Disappointment! Trap-model & Forestall.

I'm pretty happy with the Cat's progress :) things could always be better but it seems reasonable to me. It would be nice though to get a quick update on the Forrestal (coming near term or delayed until after supercarrier etc) but I'll live without it.

Well, last news on the forrestal was end of last year, so I assume its close and some last minute stuff popped up like it always does. I'd bet we see it before the SupaCarria!

I'm all for constructive critiscism; but I need to respond to this. :)

run up against API limitations or lack of documentation/support (TWS Auto, Jester updates, TF30/A model, Forrestal, hook/trap dynamics, etc).

7 months since your last responses. What's the status of the hook/trap dynamics model?

7 months since your last responses. What's the status of the hook/trap dynamics model?

Perhaps you need to be less lazy and look around the forum some; expecting a personalised response to an impolite post every time there is an update is entitlement personified.

... to an impolite post ...

Perhaps you need to be less lazy and look around the forum some; expecting a personalised response to an impolite post every time there is an update is entitlement personified.

Is it the 7 months that bothers you? or the fact we're still using, 1.5 years since release, an simplistic trap/hook-model physics?

TBF we have to remember that the F/A-18...

HAD NEGATIVE GROUND EFFECT FOR NEARLY A YEAR AN A HALF.

the bug was reported around June-July of 2018 and was only fixed around Christmas of 2019-2020.

So to say F-14 traps are unrealistic compared to the F/A-18....well at least the F-14 obeys the laws of aerodynamics.

Jester is already calling bolters many times. Just need to make the hook skip when he does for starters. Add the rest later.

Maybe throw in an oddball where he'll say "oops, nevermind" or something like that for him getting it wrong sometimes.

F18 still has reversed ground effect. Got sucked into the ocean just the other night.

For me, I do MUCH prefer the F-14 trap-model... as in the Hornet the damn tail-hook keeps rebounding up every 2 in 3 times or so...

Come on Heatblur! you pride yourself on being transparent. But you have avoided these 2 questions constantly. I think it's quite disrespectful even though they've been asked several times.

 

For 10 months we've been flying with an "arcadish" trap-model. There's no challenge to trap a wire on the boat, total immersion killer for an Naval airplane.

 

The main thrill for me when I pre-ordered the F-14 was to experience the difficulties of Case I & III & trapping on the boat. With ED's F-18 trap-model experience, I certainty expected the same level of fidelity from HB.....thus my disappointment, especially 10 months in development!

ED's F-18 had an almost realistic trap-model from release....so what's the problem with HB's F-14?

When is the "arcadish" trap-model finally going be fixed?

finally transparency

we DID get some brief forrestal news around time of SC release. We HAVE gottten pit shots of the A

they communicate more than ANYONE except Dekka

Seriously bud, you raise good points but it comes across as a rage tantrum

 

 

 

Why no news on Forrestal? It was supposed to be ready before 2019. But when it didn't make it, didn't it occur to you an update was in order?

hey man

I want the Forretal too. I think ED pressured them to delay for SC

Id rather have an A sooner

all due respect tho - are you out of your gourd with the 'arcadish trap model'?

I planted a 3 wire on the free game period with the hornet. first time ever. F14 ? took 3 times before I trapped

squad members routinely ramp strike F14s. not routinely but it happens. Not so much with hornets

so arcadish trap model?? nah. disagree

its WAY harder. your speed isnt on hud which is MAJOR

I can go on

I mean hey maybe youre just a super ace pilot that puts me to shame. maybe you should join the navy

Well, last news on the forrestal was end of last year, so I assume its close and some last minute stuff popped up like it always does. I'd bet we see it before the SupaCarria!

we got news around the time of SC

Id bet good money ED muscled HB into delaying forrestal release. Otherwise theyd lose SC sales

SC is a ED thing so itll always be their baby

look at f18 and viper

they get preferential treatment, anything ED does

hey man

I want the Forretal too. I think ED pressured them to delay for SC

Id rather have an A sooner

all due respect tho - are you out of your gourd with the 'arcadish trap model'?

