Disappointment! Trap-model & Forestall.

My 2 cents:

But the more you give to people, the more you will have people nitpicking about smaller and smaller details like you're doing. (Hook skipping the wires).

It may be a good idea, but I hope they do prioritize and will deliver missing features before making this kind of small detail which doesn't exist anywhere else (module or simulator).

It's also "hook-to-eye distance" or being on AoA speed, in a long jet as F-14 this is very important, IRL fundamental feature in Naval aviation that is trained hard to perfect & very apparent if you do it wrong, with consequences like bolters.

Currently in the F-14 you can be way to fast or to slow (not an AoA) & you'll trap every time. That is un-realistic. And YES it does exist in "simulator" already, the F-18 has all of this modeled, to slow or fast AoA & you won't trap, period! bolter & try again.

So it's a basic physics if you want to land on the boat.

This has already been acknowledged by the devs & SME several times.

I personally think this module is very realistic. I have something like 50-60 traps, with around 10-15 bolter, and 1 crash...

But despite the fact the Tomcat is a hard learning aircraft, I truly enjoy flying it, but it may be just cause I love that bird... (love F-14D BuNo 163894 in VF-2 colors...)

Here's your 2 cents back! It's not "nitpicking" & not only "Hook skipping". Study Carrier-ops before you write such statements or try the F-18 in carrier-ops.

 

It's also "hook-to-eye distance" or being on AoA speed, in a long jet as F-14 this is very important, IRL fundamental feature in Naval aviation that is trained hard to perfect & very apparent if you do it wrong, with consequences like bolters.

 

Currently in the F-14 you can be way to fast or to slow (not an AoA) & you'll trap every time. That is un-realistic. And YES it does exist in "simulator" already, the F-18 has all of this modeled, to slow or fast AoA & you won't trap, period! bolter & try again.

So it's a basic physics if you want to land on the boat.

 

This has already been acknowledged by the devs & SME several times.

Honestly... Cut them a small break as the Tomcat is already one of the best modules in DCS even if it's still on EA. Check out the Vipers complaints... No gun radar, no TWS upon release, not even a damage model upon release!

Now if it was 2 years later... Like the FA18 (lolz) then ya, go after them.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

White knighting this module simply because it had a good launch state isn't helpful. CoBlue is right to criticize Heatblur regarding the trap. Heck the whole reason I just came back to this forum was to try and find some kind of an update regarding the Forrestal and the A model. I'm looking around with my arms up... where's my A model? Plus after flying the 18 a ton, I have a lot less desire to fly the 14 because the trap is weak and I want to fly the A.

I wouldn't say that having an accurate carrier landing experience is asking for too much. In fact, it should be a fundamental part of the F-14 experience. I absolutely adore the Tomcat module, but I too was disappointed when I nailed my first landing from a stupidly high AoA. I should have collapsed my landing gear, or had a bouncing hook, but to my surprise I pulled up perfectly.

It would be great if HB could make this core experience of naval aviation a priority. I'd say it's even more important than making Jester handling the LANTIRN pod, as carrier landing really is one of the most unique yet common operations of flying the Tomcat.

Yea right? How hard can it be to come up with some formulas modelling hook/cable interaction, finetune/ test with SMEs for dozens or hunderds of hours, while working on the forrestal, A model, TWS Auto, Jester LANTIRN etc etc...

Hook skip apparently has a low priority for HB atm, which is fine IMO. Having a hook skip model won't make the carrier landing experience much better, properly flying the pattern and ball will. And for those who claim, its "too easy" to land the F-14 on the boat right now: Why don't you grab Bankler's case I recovery trainer and see how many points you get.

I would love to see more realism in that area, but the impact of a proper hook skip model on the overall experience is getting blown out of proportion here.

"I would love to see more realism in that area..." That's what the OP is saying though, so you agree with him? It's been a year and people want some improvements. I'd say the F14 owners have been pretty patient. Have you seen the 16 and 18 comments?

No one disagrees with it being more realistic.

We're disagreeing on the fact that you guys are expecting things to be done tomorrow. They have quite a bit of coals in the fire and probably have over extended themselves and probably did not expect that many bugs upon release or fm adjustments...

Nothing in life ever goes according to plan and I'm OK with that and harping on this subject doesn't do much good when we already know they have been on holiday and will be getting back to it ASAP. And again... They're already a lot better than what ED has done and promisied with their mods so I can forgive them for the delay.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

This is a well written quote, that sums up what DCS is about for many of us:

"The goal is accuracy and faithfulness to real world parameters. That's what these other customers and I have paid for. Not cave in, because someone doesn't like the design of the Tomcat and can't be bothered to improve their skills."

