jeffham222

Maybe my expectations are too low and I am out of date. Ok, I'll take that. My whole point to a lot of this is I don't know how many people actually would use some of these features and if that number is high enough for the devs to take it on. Maybe that should be another poll. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have that stuff, but I can't expect it as it seems like SO much work and if they are only "this" far after two years, I don't know if we'll ever see that based upon what has happened so far. Also, I hate the cold black type when it comes to stuff that people are passionate about. Things can get taken the wrong way. So, if you wanna discuss this on Discord or whatever, Random, I'd be more than happy to talk there. Send me a DM if so. I think we are probably more on the same page than not, but apparently my expectations are lower. I'll talk to anyone if ya give me the time! Anyway, cheers guys! Thanks again devs for the sim--I sure ain't mastered it yet and although I have my gripes, I'll say I am about 90% happy with the product thus far. Of course, we all want everything "RIGHT NOW" at one point or another... so... Humans, I guess. :-)

But an IBIT is NOT going to help you! Wait, we have been talking about IBITs, right? That's what I've been talking about. The sim already shows a fail via the modeled periodic BITs... AS far as the damage model being off, Ok... Not arguing that...

If all you want is the "GO" indication... THAT, in my mind should be easy. Code the button to show "IN TEST", for 10-20 seconds then show "GO". That should assumedly take a few moments per IBIT button... Should be done by 5PM today really. It's 1PM here, best get crackin'! And no, I'm not being sarcastic or starting anything. I'm literally saying it appears to be pretty easy. TOO easy for what these guys have done this far! And if it is, downright insulting it hasn't been done yet. But you aren't asking for that. You're ultimately asking for the jet in the sim to function as the RL jet. You are asking WAY too much man...

I DO "fly" the same "aircraft" all the time! Lol... I hear what you are saying and understand what you are getting at, but again, let's look at another example of the persistent aircraft concept **EDIT--and I'm not getting after you, Squirrel!**-- Mission 1--MC1 fail. Mad busted. Don't work. Mission 2--Oh, there is no Mission 2 because you have a bad MC1. SO let's get into that, shall we? In short, there are so many moving parts involved with this issue it would be impossible to be effectively and realistically modeled. I mean, even when you select the "repair" option on deck, we still don't have aircraft jack stands, ground support equipment or personnel modeled and showing up to do the required repairs. The jet floats in the air--which I'm not complaining about, this gives the user the impression heavy "phase-type maintenance" is being done and that is fine. IRL, An MC1 swap can be done in 2-3 minutes and on the launch in some places, other places it could take longer because of all the moving parts involved with this, wanting to go step by step as per the maintenance publications, not to mention ability of techs and other issues that could go wrong... This is probably one of the simplest things that could go wrong and it would darn near impossible to fully model, not to mention totally F&^%ing boring to anyone who doesn't do this for a living because most don't understand (maybe they can "appreciate", but don't understand) what all is involved. Let's not even talk about the various maintenance inspections that need to be done at specific times resulting in our "persistent aircraft" being in a down status! :-) People have mentioned having other squadron aircraft to fly--well there ya go! Cause in the real world, LT Pete "Maverick" Mitchell doesn't just fly the plane with his name below the windscreen. He'll take any aircraft in an UP status that can perform the mission he needs to perform. This really renders the whole argument null and invalid as it is pointless and if you really want a failure, set one up and limp it back home. Again, whether they realize it or not, people are asking for WAY too much from the devs. I mean if you just want to hit a button and it go in test then come back go a few seconds later, then I guess that's cool, but like previously mentioned, that is all it is. You're not going to be able to troubleshoot the jet because most of the people here don't know the jet enough TO troubleshoot it, nor does DCS/ED know enough to model the jet for that--even if this is false, you're going to be put back into to a similar situation like my above example. It's pointless at the end of the day! Take your up jets and fly the heck out of them and have fun! Don't worry about maintenance--maintenance guys never get any credit anyway! ;-)

"Agreed, the BITs are also important when the aircraft sustains damage." When you lose a flight control surface, or it has holes, or a computer has a round or shrapnel through it, a BIT isn't gonna do anything, bruh.

Troof. Total bromance starting here... Lol...

