Jump to content

Have the Hornet devs moved back from the Viper?


Arctander

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
I'm agreeing with you. There should be a closed beta that is used to sort out stuff that shouldn't have been released (Viper no damage model, iff, external lights, etc etc) so that those of us who fly MP don't have to deal with them in the servers (as people will demand them there asap once released)

 

A lot of what you say is reasonable, but holding it against us that users are using the aircraft in situations such as MP servers doesn't seem like a fair knock against us. I mean you can simply remove it from missions until it's at a level you are comfortable using it. Saying no one should have it because some people don't like it in MP doesn't seem fair to all.

 

Its the same with Open Beta itself, because servers adopt Open Beta, it shouldn't be on us if your favourite server is down for a day or two because a crash was found, that is what Open Beta is for.

 

At the end of the day, Open Beta and Early Access are not for feature-complete things, they are an extension of our testing process. And saying, dont get Early Access or Open Beta in many cases is legit, they will have issues, they will be missing stuff, for everyone one person that is mad about it, there are 10 out there enjoying what they have, and helping report issues, which we hugely appreciate.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So you consider your opinion worthy but no-one else's?

 

 

No, but apparently you do.

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...dont get Early Access or Open Beta in many cases is legit, they will have issues, they will be missing stuff, for everyone one person that is mad about it, there are 10 out there enjoying what they have, and helping report issues, which we hugely appreciate.

 

This is the mistake that I think ED is making. Everyone understands that EA means bugs and missing features; the problem it the length of time being taken to resolve them.

 

While I'm not so bothered (I've been around here for many years and am confident ED is in this for the long haul) I also fear that for every one person complaining on this forum, there are several who will consider not buying any more modules; a problem that will only get worse if changes aren't made to the way new modules are released (or indeed, existing ones updated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a new weapon and datalink pod isn't even considered a minimal update?

 

Hi - I'm talking about the core systems that need work mainly - TWS, AZ/EL, AACQ, TGP etc as those are of far more interest to me as a capability improvement for the Hornet than a weapon that is a step back in effectiveness from current weapons available (even though it is a step in the road to SLAM(ER) and I have to admit it's quite a fun weapon using MITL - note I posted a bug report for you with a track).

 

In my view it is the missing systems that needed work, not 'more weapons' which is why I am glad you have commented on the 'hard push' coming up. My point was that if that were to change for any reason and these things don't come to the Hornet by the end of Q1 - wouldn't you agree that that would be far too long a time frame to be waiting when, for example, TWS has been 'worked on' since July 1st, and by then I would have expected the F16 to have had it for some months...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
This is the mistake that I think ED is making. Everyone understands that EA means bugs and missing features; the problem it the length of time being taken to resolve them.

 

While I'm not so bothered (I've been around here for many years and am confident ED is in this for the long haul) I also fear that for every one person complaining on this forum, there are several who will consider not buying any more modules; a problem that will only get worse if changes aren't made to the way new modules are released (or indeed, existing ones updated).

 

Both the Viper and Hornet receive very timely updates and fixes when possible. So I am not sure what mistake is being made? I assume we are talking Hornet and Viper anyways...

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Hi - I'm talking about the core systems that need work mainly - TWS, AZ/EL, AACQ, TGP etc as those are of far more interest to me as a capability improvement for the Hornet than a weapon that is a step back in effectiveness from current weapons available (even though it is a step in the road to SLAM(ER) and I have to admit it's quite a fun weapon using MITL - note I posted a bug report for you with a track).

 

In my view it is the missing systems that needed work, not 'more weapons' which is why I am glad you have commented on the 'hard push' coming up. My point was that if that were to change for any reason and these things don't come to the Hornet by the end of Q1 - wouldn't you agree that that would be far too long a time frame to be waiting when, for example, TWS has been 'worked on' since July 1st, and by then I would have expected the F16 to have had it for some months...?

 

You can't cherry-pick and say no work is being done, because its not work that you wanted.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so. I read your earlier post "That's your opinion that not everybody has to share." as I shouldn't have shared my opinion. If you meant that as not everyone has to agree with my opinion, that's fine and no offence meant or taken.

 

Yes, you're right.

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of what you say is reasonable, but holding it against us that users are using the aircraft in situations such as MP servers doesn't seem like a fair knock against us. I mean you can simply remove it from missions until it's at a level you are comfortable using it. Saying no one should have it because some people don't like it in MP doesn't seem fair to all.

 

Its the same with Open Beta itself, because servers adopt Open Beta, it shouldn't be on us if your favourite server is down for a day or two because a crash was found, that is what Open Beta is for.

