Concern about Hornet development goals.

Since the end of last year and going into this year there have been numerous statements made by ED saying they will fully focus on finishing up the Hornet's core systems and features such as the long-awaited and still very buggy ACM modes and AACQ radar mode, new TGP functions and slaving methods, AA mode etc. (The TGP has not received ANY new features or improvements since it first got implemented around last summer), the inverse ground effect and various other flight model/performance tweaks, a functional Harpoon anti-ship missile (currently the guidence is entirely wrong and it doesnt do any damage to ships which renders it useless), HARM pre-briefed mode and dynamic JDAM/JSOW launch zones, proper INS/GPS alignment procedures and various other smaller items. Recently ED's COO made a post on reddit stating the Hornet and Viper team is working 50/50 on both at the same time, which contradicts previously made statements that the Viper will not interfere with the Hornet's developmental progress and that both will benefit from eachother, which apart from the new radar gunsight simulation has not been the case so far. My question is what is the current plan going forward, given you have two highly-complex aircraft in development at the same time and both are missing fundamental and basic features, especially the Hornet since it has been out for quite a while now. I'm not even concerned about 50% of the promised/advertised weapon systems still not being implemented but about various bugs and core systems to be finally fixed/implemented. In my opinion there has been way too much talk and not enough walk in regard to this project. An updated short-term and honest roadmap would be highly appreciated, since all of the previous roadmaps published were not fulfilled in their planned timeframe and to me personally there seems to be an open end to the developmental timeframe at this very moment.

Feel free to comment, disagree or delete. :smilewink:

The reality is that the team is splitting their efforts between both aircraft. It's unfortunately going to take a lot longer than I think any of us had hoped when we originally bought into these Early Access releases.

...it is what it is. ED knows the community is upset, but they aren't changing direction.

The more people keep nagging about updates and timeframes and postings on forums, the less time they have for actual development.

Please, keep calm and let them work in peace ffs.

We have already mentioned in a recent newsletter hornet and viper development goals are to have them feature complete this year 2020.

 

That is our goal.

That is a very broad statement and honestly, based on the past development cycles I kind of doubt that can be achievent given the magnitude of both projects. I think I speak for the majority if I say the implementation of new weapon systems for the Hornet isn't a huge concern (such as the SLAM-ER, GBU-24, Mines, Shrike etc.) but the beforementioned basic radar features and systems kind of are. There is just so much that is halfway implemented or doesn't work as intended even though it is checked on the "feature list". This is why I wanted a clarification on what is planned short-term on the Hornet front as the last plans were seemingly swiped under the rug at this point.

That is a very broad statement and honestly, based on the past development cycles I kind of doubt that can be achievent given the magnitude of both projects. I think I speak for the majority if I say the implementation of new weapon systems for the Hornet isn't a huge concern (such as the SLAM-ER, GBU-24, Mines, Shrike etc.) but the beforementioned basic radar features and systems kind of are. There is just so much that is halfway implemented or doesn't work as intended even though it is checked on the "feature list". This is why I wanted a clarification on what is planned short-term on the Hornet front as the last plans were seemingly swiped under the rug at this point.

I agree with this. I think my concern is what exactly will ED’s ‘feature complete’ state will actually look like. The weapons are not a worry. They are in a published list of features already.

It’s the systems detail that needs work, a lot of work. What happened to improved JDAM features or actual INS or data cartridges. All features mentioned many months ago, that never saw the light of day?

It’s time a short term roadmap is outlined with goals for the next few months. Otherwise we’re in a perpetual flexible ‘later in EA’ realm of broad statements. A return to proper Hornet (and viper) mini updates would be awesome. But followed through with real visible progress.

Some simple low hanging fruit like e.g Markpoints would surely be a good start.

Who sees Hornet V.2 in 4-5 years as the real feature complete state. Maybe harsh, but the past progress is disheartening.

Bridge for sale .

As soon as we have news about a specific system or features we will pass it on in the mini update threads, these are complex features so hopefully you will understand why we only give information when we are close to completing, usually just before it is ready for public builds.

 

Feature complete in 2020 is a broad statement, it is meant to be as it gives us room to deal with any development challenges that arise.

 

thank you

Thank you. You guys do an awesome job!

Since the end of last year ...

 

Feel free to comment, disagree or delete. :smilewink:

All of your points are entirely valid, imo. To those who suggest you should say nothing and just live with it: just ignore them. I always do. You are a customer, you have handed over your money, and this forum is just about the only avenue you have to provide feedback to ED. In that sense, it really is no-one else's business.

Speaking for myself, my time to devote to all this is limited so I honestly don't mind if they keep adding features slowly over the next few years. Also, this is an aircraft I was always extremely interested in. Hopefully they will, in time, get every little detail in.

Having said that, the F-18 was the last EA product I will ever buy. I am amazed that I still haven't bought the F-16, which a few years ago I wouldn't have given a second thought to doing. I do want it, but I will wait until it's finished before paying for it.

