AvroLanc

That’s not how flying works. You can’t have a bunch of airspace users flying around on Mag headings or tracks and a bunch of others on True. There needs to be a common standard, and it’s Magnetic. Both for historic and practical reasons.

My Cessna 172 doesn’t have an INS. Aviation uses Magnetic Headings for navigation output and ATC. It’s just how it works. Everyone needs a common reference.

Please stop. I'm sorry I don't believe an single word of it any more. Trust is broken. Let's stop pretending now, the Hornet has suffered as a result of the Viper, to one extent or another. If you need Viper for ED to survive then so be it. But I'm tired of the same line.

The strange priority is simply explained in light of the new update (As some of us correctly assumed weeks ago...). Basically the coders working on the important complex systems like TWS / TGP / JDAM / INS have all been moved across to the Viper. For how long now? We can only guess. That leaves a coder or two spare to work on 'side' features (Walleye) that don't directly integrate with above mentioned items. ED will need to make a real effort to re build bridges for sure.

+1 Plus inerts for training. A10 has them.

I think that's waaaay over ambitious, but I like your optimism......

I think we all need to bear in mind that the Viggen is still waiting for visual fixes over 2 and a half years after release........ We really need an update to both the Tomcat and Viggen roadmap status. The textures guy is Cobra himself I believe.

Look, for me it's not about a particular weapon not being worthy or interesting. I'm excited about Walleye and it's MITL functions too. It will of course lack functions on initial release. It's just a little confusing as to why a 'large part of the team are now dedicated to it', but only a few weeks ago a TGP was introduced that lacks large areas of functionality that are nearly essential to it's use. Why can't this get finished in the next few OB updates after initial introduction? This is just one example. JDAM is another. The roadmap and workflow seems to change every month, and it's their product and that's fine I guess. But it's a bit baffling.

Agree with this 100%. The Hornet is an awesome module, a game changing addition to DCS that’s kept me hooked since release. It’s only because it’s so good, that we’re upset that it’s not reaching its full potential as fast as we’d like. (And some are scared that it never will totally).

I strongly suspect that a significant portion of the ‘Hornet team’ is being put to work on the Viper at the moment. Hornet work hasn’t stopped, so ED feel justified by saying the Viper hasn’t compromised the Hornet. There’s still a skeleton crew with spare time to do some weapon work, namely Walleye and Harpoon, but the real work involving NAV systems, radar, guidance, and all the complex stuff needs to be committed to Viper for their EA release date. It’s been said time and time again that the 2 modules will share technology, there are NOT going to be 2 independent teams doing their own thing. I’ve never brought that, and it’s pretty naive to believe it. I hope and suspect that once the F-16 has been released in some kind of EA state and has been supported for a few early weeks, the Hornet team will regain some attention. The simple truth is that these projects are massive, especially the way we now expect them to model every detail and system. Quite rightly. Simply they are too CHEAP. The 80 dollar commitment you’ve made isn’t enough for the devs to sustain LONG term support and development. Maybe the solution lies in a two phase payment. 80 dollars for a phase 1, EA release with stated minimum capabilities, the initial payment being a bit of a gamble as it is now. A second 80 dollar module expansion made when advanced systems are finished. And I mean finished and released. Give ED some incentive to actually commit to finishing. I know for myself that a fully fleshed out 4th gen fighter with all systems and capabilities modelled as well as they can be, is worth a lot more than 80 odd dollars me. I’d pay much more for a guaranteed completed quality product. I recognise how much work it involves. I’ve spent hundreds, if not thousands, on hardware and simulator accessories, the modules themselves are the weak link.

Yes, maybe harsh, but time (and probably lots of it) will tell won’t it. We shall see.

The latest weekend news only confuses even more. ED mentions Walleye II and Harpoon being a priority....but why exactly are these now priorities? What about a TGP you can actually aim? What about improvements to JDAM? Improvements to NAV System? We haven’t even got markpoints. Finish HARM modes? The data cartridge functions previewed 8 months ago? Lots of missing radar HOTAS commands? TWS? All of these are more important than Walleye. If work continues on these unmentioned systems, then why not mention it. Why not communicate on items that the community actually feels are a priority? My fear now is that ED will continue to work its way down the published weapons list, half implement all of them, then call Hornet development a day. I appreciate the weekend news, but it does little to actually reassure. Sorry.

Correct. I'm hoping that ED will implement additional fuzes later. Wag's has hinted at the DSU-33. Which is a airburst nose fuze, which will be cool. Damage model permitting.... Also, the JPF, which is a ELEC Tail fuze for use on JDAM. It features cockpit reconfigurable delay times.

Yes exactly. The bombs have two independent fuzes, for redundancy and flexibility. The manual recommends setting them that way because that's how it's done IRL. Two fuzes, less chance of failure. Also, if the tail is set up as a delay fuze, it gives the pilot a real time method of choosing the fuze option. Just set MFUZE OFF and EFUZ DELAY, or for impact MFUZE NOSE and EFUZ INST (or DELAY, same effect).

There are two Fuzes on GP bombs. MECH NOSE and ELEC TAIL. The Nose Mech fuze will still function even if you set EFUZ off.

The F-16 HOTAS mechanic is far superior to the Hornet. You’ve got one less MFD, task switching and HOTAS commands are a lot smoother.

I think it’s Wags getting upset at our constant demands for updates, whom I have sympathy for, even as a guilty party. However, it’s still completely reasonable to ask about long anticipated feature additions that still haven’t been added, especially in light of a seemingly imminent release of another EA jet. ,

A mini update would be great. The summer slow down seems to be over, at least as far as Viper is concerned......

At the risk of being accused of donning my tin foil hat.... Is there a chance we might get a Hornet mini update any time soon? An updated road map for new features over the next couple of months would be appreciated. Dare I say it.....Viper workload permitting............

Ah ok, thanks for that. Learn something everyday.

Ok, glad it’s coming later. I was under the impression that the point designated for 20 degree SPOT could be slewed left and right in azimuth. Could be wrong.

It can be slewed in SPOT mode, available in RWS. Would be great if you can implement this.

Should be through the UFC TMR function, which allows setting a TOT for a waypoint. But it’s not implemented... hopefully will be at some point.

Agree 100% and more. Why can’t development time being spent on Walleye be used finishing Harm or JDAM or TGP or Harpoon? I’d much rather have a feature complete, rich simulation of JDAM rather than a simple limited feature AGM-62.

No. My definition of F-pole is correct. The F-pole maneuver referred to in those vids is 'cranking'.