Heatblur Development Update - Thunder & Cat

[Konovalov]

Heatblur have set the benchmark for what an early access module should be. And this update provides a good road map and understanding of what to expect in the coming months. If only other developers followed a similar model and methodology with regards to their products. The future looks bright for Tomcat drivers. :pilotfly::thumbup:

Edited October 13, 2019 by Konovalov
Spelling typo.

[MurderOne]

That's a wonderful update. I truly love the F-14, and feel this module has set the bar. I keep buying things that come out, and some I haven't even stepped into the cockpit...but I'll always fly the Tomcat. Looking forward to the -A, and ya know, thanks HB.

[AG-51_Razor]

I never realized that Grumman had a watch maker on staff!! :megalol:

[Belphe]

Oh, you teased so much but not given us anything this week :cry: :cry: :cry: For some reason I hoped for a few lines in the change log today... :music_whistling:

[Psyph3r]

Excellent Work!

 

You guys are the Best! Keep up the great work! You are the bar. Never give up.. Never surrender!... And while you're at it, get us the F-14D! :lol:

[Airhunter]

You guys are the Best! Keep up the great work! You are the bar. Never give up.. Never surrender!... And while you're at it, get us the F-14D! :lol:

 

Doubt the D will ever happen (or anytime soon). A lot of key systems are classified.

[Psyph3r]

Doubt the D will ever happen (or anytime soon). A lot of key systems are classified.

 

 

I figured ;-) That's why I used this> :lol:

[Jethro11]

Nice update guys, thx.

[Airhunter]

One thing that also came to mind: Will you guys add specific AIM-54A textures for the 14A model, as currently the A's visually show up as C's?

[DBFlyguy]

VERY nice update guys! Thanks so much for keeping your customers informed!!!!

[Eaglewings]

A very clear and well detailed road map with timestamp.

This update reveals an amazing sense of dedication and openess on your part.

I pray for the good and gentle winds to carry you and your team to the heights you have set to take this modules to.

 

Keep up the good work.

[Phantom88]

The navgrid is still on our list, but it is lower priority than the things discussed in this update. It might be done this year still, but not that likely at this point (the year is running out very quickly!). It should be quite useful for bullseye relative navigation (a.k.a. YY in the F-14 -1 NATOPS), but quite a lot of work for a fairly niche benefit.

 

Speaking of the year quickly coming to a close,Can you say if The HB Carrier is still on track for release this year? Thanks

[Captain Spears]

Speaking of the year quickly coming to a close,Can you say if The HB Carrier is still on track for release this year? Thanks

 

 

From the op:

 

Some of the features that will launch in Q4 include;

 

• Forrestal Class Carrier
  

:thumbup:

[Phantom88]

From the op:

 

Some of the features that will launch in Q4 include;

 

• Forrestal Class Carrier
  

:thumbup:

 

:thumbup: Thank You

[Looney]

The navgrid is still on our list, but it is lower priority than the things discussed in this update. It might be done this year still, but not that likely at this point (the year is running out very quickly!). It should be quite useful for bullseye relative navigation (a.k.a. YY in the F-14 -1 NATOPS), but quite a lot of work for a fairly niche benefit.

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

 

The main reason for me to want the NAVGRID implemented is to allow the F-14 better SA during MP events. The people I fly with (not just the 132nd but a lot of other organisations) are set-up in such a way that a bullseye reference is used for all A2A calls. We're routinely conducting flights with up to and over 30 participants, ranging from F18s and F14s providing cover for A10s and KA50s while human JTACs, human AWACS Weapon Directors and human ATC and human REDFOR provide immersion and great fights.

 

The work-around we use now, is to ask the human controller to give BRAA calls to the F14s and even that is somewhat more difficult in the F14 because the Bearing indication on the TID is referenced to own aircraft as opposed to North, meaning some small math is involved to identify the correct group in the BRAA call.

 

With the NAVGRID implemented, A2A with a controller and CAS becomes far more efficient to perform.