 

I & many others are in DCS for the realism. So I dunno why you have a problem with my post? Don't you want the HB's F-14 to be as real as possible, that includes an trap-model that challenges you? HB's F-14 is one of my favorites & that's why I care & won't ever settle for anything "arcadish/simplistic".

You don't get it. I don't think anyone disagrees with you, we want the Tomcat to be as realistic as possible. It's in early access phase, and what you asked for is being worked on. What's wrong with your post (thread) is starting the thread title with "Disappointment!", and talking as if you didn't know what "Early access" was, or you expected it to be 100% complete upon release (which is the same). The Tomcat is closer to that 100% than any other early access module I've tried in DCS, and HB is working hard to reach that number. No need to demotivate them with such a tone.

I can't speak for everyone, just me. I haven't expected things to be done "tomorrow," never have. But I'd like the carrier landing experience improved.

And it wasn't my personal expectation that the Forrestal (and maybe the A?) would release in 2019, but Heatblur's stated goal/promise/intention.

Yeah, it was my expectation too, and probably HB's as well. We all know how it works though, and I think they're just as disappointed - if we really have to use that word - as us. HB has a good reputation, and I'm sure they're doing everything in their power to give us these things as soon as humanly possible.

No one disagrees with it being more realistic.

We're disagreeing on the fact that you guys are expecting things to be done tomorrow. They have quite a bit of coals in the fire and probably have over extended themselves and probably did not expect that many bugs upon release or fm adjustments...

Right after release the devs & SME said "soon". Then Cobra posted "We'll make this more unforgiving soon - with hook skip bolters and hook damage" 7 months ago. Then silence...so yeah as a customer I'm wondering whats going on after 10 months of "soon".

And no, I'm not expecting it tomorrow, I was expecting it to be done 5 months ago.....& now still no progress.

Lets also not forget HB's F-14 was advertised as an "almost-feature complete" with a "fast development process" due to our "super new external testing program" & "lots of programmers" module. And here we are 10 months in without any major new features implemented!

Hook skips and improved carrier landings, is something I'll be happy to get after, in this order:

TWS AUTO > Jester LANTIRN control > Digital EGT > Forrest Fire > F-14A > muh hook skips.

Seriously, there are things that have far higher priority. You say they haven't implemented anything major in 10 months, but just 1 month ago they dropped NAVGRID, which was a very big missing tool for the RIO. Stop complaining, it will get done eventually.

Heh, the cat still flies like on the rails (with no stabilizer inversion in backflow for example) but the only thing you worry about is a trap. lol

Right after release the devs & SME said "soon". Then Cobra posted "We'll make this more unforgiving soon - with hook skip bolters and hook damage" 7 months ago. Then silence...so yeah as a customer I'm wondering whats going on after 10 months of "soon".

And no, I'm not expecting it tomorrow, I was expecting it to be done 5 months ago.....& now still no progress.

 

Lets also not forget HB's F-14 was advertised as an "almost-feature complete" with a "fast development process" due to our "super new external testing program" & "lots of programmers" module. And here we are 10 months in without any major new features implemented!

Tomcat pilots were promised that the TF30 was originally just for research & development... And then the Navy stuck them there for almost 20 years

I hope you bend over backwards at your job for your customers as much as put into demanding from others from their jobs.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Heh, the cat still flies like on the rails (with no stabilizer inversion in backflow for example)...

Is this reported?

Yes... And?

 

Tomcat pilots were promised that the TF30 was originally just for research & development... And then the Navy stuck them there for almost 20 years

 

I hope you bend over backwards at your job for your customers as much as put into demanding from others from their jobs.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

What is this comment? We're supposed to not want promised features a year after release?

You don't get anything as a customer by being the best friend of the company. You have to demand things.

The f14 sparrow was broken for months, as it had old code and thus was resulting in around 10% success rate. HB had made a comment in the months prior to fixing it that they were "waiting on a response from Ed."

Even after posting proof that the missile was clearly messed up, many here simply blamed it on pilot error and did nothing to resolve it. It took multiple bug posts and probably multiple people contacting ED om HB's behalf to get the code updated.

I believe that missile would still be broken today if we hadn't pushed for it to be fixed.

Heatblur has been given the most customer loyalty and patience out of all the developers with this sim. Their module is awesome. But it's time for some reasonable pressure.

