Jackjack171

Has anyone found a workaround to ignore the directors or to not get sent to the fantail every single time you land? I had been away from Naval ops for some time (AH-64 and F-4E are way too fun) and recently tried the Tomcat again with the Supercarrier. I thought that I would start with CQ...wrong! Forget about going to the CAT after a trap, nope. You go all the way to the fantail (not in a very realistic way either) and must park. I was a yellow shirt once upon a time and the directing was triggering me something serious (not really but). Add to that, I had a brown shirt directing me (blasphemy to a yellow shirt)). I eventually ended up going back to using the Forrestal for CQ. It was more manageable albeit, quiet as a church mouse (no deck crew at all)! I sure hope that ED is actively working this. It would be nice if the menu included: 1. Relaunch 2. Bingo state, refuel 3. Park/turnaround/shutdown This way, the directors know what you want/need. Also, the director (gear puller) getting me out of the LA (landing area) should get me clear of the foul line at least. Btw, he's standing in the wrong place. He should be slightly forward of JBD #2, but clear of the foul line. He clears the deck after passing you off to another director, then clears the deck for the next aircraft. I'm also surprised that the ball call and LSO are still rigged for a Hornet. I'm still getting called "slow" even when I'm fast! A Tomcat kneel would be nice to have from the directors as well. I'd like to add that aircraft do not go aft immediately after they land. They go to the fighter line along the foul line, or they go to the bow (1 row/ 4 row). Sometimes, the last 1 or 2nd aircraft down will go to the fantail but that's after the "recovery complete" call. Depending on space available, the 2nd to last aircraft will spin around in the de-arm area and wait for the last aircraft to land. The last aircraft lands and then spins in the LA, (under yellow shirt direction of course) and is sent back aft. BTW, I should not have to call the marshal controller just to get the LSO to acknowledge me when I go into the CQ pattern off of the CAT. When I perform a touch and go, that should be noted that that's what it is instead of a bolter! I know that this is all very complex as carrier operations are IRL, but I just hope that ED takes some of this onboard and improves upon what they have now. It was not my intention to rant; I just got carried away. I try and throw a bit of humor in their as well. Love what you guys are doing and have done. JJ

Not to put you out there but I must point out that even you, yourself admit that the F/A-18C is a bestseller! The tutorials are not that great, but the Hornet is not that difficult to learn and figure out either. I wouldn't worry about new players as ED has its fill of them. ED appears to be doing something right with the way that it has been going. IMHO, the myriads of 3rd party's keeps people engaged and employed (yes, people make money from YT) so why deprive them of that? 3rd parties make liveries, make content for learning and just straight up entertainment. It's a Hobbie for some, a form of revenue and fun for others. You can't stop anyone from throwing in the towel. Sounds like a personal problem on their part to me. Those that have the passion, drive and motivation to learn it will. Not many people will spend 70 dollars just to chuck it all away anyway. Not to mention the money spent on peripherals and such. And for those low attention span types that would throw money away...it is theirs to throw away!

I was going to say somewhat the same. This we need for CQ!

Just to piggyback @Nealius the aft Spot 7 on elevator 3 could be used but takes a bit of coordination. What DCS needs is an active/functional LSE (Landing signal enlisted). The only time I've seen Helo's use the angle is after the last aircraft has trapped for the night (final, final).

My post was more of an observation than an ask...but thanks!

Just a touch of humor but for real, we need an F-4B/J. These Navy repaints of F-4E's posing as F-4B/J aircraft are just eyesores at this point. It's not a carrier capable aircraft and the nose gun pod just don't look right in Navy colors. Love the F-4E BTW!

During CQ, they wouldn't use burner either. Look up USS Coral Sea CV-43 on YouTube. VF-101 had a CQ period in the late 80's I believe. It's mostly weight depending. Same with Growlers, legacy hornets and Super Hornets. DCS doesn't factor in everything about the catapult shot (weight, wind and asymmetry) so anything hooking up to a catapult is going flying. I've never worked with the Tomcat, just Growlers and Super Hornets and can tell you that they use burner much less than many think.

