Shimmergloom667

I was just talking about me, though?

Why would I? I am flying a good dozen of modules and my VKB Gunfighter MCG Pro covers all of my aviation needs

I didn't say it isn't logical or straightforward, just more complex. In the Hornet you always only have one target designation that drives everything, and that usually is a very concious decision to do as well. Your waypoint isn't your target automatically, unless you conciously designate it as such. Where your TGP is looking isn't your target automatically, unless you conciously designate it as such. I find that to be logical and straightforward. In the Hog (and to a certain extent the Viper), your STPT may automatically be the target designation, the SPI. Or maybe your TGP is driving it. Or something else. You kinda always have to double-check: what is my current SPI generator, because it may be very different from what you expect to be. Mind you: I don't think it is HARD or ILLOGICAL, it is just more complex than in the Hornet. It also possibly gives you greater flexibility, coming from it's greater complexity. (and my point of view comes from teaching noobs all three modules and their comments on those thing. Had they started with, say: learning the Hog on their own their view might be different. But generally everyone I taught how to use those said that "SPI and SOI" were complex to wrap their head around)

Honestly I think they are both pretty easy. The A-10's concept of SPI and SOI is a bit more to complex to wrap your head around and memorize along with the associated HOTAS commands, but you can easily subdivide both modules into easy to digest lessons - and overall both are clear and concise in their interfacing, albeit with the regular Air Force / Navy differences. Both are absolutely fine as a first module, while I lean towards the F-18 being a bit easier to understand, systems-wise.

So you don't have proof, only hearsay?

I'd rather do that with real adults than on VR, but thanks still!

I get what you mean, as in: enjoy now and don't wait for an intangible future. Point is: I simply don't enjoy what VR has to offer right now, but it's close enough that I don't have to wait for some nebulous far future. Still: I get what you mean, and I really hope that everyone enjoying VR right now will only see it get better!

But that's exactly the point - I had a wow-effect the first time I used it, and that disappeared very quickly. After 2 days I was simply annoyed. Thusly I am happy to wait untill VR at least reaches current levels of 2D fidelity. That's fine, as I said earlier - I am not in a hurry, and while VR absolutely is the way of the future, I can wait

I tried several hi-end headsets with my pretty hi-end system and honestly: the immersion factor wore off in 2 days and I was permanently angry about lack of visual fidelity and perfomance / ease-of-use issues. While I am pretty certain that VR is the way of the future, it is not yet there for me. If I am willing to spend a few hundred bucks or more on that I absolutely have to not be constantly angry about that. I went back to a hi quality monitor and TIR, which has a lot of issues of itself, but works without major technical hickups and runs smoothly and with impeccable quality. I will revisit VR in the coming years, I am not in a hurry.

Already reported:

Whenever the stable version is updated - lately that has happened around 2 - 3 weeks after the OB patch.

I just accept that helicopters crab when aerodynamically trimmed. No big deal. I trim nose-tail when I need it (landing, NOE flight, stuff like that)

It being on in Cold&Dark state probably was wrong, have to follow procedures and turn it on, now

Same here, literally just took off from Cold&Dark, started RALT, active after a few seconds, no issues

That is due to not all DCS maps having map image files for all scales included. That is, ultimately, something for the map creators to do and not an Apache bug.

It's for Ugra to fix, and as Bunny Clark said: probably the map itself took precedence, since we got it expanded quite a bit now

qed

And nothing of that would be part of a ~2005 Hornet, which is modeled in DCS. Oh wait, it's you, so it would be a fruitless discussion anyway.

Basically every TGP implementation except the LANTIRN on the F-14 is overperforming as compared to RL. So I think every bit of degradation, every bit of bloom, athmospheric impediment etc. is a good thing.

But why? Are you in a hurry? It's not like it's yesterday's news (speaking about sims) after 6 years.

Carrier ops, better ergonomics, more varied loadout and capabilities, carrier ops, better user interface, more capable sensorics with better usability, carrier ops - everything the F-18 has in the cockpit feels like someone at MDD looked at the F-16 and made a better version of it. (And the Hornet just looks SO MUCH better)

I know people who refuel flying with keyboard. I used a crappy X56 and had no issues. Good hardware sure doesn't hurt, but it is NOT needed for AAR.

Abandoning would mean "stopping on working on it for good", which clearly is not the case.

Man, you guys are pessimists. Yes, it would be great if stuff got finished faster, especially since the Hornet is at a very high level of completion already and we are using it for so long - but now it's the Viper's turn, and it sorely needs it. As we saw, a lot of Hornet developments speeded up Viper development, and later on we will profit off that in the Hornet as well because stuff will arrive faster. Judging the Hornet to be "abandoned" is just absurd. A bit on the backburner? Yeah, obviously. That will change in good time. Just my 0.02$, I am not in a hurry.

Build your own missions, leave out AA threats, done.