F/A-18C ACLS preview/tutorial

[BIGNEWY]

We have passed on your feedback to the team, I would suggest waiting now for them to digest it. 

thanks

[Blackfyre]

1 час назад, FrostLaufeyson сказал:

I have the same feeling too

This is the function of F18, those who bought F18 but did not buy SC will not be able to experience the full F18

CVN-74 has ICLS but not ACLS, so weird

I don't get the point of complaining about "forcing" buying SuperCarrier. This is complex World, either real or virtual, where most things are interconnected with each other. So, if you want be able to use something then be prepared to gain another thing. Want to play DCS? So you need a powerful therefore expensive computer and Windows. It is not convenient to fly using keyboard and mouse? Then you'd buy those fancy controllers. Want more immersion? Buy VR helmet, buy SuperCarrier, buy particular map. We always have to invest time and money to get satisfied.

And I think, that we shouldn't treat ED as big corporations, which make billions dollars revenue. They have to sell things even if it seems as "evil" marketing.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Blackfyre
spelling

[Foka]

3 hours ago, Blackfyre said:

I'm confused with Link4 frequencies. Wags set up 336Mhz frequency in ME, but in game he had another frequency - 256 MHz, which was written down in kneeboard(was this auto generated page or manually added?). Where was 256Mhz come from? Why it is inconsistent with ME?

 

[FrostLaufeyson]

52分钟前，Blackfyre说：

I don't get the point of complaining about "forcing" buying SuperCarrier. This is complex World, either real or virtual, where most things are interconnected with each other. So, if you want be able to use something then be prepared to gain another thing. Want to play DCS? So you need a powerful therefore expensive computer and Windows. It is not convenient to fly using keyboard and mouse? Then you'd buy those fancy controllers. Want more immersion? Buy VR helmet, buy SuperCarrier, buy particular map. We always have to invest time and money to get satisfied.

And I think, that we shouldn't treat ED as big corporations, which make billions dollars revenue. They have to sell things even if it seems as "evil" marketing.

 

I don't want to start an argument with these complaints, I've paid for these DLCs and am happy for the upcoming updates. It's just that these updates kept us waiting too long.

I often hesitate when people ask me if the SC is worth buying. I had to give them a list of the pros and cons of the DLC, since its price doesn't seem to match the functionality it already has.

And you're right, flight sims are a very expensive hobby

[CBStu]

Geez, there sure is a lot of complaining about a $30-40 purchase. I see nothing unusual about this at all. When I bought my first battery powered drills I was thrilled. Years later they came out w/ better batteries and I was happy that the new batteries could be used in my old drills. Years later more new batteries and they would not fit my drills. So I eventually ended up buying new drills because otherwise I couldn't get all the new features. This stuff happens all the time. It is not always possible to make new products w/ new features backwards compatible to work w/ older products. The older products are simply missing characteristics that are needed to work w/ the new features. In many, many other product lines new features can be added to the basic product over time. But at some point, new features can not be made compatible, and the base product needs to come out in it's second generation. Look at PC programs. There are a ton of programs for Win10. How many of them will run on WIN8? When we upgraded to Win10, did all of our old programs continue to work? I know that I lost a $130 car suspension design and analysis program and a $60 home design program. Here the SC is the second generation and the ACLS is the new feature. The older carriers are the first generation. How much more work for ED would be needed to make ACLS work on the old carriers? Should they do all that work for free? Do it for free so no one would need to buy a new carrier? He11, if they did the work needed to make ACLS work on the old carriers then they would be new carriers. But we already have new carriers, the SC. Get a grip people.

[Thump]

1 hour ago, Blackfyre said:

I don't get the point of complaining about "forcing" buying SuperCarrier. This is complex World, either real or virtual, where most things are interconnected with each other. So, if you want be able to use something then be prepared to gain another thing. Want to play DCS? So you need a powerful therefore expensive computer and Windows. It is not convenient to fly using keyboard and mouse? Then you'd buy those fancy controllers. Want more immersion? Buy VR helmet, buy SuperCarrier, buy particular map. We always have to invest time and money to get satisfied.

And I think, that we shouldn't treat ED as big corporations, which make billions dollars revenue. They have to sell things even if it seems as "evil" marketing.

 

Because it does not have to be this way.  Simple as that.  I don't buy a computer sold to me as having a Graphics Card and then later having to pay separately for that circuit board's transistors.  ACLS was sold as a Hornet feature independent of the SC.  It doesn't matter if ED is small.  And the fact that you're willing to excuse "evil marketing" (your words, not mine) is problematic to say the least.