I planted a 3 wire on the free game period with the hornet. first time ever. F14 ? took 3 times before I trapped

squad members routinely ramp strike F14s. not routinely but it happens. Not so much with hornets

so arcadish trap model?? nah. disagree

its WAY harder. your speed isnt on hud which is MAJOR

I can go on

I mean hey maybe youre just a super ace pilot that puts me to shame. maybe you should join the navy

Basically F-14 traps everytime on my attemps, whether it is the 1st wire or the last. F-18 is much harder due to the bouncing hook trap model.

It is still in the works, or in other, more honest words: we still did not get around to creating a more sophisticated trap model. This is simply because major features are still being worked off and bugs keep coming in between, constantly.

Thank you for a bit more of your patience, we did not forget about it.

On 9/9/2020 at 12:31 AM, IronMike said:

It is still in the works, or in other, more honest words: we still did not get around to creating a more sophisticated trap model. This is simply because major features are still being worked off and bugs keep coming in between, constantly.

 

Thank you for a bit more of your patience, we did not forget about it.

Any progress?

I've been hook skipping for months!  Maybe you got left out of the update for biting the hand that feeds you too many times!

Why don't you just be happy you are still able to fly the Tomcat?  My understanding is that after every update from ED, HB is franticly fixing a new problem.  Then I am sure with 2.7 on the horizon, HB is again making sure the Tomcat will fly when that update happens.

Either show a little respect, or go get your programming credentials and help HB solve your obviously immediate concern.  I suggest you just show some respect for a service that they are providing all of us.

5 hours ago, tstorey37 said:

I've been hook skipping for months!  Maybe you got left out of the update for biting the hand that feeds you too many times!

Why don't you just be happy you are still able to fly the Tomcat?  My understanding is that after every update from ED, HB is franticly fixing a new problem.  Then I am sure with 2.7 on the horizon, HB is again making sure the Tomcat will fly when that update happens.

Either show a little respect, or go get your programming credentials and help HB solve your obviously immediate concern.  I suggest you just show some respect for a service that they are providing all of us.

You must have been flying the F-18 then, coz F-14's trap-physics are as bad as the A-4 FREE MOD! Just remember every time you trap in the F-14 is like trapping in a free mod, your traps ain't worth squat, so don't pride yourself .

Disrespectful? Credit is when credit due, what have we got after 2 years? No Forestal, Lantern AI, Dynamic Cockpits, but yey we got the F-14A that almost nobody flies & the F-14 was supposed to be finished 1 year after release, & then It was this March, congrats HB, well done job NOT!

I pre-ordered & paid $70 for this, I specifically asked Cobra if the F-14 will get the same trap-physics like the F-18, he replied "Yes, shortly after release", SO I'M BLOODY ENTITLED TO COME HERE & ASK (EVERY 6 MONTHS) FOR WHAT WAS ADVERTISED & PROMISED! but from now on I'll ask every month!

What's more important then trap-physics now? the for 2 years, constantly worked on Aim-54s, Radar, Jester, tuning of FM? It's time to concentrate & make the F-14 truly an name worthy "Naval DCS module".

HB you pride yourself for "realism", it's embarrassing the F-14 an NAVAL aircraft still has, simplistic arcadish trap-physics, after 2 years! get a grip on yourself & deliver!

Thank you for your feedback, @CoBlue. Please accept our apologies that we were still not able to deliver on this, it will definitely be done before the Tomcat leaves early access. Please understand that our plate is full with working down a long list, and thus we are rarely able to predict how long something will take, no matter how hard we try.

We shall aspire to do better, and in order to facilitate this, we are making some changes abouth which we will have an update for all of you soon. These will help us to work more focused on several areas at the same time in the future and thus streamline progress better and hopefully faster. Our apologies for the long wait again and thank you for your kind patience.

I'm also really looking forward to more unforgiving trap mechanics for the Tomcat, as the current ones make carrier traps incredible easy with even the most ridiculous approaches resulting in a fine trap.