Fair enough--and thanks for the feedback. If BDU-45 is already in the A-10, then I honestly don't understand why it is taking so long to get it into Hornet--again, not that I understand what it takes coding-wise to get it in the sim. Travel pods? Blivits? Come on... no, don't waste time with those or ALQ-167's. NAVFLIRS WERE used on C's before, but not this modeled lot, too much if at all. Are there plans to develop AN/AAS-38, -38A or -38B FLIR pods? This would make much more sense than Walleye ever did--and maybe more than TALDs. For the EOIR fans who want a goal of total accuracy, this is something I'd think they'd be clamoring for even if the -38(x) is old. Funny no mention of LDT/SCAM pods yet. JK, don't waste your time on these either. This can get ridiculous, as Black Hawk 76 either purposefully or inadvertently pointed out. Though I can appreciate it for what it is, I think a lot of my fellow virtual Hornet pilots here have some pretty dang high unreasonable expectations that honestly put a lot of undue pressure on the Devs. And that doesn't mean I want an arcade game, either. It's just, c'mon, man, we're not going to get everything and as has been pointed out, let's get the FM, RADAR, and ATFLIR (several basic functions of the jet) before we geek out on other "extra" stuff. Keep at it, guys! We do appreciate it!

Well, allow me to respectively retort, Sir. So ya BIT the RADAR and ya get a hard fail. Like I said, "whattya gonna do? Have shooters and maintenance and all that real world stuff?" What if the shooter assigned to this launch/your airplane is a mech or airframer and doesn't know enough about the RADAR system to get you up? What if you DO get the Avionics God--err, troubleshooter--and he still downs you because your RADAR is FUBAR? So now, in your immersive world, you have a fail that downs you for a BVR CAP mission. If you want immersion to the hilt aircraft that go down on launch are all part of it. I guess ya just shut down, kill the sim and come back later after a cup of coffee while all your buddies go out and shoot down all the bad guys. PS, DCS/ED--I want a ready room with my own personalized coffee cup as well. What time is roll 'em? 7 as usual? Ok. Since the jet is mad-busted and all the bad guys are dead, I'll watch The Matrix for the 700th time. Now if you are talking about systems going into test and never failing, then I guess I still don't understand... What is the point of BITing a system when it will always come back good? Furthermore, what is the point of setting up a failure that could pop before you get off deck? I mean, yeah, I get it Harker... Sometimes you want all the stuff. That is cool and huge bragging points for DCS/ED, but I would ask how many people actually do Fire Loop tests on start-up. I mean I don't, because it's a waste of time and always comes back good. I do the FCS I-BIT, because it's cool watching the surfaces move, but what can we do IF it randomly failed? It's like we want the immersion, but the immersion could cause us not to fly--which is the point of this simulator. There are a ton of things guys who have worked around these things in RL could bring up that just is not practical to model here. That being said, I see what you are saying--and it would be cool to have all the BITs and systems work like they do in real life, but I, personally, have no hope--nor desire--to see it modeled for many reasons. And if it did, it will be 2030 before it's done (at this rate). So, in light of that, I suggested if someone wants more immersion, go do it in real life. I understand there are real world hornet pilots that fly this, but even they would probably tell you it would be pointless to attempt a 100% accurate model because it just can't be done (again for MANY reasons). I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying there are reasonable limits we can expect from these guys. And I still think Walleye was a waste of time. AWW-9/-13 pods I understand are needed for SLAM-ER. But Walleye was just dumb, IMO. I'll be the guy that hates Walleye, but I digress. Again, the sim is great! Thanks, Devs for everything thus far (except Walleye)!