This is not because of the time taken in developing the F-18. I fly in VR and was extremely disappointed when the engine change (deferred rendering) was made, with its resulting 50% loss in fps. It seems to me that nowadays, with VR DCS, it's one step forward, two steps back, and that at any time a new feature could kill performance once again, making the whole investment in aircraft, scenery, etc, a waste of money.

Thanks for the feedback guys, glad we are all on the same page. I am in no way trying to "bash" ED or let out my frustration about X or Y in any way, I merely want to provide some constructive feedback and have some more clear answers than just "later in EA" or "two Weeks ", given this Early Access phase is already more than a year in and the end is not really in sight. Personally I am someone who values promises and takes them very seriously, out of principle.

Don't get me wrong, the Hornet is a tremendous addon and enjoyable as it is, but since I jumped on board the EA phase (roughly a year ago) there have always been promises of ED jumping on the radar modes, ACM modes, flight model tweaks and INS/GPS sooner rather than later. None of that has really been done so far and it's gotten pretty quiet on that front by now. I did also pre-oder the Viper simply to support ED and I am genuinely ok with the Viper in its current state, although it suffers from the same base-code problems that the Hornet does. Namely the ACM modes not working properly and some assets like the 3D pilot being a straight copy and paste from the Hornet. Having followed both projects now it does seem to me like the Viper has been receiving the majority of the attention in terms of systems (It got TWS first, it got proper INS alignment first etc.). From pure outside persepective I'd suggest to maybe focus on finishing the visual aspects of the Viper first, namely finishing the model and base textures, adding several more default liveries (currently we only have one sincee release) and re-modelling the 3d pilot from scratch to properly match the level of detail of 2020 and Air Force equipment. On the Hornet front, systems, flight model and radar should be on the forefront of development, all of which can then be backported to the Viper when finished (assuming they all use the same base code infrastructure). The ACM and AACQ stuff has been broken or performing poorly since the beginning of their implementation, the TGP is missing a ton of basic features and the flight model, especially in drag and ground effect needs some adjustments.

And again, communication is key. Let us know what to expect next and what is realistically possible in a short term timeframe rather than just staying quiet and forgetting about the statements and mini-updates with "upcoming" features that date back months.

FYI vague references to updates or emails or original posts from ED are not helpful in this regard. If you’re going to reference, please provide links or quotes at least. Part of the frustration is the endless searching through thousands of posts dating back to 201x.

Couldn't agree more. Referring people to a news letter which they may not even know about is a cop out. A proper road map should be on the product page for every module - it would eliminate the need for many of these types of threads.

Honestly most of the problem extends from the fact that few people actually know what the end state is supposed to look like. What can a circa 2005 U.S. Navy Lot 20 F/A-18C do and what can it not do? What is the complete suite of systems and capabilities supposed to be?

 

If that was crystal clear then I think many could gauge for themselves the rate of progress and forum traffic like this would lighten up considerably.

 

FYI vague references to updates or emails or original posts from ED are not helpful in this regard. If you’re going to reference, please provide links or quotes at least. Part of the frustration is the endless searching through thousands of posts dating back to 201x.

USMC Trev.....love your VH bar!

All of your points are entirely valid, imo. To those who suggest you should say nothing and just live with it: just ignore them. I always do. You are a customer, you have handed over your money, and this forum is just about the only avenue you have to provide feedback to ED. In that sense, it really is no-one else's business.

 

Speaking for myself, my time to devote to all this is limited so I honestly don't mind if they keep adding features slowly over the next few years. Also, this is an aircraft I was always extremely interested in. Hopefully they will, in time, get every little detail in.

 

Having said that, the F-18 was the last EA product I will ever buy. I am amazed that I still haven't bought the F-16, which a few years ago I wouldn't have given a second thought to doing. I do want it, but I will wait until it's finished before paying for it.

 

This is not because of the time taken in developing the F-18. I fly in VR and was extremely disappointed when the engine change (deferred rendering) was made, with its resulting 50% loss in fps. It seems to me that nowadays, with VR DCS, it's one step forward, two steps back, and that at any time a new feature could kill performance once again, making the whole investment in aircraft, scenery, etc, a waste of money.

totally agree..

I've felt the rate of development to be ok with the Hornet. I jumped on before DCS World was even a thing over ten years ago and the process was similar with the Ka-50 and A-10C.

What does ‘feature complete’ actually mean? Does it mean features just have to be implemented whether they are working correctly or not?

Never quite sure on this.

Honestly most of the problem extends from the fact that few people actually know what the end state is supposed to look like. What can a circa 2005 U.S. Navy Lot 20 F/A-18C do and what can it not do? What is the complete suite of systems and capabilities supposed to be?

 

If that was crystal clear then I think many could gauge for themselves the rate of progress and forum traffic like this would lighten up considerably.

 

FYI vague references to updates or emails or original posts from ED are not helpful in this regard. If you’re going to reference, please provide links or quotes at least. Part of the frustration is the endless searching through thousands of posts dating back to 201x.