 

I'm happy as long as it hasn't been scrapped from the list, we'll hopefully see it eventually.

[Pikey]

The navgrid is still on our list, but it is lower priority than the things discussed in this update. It might be done this year still, but not that likely at this point (the year is running out very quickly!). It should be quite useful for bullseye relative navigation (a.k.a. YY in the F-14 -1 NATOPS), but quite a lot of work for a fairly niche benefit.

 

:(

 

I knew we were weird, just didn't think that multiplayer with a controller was that unusual/niche. Just popping by to say that it seems our group of enthusiasts can't be your main target audience? We object, we want to be! :)

 

In fact I thought controlling was going through a boom in the last three years of DCS. Even core DCS "comms" still gives out Bullseye in a picture update and more and more casual people understand the concept because of the newer airframes having the information available on screen. You can see by how the LotATC Discord members have grown, BlueFlag controlling is so much more mainstream, people are using this and Vatsim to launch careers in the industry in so many virtual flying squadrons of DCS. We count of our 8 contorllers; one military, one trainee military, two civilian and one trainee civilian controllers in our books. That's the same as RIO's in number.

 

We've been trying to slew waypoints around to solve no Bullseye. During an intercept, that's rubbish, slow and unsatisfying. Lack of BRAA at the fingertips is very time consuming. Relative bearings are so ... Navy. I get why they had issues. I'd love to know how the RIO's did it, were they having to subtract their own heading from the offset to provide BRAA backwards and forwards using the nearby compass? Maybe that was 80's air combat, I don't know. Really?

 

"Bogey's turning back into me again, for the third time... presumably to get a compass fix on our location and not pure pursuit because offsets are only a concept arriving in the 90's."

 

Were the words no one ever heard said... (in the intro to the Falcon video about the F-16, they had to use F-14 recordings...)

 

I've got 8 folks flying MP in a new squadron on an established mature wing and our motto is currently, "...when they develop the Navgrid".

 

No one wants to hear:

 

"Magic, Single group, ... eleven and a half o'clock ... , 62 miles, 24000 feet, hostile"

 

And AIC certainly doesn't want to hear;

 

"Magic, Spectre 1-1, declare contact 20 degrees starboard, 62 miles, 24000 feet"

 

How were they doing this? I'm extremely curious.

 

Yes this is a tad ranty, I'm sorry, I'm upset, not just for myself, but for the group of people that DEVOTED their time to learning this module inside and out as their primary focus of DCS. We care. We use your product all the time, for many months and continue to. We object to your strategy and want you to know that we want the Navgrid (amongst other things).

 

I still value the module and my expense on it was justified for what it brought me. It's excellent, my favourite ever. It's just sad that not one developer is immune to cutting corners. I am disappointed to hear that everyone I fly with is regarded as not the target audience and "fairly niche", as much as I am disappointed to hear developer parlance of de-prioritised features 6 months post release. I know what this means, I work in this industry. It means, (amongst other things) there are not enough people really using the F-14B well enough to understand the loss.

 

This is terribly sad because the plane deserves to be brought back to life, not nearly, not in visual fidelity, but completely, so that it can be seen AND USED, as it was.

 

:)

[DD_Fenrir]

:(

 

I knew we were weird, just didn't think that multiplayer with a controller was that unusual/niche. Just popping by to say that it seems our group of enthusiasts can't be your main target audience? We object, we want to be! :)

 

In fact I thought controlling was going through a boom in the last three years of DCS. Even core DCS "comms" still gives out Bullseye in a picture update and more and more casual people understand the concept because of the newer airframes having the information available on screen. You can see by how the LotATC Discord members have grown, BlueFlag controlling is so much more mainstream, people are using this and Vatsim to launch careers in the industry in so many virtual flying squadrons of DCS. We count of our 8 contorllers; one military, one trainee military, two civilian and one trainee civilian controllers in our books. That's the same as RIO's in number.

