Arctander

Not sure why I would need to do that but ok... DCS is the *ONLY* high fidelity Jet combat and Helo sim. As to positives: The feeling I get when flying and fighting is not comparable to any other gaming experience I've had. (I use IL2 for the same feeling for WWII). As such I've spent a lot of money - both for ED and peripherals to enjoy that feeling. I fly in VR with a RiftS, Warbrd Base/WH Stick, WH throttle, 3 MFDs, MFG crosswinds in a custom made simpit.... bonus sleeping dog. This is simpit V3 and is built so I can pack it away easily under my desk. In a month or so when I have more room I'll be building a permanent V4... I love the Hormuz map, and the MP servers like BF that let me fly and fight against others. (Single player is of very little interest to me). SRS really helps there - ED are working on their own VOIP - I hope it isn't a disappointment in comparison so it can bring more people into comms. Flying the Hornet and working with the systems brings a satisfaction when I make a kill that is unmatched in any other experience in gaming I have had. The modelling and texturing is such that on a number of occasions I've tried to lean on the edge of my cockpit! That level of immersion is incomparable. I wanted to be a pilot in the RAF when I was really young, sadly my eyes were crap so it never could happen. I also really enjoy flying the Huey - that's a lovely module. Just tooling around Dubai at low level is great fun. I've also really enjoyed the ability to make my own skins (if only I can see them!) - my current favourite is a Hornet WWII RAF desert skin using PRU blue underbelly, with sand yellow and dark earth top. Having an 'in DCS' simple editor would be really nice. Were ED to fail/go out of business that would be a large part of my hobby time spend and enjoyment lost, which is why I am so passionate about the downsides of the current model of EA and specifically F16/F18 interplay. I fear there is something fundamentally wrong if they are (as Nick said) predicated on EA modules to stay 'profitable' and the business model needs to change.

The problem with a subscription model is that they would have to switch to it before we see the benefitsnin the core sim. it’s a cart before horse situation - do you give them money for something ‘free’ that is broken in many ways, or wait to see fixes? I would gladly move to a ‘purchase major iteration’ model like Xplane *but I just don’t trust ED* right now

Nope. I ain’t buying jack from ED till the Hornet is finished.

Hornet > Viper

Fwiw I am not noticing this in sp pg map in a rift s

Yup that works. Thanks! Seems Remarkably unintuitive design by Boeing...

And I very much hope there will be a nice long list of facts to read :-)

It was not relevant to the discussion regarding from September to End Q1.

Given that that list was provided in response to me, it is impossible to not see myself as the intended target. On your word that it was not at me I will accept that, but would advise you to consider being just a little more careful on your wording next time.

Then you are more than welcome to not listen, just as you advise us to not use OB. fundamentally- yes it is. They launched it without a damage model. That doesn't just impact MP by the way - it also impacts your use of it in SP. Thankfully - most of the decent MP servers did prevent it while it had no Damage model, but IIRC they allowed it once it had one, but before the IFF was provided. I am well within my rights as a customer to point out issues with the model that ED use for their development when it combines with the status at release of models to have an impact on my ability to enjoy their product. There are ways they could ameliorate this (either through closed testing, or releasing later, better developed) but at this point they have chosen not to, as is their right, but I should not be expected to be silent about the impacts it has. No roasting required - I can remain polite.

All of this was not relevant to the point I made (delivery since July). What was your intent? Were you trying to 'pad out' the delivery to make it look better?

If you're trying to say I'm stupid or similar I see that as an insult and you should have this moderated. What was your intent?

I stand corrected on what has been deployed from July to reducing the resources working on the Hornet in preference of the Viper. July 2019 to now - PLID & STEP functions have been added on SA Page - AA/ANQ-28 Litening Targeting Pod added - AGM-84D Harpoon in BOL mode with POP maneuver implemented - AGM-62 Walleye - AWW-13 link pod Having said that - I reiterate that if there were to be a further change in timescales by end Q1 that would still be 5 months with little avionics systems change so I very much hope that the hard push on TWS, AACQ and TGP happens as planned.

Thank you - will give that a go.

And I'm concerned there is no mention in any of that of clouds impacting the effectiveness of IR sensors...

Then I will try to be clearer in my posts in future as to exactly what I am referring to.

Thanks. I think that we all bear a part to play: Users for bringing pressure on ED to deliver 'new plane number 23' - just look at the comments on heavy lift, more marine choppers, fully simulated Migs, F4, Bronco etc. ED for releasing things into EA at a.... very very early stage... Server owners for bowing to pressure and adding them. I think that this would not be an issue if MP was given due consideration about the 'bar' for release - which I would suggest would include a working damage model and IFF. It's not that I don't want people to have it because of the impact on MP, I WANT to be seeing things released straight to MP because they don't risk breaking the balance of the servers.