It is correct. Take a look at any USN F-18 HUD footage. At touchdown, NWS appears in the HUD. I'm not a Pilot, just a retired Navy Chief! It's LO Gain so it's not as unsafe as you'd think.

Read above. It's out of the timeline that ED is building the F-15C to.

JASDF

I voted for the M. If done right, this could roll over to the MH-60S for the Navy. The current UH-60L mod painted in Navy colors, is kind of abhorrent to be honest (can't unsee that damned antenna) and the cockpit just doesn't cut it. I see that others have posted about the historical benefit of having the Lima and I get it. But the throwing of lipstick on a pig and calling it an MH-60R/S is just cringe. IMHO, if you want to talk versatility, then the UH-60M/MH-60S is the way to go. BTW, in Black Hawk Down, the aircraft in the movie had a glass cockpit. Not sure about the IRL bird!

Not to be that guy but I guess I am. I've never had this issue before. In fact, this is the first time I've heard that this is a problem. Being that the F-35 doesn't have a HUD, I'm not sure how this would be more of an issue.

Thanks! I'm sort of surprised that no one has.

Anyone know where to find a JGSDF or JASDF livery?

Anyone know how I can get the Virpil TCS calibrated so that I don't have to pull up so much? I need the collective to be a bit more sensitive as to not have to pull so much collective. With the Apache grip, it gets kind of long. I understand this needs to be done in the VPC configuration tool, but I don't know how.

From my observation: A lot of Velocity vector flying and not enough "fly the ball" action!

