Concern about Hornet development goals.

I think a lot of these early access issues and confusion are a learning opportunity for both us as customers and ED as the developer.

Calling something "early access" is fine and we should expect a module to be unfinished and have some bugs, but I think we all need a definition of how unfinished and how buggy is acceptable for an early access release. The F16 vs F14 is a good example of this, a lot of us were pretty disappointed (I am pretty forgiving of ED early access modules and even I was disappointed) with the state is was released in. I wonder if this was ED testing the waters of just what the community will find acceptable... or was it a case of the community finding out what is acceptable? In my mind if a module could cause "negative learning" it is too early to release.

The term early access just doesn't define clearly enough the state a module is in anymore. The F14 for example was released in early access, and in my mind is an acceptable state for an early access module. The F16 on the other hand was barely finished and much too early (in my opinion at least). How does one term like "early access" clearly communicate to the community how far along something is? Just imagine a new person coming into DCS, grabbing the F14 in early access and thinking that is a benchmark for EA, then grabbing the F16 when it was first released. I think they would be pretty confused?

There must be a better way to define how complete something is at the start of the early access period (early access alpha vs early access beta maybe?). A clearer definition would benefit both the community and ED in my opinion.

We can not magic up content and features, we have to wait until they are ready.

When they are ready we will post and update you all.

 

We have been over this many times before in many threads, some of you are regular posters and know how this works, early access takes a long time.

Well said. I really can't stand those discussions anymore. Really.

You guys work hard to get it done. You made dreams come true.

Full stop

Well said. I really can't stand those discussions anymore. Really.

 

 

You guys work hard to get it done. You made dreams come true.

 

 

Full stop

I won't keep this going and this will be my last comment on the matter as I don't wanna beat a dead horse (or cow in my case) but this is fine for those of us that have been here a while, we know how stuff works in ED... but what about the new folks just coming in? DCS has had a very large influx and will probably have another when Topgun 2 comes out.

I just picture a new person getting the F14 at it's early access release state and saying to themselves, "Hey, this is pretty great! Sure some stuff is missing but it feels pretty complete!" The F14 didn't cause any negative learning. Now say that new guy goes and gets the F16 at it's early access release thinking the quality will be the same.... oh boy is he in for a surprise and negative learning.

We all (for the most part) want what's best for ED since they create the game we love to play... we aren't here just to make a fuss for no reason.

I have no doubt that the engineers are working hard but I think it is dispersed with all these projects. That’s why it takes too long for the hornet to be finished.

Priority changed because ED had to throw an EA Supercarrier on us.

"Sorry guys that Hornet and viper got delayed. But 2020 we will finish them. We promise! For sure!"

Mid summer:

"Exclusive EA to the new developed module {insert random plane}"

Sound familiar?

Look at the shop. Basically all newer planes are EA. Not a single one get finished. I for myself decided not to buy any EA modules from ED anymore. Which technically means I will not by any module from ED. Because new modules never leave the EA phase.

Sorry, but I have serious concerns that this business model is sustainable on the long run.

Priority changed because ED had to throw an EA Supercarrier on us.

 

"Sorry guys that Hornet and viper got delayed. But 2020 we will finish them. We promise! For sure!"

 

Mid summer:

"Exclusive EA to the new developed module {insert random plane}"

 

Sound familiar?

 

Look at the shop. Basically all newer planes are EA. Not a single one get finished. I for myself decided not to buy any EA modules from ED anymore. Which technically means I will not by any module from ED. Because new modules never leave the EA phase.

 

Sorry, but I have serious concerns that this business model is sustainable on the long run.

What modules are supposed to be EA if not new modules? It would be pretty odd if old modules would be in EA :music_whistling:

What modules are supposed to be EA if not new modules? It would be pretty odd if old modules would be in EA :music_whistling:

playing smart? :)

he said that the new modules released by ED (ie the latest module of ED) were released and remain in EA. you are trying to be funny or playing smart but what he wrote is correct

What modules are supposed to be EA if not new modules? It would be pretty odd if old modules would be in EA :music_whistling:

1.5-2 year for the F18 and it is still in EA. And it will not leave EA for a long time. This is NOT a new module. Same for the Harrier, Viggen!

