Concern about Hornet development goals.

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.

Seems that all we can do..STOP everything until this module is done...Period :thumbup:

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.

Mate, let's please stop saying that. The Hornet will be not be completed this year. Making these statements simply lead to more disappointment; unless "complete" means putting a feature in the aircraft unfinished and or bugged; such as current features like DL and INS. Are those features considered complete? Don't get me wrong. Right now I could care less if they are finished before having a stable platform. Everyone on our wing would rather ED focus on the core sim and get it stable. Without that it is pointless to have all of these modules. Get the net code fixed, increase FPS etc.

I wish for ED to succeed, believe me, but part of the problem with ED is they have unrealistic or unproven abilities to achieve their goals, they tell those goals to the community without knowing if they can actually do it (best to keep some things internal).

(best to keep some things internal).

Then you have the same problem as before, with a noisy community decrying the lack of information brought forward by ED.

Personally I am waiting probably mostly the HMS use for a ground designation, so that I can actually start performing far more effective A-G sorties. But I don't find A-G radar as important feature, fancy and nice to have in future, but not such critical one.

As well I must say that I trust that ED can get Hornet out this year. After all they have over 11 months left to complete their task. And they have done the most challenging work already, the flight modeling.

As far I could estimate, it is like the flight modeling is 80% of the work for complete module. All the rest comes as 20% work.

BUT if those systems requires some DCS core functions first to exist, you can't just get them out before you get those core features developed. Why the newsletter saying that half of the workers are hands on the core features means that work is done efficiently toward getting Hornet and Viper out of the early access.

Personally I am waiting probably mostly the HMS use for a ground designation, so that I can actually start performing far more effective A-G sorties. But I don't find A-G radar as important feature, fancy and nice to have in future, but not such critical one.

 

As well I must say that I trust that ED can get Hornet out this year. After all they have over 11 months left to complete their task. And they have done the most challenging work already, the flight modeling.

 

As far I could estimate, it is like the flight modeling is 80% of the work for complete module. All the rest comes as 20% work.

BUT if those systems requires some DCS core functions first to exist, you can't just get them out before you get those core features developed. Why the newsletter saying that half of the workers are hands on the core features means that work is done efficiently toward getting Hornet and Viper out of the early access.

Without commenting on the rate of development and updates etc, I would just like to argue that the FM is likely not that difficult for the devs (they're used to developing FMs by now), compared to the sensor integration, datalink, trackfile generation (tracking a trackfile instead of an actual radar return), handling and ranking, radar behavior etc. These are new items that didn't really exist in DCS before or did in very limited ways. I agree that core sim changes must likely be completed before these systems can reach their full functionality. It's not simple at all from where I'm standing and I know a thing or two about software development. I think another challenge is to make it work well, with acceptable performance, taking into account the average player's hardware. I'm pretty sure that ED has developed a lot of things that had to be scrapped because they were too taxing on performance.

That being said, I sincerely hope that ED can indeed deliver on their promise and I wish them luck (because it's needed in software development).

Then you have the same problem as before, with a noisy community decrying the lack of information brought forward by ED.

Its not about the abundance information. Its about having a stable platform and just enough information after it is completed so there's no disappoint or unrealistic expectations. No one knew two years ago a new carrier was coming. No one knew and no one cared. Ignorance can be bliss. People demanding all this information are the COD crowd, who will wait until a module comes on sale to buy it, play with it a month or two until they get bored and move on. It is the hardcore simmers who will support this sim, the online wings, which there are many. They are the niche market that ED needs to focus on. They are the ones who are not demanding a new module every month because they choose an aircraft and fly it; a hornet guy flies the hornet and not the F14, F16, spitfire etc etc. They are the ones this latest update has been detrimental too. The core sim and net code are bad and that affects the hardcore wings.

If people are that concerned please someone explain to me why you paid for it, You could wait until its finished? So theoretically we should really have no F-16 or Hornet or even F-14 yet because there not finished :smilewink: Done when its done.

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.

You read my mind. I would like to buy F16 but I rather wait for F18 to finish..

