Arctander

So in fact, in hundreds of hours, the Hornet radar is unreliable in the BVR to ACM modes, and you didn’t even address the MP bugs I mentioned that ED have confirmed exist.....

That is of course assuming that ‘the fast jet team’ have been pulled off the modules they are meant to be working on to fix core issues such as memory leaks which both community manages have said is not the case. So in the absence of any evidence that work has progressed on the Hornet and Viper through sharing images and video on something like a mini-update, we can only be left to believe that progress on both has slowed to a crawl for some reason. It is *intensely* frustrating that this keeps happening, and ED for all the public relations comments made, have not provided any tangible evidence that enables use to have confidence that they can hit their goal for this year I am on of those who also will never buy another EA product from them and regret purchasing tye Hornet when I did. I do not believe ED provided sufficient Information prior to purchase for me to make an informed decision on whether I would be satisfied with the time frame for final delivery.

Great post. Congratulations and criticism should be treated evenly.

If Multiplayer servers crash within 15 minutes, and two modules cause crash on start up, I would say that that is not something you need a large team to find. Just ensuring there are certain basic things tested as well as the size of the team. You can have the largest team out there but if they’re only flying the flavour of the month plane in single player (for example) you won’t find very obvious issues impacting other planes and Multiplayer

By current experiences, either that closed beta team has been incompetent, or Ed didn’t address bugs and issues they raise before pushing patches. I see no other explanation for arches like 2.5.6. So it is GOOD that ED have admitted their QA process has not been good enough, especially wrt Multiplayer.

Please send me the super secret EEA branch you are on with Hornet ACM Radar modes that work, where range gates are respected, and a second hornet joining in a multiplayer server before you is detected without having to cycle radar modes. Also one where the radar azimuth doesn’t get locked when moving from tws to rws, and the PRF doesnnt sometimes get stuck in PDI mode when you don’t have Sparrows on board. There are FAR too many bugs and issues with the Hornet radar to say ‘it’s never let you down in hundreds of hours’.

You will need to be in Open Beta for the popular multiplayer servers.

Unless you fly in MP as that is where ALL popular servers lie. I would also point out that it has now been a year from a bug I raised re the hornet radar and multiplayer still existing in. Both stable and OB... Thankfully ED have finally agreed to focus more to ensure OB works better for mp

@tom Kazansky - that’s the very definition of straw man. You know there is no other sim with the same modules etc as DCS - and you are using that to avoid the actual point. @Flarpt is saying he gets more FUN in other sims as he doesn’t have to deal with the amount of bugs, workarounds and poor optimisation as other sims DESPITE the fact that no other sim contains the planes and A2G/A2A as DCS.

You are straw manning @Flarpt post. He said ‘modern pc friendly sims’ of which there are many. A sim does not have to contain the same planes/helicopters as DCSW, nor does it even need to have combat in it to compare and contrast how it runs on a modern PC.

@Shuenix the point possibly being they can select people as they wish, and exclude who they wish. there’s a risk that that becomes a clique or a a bunch of yes men (and women) and loses effectiveness so I agree with @BlueAngel Also there is no way I would want to do this. Given the one MP bug I raised took 11 months just to be acknowledged (and last I checked it still wasn’t fixed!) - I would just get stressed that so many bugs I report are just being let through and stay unaddressed for weeks/months. I wonder how the current community testers feel seeing the reaction to 2.5.6? I would expect that they caught a lot of the issues and reported them. I’m guessing It’s a pretty thankless task as you would be caught between wanting to do a good job, knowing that issues were caught in testing, but weren’t addressed, but likely you wouldn’t be able to talk about it. Hoping they do as they say and massively tighten up.

These have always bothered me, but with the lighting changes in 2.5.6 the static reflection textures baked into the Canopy is so far overdone it is actually interfering both with Vr immersion and ability to see out of the canopy. Please enable (preferably) a slider so that people can set it from 0% (invisible) to 100% (full), or if that is not possible - a switch on/off, for example using the custom cockpit option. Edit: fa/18 fwiw

Nineline, BigNewy, Wags. The Viper has had 6 mini updates this year. The Hornet has had one. Given that the 'aim is to feature complete' the Hornet in 2020, and that time is rapidly speeding past and the teams is now a 'shared' team for the two planes I believe it is only right that if you make a Mini-Update for the Viper, you also make one for the Hornet (and ofc vv). Tell us what progress has been made on BOTH planes at the same time if you are making an update. If no progress has been made on one plane or the other from the last update, say so.

