Airhunter

No serial F-15 is ever going M2.35 or even M2 with any armament or fuel tanks on the jet.

Very nice. So you just press and hold WPN REL at 3.7nm and pull up?

The Hornet doesnt trim in normal FCS law in a clean config. Currently it also does a rather poor job of mintaining that 1G flight, which is unfortunate. It will run away from you in the pitch axis if you let go of the stick in a 5° or 10° climb for example (increase or decrease the pitch angle on its own).

It's the current overly bloomy DCS lghting in 2.5.6. Hopefully they will adjust the bloom and brightness levels.

AACQ doesn't work how it should currently, it locks the first thing it sees. Proper logic is yet to be implemented and yes in the real jet that is possible.

There is no real pitbul indication in the real thing, except when in TWS. The TTI next to the track will start blinking when it goes pitbull, approximately 15-16s from impact. Currently the 54 behaves like the amraam and can be considered pitbull off the rail.

Yeah or any visual fixes at this point. Burner effects have been broken for a while now.

I saw that but again, that is another vague statement or planned timeframe. Saying "mid term" can mean just about anything. The last major feature the "modern jet team" from ED pushed was TWS for the Hornet and that has broken other radar modes and still doesn't even work how it should. Since then there has been silence in pretty much all areas. That is absolutely true. Project management of this scope and complexity is a complicated manner but given their past experience with numerous other projects I think one could safely say that they aren't doing this for the first time. Another question would be why ED decides to model these highly complex and digitalizd aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18. Sure, everyone wants those and those are iconic jets but from a developmental standpoint something like the F-4E Phantom II, Mi-24P Hind, Mig-29A/S etc. seem to be way more doable within a reasonable timeframe. Let alone the fact that ECM isn't really a thing in DCS and most new ED modules. Just some food for thought. Another side effect of these open ended EA modules and several projects at the same time is that long term most people will not be inclined to pre-order or jump onto yet another EA product, which in turn means lost revenue and reduced profits. This business model sure isn't sustainable in the long run, provided they don't find secondary means of monetary influx.

Exactly what I was saying in all my posts and I think most reasonable people would agree that finishing those basic systems that are used extensively on most flights or deployments should have the highest priority. Here we go, another exhibit A. So I guess you are someone who spends a lot of money on these EA modules (which is fine by all means) and enjoys just flying around in them in his free time and then shelves them as you get bored (again, totally fine and you should enjoy these products the way you want). But you have to realize that there are people who are very knowledgeable in aviation and this hobby and like to dive a lot deeper into system and procedures than most people. Sure, on the surface it is all nice and shiny and you can take it off and land it on the ship - is it in any way realistic or can be done by the book? Hell no, and that is the very problem. And again, what is YOUR experience or qualification? Do you have experience operating or maintaining aircraft? Do you work in an applicable industry? Without even knowing what one doesn't know one can say just about anything and it really won't have any meaning or ground in reality whatsoever. The "negativity" you describe is merely a construct of your own mind and fouled perception. Without this type of criticism and feedback nothing would ever improve or get fixed. The majority of bugs in EA modules get reported by us, the comunity. And if everyone was "happy" with these kinds of products no matter how buggy or unfinished they were then the developers could get away with a lot more. No one is asking for perfection - that doesn't exist anywhere. Nothing personal or an attack on you in any shape or form (I know, text can be hard to interpret) but a general observation about posts like yours on various platforms and forums. Because everyone has been doing exactly just that. There comes a point where you can't just sit there and twiddle thumbs anymore and need some clear answers and timeframes. Imagine you buy a phone with all these fancy advertised features, however those are supposed to all be implemented at a later stage of you owning this phone. What if after 1+ years of owning the phone you still didn't have a working camera or map service or even GPS even though you paid the full price for it? You'd want some answers. That is all this is.

