Not A Hornet Discussion....

and what do you think of it (remembering its a beta)?

why don't you add a poll - this way we can know as well how many don't have it (like me) or have bought it,

Judging by the lack of answers.....lol

I'd participate in a Poll

Well I wasn't looking to do a poll. I was wondering what people thought of it so far.

Dammit!

I like it.

I like it...

and soon to be released in 18F version

Hey, he didn't say what Hornet. He said "the Hornet"

I bought it, and the Persian Gulf terrain too.

I like it.

The Hornet is a lot of fun to fly. The lighting in this sim is exceptional and combined with the atmospheric affects make for an enjoyable, if not limited, combat aircraft flight experience

DCS' F/A-18C Hornet is by far the best flight sim I have ever flown. The flight modeling is spectacular. Nothing comes close. I used to come here all the time, but its turned into a hatefest for DCS. I go elsewhere now rather than read the latest #%&*$# from ICE. Bye.

"The flight modeling is spectacular."
Why do I hear that every time a new module comes out? People apparently become so knowing of any planes' handling characteristics that they feel need to speak out. Then after the first FM update, they're like "yea it's much better now - we luv u ED".
But hmmm... wasn't it as good as ever earlier already? Well in that case at least it got updated, cause hey - people like nothing more than updates. Updates, updates, updates - whether it's Windows or any other program, updates are always welcome since what could go wrong - afterall updates make all things better, even people's lifes! --- Hmm sidetracked a bit there...

Anyway, back to bug. Hornet is ok, but has some very serious issues with the drag - also "flaps effect" seems to be inverted. I'm not expert with Hornet flight characteristics, but putting flaps down certainly doesn't make your plane's nose to pitch down... like .. ever.
Good sides? Plenty, working pretty well for an unfinished module (~10000x better than my beloved RAZBUMs productions).

Probably gets some updates in near future (whatever that means in ED Land..).

But I like the Bug (now that's sum you won't hear everyday).

And two more of these: () (Nothing more to add to that sentence). ...... doh!

Depending on the type, that is actually very wrong. As mentioned in another thread, there are aircraft that have a considerable pitch down tendency when the flaps are deployed. Whether this is the case for the Hornet i do not know, but the above statement is certainly not true.

Can you name some planes which drop nose when putting flaps down? I'd be interested.

bisher, you are a nasty person for giving just one image of the Hornet with that skin. More screenies with different angles would be needed to make the world right again!



Interesting. You go elsewhere now but decide to break your cherry by making your first post a #%&*$# one about me. Such an honor! I wonder if you know that you can skip over content you don't like? Don't read what you don't want to read? Maybe even use the ignore function of the forums? Nah! Too much work, I guess! Bye!!




I guess Azazel is an ex-Hornet driver!



I'd be interested in that as well!

I struggle to understand what people mean when they write things like "the flight model is spectacular. Nothing comes close".

You mean this is the best f-18 flight model? The best FM among all flights models?

I could arguably understand the first point. I mean, the others f-18 in the market are the FSX, BMS and XP. I do believe that DCS F-18 is already on the track to be the king with no contest AMONG OTHERS F-18. BMS has always been a F-16 FM simulator. Yes, they did add a few FM for others aircraft but it is not a study level.

The second point is even worse. You would be on track if you say something like "DCS F-18 flight experience gave me the best experience ever" and this would undeniable. Sounding like DCS F-18 is the best FM is pretty stupid because it is implying that others FM are either wrong or sucks, which both would be wrong statements. For example, let's consider both DCS A-10C and F-18 FM. They both have flaws but both are believable and replicate RL with a good degree of fidelity (some more, some less...remember no FM can replicate 100% RL not even professionals). Now you cannot simply say that F-18 FM is better than A-10C just because one gives you more satisfaction, this is just naive. In RL their flight capabilities are simply different, dictated by physics flight dynamics and they will behave completely different. They will provide completely different experience and the same concept applies to flight simulators.

I've read too many time this sort of statement and they always sounded like...this is best flight model ever, superior to anything else in the market. Surely at some point a FM is better than another FM but it not something easy to quantify, moreover for hobbyist like us that has no access to data to compare.

Hahaha, that has been VRS' line for YEARS

It's a great little BFMer. It has plenty of functionality right now, with more to be added obviously.

The flaps issue is known and will be addressed (in what manner, I don't know since I don't have documentation on hornet behavior, but the pitch down should be prevented - this amount of pitch down is insane). Other aircraft, like the F-15 have it as well but it's a) not so severe and b) compensated for by the flight control system.

I have it. I like it very much!

How did this get missed by in house testing?

I like it.

lol Ice that is a beautiful skin

No doubt! And I'd bet it'll be even more beautiful at certain angles!

The 737 is said to exhibit a pitch down tendency when the flaps are extended, Piper Tomahawk as well. Low wing configurations in general are prone to having a pitch down tendency unless the flaps change the airflow over the tail to compensate or the FCS rules change when flaps are extended.

You've discovered the secret to having the bestest simulator product ever, not knowing what you're talking about. It's the best! You can be impressed by the supreme realism if you don't know reality. There are no bugs if you don't know it shouldn't do that.

Wasn't trying to start a urinary Olympics.......

I guess it's unavoidable once people start making silly statements like best module EVARRR!!!

But Ice here is the deal.....I am not getting into that kind of jackassery anymore. If someone makes a statement like that, then live and let live. Back on my other account here going back to 1999 (and even being a moderator here) my fuse was short and anger swift. I grew the #%&*$# up and realized I was being a total dick-wad in some cases. If someone likes it that much and says something like that, then so be it. I would rather talk about simming, flying, killing bad guys and breaking their #%&*$#.

I hope that you realize that these forums are far more rowdier than the consumer support forum - I don't take part in discussions about quality since I don't play DCS very often, but people that do, are very vocal about their opinions.

I don't mind rowdy at all, just not looking to start pissing contests or have my posts become one.

Thought I comment on that, but honestly really don't know what to say.

no one likes that - you can count on Mods acting before things start getting out of hand

Not trying to stir the Kool aid, but I'm a bit underwhelmed overall, and it has nothing to do with the missing systems or flap behavior, except that the thing is also a complete pig when low on power.

Fair statement, not that I decide what's fair but it seems to be what the OP is looking for, opinion re: the Hornet

I don't disagree. I enjoy the flight model of the Hornet, but this has nothing to do with 'reality', it's about what I think reality is.

