Slant

Die Tomcat braucht ein wenig mehr RAM als andere Module. 32GB sind empfehlenswert. Ebenso ist es sinnvoll DCS allgemein auf einer SSD laufen zu lassen um Laderuckler zu vermeiden. :)

Viacom geht wunderbar. Ich nutze allerdings nur VoiceAttack. Viacom hat mir zuwenig tatsächliche neue Features um dafür Geld auszugeben.

This bug only concerns MP. Sorry, should have mentioned that in the OP, will fix it now.

As requested, the trackfile. This bug only happens in MP, apparently. Description: The F-14 was hotstarted on the carrier with the hook down. I taxi'd to Cat 1 and attempted to hook up. There was a little bump as if it tried to hook up but then failed. Same issue with Cat 2. On Cat 3, when I attempted to hook up, it jerked the F-14 violently forward causing it to explode. I've had this in the last patch and the one before that as well. The explosion is kind of random, depending on the result of the "jerk". Download via OneDrive: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnH0xLoWF09IgoMCgJ1FKYiAohO8uA?e=vXnWyJ Second trackfile documenting general server stuttering during the second sortie with the F-16 (F-14 was fine): https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnH0xLoWF09IgoMDv8IUuk_cFcYEEQ?e=fFVNaC

Der Patch soll heute kommen. HB hatte den Fix bereits letzte Woche fertig, aber ist wohl von ED nicht mit aufgenommen worden. Alles wird gut.

Uhh, this is the 2020 FTX Video, of course... d'oh. :)

Just a little video I made about our field training exercises. We just came back from our winter break and things are gearing up for our next campaign!

Putting your velocity vector on the ICSL glideslope is not a bad move per say. Just be aware that in the turn you have a much slower descent (since your vector to the carrier is offset by your lateral movement, ie. you're not pointing at the carrier as if you were flying a true glideslope on glidepath). Once you are in the groove, your descent rate would be slightly higher than while in the turn. You need to adjust your glideslope accordingly. And of course, like everyone else says, you need to fly the ball (and line-up with centerline, most people don't mention this, but it is important).

Sorry for the bigass quote. You fly instruments until the 90°, you can use the VV to a limited amount while getting into the groove. Once in the groove, you fly the ball, like others have said (technically, ball and line-up until in close, when you can't do much about lineup). When the LSO says "power", it doesn't necessarily mean you are too low. It may also mean you are approaching glideslope from above and your sinkrate is going to put you below the glideslope if you don't fix your power setting. Take the call literally, adjust your power to arrest your sinkrate and then see what happens to your glideslope. Also, bankler's script is super strict and will start calling you out for minor deviations, it feels like. Last thing, if you post screenies, post high res pictures. I can't read anything on your hud. :)

That is a good suggestion and it's what I did a year ago when I first picked up this mission. But honestly, I'm trying to get high numbers of patterns done, ideally 10-20 per session, for practice. That's the main reason for me to pick this up. I understand that people may want to practice setting up the aircraft, but I am fairly certain this isn't the intend. I have made my request/inquiry and really there's not much more to say than this. :)

I agree that setting the aircraft up properly needs to be practiced. But if you're not set up at the initial, you're prolly 20-30 minutes too late in doing these kinds of things. This recovery trainer is not the right place to learn how to set up the aircraft when it begins at the initial.

Hey Bankler, Trying out the airborne F-14 slots. They are not set up for any kind of landing at all. They need to be in landing mode, icls and tacan are not set, hook's up... is that intentional? Downloaded that v5 from the first post just 10 minutes ago.

It's really not two discussions. We're having one discussion about the technical aspect of this splitting the community, while somehow ED translators unlearnt to read and assume we don't want to give ED compensation for their work. Woosh....

Yeah, no thanks to you lot. I don't know why you're taking credit for Heatblur's work...

This isn't about affording. Read what people are writing and think before you embarass yourself like that. I am one of the dudes that wants to buy this, but not if it's not implemented on any of the servers I frequent. Affording it is one thing and not the issue. Buying something that is an utter waste is another thing and quite stupid. I wouldn't mind tossing them a twenty doing nothing if that means they bring this so I can actually use it. The "you're too poor so suck it" argument doesn't cut it here. Even if it wasn't reprehensible to walk through life like that. And again, I am saying this having spent more than you on this hobby. Money is not the issue.