Personally I am waiting probably mostly the HMS use for a ground designation, so that I can actually start performing far more effective A-G sorties. But I don't find A-G radar as important feature, fancy and nice to have in future, but not such critical one.

 

As well I must say that I trust that ED can get Hornet out this year. After all they have over 11 months left to complete their task. And they have done the most challenging work already, the flight modeling.

 

As far I could estimate, it is like the flight modeling is 80% of the work for complete module. All the rest comes as 20% work.

BUT if those systems requires some DCS core functions first to exist, you can't just get them out before you get those core features developed. Why the newsletter saying that half of the workers are hands on the core features means that work is done efficiently toward getting Hornet and Viper out of the early access.

I think its pretty demonstrable that the systems modeling is not 20% of the work, and if anything the reality is that the FM is the 20% bit. Or just that the last 20% takes 80% of the time to implement.

That being said, I hope ED makes some rapid progress on the hornet and F16 this year.

Its not about the abundance information. Its about having a stable platform and just enough information after it is completed so there's no disappoint or unrealistic expectations. No one knew two years ago a new carrier was coming. No one knew and no one cared. Ignorance can be bliss. People demanding all this information are the COD crowd, who will wait until a module comes on sale to buy it, play with it a month or two until they get bored and move on. It is the hardcore simmers who will support this sim, the online wings, which there are many. They are the niche market that ED needs to focus on. They are the ones who are not demanding a new module every month because they choose an aircraft and fly it; a hornet guy flies the hornet and not the F14, F16, spitfire etc etc. They are the ones this latest update has been detrimental too. The core sim and net code are bad and that affects the hardcore wings.

:thumbup:

If people are that concerned please someone explain to me why you paid for it, You could wait until its finished? So theoretically we should really have no F-16 or Hornet or even F-14 yet because there not finished :smilewink: Done when its done.

You're an active forum member who's been here for 5 years, so you know what to expect. Put yourself in the shoes of a new customer, with no knowledge of the news letters and may not frequent the forums. The primary source of info you have is the product page which doesn't really provide much detail.

The number of threads like this indicate there's an issue, even if you may not agree with it yourself..

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.

Not quite. The Ka-50 was released in 2008 as a stand alone product in a DVD box which I purchased. I still have the original box. It did have some bugs but it was essentially a complete product upon release and all of the systems worked as advertised. It was later integrated into DCS World after the A-10C. It's been updated after being integrated into DCS World several times including the BS2 upgrade.

The A-10C was available for pre-purchase at the end of 2010, released in April 2011 and was in early access for about 6 months or at least less than a year (someone please correct me if they time is incorrect but that's what I remember) but it was also feature complete with all the weapon systems, TAD datalink and working TGP. It was by far the most complex module that they had done to date and it still is more feature rich than a lot of other modules and has an outstanding flight and damage model. Besides some bugs like the datalink not working in some DCS World versions it wasn't missing any features and they actually removed the laser guided Maverick due to contract restrictions.

Contrast that with the F/A-18C which has been in EA for almost 2 years now and is still missing key features like A2G radar, ATFLIR, properly working Harpoon's, SLAMER's, on and on. Not complaining by any stretch and I still love flying the Hornet but it's been a little disappointing considering the time frame. And it looks like the constant piling on of other projects has caused a lot of delays so I agree with the OP's point.

I'm not trying to be a dev apologist or fanboy, but the f18 and 16 are already the greatest sims in existence, and ed has a track record of actually improving their products but also missing deadlines and having many delays. Of all the games I currently follow and have followed in the past, I'm the least worried about Ed's f-18. That's just me though

I think I agree with USMC_Trev on this. It isn't obvious at all what the finished state of these products will be. Here's a past example and a future consideration:

Both KA50 and A10C product pages indicate they are full fidelity flight systems that accurattely simulate the aircrafts navigation systems, among other things. I remember buying the KA50, and being very disappointed that inertial drift was not modeled, so navigation updating is pointless, even if you simulate degraded GPS. The same goes for the A10C. To this day neither module simulates INS drift. Is this complete? If the loosely coupled mode of hornet is never simulated, is it done? Hard to say what ED thinks of that.

