Chaogen

Not so sure about that one. We've noticed that if you do not tap the NG Strut switch to raise, your AC will still be in the kneel position when you land. Not great if you're trying to clear the deck and your NWS won't engage. That's probably an interaction bug, since there's no more hookup command, but if you follow the hand signal it works just fine. As for the salute, it works just like before. Didn't have to remap anything, and no need to use the comms menu. What I am not getting is instructions to taxi to a specific catapult. The crew will just come alive when I approach one. No response to startup comms either. Not that it ever worked anyway. But pretty sure that's a MP issue.

One thing I didnt see is having your Speed Break fully deployed at the break. In fact I have mine deployed at the initial, while maintaining 350 kts, so it gives me time to get trim set exactly so I'm not adjusting one more thing in the crosswind turn. Once you roll out on downwind there should be little trim work do. As for timing I didn't explicitly see it stated. As you break you will set Idle, Sweep Auto, (wait for 250 kts. Pull more Gs to slow her so you get to 250 by the top of the turn) Gear, Flaps and DLC in the turn. Don't wait till downwind.

Yesterday I jumped in the back of a squadmate's Cat, that was having issues with the radio. He has been slowly figuring out the Tomcat and decided to try AAR. He was still a couple of miles away so I helped him find the tanker, get the radios set up, and then briefed him two things. 1. Fold the wings, 2. Trim it out once he got close. He approached it slowly from low 7 o'clock. Formed up and just kept it in place while I got him the basket. He plugged it right in, managed to follow the tanker into a turn and top off with 9k lbs all without disconnecting. Now obviously he's not a novice at flying or AAR. Just had never done it in the Tomcat. Most of his experience is from the Mirage which he said was considerably harder due to throttle response. As almost everyone here has said. Its 100% formation flying. Once you can stay in a spot and then transition to the exact other spot of your choosing you will have no problem with AAR in any aircraft. And unfortunately while you can do formation flying in SP you really need to get into a MP server to practice. The Aerobatics server is one such place where you can hone your skills even if you dont know anyone or dont have Comms.

There are so many variables, so again your hypothesis is hardly substantiated by saying Aim-120 doesn't do the same. Range? Altitude? If I fired a Phoenix at 20nm the Phoenix would go Active very quickly. Now I do agree that with longer shots the Phoenixes will seemingly track if the Donor A/C has broken away and lost track, which would make it potentially theoretically active off the rail, but that's not the reason why the AI is reacting, because I have been on the receiving end and I did not get the Missile [M] warning on my RWR until the 16 seconds prior to impact. I've also rack up a couple of 60nm shot on Human players, mainly because they didn't get the warning till it was too late. I'll repeat myself. The AI doesn't play by the same rules as Human Players, and you cannot assert an argument by citing AI behavior as proof that the missile is active off the rail in TWS with ACM mode off.

AI don't play by the same rules as human players. Especially when you set the skill level high. They can notch perfectly because they know exactly where the missile is coming from. Their flight model is also different, and they can and do pull unrealistic maneuvers that even a human in the same aircraft can't. You can't use their behavior as a substantiation of your argument.

Heatblur didn't break the Stennis. The current state of the Stennis Carrier was a known issue when they released the patch. Go check the release notes again. "Known issues Torpedoes from U-boat or S-boat could be fired to unmoved targets only MP: Ship speed calculated with errors and drifted, so aircraft can slide on the deck PLAT camera view missing from the Stennis"

Yeah. Even if you knew nothing else, the cockpit clearly shows that A2G capability was there from the start. Ordinance release on the Stick. A2G Mode on the HUD. All the A2G Munitions settings in the RIO pit weren't afterthoughts. They were always there. Just not used. [edit: extensively until later. Before someone feels the need to correct me.]

This is pretty much guaranteed to be a DCS issue. We noticed on our servers in the F10 Map that the Carrier itself has an oscillating speed of about +- 3 knots. It also affects the Hornet.

It does not work on multiplayer. I did it numerous times yesterday in external view, watching the pilot salute and the A/C never launched. I ended up disconnecting, taxied to the fantail and launched without the catapult. But we are very well aware this is a ED issue, as the F-18 is still not working correctly either. Are you done? Your tone is uncalled for and frankly not constructive to this forum. This forum have discussed the merits and release of each model and its place in this simulator at length, including those glove vanes, which were only operational very early on, and subsequently disabled/deleted on all models. As for the status, you can reserve your dismay until such time that one is given, supporting your fears. Otherwise your exaggerated skepticism trying to elicit a response, just seems juvenile.

