Arctander

If those figures are right - the Hornet is underperforming between 5% and 10% which is surprisingly a large gap to published figures...

Does that mean it will be less agile as well or is that currently correct?

@hughlb. Did I buy in too soon? Yes and no. I bought in knowing more was to come. I bought in expecting it be continually supported to the best of ED’s ability and not speed down to produce another module to hit a self imposed deadline. If Ed has said at the time ‘it will take > 2 years and we will move developers off it in a year and a half’s time and use that resource to bring systems to another plane in ea before you get them’ then I likely wouldn’t have bought in at the time (though in all likelihood I would have done so by now) That’s both in Ed for not making the timeframe clear at purchase, and on me for not knowing EDs development capabilities and history. And yes - the slow down and wait for a TGP of a year (still incomplete) and TWS, AZ-EL, no Proper ins or ins stabilised RWR etc is immensely frustrating when we see these things coming to the Viper that releases a year and a half after. I hear about ‘parallel’ devlopment but that doesn’t mean the Viper should get things first when others have been waiting longer. So far all the benefits of this have gone to the Viper that we can see. If I had a viper I might be a little more amenable to it as I could see these things coming to something I have - but as I don’t have the Viper (not going to buy until the hornet and it are complete this time!) it stings that for all the talk of ‘shared’ development benefits I am yet to see ANY of it, and it’s been three months almost. but my main concern is that ED cannot develop at full force the ea products they have put out at the same time without compromising on one or the other and to me that speaks to a gap between what they need to do and what they can do, which makes me afraid given Nick Greys public statement on how important ea is for their continued survival as to what the future holds. And lastly - with all of this going on, which I think everyone objectively can understand the community frustrations, I am yet to see any acknowledgement from Ed that doing it in this way has been a mistake in the eyes of many. First rule of business - if you make a mistake and upset your community, apologise. Say why it has happened (which to be fair they have even though it raised more concerns to me than answers) and then state what you will do to stop it happening again. I am yet to see a meaningful former, and we’ve seen little of the latter. There have been statements by the community managers that ‘we’re working on it And ‘lots of hard work to come’ - but this is vague and can be construed as platitudes. I want to understand what concrete steps and actions they will take to prevent it happening again. They have said a roadmap with priorities will come - and I am very interested to see that.

And for expanding the user base they are making a whole other standalone product MAC which is doubtless also stealing resource. It is clear as day that they are stretched too thin in a hunt for new user and cash from existing users. I wonder if Mac has been delayed more than expected so they had to push out the Viper earlier than planned, with the consequential knock on to the hornet - but ED won’t say.

I agree there is something wrong but I'm not sure what. For example Amraams (especially the B) are a pile of dung - you can be within 8nm on a hot bandit closing at 1400 and they can be defeated kinematically.

Agreed, but in spite of logic, and 'fair' they appear to be working on the Viper systems and then porting them over to the Hornet in spite of these types of things being 'on the radar' for some time.

Would be good to know - also when the INS will interface with the RWR and smoothly move threats around the ring pending RWR update. Would make notching much more effective/efficient.

Can you give us an update on where the Mission and Aircraft data setup is? If I recall you teased us with some screenshots back in spring time (?). Were those active/working or just mock ups?

Don't you mean the Viper or am I misunderstanding you? The Hornet reaction at the time was relatively positive - the increased amount of bad feedback is for the Viper, and due to the impact it has had on the Hornet. Edit: reread your post and it makes sense - we’re agreeing.

What I actually want is for ED to remain a sustainable business AND to complete products without taking resource off it to release a new product. That they cannot develop the F18 and the F16 together at the same time indicates that they are trying to do too much (plus the Jug, Hind, Mosquito, A10 retexture and upgrade to the Hokum). So what I want is to know - in the future - if I were to purchase an EA module (but that will never happen) - that ED work on it WITHOUT slowing production.

That is the party line ED are taking, yes. Quite why they are doing that foundational work on the second module (Viper) now and not in the first I do not understand.