Future consideration: past flight sims have never been able to properly model EXP modes for their aircraft (BMS, Janes FA18 etc), instead of showing an accurate ground map where man made structures appear as part of the map, synthetic contact bricks were shown instead. The reason was that the typical user hardware couldn't handle a raycasting and doppler processing simulation without severely hampering performance. If ED ends up taking the same approach, or if structures don't show on the radar at all, is the AG radar done?

I know these are features other people say they don't care about, but I care. The reason I first got into DCS was fidelity, first and foremost. I think most of us who bought that KA50 DVD are in that camp. Seeing comments like "I don't mind if they don't do X because I really care about Y" disappoints me. The whole point of DCS is that there should be BOTH X and Y, because they exist in the real aircraft, period. User preference should not be taken into account.

It's unclear what a "done" INS, JDAMs auto mode, AG Radar, SLAM-ER look like because what they plan on simulating is only spoken about in general terms. This vagueness does lead to more of these posts, then the squabbling over whether said feature should ever be done or should be done before this other feature.

Perhaps ED, instead of telling you what systen will be modeled, they should tell you what you will be able to do. Example:

After the Spring we plan to have the INS improved.

Vs.:

After the Spring, users should be able to place markpoints with overfly/designate, drift will be enabled, user can correct position with desg map, desg wp, tacan, gps. Raw input update will not be modeled.

Just my .02. I'm happy with ED, just offering my personal experience and how I think things could be improved.

I am a little disappointed with the Hornet progress, all the promises made when the Viper was released have gone by the wayside and we haven't seen anything tangible since nearly 6 months now.....literally given up getting excited reading the release notes in anticipation.

Whether it is done or not done, beta, alpha, gold or whatever, I am not bothered, just disappointed every indicated goal so far has been missed by a mile.

Personally I am waiting probably mostly the HMS use for a ground designation, so that I can actually start performing far more effective A-G sorties. But I don't find A-G radar as important feature, fancy and nice to have in future, but not such critical one.

 

As well I must say that I trust that ED can get Hornet out this year. After all they have over 11 months left to complete their task. And they have done the most challenging work already, the flight modeling.

 

As far I could estimate, it is like the flight modeling is 80% of the work for complete module. All the rest comes as 20% work.

BUT if those systems requires some DCS core functions first to exist, you can't just get them out before you get those core features developed. Why the newsletter saying that half of the workers are hands on the core features means that work is done efficiently toward getting Hornet and Viper out of the early access.

Considering that Dekka is using ED A/G radar mechanics for the JF. Than i would expect that At least the basic Real Beam mapping mode to becoming available in the foreseeable future. Granted this mode alone isn't anything special as you have no "Zoom" and somewhat underwhelming resolution quality judging by JF's radar RBM mode ,although obviously the Hornet is using a different radar, but both will ultimately capable of SAR grade imaging ( up to EXP 3 mode). With more advanced modes and those extra zoom, the radar will be quite nice to generate extra situational awareness ( its cited its accurate enough to generate launch coordinates for JDAM and JSOW) , because at times even in the TGP's max magnification objects like vehicles at long distances render in only when im close enough to be engaged by sam sites, which undermines modern TGP like the Litening 2's true potential.

You're an active forum member who's been here for 5 years, so you know what to expect. Put yourself in the shoes of a new customer, with no knowledge of the news letters and may not frequent the forums. The primary source of info you have is the product page which doesn't really provide much detail.

 

The number of threads like this indicate there's an issue, even if you may not agree with it yourself..

Yup, the issue is that new guy that gets all hyped from seeing some "rockin" DCS trailer, and then pre-orders the latest "gotta have AC", he D/L's it on day 1, and the game is half broken (I remember the F14 release and all the initial issues with the carrier and CTD's), Or the AC mostly doesn't work cuz its EA (ala the F16).

How likely is that guy to buy a second module?

How likely is that guy to "stick with DCS" in general?

I mean some people do, but my first piece of advice for new players that ask, is DON'T buy EA for your first module.