Definitely sounds like something is switching your active window to another program/desktop, which is why you regain control after a left mouse click. Could be some unrelated software and/or macro generating an alt-tab keystroke. If you have more than one screen, it could be that like in VR, your mouse cursor will sometimes travel outside the active DCS Screen. The latest patch Out of Focus warning message is very helpful, but I don't know if it works for NON-VR users too.

Make sure your Radar Mode is set to TWS by Jester. He will usually do it automatically but just to be sure. Then as soon as you have an active bandit (or unknown) radar contact on your TID within the Radar Cone, you can fire a Phoenix at will (as long as you have a hot trigger message). This would also be the same way you can launch multiple missiles at multiple bandits. Make sure you stay within +-5000ft of your targets altitude to guide your missiles in until you have to defend. You can use the Jester azimuth feature to crank if you need to. Only time I've ever used the SST feature by Jester is to scare someone cold. For less than 20nm engagements I'll use PAL scan to obtain a SST lock. Also read up on the ACM Cover and its function. As for ranging, you can estimate range with the Scan Range Line, each interval dash representing 20 nm. 35 is a good range. But I've had 60nm shots too. All depends on Altitude, Aspect, Closure Rate, bandit skill. TWS also allows you to keep track of other bandits in the save vicinity for better SA in the absence of Datalink. Highly suggest you get Chuck's guide from the Mudspike site.

Out of curiosity why did you use SST lock?

Here's some carrier footage. 1:50 Can't tell if the engines are still running, but the pilots never got out.

So you admit that you have simply posted all of your replies to pick my argument apart? I would very much like to know what prior interactions we had to piss you off that much? Oh wait, not relevant and I don't care. Just to recap, because TL;DR. 1.cptmrcalm has now stated that in fact his request was for the purpose of full immersion, and a modeled hangar deck "Because that would be immersive. A celebratory end to a mission. To help put into perspective the flight I just had. To add to the immersion that the ship is alive with a hive of activity.", even though the Flight Ops part does not include going down the elevator. See you keep running around in circles partially quoting me, when I have repeatedly stated that its not just the hangar deck but everything that goes along with it. What’s the point of modeling an empty deck, since this whole module is centered around adding animated deck crew? Especially since the one that's "already there" and doesn't add a "Significant Advantage" to convince cptmrcalm to buy the SC Module. Or at least in his original post. I am "hung-up" on those two words (all of 3 times) because that was what my question was quoted and directed at. You inferred it was an argument against the animated elevators simply because of the thread it was in. So not off-topic, since it is most certainly related and I wasn't making "it" up, even if it wasn't asked for it verbatim. It was the intent of the request, as is all the other requests in this forum regarding the hanger deck and ability for a player to use the elevators. None of your 4 responses provided any answer consistent with what cptmrcalm requested or posted. Again, you are more interested in arguing with me than answering the specific question. And if your simple answer is NO, then what are you doing here? (Again this is a rhetorical question btw.) 2.We all agree it would be nice to see the AI Deck Crew move planes to below with elevators, as long as it does not impact performance. You're the one that inferred my argument is against the elevators in general, even though I specifically quoted cptmrcalm in my original reply and wrote aquestion. 3.As update 2.5.6 has proved, bad coding and memory leaks, will in-fact turn MP into a sub 15 fps slideshow eventually crashing the server, which now makes it unplayable for everyone to the point where our MEs had to remove carriers from all the missions. And this is directly related to the existing Stennis you like to refer to so much. So let alone additional code and potential sync issues required to address the animated crew below deck (what would be the point of a static crew below when this module brings us animated crew? Since we already have static crew available..), being run-over by someone taxing a jet into the hangar deck along with the collision models ect. If it is static great, cuts down on performance/sunc issues. But then you wouldn't be able to taxi your jet anyway through the packed hangar, realistic or not. So whats the point? (rhetorical) 4. I'm sure this gets lost every-time, but I do not care what people do in SP. I do not play it, but I do care if the wish-list item impacts MP performance for something that does not add to the Flight OPS part of this Sim. Perhaps the solution is one version for SP with all the non essential wishlist items modeled and animated, and one stripped version with Flight Deck OPS geared for MP/Sync performance (Even though many features are geared solely towards MP anyway, Airboss and LSO for instance..). That said, you keep making the argument personal, as if this is some attack on you specifically, and while I have on occasion responded in kind, I prefer not to. You are the one who started this from a 157 word post. You have no reservations about attempting to insult me, although again I really do not care. I most certainly do not need your validation. And I'm not going to max out font size to get my point across. I'm not going to quote every single line and pick sentences apart or bring you evidence of well know issues such as deck sliding and bad MP Ordinance tracks. I'm sure your board of post printouts and red strings are quite impressive, but that is a waste of my time to do the same. Besides that's not how the real world works, and that may simply be some life lessons you still have yet to experience. The TFES is a nice touch, but irrelevant and since you have resorted to this level of argument, perhaps it is a sign that maybe you should be done. Maybe find a more relaxing hobby to focus your energy on. On that note don't bother with another 1800 word SA. It is indeed futile and not because of your argument skills, but rather your lack of being concise and able to focus on the core issue of my original post and addressing that specific question, especially in light of the subsequent responses. I certainly will not be participating in your tirade anymore.