Right after release the devs & SME said "soon". Then Cobra posted "We'll make this more unforgiving soon - with hook skip bolters and hook damage" 7 months ago. Then silence...so yeah as a customer I'm wondering whats going on after 10 months of "soon".

And no, I'm not expecting it tomorrow, I was expecting it to be done 5 months ago.....& now still no progress.

 

Lets also not forget HB's F-14 was advertised as an "almost-feature complete" with a "fast development process" due to our "super new external testing program" & "lots of programmers" module. And here we are 10 months in without any major new features implemented!

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

There is a substantial issue with glossing over the multitudes of major changes and features implemented since launch.

I don't feel like copy-pasting the change-logs from the past 12 months, but it's quite literally hundreds of changes. Many are minor, but a substantial are major. All of these take considerable time and effort to implement or develop.

NAVGRID was mentioned as a good example earlier in this thread.

Just because a specific thing sees no progress, does not mean other things do not. Forest, trees, and all that.

I'd also like to add that most of the easier issues to address have been addressed. A large amount of the outstanding issues on the software side are either in the "difficult and time-consuming" pile or have run up against API limitations or lack of documentation/support (TWS Auto, Jester updates, TF30/A model, Forrestal, hook/trap dynamics, etc). This is why the pace of new features may seem like it has slowed. We are still working on new features, but many of them are complex and expecting a 50 item changelog every update with all of your top desired features is not a realistic expectation.

What's wrong with your post (thread) is starting the thread title with "Disappointment!"

Yeah, it was a click-bait and we all fell for it.. :doh:

Hook skips and improved carrier landings, is something I'll be happy to get after, in this order:

 

TWS AUTO > Jester LANTIRN control > Digital EGT > Forrest Fire > F-14A > muh hook skips.

 

Seriously, there are things that have far higher priority. You say they haven't implemented anything major in 10 months, but just 1 month ago they dropped NAVGRID, which was a very big missing tool for the RIO. Stop complaining, it will get done eventually.

Yeah this is the problem with threads like these. Eventually it will get done, but everyone has their own little list of what is the most important. My personal list looks like that one, minus the EGT and the F14A and forrestal reversed. But I'm not really gonna complain about the order.

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

 

There is a substantial issue with glossing over the multitudes of major changes and features implemented since launch.

I don't feel like copy-pasting the change-logs from the past 12 months, but it's quite literally hundreds of changes. Many are minor, but a substantial are major. All of these take considerable time and effort to implement or develop.

NAVGRID was mentioned as a good example earlier in this thread.

 

Just because a specific thing sees no progress, does not mean other things do not. Forest, trees, and all that.

:thumbup:

I dunno, I feel like a bunch of work keeps getting done on the tom once a month or worst case every other month. Sometimes its bug fixes, sometimes its new features, mind you many people don't even know about the small features like navgrid. But as Cobra did say, you can go look at the change log to see whats been done.

And we don't see the work being done behind the curtain until its pushed out. And I'm hoping for more progress on certain items soon.

:thumbup:

 

I dunno, I feel like a bunch of work keeps getting done on the tom once a month or worst case every other month. Sometimes its bug fixes, sometimes its new features, mind you many people don't even know about the small features like navgrid. But as Cobra did say, you can go look at the change log to see whats been done.

 

And we don't see the work being done behind the curtain until its pushed out. And I'm hoping for more progress on certain items soon.

Indeed- what I meant to really say with my previous post is that (unfortunately) development is mutually exclusive. If we focus on one thing, inevitably, another will be delayed (and someone will be frustrated by it!). It's a lose-lose situation in many cases.

Rest assured, 2020 will see many of the Cat's major features added and you'll see significant changes by the 1y mark in March.

I feel like a good number of the things folks are whining about not having been released yet, actually have had logical statements from HB on WHY, stuff like the Phoenix missile model as it was working fine offline, but wasn't working correctly in multiplayer.

Seems to me being a 3rd Party developer is just as challenging as landing on a carrier in real life, you have a moving target, a small strip to land on, all while your fuel is burning away, and that's on a clear day when you get to do CASE I. ED has their own branches they are making changes in, and when it comes time to merge in, new problems arise that weren't there before because the target has moved.

Perhaps whenever you guys get around to doing a dev rollup a line or two on the technical challenges for each major line item could be thrown in?

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.

That is now just whining about a well known coming new modules, that requires well known good time to get developed.