Frederf this is no secret, there was an article in PC Gamer in the 90s that explored this very subject

Surprisingly, handles well at extremely low speed less than 100 kts at high altitude, and probably high AoA. But between 100 to 200 knots particularly low, which is really an unfortunate area of the flight envelope, I have to constantly stare at the airspeed, having the AoA bracket available only helps somewhat or is unsteady at best, as the airspeed varies wildly. I think the power, drag coefficient or their interaction is not properly modeled, or possibly the FBW/FCS, either how the FCS actuates the flight control surfaces generating an incorrect input or is otherwise related to the algorithm, possibly needs work but it's just an opinion, and I know it's the EAH.

I have noticed it too. She seems very unforgiving that those speeds.

I have the Hornet and love it!!!

So how is the A2A and A2G combat?

Do not regret the purchase … 'nuff said.

Love it

I have it & was definitely worth the risk of pre-purchase. Good to fly now, will be great when more functionality is added.

I have it.

Really good , least for me even now because my favorite era is 70-80 , so im happy with sparrows. And patches and updates come fast now.

Things are finally moving faster with dcs , patches and updates come almoust every week.

FPS is better too, even in VR.

Over here in Australia hornets are quite easy to "shoot down" with a can of wasp spray.

Thank you Blackwoods, thank you Europe for the importation of the European "wasp"

Great for WVR with it's 4mtr lock on ability

MSA Hornet killer

I can only assume you're in open beta?
My Viggen is still in pretty much the same sad state it was when pre-released 1½ years ago with every second update fixing adding same faults (and very very far from weekly updates)

Patches/updates have always come regularly....It's the issue of what is fixed and what existing functionality gets broken that is the problem........and the priority of what gets fixed i.e. rain droplets rather than fundamental flight characteristics.
Anyway, not to deviate from thread, I haven't bought it and won't do so until it resembles promised functionality

I'm not talking about buying it or not buying it, there's really not much choice anyway, so most people who are interested will probably buy it, and if you're a big fan of the F-18C, the once ugly duckling YF-17, then you're happy. But not one of their original FC aircraft, particularly superiority aircraft which put them on the map, has been enhanced with any minor in the cockpit functionality or improvements such as adding some additional radar functionality, or slightly more fidelity of the TWS. The only reason I heard of them was because of the Lomac, FC series, I was never involved with the TFC. It makes you wonder what ED has been doing for the past 15 years, if the most basic of things like low speed flight behavior is not completely developed, and I'm not talking about simply crashing a plane into the deck. I regard patches as stitching a torn piece of clothing, it makes you feel a bit better superficially that a few of the numbers have been moved around, but it's not the same as having the original thing.

Judging by the server population, I'd say the majority of online DCS players purchased it.

Just go through the server list, and look at how the slots are filled.

One could argue that the majority of DCS players do not play online, but I doubt there is a massive discrepancy between the types of modules purchased based upon online preference.

This video is petty cool:

Like BMP-2s blowing Flankers out of the sky. It has been about three years now? Apparently trees should now block ground vehicle visibility, but that doesn't help much on NTTR or PG maps. Gun, rocket and even bomb runs are almost suicidal. A BMP-2 or guy using a manual swiveling turret atop of a hummer (with no radar to assist with aiming) will blow you out of the sky after 2-3 runs. Outside of AGMs you can't really do CAS in DCS right now. That is a huge problem seeing that we have a few $50-60 modules out or coming out that are centered around these types of air to ground weapons.

Now I don't think the guys doing the affects have anything to do with the guys working on the AI, but they either need to refocus on this issue or bring aboard someone who can.

Air to air missiles is the next big one. They're going to need to rework missile dynamics for the Hornet and F-16. I can't claim I am a missile expert, but I don't think I can ever hit an enemy fighter at 10nm with an AIM-120 regardless of altitude, speed or launch angles. So while our expectations may be off I still can't imagine what we have in DCS is even close to realistic.

Haha, you guys are crazy.

Explain? Everyone is talking about the Hornet and DCS functionality.........you’re commentating on the community?

Ya, I'd say the community is dysfunctional, but crazy?? j/k

I'm going to assume he means crazy good

anyone that does what I do in his free time has to be crazy

Not crazy = "the flight model is spectacular", "I love it"
Not crazy = Fanboy, I lucked out and got the plane I wanted, I don't have to tell you that's the real reason, I can go to my safe place now.

It's people like this who caused massive delays, numerous modules that nobody wanted, and occasional fixes like auxiliary relief valve to outboard flaperons causing momentary surge to opposite stabilizer fixed, worthless and completely unnoticeable.

That's the problem with no competition, I don't recall what they were called, I think "fighterops", I wish there were someone else or a team similar to BMS were developing in parallel.

"Air to air missiles is the next big one. They're going to need to rework missile dynamics for the Hornet and F-16. I can't claim I am a missile expert, but I don't think I can ever hit an enemy fighter at 10nm with an AIM-120 regardless of altitude, speed or launch angles. So while our expectations may be off I still can't imagine what we have in DCS is even close to realistic."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ

Maybe ED's good missile guidance system was, but because that was subject to change, in the end, it wasn't.

Or maybe they used this video for guidance data

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LjN3UclYzU

Who knows...

Faulkner that's quite the change in attitude in 7 posts where in your earlier post you claimed you did not want to' stir the pot', to this

Flogger from this it sounds like you are not certain whether or not you can hit an aircraft from 10nm out

I have only the Flaming Cliffs F 15 that carries the AIM 120 and I can hit an aircraft 10 - 15 nm most every time with a AIM 120, at 20 nm not so much, but I may not be using the equipment correctly. Yet

One of the difficulties I'm having is I do not get a valid shot cue until the aircraft is 15 nm out. So maybe user error?

I don't, unless there is some reversion to "I wanted the Hornet, so there can be nothing wrong with it", "ED can do no wrong", and there is a pie in the sky, and anybody who says otherwise gets chastised. On a slightly different but related note, I have agreed for a significant while about the comments about missile behavior generally, and problems getting shot down too easily at low altitude by just about anything, those are quite correct posts, I doubt those are realistic, particularly the former, these are what really need to be fixed.

Ah

I can think of one thing ED has done wrong, so phew, I'm don't fit into that group. ED could put a 'relfy' option in the mission escape menu

LShift-R

Nate

Thanks Nate

Is that against a fighter though? A you sure you don't have it set to metric as well? I don't recall but I believe there is an option for the F-15.

