive rep receive something equivalent when the new system is implemented. On overclock.net there is a clear concept of when someone should provide positive rep, and when someone new didn't do so they were gently informed of the convention by admin. I know it's not as simple here, but clearer guidelines for when and why someone should rep can only be a good thing. As someone who has needed a lot of help to learn DCS and continues to do so, I found the rep system pretty helpful. When someone made a suggestion I did look at their rep, especially if it was a suggestion that went against others or was counter-intuitive to me.