 

We've been trying to slew waypoints around to solve no Bullseye. During an intercept, that's rubbish, slow and unsatisfying. Lack of BRAA at the fingertips is very time consuming. Relative bearings are so ... Navy. I get why they had issues. I'd love to know how the RIO's did it, were they having to subtract their own heading from the offset to provide BRAA backwards and forwards using the nearby compass? Maybe that was 80's air combat, I don't know. Really?

 

"Bogey's turning back into me again, for the third time... presumably to get a compass fix on our location and not pure pursuit because offsets are only a concept arriving in the 90's."

 

Were the words no one ever heard said... (in the intro to the Falcon video about the F-16, they had to use F-14 recordings...)

 

I've got 8 folks flying MP in a new squadron on an established mature wing and our motto is currently, "...when they develop the Navgrid".

 

No one wants to hear:

 

"Magic, Single group, ... eleven and a half o'clock ... , 62 miles, 24000 feet, hostile"

 

And AIC certainly doesn't want to hear;

 

"Magic, Spectre 1-1, declare contact 20 degrees starboard, 62 miles, 24000 feet"

 

How were they doing this? I'm extremely curious.

 

Yes this is a tad ranty, I'm sorry, I'm upset, not just for myself, but for the group of people that DEVOTED their time to learning this module inside and out as their primary focus of DCS. We care. We use your product all the time, for many months and continue to. We object to your strategy and want you to know that we want the Navgrid (amongst other things).

 

I still value the module and my expense on it was justified for what it brought me. It's excellent, my favourite ever. It's just sad that not one developer is immune to cutting corners. I am disappointed to hear that everyone I fly with is regarded as not the target audience and "fairly niche", as much as I am disappointed to hear developer parlance of de-prioritised features 6 months post release. I know what this means, I work in this industry. It means, (amongst other things) there are not enough people really using the F-14B well enough to understand the loss.

 

This is terribly sad because the plane deserves to be brought back to life, not nearly, not in visual fidelity, but completely, so that it can be seen AND USED, as it was.

 

:)

 

Anybody would think after that rant that Heatblur had nixed Navgrid completely; may I remind you that they said "not this year" i.e before Jan, i.e. not in the next 3 months.

 

Get a grip man. You make it sound like it's some devastating handicap when systems to alert, notify, sort and engage bandits are in place and quite functional - maybe not to the prototypicalism you demand but they are there and do the job effectively.

 

You and your flyers are not the centre of the DCS universe. Your interest is niche in an already niche arena; the prioritised fixes will benefit gameplay for a wider range of F-14 users - not just a hardcore few.

[Airhunter]

I dunno man, I find BRAA calls BVR and O'clock high/low calls WVR pretty damn helpful to paint a mental picture.

[draconus]

I dunno man, I find BRAA calls BVR and O'clock high/low calls WVR pretty damn helpful to paint a mental picture.

 

Uhm, yeah they are but the discussion is on BullsEye calls.

[Fercyful]

Can't wait for the Iceman AI orbit option!

 

Also can be great a option "fly to WP#" or something like that :)

 

and.... my dreamed option "refuel the plane" So I can sit back there and watch the show (yes, lazy)

 

:pilotfly:

[RPY Variable]

Great news but...

 

"While we understand that some of you have become reliant on this modification; we are sticking to our design principles of handling all RIO functionality through JESTER or through multicrew."

 

It would be fair if you do this after making it possible to change from pilot to RIO in multiplayer.

 

The other thing that concerns me because it has not been mention, which is a very important, if not the most important bug right now is the phoenix making 90 degree turns and back to 0 and 90 again, kind oscillation when engaging in active mode after a TWS plus 30miles launch. This makes long shots almost impossible. The missile loses all the energy in less than 2 seconds. I doubt that a missile design for long-range has so poor energy management. Please fix that.

 

Another thing that is an ED bug, but they don't care much (maybe you could put a little more pressure on them) is the GBU-24 that doesn't work (at least since the F-14 launch). This would be the most lethal weapon of the F-14 if it worked, because of its 14 miles standoff range.

