JayBird

I would rather have the module and a few quirks with AI then not have the module at all. I hope at some point this will be addressed, but for me currently this is a minor issue.

Its an extremely minor bug and more so a QOL improvement than anything. Happy to have the Super Carrier in exchange for this small inconvenience

Using triggers with "time more" with "group activate" for individual groups seems to work to sequence spawning position. Play with that until the order is set as you'd like.

Thank you. Loving Super Carrier thus far

They do seem to be very random and they're currently causing me some problems. It seems that placement in the mission editor is what matters the most here. I'm going to check if delaying the activation of some units will help.

When copying and pasting a static object that is linked to the carrier, tested with deck crew and aircraft equipment, pasted object to jumps position to the center of the flight deck and you are unable to move it from that position.

I recently saw either Nineline or Bignewey posting about a visibility issue with the IFLOS on SC and it's being fixed for the 20th. Hopefully this fix will eliminate the need to use it unless requested. I'll try to find the post in a few hours for you

I've read that figure before myself, but I honestly couldn't tell you what rock all of the users are hiding under. Every organized group or event I've come across in DCS uses Open Beta exclusively, most servers (that are popular at least) are Open Beta, most of the forum users I see commenting are Open Beta, all of the people I fly with use Open Beta. Any idea what percentage of that two-thirds are active users, or new users that frankly do not know any better? In my mind, the Open Beta branch is the only one that matters, if they scrapped the Stable version today it would affect me in no way. Maybe I'm just a bit ignorant, but after the months of waiting, it surprises me why anyone would stick to using the Stable build when Open Beta is so readily available.

No, the train doesn't stop. Just because new features are implemented doesn't mean that bugs won't be fixed. Yeah, as many people have stated, Stable hasn't been updated in five months or something like that, there is a lot of good things in there, but a lot of bad as well. I imagine once the kinks are worked out of the Open Beta, Stable will be updated to be on par, but its not there yet so you'll need to be a bit more patient.

That's not really how software development works, not all bugs are clearly identifiable, nor can they necessarily be 'cleaned up'

They've stated many times in various threads that the Open Beta version must be fixed in order to gain a stable release. In its current form, the Open Beta is very buggy, containing many issues with the various modules, poor FPS, crashing, VR compatibility, really an endless list of issues currently... ED has no timeline beyond May 20th where they intend to update the Open Beta branch, if this version is observed to be more stable than what is currently available then it will likely be brought towards release on the Stable branch (see how that verbiage works) I feel like a lot of the claims that you make in your argument are illogical. ED is working on the Stable Branch by working on the Open Beta, the two go hand and hand, it's not that difficult to understand. If you're looking for news on the Stable Branch but don't see anything, look at the latest news and reports for the Open Beta, and with some deductive reasoning, you should be able to get an idea of the status for Stable. If you are unhappy with the pace that the Stable branch is updated then you are free to switch to the Open Beta version, a majority of servers and users I have encountered use the Open Beta, the stable branch user is the black sheep when it comes to DCS.

I'm with you on this here, the F-18 is an aircraft that I want to fly, I'm more than happy to shell out the $80 or whatever when it first released. I have zero interest in the L-39(lets say). However, I see no logical way that ED could divide up this funding towards particular projects, nor should we expect them to. I am in total disagreement with this for a number of reasons. First off being could this just delay release staging and implementing of new features even further? Who's to say ED would even consider releasing a new weapon or feature in December when they could wait another month and charge your $100- $200 to every user and cash in? Secondly, a lot of the aircraft we have are on the last legs of their careers, what features could be brought into the sim in year two that hasn't already been made available in year one? Thirdly, what about far in the future? If I drop playing DCS for three years and decide one day I'd like to fly the Hornet, do I need to once again pay $100, or do I use a (likely) buggy/broken version that's compatible with DCS 2.56 when the release version of DCS is 3.5? ED is in a very difficult position when it comes to the pricing model, while I agree with OP, the current form is unsustainable in the long term to continue the much-needed development on the core sim, the proposed business model is absurd and frankly laughable. I'm glad there are bigger brains at Eagle Dynamics (and the dozens of Harvard MBAs on the forums) who are responsible for making these difficult decisions.

I like the IFLOS popup, I hope this can be seen separate from the flight control indicator

Awesome find with the SH-3!! Would love to have that on the Forrestal with the F-14 and A-6

I'm curious about this as well, I'd like to have something that is more true to life but as you said, its difficult to find information on. Right now I do my formation like this: - Carrier in the center, BRC 360 - FFG at the Carriers 270 for 1.2NM - I'll try and line this up with the LSO platform as best I can - CG at the Carriers 171 for 1NM in plane guard - I try to line this up with the centerline of the landing area - FFG at the Carriers 360 for 7NM - CG at the Carriers 090 for 2NM - FFG at either the Carriers 045 or 315 for 7NM I plan to switch out one of the CGs and one of the FFGs for DDGs when they become available. This formation gives the pilot a good reference point for their CASE I recovery/launch while still providing good air defense for Mother.

Delaying gives me more time to build missions, hopefully SC integrates easy. I've got one ready to go on release day :)

100% agreed this was first posted in November 2017 and last updated in December 2018. If this shouldn't be taken as gospel I'm not sure what should be at this point...

He means THIS it was teased to us in February of last year and there has been radio silence on the topic since. The JF-17 has a very similar system currently.

This is very beneficial. Thanks for posting, I will use this as a basis for my future carrier decks. For the Devs, it would be awesome to get an idea of what the possible parking locations for the 14 different aircraft will look like.

Going through the survey I would like to voice my opinion here as best I can. I believe the main priority should be fleshing out the Hornet flight model and flight systems first. Everything revolves around actually piloting the jet to perform any task. This should be no less than the absolute priority in my mind. The second priority should be small features that seem in theory simple to execute, these include quality of life upgrades to add HOTAS functions, mission card, increasing the number of countermeasures, etc. These should be quick to complete functionality for The third priority should be completing the weapons and systems that already present within the Hornet module. Such as completing the HARM and its Pre-Briefed system. Fourth priority should be implementing new weapons, I believe the user base certainly wants to see all of the promised weapons on the Hornet, but I cannot say that I am personally eager to have the SLAM-ER, we have many weapons that can accomplish a very similar mission, I'd rather see those completed as much as possible. Final priority should be completing the, in my eyes, numerous small details such as introducing the TALD decoy, gun sparks at night, BIT Tests, etc. To summarize, finish what we have first, add additional items second. Complete the simple items first, delay the more difficult tasks for later. In closing, thank you to ED and the Hornet developers for all of their hard work over the many years, as a user I can say that I am extremely pleased with the product that has been offered and I am excited to see what will come in the next few years of development. I cannot begin to understand how complex some of the systems that are retained within the module are, and I am more than happy to be patient in waiting for features to be introduced. We as a community are very vocal and will speak our mind, whether that is positive feedback or not, we do this because we are just as passionate as you are. We all grew up wanting to be Maverick, very very few of us have ever been able to make that a reality, Eagle Dynamics and its Third Parties have given us the chance to make that dream possible in a lot of ways. The only thing that I ask is that you remain open and realistic with your communication and announcements. Rome was not built in a day.

One of its many functions will be in the beta, the rest seem as of they're far from introduction

My bad, reading can be tough...

This 100% It would benefit more than just the Viper, every module in DCS could be positively benefited from adding this.

I'll run either the EW or FPAS page on the MPCD. I have a difficult time making out the finer details of the HSI/SA page when its down low, I usually run these two pages on the left display and my right display is what I'll switch most frequently.

Possible fix to the sliding issue?