Go to the shop. the first page is full of EA modules and none of them is near to completion. :music_whistling:

This is fine in your opinion?

...Sorry, but I have serious concerns that this business model is sustainable on the long run.

I think we're probably in the worst state I've seen in the last 10 years, but I think it's for the right reasons. Sure the Hornet and Viper are not in the greatest position, but I think that's because they're developing much of the technology that will be essential for these (and future) modules. I think we need to view the sim as a whole rather than individual modules - it should get better from here.

That said, their comms are awful.

So glad we're all experts on how to run Eagle Dynamics here on the forums, maybe some of you guys should set up a meeting with their business development team since yall are clearly so much more capable at managing the company's strategy than they are. :doh:

Maybe I'm not jaded yet by this game or maybe it's because I haven't been flying mainly dcs as long as y'all, but I can't understand saying the hornet is not in the greatest position. I mean no offense nor am I trying to be combative, but I am stunned at how amazing the hornet is and it just keeps improving.

I've flown il-2 for years, and until I started mainly flying dcs last year I didn't realize how cartoony and arcade-like il-2 is in comparison to dcs.

Personally I think we get a little spoiled with how good we have it. Even though it's not perfect, it can improve, and so on... it is the greatest sim ever.

Back when I was flying red Barron 2, dcs is the sort of sim I only dreamed of and thought would never happen.

So ... eh.. We still have to be critical as consumers, but imo tone it down a bit. Or redirect some at heatblur since for whatever reason the entire community gives them infinite passes

Ok, I didnt expect this thread to blow up like this but here's what I got from the majority of the comments. And as a foreword, none of the following statements are meant to be personal or are meant to offend anyone. They merely represent my own opinion as a paying customer.

Since I've been on this forum and community (flightsim community in general) I have observed two types of people:

One type finds bugs, inaccuracies or things they dont like/agree with and voice their opinion in the form of constructive criticism on various outlets and platforms.

The other type seems to be almost annoyed at the first type and sees any kind of criticism or complaining as an annoyance or whining and voices their opinion in the form of "well, dont buy into EA then" , "nothing is perfect" , "they have done an outstanding job" , "it already is almost perfect" and so on. They also seem to get super upset and emotionally involved in this hobby.

The latter kind of people almost always seems to have no clue about aviation, aircraft systems, physics and aerodynamics and simply base their "praise for ED" on the simple fact that they dont know what they dont know and that they are having "fun" in the limited time they use EA modules. The same can be seen in other flightsim branches - people having absolutely no clue what they are talking about, having never even opened any kind of aircraft manual or dealt with aircraft sytems in real life (real life experience in the field). I see this kind of opinion and behaviour all the time and frankly it is just very silly to argue with SME's about their field and tell them they are wrong just because you play a game and have read a wikipedia or news article somewhere.

All of this two-sided thinking isn't really helping anyone out and only creates a tennis-game of opinions, not based on any facts but feelings.

To come back to DCS and EA - the term "Early Access" itself isn't clearly defined anywhere. It seems to be a spectrum where on one end you can have something that is almost feature complete like the F-14 or JF-17 on release and on the other end you have something like the Hornet or Viper that lacks basic functionality and is only released to keep the money flowing in and satisfy all those people who want it NOW. And we all know that in this consumer day and age people will buy anything that is shiny and advertised right, no matter how bad or useless it is. Another issue that arises with that kind of EA is a LOT of negative training where you learn to do a certain thing a certain way because the system is implemented wrongly or is simplified, only to le-learn how the aicraft behaves, feels or said system is supposed to work at a later stage. This, is not ideal.

I think everyone uderstands how difficult software development can be and that new bugs pop up almost all the time and deadlines are hard to meet if there are bumps in the road. We all get that. The prime example currently (as of the 25th February 2020) is the Hornet's radar. RWS acts as TWS and locks up targets by itself, TWS AUTO screws with RWS centering and LTWS now actually guides missiles like TWS. Every step forward seems to come with two or three steps back in other areas (again, that can be normal in software development) - but especially in something like an Early Access or "paid beta" where the community is your testing entity, communication should be key. Don't get me wrong, before the Viper, communication regarding the Hornet EA seemed decent, with almost weekly updates and mini-updates. Since the Viper released however, it seemed to have slowed down considerably, most targets have not been met and priorities seem to have shifted to new features rather than fixing the current issues and getting all core systems up to speed. It almost seems like ED have forgot about what they said or planned to do and are now doing something else on another front.