Ok - so you see no issue with the situation where ED are forced to push out more ea products than they are capable of supporting at any given time in order to stay profitable (as admitted bu Nick Grey, the owner). See this link in case you were not aware:

I’ve just looked into it and you’re right Wags did say ‘At some point in the future’. But there are technical limitations on map size. It’s not something that will be inside a timeframe measured in years by the sound of it and knowing ED, and I don’t think that it should be anywhere near the list of things they should be working on.

And this thread is symptomatic of the problem we face. Ed din’t havr enough resource to work on the viper and hornet at full speed at the same time, and you want them to release a new AI plane a month?!

So what would be your solution to stopping the need for ED to continue releasing EA modules and reducing support on previous ones, or are you happy with the status quo where (for example) ED takes 6 years to make Huey have multi crew support, or are unable to work on two high fidelity jets at the same time?

Agreed. I think they need an income stream separate from planes and maps to be able to find improvements to the core sim, and remove the reliance on pumping out EA module after EA module. It would require I think a ‘major version’ paid update. You can choose not to update and still fly all the planes you have purchased. Paying for the update is the for the core sim, any planes purchase are licences you you for any major version release. I would expect MP servers would update to the latest versions Anything is better than this ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ EA focus.

Iirc ED have been clear that they have no plans or intent to do full globe mapping.

Personally I think a PTO in DCS should not be high in the agenda for a number of reasons. Firstly - the Normandy map and modules are not fleshed out with suitable match ups. Secondly the lack of documentation on Japanese planes makes it very difficult to simulate them, even for a non fly able module. Combine that with DCS non physics respecting ai and it would be a recipe for guess work and disaster. Thirdly - even if you fix this gap enough for Single player without flyable Japanese planes what is the point from a Multiplayer perspective? Fictional match ups vs German planes? Lastly - we already have the Jug and the Mosquito being worked on. I feel it is much more likely that Il2 could do PTO than ED Within an acceptable time and cost.

Exactly this. It’s been a stable of flight simulators for god knows how long. The addition of Vr spotting zoom has been a huge step forwards for me... spotting ground and air targets is now possible and I don’t feel so handicapped vs monitor players.

This is the main point indeed after we were told the one wouldn’t impact the other. I think it is also that we are seeing some systems working in the Viper before the Hornet (like TWS and Nav aligning). And I also think once a certain level of weapons are available for A2A and precision ground strike focus switches to ‘gaps’ in system implementation, like avionics, sub modes of weapons, and other quality of life builds to ‘core’ systems instead of building more and more incomplete weapons. I think the model of ED putting out a system incomplete, and then moving on needs to change if possible. I’d like to see systems put out with all modes available before moving to the next. Hopefully the upcoming pipeline/roadmap will help with understanding.

Depends if ED finish the Hornet. And then the Viper. Because I'm not giving any more money to them in 'EA' status. I want the finished article.

Thanks for the note BigNewy. This I think is the crux of the matter. It is all too easy for decision makers removed from the customer as time goes on for memories of missteps to fade, to take an easier road that doesn’t tackle the hard choices, and over time, unintentionally pressure to improve can fade, and it takes another shock to remember - and opportunity and time is lost. Please continue to act internally to bring pressure to bear to tackle hard choices and really tackle community concerns to improve the ED internal processes, decisions and the end product we all love. Thanks again.

Have a guess. :-)

Exactly. If ED cannot work on X EA modules at the same time without slowing down work on one or the other, then X is too high a number. They need to 'complete' products before moving onto another product. If that means a drop in EA money coming in and that risks their business, then the need to change their business model to survive/prosper.

Thanks for the note. I agree we all want the best - I just think that without consumer pressure, my fear is that ED will not be 'forced' to improve/move with the times and consumer sentiment. Look at Kodak. They INVENTED the Digital camera - but didn't invest in it to protect their film business. I fear that ED are entering their own 'Kodak' moment - and if the community that uses their product doesn't provide the impetus for them to improve, that they will sit on their laurels and in the end not make the business wide improvements required for them to prosper.