 

At the end of the day, Open Beta and Early Access are not for feature-complete things, they are an extension of our testing process. And saying, dont get Early Access or Open Beta in many cases is legit, they will have issues, they will be missing stuff, for everyone one person that is mad about it, there are 10 out there enjoying what they have, and helping report issues, which we hugely appreciate.

 

Thanks. I think that we all bear a part to play:

Users for bringing pressure on ED to deliver 'new plane number 23' - just look at the comments on heavy lift, more marine choppers, fully simulated Migs, F4, Bronco etc.

ED for releasing things into EA at a.... very very early stage...

Server owners for bowing to pressure and adding them.

 

I think that this would not be an issue if MP was given due consideration about the 'bar' for release - which I would suggest would include a working damage model and IFF.

 

It's not that I don't want people to have it because of the impact on MP, I WANT to be seeing things released straight to MP because they don't risk breaking the balance of the servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED Devs back from their Caribian party cruise yet?

| VR goggles | Autopilot panel | Headtracker | TM HOTAS | G920 HOTAS | MS FFB 2 | Throttle Quadrants | 8600K | GTX 1080 | 64GB RAM| Win 10 x64 | Voicerecognition | 50" UHD TV monitor | 40" 1080p TV monitor | 2x 24" 1080p side monitors | 24" 1080p touchscreen |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of what you say is reasonable, but holding it against us that users are using the aircraft in situations such as MP servers doesn't seem like a fair knock against us. I mean you can simply remove it from missions until it's at a level you are comfortable using it. Saying no one should have it because some people don't like it in MP doesn't seem fair to all.

 

Its the same with Open Beta itself, because servers adopt Open Beta, it shouldn't be on us if your favourite server is down for a day or two because a crash was found, that is what Open Beta is for.

 

At the end of the day, Open Beta and Early Access are not for feature-complete things, they are an extension of our testing process. And saying, dont get Early Access or Open Beta in many cases is legit, they will have issues, they will be missing stuff, for everyone one person that is mad about it, there are 10 out there enjoying what they have, and helping report issues, which we hugely appreciate.

I agree with the above. ED has clearly stated what Stable is and what Open Beta is. The fact that a large part of the community can't wait and opts into OB isn't ED's problem. The fact that the servers choose to run OB isn't ED's problem. They can't control that, unless they disable MP for OB. The problem is that a lot of people without the patience for OB choose OB because it gets the new toys sooner. I've got OB because I want to try things early, sure, but I understand that I shouldn't expect everything to work correctly all the time and I try to help with bug reports when I have time.

 

Example: I got the Viper, had some fun with it, determined it's not there yet for me and I'm just back to the Hornet, no hard feelings. I'm not going to comment on whether the Viper should've been released now or later, or on EA timelines etc, that's another story. The point is that if something is incomplete and buggy for whatever reason on OB, I either accept it or switch to Stable (it's easy). If enough people wanted the servers running Stable, they would. It's the people that want OB, ED isn't forcing anyone.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a new weapon and datalink pod isn't even considered a minimal update?

 

From July 2019 to now has not only a new weapon and a datalink pod..... about the "minimal" updates....

January to june 2019

- Added HARM delivery in the Self Protect mode

- MIDS with Link 16 datalink functionality

- Situational Awareness (SA) page basic functionality was added

- IFF was improved

- NCTR function was added

- HARM Target of Opportunity (SP/TOO) mode was added

- Added initial Latent Track While Scan (LTWS) mode

- JDAM initial implementation

- Added AGM-154A/C JSOW

- Added BRU-55A/A dual smart weapon rack

- Multi-Sensor Integration (MSI) added for LTWS radar submode

July 2019 to now

- PLID & STEP functions have been added on SA Page

- AA/ANQ-28 Litening Targeting Pod added

- AGM-84D Harpoon in BOL mode with POP maneuver implemented

- AGM-62 Walleye

- AWW-13 link pod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

SD is like an info bot when I need him, thanks SD :)

 

From July 2019 to now has not only a new weapon and a datalink pod..... about the "minimal" updates....