Re: bisher, play one side or the other, but not both, can't respect that.

I am not saying the AM-120 model is correct, but I I haven't had too much trouble hitting fighters in the 10-15nm range with the F-15. Typically I will wait until they are 17-18nm before firing. This is in a head-on engagement. Typically I will use the Constant Peg mission for the F-15. So the engagement is against Su-27s and Mig 29s. I suspect the range may differ in a trailing engagement though where the missile would have to "catch" the target

Good points Flogger yes fighters but mig 15s and 21s for the most, and I'd wondered if my HUD read out is metric

I'll check my options, I was not sure how but will have a look

"Jackassery"? If you can tolerate the guys that makes statements like that, why can you not tolerate those that seek truth and accuracy in making statements? Seems like you're only interested in one side of the argument and that's fine, but it seems like you also think that the other side has no right to post and that's just messed up.

Start a thread about simming, killing stuff, or weapons employment and you'll find less of these types of discussion but ask what you did on your 1st and 3rd post on this thread and you're annoyed with the result of your questions? "What do you think of it?" is just asking for these types of responses.



What do you mean "people like this"? Are you implying ED listens to customer feedback to guide them as to which module to develop next? Because I don't think that happens at all. Delays and module selection have all been due to ED's incompetence or whatever reason they want to use to hand-wave it away; nothing to do with their customer base at all. If it were the case, ED would be developing a DC engine now.

I think ED has duped a lot of people into thinking that their modules are closer to the real thing than they really are. On rare occasions, I have seen pilots familiar with a particular aicraft, who have no affiliation with ED, more or less chuckle or scoff, suggesting that there is still a huge gap between what is and what people hope it is. I have seen many posters who ask about minute details and subtlties about various systems that don't in fact exist in the sim. That's the fooler game that ED has played, and it may be a component of the incompetence part. The lack of more fully developed missile system behavior as the most glaring example is unacceptable at this point, that's number one, two and three in development priority, and although I play BMS less frequently these days, you get a sense of a more realistic air to air environment, i.e. multiple hits to down an aircraft, correct geometry and range, missiles or guns, despite deficiencies in the graphics.

I disagree with you completely that it is incompetence that drives ED's ludicrous module selection, I think they know exactly what they are doing. They have a large community of, well I won't say puppets because that would be politically incorrect, but clones and zombies, who will accept just about anything, because they believe that everything that ED produces is nothing short of perfection, with everything modeled correctly down to the smallest detail. I understand the "fun" aspect, but because of that they can draw on a large number of people, and produce basically whatever they want, irrespective whether it is of any relevance, as well as many different aircraft with similar characteristics, with low development time and expense. In fact, those same people will go to great extents to defend them, like they're doing what they can, they will go bankrupt and other such nonsense. While it is correct that ED pays no attention to their customer base, your reasoning is incorrect, it is exactly because they know that customer base will accept just about anything, which is what makes it relevant and gives them the latitude to do so. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you sell 100,000 copies of something worldwide, at $50 a print, you're okay, to them it's just a money game. The irony is, had they taken the direction of spending more time enhancing existing modules for airplanes people really want, which are now years off at best if in fact they happen, and staying within the original concept behind LOMAC: Modern Air Combat, the sales numbers would probably have been about the same, and they may have attracted a larger customer base.

Agreed. See my other thread here regarding misleading or mis-selling their customers.




I see no evidence that ED knows what they're doing regarding module selection. Even if ED knew their customer base will buy anything they make, it does not mean that throwing darts at a dartboard with pictures of aircraft is "knowing what they're doing."



Then how do you explain the recent announcement of FC4 comprising of DCS-level airframes dumbed down to FC-level?



Agreed. I've scratched my head for a long time with regards to this. If ED did know what they're doing, they'd have chosen the staple aircraft to start with -- the Hornet, the Tomcat, the Apache, bring up the Sukhois and MiGs to DCS-level -- these airframes are no-brainers with regards to mass appeal and marketability. Instead, they waste time building the L-39? They allow a 3rd-party to make the Tomcat?

If ED had more direction, even if they took the same amount of time, I would wager that the community would be in a much better place and even if they didn't have such a large customer base, they'd have a more understanding and patient pool of customers.

I think they choreograph their choice of modules more than people think and more than they let on, particularly propeller driven aircraft and helos, which incorporate very similar technologies, there is little turnaround time, no radar or minimal avionics. I think they push out what they can the fastest, "lazy development". If you've built one, you've built them all, again aimed at money generation, slang "quick buck". If less people had bought that stuff, it may have had a counter intuitive effect.

I don't know anything about FC4, thought it was a joke at first, I read quickly about it a few weeks ago then forgot about it, thought initially it was a further development of FC3, you just reminded me it's actually a downgrade. I don't know the reason for it, but I would favor it's another vehicle for making easy money, since you're removing complexity which is always an easier path. I don't think they're doing it out of their goodness, to help the poor dears who don't want to deal with all the systems to alleviate some kind of moral dilemma, since most advanced models already are ready to fly, which I assume is what most people are interested in, if you want to get to a specific subsystem or armament such as in A/G, it's just a few additional button presses away. And in fact, in some ways, the F-18C is still at a very basic stage.

I agree with your comments about aircraft that were unequivocally deserving of further refinement, except you neglected to mention the F-15C, which although does not have a very pleasing cockpit to look at, it is certainly or originally was the flagship of all air superiority aircraft for the longest while, it was developed for the MiG-25, and indeed the other aircraft were developed for it. I think you wouldn't necessarily have to integrate all the IFF modes, to reduce development time and probably extreme, unnecessary complexity, but it's real role was just one, and that was to intercept, or escort, other aircraft. The current generation of Su's and MiG's especially with regard to their cockpit bear little resemblance to the original FC3 aircraft, probable lack of available information for these systems, displays and HUD, of course complexity (aversion to complexity), may have dampened or at least contributed to lack of enthusiasm for further refinement of those aircraft.

I agree with your "easy money" theory for the most part, but it falls flat on FC4. Sure, it might be easy enough to dumb down an already-existing module and then sell it again, but I don't think FC4 will be as "easy money" as they think it would be since these aircraft already exist as DCS-level. Remember, the main reason FC3 is such a hit is because you cannot get those aircraft anywhere else; this clearly won't be the case for FC4 so while they might be able to push it out the door sooner, I doubt it will bring them good money.