Amazing.. You still didn't answer the question I originally posed which wasn't even directed at you. You seem to count on your theatrics to substantiate your position. I'm not going to quote you selective excerpts of threads to "prove" every response. We're going to be doing it all day long and that's a waste of my time. Feel free to do so, but I will not. Just to indulge you, your quote from the newsletter left out the " for a flight simulation." part. You obviously lack reading comprehension. I've even repeated myself that I wasn't against the animation of the elevator deck and even suggested AI periodically move A/C up and down it. I am against players going in the Hanger Deck. What on earth would anyone want to go below deck for as a "SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE", to determining if they will buy it or not, if it is an empty hanger deck without any equipment or other objects? That is not misconstruing an argument, just simple deductive reasoning and based on the DCS forums feedback I see every day throughout the forums. So I'm curious how that constitutes Hypocrisy? An example of that however would be accusing me of over-blowing statements yet then using a phrase like “for the 67 millionth time,”. So you briefly mention my question by quoting me once again, but then simply saying you don't think there is an advantage. Obviously, the person that wrote the post thought so. Why did you even decide to jump in the middle of that, without adding something of significant value to the conversation? To add yet one more item to your post count so you can feel validate in your convictions? Guest what Lunatic98, the whole forum doesn’t revolve around you either, and your limited experience on this earth is not offset by your ability to write posts.. Instead you present my replies as over exaggerated argument against it. “It” being interpreted by you as an argument against animated elevators, when if fact the context was regarding players going into the hanger deck. I know this might be before your time but maybe you should get a dictionary. Since you like to use specific contextual statements to other substantiate other arguments. Here, I'll even quote it for you.. "Misconstruing: Verb. Interpret (something, especially a person's words or actions) wrongly." Furthermore the animate elevator is the only thing the advertising promised. Nothing about a hanger deck and or access to it and the subsequent animated equipment and crew that would go along with it, increasing polygon count and subroutines running to accommodate those players in the hanger as the mechanics run for their lives with a powered player aircraft roaming about in the confined space. Before anyone buys popcorn stocks, at this point since you are not proposing to have the hanger deck be animated in detail or have players should have complete access it, I see no reason to continue this exchange. You seem to be more interested in arguing than for the sake of being able to play semantics and misquoted statements.

Still AIROPS related as opposed to Ship Simulator. Also all of those are not trying to run an A/C module at the same time and performance impact would remain strictly on the client accessing those features..

So you wrote half a dissertation based on 157 words and missed the point of my question while misconstruing my argument to fit your rant? Seems like a waste of your time, but alas. Let me esplain Lucy. I did NOT say ED shouldn't model the elevators, and perhaps enough of the Hanger deck to at least look good from outside.. You go as far as to quote me, saying the AI can be modeled to move A/C around and between decks, but then respond on numerous occasions to a statement that I did not make. You also make several attempts to invalidate my post by making irrelevant comparisons, calling it absurd with straw man arguments and subverting with off-topic statements, as we gradually slide down the pyramid. So, let’s try to get back on top, shall we? What I questioned was what "SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE" does anyone get by being able to "roll" into [and around] the hanger deck? I'm talking about modeling the Hanger deck in full detail with all the equipment, mechanics refitting engines and maintaining A/C, you would find there, because god forbid ED breaks the "IMMERSION" by giving people an empty hanger that they "paid $50 for". On that topic, that would be $25, which I was more than happy to do to get animated deck crew on the flight deck to direct, launch and recover my A/C. I would not have paid $50 if that ended up being the price for what was promised.. The $50 probably came from offsetting the discounts everyone was demanding for owning the only aircraft to date confirmed to be functional with this module. Which is of no use to me actually, as I fly the Tomcat and haven't touched the Hornet since March last year. But I support ED. Furthermore, the Carrier module is not a Full Aircraft Carrier Simulator. If it was, I want a full bridge with animated bridge officers to captain that puppy. So not sure where you are getting your information from unless perhaps it’s on the same Wishlist? You also talk about something other than Pilots perspective? What does that even refer to? The purpose of combined arms is still to operate the vehicle/equipment. Not maintain it. Bottom line, I am not arguing for less features. You are arguing for more. None of which was advertised, but will impact performance no matter how much you want to downplay it. De-sync is a serious concern right now without adding more objects to the situation for little or no added value.