Ok, I didnt expect this thread to blow up like this but here's what I got from the majority of the comments. And as a foreword, none of the following statements are meant to be personal or are meant to offend anyone. They merely represent my own opinion as a paying customer. Since I've been on this forum and community (flightsim community in general) I have observed two types of people: One type finds bugs, inaccuracies or things they dont like/agree with and voice their opinion in the form of constructive criticism on various outlets and platforms. The other type seems to be almost annoyed at the first type and sees any kind of criticism or complaining as an annoyance or whining and voices their opinion in the form of "well, dont buy into EA then" , "nothing is perfect" , "they have done an outstanding job" , "it already is almost perfect" and so on. They also seem to get super upset and emotionally involved in this hobby. The latter kind of people almost always seems to have no clue about aviation, aircraft systems, physics and aerodynamics and simply base their "praise for ED" on the simple fact that they dont know what they dont know and that they are having "fun" in the limited time they use EA modules. The same can be seen in other flightsim branches - people having absolutely no clue what they are talking about, having never even opened any kind of aircraft manual or dealt with aircraft sytems in real life (real life experience in the field). I see this kind of opinion and behaviour all the time and frankly it is just very silly to argue with SME's about their field and tell them they are wrong just because you play a game and have read a wikipedia or news article somewhere. All of this two-sided thinking isn't really helping anyone out and only creates a tennis-game of opinions, not based on any facts but feelings. To come back to DCS and EA - the term "Early Access" itself isn't clearly defined anywhere. It seems to be a spectrum where on one end you can have something that is almost feature complete like the F-14 or JF-17 on release and on the other end you have something like the Hornet or Viper that lacks basic functionality and is only released to keep the money flowing in and satisfy all those people who want it NOW. And we all know that in this consumer day and age people will buy anything that is shiny and advertised right, no matter how bad or useless it is. Another issue that arises with that kind of EA is a LOT of negative training where you learn to do a certain thing a certain way because the system is implemented wrongly or is simplified, only to le-learn how the aicraft behaves, feels or said system is supposed to work at a later stage. This, is not ideal. I think everyone uderstands how difficult software development can be and that new bugs pop up almost all the time and deadlines are hard to meet if there are bumps in the road. We all get that. The prime example currently (as of the 25th February 2020) is the Hornet's radar. RWS acts as TWS and locks up targets by itself, TWS AUTO screws with RWS centering and LTWS now actually guides missiles like TWS. Every step forward seems to come with two or three steps back in other areas (again, that can be normal in software development) - but especially in something like an Early Access or "paid beta" where the community is your testing entity, communication should be key. Don't get me wrong, before the Viper, communication regarding the Hornet EA seemed decent, with almost weekly updates and mini-updates. Since the Viper released however, it seemed to have slowed down considerably, most targets have not been met and priorities seem to have shifted to new features rather than fixing the current issues and getting all core systems up to speed. It almost seems like ED have forgot about what they said or planned to do and are now doing something else on another front. So just throwing something vague out there like "feature complete by 2020" only shows to me that they have no clear plan or roadmap (dev. goals) going forward and work on various features as time or resources allow. Does feature complete mean we will have a proper INS, physically correct flight model and radar or does it mean all the boxes on the feature list will be ticked? I dont think anyone is expecting a hardcore simulation of every subsystem the Hornet has to offer - most of the more advanced stuff is more than likely still classified anyway. What people really want is a solid frame that can be built upon and that makes the product enjoyable for standard operation (be it around the boat or an airfield). This is the very thing I started this thread for - base systems that allow for proper daily operation, considering the new carriers are around the corner. We are all in the same boat, we have all paid money and supported ED and believe in their products and skills. I certainly still do. Every opinion and critique is valid as long as it is based on facts and should be taken seriously. We can all agree to disagree on a lot of things as well. All in all I do hope we can find a common ground moving forward as we are all ultimately seeking the same goal of a enjoyable product and a working and stable DCS World.

Awesome stuff, together with the Tomcat and F-8J it will make for a great carrier fleet.

The end state is not even something I was debating or mentioning. I think most would agree that basic, core systems of said aircraft have a much higher priority and new fancy weapon systems can wait for a much longer period of time. I couldn't care less about when the end state actually becomes a thing as long as all the beforementioned major items with core systems are fixed (for example for proper carrier ops). In terms of sources/quotes, someone who follows the Hornet development will know EXACTLY what I mean and where to find those. Nevertheless, here are some examples. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4115882&postcount=176 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4143427&postcount=180 Clearly they seem to have missed most targets.