As for the choice of modules, I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve. Didn't they just stumble onto WWII due to a bad deal? Not really sure how that transpired as I wasn't paying attention at that time and have little interest in old warbirds. Then again, aren't most of the older aircraft/helos 3rd-party projects anyway?

If you wish to give ED any sort of credit for any sort of percieved brilliance, simply look at how their DCS 2.5 release is going -- Wags having to "promise" a release date, the software being pushed out the door in an unpolished state just to meet the "promise", an estimated 1-2 week turnaround time between beta and release that turned out to be a couple of months, and so on and so forth.... brilliant? Probably so if you take each part on it's own. Beautiful eye candy. Good FM on modules. Not having to fiddle with MS-DOS windows to update your software. But the whole? Broken stuff are still broken. An unexpected increase in RAM requirements. Microstutters still existing on certain hardware configurations.

I don't know how to characterize anything I've said about ED to this point as being complimentary. Some of their development is good, but their marketing is better. Their brilliance seems to be in providing empty promises and false expectations. There are entire threads about things which are completely imaginary.They just push modules out the door, rebranding and repackaging the same old thing, to make a quick buck to what they perceive as a gullible audience. I've read where there are people who buy the same module twice, I couldn't begin to make any sense of that, whether it's for Steam or not. I don't know anything about FC4 or its purpose.

Oh?

You should be familiar bisher since you probably started many of them.

Well , we have imaginary threads here at simHQ, and imaginary threads that make reference to threads that are completely imaginary. But I don't think I started many of those

Are you just trying to be argumentative, is that the real aim of posting here, so I can show that I can argue about anything, nonsensical or not. The imaginary threads, and it's part of the larger issue with ED, is that I see people discussing systems ad nauseam because they think they exist in the sim, but they don't, or discussing preparations for modules that haven't in fact been conceived or aren't in any planning phase. It's actually a bit sad because it's sort of illusionary or delusionary.

If you're satisfied with ED and having waiting 15 years for any semblance of a study level module of a modern fighter, then I'm happy for you, I would say "good for you" but that would be patronizing. If you've now found yourself in love with ED, than that's okay too, also I'm happy for you both, and I wish you two the best. I just got involved with this thread because of the low speed behavior of the hornet, in a very unfortunate range, the landing range, and it may be related to the flaps issue. In my view, at low speed applying power is very slow to come on line, dangerously so, however to the contrary the plane goes between 100 to 200, or back to 100 from 200, almost instantaneously, with minimal changes in throttle input, which seems unrealistic and hyperresponsive similar to X-Plane except the problem there has to do with the flight axes, otherwise I'd most likely stop playing P3D. It makes controlling the aircraft during this portion of flight quite difficult, and in testing it again nothing has changed. Somewhere along the line portions of this thread became about how I personally feel, and evolved or devolved into something else, but overall, my main point throughout has been, this type of module or others like it could have been available or in development earlier or at other forks in the road, you're free to agree or disagree, but that's my opinion.

Now Faulkner if you can just tie this into the OP, you will no longer need to put up with my nonsense

I don't care about your nonsense. But I also will not speak to you in a way that you probably don't deserve. The only thing I would add is that I notice you have made over 12,000 posts, I'm sure each of those has been of tremendous significance.

Sorry for that, but you made statements like "they know exactly what they are doing" and "it is exactly because they know that customer base" so I thought you were trying to praise them a bit? Don't get me wrong, ED has had its moments. I actually own two modules of A-10C, purchased the second one so I could fly with my son, but I would say ED during 2010 and A-10C period is very different from ED now.

As for FC4, I don't think even ED knows its purpose. They'll say they do but if you take their reasoning and apply some critical thinking to it, you may realize ED doesn't have a clue.

See Ice you're missing the point. By jackassery I mean threads turning is giant cess pools. Of course everyone has an opinion but just don't jump on someone for their opinion being opposite of yours. Live and let live, agree to disagree, etc etc etc.....

If someone got the F/A-18 and doesn't like that is fine. That is the point of this thread. It's the "Oh your opinions sucks dude." I consider counter productive and #%&*$# annoying.

Aren't you just contradicting yourself there? You want me to live and let live with regards to others but you don't seem willing to extend the same to others?

I consider false statements and overhyped claims to be counterproductive and annoying. If ED is great, then it will be easy to disprove my statements with facts. If ED is not great, then the less people that buy it and get a bad experience from false advertising is a win for flight simulation in general and COMBAT flight simulation in particular. People have their opinions and that's great. But there are also facts, which really do not care about opinions. People are also free to express such opinions and facts in SimHQ. If you don't like it, I'm sure there's a forum out there that is overflowing with the Kool-Aid and people all sing kumbaya.

"Oh your opinions sucks dude."
Please be so kind as to point out where anyone started and stopped with a statement like that. I agree with you that such statements are annoying, pretty much the same as best module EVARRR!!! However, I bet you will find that opposing statements are not done in such a way that you've described, so please do not respond to your interpretation of what is being said and instead respond to the actual words and points being stated.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have no issue with that. Calling someone out negatively (ATTACKING THEIR CHARACTER) because you don't like their opinion is what I am talking about. Not saying you did that but that is the point I have been trying to make. The points I made are examples of what I do not want in my threads. Point, counter point. Fine here. I am not quite sure where the disconnect is. You like ED, good. You don't like ED, good. You like F/A-18, good. You don't like the F/A-18 good. You like the FM good, you don't like the FM, good. See the train of thought here? No opinion is a bad one in my eyes because to each his own. I have been saying over and over again. You trackin' now?

I agree with you there. However, do you only care if this is done in threads you start? I didn't see you calling out recent character attacks on other threads.


So you expect different rules to apply on your threads and only on your threads? Other threads in the same sub-forum can do as they please?


Everyone has a right to their opinion. However, not all opinions are correct. Opinions formed from correct, factual information, and decisions based from that informed opinion are much better and can stand up to scrutiny, yes? Opinions based on false information, over-hyped marketing, misleading comments, and decisions based on that ill-informed opinion are not likely to end in a good experience for the individual, correct?

1. Not my job to call out people in other threads if its not my thread. I generally stay out of pissing contests.

2. Yes, I have seen #%&*$# in my life I wouldn't wish my on enemy so civility in my threads isn't too much to ask.

3. You are correct as long and you aren't attacking the person.

You have an interesting sense of ownership on your threads. However, since it is not your forum, how do you expect people to follow one set of rules for your threads but another set of rules for other threads?