10 minutes ago, CBStu said:

Geez, there sure is a lot of complaining about a $30-40 purchase. I see nothing unusual about this at all. When I bought my first battery powered drills I was thrilled. Years later they came out w/ better batteries and I was happy that the new batteries could be used in my old drills. Years later more new batteries and they would not fit my drills. So I eventually ended up buying new drills because otherwise I couldn't get all the new features. This stuff happens all the time. It is not always possible to make new products w/ new features backwards compatible to work w/ older products. The older products are simply missing characteristics that are needed to work w/ the new features. In many, many other product lines new features can be added to the basic product over time. But at some point, new features can not be made compatible, and the base product needs to come out in it's second generation. Look at PC programs. There are a ton of programs for Win10. How many of them will run on WIN8? When we upgraded to Win10, did all of our old programs continue to work? I know that I lost a $130 car suspension design and analysis program and a $60 home design program. Here the SC is the second generation and the ACLS is the new feature. The older carriers are the first generation. How much more work for ED would be needed to make ACLS work on the old carriers? Should they do all that work for free? Do it for free so no one would need to buy a new carrier? He11, if they did the work needed to make ACLS work on the old carriers then they would be new carriers. But we already have new carriers, the SC. Get a grip people.

You also received a full product at that point.  The Hornet and SC are still EA and not released. So your analogy does not work.

[Blackfyre]

40 минут назад, Thump сказал:

Because it does not have to be this way.  Simple as that.  I don't buy a computer sold to me as having a Graphics Card and then later having to pay separately for that circuit board's transistors.    It doesn't matter if ED is small.  And the fact that you're willing to excuse "evil marketing" (your words, not mine) is problematic to say the least.

Sometimes you buy memory or SSD for your old computer, don't you? I agree that it does not have to be this way, but I'm not sure that any other way is possible. I wish whole SuperCarrier was a part of the free DCS World. But it was impossible for some reasons, I suppose due to funding, so it does matter that ED is small.

Цитата

ACLS was sold as a Hornet feature independent of the SC.

Was it? E-shop says nothing about ACLS.

Цитата

It doesn't matter if ED is small.  And the fact that you're willing to excuse "evil marketing" (your words, not mine) is problematic to say the least.

Maybe my wording hasn't been clear because English not my first language, but I'm not consider ACLS case in particular and SC in general as evil marketing. In my view, nobody force buying it. SC has features those add value to the Hornet and it is ok.

P.S. I'm sure that there are better words than "evil marketing" for what I mean, but nothing came to my mind.

P.P.S. Also, I agree, that those Hornet features that require something other to work should be marked in the roadmap.

[BIGNEWY]

Dear all,

we apologize for any confusion the upcoming inclusion of ACLS to the Hornet may have caused. A primary reason for the development of DCS: Supercarrier was to provide the most realistic carrier operations ever done for a PC flight simulation. Key aspects of this include the new Link 4 datalink and Beacon systems specifically created for the Hornet (just recently completed) and the new ATC radio communication system. While the ATC radio communications system will remain a unique feature of DCS: Supercarrier, we are investigating moving Link 4 datalink and Beacon (BCN) from SC to the free carrier. This would use the existing communications for the free carrier of simply messaging inbound. When we have more information on this, we look forward to updating you.

Thank you
Eagle Dynamics

[Foka]

I can only hope, that this won't delay ACLS for us.

[Mikaa]

I’m guessing this also means that none of the Hornet ACLS functionality will be possible with the Forrestal either? Seems like a shame considering the amount of work that went into it. I do appreciate passing on the feedback to the team. I can also understand if they initially release its full functionality for the SC, while considering the best way to add the basics to the other carriers down the road. 

[CBStu]

Honest I am not trying to be argumentative w/ this post. What is the appeal of the other carriers? More realistic missions due to the carrier having been used at that time and in that area of the globe? I am asking because I don't know. I just fly off or onto whatever carrier is set in the mission and really don't care which it is. Also how does ACLS fit in time wise. Isn't is a newer system? When did it first become operational?

Edited April 25, 2022 by CBStu

[Digitalvole]

Buy the SC in a sale and if possible use some miles, I paid about five of my English pounds for it.

Money well spent, love having it and greatly improves the Hornet experience.

Also I’d take ED making money this way over starting a whole new aircraft module.

That being said I can see why there is some frustration but I’m sure it’ll all get sorted out.

[horstweihrauch]

Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is the fun in an automatic landing?i don’t fly the hornet.)

[AstonMartinDBS]

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I first watched Wags' YT video and was wondering about the missing ACLS announcement in the "Hornet Mini-Updates".