Thanks for the feedback guys, glad we are all on the same page. I am in no way trying to "bash" ED or let out my frustration about X or Y in any way, I merely want to provide some constructive feedback and have some more clear answers than just "later in EA" or "two Weeks ", given this Early Access phase is already more than a year in and the end is not really in sight. Personally I am someone who values promises and takes them very seriously, out of principle. Don't get me wrong, the Hornet is a tremendous addon and enjoyable as it is, but since I jumped on board the EA phase (roughly a year ago) there have always been promises of ED jumping on the radar modes, ACM modes, flight model tweaks and INS/GPS sooner rather than later. None of that has really been done so far and it's gotten pretty quiet on that front by now. I did also pre-oder the Viper simply to support ED and I am genuinely ok with the Viper in its current state, although it suffers from the same base-code problems that the Hornet does. Namely the ACM modes not working properly and some assets like the 3D pilot being a straight copy and paste from the Hornet. Having followed both projects now it does seem to me like the Viper has been receiving the majority of the attention in terms of systems (It got TWS first, it got proper INS alignment first etc.). From pure outside persepective I'd suggest to maybe focus on finishing the visual aspects of the Viper first, namely finishing the model and base textures, adding several more default liveries (currently we only have one sincee release) and re-modelling the 3d pilot from scratch to properly match the level of detail of 2020 and Air Force equipment. On the Hornet front, systems, flight model and radar should be on the forefront of development, all of which can then be backported to the Viper when finished (assuming they all use the same base code infrastructure). The ACM and AACQ stuff has been broken or performing poorly since the beginning of their implementation, the TGP is missing a ton of basic features and the flight model, especially in drag and ground effect needs some adjustments. And again, communication is key. Let us know what to expect next and what is realistically possible in a short term timeframe rather than just staying quiet and forgetting about the statements and mini-updates with "upcoming" features that date back months.

Boresight and most ACM modes dont work as intended both in the Viper and Hornet. It only lock reliably if you look directly at the target and THEN pull up the boresight mode or vertical scan mode. If you have been in BORE or VS for a while and scan the sky with it, it is very unreliable and sometimes doesn't lock anything at all. Only way is to keep resetting it.

That is a very broad statement and honestly, based on the past development cycles I kind of doubt that can be achievent given the magnitude of both projects. I think I speak for the majority if I say the implementation of new weapon systems for the Hornet isn't a huge concern (such as the SLAM-ER, GBU-24, Mines, Shrike etc.) but the beforementioned basic radar features and systems kind of are. There is just so much that is halfway implemented or doesn't work as intended even though it is checked on the "feature list". This is why I wanted a clarification on what is planned short-term on the Hornet front as the last plans were seemingly swiped under the rug at this point.

Since the end of last year and going into this year there have been numerous statements made by ED saying they will fully focus on finishing up the Hornet's core systems and features such as the long-awaited and still very buggy ACM modes and AACQ radar mode, new TGP functions and slaving methods, AA mode etc. (The TGP has not received ANY new features or improvements since it first got implemented around last summer), the inverse ground effect and various other flight model/performance tweaks, a functional Harpoon anti-ship missile (currently the guidence is entirely wrong and it doesnt do any damage to ships which renders it useless), HARM pre-briefed mode and dynamic JDAM/JSOW launch zones, proper INS/GPS alignment procedures and various other smaller items. Recently ED's COO made a post on reddit stating the Hornet and Viper team is working 50/50 on both at the same time, which contradicts previously made statements that the Viper will not interfere with the Hornet's developmental progress and that both will benefit from eachother, which apart from the new radar gunsight simulation has not been the case so far. My question is what is the current plan going forward, given you have two highly-complex aircraft in development at the same time and both are missing fundamental and basic features, especially the Hornet since it has been out for quite a while now. I'm not even concerned about 50% of the promised/advertised weapon systems still not being implemented but about various bugs and core systems to be finally fixed/implemented. In my opinion there has been way too much talk and not enough walk in regard to this project. An updated short-term and honest roadmap would be highly appreciated, since all of the previous roadmaps published were not fulfilled in their planned timeframe and to me personally there seems to be an open end to the developmental timeframe at this very moment. Feel free to comment, disagree or delete. :smilewink:

The 2.5.6 update feels like a total step back for DCS and should have been tested a LOT more by ED. The new lighting (bloomy HDR effect) looks way worse than 2.5.5. Everyone on the GS server reports massive lag and FPS hits across the board. Let alone that a lot of units and weapon ID's are all messed up as well. ED needs to step up their game or simply revert back to 2.5.5 and go again from there.

Excellent performance in 2.5.5 - unstable and much less FPS in 2.5.6. Please fix it or revert back to 2.5.5 if the new lighting is costing THAT much FPS.

Funny, how the community always has to show ED how it's done. :thumbup: Nice job man.

it's called "buy our new Supercarrier DLC" :P

Regarding the 54, just assume it is pretty much active off the rail and you can break lock/track whenever you want. In reality its guidence and different cases are way more complex and intricate.

Yep, FPS and stuttering are terrible.

Really do hope so, no significant new content (except for NAVGRID) or art fixes almost one year after initial EA release is kind of a bummer.

I wouldn't expect anything in Q1 judging by the way DCS is developing atm.

Well I agree, there are new bugs that pop up with every major DCS update and it does suck and slow everything else down. Just the way it is sadly.