January to june 2019

- Added HARM delivery in the Self Protect mode

- MIDS with Link 16 datalink functionality

- Situational Awareness (SA) page basic functionality was added

- IFF was improved

- NCTR function was added

- HARM Target of Opportunity (SP/TOO) mode was added

- Added initial Latent Track While Scan (LTWS) mode

- JDAM initial implementation

- Added AGM-154A/C JSOW

- Added BRU-55A/A dual smart weapon rack

- Multi-Sensor Integration (MSI) added for LTWS radar submode

July 2019 to now

- PLID & STEP functions have been added on SA Page

- AA/ANQ-28 Litening Targeting Pod added

- AGM-84D Harpoon in BOL mode with POP maneuver implemented

- AGM-62 Walleye

- AWW-13 link pod

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I think that we all bear a part to play:

Users for bringing pressure on ED to deliver 'new plane number 23' - just look at the comments on heavy lift, more marine choppers, fully simulated Migs, F4, Bronco etc.

ED for releasing things into EA at a.... very very early stage...

Server owners for bowing to pressure and adding them.

 

I think that this would not be an issue if MP was given due consideration about the 'bar' for release - which I would suggest would include a working damage model and IFF.

 

It's not that I don't want people to have it because of the impact on MP, I WANT to be seeing things released straight to MP because they don't risk breaking the balance of the servers.

Like you said, the issue rests mostly with the user base, at least as far as MP is concerned. Neither the Hornet or the Viper should've been allowed before they had a basic IFF, but both of them were and teamkilling was the name of the game. (Still happens, since some people either don't care about verifying their target or don't know how to use the systems, but that's another story...)

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From July 2019 to now has not only a new weapon and a datalink pod..... about the "minimal" updates....

January to june 2019

- Added HARM delivery in the Self Protect mode

- MIDS with Link 16 datalink functionality

- Situational Awareness (SA) page basic functionality was added

- IFF was improved

- NCTR function was added

- HARM Target of Opportunity (SP/TOO) mode was added

- Added initial Latent Track While Scan (LTWS) mode

- JDAM initial implementation

- Added AGM-154A/C JSOW

- Added BRU-55A/A dual smart weapon rack

- Multi-Sensor Integration (MSI) added for LTWS radar submode

July 2019 to now

- PLID & STEP functions have been added on SA Page

- AA/ANQ-28 Litening Targeting Pod added

- AGM-84D Harpoon in BOL mode with POP maneuver implemented

- AGM-62 Walleye

- AWW-13 link pod

 

Don't confuse them with facts. ;)

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SD is like an info bot when I need him, thanks SD :)

 

I stand corrected on what has been deployed from July to reducing the resources working on the Hornet in preference of the Viper.

 

July 2019 to now

- PLID & STEP functions have been added on SA Page

- AA/ANQ-28 Litening Targeting Pod added

- AGM-84D Harpoon in BOL mode with POP maneuver implemented

- AGM-62 Walleye

- AWW-13 link pod

 

Having said that - I reiterate that if there were to be a further change in timescales by end Q1 that would still be 5 months with little avionics systems change so I very much hope that the hard push on TWS, AACQ and TGP happens as planned.


Edited by Arctander
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From July 2019 to now has not only a new weapon and a datalink pod..... about the "minimal" updates....

January to june 2019

- Added HARM delivery in the Self Protect mode

- MIDS with Link 16 datalink functionality

- Situational Awareness (SA) page basic functionality was added

- IFF was improved

- NCTR function was added

- HARM Target of Opportunity (SP/TOO) mode was added

- Added initial Latent Track While Scan (LTWS) mode

- JDAM initial implementation

- Added AGM-154A/C JSOW

- Added BRU-55A/A dual smart weapon rack

- Multi-Sensor Integration (MSI) added for LTWS radar submode

 

All of this was not relevant to the point I made (delivery since July). What was your intent? Were you trying to 'pad out' the delivery to make it look better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was careful to not point it at anybody. Stop being so sensitive.

 

Given that that list was provided in response to me, it is impossible to not see myself as the intended target. On your word that it was not at me I will accept that, but would advise you to consider being just a little more careful on your wording next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that that list was provided in response to me, it is impossible to not see myself as the intended target. On your word that it was not at me I will accept that, but would advise you to consider being just a little more careful on your wording next time.

 

I was careful. I said don't confuse them. I didn't say don't confuse him.

 

I was talking about all who say there are no updates.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Hornet doesn't get significant system work before Q1 2020 - that could be 6 months it will have had minimal updates, and that to me would be absolutely unacceptable abuse of the 'EA' concept.

 

So a new weapon and datalink pod isn't even considered a minimal update?

 

From July 2019 to now has not only a new weapon and a datalink pod..... about the "minimal" updates....

January to june 2019

 

July 2019 to now

-

 

Has very relevant in the context about all work build on the hornet on 2019.

 

It was not relevant to the discussion regarding from September to End Q1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...