First, thanks for the communication—regardless of how much hope or frustration it may give. Second, I write this ONLY a customer. I’m not a dev or anything, nor do I pretend to understand what is involved. Here’s my $.37. If I were all-powerful lord god and master of DCS/ED, my priorities set forth would be (maybe not 100% in this order, but generally)— ATFLIR Mission Cards/MUMI Page (if it is going to modeled in order to download AMU cards) Flight model All RADAR Modes—AA/AG/GMT/SEA Things that I see as a waste of time (like Walleye) and really dumb to waste time on and solutions for fellow pilots-- Running BITs. What are you gonna do if you have an MC2 fail? Is ED gonna model troubleshooters/maintenance control/NALCOMIS (and it being down for back up)/supply in Lemoore dragging a$$/MAFs not filled out properly and Chief or Gunny telling you about it/etc etc etc? No, you aren’t. The player can set fails if they desire, but I would make the assumption most people want a 100% up jet. Don’t waste time on this. “Actual INS alignment time”. Really? If ya want that just sit there for a few more minutes, or maybe longer. DIY-sim it, Maverick. I don’t want to sit there for longer than I have to. Mines of any kind. Never seen a Hornet loaded with mines past CWTPI. Don’t waste resources on this. They are pointless and I don’t know of a situation where the US Navy, Marines or any other foreign country ever actually mined a harbor with F-18s. Might be once or twice, but meh… ASPJ. Ya know what that stands for? “A $hitty Piece of Junk”. Even if it worked, you’d be able to jam all enemies, right? Then REDFOR would get annoyed because they can’t jam BLUFOR, so then ED will give REDFOR a jammer (I dunno maybe they have one) which will ultimately result in a guns fight. So just do that. You can “simulate” shortcomings/fails/etc of a jammer system, but you probably won’t have knowledge of the “ins and outs” of how it really works, so what is the point of wasting all that time on what “could be”? Skip it. AGM-45 Shrike. Seriously? When HARM ain’t even done yet? Another “Walleye” here—the jet is capable of carrying it, but nobody would when there is something better and more effective like unfinished HARM. Naw, just goofin—I know it ain’t in the list, but incase ya start thinking about it, there’s my argument against. BDU-45. Just use a Mk-82 and don’t arm it. Same exact stuff. I ain’t gonna fight or argue about all the rest of the thing. But this my personal wish list of what I’d like to see concentrated on and ignored. All else is really, “meh” to me. Look, this is a fine sim with some minor (in my mind) shortcomings and a few more major shortcomings (ATFLIR/RDR) but overall, and I think for most people it suits them. Yeah, some people will want their money back, but whatever. If people want THAT much immersion, go to college, get a four-year degree, get commissioned and go fly Hornets. Lots of people have done it, you can, too. It would be unreasonable to expect the Devs to have to model EVERY THING. And if ya can’t because you’re physically not able (only real reason that should stop someone), too dumb or too lazy, then that’s the breaks!

After talking to a Hornet pilot (not gonna get into what I "do"--use your imagination), it is confirmed this is modeled wrong.

I attempted 8 JDAMs today. Manually put in all 8 coordinates (which were 8 trucks in a straight line, spaced 900' apart) after confirming they were all good in ME. 5 missed, 3 hit their targets. 3 for 8 is a shi!!y way to do things. I hate JDAMs in this sim. JSOWs on the other hand--DEADLY AF!

Well either way, the thing rolls to the left, and it's annoying. Lol...

Brun, you are correct, which is the other thing. SirJ, I agree exactly--trim increments are too much to be useful from what I have experienced.

Maybe some, but how much I guess is the real question at hand for me. Maybe I am wrong...

Any. But specifically noticed at around 350IAS.

Well--and I do not mean to be condescending--my basic understanding of physics. The Litening has much more of a diameter than a -120. Also, the attachment arm the pod has is pretty big (it makes it stick out more than any type of FLIR); part of the diameter of the -120 is "hidden" (for lack of a better phrase) by the fuselage hip or cheek station. -7s or -120s are almost flush to the fuselage compared to FLIR/ATFLIR/Litening/LDT/SCAM pods. This roll behavior--I think--must be a mismodeling issue as I have noticed that a TACTS pod and -9X (or whatever version of -9 is on there) aren't balanced either on the wingtip stations. The approximate same amount of roll is noticeable when you fly the free flight mission in the Persian Gulf map. I would assume the FCS would account for this in the sim, but I guess there is an issue.

Nope, but a -120 shouldn't counterbalance the pod, even in RL I'd assume just based on the two sizes and drag...

Seems a bit too much roll--I know the Litening sticks out from the fuselage more and is a bit bigger than an ATFLIR--so it has more drag, but not as much as I seem to be getting. The smallest bit of RWD trim is too much though, it seems. This obviously happens when manually flying the jet, not on autopilot. It isn't drastically dipping my left wing, but it is enough to be annoying and causing me to depend more on the autopilot to flying straight and level. I am more than happy to be told I am screwing something up if I am or at least expecting a rock solid, stable straight flying aircraft when I shouldn't be. Thanks in advance!

Normal NWS SHOULD stay engaged, but Hi-Gain NWS will turn off when the button is released if wings are spread--is that the issue, or is it NWS in general?

