Thump

My understanding is that the "push for the hornet" means that programming won't even start until the end of this month (probably beginning of next). So if you're looking for meaningful updates, you're probably looking at mid December at the earliest with probably early new year for any major systems release. Holidays will also be a factor for the next few months which will impact development (as we saw when a one day holiday effected the release schedule)

Based on ED's updating of the Hornet, this is a very trusting statement to make. I would expect at least another 2.5 to 3 years of development until it is near full release.

It's what happens when you treat an early (early) alpha like a beta.

Trimming to on-speed AoA has the same effect. Just don't get a fancy number in the lower right it seems.

The updates aren't free, you literally paid for them.

Not off topic as it was my thought on the released info.

Immediate and drastic loss of revenue as people cancel subscriptions which they would be dependent upon as the modules themselves would not be bought. They could obviously buffer this by forcing a 6 or 12 month pay model. But that only gives them a limited time to fix whatever they've done to cause the drop rate. My problem would be that I've now lost control over the very modules I've already paid for. Unless they were willing to give one to one subscription duration equivalent to the money already spent. Even then, I'd might balk at upping the sub again once past that given date.

So don't play MP at all, roger. It does effect others per one by logical inference. That fix is probably a far distance off seeing that he Hornet is on the back burner.

To answer the question. If it is implemented, it should be 109.1 This assumes it's actually in the game and ED didn't use a random number. However, Tholozor is correct in that all you have is a TACAN for land based approaches in the Hornet. Attached is the ILS into KLSV. Cheers, Thump

I fundamentally disagree with your point of view as devs, and publisher companies are veering further and further from being consumer centric (look at Epic as the current whipping horse example). While I agree we are owed nothing, we are paying customers who were given a date of expected release (I'll go ahead and pre-empt the "plans change" chant) that fell through. Those things happen but when you also get the "you're impatient, just wait one more week" Cleveland Steamer and then it is missed again, there will be frustration. Overall, the decision to delay another time was a good decision one in my opinion (I'd rather not break the entire game to force a square peg into a round hole just to get a JSOW), but to not expect vocalized disappointment would be kind of odd.

The anti-ice warning is bugged right now IIRC. Technically, you should turn the pitot heat on before takeoff reguardless and my guess is that the engine anti-ice is turned on when encountering visible moisture with temperatures are 7 degrees Celsius. Cheers, Thump

Not sure if the default "kicking" people is a viable option in a PvP server. They need to be able to defend the ship. It is also a strong handed way to force people to buying a product they may not want (i.e. no interest in Naval Aviation). And I'm sure the carrier would appreciate those with Eagles providing air cover without the enemy entrapping them in a boot from the server.

If there was something to apologize for, then yes. But seeing that it was this fervor of a response that served as the cattle prod necessary to get ED to fix an obvious issue. The community used its voice to vehemently push for a result that would prevent the fragmenting of an already small group. Had they not raised their voice, ED would have more than likely gone with Plan A, most of which people here seem to be thankful that they aren't. A simple "thanks "might be in order but I don't see why an apology is at all required. Edit: Nospin44 beat me to it

It occurred for me as well. It happened when cycling between Wide/Vertical acquisition modes and designating to return to RWS. Antenna elevation stuck pointed down.

Still wasn't finished when they did declare it complete.

To add perspective, the Mirage has been "fully released" for years now. :tomato:

Fair enough as far as his experiences in real life. In relation to the simulator though (which that's what this is), it's a game and is literally geeks playing airplane in a game. I found the comment funny about button pushing computer geeks being "solely" for the Hornet.

Monday, the 19th

Says the computer geek playing airplanes on the computer. :lol::thumbup: Edit: To be fair, I'm doing the same thing. :joystick:

It's ok as of right now. I enjoy flying it and there are hours of enjoyment figuring out carrier ops, and basic weapons delivery. But the lack of ATFLIR, TWS, and fully fleshed out HARM are the main things holding it back at this point. Depending on how you view fully being able to conduct precision strikes on your own (or just with Hornets) will help guide whether or not to hold off on purchasing the module. If you have SP missions with JTAC or UAV, you can alleviate that issue via scripting or if you play MP, you'll still need someone in a Hog or Harrier to buddy lase. Cheers, Thump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM And according to Wagner's video, if you're around 45K' and Mach 1, yes.

To be fair to the OP, they are finicky at best right now and I've found them struggling to lock a target greater than 5 miles.

The F model eventually replaced the F-14 as fleet defender, but the A-D Models were a complement to the F-14 like the F-16 was to complement the F-15 in the 80's. The F-117 was designated a fighter as a means of disguising the program as a headfake to the Russians as to it's "Stealth" design & intent. *Edited: Corrected the F model statement*

Alligin, Wags provided the exact mission you'll see in his mini update. Here's a link for ya. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3679744&postcount=86 Cheers, Thump