headbreaker_ger

It would be nice to have the option to manual set the temperature of objects like tanks ( also static tanks ) via mission editor or script. On/off would be fine, but to fine tune it would be nice to have for mission builders.

Greetings, it would be really nice to have the possibility to set the Modexnumbers for the sake of immersion. I know that's not a high priority but... for the people like me who tries to rebuild an authentic carrier experience for the community it would help a lot.

Sry I didn't quite make clear what I mean or better said I said it wrong. What I mean ED never built the NET integration for the Hornet and members are simply assigned by the ME as flight. Yes they did it for the A-10 and with the new features the Falcon gets I'm sure that module will also get a better Net integration but I don't think, sure that's just my opinion and I stand to be corrected, the Hornet will get that feature what's be a shame. I really wished one day ED will build a universal net system, that would give the me and ad-hoc flights way more possibilities and add a lot to the Immersion. But for the CAS-Page you would need AFAIK a more komplex NET-System as we have today and I guess that's the real reason why ED is not doing the CAS-Page even if the Hornet might be one of the Jets who would have the most use of it. It's for crying out loud tbh.

Let's face that point, for a moment, and let's be real, the point is, ED was always way to optimistic about planned released and still is, evidence : AH-64 or every new module. That's not be impolite, but that's the truth. I get projects takes time,.. but lets be honest, often it was more than obvious that the release will not be possible in time. We saw the poll and for example the FA18 Poll was the first time I had again the feeling ED would listen and respect our opinion BUT even that's out of the window because now progress nearly stopped and the promise to finish the Hornet before the Falcon is the new focus is also broken, I know you don't want to hear that but call it as you like that's how it feels. I totally get why the Falcon guys are happy their bird now gets more attention, but it's a slap in the face for every bug-driver. Why do I point that out? ED not you personal Bignewy but ED is saying, we should trust, and they know best, but in the end a Business has 1 Major points to fulfill, ... make money obviously and for that they should make the customer happy, that's why it's called customer is king. Try to get into the head of us customers, not just saying, but really try it, feel the frustration and at that moment, after seeing features removed, delayed, hundreds, some of them of nearly decade old, bug reports and really ask yourself are you really able to put your trust into these words after two years with nearly no progress at all? Is this really how it should be? A test of strength for the customer, a take it or break it approach. I for myself are one of your longtime customers, I stick with ed since lock on, I have enough miles to buy a full module with them,... but I do feel more and more fatigue. And to say "buy a finished module" well some of our older friends might never live to see the full release of the module they want, also see the approach of the hornet,... I mean, you want to push it out of EA in a unfinished state soooo.... As mentioned it's not personal against someone or to hate,... but in the end I personally as others think ED is not only partly decoupled from what the customer really want and how they should locate and communicate, as I always say good communication and transparency can do a lot. But you can not forever hope on blind trust,... you will more and more lose your long time customer and the guys who really carried ED for all that years. We get that too, but in which other why can we show our frustration and also if a company sees that people are unhappy how they operate they maybe should just give it a though it might be not all perfect the way they do it. If ED would just stick the Wands with tape to the models, even it might have looked like an early 1999 era game and said "Yeah it's interim because we did hear ya it will be better, but that's a fast fix" many if not most user would cut you the slag for it. On the other hand, nothing other as "yeah its coming,... someday" and to say for other features "we do not know if we do it because we fear how it works in mp" while scripts already do it quite good,... that's are real bummer for customer. For me, I can just say, communicate with us, do more real release dates, stick to promises and start sometime question yourself "is what I do really the best approach" "Is this what the community/customer wants" Most of us all time Customers really cut you a lot of slag in the past. You can not expect us to be on hold forever.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the HUD cue is indeed the JAM/XJAM cue mentioned in 742. AFAIK, X depends on the type of jamming. Here, VJAM could indicate velocity jamming associated with the L&S, although I'm just guessing. That might be possible but in the video where I got the Screenshot from you can clearly see the JAM indication is only present while SAM-Indicator are also present, so I don't think it's associated with L&S at this Point. But Im surly open to get proofed wrong.

Greetings, AFAIK, the Hornet should show a HUD-Indication if the ASPJ is active. IIRC at the moment we only have that indication on the ATT RDR Page, but it should also be on the HUD. Here is a picture from HUD Footage from around 1991.