So just throwing something vague out there like "feature complete by 2020" only shows to me that they have no clear plan or roadmap (dev. goals) going forward and work on various features as time or resources allow. Does feature complete mean we will have a proper INS, physically correct flight model and radar or does it mean all the boxes on the feature list will be ticked? I dont think anyone is expecting a hardcore simulation of every subsystem the Hornet has to offer - most of the more advanced stuff is more than likely still classified anyway. What people really want is a solid frame that can be built upon and that makes the product enjoyable for standard operation (be it around the boat or an airfield). This is the very thing I started this thread for - base systems that allow for proper daily operation, considering the new carriers are around the corner.

We are all in the same boat, we have all paid money and supported ED and believe in their products and skills. I certainly still do. Every opinion and critique is valid as long as it is based on facts and should be taken seriously. We can all agree to disagree on a lot of things as well. All in all I do hope we can find a common ground moving forward as we are all ultimately seeking the same goal of a enjoyable product and a working and stable DCS World.

Good post, makes sense. I want to add that I'm one of those guys who's still learning about aviation and can't always tell off hand or from experience if something is slightly wrong. Because of this I try to really keep an open mind about bugs and criticisms, but I also try to be reasonable in my opinion of the company.

There are AAA companies in the gaming world that use media to target and silence dissenting opinions, so it's always prudent to be skeptical of a company especially when it is playing the victim card.

However my objectivity applies to the users as well. This might ruffle some feathers but I was on the side of the bug reporters who stated that the hornet gun dispersion was wrong, that is until they posted a ton of video as evidence of the hornet dispersion being wrong because all the video evidence seemed to support EDs claim that the gun dispersion is pretty close.

My opinion currently is ED seems to be right and the hornet gun dispersion is good and that's based off of watching video evidence provided by dissenters.

So my point is... uhhhhhh... I dunno lol. Try to be reasonable I guess and take stock of what we have.

Its my belief that they overestimated their abilities. I recall Kate(?) writing on Hoggit that they had built several versions of clouds and weather, but they ended up scrapping them. The AG Radar in the JF-17. Its ED's but isnt at the level that is needed for the Hornet, so its not used. The vis settings over long distance. We used to have a pixel enhancement setting. It was taken away 4 YEARS ago and never replaced with something better.

They're inventing things as they go, but made promises on their visions. We as INVESTORS bought into those by buying into EA. And like any corporation, we're wanting to see results from our investment in them.

Please keep an eye on our mini updates.

 

When we are ready to share new stuff it will always be there

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194412

 

I can appreciate some of don't like the length of development, early access can take a long time, that is not going to change.

I know many of you will wait the next time for a full release, that is fine we understand your reasons and we hope you do wait and support us when you are ready.

 

Thanks

Fine with the development cycle and the pipe, the problem for me is when we don't meet goals setup by DCS themselves, normally by some big margin as well.

And now a patch is announced for March 4th, maybe later... I mean, I am carrying the flag for the team pretty much always, but the Hornet TGP updates have been announced weeks ago and now this? Come on guys, you cant be surprised the community is losing faith that way.

And now a patch is announced for March 4th, maybe later... I mean, I am carrying the flag for the team pretty much always, but the Hornet TGP updates have been announced weeks ago and now this? Come on guys, you cant be surprised the community is losing faith that way.

I lost faith since the viper came out....

I didn't, and you can see various fields where development goes hand in hand as announced. But the TGP features will be close to two months late, and that doesnt bode well for the ambitious plan to be feature complete by the end of the year. We would need a serious update in basically every patch to reach that goal.

I can’t remember how many facepalm moments I had reading this thread but it has to be a record.

Apparently, most of you flunked math for the obvious reasons.

I can’t wait to fly my EA/F18 to my EA/Supercarrier and do some EA/Aircraft recovery work.

For many, it is as much about flying as it is about killing. Some enjoy what we presently have instead of dwelling on what we do not have... and put it to use.

Just stop it already... geeeze the negativity doesn’t accomplish anything.

