DCS: Supercarrier Update for 19 March 2020

:lol:A lot of project managers in this community. The "how" is ED's prerogative. The fact that they're working to get it done is ours(customers). That should be the only thing that matters to us(customers).

Thanks for the info ED. It's nice to know how many cool things are planned. If you slip the release date past the 15th April I will not complain, since so many cool things are coming.

Stay safe.

Well, well......I didn't even know there was a Super Carrier. I just found out about it when I saw this sale going on. So I bought the F16, Persian Gulf and I threw in the SC for good measure.

Then I came to this forum here looking for info on why the SC is not showing up in game. The silly cuckoo I am didn't know I was supposed to wait even for one day...let alone 3 weeks!

Quack, quack!

Not to be funny but how do we go about refunding our early access purchase of the Super Carrier?

If full functionality isn't planned for the Tomcat both my wingman and myself would rather wait for full release.

I've never refunded anything for DCS before so I haven't got a clue how to do it.

Not to be funny but how do we go about refunding our early access purchase of the Super Carrier?

 

 

If full functionality isn't planned for the Tomcat both my wingman and myself would rather wait for full release.

 

 

 

I've never refunded anything for DCS before so I haven't got a clue how to do it.

Raise a support ticket and request a refund.

Thanks Epoch

Having the supercarrier without the Tomcat full operational has no sense, honestly speaking.

I believe the F-18 Hornet owners might see things differently....relax guys...there is a lot going on right now...are ya really going to loose sleep because of a flight sim? I can think of a few things more important.

relax guys....

This. Once again pitchforks and torches are being raised even before people know how it will actually work. Its not as simple as ''Add F-14B by Heatblur Simulations to the compatibility list''. This is all pretty understandable if you ask me, but if you think it is not, there is still no reason to really go all out before you get your hands on it. Its not all black and white.

This. Once again pitchforks and torches are being raised even before people know how it will actually work. Its not as simple as ''Add F-14B by Heatblur Simulations to the compatibility list''. This is all pretty understandable if you ask me, but if you think it is not, there is still no reason to really go all out before you get your hands on it. Its not all black and white.

Actually it is pretty black and white. Either the HB Tomcat is fully compatible with the Supercarrier module or its not. The Tomcat has been in EA for over a year. ED has been taking money for Supercarrier preorders for months (which includes people who bought it to use specifically with the Tomcat) but chose to hold off telling Tomcat customers until very recently (yesterday) about the issues with compatibility. No issue taking folks money but when customers ask valid questions, we're in the wrong?

Here you go

Actually it is pretty black and white. Either the HB Tomcat is fully compatible with the Supercarrier module or its not. The Tomcat has been in EA for over a year. ED has been taking money for Supercarrier preorders for months (which includes people who bought it to use specifically with the Tomcat) but chose to hold off telling Tomcat customers until very recently (yesterday) about the issues with compatibility. No issue taking folks money but when customers ask valid questions, we're in the wrong?

This isn't true. ED said from very beginning that Tomcat support depends on HB - example from January--

We have every confidence that HB will be able to integrate their F-14 into our development version to allow us to support the Tomcat on Supercarrier.

Tomcat is not ED product and they cannot speak for 3rd parties.

Questions about Tomcat should be raised with HB.

News we have now, is that HB integrated Tomcat into development branch recently and there was simply not enough time to fully support it YET.

Anyway, SC is ED product, Hornet is ED product, and for that combination I expect exceptional support, and I have all confidence this will be the case.

For Heatblur product, I expect they will support THEIR customers and integrate with SC, which SHOULD be their goal, since they still had not delivered their promised carrier.

This isn't true. ED said from very beginning that Tomcat support depends on HB - example from January--

 

 

Tomcat is not ED product and they cannot speak for 3rd parties.

Questions about Tomcat should be raised with HB.

 

News we have now, is that HB integrated Tomcat into development branch recently and there was simply not enough time to fully support it YET.

 

Anyway, SC is ED product, Hornet is ED product, and for that combination I expect exceptional support, and I have all confidence this will be the case.

For Heatblur product, I expect they will support THEIR customers and integrate with SC, which SHOULD be their goal, since they still had not delivered their promised carrier.

Take a look at what the HB team is saying in the F-14 forums. There is a major disconnect that needs to be addressed. There are still issues with the ED default carrier and the Tomcat. this is a ED issue, not Heatblur.

Kinda depends what they mean by "fully support." As long as it can trap and launch (most basic functionality). If I can't launch (like now in 2.5.6 on the Stennis), I'll be most displeased.

If I'm still sliding around, I'll be most displeased.

If the ground crews are slightly off when hooking up the shuttle, launch bar, etc, I could live with that (as long as it doesn't inhibit basic functionality). If the ATC comms stays fragmentary or LSO won't tell me to add power, I could live with that for awhile too.