Jump to bottom of the screen is likely to be the radar locking something further away than what you wanted to lock as the range gating isn’t working. Next time it happens check the scale. Also make sure that your radar is detecting something before locking, and you’re not trying to lock a donated track your radar hasn’t detected. But yes - the hornet radar is all kinds of unreliable and fubar.

Downloaded 45Gb last night. Now I am rolling it back and downloading 22Gb more so I can play on ANY MP server. Well done ED. Well done. Great job.

Needs finishing, urgently imo.

They included it in a newsletter a year ago. Then went silent. Don’t expect it anytime soon

It’s not a better experience for everyone. We STILL don’t know the details of how it will interact in multiplayer with those who don’t own it. They’re pushing it heavily because they decided to create a new carrier to go with the Hornet instead of fixing the old one, and to do so had to build ‘extra’ functionality on top of it to justify a charge, and I have no doubt they would love to drop the old carrier ASAP.

I really want to reply to this in another way as this is the second time you've said this and it is still up, so is obviously deemed 'on topic', and this is a direct reply to you on the same topic (achieving the 2020 roadmap). I hope that mods leave this post untouched as I think a counterpoint is important and needs to be said. Regarding your opinion that paying a second time for the F18 to deliver it to the required level of quality within the 2020 roadmap, you may see this as being an option because in your eyes it 'prevents' money you've spent being 'wasted'. I however (and I'm sure many others would) see this as 'throwing good money after bad', and were they to do so I imagine that the backlash would be immediate and loud as it would indicate that ED were no longer an acceptable risk from the perspective of pre-ordering which would cause a liquidity crisis for them (given Nick Grey has admitted EA funds are a major plank of their business viability) causing an existential threat. I would also say that in such a situation you would have absolutely no control over whether they 'ringfence' that 'extra' money you paid them for what you want them to do. ED have stated publicly that they aim to complete both F18 and F16 this year so they have enough to complete both based on existing and future expected sales to new customers. At this point I absolutely expect them to focus on fulfilling that goal for the F18 (but likely not the F16 as I think that is too big a task, and pushing for both risks neither being accomplished. It is clear in my mind and from reading others comments where the focus should lie.) Either way - offering a company to give them more money to complete a software product you have already paid the asked amount for would in my eyes be a dangerous precedent to set, enabling them (should they so chose) to keep coming back for more. If it has turned out that the price they set originally was not high enough to pay for the cost of developing it - then they would need to find another way to pay for that completion (in this specific case it seems to me they have accelerated the F16 release to share development costs inside the same time frame, plus likely the changes to the Supercarrier module content and discount method, both of which have caused their own controversies I will not go into). Lastly - I am no lawyer, but I would expect that ANY company that has an owner/major shareholder based in the EU (TFC) and that charges £X for a product in the EU, and then comes back and says they want more money to complete or they will not deliver the promised content would find themselves in trouble legally speaking ..... Therefore while I think it is most likely a moot point as it would be so patently poor practice that ED would never consider it, I do feel that the above points need to be made. ED have stated their goal is to complete the F18 this year, and I will be watching with interest to see how serious they are about fulfilling that aim.

Agreed. If there was a clear timeframe then we can make choices with all the information needed. And that is likely the reason IMO that they are seen far more positively than the F18/F16. ED should really learn that lesson. It may be an 'exception' - but an 'exception' can become 'precedent' which I very much hope ED has realised would be a bad idea. I am so glad that ED haven't in the 2020 roadmap teased another jet like they did with the Viper, I think ED HAVE to finish the Hornet AND Viper before they accept any money for a future fast jet to show that this was indeed an exception/mistake....

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246693&highlight=Ground+effect https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4115882&postcount=176

If you have Data link enabled, make sure the elevation and bar setting brackets the target. It is possible that the target you see is a ‘donor’ target that is outside you radars scan zone

Agreed. Compare that to eagles, flankers and the F14 which can solider on once hit. I either die instantly (95%) or lose everything (5%). It’s sad we’re a year and a half into development and it’s this fragile/poor.

I also find that you can’t unlock a target in ltws like you used to with undesignate/nws. I found I have to cycle into acm mode and out again...

You select it and you hear a voice ‘Well I Do Declarah!’