You know the modern definition of insanity right?

Oooops! There you go again...

No disrespect but a lot of you guys ask for the "wrong" things.

The radar still needs to be fleshed out. We're missing: VS. AZ/EL, Bump ACQ, existing radar bugs cleaned up (e.g. Radar antenna elevation getting stuck).

Jamming is not available in the F-18: You cannot jam and your radar automatically burns through jammers. From a survivability stand-point that's an issue and from a balance perspective Flankers/Mirage's are at a disadvantage not being able to JAM and engage closer at high altitude or mask their azumith.

Instead of pestering ED for inconsequential things like A2G radar (which is rarely used in real life) and additional stand-off weapons instead shine a light and ask for missing radar/avionic features.

I'm happy with the Hornet and I think ED is doing a good job. But having those features would go a long way.

How about if the DCS modules are paid annually, lets say 10% of purchase price per year. I believe this will give ED money so they dont have to publish new content in order to earn money and can focus to finish published modules. It would also motivate ED to finish modules/add nee features and variants, etc. to keep customers paying subscription... in this way both ED/customers will benefit. I understand that developing something that most people already paid for is not motivating and ED has to do something else to survive... :) i dont mind paying money for good fun. Also option would be to make some advanced weapons (e.g. smart bombs) available always for some extra money (eg 10 usd). what do you think?

So, with all this said, why not just *wait* until ED is done with those still missing features instead of creating threads like these over, and over, and over again?

^^Totaly this. I'd prefer if they focused on existing systems that are half/quarter/tenth finished like avionics(Radar, TGP(!)) and navigation, or finish existing weapons instead of adding new stuff.

 

 

edit : wouldn't mind at all if they introduced some kind of monthly payment. But this solution has beeen brought up multiple times and a lot of people weren't happy. I'm pretty sure they have already considered this and decided against it.

Exactly what I was saying in all my posts and I think most reasonable people would agree that finishing those basic systems that are used extensively on most flights or deployments should have the highest priority.

I can’t remember how many facepalm moments I had reading this thread but it has to be a record.

 

Apparently, most of you flunked math for the obvious reasons.

 

I can’t wait to fly my EA/F18 to my EA/Supercarrier and do some EA/Aircraft recovery work.

 

For many, it is as much about flying as it is about killing. Some enjoy what we presently have instead of dwelling on what we do not have... and put it to use.

 

Just stop it already... geeeze the negativity doesn’t accomplish anything.

 

You know the modern definition of insanity right?

 

Oooops! There you go again...

Here we go, another exhibit A. So I guess you are someone who spends a lot of money on these EA modules (which is fine by all means) and enjoys just flying around in them in his free time and then shelves them as you get bored (again, totally fine and you should enjoy these products the way you want). But you have to realize that there are people who are very knowledgeable in aviation and this hobby and like to dive a lot deeper into system and procedures than most people. Sure, on the surface it is all nice and shiny and you can take it off and land it on the ship - is it in any way realistic or can be done by the book? Hell no, and that is the very problem. And again, what is YOUR experience or qualification? Do you have experience operating or maintaining aircraft? Do you work in an applicable industry? Without even knowing what one doesn't know one can say just about anything and it really won't have any meaning or ground in reality whatsoever.

The "negativity" you describe is merely a construct of your own mind and fouled perception. Without this type of criticism and feedback nothing would ever improve or get fixed. The majority of bugs in EA modules get reported by us, the comunity. And if everyone was "happy" with these kinds of products no matter how buggy or unfinished they were then the developers could get away with a lot more. No one is asking for perfection - that doesn't exist anywhere.

Nothing personal or an attack on you in any shape or form (I know, text can be hard to interpret) but a general observation about posts like yours on various platforms and forums.

So, with all this said, why not just *wait* until ED is done with those still missing features instead of creating threads like these over, and over, and over again?

Because everyone has been doing exactly just that. There comes a point where you can't just sit there and twiddle thumbs anymore and need some clear answers and timeframes. Imagine you buy a phone with all these fancy advertised features, however those are supposed to all be implemented at a later stage of you owning this phone. What if after 1+ years of owning the phone you still didn't have a working camera or map service or even GPS even though you paid the full price for it? You'd want some answers. That is all this is.