AMEDooley

I used the deck crew for the first time today on BD’s Raven One campaign. Over all I liked the experience, but I noticed one thing that is not correct. When I landed and taxied back to my spot, I had a plane captain directing me. That would never happen. Only yellow shirts direct aircraft. Plane Captains will help the blue shirts chock and chain the jet and then the yellow shirt will pass command to the PC after it is secured. Is anyone else noticing this? I didn’t see anything about it when I searched for it. Can they be changed by the mission designer? I asked BD but it sounded like it’s hard locked.

IRL they would have different logic. The directors on the Cats are looking at the tires and lining them up to the white lines for each type of aircraft. The directors elsewhere are just trying not to hit anything so they are less precise. However there still is a taxi flow they are all trying to maintain. Especially those that are backing the Cats.

Which software is planned? I’ve heard 2B and 3i. 2B would be problematic for anyone wishing to use the gun.

The 120D is a highly classified missile. It would be guess work by the team. It would be interesting to see what they come up with if they go with the D.

So why have we not seen these things come to fruition as of yet? If the FF 35 takes two years of research and your hope for a year or two for development time doesn’t affect those other areas, why have we seen them completed? Honest question, I’m not trying to be a troll.

I think the point that I’m probably conveying poorly is that there are so many other things the community has been asking for, you’ve said you’re working on, and haven’t delivered on (ATC, DTC, DC, Comms, Weather, sensor integration, etc.). Those will make the game far better for everyone, since they affect everyone. And I know that you have many different groups working on different things, but this still takes away from the finite resources you have to work on these far more important things (IMO) for something you can’t truly deliver, and frankly, few people really want. I mean what good is the 35 when sensor integration is already poor? But realistic ATC coupled with a Viacom style voice recognition would be huge, or weather that dynamically changes. Hell I’d take it if you could make the AI turn less aggressively from one WP to the next. This feels like a step back from what I, and the majority of players I know, really enjoy about DCS. I mean I think the F-15C FF is a great thing. It makes way more sense and is something I know you can deliver to the standard you set yourselves to.

Dude, it won’t even be 30%. I’m sorry man. I am not doubting the hard work you’ve put into it, but it won’t be realistic at all. Again I’d rather other, far more important things worked on and finished. I love the Hornet you’ve made, it’s pretty close to what I remember working on even down to the sound of the engines coming on line. But the 35 is a horse of a different color. And yes in case your wondering I did work on both aircraft for two different branches.

NL your belief is wrong. It will not be realistic. But if you want to claim that it’s realistic to YouTube videos then I would believe that. I am not a SME on the 35. I was a crew chief on it for like 5 years, no where near long enough to be a SME. I am not claiming to be one, but I know what we had to do the job and what we didn’t have. So if I lacked a lot of documentation to be good at the job as a mechanic, there is no way you have enough to make this accurate. But as others have pointed out, only a handful will truly know the difference. Myself not being one of them.

That’s pretty accurate about the start up procedure. It’s very few steps. Mostly it’s making sure the screens come up when they’re supposed to and cycling the parking brake. Then you push the start button lol! But also accurate about being opposed to the module. Give me ATC, DTC, SRS style coms, VAICOM style ability, correct line width at Nellis, Dynamic weather, or any of the other basic mechanics in the game before this. Plus the whole “we can’t do that because no docs/classified” thing they always use to not do something.

You will not be able to recreate it to the “most realistic study level” sim standard you claim. I’m not saying that as an opinion, but as a fact. You do not have, and will never get, the docs required to make it to that level. What they show in those demos, both air and tech, is no where close to reality. If you believe that you can, I have bridge to sell ya!

I was a crew chief on the 35 and I can tell you with 100 percent certainty, you do not have any documentation for the 35. There’s no way you have access to ALIS. Hell, we couldn’t even get some answers during our engine training cause it was proprietary info from P&W, or the fact that they had to spend three hours declassifying the sim so we could use it for engine run class. I hope that you stop the whole “we cant use those docs/Youtube videos aren’t reliable” routine for other things since this is literally what you’ll be using for the 35. This statement bellow kind of destroys your credibility as it is, since you’re already admitting that you haven’t started development, you don’t know what you’ll end up with, and you’ve already announced it. I don’t mind you guys making the 35, it’ll be nice to start her up again. Kind of like when the Hornet came out, it was like coming back home. But stop with the most realistic schtick and “not enough documentation” schtick. I personally would have rather you announced a partnership with AI ATC, or Viacom Pro, or SRS, or any other members of the community that make DCS’s shortcomings better. I love flying in DCS, but those features are far more important to me than some fake as hell FF F-35A.

What Doc did they find this info in? I’d like to read it cause I can’t enter anything in at all. I tried the format above but it kept saying error. Maybe it’s because I’m in precise? But I’d like to read it to see what I’m doing wrong.

You are correct, it is not a note/caution/ warning. Those would be separated from the text with the associated labeling above it (such as the accidental ejection warning). And while it doesn’t imply you cannot flare, it is telling you the preferred or recommended procedure. There are sometimes that flaring would be a better option and so you would need to know about not being able to go into ground idle. But the Hornet should, under normal circumstances, not flare. I do know on Super Hornets they did start aero breaking as I was leaving Active Duty. And at the end of the day, it’s all about what ever the service flying it wants to do. I would say, that because of the “backwards” nature of the Hornet stick and throttle during landing, it makes flaring require more finesse and forethought.

Bunyap great job. I will write a full review once I get it finished. But I think there is a continuity error in M5. I know with all the switching miz files things get missed. But when you start M5a on F14 row it’s clearly F-16 territory, and you have some objects on F13 row, but when you fly M5f there is an F-15 parked on F14 row and all the stuff is gone on F13 row. I’m not sure if that was intentional or not. It’s a small thing but it was something I noticed. Usually when you’re at a Red Flag your squadron is assigned a specific row or two to park in and that’s where you park the entire time, unless you’re in the revenants for live bombs. I’ve been at the last hanger every time I’ve gone to RF. Anyway great job so far.

Greetings virtual naval aviators and milsim enthusiasts, It is our pleasure to announce that today, May 11th, we officially recognize the redesignation of the 510th vFS to the vVFA-97 Warhawks! The 510th vFS has a storied history in the 476th vFG. Founded 6 years ago, our intent was always to create the premier virtual hornet squadron within the DCS community. We've always strived for realism to the maximum extent possible inside the jet, and this core tenet of our community will be carried forward into the future. When the 510th was originally founded, the DCS landscape was a very different place, and a decision was made to align the squadron with the USAF naming and traditions that had been established in the 476th. 2024 brings us a very different environment and has left the squadron in an odd place in the greater DCS community. As our community has grown over the course of the last 12 years, we've had an influx of knowledge and a wealth of wonderful people whom have strived to always be on the leading edge. With this in mind, we are excited to continue on the original intent of the 510th vFS under the new auspice of the Warhawks, embracing Naval traditions, trainings, and standards. We've chosen the Warhawks, among other reasons, due to its storied history in naval aviation, as well as a personal connection from one of the founding members of the 510th vFS. Lance "Amy" Dooley served as a support member within the squadron earlier in his military career, a pride that everyone sees with his Discord patch and his personal aircraft livery. Effective immediately, the 510th vFS is stood down and decommissioned, and we warmly and excitedly welcome the new vVFA-97! We look forward to embracing a leadership position within the greater DCS community for naval aviation and simulation! We wish to invite the community to celebrate this occasion with us as we also announce that Hornet applications are currently open, and we are seeking dedicated, skilled virtual aviators to bring the squadron to new heights.