8 hours ago, CoBlue said:

...we got the F-14A that almost nobody flies...

Just from a look around this forum, I can tell that by this statement, you pretty much just mean you.

Look, man, if you can do better than HB, snap to it. It seems like DCS is a pretty frustrating codebase to work in. Get something on a module working right and the next update means you have to fix it again. No wonder there are delays, but if you think you can get the boulder to the top of the mountain faster than Sisyphus, be our guest. You aren't the only person to come on this forum to scream about one specific thing they think needs priority over everything else.

Just now, Swordsman422 said:

 

Just from a look around this forum, I can tell that by this statement, you pretty much just mean you.

 

Look, man, if you can do better than HB, snap to it. It seems like DCS is a pretty frustrating codebase to work in. Get something on a module working right and the next update means you have to fix it again. No wonder there are delays, but if you think you can get the boulder to the top of the mountain faster than Sisyphus, be our guest. You aren't the only person to come on this forum to scream about one specific thing they think needs priority over everything else.

I am not remotely supporting what he has said, or his overall rhetoric, but surely people cannot just keep turning a blind faithful eye away from the fact that HB has not maintained any of their deadlines set. I love their products and will always support their amazing work. But surely people cannot keep just allowing this to go unspoken? 

24 minutes ago, Gunslinger22 said:

I am not remotely supporting what he has said, or his overall rhetoric, but surely people cannot just keep turning a blind faithful eye away from the fact that HB has not maintained any of their deadlines set. I love their products and will always support their amazing work. But surely people cannot keep just allowing this to go unspoken? 

I can also understand the frustrations. Believe me, I'm there as well. But coming on here and throwing a tantrum like you're three 5-year-olds in a trenchcoat over your ONE THING not being fixed yet is a little silly, especially in the face of seven other threads dedicated to screaming about another ONE THING that they demand be fixed/released right-the-goddamn-hell now. Someone wants the pilot body NOW, the Forrestal NOW, the earlier F-14As NOW, Jester LANTIRN NOW, and it all runs at cross-purposes with HB's ever-changing to do list, and further frustrated by ED breaking something with every update that then has to be fixed AGAIN. I'm not chiding him for his feelings, but his tone. I'm pissed, too, but I'm not on here vomiting sarcasm about it. I think HB is already well aware of the community's frustrations, but it doesn't help when someone thinks they know better what should be a priority item, wants it now, and behaves like a brat about it and criticizes the progress that HAS been made as worthless because it's not his ONE THING yet. There are ways to say it other than this.

3 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

 

I can also understand the frustrations. Believe me, I'm there as well. But coming on here and throwing a tantrum like you're three 5-year-olds in a trenchcoat over your ONE THING not being fixed yet is a little silly, especially in the face of seven other threads dedicated to screaming about another ONE THING that they demand be fixed/released right-the-goddamn-hell now. Someone wants the pilot body NOW, the Forrestal NOW, the earlier F-14As NOW, Jester LANTIRN NOW, and it all runs at cross-purposes with HB's ever-changing to do list, and further frustrated by ED breaking something with every update that then has to be fixed AGAIN. I'm not chiding him for his feelings, but his tone. I'm pissed, too, but I'm not on here vomiting sarcasm about it. I think HB is already well aware of the community's frustrations, but it doesn't help when someone thinks they know better what should be a priority item, wants it now, and behaves like a brat about it and criticizes the progress that HAS been made as worthless because it's not his ONE THING yet. There are ways to say it other than this.

 

And yet he got a very professional response and validation of the issue from Iron Mike.  While I don't agree with all of the rhetoric used, the lack of a realistic trap model on this awesome represention of the most ironic naval aircraft of all time, this long into the release, is a little disappointing.  It's nice to see that Heatblur acknowledges this and is committed to getting it right before they exit early access.  

3 hours ago, Gunslinger22 said:

I am not remotely supporting what he has said, or his overall rhetoric, but surely people cannot just keep turning a blind faithful eye away from the fact that HB has not maintained any of their deadlines set. I love their products and will always support their amazing work. But surely people cannot keep just allowing this to go unspoken? 