But if it's your thread, it's your "job"? Regardless, I don't see you calling out Azazel for a character attack on the first page of this thread.


I agree. We may differ in opinions and preferences but at the end of the day, it's a sim, it's a hobby, and I wish nobody any ill will, but discussion can be heated at times. Doesn't mean it's a pissing contest though. That, or I'm misunderstanding the term.


I may be reading your statement wrong here, but if you're wrong, you're wrong regardless of whether you're attacking the person or the post. If you're wrong **AND** attacking the person, then you're just.... well, the correct word escapes me at the moment

Ice. Opinions are not a right, it's the human condition, perhaps you are referring to the right of people to express their opinion. Thank you for this

And as opinions are judgements based on our individual value system, opinions are always right

I agree opinions can change if perception changes, however this is best done in a strength based approach. I can't really say your posts are strength based.

So if you truly, truly want to impact us poor sods' opinions try using a strength based approach as this has been proven to have the biggest impact on allowing people to make long term positive lifestyle change.

Back on topic

I bought the Hornet, really enjoying it, though it has a long way to go before it's potential is realized

1. They don't have to respect my wishes as its only a request.

2. Azazel was just like you said one hit wonder. I just shake my head at those people. Notice he hasn't posted since?

3. Heating discussions are one thing. Pissing contest usually = attacking each other.

4. Different opinions are fine, as I said, attacking the person for their opinion is not.

Now can we go back to talking about the F/A-18? Do you have the module Ice?

Hey Dave, remember a long time ago on SimHq when we had the night of the eels on the Community Forum?

Well, it's a lot different now.

I don't know what to make of Ice, he seems upset, or makes comments that are inexplicable or contradictory because he has to win the argument or he has to be the SME on everything, despite their being no argument, attacks people despite posts that echo basically the same opinion, effectively supporting him or the same view. I don't want to say these things, but I don't know what the f### is happening. There may be more than one person in there, or he may now actually be a fanboy. I think he secretly has a thing for ED despite his posts, can't come to grips with it, or he may be confused. I know he wants to take over the forum or whatever thread he gets involved in, to root it out wherever it may be, although at times the posts don't make sense and come out of both sides of his mouth, and I can't understand what he's talking about.

However, I am not a student of ED such as yourself, will never walk through the hallowed halls at Duxford or at ED, or ever be inducted into the ED Hall of Fame. I can tell you that I just attempted a landing on the carrier, and in the instant just prior to landing, two of my compadre Hornets, in an apparent "switch" maneuver, smashed into the back of the carrier simultaneously in a plume of smoke. I was able to land on the deck using a 15.6" notebook no less - I'm that good, or I used to be, and I know that's what they both would have wanted. I know somebody alluded to some kind of renaissance occurring at ED, but the more things change, the more they stay the same, eh.

Ice is a good guy. Look at what he has done for BMS.

ED/DCS has very questionable business model of pushing products out and never really finishing them.

Hoping the Hornet is better. And so far it is. A lot of potential here. I'm happy with my purchase. We'll see how it all plays out.

Good times.... And yeah I'm learning that. Glad I took all those how to not nuke your neighbor classes after I retired. :p

I am enjoying the Hornet. But they need to add more weapons capabilities soon. You see Iron hand is my thing... LOL

I know Ice is a good guy, otherwise I wouldn't talk to him. And very knowledgeable, and quite entertaining, but he's correct only 95% of the time, and that's a damn good score in my book. Kumbaya. Can't resist, but for the Hornet, except for some things I already mentioned it, considering the complexity, as a module it is well done.

The Piper Cherokee I took flying lessons in, for one. Many low wing pipers exhibit this behavior, actually.

Also, speaking to the original purpose of this thread:

I have the hornet, and I'm having a good time learning how to fly it (haven't even tried a carrier landing yet!). It's a very lively flight model, and you can see the FBW systems working (eg. in a cross wind landing, the rudders 'twitch' a lot to make minor corrections).

Also, the the visuals are very much a feature of this sim. The photo-realistic nature of the hornet model and the Persian gulf terrain means there are times I glance back over my shoulder and for a moment things feel very real. I play sims to fly airplanes and all that that entails, not just a Ti-83 graphing calculator. The systems certainly add immersion, but DCS has crossed into a new realm with it's visuals, and you can appreciate those without even having to crack open the manual

I think my money was well spent.

I do wish more things were completed of course, and that DCS had a dynamic campaign engine, and there was a more comprehensive road map for feature completion. But, all in all, I'd rather have this hornet in DCS than no hornet in DCS at all.

I know that according to everyone else here I'm supposed to hate it, and I'm a terrible person for daring to think that graphics are important, daring to enjoy a product that doesn't have every single aspect of the real aircraft functional, and daring to enjoy something ED has made. And I know that by giving ED my money I've clearly perpetuated a cycle of evil that is ruining the very fabric of our lives. And of course the only way for ED to be defeated is for good, morally upstanding people to stop giving them money.

I'll probably be banned for saying all that, because it is the sole purpose of every flight sim ever to only be about #thesystems.


Sorry SHQ, it was fun while it lasted!

Very good post AggressorBLUE.

Nothing really wrong with the statement. Not personally attacking any individuals and not hating on SimHQ itself for allowing harsh criticism to be shared.

Many of us are waiting for ED to focus on the Combat portion of their Digital Combat Simulation. Sadly...as you have shown...unfinished "shiny" sells, while an engaging lively battlefield with competent AI and dynamic campaigns do not. There are other sims I can fly if I just want flick switches and admire graphics and flight models.

I want to be a Combat pilot...dammit!

I 2nd that!!!!

I get that. And I share those frustrations.

But, I also look at it this way: if you were given the keys to an F/A-18C in real life, would you say "no", because you couldn't blow stuff up? I wouldn't.

And that's what this module feels like to me. It feels like I went to a used fighter jet dealer on the edge of town, and paid cash for a high-mileage, 3rd owner, beater F/A-18C. This thing is grimy. It's scuffed up. It's lived in. It's sold as-is.. It's mine. The only sim based aircraft that really give me that feeling have been the offerings from A2A for FSX.

Plus, I do like tinkering with the Mission editor. Its sort of like playing with toy soldiers as a kid. I get to imagine any battlefield I want, and then go wade into the middle of it with my Hornet. So I get value out of that. I'm weird like that though.

