Arctander

If it was from a team that had proved they could do it and post reviews then! ;-)

Bravo!

Yeah, I know about that but to be honest I love the Hunter so much that i wouldn’t want to fly a mod...

Still sounds like a slippery slope to me. And how do you prevent ED from ‘encouraging’ people to use subscription by making the advantages more than cosmetic? Not as blatantly as TorWunder (you know what I mean) but I’m sure that someone sufficiently motivated by increasing the revenue stream with scant regard for the customer (note I am absolutely not saying this exists, it is a hypothetical) would find a way...

Bad idea.

Apologies for the utter chaos... in a month or so time I will be able to rebuild a new permanent version.... this one is designed to fold away so I can slide it on braked castor wheels under the desk....

I use a small piece of Velcro stuck to the middle button on each row/column to help differentiate by feel/reinforce muscle memory. I can feel for the inner edge of the plastic, and my fingers are invariably in the right place that the Velcro covered button is there or thereabouts..

Would love a Hunter if it was done right and released as a fully functioning product.

So? I fail to see how that would justify the time and expense for Ed to build such a thing. I would also point out that a gci that loses awacs suffers from worse sa

How long ago was that post now?

Thanks for the clarification, could have sworn it was stable hence the complaints at the time... still not great though!

You can do much this already in game using the GCI/JTAC view and srs to control the battlefield in Multiplayer.

There was also that time (exact details elude me) where a whole module was made unflyable because it caused a crash. So Ed put out a stable release without a product people had paid for, and they couldn’t fly it for a time. I think it was the Mig21 - anyone remember the details better than I?

Agreed - stages 1 and 2 are just replicating teamspeak/discord capabilities that already exist and can be used even if not in game. 3 is where the benefit really arrives for ED and the community. Having said that though almost everyone in Blueflag pg last night was on SRS, so I really doubt that people will move over before whatever Ed provides is at least as good/configurable as SRS is. And for sure - I want the option of muting the ‘general’ rooms. Please have that as a setting such that you don’t have to press ‘mute’ every time you join a server. That’s a faff. Give us an option to change the default setting from ‘on’ to ‘off’

A good idea for things like dynamic multiplayer, but not until cloud cover masks IR sensors. I don’t want to have to face flankers with Irst seeing me instantly through cloud cover thanks.

As far as I understand it from reading similar question it should cause an offset from the WP, not move the waypoint, but I am happy to be corrected on this one.

No new clouds. ED showed a 'this is what it will look like' WIP pic and someone decided it was praiseworthy. I'll give praise when the new clouds are in game, synced in Multiplayer and have a detrimental impact on IR sensors like missiles and the Flanker IRST.

Shall we wait for things like the clouds to be implemented before we give due praise? Work is nice and all but end output is required.

Personally I would not support A subscription model but neither do I believe Ed can continue with modules in ea representing their only income stream. I would probably support a ‘major iteration’ charge to help understand core developments but only once Ed have proven they can begin to deliver those. Then implement a charge for any new users and a siding scale depending on length of time and/or number of modules For existing users to get off the mark. Once you own a signficant number of modules I would say you have put your fair share of support into ED. If they tried to implement it now before sorting out networking issues, clouds being synced, rotating, in game voip etc I would definitely not support it.

It means just like Brave Sir Robin you can turn around and bravely run away while controlling a Man In the Loop weapon like the Walleye or Slam-ER.

Have you checked Chuck’s guide?

Ok. Must have been a misunderstanding my end about the different types of lighting. Thanks for clearing that up. Since it doesn’t require a graphics engine change I look forwards to better lighting sooner rather than later.

Definitely agree the Hornet is disadvantaged in PvP vs FCS planes with Irst and instalock radars Even when I know where the bandit is ACM modes feel worse than useless

If the F16 had come out in EA and there had been no drop in effort on the Hornet, this wouldn’t even be an issue. It is the fact that Ed has taken effort ‘paid’ by those who bought the Hornet and moved it (temporarily - 3 months and counting, so at least 4 months before we see the output of moving them back) to work on something else, and the messaging around doing it has been (from my perspective) poor, and required us asking about the status instead of ED proactively telling us. Ea is not bad per se, it is how ED uses ea as a catch all to work on what they like, when they like, and not give a proper roadmap that is the problem.

Sorry? While earlier this year they moved from twice monthly to monthly updates because the systems were ‘becoming more complex’ They haven’t been working on the Hornet avionics systems (radar, navigation, RWR etc) since September. So what work are you referring to? Or is this a future anticipation thank you?