 

Love the aircraft.

Cheers.

Edited October 18, 2019 by mikel.132

[Airhunter]

 

Another thing that is an ED bug, but they don't care much (maybe you could put a little more pressure on them) is the GBU-24 that doesn't work (at least since the F-14 launch). This would be the most lethal weapon of the F-14 if it worked, because of its 14 miles standoff range.

 

Love the aircraft.

Cheers.

 

I have been nagging ED about the GBU-24 for quite some time now, after all it's on the planned weapons list for the Hornet, Viper, Mirage and Tomcat. I guess they find the Walleye more important than one of the most used LGB's...

 

Regarding the Phoenix pulling crazy turns, that is simply due to DCS core missile guidence. They rarely do that though and I had no problems getting 30+ nm kills in the cat. Happens with other missiles as well.

[IronMike]

:(

 

I knew we were weird, just didn't think that multiplayer with a controller was that unusual/niche. Just popping by to say that it seems our group of enthusiasts can't be your main target audience? We object, we want to be! :)

 

In fact I thought controlling was going through a boom in the last three years of DCS. Even core DCS "comms" still gives out Bullseye in a picture update and more and more casual people understand the concept because of the newer airframes having the information available on screen. You can see by how the LotATC Discord members have grown, BlueFlag controlling is so much more mainstream, people are using this and Vatsim to launch careers in the industry in so many virtual flying squadrons of DCS. We count of our 8 contorllers; one military, one trainee military, two civilian and one trainee civilian controllers in our books. That's the same as RIO's in number.

 

We've been trying to slew waypoints around to solve no Bullseye. During an intercept, that's rubbish, slow and unsatisfying. Lack of BRAA at the fingertips is very time consuming. Relative bearings are so ... Navy. I get why they had issues. I'd love to know how the RIO's did it, were they having to subtract their own heading from the offset to provide BRAA backwards and forwards using the nearby compass? Maybe that was 80's air combat, I don't know. Really?

 

"Bogey's turning back into me again, for the third time... presumably to get a compass fix on our location and not pure pursuit because offsets are only a concept arriving in the 90's."

 

Were the words no one ever heard said... (in the intro to the Falcon video about the F-16, they had to use F-14 recordings...)

 

I've got 8 folks flying MP in a new squadron on an established mature wing and our motto is currently, "...when they develop the Navgrid".

 

No one wants to hear:

 

"Magic, Single group, ... eleven and a half o'clock ... , 62 miles, 24000 feet, hostile"

 

And AIC certainly doesn't want to hear;

 

"Magic, Spectre 1-1, declare contact 20 degrees starboard, 62 miles, 24000 feet"

 

How were they doing this? I'm extremely curious.

 

Yes this is a tad ranty, I'm sorry, I'm upset, not just for myself, but for the group of people that DEVOTED their time to learning this module inside and out as their primary focus of DCS. We care. We use your product all the time, for many months and continue to. We object to your strategy and want you to know that we want the Navgrid (amongst other things).

 

I still value the module and my expense on it was justified for what it brought me. It's excellent, my favourite ever. It's just sad that not one developer is immune to cutting corners. I am disappointed to hear that everyone I fly with is regarded as not the target audience and "fairly niche", as much as I am disappointed to hear developer parlance of de-prioritised features 6 months post release. I know what this means, I work in this industry. It means, (amongst other things) there are not enough people really using the F-14B well enough to understand the loss.

 

This is terribly sad because the plane deserves to be brought back to life, not nearly, not in visual fidelity, but completely, so that it can be seen AND USED, as it was.

 

:)

 

 

Hey Pikey, first of all, thank you very much for your input, it is really appreciated. But, just to get a couple things straight, cause I feel there might be some misunderstanding at hand: we did not de-prioritize anything. Lower priority, still means it is on the priority list. It means de facto, it is still priority. But we have to be able to react as well, and develop along a set out lines that make the best sence for us, both time wise and also in terms of evolving one technology far enough to build another on top of it, simplier put.