Still do want a dynamic campaign though.

I guess it's the difference between being given the keys and buying them.

An opinion you arrive at after considering erroneous or false information is "right"? No, you were duped into making that opinion, you were misled into thinking the product aligned with your individual value system, how does that = "right"?


You'll have to link me to an explanation of what you're talking about there. I googled the term(s) and had quite a few different results so might be best to give me a link so that we're on the same page Having said that, I don't really believe in serving the truth in a red velvet pillow so that it's more palatable for others. Like I said, the truth doesn't care about your feelings, generally speaking, and you can deny or ignore them as you wish








What is SME?

I do apologize for mis-reading the tone of your posts Written media being hard to work out the tone and all. You are, however, correct. I am, or rather, WAS, a fan of ED. I had LOMAC and FC2 and got more involved with the sim in FC2 flying the A-10A and bought the A-10C on Beta and thoroughly enjoyed it. I have BS2 and FC3 as well. I am a fan of ED who has been disappointed with the direction and management of the sim for years. Maybe that's why you think I'm contradictory? There are some aspects of the sim I will not dispute -- eye candy, viability as a training platform for newbie sim pilots, the value of DCS A-10C and DCS BS2 -- ED has those things right or mostly right It's when ED fumbles with the rest of the project that disappoints me.

I have opted to take the negative side of the argument, to play devil's advocate of sorts. When the community can easily counter my concerns with truth and facts, when ED realizes its mistakes and starts learning from them and correcting them, when I can easily be PROVEN WRONG, I will be a very happy simmer. As always, the ball is in ED's court.





Thanks guys! I appreciate being assessed not just by my DCS presence but by my activity as a flight simmer and community member. A long, long time ago, I wrote this newbie guide as I was taking up new Warthog pilots and some of them were so new they didn't know what "OSB" was. I've trained up a few Hog pilots and later on, some Viper pilots too, so yes, I am a fan of COMBAT flight simulation and I am eager to share it with others

95% is way more than I was expecting so I wonder why you say "only"? Anyway, thanks for that generous assessment but as I mentioned earlier, when ED starts proving me wrong, I would be a very happy 15% correct simmer

I'm sure you know SimHQ well enough to know you won't be banned for saying those things

End of the day, it's your money and you can spend it as you please. You have been open about your expectations and about the shortcomings of the sim and have given a fair assessment of it. I have said it before -- if ED were able to commit to a 1-2 year development timeline for the Hornet and if ED had a better track record of hitting its deadlines without Wags having to resort to promises, I'd be right alongside you guys enjoying the Hornet **NOW**. Alas!!

However, the general positive feedback on the module is giving me hope. ED seems to have mostly nailed this initial release so if they can make regular, steady progress on the module, refrain from breaking non-broken stuff (2 steps forward, 3 steps back), don't get distracted by other modules or private contracts, and introduce the new systems in a timely manner, then I look forward to buying the Hornet module soon.



As I said, I think the issue here isn't the module or the Hornet itself but rather ED as a developer and its track record. Look at it this way: if the Hornet module was sold by another dev with a better track record, even if it was sold with the same number of features, it'll probably get more sales.

I'm just your run-of-the-mill private pilot, but I've gotten a kick out of the commentary on the flight model regarding pitch / flaps on the dcs forums, as well as here... It seems many that I assume have never flown an aircraft have a strong feel for how they should fly. My experience in literally all of the three types I've flown has been that dropping flaps results in considerable pitch down (dropping flaps increases the camber at the rear of the wing significantly).

Don't take my word for it...

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/35/376/Use%20of%20Flaps.pdf

In conventional airplanes flap extension has a significant negative pitch moment component and usually a net moment in the same direction. F/A-18 isn't a conventional design.

So yeah

That's a very good theory, it goes well along this other theory where one assumes that the devs have flown light Cessna och such types but never a F/A-18 Hornet.

You can get combat as much as you like. There is mission editor and mission generator. That generator will make same kind of boring missions, just like that dynamic campaign on other simulation.

That really wasn't the question, though. Also as per the latest patch notes, the pitch down upon extending flaps has been resolved.

Oh, the DC makes the same kind of boring missions as the mission generator? Do tell!!

In my little ignorant universe the dynamic campaign isnt aboot a single mission but the connection in between them all.
But sure, some can result in a boring flight.
Still prefer the DC hands down.

Hmmm.... I wonder if those who've been asking for a DC have realized that they can make the same boring missions in the mission generator?? Must be newbies not realizing the powerful capabilities of the mission generator!

yes I also want a decent DC, i have not found good one yet. Yes BMS have best DC, but it is not good.

"It is the best but it's not good"???

I do agree, the DC and AI can be quirky sometimes but I chalk that up to the (imaginary) enemy being unpredictable That, and I blame 90's tech! Still can't see how you're comparing it to the DCS mission generator though. Yes, you can make a very complex mission in DCS that will seem like it was from a DC but 1) that will take a lot of work and most likely a lot of testing, 2) it will have limited replayability, and 3) it will be even more work tying in one mission to the next. The DCS mission generator and mission editor are for people who enjoy making and testing missions. The BMS DC is for people who want to pretend to be combat pilots

....so you are complaining about boring mission generated by dynamic campaign.....hum....let me get this straight

Real world combat is made of some boring task (eg. patrol) that might lead or not to contact which is partially what BMS DC does. That's one of the beautiful of a DC (together with the fact that everything is connected), start a mission either boring or not and get everything screwed up due to unexpected high threat contact. However it seems that what you are asking for is not a real combat scenario simulator but rather a Hollywood movie combat scenario fulfilled with actions and who knows even things like help ground troops to save private ryan.

I believe that if someone does not like some types of missions why not just skip them?

I'm afraid that's impossible since there wasn't anything wrong at the first place, that's why you suggested that I'm wrong. I just hope they fix real life planes too, since when using flaps planes get this tendency to nose down, man was I wrong it always thought flaps are for increasing lift.

No i dont complain anything. I just say that even DCS can offer COMBAT as much you want.

Drop down is still there , but not so strong anymore. Much better now.

I

I agree. BMS DC may not be perfect.

But it makes your actions mater and thats is single one big thing in dcs what i miss. DC gives reason to take sam’s out from frontline so your strikers can get in.. etc..

Dcs mission generator is #%&*$# for now. All missions require lots of work to get idiotics out from them. And still they are just single missions.

