Wizard_03

Wow. So people that don’t share your opinion have something wrong with them. That a pretty ignorant outlook.

Respectfully, I disagree, and I play almost all those games you mentioned and am involved in respective communities as well. I don’t agree with EDs decisions all the time but I won’t deny their commitment to the community and it makes sense for them too, because this is such a niche market. But besides that, they aren’t modern combat aviation simulators. There’s a tremendous difference in development when your trying to replicate a real life object with mountains of documentation and real life SMEs judging your execution. It would be unreasonable to compare those games and their communities to DCS because they do not have people nitpicking realism. I would argue that most people in this community cannot even define complete for the hornet because they have zero experience in the real vehicle, and therefore couldn’t tell you what’s missing and what’s not in the first place. It’s only because ED has decided to communicate with us what’s wrong with their work that we’re talking about this at all, if not for that and the actual people in the know pointing things out to the slew of casual players here, we wouldn’t need threads like this at all.

Yeah have to agree w Nine on that one, don’t know a single Developer out there that interacts with the community to this degree. Usually with other games they tell you how it is and you just have to deal with it.

I’m not surprised. That’s the thing Ive come to expect that based on EDs reputation and passed projects. I bought the hornet KNOWING it would take years to complete just like the A-10C, and BS2, in fact this project dwarfs the other modern aircraft in DCS. Yet those original projects are still be “completed and sustained” so how much more so for the hornet? Calling it’s status something else is not going to change that. Nor are future projects they undertake going to be any shorter or longer based on the way the use advertisement or marketing terms.. It is what it is. In this case the most complex and ambitious attempt at a study sim for the hornet ever.

No I think we understand, we just don’t care. :)

My thoughts exactly :D

I think the problem is they shouldn't label it in the brackets of Early Access vs Release. Because the fact is we have a laundry list of things that need to be implemented. Obviously it's gonna stretch beyond 2020 "Big Surprise" But it doesn't really matter what they call IMO, the fact is: its not done yet and it won't be this year. The labels are confusing everyone, I think they would do well to just say its in beta and they have no idea how long it will be that way period. No more dates, no more promises, yadda yadda. It gets done when it gets done. Then you won't have people with stopwatches here harassing wonderfully enlightening threads like this which seem too serve no purpose but too punish the devs for their transparency. Unfortunately I think we need to return to the ED of 2013 where we have no idea whats going on, at all No newsletters, no mini updates, no quarterly roadmap updates, No words from Nick, Kate, Wags, nothing just silence until we get what we want. People just can't handle it.

Yeah I guess I just care less about what they say and more about what they do. History tells me their words when it comes to dates and roadmaps need to be taken with a pound of salt.

What they do takes time, unfortunately. That’s the reality of the level of immersion we have in DCS. We can argue all day, but it will not make the hornet get done any quicker. That’s firmly in EDs hands. Whether or not they tell us what’s left or not, or if they provide newsletters like this. Whatever definitions you want to use, The work that remains is the work that remains. That’s the hard truth.

Instead of using other people’s or your own definitions of words. Use theirs...EA in this context means whatever THEY want it too. They define it on every product page listed on their store. I’m not defending them either just pointing out that they have not mis-led anyone. You did that yourself.

Why? Because they told your their plans. The hornet has been in development for over 5 years and your surprised it’s not going to be “finished” in another one?

It always has been

How can they be disingenuous if they: A) didn’t define EA transition too release in the first place. B) label subject to change on everything they do. It sounds like you created your OWN definitions and are holding them accountable to those.

“Everything is subject to change” nothing disingenuous about it, just need to take that sentence much more seriously.

What about JHMCS alignment and the various BITs that show up as failed during normal cold starts? When will these get taken care of?

Might be a DCS core issue, but I noticed a pretty significant FPS dip when TCS is tracking something with smoke. It’s fine normally but if it sees any sort of smoke, either from another aircrafts jets or if it’s on fire or anything like that the FPS drops sharply to half of what it was. Turn it off or break lock and we’re back to normal. Thought I would mention it. Seems like a memory leak or something.

Love the weathering effect myself. Very nice!

I've seen lots of examples of the inboard ones removed all together is that pretty common if they don't need them?

True enough.

I understand what your saying. But there’s nothing simple about any of those those systems. Lol just the electrical aspect of a jet like the harrier requires miles of wiring and thousands of circuits. They hydro system is a lot more then a gauge in the cockpit. Multiple overlapping redundant systems that back each other up, using different pressures, various degrees of degradation that all must be accounted for. etc. Now I agree those kind of things should be well flushed out and pretty much finished even before EA but they most definitely are not “simple or basic” that’s a pretty gross understatement.

Might we see them added as an unrealistic option, perhaps behind a ME/UI checkbox??

Fair enough. I think another part of the problem is Razbam doesn't seem to innovate as much as some of the other third parties. I believe it's their policy to wait for full implementation of developmental resources from ED before putting any feature in their products. What I mean is, we saw RSBN in the Mig-21 long before it came to the game officially in the L-39 and right now we sorta have A2G radar in the Jeff and viggen but the hornet hasn't received it yet. There's half a dozen other examples I could mention. Those Devs jumped ahead of ED and went ahead tried to complete their products quickly, and what that boils to down to is a two edge sword for everyone. On the one hand its cool to have features like that sooner rather then later, which is a strike against Razbam's stuff. But at the same time that can often blow up in the third party's face. I.E. when they have to start re-writing code because ED "official" implementation broke theirs. So to avoid problems like that Razbam doesn't even bother until the code base for whatever feature is fully realized in the game already, which makes sense from a developmental standpoint, but what that means for us is: their stuff sits incomplete for years on end. So while I'm not happy with Razbam or the situation, I put a lot of the blame on ED as well. 1st for taking forever on the implementation of things, 2nd for allowing third parties to develop products that are going to be fundamentally limited in the sim in the first place. Which Subjects them to massive overhauls down the road opening up the entire process for bugs and further spaghettification of the code.

It's cool but honestly I'm not going to use it that much lol My number one wish ATM is for the data card to get implemented. Next the new missile guidance APIs and finally ATFLIR... After all that's out I might play with the surface radar modes. :)

It makes sense too, you wouldn't have that page up IRL unless your ready to shoot. It overrides everything so you don't get mixed up.

If you just updated your drivers It may be this issue: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4288979#post4288979