The end state is not even something I was debating or mentioning. I think most would agree that basic, core systems of said aircraft have a much higher priority and new fancy weapon systems can wait for a much longer period of time. I couldn't care less about when the end state actually becomes a thing as long as all the beforementioned major items with core systems are fixed (for example for proper carrier ops). In terms of sources/quotes, someone who follows the Hornet development will know EXACTLY what I mean and where to find those. Nevertheless, here are some examples.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4115882&postcount=176

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4143427&postcount=180

Clearly they seem to have missed most targets.

Another drama....

They are optimising their work as much as they can because it's in their best interest.

We have already mentioned in a recent newsletter hornet and viper development goals are to have them feature complete this year 2020.

 

That is our goal.

Including A-G radar and mark points? That will be sweet!

That is a very broad statement and honestly, based on the past development cycles I kind of doubt that can be achievent given the magnitude of both projects. I think I speak for the majority if I say the implementation of new weapon systems for the Hornet isn't a huge concern (such as the SLAM-ER, GBU-24, Mines, Shrike etc.) but the beforementioned basic radar features and systems kind of are. There is just so much that is halfway implemented or doesn't work as intended even though it is checked on the "feature list". This is why I wanted a clarification on what is planned short-term on the Hornet front as the last plans were seemingly swiped under the rug at this point.

Agree! :thumbup:

When I purchased F/A-18C early access in June 2018 I never imagined that approaching 2 years later the module would lack so many major systems, as well as shortcomings of many of the features implemented.

When I purchased F/A-18C early access in June 2018 I never imagined that approaching 2 years later the module would lack so many major systems, as well as shortcomings of many of the features implemented.

Hmmm... Not sure how your disappointment is anyone's fault but your own. Glad to see we've started another identical thread on this topic for the hundredth time though.

As soon as we have news about a specific system or features we will pass it on in the mini update threads, these are complex features so hopefully you will understand why we only give information when we are close to completing, usually just before it is ready for public builds.

 

Feature complete in 2020 is a broad statement, it is meant to be as it gives us room to deal with any development challenges that arise.

 

thank you

It can be difficult to understand the software development process. What seems like slowness or inaction by the developer is often caused by standards set by the developer on the quality or state of any given products public release. Do we as the customer really need to know that the new formula for part of the code works or not? or would we rather hear about working module, updates etc? Not knowing the inner working of ED's operation is just something we have to live with. That or get a job working for ED. This is my point of view and as such is open to opinion.

Consider this:

What would it be like with NO early access?

When did the EA FA-18 come out? 1 June 2018. It's almost two years ago.

So, when do we get the FA-18? For it's release? We Haven't Yet. The Hornet is NOT available.

But people are flying it now as if it was.

That appears to be the whole problem. On both sides: Eagle Dynamics and customers.

There is no such thing as DCS Hornet yet.

The same goes for Open Beta.

ED needs to test in the wild. (Just look at the recent update of the update of the update.) That's what OB is. A test. Yet people are flying it as if it's released and are getting their knickers in a twist because the new landing gear won't come down.

With that said, what's taking ED so long to get a functional Hornet? Two years?

Since the end of last year and going into this year there have been numerous statements made by ED saying they will fully focus on finishing up the Hornet's core systems and features such as the long-awaited and still very buggy ACM modes and AACQ radar mode, new TGP functions and slaving methods, AA mode etc. (The TGP has not received ANY new features or improvements since it first got implemented around last summer), the inverse ground effect and various other flight model/performance tweaks, a functional Harpoon anti-ship missile (currently the guidence is entirely wrong and it doesnt do any damage to ships which renders it useless), HARM pre-briefed mode and dynamic JDAM/JSOW launch zones, proper INS/GPS alignment procedures and various other smaller items. Recently ED's COO made a post on reddit stating the Hornet and Viper team is working 50/50 on both at the same time, which contradicts previously made statements that the Viper will not interfere with the Hornet's developmental progress and that both will benefit from eachother, which apart from the new radar gunsight simulation has not been the case so far. My question is what is the current plan going forward, given you have two highly-complex aircraft in development at the same time and both are missing fundamental and basic features, especially the Hornet since it has been out for quite a while now. I'm not even concerned about 50% of the promised/advertised weapon systems still not being implemented but about various bugs and core systems to be finally fixed/implemented. In my opinion there has been way too much talk and not enough walk in regard to this project. An updated short-term and honest roadmap would be highly appreciated, since all of the previous roadmaps published were not fulfilled in their planned timeframe and to me personally there seems to be an open end to the developmental timeframe at this very moment.

 

Feel free to comment, disagree or delete. :smilewink:

Not to mention that in the beginning they were updating weekly..now is monthly ..unfortunately the year is only 12 months.. I am going to be very honest here ,since the hornet is out with all this bugs and deficients weapons implementation ,some systems works and some other are way far from finished ,I just dont bother to fly..is way too much.

!Hornet and Viper team is working 50/50 on both at the same time :this is absolutely disrespectful and totally wrong ..we payed the hornet way before the viper get it done!!!!

Right now we have NO hornet and No viper ...:(