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.

Can't Agree with that, it's a paid module, no free one and many Carrier-based Communities use it, after the Carrier didn't get much love at all from ED,... they should at least fix the stuff they break in a timely fashion. Dont forget, without Sale, ED wants 50 Bucks for the Carrier Well in this point, I'm with you, but for me, it mirrors how less ED cares for the carrier Module. It simply feels like they give a **** and to be honest alone that nobody found the bug before 2.7 showed how much testing they spend on the carrier and this gets supported by the bad working IFLOS-Overlay option. About the Track thing, its more a formality because they just want it,... in many cases it's not really useful,... like the case with the wrong helmet textures,... sometimes I have the feeling, they just want the track so they can close/ignore bug-reports if nobody sends one.

Very interesting, any chance you still got the track, so I might see what we did wrong? I already ranted yesterday, but to be honest I'm quite sure the carrier didn't get much testing with the update,... you can see that also on the not properly working overlay-function. It's a real shame I'm very disappointed at this point. Mhhh well interesting,... might be a worth a try if Cold-Start-Spawn and prompt respawn might work a temporary solution,... my confident in ED for a fast fix is not really high at this point,... AS I said disappointed jada jada jada Did someone already tried this?

Are you sure about that? we tried it today and it didnt work. We tried all cats. But if you start and land again it works fine like if you come from the shore. Did you tried it again, is your solution persistent? To be sure: -cold start of multiple planes with wings fold on the sc -one taxi to cat one hooks up, wings fold until standing at the blast-protector -two - four taxi to the cats, wings fold until standing at the blast-protector?

Well I first wanted to replay on a bug report BUT I thought it might get a bit too much off topic, so I think it's better to let some steam of this way. Let's be honest, even if ED disclaims that, the whole carrier didn't get much love in the past. Whole Changelog: That might look like much stuff but, I mean ist it's nearly a year, but good thing is, we have a soundtrack in the Main menu,.... even most player I know turns the music in the main menu off, because its just annoying but for some people its might be a great deal. What do we have? Nearly the same functionality as at release,... less because the marshalling is bugged,.. a iflos overlay switch,... that kinda works,... if it feels like and all planets are align,... well and the carrier turns into the wind, if you use Moose because,... its not possible to implement such a feature into the carrier by ed because,... nah who needs a carrier with the right wind over deck? I think maybe,... three guys in the whole world,... everybody else set low or no weather and let the carrier run by 25 Knots.... kinda solution. Oh yeah and I mean we will get the ready-room,... which I quite like,... and I mean it will come soon,... in around a half year,... we hope. We all know ED it the Release-Day-Problem,... Also yeah 5-MC ,... "On the Flight deck ready for the 1010 Depaturewindow,... we have nobody...., because the community switched to the free Stennis because its working" So yes, I'm Ranting, I'm fed up, because yes the Carrier is not finished, we know that BUT all who paid for the Carrier in EA paid for the promise, not only with Money also with trust and honestly? ED let everyone down,... there is little info about progress,... "Look on this nice Pictures and features we want to bring,... we hope" I mean is really somebody who is honest happy with this change log? So again, the Community searched, how to do workarounds for the problem,... test the problem, because if you write a bug report,.... the first thing,... before someone really reads you report is"Giv track" even for things like the wrong hemlet-textures,... someone put all F/A 18 squadron name with the wrong texture into the post,... but "Giv track otherwise I wont look into it",... after that if the problem is still active, "Already known case closed" but the problem is STILL in the game,... because its not possible to fix that,... I mean its editing luas,... nobody wants that,..... Yesterday,... for a second I thought "maybe Im wrong, maybe ED cares, they most possibly knows that many F/A 18 communities use the supercarrier and bring a fix with that patch,...." Looked into the changelog,... "well that's possibly stuff the already knew about,... nice,.... that will be a funny weekend shore-ops all the way" Everybody who recommended the SC to a friend stands there like an Idiot,... because "Mhhh that never happened in the past",... we recommended a Module to a friend for $35 that is literally broken and ED sits there and says "ahhh thats fine" sure it get fixed,... someday,... maybe with the new Plane-Logistic-System that comes in 100 Years so better not hotfix it until because the fix will get obsolete the moment the new system comes online. So now I ranted a lot,... what do I want? Simple if you consider buying the SC : Wait, don't buy it now If you already have bought it : Show ED that you care about the Module and that "if" you dont like how they treat it,... that you dont like it. From ED : Dont fool us around,.. be honest at least thats what we deserve I think the SC-Guys showed they really hold there breath for features and fix the Carrier ASAP dont wait another 2 or 3 weeks for a patch,...

Yeah known issue, just not worth a hotfix I guess, because it just affects nearly all navy-based DCS-F/A-18 Squadrons,... but how much player can the be,... I think the answer is maybe three,....

Well ED just beeing ED again,... Well, I guess, no more need necessary, so pls move on ED will raise the hand, if they need help again,.... but money is still welcome I'm really sry, but like last years F/A 18 fiasco or the "there will be a statement"-SuperCarrier-Postponement-OnReleaseDay-Debakle, I have to take the whole thing a bit humorous. Because I really not sure, why and how, a Business with such a "faithful" Community can be so bad in making decisions and communicate them. There would be soooo many, way better excuses,... ED chose the laziest.... and goes the usual way of freezing the community,... eat or die,... I personally hope, there will be a competitor one day,.. not because I want ED to go down, but because I think without we will always be in the position to hope that ED does the right thing, and often they do not,.... #cough# ED breaks the expansive half backed supercarrier for communities,... no one blinks an eye #cough#

Ciribot, the SRS-Guy said, the next SRS-Patch will most probably fix the issue EDIT- New informations: It seems like Ciribot changed his view, he says, it dosent look possible to fix on his end,... maybe worth a short conversation between the C-101 Team and Ciribot, I mean SRS is one of, if not the most used Tool for DCS

As the title says, it would be great if we could add/remove the Hood via Ground crew order.

I really hope, there will come a hotfix and we don't need to wait for the next regular Patch, because as it is now, the Carrier is kinda useless for bigger Missions, especially if you want to also use AI,...

I think, we getting a bit off-topic here and I think at the end, all of us who wrote so far cant say for sure, if the MKs get erased or not. About the Quick Turnarounds, the hornet not only flew from the boat, but I get ur point there. I personaly think how it is now, makes way more sense, if someone with first hand experiance proof its the other way, Im happy with if it gets changed again.