SCPanda

In some severs, however, this problem does not exist. The datalink works very fine. So IDK if this is a sever or mission related issue.

Same thing happened to me multiple times in different servers as well.

The datalink problem right now is not INS alignment. Sometimes the datalinks works and sometimes it does not, and this happens in the same sever and in the same aircraft and in the same sortie. It is really annoying that when you are doing a mission suddenly all datalink disappears and then for few minutes it reappears again. It was not terrain, awacs or any outside factors. It just switches on and off for no particular reason. And YES, only in multiplayer.

The RWR on the Viper is located in a perfect place in the cockpit like the F-15. You don't have to look down at all. I don't think there is a need to have the RWR info on the MFDs. The RWR placement in the Hornet cockpit, however, is terrible.

What is being worked on right now for the Viper? Could ED please share? :(

Well, not really. If you fire a missile at 50 miles at high altitude (120 can go this far now), the missile will obviously loft itself. But if you lost lock before pitbull, the missile will continue its loft trajectory and fly to space without doing anything. It will not go down and try to engage the target even the target did not maneuver and was flying straight at the same velocity vector. IDK if this is realistic behavior of the 120 tho.

IDK, ED. Maybe just communicate more? Giving us vague answers like BIGNEWY always does doesn't really help, but I do appreciate BIGNEWY taking the time to read all the threads and responding to our complaints. However, IMO this might not be the right method to calm us all down. What I mean by more communication means sharing your development progress with us, especially the details. What are you currently working on? What technical difficulties are you guys facing? Which part of the Maverick and Harm missiles have you accomplished? Missile flight model? Any bugs you guys need to solve in the development? Who is working on what? Which system is being put on hold? Why is that? etc. We are not asking a lot, but maybe a short update (or even just one sentence of solid information) about your development progress every week will help a lot. The "Viper Mini-Updates" thread has not been updated since June 3rd. We do not need a video made by Wags every week, but please throw us something. Honestly, weekly development update isn't hard and it will not take a lot of your time.

Hopefully, but very unlikely :cry:

So the standard CAP loadout for the F-16 is 4 Aim-120s and 2 Aim-9s. I know that you will carry two Aim-120s on the wingtip (stations 1 and 9). What about the Aim-9s and the other 2 Aim-120s? Does the F-16 usually carry Aim-9s on stations 2 and 8 or 3 and 7? I have seen a lot of real jet pictures that the Aim-9s are mounted on stations 2 and 8 but those jets were also carrying air to ground weapons on stations 3 and 7. I couldn't find a picture of F-16 carrying 4 Aim-120s and 2 Aim-9s. I am asking because I have also heard that if you carry the 4 Aim-120s on the outer stations (1, 2, 8, 9) and the 2 Aim-9s on the inner stations (3 and 7) the drag index is lower. :helpsmilie:

I don't agree that we are only allowed to complain when the bugs are game-breaking and they are on the stable version. There are no rules like this. Open beta and EA modules are open to the public. So it is meant for everyone unless ED changes that. EA modules are basically ED saying “Do you want this module? Pay us the money first then we will finish it and give it to you few years later, but you can play the unfinished product now." They need the money to support the development since it takes them forever. We are not responsible for reporting bugs, we are not volunteers. All software has bugs but that is not an excuse. Especially when the bugs are because of poor testing and quality control. The server admins do not listen to you or care about your opinion. They will run the servers on OB anyway despite all the bugs.

I really wonder if the people are saying that the new aim-120s are worse then before are using the same missiles as I am using. For me, both effective range and PK are much better than before. Also, when I watched the replay of my missiles hitting my targets, the new amraam does have better tracking and notch/chaff resistance. Also, the range of the amraam has not been an issue for me since I can always fly 40k and fire the missile at 40nm+ range and it will always have the energy when it reaches the target, sometimes quite fast actually. They problem I had was the tracking and notch/chaff resistance. It had enough energy but it cannot track and hit the target that was defending. But the new amraam fixed this issue / improved the tracking for me.

Harms +1

Same here. Right now the Viper cannot even out-rate the Hornet, which is just sad:cry: Also, it would be nice if ED can change the G-tolerance and allow us to sustain 9G turns without blacking out

Yeah, in steam I right clicked DCS, went to properties, then under beta I chose None opt-out all betas. Then the game starts to download. It was about 5 GB for me so it didn't take long at all. Give it a try, it's also not a big download if you changed your mind and want to change from stable to OB.

I guess people are complaining because of ED's lack of communication. They bought the EA module so of course, they understand the module is not finished. Telling the people who have already bought the F-16 EA module that they should not invest money in EA modules does not really make sense to me. They paid the money already, and ED doesn't really refund EA purchases. What players can only do is suck it up and suffer the slow development pace and ED's lack of communication. Also, you cannot justify ED's constant behavior of breaking their promises.

Regarding the fix you were talking about, will it be a hotfix or we have to wait until you release the next OB update? Could you please be more specific?

Yes, I have rolled back to stable :D But I really want to try the new AIM-120 and the creation of waypoints.

lol. I guess with the things that are broken right now, the only way we can enjoy the Viper now is sightseeing.:pilotfly:

I feel you dude.:(

And they broke radar elevation, cockpit lighting, hud brightness, CCRP drop line, and few other stuff in the new OB update. Before the update, you can at least do some nice A-A stuff and some basic A-G stuff in the Viper. Now the Viper is unplayable... They basically added more work for themselves and made Viper pilots struggle even more. I also don't get why ppl are defending ED for doing such a poor job.

Yep. And ED hasn't made any statement so far regarding this mess they made. Will there be a hotfix? Do we have to wait until they release the next OB update (which they will break more stuff)?

The lighting and HUD brightness issues seem are also happening in other modules like the F-14. I just hope they can hotfix the radar elevation first. Still, it is very strange that they managed to break these things by adding steerpoint creation and fixing the high speed wobbling. I wonder when will ED explain these problems or simply apologize to us that they messed up this update.

Well, just BVR I guess not WVR

I hope they can hotfix this soon. The radar elevation bug will make f-16 useless in A-A.

ED does not care about F-16 and air force jets, they only want to work on Hornets, Supercarriers, and the new "map" with mostly oceans, so they can get all the money from players who are interested in carrier operations, or just players who like to see new releases. For players who prefer to fly the Viper, they do not care because we have already paid the money for their early access release. Money was already in their pocket so we became unimportant people. "VIP" is for Hornet drivers and navy fans, even though we both paid the same money. Yeah I know the Hornet was released earlier than the Viper but this does not justify ED's eager to make more money when they forgot about the Viper and moved on to the release of the supercarrier, which is simply a "realistic" airport that should have been free in the first place.