Yeah there is a lot of stuff to finish, though... AMU, A/G and SEA RADAR, ATFLIR (w/HUD symbology!!), SLAM-ER, JHMCS (A/G stuff), hopefully we'll get the 1000lb JDAMs. Honestly, there is enough for ME to work on mastering it. But AMU (data cartridge) will be HUGE. Been waiting this long, happy to wait longer I guess. They've done a decent job at this. I'm sure there are people that are legitimately "held back" by some lacking features, but I'm not one of them.

Also, I do not know if it as issue, but I have the ISP's modem/router AND a personal router connected to that. The ISP's router is acting only as a modem, and not router.

BIGNEWY, I also can not, for the life of me, figure out how to host a game either. I can join servers fine, unless they are hosted on a friend's computer. Always get the same thing Cap'n is getting. It is frustrating as heck. ANY other help would be greatly appreciated...

Bruh, go bomb some targets or shoot some HARMs... or MAVs... I am sure there is SOMETHING you can work on to get proficient at...

Which is why I suggested maybe "fudging the numbers"/giving yourselves some "wiggle room" by giving us a time longer than what it will actually take, within reason. Gives the customer a realistic set of expectations and butthurt will be minimal. ***Edit*** While I can't name when one feature is or was supposed to be ready by a specific date, the perception is certain things should be ready by a lot of the community. Perception is a real pain in the butt and something from the customer ED must manage to minimize the hate and discontent. Me personally? As much as I'd like everything done right now, I'm still learning to fly the Hornet proficiently... So whether TWS or AG RDR comes next week or 6 months from now, won't really matter TOO much to me as I have a lot of other things to master before I move to the next thing. I suspect there are people in the community that have "mastered" each and every module they have and are waiting for the new stuff, but are they the majority or minority? Who knows? What definition of "mastering" should we use?

Unmet expectations are the root of all unhappiness. It looks like most people here are upset about it and the reasons seem to be valid. Given the reasons for the lag (assumedly being real), may I suggest a plan of action for ED? I don't mean to be dismissive or talk down to anyone by making this so simple... When I'm at work and the boss tasks me with something and asks how long it is going to take, I add ~10-25% to the total time I believe it would take to accomplish that task depending on how much is involved. If a task will take me an hour under normal circumstances, I'll say, "just over an hour to an hour and 15-20 minutes". This gives the boss man a reasonable amount of time to allow me to work. So what do ya think happens? As long as he is previously agreeable to the length of time, I win. That gives me wiggle room in case something comes up out of my control, and if everything goes exceedingly well and I get it done in 45-50 minutes, I have exceeded the boss's expectations--and I win even more. I know not everyone has a job like this that allows this type of conversation, but I would assume this is reasonable with ED. I'm not lying about the time it takes to do something--as my boss (like most) is probably at least minimally familiar with what he is tasking you to do--I am giving him a window of when to expect the task to be complete. Of course, when I go to do the task, I must be diligent and do things as quickly as I can because if I screw off, and he sees it, it's "bye-bye, HAM"--and no one wants that. So, maybe ED should do something similar. They should have an idea of what it takes to do this stuff, so why not give yourselves a reasonable amount of wiggle room? ED is literally in control of this... As long as they are diligent, there shouldn't be too much complaining. It seems they give us a wait time that is too short more than we like in hopes of satiating us, but it fails more than what people are happy with--and unfortunately on things people really want. Instead of saying, "two weeks" just take a risk and crush our petty hopes and dreams and say, "Yo, listen up--this Hornet radar thingy is fu*&%d... it's gonna be AT LEAST another four months until we ready to give ya TWS... ATFLIR? Plan on next June..." Yeah, people are gonna riot, but they will always riot. At least now, we can say, "ok, four months. FML. That should be enough time, hopefully..." And then ED busts their butts to get this together. Personally (while admitting I am FULLY, 100% COMPLETELY CLUELESS as to what all is involved), I think TWS and other things for the Hornet should probably be out by now, but instead they took more on (like the walleye--seriously? Yeah, I know it will be fun and the AWW-13 pod will be used for the SLAM-ER, but seriously? Wasted effort, guys...) instead of finishing their plate. Anyway, that is my $.25. I ain't mad at ya, but like most others, I wish I could have a fully functional model, but I can't. What can I do about it? Nothing past make a suggestion that may or may not help for the future. TL;DR--Just tell us the stuff is gonna take longer than what it may in normal circumstances.