Yeah. And comes with a massive disadvantage in terms of PC Resources. More Polygons and Texture Maps to render. For something you spend less than 5% of your "flight time" on? So those of us flying VR on MP can sit and watch a slideshow of a carrier? There are more than enough museums to go visit if you want to see what the hanger deck of an Aircraft Carrier looks like. Btw its really not that interesting. So exactly which "significant advantage" are you referring to? This Carrier Module is in support of simulating Flight OPS. Not the other way around. And in Flight OPS, as we have very clearly established, you wouldn't go below deck. Its fine to animate A/C being moved below by AI Deck Crew, which is at least predictable and doesn't require programmers to address every player action, on a deck they shouldn't be in, let alone spawn 2 hour GR video.

Trying to blind type F-Keys vs. look at what I want to activate is more than a personal choice. It's simply logical. And the circle is not that big, barely takes up the space of the HUD.. Furthermore, the only way "immersion" would be fixed is to have voice-enabled conversations with Jester (Voice attack ect, although I'm sure people will complain that Jesters repetitive responses are also "immersion" killers even though the DCS game folder is pushing 250 GB). But how would you know what to ask for? If so the learning curve would quadruple and people would complain about that. And none of that is even addressing the distracting Chat menu or Mission update boxes. Its part of the game mechanics since this isn't real life and all.. If all else fails, human RIOs don't come with any menus if it's that much of a problem. There's lots of other things that could be worked before fixing something that isn't broken.

1. With HOTAS, your head is the only other "controller" that makes sense. 2. Floating Menus in VR are a nightmare when it comes to the mouse cursor. 3. It takes a tiny amount of head movement to activate a pie slice, so its not like your head banging at a rave or what ever the kids do nowadays. 4. Use your keyboard if it's that much of an inconvenience. I mean the Jester Wheel is a massive upgrade from the crappy radio menu native to DCS.

This is the fun part. As others have said, the TID target identification is completely up to the RIO. You can mark a friendly as enemy and the A/C will gladly accept your input, and of course send a missile their way accordingly, when asked to do so. Mostly because the IFF can tell you a bogey is friendly. It cannot tell you it is a bandit. You, the RIO, are making an assumption. Datalink through AWACS, can be very useful in these situations.

I've always been curious about the reference plane of jesters callouts. (Canopy up vs Sky up). I concur its in the Aircraft's. But just like everyone I have been frustrated thinking there was delays or that he was just wrong. I got in a turning fight and while I was looking at a target dead ahead (PAL locked and TCS visual), Jester telling me bandit on our 3. I went back and looked at Tacview. Found out we were merged with 2 bandits and there was one on our right exactly where Jester said. Things move really quick. Even with a human RIO or playing RIO is hard to effectively communicate. Its a bond you need to build and there's a level of trust you have to establish. Phrasing, Tone, inclination, a lot of non-verbal ques come into play as well. Its a little harder with Jester, because he is AI, he does use a finite amount of callout recordings (even thought there are many), and most expect him to fail or be bugged. So knowing this, you have to adjust your engagement. You can't go flying into furbals without a plan. If you can't see the bandit or get a fix on him. You take a hard right and select zone 5. Extend and get out of there. Reset. Re-engage. If at all possible, have a wing-man. Can't count how many times a wing-man came to my rescue, even if it is just to force a bandit defensive.

I hope the they implement the deck crew rushing over with chocks, restrain the AC and send it below deck for a complete brake overhaul, with the pilot onboard so finally they can see what goes on below, instead of flying.. Like you would normally do in a flight sim!

Thank you. I can't stand the term. If you wanted "immersion" you should have joined the Navy 3 decades ago. DCS is not real life. Get over it. While its good to strive to get as close as possible to reality, things like this is not going to make you a better F-14 pilot in real life.

You were saying? Congrats to the Tomcat Only Owners. Not that $10 really matters but at least you know where you stand.