Arctander

Every OB without a *significant* step forwards on a hornet systems and avionics I think this will only get worse...

I think it’s a perfect storm. Promising one thing in response to concern. Doing the opposite Admitting to it after the fact Not saying sorry Then releasing a bare bones, obviously rushed and inadequate Viper Releasing capabilities in the viper people have been asking for on the hornet for over a year. I just don’t think you’re going to persuade the majority of people who feel burnt by EDs recent decisions and EA practices with words. You need to demonstrate continuing improvements to the module people are upset about. Razbam showed the way with the harrier and mirage and promising ‘no new modules till we’ve completed these’. If we keep hearing words but not seeing tangible improvements to what is on our SDDs, you’re not going to persuade anyone.

Oh yeah, Blueflag Pg is gonna be fun as a Hornet pilot for the next few weeks....

Annnnnd you can forget any money for the Carrier. More ‘later in EA’ nonsense. Finish it. Then ask me for money.

I’m gonna guess ‘no’. Disappointed, but absolutely not surprised.

Aft antenna option. That it? You’ve got to be kidding me. I hope to god the following OB has a metric (redacted) Ton of Hornet updates and nada for the F16 as you’re ‘focusing’ on the Hornet right? I await to be drowned in new features for the Hornet...

If focus is shifting back to the Hornet, does this mean F16 devs will work on the hornet? Or just that work will resume back to normal on the Hornet? It isn’t clear

Yup. Hell maybe even a screenshot of the WIP of the TGP hud symbology. Or one of the radar screen with a target locked in TWS mode, or a screenshot of the RWR showing ‘60’ next to the ‘F’

So without a roadmap/progress/burn chart, and no evidence of progress we can only assume no progress has been made. Humans are generally objective - we sense progress from what we can see and feel and touch, not on what we are told, especially given recent history reducing the ability to ‘trust’ without reservation what we are told. That increased transparency of roadmap and progress cannot come soon enough as it will enable you to just point at it instead of fielding questions. I hope it comes sooner rather than later. Thanks.

Yes. We know. Ed knows. But for some reason better lighting (that I see on FC3 planes like the eagle) cannot come to the Hornet without a graphics engine change.

No it doesn’t. But if you dial it up it MAY. Hence the point of user selectable.

If there isn’t enough being updated, you don’t need mini updates... *taps head* Seriously - completely agree. Just update us on how progress is going. Give us proof that work is being done - screenshots etc...

In that case would you please find out an update on this high quality of life change for multiple modules and have it put in the mini update or newsletter? Thanks.

Putting this clearly out there. I don’t mind increased vibration being put into the game on the proviso there is a slider to enable VR pilots to dial it down. Forced shaking of the viewpoint when there is no sensory movement can cause nausea so let’s be clear that deliberately implementing something like that without giving the user the ability to decide on the strength is a no go.

Agreed - those complaining are more likely to be flat screen people... in VR it’s another ballgame. Hook up a haptic pad like a jetseat and hold god....

FYI - since the ‘no vr planned in msfs2020’ they have now stated they have heard and will look to get it in sooner rather than later.

Just to clarify. The idea that Ed should be actively working on ‘as most needed’ (as in OP) replicating the kind of approach ms are taking for DCS is what I am saying should not be happening as there are a huge amount of more important issues with the sim as opposed to the ability to fly ‘anywhere’ and see realistically generated ground. Some light r and d as part of a ‘is it even feasible in 5/10 years’ - maybe. But I think it would be better for ED to categorically say ‘no’ to things instead of ‘we’ll look at it’, especially where it is something extremely complex, likely to be a long term effort, require significant changes to the core and or have a lot of prerequisites that need to be put in place first.

Completely agree that the modules should be build to the same scale Such that the global ipd setting works for all of them, instead of a setting per module. I’m confused why in a simulator that is meant to be about fidelity, scaling of the cockpits would look different for a given ipd... something seems badly wrong if that is the case...

So a year and a half after release the autopilot modes aren’t working/implemented properly... I’m sure Balt was a lot more reliable a few months ago...

Great point and way of looking at it.

@kaogumba - I asked this question on Reddit as my question Asking exactly that in this thread got deleted as OT. They will release the F26 to stable without TWS is now the plan.

You’ll need to edit it or keep a copy to copy/paste in post update

I’d also note if doing this EVERY time is a pain, you can edit a lua file in notepad++ to have it set to a personal default (while we wait for ED to finish the Aircraft set up options - remember them?) Iirc it’s in the dcs folder/mods/aircraft/f18/cockpit/scripts/tews/ale47.lua

Very likely they are using SAM mode. The LTWS on the hornet doesnnt provide enough of a track for the missile so iirc it goes active right off the rail.

just close it now. My thread has been answered, we’ll wait to see if the hard push materialises In end Nov/Dec and then take stock and decide if ED can match actions to words and understands they need to act to repair the damage this episode has caused.