DCS can offer combat to a degree, yes. As much as you want"? Not without extensive use of the mission generator and mission editor. Maybe that's why you get boring missions as DCS can only offer so much and the rest relies on the user to enhance the experience? I don't doubt at all that a talented mission designer can put 10-20 hours of work and come up with a mission that will be fun to fly in for 1-3 hours duration, but how long can he keep doing this for free? So let's compensate him by making his missions and (scripted) campaigns as DLC, and the next question would be how many campaigns can you really buy before the cumulative costs just gets silly? Not to mention the talented mission designer would constantly have to tweak and fix his work to keep up with ED's constant changes.

I find it funny as well that at first you say the missions are boring but next thing you say is it can offer as much combat as desired? Which one is it? So it can offer us as many boring missions as we can take? Who wants to fly boring missions?




Not just that. Before I left DCS, I was experimenting with ways on how to frag ground attack missions and I was left with having to "hide" infantry or a tank under a bridge in order to "detect" the bridge destruction. Okay, that was a workaround.... is there something like this available now for DCS? The next thing that bugged me was that I could successfully destroy the bridge this mission but on the next one, the bridge is there again unless I script something beforehand that would blow up the bridge. Again, a workaround. Is there something that will do this now for DCS?

The biggest appeal for me regarding the DC is the persistence of my previous actions. Take out a bridge? The enemy can no longer use it but at the same time, repair of the captured airbase may take longer as my own units will have to go a long way. Take out an airfield? Enjoy the next 2-3 missions flying over safe airspace.

Did I mention all of that is done by the engine itself and no need for a talented mission designer to sacrifice his time and effort?

What do you mean by as much as you want? You mean casual combat? Then yes it does, but it does not go beyond the random combat scenario with NO MEANING (cause and consequences).

About editor tweaked missions, first of all let's face that the tool is rather limited (eg. cannot even start with environment objective destructed without any tricky workaround, at least till last time i played with it). Second, ok good you did a really well made mission, problem is that it will be like any other campaign mission in DCS...unreplayable as f**k....... you failed the mission? aborted due to risk or failures? DCS has simply crashed? Well just re-do everything you have done.......

Besides most missions are designed so that success is the only option even when the task is unrealistic as f**k (like taking down SAMs with a ....... A-10.... XD....who cares there are more appropriate aircrafts) or would result in mission aborted in RL.

DCS goes from a good airframe flight model experience to a joke combat experience due to meaningless and unreplayable missions and stupid missiles FM.

Hehehe.... yes, get as much combat as you want, but all of them with borked missile performance characteristics

I never said that there's nothing wrong with the Hornet. You are clearly misrepresenting my posts.

Your statement of planes in general exhibiting a pitch up moment on flap deployment was wrong though. There are planes that pitch up, there are other planes that pitch down.

I'll help you freshen up your memory:

You conveniently misunderstand my post, very nice. Feel free.

I know.
I know that originally there was a pitch down.
I know that it was brought to our attention that it should be a pitch up.
I know that the conventional moment is pitch down.
I know that ED acknowledged it and is changing it.

Who I'm talking to is the sloth-speed ED defenders that are still stuck in second gear defending the wrong simulation behavior because they defend instead of investigate as that is their mandate, not you.

SME = "Subject Matter Expert"

I think Ice is a mole planted by ED.

Creating derision in the community increases sales.

For every hater there is a fanboy.


Stick to addressing message content, and refrain from hanging labels on other forum members.

LOL, me a SME? Others know more about the history and failings of ED. I'm just the more vocal one



How'd you come up with that wild idea?



I assume you refer to me as being the hater? Clearly you've not been reading some of my posts!!



Especially as the OP doesn't like pissing contests in his threads! Cheers Cy!

What is intriguing is that 95% of the youtube video's are of landing tutorials on the carrier, the 'stingers' PLAT camera landings and countless reproductions from RL pilots and said RL pilots giving tutorials on correct LSO\pilot vocabulary on landing on a ship. Stuff all related to combat tutorials.

This makes me think that all the gripes regarding the hornet release after all these years and all people can do with it is land on a ship. I'll hold off for another 12 months before I invest 100AUD to the cause. Mind you, the "c" varient that Australia own all have tail hooks yet we don't have carriers. Surely it has more potential than grading on a carrier and catching the 3rd wire.

like Canada, Australia owns early model F/A-18A upgraded to late F/A-18C standards, which are equivalent to very early F/A-18E models.

BUSTED Ice!



I prefer the reader draw their own inferences. If you are having to assume, that says something




I suppose I did label you a mole. But that was offered tongue-in-cheek. Sort of. Sorry OP

Who said anybody could land on a carrier deck.

Busted what? Enjoy your little conspiracy theory.


I am assuming because your post is not clear who you're referring to. As to the reader drawing their own inferences, I totally welcome that and invite them to peruse my posts over the entire SimHQ forum and not just the DCS forum. Otherwise, it will be like the blind men and the elephant.


Again, a silly little idea with nothing to back it up.

These guys

Ah yes, the GAU-8 braking mechanism!!

Ask a DCS player what they did and don't accept systems as a thing and often it boils down to "I flew alone, shot something obvious, and landed."

Ok back from DC, what did I miss?

Maybe in the shallow end of the simming pool with the Air Quakers, but not in my Uber hardcore vfw.

Ice, dude, seriously, give up the hate rants and go fly.

What makes you think I'm not (virtual) flying?

Now did you have a counter-point to bring forward or were you just posting to make a personal attack?

Ice while I totally understand your stance with DCS. There are some who would like to talk about it and not have you show up at times and rail against it. Having read thread after thread after thread I think everyone understands how you feel. It is well in your right to post where you chose and I agree no one should be attacking you but could you do me a favor and calm it down a bit? You do not even own the Hornet and instead of us talking about it we have done everything else but doing that. So with all do respect I would really like to talk to people here about the Hornet without your anti DCS injects.

Nothing in your quoted post was anti-DCS. The post I was responding to didn't even have anything to do with DCS or the Hornet. I wonder if you'll admit to your bias or are you still composing your post where you call out Boomer and bisher?

Or are you retracting previous statements?






I honestly wonder why people feel the need to say "calm down"?? I'm just chilling right here


Since when was owning a module a pre-requisite to joining a discussion?

it isn't - you can also discuss at length why you don't want to buy it yet - and by doing so, help the developer improve the product so that it might motivate you and others to buy it.