In my euphoria about the upcoming ACLS I didn't think about the fact, that it is (was) planned to be a feature exclusively for the SC (even tough the title of the YT video "DCS: Supercarrier and Hornet | Automatic Carrier Landing System" implies this).

That's the simple reason why I overlooked the already existing announcement for the F/A-18C ACLS in the "Supercarrier Mini-Updates" and why I started this thread...

[Foka]

1 hour ago, horstweihrauch said:

Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is the fun in an automatic landing?i don’t fly the hornet.)

IMO it's not matter of fun, but safety sometimes. If you have to land in heavy condition, after 2-3 bolters, with low fuel, you might to want to choose ACLS landing. 

[Tom Kazansky]

2 hours ago, horstweihrauch said:

Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is the fun in an automatic landing?i don’t fly the hornet.)

And let's not forget, 2 of those 3 ACL modes are flown manually, what could be a good training for understanding and mastering a non ACL case III recovery imho.

[Hoirtel]

12 hours ago, Mikaa said:

I’m guessing this also means that none of the Hornet ACLS functionality will be possible with the Forrestal either? Seems like a shame considering the amount of work that went into it. I do appreciate passing on the feedback to the team. I can also understand if they initially release its full functionality for the SC, while considering the best way to add the basics to the other carriers down the road. 

Is the forrestal not too old for it anyway?

[Clayteng]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:33 AM, pete_auau said:

Frankly i dont  know  why users  dont  have  the  sc,  far  better  than  the  standard  carrier  for  so many reasons

Because I don't care for bells and whistles, I don't care to pretend I'm in Top Gun and I don't care for static templates on carrier decks. I just want to land and take off from a carrier and be able to use a feature that I paid for already.

[Clayteng]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:43 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Dear all,

we apologize for any confusion the upcoming inclusion of ACLS to the Hornet may have caused. A primary reason for the development of DCS: Supercarrier was to provide the most realistic carrier operations ever done for a PC flight simulation. Key aspects of this include the new Link 4 datalink and Beacon systems specifically created for the Hornet (just recently completed) and the new ATC radio communication system. While the ATC radio communications system will remain a unique feature of DCS: Supercarrier, we are investigating moving Link 4 datalink and Beacon (BCN) from SC to the free carrier. This would use the existing communications for the free carrier of simply messaging inbound. When we have more information on this, we look forward to updating you.

Thank you
Eagle Dynamics

This would be very reasonable, I hope this is implemented.

[Smashy]

Great video and I'm really looking forward to making some ham sandwiches after this feature drops.

After watching it, I had a couple of questions. Was the cut landing grade a one-off error or does Mode 1 still need a bit of tweaking?

This is more of a procedural question, but I notice Wags drops gear then trims for onspeed AoA, drops half flaps and does more trimming, drops full flaps and does more trimming. For CASE I, I drop gear and full flaps all at the same time while in the break and try to estimate trim so I'm close to onspeed AoA after coming out of the break. I do the same for CASE III but have to hold more forward stick to prevent full flap condition from pitching the nose too far up while I trim for onspeed AoA. With Wags' approach, it makes the straight-in dirty-up a lot less stressful. With a properly executed CASE I break, I don't know if there's enough time to do the sequential gear/half flap/full flap operation. Do real-life Navy guys follow a specific procedure for this or is this all personal preference?

I'm genuinely curious so I hope this thread doesn't get locked, LOL.

[Foka]

24 minutes ago, Smashy said:

After watching it, I had a couple of questions. Was the cut landing grade a one-off error or does Mode 1 still need a bit of tweaking?

 

[marzzz]

happy ?

Great job ED , nice reactivity !

My english is poor

Could someone explain to me or resume the differences between : mode1 1a 2 

thanks

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by marzzz

[AstonMartinDBS]

1 hour ago, marzzz said:

Great job ED , nice reactivity !

Although I own SC, I'm happy about the availability of ACLS without SC!

[Tom Kazansky]

33 minutes ago, AstonMartinDBS said:

Although I own SC, I'm happy about the availability of ACLS without SC!

+1

[IvanK]

2 hours ago, marzzz said:

happy ?

Great job ED , nice reactivity !

Could someone explain to me the differences between : mode1 1a 2 

thanks

As I understand it:

Mode 1 Using the ACLS Data link system Fully coupled to touchdown

Mode 1A Using the ACLS Data Link coupled most of the way but de couple close in for a manual landing

Mode 2 Using the ACLS Data link but hand flown all the way (Track the tadpole with the VV)

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by IvanK