I think I agree with USMC_Trev on this. It isn't obvious at all what the finished state of these products will be. Here's a past example and a future consideration:

 

Both KA50 and A10C product pages indicate they are full fidelity flight systems that accurattely simulate the aircrafts navigation systems, among other things. I remember buying the KA50, and being very disappointed that inertial drift was not modeled, so navigation updating is pointless, even if you simulate degraded GPS. The same goes for the A10C. To this day neither module simulates INS drift. Is this complete? If the loosely coupled mode of hornet is never simulated, is it done? Hard to say what ED thinks of that.

 

Future consideration: past flight sims have never been able to properly model EXP modes for their aircraft (BMS, Janes FA18 etc), instead of showing an accurate ground map where man made structures appear as part of the map, synthetic contact bricks were shown instead. The reason was that the typical user hardware couldn't handle a raycasting and doppler processing simulation without severely hampering performance. If ED ends up taking the same approach, or if structures don't show on the radar at all, is the AG radar done?

 

I know these are features other people say they don't care about, but I care. The reason I first got into DCS was fidelity, first and foremost. I think most of us who bought that KA50 DVD are in that camp. Seeing comments like "I don't mind if they don't do X because I really care about Y" disappoints me. The whole point of DCS is that there should be BOTH X and Y, because they exist in the real aircraft, period. User preference should not be taken into account.

 

It's unclear what a "done" INS, JDAMs auto mode, AG Radar, SLAM-ER look like because what they plan on simulating is only spoken about in general terms. This vagueness does lead to more of these posts, then the squabbling over whether said feature should ever be done or should be done before this other feature.

 

Perhaps ED, instead of telling you what systen will be modeled, they should tell you what you will be able to do. Example:

 

After the Spring we plan to have the INS improved.

 

Vs.:

 

After the Spring, users should be able to place markpoints with overfly/designate, drift will be enabled, user can correct position with desg map, desg wp, tacan, gps. Raw input update will not be modeled.

 

Just my .02. I'm happy with ED, just offering my personal experience and how I think things could be improved.

Big +1....

I think they really need a decent INS API that everyone could use and that could be generalizable enough for 3rd party use. Navigation matters ALOT, even if its not the "sexy" part of DCS.

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

Last mini-update is from 1/27/20, last two patches have been sparse on the Hornet side, im worried about the Hornet getting done in 2020. Seems like there is SOOOO much left to add/fix and time is slipping away.

"Finish by 2020" is just a plan, not a promise. Yak-52 also promised to complete the function by 2019, now it is planned to change to complete the function by 2020. I personally believe that this is absolutely impossible to achieve. According to previous experience, in one month, it can have a new function / new weapon update, and there is no big bug. We can say that this has been a miracle, and the progress is rapid. At the same time, strictly speaking, even now there are many functions / weapons that have not been completely completed: "they can be used, but some modes / parameters have not been implemented", which is their state. Now it's only 10 months. F16 and F18 need to add more functions / weapons than 10! But you can expect some cool features by the end of 2020, just wait patiently. I believe in ED, but I don't think we can achieve the "2020 completion" plan

Last mini-update is from 1/27/20, last two patches have been sparse on the Hornet side, im worried about the Hornet getting done in 2020. Seems like there is SOOOO much left to add/fix and time is slipping away.

Agree with that.

No mini update since one month, still waiting tgp slave mode since last summer and yesterday viper get ins alignment update while hornet never get it since EA started.

Hornet dev is over due to viper state that’s all !!

If people are that concerned please someone explain to me why you paid for it, You could wait until its finished? So theoretically we should really have no F-16 or Hornet or even F-14 yet because there not finished :smilewink: Done when its done.

dont put the F-14 in the same bucket with the F-18 and F-16. If ED released their modules in the same state as the F-14, we wouldnt have as many complaints. Sure the F14A is missing, but the F14B is 99% complete.

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.

 

The problem with this logic is that if there was no early access, we WOULD probably have a fully completed "Functionally complete" F18 by now as ED need to sell stuff to stay alive and would have made maximum effort to get the F18 out of the door and complete. That's how software development works... normally...

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.

It is very difficult to believe that the in the 10 months left, you will be able to finish the enormous number of systems that need to be fixed or newly implemented, all this in parallel to the Viper. It looks like it is simply not realistic and quite honestly I know that in January 2021 you will say, it was only a goal and that everything is subject to change...