I so wish that were the case, Tom! I'm sure others wished so too!

Sometimes it feels like opinions are being rammed down your throat.

Would the top theory not conflict with nay sayer's directive 5 which states' Ed is incompetent'.

Besides this is inaccurate, if you push your message too hard (some would say Ice does) you turn people off and they will 'go to the other side'.

Again, some take issue with the tone of posts and the weariness of hearing the same thing over and over. And over

IMO

I want to talk to people who have it and talk to them on their thoughts, issues they maybe having, etc etc. Since you do not own said module, your opinion is irrelevant in this particular case. If you wish to discuss ED and DCS in any other fashion then I respectfully refer you back to your thread.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.p...sleading-potential-customers#Post4424011

Or start a new thread etc. However you wish. But having said that, this thread has become not what I had wanted in the first place. I bid you a good day sir.

I have this module.

I love the Hornet. Waited for this forever.

Last good Hornet sim was Janes F/A 18 circa 2000, the VRS TP Rhino is garbage (not a combat sim).

If you like the Hornet, if you like hardcore, if you like DCSW, GET IT.

IT iS AWESOME.

How awesome?

My online VFW, the 1st, long time Falcon BMS fliers, hardcore serious simmers...have converted to this module, a BIG move for us, and we are no fools.

Buy it and come see us.

https://firstfighterwing.com/

Hornet looks good and I'm interested to play it but I'll wait until it's done. I'm in no hurry to buy something half baked.

Good way to learn the jet a little at a time.

Who is pushing? People are free not to open threads or skip posts. The same things are said over and over and over on both sides. As for the negative aspects, well, they're still broken in those places. I'd understand the complaints if ED fixed things and yet the naysayers still sing the same song, but this would have to start with ED fixing things. It will not happen before then.

I could also say that the Kool-Aid overflows over in the official forums. If you need refreshments, why look at SimHQ when you know you can get all the feel-good and pats-on-the-back over yonder?



So not calling out others, eh? Just me? What happened to your stance on pissing contests? Interesting selective application of your rules on your thread.

I would also like to clarify where I have put forth my opinion on the Hornet last? If you read this thread, there has been discussion re: combat, DC, and other topics to which I've added to the discussion and not to the Hornet per se. I don't see you calling them out either.



I've never understood why some people think they can dictate where other people may post or what they may post about. Have I missed some sort of rule where the thread starter can pick who can reply to his thread and how off-topic things can get? Maybe on other forums but not here on SimHQ, I think. If you wish to have an exclusive discussion, maybe start a PM with a group of like-minded individuals and make joining an invite-only affair. The public discussion boards are just that.... public. Again, if you're uncomfortable with certain issues and facts being brought up, maybe it's best to find a safe space One with free refreshments

I do apologize if your thread did not turn out to be the sterile environment you want it to be, but to lay the blame all on me would be dishonest and unfair, plus the fact that the discussions going on grow out organically and don't really follow a set path. If you do want a discussion regarding rainbows and butterflies and the Hornet, why not post in the official forums? You won't find many naysayers there and those that are there take certain steps to make sure the flowers and praise overflow lest the ban hammer falls, so it may be a more suitable environment for your sensibilities.

Good day!

I was surprised that the 1st VFW migrated to the Hornet en-masse so much so that the BMS players had to separate and start a whole new VFW. Back in the day, there was no need for separation between those who flew BMS (or AF) and those who flew A10C so I wonder why the parting of ways?

As for the Hornet being awesome, I have no doubt it will be. It's just not there yet.



Coming from BMS, you're not starting from square 1 I doubt if ED can push out the rest of the features fast enough to keep the Hornet from getting stale? If this was meant to mimic a Hornet driver's transition into the Hornet, how long is that process? 12-18 months for a full time pilot? So let's say 2 years for us hobbyists.... do you think ED can go from now to 80-90% feature complete in 2 years? I sure hope so, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

This is where you are wrong Ice. I asked who had and their thoughts. Good thoughts, bad thoughts.....but as long as they have it I want to talk to them. YOU DON'T HAVE IT...so do me a favor and STFU. There, how is that? That direct enough for you? I don't care about your opinion about the Hornet BECAUSE YOU DON'T OWN IT!!!!!! You're the kind of person who thinks that since this is a public forum you have to inject. Well sometimes you don't.

So do me favor, report me to a moderator for telling you to STFU and have a nice day.

NEXT.....

Anyone having issues with stating this damn thing with split controls? I think I am doing something wrong.

Oh my. Whatever happened to the "live and let live" philosophy? I guess you're done being civil?



I don't care whether you care or not. Nowhere in this thread have I claimed to have owned the Hornet and any discussion of the Hornet (if any!) was made under the bigger discussion of ED and DCS. These discussions were participated in by numerous other members and that's who I'm talking to and what I'm talking about. I'm not injecting anything into your Hornet good thoughts/bad thoughts discussion but since the other discussions are occurring in this thread, that's why I'm here. I find it amusing that you claim to be an ex-moderator but you don't seem to grasp this concept.



How about you do yourself a favor and follow your own advice that you were so high-horse about earlier in this thread? It seems like it is you who needs to take a chill pill.

usafmtl40 - You seem so angry, have you tried these?
https://imgur.com/a/JsCLtTs

Really, if you don't own the product, your opinion is irrelevant.

Ice, you seem to have trouble with the concept and I rather think you are trolling for sport.

Golf clap to usafmtl40

There does seem to be an element of trolling to many of Ice's posts in this forum

And when challenged says 'Who me?' all innocent lol

I don't own it and my DCS is a slideshow

I have no opinion either way about DCS as a whole - but Ice, regardless if you agree with him or not, is very active in this forum and contributes a lot to keep it alive and well.

maybe voting who wants this troll here? the result would be obvious.

how about instead of complaining about Ice people start threads posting about all that they like about DCS ?

every day, seven days a week

lets start posting new and interesting things you guys find that are worthy of mention about DCS and all it modules

flood this forum with it.

daily

I try to do that here:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/140/1/civil-aviation-general

and here

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/366/1/il-2-battle-of-stalingrad

every time I have something new, I post there.

how about you guys start doing that, and people connected with the Developer can do that as well.

I have also a place I run, you can also spread the good news there.

Got a request from the OP to close this thread...I'm going to close it, but if someone wants to start another topic about the Hornet without the requirement of owning it for participation...feel free.

//closed