JackCooper

definitely a good one for MP and easy to implement

Yea, got same problem. Any test were made before patch release?

+1 contacting AI durig case 3 in big groups only makes trouble

+1 only few hornets get ATFLIR, most of them used NITEHAWK pods, even after 2005. So that would be a right choice

It was Mover who made video of him shooting live AIM-9 and marking out that it was the LUU-2 that they used for this type of training. Need to research a bit more on that

Agree. Good addition and already in game pylon and model, just merge and use merged logic of Mk-76 and LUU-2. But in addition required ability to be locked on with heat seekers

Agree. It's main feature of SLAM/ ELAM-ER. Unfortunate not to have it when it is a thing in reality.

Why that wasn't considered before, taking into consideration size of the project back in time when F/A-18C Lot 20 USN was layed down as a project in ED and we only hear now that some of the functions that relatet to this exact machine can't be done because of some secret level? What was the point on the first place to choose this exact model, instead of something else? I'll join up on my wish related to this project with same what people covered above, starting from TAMMAC, Radar modes and proper realisation of this modes (speed gate, velocity search, MSI...), weapon revisiting with normal terminal parameters (IZLAR, other submodes), CBU fuse (from the start of EA no words on that), HARM EOM mode (we're getting modern fighter, right?), ADM-141 TALD (at least tomcat level to start from), Mk-77, BDU-57-59-60, proper coating and fuse visuals, HSI and all navigation related, multiplayer settings for datalink (wingman set for L16 - ABCD), Proper IFF modes, as JF-17 got... A lot to cover, more above from other people.

Just make trigger for aircraft to blow up when G is above 8 or 8.5 so override will be discriminated))))

yes, I need that feature in topic

So that mean no customer support in that way and if you bought something - that's your problems even if project get on-going changes. Nice. Hornet already got cuts of features that are about to be delivered, will that happend to all EA modules or is it just one time action? How can I belive that same will not happent to SC? Cause today you telling customers that there will be a lot and tommorow that you haven't find documents or they were secret... it's not good tendency. Well, what gonna happen to people who agreed on your promises and then 'managers' changed plans from head to toe and instead of Carrier customers will get Falcon spaceship with briefing room and not working flight deck systems? How long will the early access take? How long did it planned? What's next steps planned after briefing room? Will greenie board take actual look and not imaginary scores? Guess it's time to have someone reply on that questions with something else, but "we're working don't interrupt us". I know how you love to take great letters, idk if they're fake or just made by people not knowing dcs well enogh, but now there is a real problem adressed to developers, that there is slow progress on things that can be delivered quickly and bring a lot of features to the carrier and it can be called 'complete' without briefing room, but cannot without propper Ball, LSO plat, deck and crew. What's the real reason to prioritise what you prioritised instead of realy matter things?

I consciously joined early access and did not refund money when there was problems with release, was paitently waiting for updates, looking through patchnotes and forum for anything, but there was only empty promisses and no real "Deck" features. I am supporting project and getting this? You really think that after "thank you"-replies me or anyone else who seis that topic will have any wish to finance further early access products? Now there is a turn of an AH-64 and it beats the sale numbers so there will be new customers coming that way and same will happend to them as what happend to me? From what I understand 'managers' have their very own "money-blinded" look on things and they didn't care on opinion of the customers, is it correct? Can we have way to leave early access if we are not happe with development process after two-three-four years of EA? Will it motivate development or just decrease time to put "Released" cue on product? Thank you

Well, we're financing this project, aren't we? And thanks for your replies but seems like your customers are out of patience.

Guess there is everything done with radar and so on that last Mini-update was at 25-th of July, the real one, not just promisses and ATC that was working year before.

Why ED keeps making "best of the best" instead of aircraft they got information about? If they have 2003 docs for F/A-18, why decided to make 2005 version, cause it's better? What was the reason to take ANG F-16 when they get Greece docs? What was the reason to start working on AH-64D when there is no radar environment? Why carrier and combined arms when they're not working on main features but give priority to visual effects? Why? Cause you can't sell radar environment and full fidelity Lot 10 F/A-18, but "best of the best, top dog" whatever called - but still latest platform and visualisation instead of internal systems. It is nice to hear from our belover community managers that we know less than managers... but we want to have working product at the end of the day, and not promisses of better life somewhere later in EA. And still we understand that it's a development but how's beta could not be different from stable version of the game featuring same bugs? How can you tell us few years ago that you'll delay updates for better patches and then we get what we have right now. I guess it's time to change look on things and start listen to customers, than managers, or you'll keep taking too big pie and struggle to eat it, and when budget will come to an end you'll get another F-5/Huey. With that you can call youself best of the best but in that will believe only blind people who did not look through Reddit, forums and YT. With all love and respect - fan of Igor Tishin's work and legacy that turned away from way he wanted to see it...

Yup. unplayable module for almost a year. Nice. Can we put this topic right next to "Buy" button at main screen of CA? How can that happend to released module? Ok, at least you can cover yourself with Early Access of Supercarrier, that is also abandoned (slowly worked on, it is on EA at the end of the day ) but this one is a way far released, but why not supported module? Own this for a while and almost want my money back.

Yeah, true

Great? Eh.. at least playable for 20 USD...

Usually it is a grey coalition aircrafts. For some reasons they are marked like that on SA. When IFF'd with RDR ATTK gives you hostile ID as well as AWACS call it hostile.

Strange photo with ATFLIR + NAVFLIR connecter with AN/ASQ-173 LST pod. Seems like Navy used all pods they have, and as wiki says Nite Hawk was in service untill 2008 and replaced by ATFLIR F/A-18C Hornet (VFA-94 / CVW-11) embarked on USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - September 2005

Isn't this a NAVFLIR connecter? Resource: VFA Strike Fighter Squadrons Attack STRKFITRON US Navy (seaforces.org) F/A-18C Hornets (VFA-34 / CVW-17) embarked on USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) - November 2004 F/A-18C Hornet (VFA-37 / CVW-3) embarked on USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - February 2005 F/A-18C Hornet (VFA-37 / CVW-3) embarked on USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - December 2004

Nice example of GBU-32 on a BRU in RAAF

That's strange, cause with all this NAVY stuff you proposing now (Supercarrier, F-14, F-16, F/A-18, F-5) it just feels nesessery to have at least one real Naval station, as it so famous and you already have map around. From what I can see it is realy a thing to correct some small features on this map, add one or two bases and Navy part will be happy to get this map, me included. Authentic trainings and fights just that thing people like and came to DCS and buy so much of your products. That could be just me, but I can see more people buying all named modules above including Nevada and new campaigns will follow soon enough, like Zone 5 and Red Flag stuff, combining with new learning process using all this. Good opportunity slips trough ED fingers.

On the back you can see this pod. Photo from website: VFA-147 Argonauts Strike Fighter Squadron US Navy 3 (seaforces.org) F/A-18C Hornet (VFA-147 / CVW-9) embarked on USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - January 2007

+1 Good addition, if even we'll have it for added price - I'm all for it, and know dozen of people that are ready to get one