What you mean by unspoken, bud? Everybody knows that we suck at giving deadlines, and we know above everyone else.

But try to see it from where we stand: we give these deadlines as something that we aspire, because we want to cater to your demands and expectations. We could choose not to, but then you guys would think we didn't care. The thing is, when we set out to do something and set a goal and timeline for it, it looks 99% doable at that time. And then what happens is that this bug comes across, that change causes us to rework something else we didn't plan for and so on and so forth.. I haven't seen it yet in the gaming industry that any announcement hasn't been pushed back - and there are certainly exceptions to the rule - but we deal with so many unknowns often, that it would in fact be better if we just said: "it will be ready when it is ready. full stop." But that is something you guys don't accept either, you want estimates. And if we do not give them, you ask: "when?" That is your prerogative as our customers. That is what we try to answer, with the big caveat "everything is subject to change." This principal disclaimer exists with a purpose in DCS.

No one would love it more than us to keep deadlines, but what matters much more in the end, is that we keep the quality, that we keep improving our modules and that we keep our promises on what is to be delivered - which we always have and always will, even if sometimes or often later than sooner.

But this is also the very reason why we publish our modules nigh feature complete on EA release, so that most of what is open to be completed is not a core feature that has a severe impact on gameplay, realism, etc. - but generally a bonus to an already more or less complete module. What would be bad, would be if we kept pushing back the core features. In this case the core feature is "able to land on a carrier". The refined "bonus" feature is "more sophisticated trap model". And now we could argue is it a core feature or not, and certainly a naval module is not really complete without it, but from the developer's perspective what is more important is that you can principally fly case1s, make traps, etc.. The bonus feature here is not only that the hook will bend correctly, but also a sophisticated damage model, so that you can rip it off, etc... This is what costs not only the usual amount of extra time in development but once more puts us in front of a problem, where we have to invent a solution that doesn't exist in DCS yet as such. Because if we want to do it, then we want to do it right. And that needs a bigger effort and focus from the team that in the meantime gets constantly distracted by other stuff, due to the nature of DCS and just software development in general.  

The way we react to that is to build ahead, also in terms of how we structure our company. Which in time will see improvements to this general problem. We'll inform you about all of that in our next big update, as mentioned above.

I hope this helps you understand it better as to why we suck so much at giving deadlines and reassures you that we are very aware of that. But principally, the wise thing to do is to read such deadlines as guidelines and add the half sentence "but it will be ready when it is ready."

Stressing the team into pumping out something quick, just to meet some deadline (which is subject to change and not set in stone) is the worst we could do. Because then we would maybe be better at keeping deadlines, yes, but at the expense of quality. And that is something we are simply not willing to compromise, no matter how "stupid" we look for failing a deadline yet again.

PS: Please do not forget that by common standards and would we have offered the common amount of content that comes with a module, we would have been done in 2019, full release, fixing a few bugs here and there, and good is. Jester isn't common standard. Different variants for an aircraft isn't common standard. 3 campaigns instead of 1 isn't common standard. A Carrier isn't common standard. An A-6 AI isn't common standard. Which is also why things take longer in the house of Heatblur: giving you more content, means investing more time, at our peril, because it is not something that necessarily pays all the time. It pays for us on a personal level though, because in the end it makes you guys happier, and that is what we really set out to do.

Let me ask you this: would you prefer - going forward - to have modules from us that come with the common amount of content - 1 study level module, 1 campaign and that's it and no pushed deadlines and no long EA phase - or would you prefer for us to keep adding more content but at the risk of longer EA phase beyond core features and core completion and deadlines being pushed as needed? I know what I would want, it is not like I haven't been a customer for DCS longer than I have been a developer, and for me personally it would always be the latter.
 

12 hours ago, CoBlue said:

 Lantern AI

Can you shed some light on this?

12 hours ago, CoBlue said:

but yey we got the F-14A that almost nobody flies

Guess I'm almost nobody then, since I'm flying it almost exclusively.