Ryan3469

Hello! Yes, you do need to replace the files as it has to be able to swap out the FA-18C.lua with Thomaz's file in order to add the equipment onto the jet as a payload. Don't worry, it wont replace anything, it will just add more stuff to the file. Do note that this will cause your game to fail the integrity check, so joining most combat servers isn't an option until you repair the game, removing the mod.

I have probably hundreds of installed skins and I fly multiplayer all the time. Whoever told you that downloadable content doesn't work in multiplayer is wrong. The only thing that "doesn't work" is if the other people in the server don't have the skin you have equipped installed. If they don't have it installed, they will only see the default VFA-37 skin. You can go to the user files section and find LOTS of CAG and high vis skins there that you can install, and it will work on multiplayer.

Thank you! This is exactly what the issue is and its a little disappointing seeing comments like "stop whining and complaining when updates are buggy" when the bug that's being complained about didn't come from an update, it came from release 2 years ago. I love that they are working on updates, just the wrong kind. You also got the nail in the coffin with pointing out that they literally sent out a priority list survey to customers, and then just completely ignored it and started working on things that were further down the list rather than the #1 most popular voted request. "Seriously, people need to freaking chill up with the bitching and whining. I joined DCS or should i say, back then, A-10C Warthog in 2009, at an era there was Blackshark servers and A-10C servers, that's it, then they started by merging both Games together, we could Fly A-10c and come across some KA-50's, then, DCS World seen birth, then others Aircraft seen birth, then we discovered DCS World 1.5, wow that was a change, not to mentionned 2.5, then, ED gave permssions to third party developpers, and then tons of new modules seen the day. So many changes, so many new adition to bring us Simers notch up to realism (Wing Tip Vortices, Turbulence, Vapors etc..etc) list is long, Tendem Aircrafts, though yeah sorta buggy some times." I just wanted to point out that despite my join date on the forums, I have been flying DCS since 1.5 and have been here for a while as well. Please dont take me as ungrateful, just worried about priorities. Also, I don't feel that bringing up thing that were relevant 11 years when they clearly are not today. Yes, it does show progression, but pointing out the little things a small game starting out had is not applicable to the same game 12 years later, especially after becoming increasingly more popular. It's the same logic as a father saying "back in my day." Yeah things were different, but its useless to bring up non-applicable things. The complaint being made is a bug that they can fix that hasn't been fixed for 2 years. These bugs didnt come from an update, it came from the release of the aircraft. It sort of pisses me off to do a quick google search and find the NATOPS manual with all of the correct data on the same aircraft that was made in 1997 and updated in 2000. This is 8 years before the sim even came out, and 18 years before the Hornet module. The fact that they have all of these resources to use, including real pilots as references, is a little disappointing that they still managed to get it wrong after working on redundant features. Is it fun dropping GBU-10s with extreme precision? Yes of course, but I'd rather have a true-to-life flight model before getting fancy weapons with only more precision than a Mk-84.

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...s-roadmap-2020 You are very much correct. To say that the majority vote of the community doesn't reflect the community as a whole is contradicting. The users of the Hornet have voted that fixing the Hornet's day 1 bugs and making the flight model correct is the top priority, and looking at this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...updates/page10, you can see that posted 2 months after the survey was taken, the #1 user vote is #6 on ED's priority list. Like OP said, it is getting very frustrating and annoying being shown results of what we want fixed not being fixed and sort of being put as a side project. And yes, I think you are also right about having multiple teams working on separate projects, but to counter your point about someone working on missiles and bombs, we're talking about a flight sim here. Everything has flight mechanics, even the missiles, so to say that a programmer that works on weapons doesn't know programming of flight models is overlooking arguably the hardest part of their job. I have tried to back up everything I'm saying with links to references (NATOPS manual, survey, and Gripes323's analysis) in the attempt to help ED correct their mistakes. I mean, I'm complaining that they have been offered public information that can be translated in-game, with lots of tweaking and work of course, but that's their job. That's why we pay for the module, because we expect a high quality, true to life reflection of the flight model, not something that is put together and hits a few parameters of capability just to dogfight or drop bombs. We want a full model that acts according to the real one in almost every circumstance, and that is reflected by the majority vote in that survey. Edit: I know that these flight model changes don't pertain to dropping bombs and or radar functionality, but do you not think its crucial to have a correct flight model of how the plane is actually supposed to behave before getting addon features? I mean, I want the ATFLIR pod and AG radar just as much as anyone else, but its hard to build a building on a wobbly foundation.