 

We're not paddling back on any promised features, and we are not cutting corners. It's simply a matter of when do we have best time for what.

 

And, another thing is: you are not niche for us, no one is. Those who seek full realism were always targeted primarily, as a realistic as possible module covers usually most wishes within a community. I hope that makes sense. Thank you for your kind patience.

Edited October 18, 2019 by IronMike

[lunaticfringe]

*reads kvetching over NAVGRID*

 

*laughs knowing the origin reference was normally referencing the boat's course and not the ATO bullseye*

 

If it's used normally, you're still going to have to regularly perform conversions.

[gyrovague]

:(

 

I knew we were weird, just didn't think that multiplayer with a controller was that unusual/niche. Just popping by to say that it seems our group of enthusiasts can't be your main target audience? We object, we want to be! :)

 

In fact I thought controlling was going through a boom in the last three years of DCS. Even core DCS "comms" still gives out Bullseye in a picture update and more and more casual people understand the concept because of the newer airframes having the information available on screen. You can see by how the LotATC Discord members have grown, BlueFlag controlling is so much more mainstream, people are using this and Vatsim to launch careers in the industry in so many virtual flying squadrons of DCS. We count of our 8 contorllers; one military, one trainee military, two civilian and one trainee civilian controllers in our books. That's the same as RIO's in number.

 

We've been trying to slew waypoints around to solve no Bullseye. During an intercept, that's rubbish, slow and unsatisfying. Lack of BRAA at the fingertips is very time consuming. Relative bearings are so ... Navy. I get why they had issues. I'd love to know how the RIO's did it, were they having to subtract their own heading from the offset to provide BRAA backwards and forwards using the nearby compass? Maybe that was 80's air combat, I don't know. Really?

 

"Bogey's turning back into me again, for the third time... presumably to get a compass fix on our location and not pure pursuit because offsets are only a concept arriving in the 90's."

 

Were the words no one ever heard said... (in the intro to the Falcon video about the F-16, they had to use F-14 recordings...)

 

I've got 8 folks flying MP in a new squadron on an established mature wing and our motto is currently, "...when they develop the Navgrid".

 

No one wants to hear:

 

"Magic, Single group, ... eleven and a half o'clock ... , 62 miles, 24000 feet, hostile"

 

And AIC certainly doesn't want to hear;

 

"Magic, Spectre 1-1, declare contact 20 degrees starboard, 62 miles, 24000 feet"

 

How were they doing this? I'm extremely curious.

 

Yes this is a tad ranty, I'm sorry, I'm upset, not just for myself, but for the group of people that DEVOTED their time to learning this module inside and out as their primary focus of DCS. We care. We use your product all the time, for many months and continue to. We object to your strategy and want you to know that we want the Navgrid (amongst other things).

 

I still value the module and my expense on it was justified for what it brought me. It's excellent, my favourite ever. It's just sad that not one developer is immune to cutting corners. I am disappointed to hear that everyone I fly with is regarded as not the target audience and "fairly niche", as much as I am disappointed to hear developer parlance of de-prioritised features 6 months post release. I know what this means, I work in this industry. It means, (amongst other things) there are not enough people really using the F-14B well enough to understand the loss.

 

This is terribly sad because the plane deserves to be brought back to life, not nearly, not in visual fidelity, but completely, so that it can be seen AND USED, as it was.

 

:)

 

Thanks for the detailed post! I'll take this into consideration and bump up the priority. I haven't heard any passionate pleas for this feature prior to yours :), I've heard of more people that want the AVIA page for instance (which is also a lot easier to add). Maybe there will still be time for it this year, but no promises. One option might be to implement it initially without the TID cursor offset, this will make it much easier I think. This will allow the relative position readouts (w.r.t. YY/bullseye) to function, just not allow the "map" to be "panned" essentially.