Hi - I'm talking about the core systems that need work mainly - TWS, AZ/EL, AACQ, TGP etc as those are of far more interest to me as a capability improvement for the Hornet than a weapon that is a step back in effectiveness from current weapons available (even though it is a step in the road to SLAM(ER) and I have to admit it's quite a fun weapon using MITL - note I posted a bug report for you with a track). In my view it is the missing systems that needed work, not 'more weapons' which is why I am glad you have commented on the 'hard push' coming up. My point was that if that were to change for any reason and these things don't come to the Hornet by the end of Q1 - wouldn't you agree that that would be far too long a time frame to be waiting when, for example, TWS has been 'worked on' since July 1st, and by then I would have expected the F16 to have had it for some months...?

Apart from that doesn't work in Multiplayer as you are *impacted* by the Viper which on launch had no damage model and no IFF. That is then down to each server owner to resist the begging of people who want it now and damn anyone else (thankfully I think they all resisted until those were in!) but note that the countermeasures won't rearm in MP - they need to reslot and start up EACH TIME. And if it's a night mission? good luck. Equally - it has impacted the Hornet with a slow down of development. It really should have stayed in the oven and come out later, or be in a closed alpha instead of open beta.

I'm agreeing with you. There should be a closed beta that is used to sort out stuff that shouldn't have been released (Viper no damage model, iff, external lights, etc etc) so that those of us who fly MP don't have to deal with them in the servers (as people will demand them there asap once released)

And why is that? Because the Viper has been launched so bare boned and with so many issues that they by neccessity need to hold back on updating stable until its got to a point that is 'acceptable'. If it had stayed in the oven for another few months, then stable could have been updated more frequently. So for me, the length of time stable has gone without an update is absolutely a consequence of releasing the Viper far too early so people complaining that the Viper isn't being updated frequently enough with decent sized steps forwards are in fact also (in effect) agreeing with those complaining of a lack of updates to stable, and vice versa!

I think where that analogy breaks down is those cases are 1 developer: 1 game in development, or in extremis 1 developer like (EA) with a huge number of sub studios each working on their own game. Here it is one simulation, in alpha, with different modules all in varying stages of completion, and the single developer moving people from module to module depending on the priority of the month - and that's all perceptible on the outside - which leads to delay, messaging issues, and frustration. Having a separate 'closed' alpha would at least lead to a much better understanding of the 'bar' at which a product is released and help ED stay 'on message' such that as you say, people could buy in at a specific 'stage' that suits them. As it is we have Open Beta where all the Multiplayer servers live (because people want the new stuff sooner( - so we have to deal with things like the Viper damage model and IFF (in addition to bugs) when it shipped. if that had all occured in a closed environment - then that wouldn't be a pressure point.

There is nothing in the EULA that talks about EA status etc so 'fair expectation' must be used, combined with official statements ED make. Nineline posted in the 'what is EA' that: 'Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible.' (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3662035&postcount=1) Nineline then stated in a newsletter in FEBRUARY that: (for the Viper) 'progress has been good, and is in no way slowing down Hornet completion.' (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3799781&postcount=183) I believe (but cannot find the post) that Wags doubled down on that in response to concerns raised on Reddit. And for them to then say the following in the middle of September : 'In order to hit our Viper release window, we have very recently had to temporarily move a couple of the systems programmers from the Hornet onto the Viper for a short period.' https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4043099&postcount=174 That that was two months ago (and counting) is bad enough, my post, again is pointing out that 'temporarily' is NOT a time frame that should be measured in months in an EA environment, and absolutely that 6 months would be categorically unacceptable. You may not agree with that, that is your choice, but I think it is fair to say that there is an upswell of EDs consumers who are very concerned at these developments, and I can only hope that ED has listened richly and are acting upon this. Continuing to attempt to deflect these concerns on their behalf is not an activity that will in the long run help ED in my opinion. Now, I've explained my opinion, you've expressed your opinion, and it's pretty clear that there is clear water between the two that won't be bridged.

EA is a contract between me and ED for me to give money at time X for a completed project at time Y that has not been defined through EDs inability to plan. If they had said 'it will take >two years to complete and we will in effect stop working on important systems for many months at a time to focus on another EA product' at Hornet EA launch you can absolutely bet I would not have given them ANY money at the time. That they have deprioritised the product I gave them money for for this long is straining my patience enough as it is - all I am telling them is that for me extending that out another 3 months would be beyond the pale and be unjustifiable to me, as their consumer. You may have the patience of a saint and allow ED to use resources you have in effect paid for to work on another EA Product instead of working on what you have paid for - but some of us expect ED to act in good faith towards completing their end of the transaction by not abusing the EA principle.

I absolutely agree that insults/hostility etc is unnacceptable. This is where I disagree. While there is certainly impatience, much of that is caused by ED poor communications to date, and chopping and changing what is an 'acceptable' release state, in quantity and quality, and by going against previously stated positions which themselves were used to justify/downplay concerns. Going to be that person who says how do you know it is a silent majority who are positive, vs a silent majority who are negative? None of us can speak for anyone but ourselves. I am hopeful that the recent improvements in communication are sustained, and not just being used to ameliorate concerns around the F16 launch - but it is beholden to ED to do better in their workload estimation, planning, communication, clarity of and sticking to a 'baseline' quantity and quality of feature at launch.