+1 It's a shame ED Blocks the implementation. I guess that's also because they never really implemented the DATA-Link-Functionality its a pity.

+1

Greetings, with the newest patch, all values on D/L after pressing enter jumping back to 127. Would be nice to fix that soon for multiple reasons. Track https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nBiARNX382UflQU8p9bj2EDoa654IgYz/view?usp=sharing

Well, without being impolite,..... at some point "deeds instead of words" would be more than appropriate. Nobody can argue about the patience of the SC-Buyers have shown but the visible progress is nearly non-existent. So it's no wonder people feel that way, and with the many other disappointments we have to swallow right now and the way the critic is handed I can only say, support and trust only goes so far. I mean, ED in returns expected us to hold our part of the deal and pay our order. I'm being honest, I cannot recommend the SC and much other Modules to any squadron-mate or friend right now. Also, a little shout-out to the moose guys, without them the SC would be more than useless in long missions, thank you guys.

Greetings, According to "A1-F18AC-NFM-500 NATOPS POCKET CHECKLIST" Side 6 "Before Taxi" #5: Right now this Xs are not present. Also the BLIN-Codes seems to be wrong, as stated in the same document, the only visible codes after Bit-Test should be: FCS.trk

Greetings, with the last Open Beta Patch, now the modification of the viewport ( with others ) now breaks IC and cant be used for playing in Multiplayer. This is especially important because without it, you can't use the Helios Cockpit program which modifies some data for exporting the rwr and so on. For example, the files for the Hornet are: ifei_init.lua ufc_init.lua rwr_alr67_init.lua mpd_common_bake_init.lua mdi_left_viewport_cfg.lua mdi_right_viewport_cfg.lua ampcd_bake_init.lua ampcd_viewport_cfg.lua

No, it has nothing to do to like or not to like your answers, I appreciate all feedback. But to say "Use stable" is like mentioned above no real possibility in DCS,... and thats how it is. Also I think all SC users showed a real big part of patience, we showed a long breath for the whole project BUT I think this should also be rewarded and at least if for such a major bug for a module a fix is available, it should be open for all to test. If there is a real reason why a hotfix is not possible Im full on board to delay, if a next major patch is planned for the next week am totally happy with it BUT to say "We dont patch it because we wait to patch real module-stuff because the carrier is just a sideline-guy" well yes in that case Im kinda disappointed. I spend, like many players, a few bucks in DCS , even for modules I dont use in a kind of support for ED and even if I criticized ED for the Hornet-Disaster or the SC-Release,.. I brought some new players to the game, recommended it, gifted Modules to friends and so on, but my whole experience in the SC really brings me to doubt that a bit. Even if I think ED is doing a great Job,.. its a real pity how the buyers of the SC are treated. In the end, it would be great if ED considers, that some strategies or priorities they have need an overhaul or adaptation to grow together with the community. You should see it this way, I rant because DCS is for me an important hobby, because its worth to spend my time to write my concerns in a language, I mean it obvious, that is not my native language and I usually don't use it that much. I spend this time because I think DCS can be a great hobby and has a great community but sometimes ED is just doing things that are just hurting the progress and the community.

You see and there, right there lies the no. 1 Problem,... a broken, paid module just don't have any priority,... and that's something I cannot understand,... we had hotfixes for campaigns and so on in the past, but a broken module, that is been used by many communities simply is not worth a hotfix. Im really sorry but thats simply bad patch-policy and a slap in the face for everyone who bought the super carrier. And the bad support and progress a problem with the carrier from the start on. I really feel ashamed ever recommended the carrier to a friend. But hey thanks for your answer now we are clear about the situation just wait another month or two until any "real" Module needs a patch so hopefully ED patches the Carrier without breaking something else because of the great testing....

In the End they will, BUT I think, for such a severe Bug they really dont show much affort or at least communication, a bug with such a extent on players should get at least some priority and its more than worth a hotfix,... But they just give no feedback, information and thats a real shame. We are now also flying shore ops again, but it cannot be the purpose of a dedicated Carrier-Module to fly from the free one or shore. I can assure you the problem exists for a dedicated server, my squadron use a dedicated server on a dedicated machine, and we have the problem persistent. And many other communities and public-server have the same problem.