This here, this is exactly the example I had in mind when I started posting about this. THIS HERE is unfair. It's a dude being excluded or ripped off. This is bad business practice and it's bath business ethics. Nobody speaks about not compensating ED for the work they're doing, but compensate on fair terms that don't split the community.

Yes, from the people that use it. Not from the people that aren't using it. That's a ripoff. There is no pretty way to describe it, but that's what it is. ED may get away with it, but that's a blemish on their otherwise respectful treatment of their playerbase.

Nobody is arguing for a free upgrade.

WW2 is dead, mate. Have you looked at the server list?

Let's be frank here, ED's support for SP is not good enough to use SP as an excuse to ignore the MP aspect. The AI is broken as hell, the mission editor is akin to a night in an iron maiden (yes, the original one from the 1500s) and the F-14's LANTIRN is unuseable without a human RIO. I'm not buying into the SP philosophy. That's not good enough for a company larger than 3. If you go into the gaming market and you have core tech available for multiplayer, you're either in it 100% or you may as well scrap the MP feature altogether.

This really can't be emphasized enough. So I'm just QFTing this, becuase it's that important. And yes, I would like to buy it. But not under these circumstances.

Ok, just to illustrate the point... Is your squadron forcing you to buy the WW2 asset pack? I know, you don't have any use for it. But just to have it. That would be the proper analogy. People that don't own navy planes would just buy this module to join the server. That's it. They have nothing from it other than being able to join. That squadrons specialise in some aircrafts changes nothing about it, because you get a direct return value for buying the module when you buy the A-10 or NTTR. If you choose to utilise it is up to you. But to someone in a squadron only owning a Mirage, this carrier system wouldn't be of any value other than joining the server if the squadron decides to support this. This will be my last post on the topic, if I can't get through by now, I'll never get the message across.

I have yet to see a community requiring a certain mod or aircraft. But even if I take your point, if you want to join a community that is all about the F-14 and they require you to own the F-14, that makes sense. But most players won't be surprised that they have to own an F-14 to join an F-14 squadron. But if you join a squadron that isn't that specialised, and most groups are very open and ask what you have instead of telling you what you get, you would be very surprised if you only owned the Mirage and then had to buy a carrier module just to play with them. No, your argument is flawed. You're forcing groups to either not get this module to begin with, as a group, or force their players to buy a module they may not even have any use for, not even passively, as a group. ED needs to look at different solutions, this doesn't work. It will cause huge strife in the community. And as much as I sympathize with EDs investments, they need to make the investments reasonable for each player. Nobody here is grumbling that every plane costs vast premiums. But there is value we get in return. This carrier module, though, for some players will only translate to "yes, you still can join this server". I have pointed out alternatives, I think they would be reasonable. These problems certainly can't be handwaved away with EDs investments. The community was split long enough with the 1.5x debacle. Why brute forcing a repeat of that experience?

Respectfully, that is really too simplistic. You're splitting the community once again. People will not be able to base their decision on if they want this or not, they will have to base this on if they can even use this in MP or not. If a server decides to activate this, in squadrons and organised groups or on public servers, they will be forced to buy this, even if they don't own any navy aircraft at all. They have to buy this just to join the bloody server to play with their friends. Do you really think that is making anyone happy? The discussions they're having in squadrons right now? Do you think that's joyful for anyone? I urge you to rethink this decision, splitting the community like this is damaging to this little flower of a niche community. Alternatives: A free-lite version, no audio files, no high res textures, make it ugly as ****, but at least people can join the server. Adjust the price so not buying it is insanity, like if you made this sub-10 dollars. Unlikely, but it is an option...

1. The shaking is normal for high AOA. Take it as a warning that you're about to leave what the Tomcat is considering comfortable flight. 2. They're switching to the LANTIRN pod view, you have a switch to the right for that. If the RIO doesn't have LANTIRN enabled, you will get the TCS camera instead. Turn the VDI green or red by clicking onto the middle of it. 4. Never had them not fire reliably. Make sure to hold the button pressed until they release. Some radar missiles be like that. 5. I drop tanks only when I'm about to close in on the enemy in a merge. When I'm still in BVR shooting AIM-54s, I don't see the need to drop tanks just yet when they still got fuel in them. 6. Yes. And no. If you're liberal with your afterburner, the Tomcat burns through its abundant gas faster than any other jet I know.