Flamin_Squirrel

You're fundamentally misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what I said. I did not ask for specific dates. I did not expect dates to never slip. I did not state any 'rules'. As you've pointed out, there are enough people getting annoyed and complaining. I'm simply suggesting we give people as little to complain about as possible. I'm not sure why you'd disagree with that.

Will do, thanks.

I will try and be more constructive, and provide a suggestion as to how I think things could be improved, and why the above is inadequate. I believe there should be a central location on the DCS website, probably on the pages for each module, detailing what's been implemented, what's work in progress, including a time line of when to expect new features and bug fixes. We shouldn't have to go hunting in various locations to find this information. The items you've listed are welcome, but should be an addition.

I agree. However ED comms are poor, so it's easy to forget, or never realise in the first place. There are truths on either side of the argument.

Re WoW I suspect it's because catapult launches are prohibited with partially filled external tanks. By preventing transfer on the ground you ensure they stay full. Fuel transfers from external tanks by pressurised air forcing it out of the tanks. This pressure would also work against the tanker trying to fill your tanks; this is why tanks depressurise when you extend the probe. Yes there are limits on landing with fuel in the external tanks. External tanks will fill during air refueling. When it says it won't transfer, it means external fuel won't transfer from the external tanks to internal, for the reasons I describe above.

I can think of a couple. Maybe of limited use in DCS though, as I'm not sure how developed the damage model is: ORIDE will force fuel transfer if the WoW switch fails to ground mode (which would otherwise prevent fuel transfer from external tanks). ORIDE will force fuel transfer with the probe out (which again would otherwise prevent fuel transfer from external tanks). Correct. Or indeed, stops fuel from flowing into the damaged tank during refuelling.

It's a limitation stated in the NATOPS.

It's in the works, as per latest news letter. I think you're demonstrating a lack of long term thinking. Just look how far they've come in the last 10 years. While I certainly don't like the way modules have been released in the past couple of years, I'm not going to complain either, because I recognise it as a necessity. No-one gets into this genre to make their fortune; they're doing what they're doing to keep the lights on. If they don't, they won't survive long enough to make the core improvements we all desire.

:huh: I can't believe this needs to be pointed out but: yes of course reality has everything to do with a game that's supposed to simulate it.

Discussing G limits in the Hornet is a bit of a red herring when it comes to dogfights. Other than perhaps the merge, you'll quickly find yourself well below corner speed, unable to pull high G anyway. As for receiving damage from high G, hopefully this video should provide some context for how much punishment planes are designed to take.

Thank you!

How do you know this pitching down is definitely wrong? Honest question, not trying to be difficult.

What punishment are you expecting? Pulling 10g isn't going to break the plane instantly.

It's not good practice to use the VV on final. Because the boat is moving away from you, if you keep the VV on the notch, your approach will get shallower/lower as you get nearer. You're low in your pic, which is why you're getting power calls.

Totally agree with this. If the Viper is your main ride, get it.

Thank you for your sacrifice :)

Not 'this'. You've just made an argument for ED to remove the feature for consumers entirely.

I really hope so, and soon. I've seen lots of people asking for it.

The correct one, obviously :music_whistling: Honestly, of all the things to complain about.

I'd like to be added to the list please.

Everyone (at least in the west) still flies magnetic. It has the advantage that you can always crosscheck your primary navigation system with a compass.

Their F18 throttles are no better. Which they stopped making. Says it all really. Avoid.

It's not an all or nothing situation. While I agree it's reasonable to imagine that the existing carrier won't get the level of ATC the paid for carrier will, I can't see the existing carrier being left in its current (useless) state either. You may well find the existing carrier ATC gets an upgrade, funded by sales of the paid for carrier. Either way, I think we should reserve judgement until we know for sure.

Apologies if that's how you interpreted my post, I did not mean for it to come across that way. Indeed, I was not trying to communicate my own opinion on this matter at all. I'm no ED fan boy, and it's not the opinion I take issue with, it's that lxsapper's post represented their opinions as facts. Advanced ATC comms not coming to the standard carrier? Might be true, where has ED confirmed this? Until it's been confirmed, don't state you opinion as fact. I, as you are, am dismayed with how those voicing concerns are hounded. Raising concerns before we know they exist won't help.

I've not seen anywhere where ED have said no ATC improvements from the new carrier will transfer to the existing. Your post is a long rant based on speculation and a misunderstanding of how things are now, let alone that "everything is subject to change".