I'll follow your format: To respond: - It's been in early access for 2 YEARS. Thats not a short amount of time and plenty of needless features have come out before the baseline fixes. Even the startup hydraulic sequence is wrong (I referenced this up there ^ in the NATOPS manual) - Yes, I specifically pointed out their list and the updated one. The first one, the FM changes and corrections were #17 on the list, and the updated one it is #6 right below a bunch more needless features. The basic flight model of the aircraft, ya know, to actually fly the thing, should be #1, not #6 let alone #17. - Yes I did and I'm glad that they are continuing to work on it, but it has been an extremely long time (2 years) since this aircraft released and these "bugs" have been there since day 1. They waited 2 years to confront their mistake and then put it #6 on the priority list. Thats the complaint being made, its not that we arent getting updates, its that ED has their priorities wrong with what they are updating. I fully understand if work is being done on it, but releasing a priority list where the 2 year old bug fix is lower than new features that dont contribute to even flying the aircraft seems very very wrong.

Thank you for doing an in-depth analysis, or rather providing proof of it. To respond to your last comment, you can reference this: ___ its the NATOPS manual of the A/C variants, and if you reference figure 2-9A, you can also see another thing that needs some work: the FCS hydraulics on startup.

No, not at all. The complaint here is about DAY 1 stuff that should have been worked out before features released, not about updates bringing bugs. We fully understand that updates will bring bugs, but these things about the flight model have been issues since the plane released 2 years ago, and I can go back and find you all of the features, such as JDAMs and the litening pod, that have been released and are finished or almost finished while the base flight model of the aircraft isnt even complete. The Hornet obviously has the most work done on it, so the question is: why havent these basic things been completed yet? Again, not a complaint about a feature bug, a complaint about the flight model not being finished when features have come out and worked on for 2 years. And thats not even mentioning the fact that these flight model issues have been reported numerous times and have been swept under the rug. I mean, like I mentioned earlier, ED had put the flight model update as #17 on their list (Since been changed to #6), but the point being made is that this is not even the correct way the aircraft flies, so why is it not #1. Shouldnt they perfect the actual flight model of the airframe before making things like AG radar and Datalink? I think that ED can improve their list of priorities to fixing the base things first, and making the aircraft fly correctly, especially for people who prefer the aerobatic side instead of combat, like myself, OP, and I'm going to assume CommandT (correct me if I'm wrong, but thats the vibe I'm getting).

Yes, we do know what mods an airshow plane has, and that doesnt affect the flight model, especially not pulling back constantly until flaps are put to half then up. There are no changes to the flight control system, only 1 modification to the physical stick, with that being a spring but that does not affect the actual hydraulics, it simply pulls the stick forward. The thing we are talking about is the aircraft will not nose down unless the flaps are put to half and then back up, which does not happen in the real aircraft, but thats just 1 issue. CommandT also brought up the rudder authority which has been another massive complaint. The rudder feels like it has no control over the aircraft at all, which makes doing the knife-edge pass a nightmare because sometimes it feels like youre sinking much faster than you should, and if you use rudder then it causes yet another issue: the nose wobble, which again should not happen in the real aircraft.

This video will show you that it is realistic to takeoff without flaps and after doing this takeoff for ~2 years, it is almost impossible in DCS. There are some work arounds (moving flaps to half then back up just as your pitching back), but we shouldnt have to do that. Like CommandT said, its not hard to fix these things, ED has just been focusing on weapon features and combat related things instead of fixing the fundamentals of the plane; instead of making it fly like the real thing. CommandT also brought up the nose wobble after rolling while G is on the aircraft. This video also shows perfectly that that should not happen, and yet it does. There is no wobble of the aircraft in that video, and that isnt even the Super Hornet, its the same airframe. The problem that is being discussed here is that ED has "Update flight model for ground effect, takeoff pitch effects, auto-pilot based on FPM, touch and go handling, and other remaining flight model issues" #17 on their priority list. These things should have been done before any weapon upgrade came out, its literally the flight model to fly the damn thing, its not wizardry, its fixing a bug thats been neglected because they want to focus on weapons instead of fixing their aircraft. Like OP said, I also love this game and I have put lots of money into it, so all I want is a proper Hornet that flies like the real thing.

Captain, you don't have to shut your aircraft down to rearm/refuel. Just press LAlt+' to bring up the menu, and click away. No shutting down, no ground power, no problem. :P