Really?! I'll try and respond to you in kind but with some of the same respect that I gave the OP. Be aware that the same could be asked about your world view! Anyone including a 5-year-old can play that other sim. So, I might ask, what would be your idea to make it a better online experience and make it more appealing? As far as I can see, that's your biggest gripe. Everyone doesn't use VR! Online play has nothing to do with being genuine or as close as it gets. Quantity over quality is never a good look! I'd rather have the low numbers in airframes than 50 that have some sort of arcade or gamey feel to them. Ok, some radio procedures and airfield, ATC comms suck in DCS, I get it! But if one wants true-to-real, as close as it gets to real, study level aircraft, DCS is where they come. Even the Ace Wombat folks are over here with the made-up countries and liveries to quench that thirst. The way that you use accessible sounds like "inclusive" which is to dumb down or water down a product so that everyone can get in. Again, I'm not seeing how much more appealing DCS can get without changing what made it great in the first place. I'm sure that other sim is loads of fun for online for the run and gun types, but c'mon its cinematic, theatrical value is what draws 'em in. Everyone just has to pick their lane. Here's the kick, DCS is already accessible to everyone, they just have to put the work in! You know just as I do that YT is advertisement. When I found ED, it wasn't through YT, it was from forums of folks yapping about how realistic it was. These days, I can't open YT without seeing a new vid of someone using it. If some kid can't figure out how to start the default aircraft, then whose fault is that? Sounds like some instant gratification, low impulse, self-control issues to me! Be careful when using the word "mature" when the argument is mostly based on a better online experience and "the user couldn't or wouldn't figure it out, so they went elsewhere looking for their jollies." Some have a short attention span so yes; there will always be War blunder and many others, and folks will go there to rack up points and shoot indefinite missiles because starting up a Frogfoot is so difficult! When the CH-47 was released, I remember the himming and hawing from those that said, "what are we gonna do with it/no one asked for or wants this." And then there was that maybe small minority that welcomed it. Sure, there is room for AWACS and such. Shouldn't be so quick to discount those that want to drive an aerial refueler. Who says that it wouldn't broaden DCS? With the addition of more helicopters, I think DCS is being broadened as we speak! Please try and remember that, not everyone wants to play online! Yes, the AI bandits could use a lot of work and that makes one yearn for going peer to peer. I've watched online play; even partook in it! Some not all get on, sling a butt load of missiles or guns and that's it. Alot of the times, they don't even know how to land the airplane or the proper way to enter an airport traffic pattern. Strangely enough, your argument reminds me of ask for cheats like AAR and such. We already have cheats, why make more? To be gamey? I mean, that would really make it gamey. Wanting DCS to be War blunder and vice-versa or any other combat sim is just that! IMHO, ED should never lower the bar or water down its product just to appease those that aren't willing to try or to bring in a few extra dollars. Quality over quantity! After a while, DCS would cease to be DCS (only in name) if they were to go down that path. With all of that said, ED already offers something for everyone! That's why it's the sandbox. The user chooses how to play it. I love the fact that ED won't produce an aircraft without having all or most of the pertinent information to make the product as close to real as possible. Can't say that about others. And I haven't heard ED screaming for money so... What would really be cool IMHO, is having those civil points the OP mentioned. Checking in with the proper ATC agencies for entering a MOA. Altitude restrictions, speed restrictions and such. Those are important details for military flying. But I won't hold my breath as that is such an incredible task for developers to make it all work. I get it, there is nothing like jumping online for an aerial WWE smackdown session! It really gratifies the soul and makes one want a cigarette afterwards. Going through a checklist, hitting those important wickets is too much of a task for a missile thrower and just too boring for anyone with the attention span of a gnat (all of which, can be done currently, anyway). I guess that's why we do have those other sims or games for those that yearn for a more gamey experience...a healthy, competitive market! We can agree to disagree, that's healthy. I get what the OP was getting at; a combination of a Civil sim with a Military sim and there's nothing wrong with that! In a perfect world, that would be great. I also get some of what you are saying. In a perfect world, we could have the online, theatrical and cinematic fanfare that the other sim has, or combine the 2, but we are not there yet. ED can't please everyone, nor should they try! I rest in the comfort that ED will do what ED needs to do for ED and that they know their lane. Give ED time to evolve, just look at where we have come from in this market. While I'm at it, calling something Niche just seems to be more of an opinion, and we all know what opinions are akin to. If everything is niche, then nothing is. Pick your poison. Yes, DCS has a lot of room for improvement. Dumbing it down aint an improvement! Cheers!

And there you go...I'm trying to have a good holiday and start the new year off right and you just HAD to play with my emotions! JK That looks AWESOME! Happy Holidays and thanks!

Please don't take offense to this but I think that we should let the big dogs worry about their business model and cash flow. As a consumer, it's not my bag to worry about how they proceed, which currently is fine IMHO. And given the latest rough waters going on with ED and another dev that I won't mention, (as it's none of my business) I can see the legalities involved with such a monumental venture. In a perfect world, it sounds like a great idea, but reality says otherwise. The DCS user base gets bigger all the time. Let's face it; DCS is the big dog in town right now for aerial combat. DCS and ED are a very well-known company thanks to YouTube content creators and such. They have no problem getting new players here. There has always been a gulf between civil flight simulators and Milsim. I do not see that changing anytime soon! The likes of civil simulators (which I also have) have always been hesitant about Military operations. The stuff that's allowed in such as fighters for example, only allow you to barrel roll and fly under bridges and such. The stuff that they have now, will not allow weapons. This is a complex problem that is not an easy fix. Combat sims will for the foreseeable future always be niche. Though I doubt at this point you can really call it niche.

Land- based aircraft have hooks for land- based arresting gear, in the case of an emergency. The undercarriage for those aircraft i.e. the F-16, F-15C and Strike Eagle were never meant for carrier operations. Carrier aircraft have beefier landing gear to withstand the shock of a carrier landing.

Is there a reason that my Displaylink manager would look like this? I'm not sure what is keeping my MFD's from connecting to SimAppPro.