I liked the detail in this post and it gave me a good insight into the development issues. Something to note is that the objects and multiplayer are always difficult to resolve, so much added burden to synchronicity on the MP game. It's a bit strange that some folks haven't been as welcoming, I would have thought a very clear remaining show stopper list would have been exactly what people had wanted, to ease their minds. Turns out you simply cannot say enough to please everyone.

...It's a bit strange that some folks haven't been as welcoming, I would have thought a very clear remaining show stopper list would have been exactly what people had wanted, to ease their minds. Turns out you simply cannot say enough to please everyone.

Exactly. This is why being "transparent" is not always a good idea, because it opens the door for wanna be project managers in this community to start asking ED questions about their work and why isn't this or that not done yet. I appreciate the insight though.

I understand that Tomcat is not compatible. However, ED should warn before buying that tomcat is not compatible.

Incompatibility or limited compatibility at the start of early access is not the same thing as planned incompatibility at the end of development. Again, they said they want it to be compatible.

Lee1hy, how do you interpret "To be clear, we are not saying that the Tomcat will not be compatible at Super Carrier EA launch, we will do our very best with HB to have at least limited functionality." when discussing F14+SC during early access as understanding that "The Tomcat is not compatible"? Do you mean compatible during early access?

Incompatibility or limited compatibility at the start of early access is not the same thing as planned incompatibility at the end of development. Again, they said they want it to be compatible.

 

Lee1hy, how do you interpret "To be clear, we are not saying that the Tomcat will not be compatible at Super Carrier EA launch, we will do our very best with HB to have at least limited functionality." when discussing F14+SC during early access as understanding that "The Tomcat is not compatible"? Do you mean compatible during early access?

Zee Pet, Many people thought it was compatible. some people refunded

I liked the detail in this post and it gave me a good insight into the development issues. Something to note is that the objects and multiplayer are always difficult to resolve, so much added burden to synchronicity on the MP game. It's a bit strange that some folks haven't been as welcoming, I would have thought a very clear remaining show stopper list would have been exactly what people had wanted, to ease their minds. Turns out you simply cannot say enough to please everyone.

Agreed, actually it served two purposes, a useful bit of transparency about what was going on, and amazing way to work out how to use the ignore button

So why is Heatblur saying today there's still NO cooperation on the F-14 cat-launches that are bugged in 2.5.6, since 1 month??

This should be a TOP PRIORITY fix! For over a month my f14 is almost inoperable, it should have deserved an immediate hot fix instead of working on other stuff...

Please fix it ASAP, at least for the launch of the super carrier I purchased...

Exactly. This is why being "transparent" is not always a good idea, because it opens the door for wanna be project managers in this community to start asking ED questions about their work and why isn't this or that not done yet. I appreciate the insight though.

Some people will always whine, that doesn't mean threads like these shouldn't happen.

People need to stop trying to rush to the defense of ED and let ED answer valid questions for themselves, I swear some folks act like their children are being insulted.

Well those people including me have paid…

The issue is not the lack or not of transparency. The problem is that the stuff is not yet delivered.

When people starts to ask news, that's because the expected product is going to be awaited for too long. It's exacerbated if it's radio silence from the devs. People are starting to worry and get nervous. Something's fishy.

Now the devs have told the truth. Being grateful or not is irrelevant. The point is the result matches worries about the development status. Yeah thanks ED to be transparent but that transparency cannot repair the current DCS situation, and that's what people are focusing on.

At least we can blame 2.5.6 for this :D

People need to stop trying to rush to the defense of ED and let ED answer valid questions for themselves, I swear some folks act like their children are being insulted.

I defend common sense, not ED. If you haven't noticed hardly any of these questions in the thread have not been answered yet. Some have been answered indirectly by being moved to the wishlist thread. I was one of the main ones asking why none of these questions are being answered, but I made peace with the fact that ED is not going to answer most of these questions until the SC is released.

Actually it is pretty black and white. Either the HB Tomcat is fully compatible with the Supercarrier module or its not. The Tomcat has been in EA for over a year. ED has been taking money for Supercarrier preorders for months (which includes people who bought it to use specifically with the Tomcat) but chose to hold off telling Tomcat customers until very recently (yesterday) about the issues with compatibility. No issue taking folks money but when customers ask valid questions, we're in the wrong?

Cant remember seeing any pre lauch EA videos with tomcats launching in it , they have been promoting the hornet in it from memory so its not exactly misleading is it?

On the delay - thank god - there is enough issues within 2.5.6 right now that must take priority over releasing yet more code into the OS with a potential for causing more issues. All the people griping clearly need to get a grip and leave their own realm of single player against AI. Nothing worse than chasing bad code out the door and see all too often people in these forums doing exactly this. It would be better to devout time to bug reporting not chasing products that are not even released yet.

+1 Very well said Hawkeye!! :thumbup: