Hornet Roadmap Discussion

[Martin2487]

I do not fully understand why TALD is included until 2021. What's so difficult about that? It is implemented in DCS on F-14. If I look into NATOPS, the avionics of the TALD aircraft evaluates as a bomb (AUTO, CCIP). TALD is very useful in advanced scenarios. If they decided to finish Harpoon this year, TALD would be a great addition. Very useful for ship saturation. The hornet can carry 6 TALDs.

 

I tried to load TALD on the plane by editing the lua file. But avionics does not register him and does not allow him to be discarded. I saw funny videos of some people hanging various weapons (Russian cannon containers, SCUD) on the Hornet and being able to launch / drop them. Does anyone have any advice on how to do this?

[Wizard_03]

I don't think anyone wants more BITs implemented before the HSI gets its full functionality or before the Radar and INS are fully completed. It's more a question of actually having them implemented before the Hornet is considered finished.

 

 

I want the BITs necessary for a proper cold start per the RL procedures completed. Right now we are missing the FUEL Bit and its page and JHMCS Alignment mode off the top of my head.

 

The other "problem" is the IBITs that show up on a cold start after pressing AUTO on the bit page show most of all the systems as failed. Probably because the respective systems are either not complete or missing altogether. In reality you wouldn't want to see any failed IBITs on the BIT page, before launch or TO..or at least not with systems like weapons or sensors.

 

 

 

I'd like to see all that taken care of at some, point. Not at the expense of the things you mentioned however, just at some point.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Wizard_03

[Wizard_03]

I do not fully understand why TALD is included until 2021. What's so difficult about that? It is implemented in DCS on F-14. If I look into NATOPS, the avionics of the TALD aircraft evaluates as a bomb (AUTO, CCIP). TALD is very useful in advanced scenarios. If they decided to finish Harpoon this year, TALD would be a great addition. Very useful for ship saturation. The hornet can carry 6 TALDs.

 

I tried to load TALD on the plane by editing the lua file. But avionics does not register him and does not allow him to be discarded. I saw funny videos of some people hanging various weapons (Russian cannon containers, SCUD) on the Hornet and being able to launch / drop them. Does anyone have any advice on how to do this?

 

 

I think the one we are going to get is a fully programmable decoy that will fly a flight plan with waypoints and dispense countermeasures.

 

 

 

The one for the tomcat is just big brick right now.

[Martin2487]

I think the one we are going to get is a fully programmable decoy that will fly a flight plan with waypoints and dispense countermeasures.

 

 

 

The one for the tomcat is just big brick right now.

 

The version I was talking about and which the F-14 has is the ADM-141 TALD. It's basically a glider with a big RCS. This version is also capable of carrying the F / A-18. They did not tell us what other versions of TALD they want to implement. But the ADM-141A, which has an F-14 in the DCS, would suffice for now. Therefore, I do not understand why we have to wait until next year for such a simple thing that also works in the game (ADM-141A TALD).

[Silver_Dragon]

I do not fully understand why TALD is included until 2021. What's so difficult about that? It is implemented in DCS on F-14. If I look into NATOPS, the avionics of the TALD aircraft evaluates as a bomb (AUTO, CCIP). TALD is very useful in advanced scenarios. If they decided to finish Harpoon this year, TALD would be a great addition. Very useful for ship saturation. The hornet can carry 6 TALDs.

 

I tried to load TALD on the plane by editing the lua file. But avionics does not register him and does not allow him to be discarded. I saw funny videos of some people hanging various weapons (Russian cannon containers, SCUD) on the Hornet and being able to launch / drop them. Does anyone have any advice on how to do this?

 

TALDs has not a simple script. The weapons require a "Scheme" and other files contained on DCS Core files to work. HB has build own propper "scheme" and files into F-14 directory to work on your modules, not into other DCS files.

 

ED has building weapons and systems with capabilities to use on DCS core, ED modules, Moding and others 3rd party modules. Has some examples as the JF-17 ground radar module using ED ground radar API incoming on F/A-18C, the AI Deka 093 sub with torpedos using WW2 Type VII / S-150 torpedo files or the future SRBM / INS guiadance to use balistic missiles on Scud, and surely, more can coming.

[jeffham222]

Mines coming to DCS, and not only parts to Hornet module, has DCS features and come to stay as torpedoes. The naval environment has improving with more and more enemies and situations and that require "denay area" weapons. About Us and foreing use of mines, has very interesting sceneries to denay.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25235/the-u-s-is-getting-back-into-naval-mine-warfare-with-new-sub-launched-and-air-dropped-types

 

Meanwhile the "hornet not delivery mines"

https://news.usni.org/2018/09/24/36763

 

 

 

BDU-45 has part of other modules as A-10C and other BDU are present as 33, 50HD, LD, LGB. We erase them? ED member claim to build more Capture / training weapons as CAIM-9, -88, -120 to improve and make realistic training.

 

Fair enough--and thanks for the feedback.

 

If BDU-45 is already in the A-10, then I honestly don't understand why it is taking so long to get it into Hornet--again, not that I understand what it takes coding-wise to get it in the sim.

 

Travel pods? Blivits? Come on... no, don't waste time with those or ALQ-167's.

 

NAVFLIRS WERE used on C's before, but not this modeled lot, too much if at all.

 

Are there plans to develop AN/AAS-38, -38A or -38B FLIR pods? This would make much more sense than Walleye ever did--and maybe more than TALDs. For the EOIR fans who want a goal of total accuracy, this is something I'd think they'd be clamoring for even if the -38(x) is old.

 

Funny no mention of LDT/SCAM pods yet. JK, don't waste your time on these either.

 

This can get ridiculous, as Black Hawk 76 either purposefully or inadvertently pointed out.

 

Though I can appreciate it for what it is, I think a lot of my fellow virtual Hornet pilots here have some pretty dang high unreasonable expectations that honestly put a lot of undue pressure on the Devs. And that doesn't mean I want an arcade game, either. It's just, c'mon, man, we're not going to get everything and as has been pointed out, let's get the FM, RADAR, and ATFLIR (several basic functions of the jet) before we geek out on other "extra" stuff.

 

Keep at it, guys! We do appreciate it!

[Phantom_Mark]

If we can have more than 1 hitpoint on the damage model for the F18 I would be in Nirvana :D I got my wing sawn off by a couple of rounds of 12.6mm (or similar) recently lol, feels very very fragile atm :)

[Notso]

Not sure this is exactly relevant here, but better communications would be great and add more immersion - ATC, wingmen etc. And it would benefit all DCS models, not just the Hornet.

 

Yep, I find the AI comms - AWACS, ATC, wingmen, etc to be immersive killing.

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all

 

Just a reminder to keep to the topic of the thread which is the hornet road map discussion.

 

Bug reports and features requests should be done elsewhere.

 

thank you

[Notso]

I want the BITs necessary for a proper cold start per the RL procedures completed. Right now we are missing the FUEL Bit and its page and JHMCS Alignment mode off the top of my head.

 

The other "problem" is the IBITs that show up on a cold start after pressing AUTO on the bit page show most of all the systems as failed. Probably because the respective systems are either not complete or missing altogether. In reality you wouldn't want to see any failed IBITs on the BIT page, before launch or TO..or at least not with systems like weapons or sensors.

 

 

 

I'd like to see all that taken care of at some, point. Not at the expense of the things you mentioned however, just at some point.

 

Agree. Furthermore, for the folks who say they want the BITs and the INS alignment time and all the other ancillary stuff to be as 100% accurate as possible - I would submit then that they also take the good with the bad for true realism. For instance, I would propose that one of the requirements of the game to be able to fly in any campaign (SP or MP) would be to pass a NATOPS EP and mission checkride. So that during start up, what are you going to do if you get an AMAD or engine fire? If you fail to take the corrective actions properly, then you fail and don't move on. It might even kill you if you don't recognize it. It might even set adjacent aircraft on the carrier deck on fire and then the entire strike package doesn't launch that night. Or you might get a random bird strike down an intake. Or the radar takes a dump pre-FEBA and you have to abort and come home. What if one gear is giving an unsafe indication on landing. What if you have a hung unsecure MK-84? What are you going to do?

 

This is as real as it gets. So not also simulating this stuff means you are not getting everything the real jet has to offer. Maybe you kill yourself trying to land an unsafe jet and you have to start your entire player career all over.

 

I'm all for having BITs and have no issue for the guys who want to run them to see the pretty lights and hear Betty's seductive voice and have the option to skip if we want also. But I would submit for those of you clamoring for the "Perfect" simulation - I would say that beast doesn't exist. Even in $50M full motion domed military combat simulators. Even they have flaws that don't replicate the jet exactly the same way. So to expect an $80 software package to be at that level of fidelity is just silly. I would also say that there are only a very handful of people who really do want it to the level of detail where it replicates the jet. Because REAL jets break, stuff doesn't work and it's a PITA to get them to fly. As Jeffham correctly points out, there's a reason there is an entire cadre of troubleshooters, MX techs, etc on hand for every launch to respond to Redballs and such when stuff breaks. And that often means you are late to takeoff, sometimes there are no spare jets available and sometimes you abort and come home before getting to the target. I would just say be careful what you ask for. If you're not willing to take the good with the bad and accept these sorts of "mission and/or pilot killing" sometimes daily occurances, then you are lying when you say you want a 100% perfectly accurate sim.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Notso

[jeffham222]

Agree. Furthermore, for the folks who say they want the BITs and the INS alignment time and all the other ancillary stuff to be as 100% accurate as possible - I would submit then that they also take the good with the bad for true realism. For instance, I would propose that one of the requirements of the game to be able to fly in any campaign (SP or MP) would be to pass a NATOPS EP and mission checkride. So that during start up, what are you going to do if you get an AMAD or engine fire? If you fail to take the corrective actions properly, then you fail and don't move on. It might even kill you if you don't recognize it. It might even set adjacent aircraft on the carrier deck on fire and then the entire strike package doesn't launch that night. Or you might get a random bird strike down an intake. Or the radar takes a dump pre-FEBA and you have to abort and come home. What if one gear is giving an unsafe indication on landing. What if you have a hung unsecure MK-84? What are you going to do?

 

This is as real as it gets. So not also simulating this stuff means you are not getting everything the real jet has to offer. Maybe you kill yourself trying to land an unsafe jet and you have to start your entire player career all over.

 

I'm all for having BITs and have no issue for the guys who want to run them to see the pretty lights and hear Betty's seductive voice and have the option to skip if we want also. But I would submit for those of you clamoring for the "Perfect" simulation - I would say that beast doesn't exist. Even in $50M full motion domed military combat simulators. Even they have flaws that don't replicate the jet exactly the same way. So to expect an $80 software package to be at that level of fidelity is just silly. I would also say that there are only a very handful of people who really do want it to the level of detail where it replicates the jet. Because REAL jets break, stuff doesn't work and it's a PITA to get them to fly. As Jeffham correctly points out, there's a reason there is an entire cadre of troubleshooters, MX techs, etc on hand for every launch to respond to Redballs and such when stuff breaks. And that often means you are late to takeoff, sometimes there are no spare jets available and sometimes you abort and come home before getting to the target. I would just say be careful what you ask for. If you're not willing to take the good with the bad and accept these sorts of "mission and/or pilot killing" sometimes daily occurances, then you are lying when you say you want a 100% perfectly accurate sim.

 

Troof. Total bromance starting here... Lol...

[Svsmokey]

Have to agree . I think some are taking the fact that they are NOT irl fighter pilots far too seriously . Walter Mitty on steroids .

[randomTOTEN]

Is this the first mouse interactive DCS module for some of you guys?

You talk about BIT's and ancillary functions like they're not a standard in DCS. They are.

 

I think a lot of my fellow virtual Hornet pilots here have some pretty dang high unreasonable expectations...It's just, c'mon, man, we're not going to get everything

This would be a good thread to discuss those expectations with the developers, considering it is their own list of weapons and features that is the standard used for tracking Hornet development progress. We can discuss what's on, or not on, the list. Or perhaps how the list should be changed, and what is completed on that list, and what needs to be done.

But how can you declare that it's unreasonable to expect items which the developers have intended to include in the first place?

 

Considering BIT's and other Tests:

Damn near every module lets you perform a lights and FIREDET test at the bare minimum.

 

You've had to wait for INS alignment in the A-10C for 9 years. Ka-50 has it, so does the free, base Su-25T.

There are maintenance and configuration pages available in the A-10C since forever. Ka-50 had ABRIS options pages, you can deselect individual GPS satellites if you want to.. for years.

Ka-50 lets you test individual instruments, the engines for overspeed and EEC failure.

F-16C has had a way to test the fuel indications since day 1 of early access. And fire, and lights, secondary engine control, it even has a functioning EPU.

There are various test and controls littered all over the cockpit of the Mi-8MTV2. Lights, alerts, fire detection, altimeters, engine management, gyro alignment, hydraulics tests.. etc.

You can run a fire, fuel, light, and radio altimeter check on the UH-1H too. Even the squelch and test functions of the radios work.

The MiG-21Bis has a functioning radar BIT.

Most of the Tomcat startup involves running BIT's, tests, and aligning the INS from my short experimentation with it.

 

Why should the Hornet be any exception? A lot of this stuff gives these modules character. Yes I agree priorities could be adjusted to more critical systems and features, but this is the standard that DCS holds itself to, and one of the aspects which makes it so fantastic.

 

You can call it "pretty dang high unreasonable expectations" if you've never touched another module in DCS I guess...

 

I don't see how someone wanting to do BITs isn't annoyed by a half done HSI.

You don't need to strawman the position here. I'm not "annoyed," I fully understand that this module is still in deep development. It will all come with time, and it will all be fantastic when it gets here.:thumbup:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Agree. Furthermore, for the folks who say they want the BITs and the INS alignment time and all the other ancillary stuff to be as 100% accurate as possible - I would submit then that they also take the good with the bad for true realism. For instance, I would propose that one of the requirements of the game to be able to fly in any campaign (SP or MP) would be to pass a NATOPS EP and mission checkride....

 

 

You're conflating an aircraft simulator with an USN officer simulator. The objective of DCS is to simulate the vehicles as faithfully as possible, not tell you how to use them.

[Wizard_03]

Agree. Furthermore, for the folks who say they want the BITs and the INS alignment time and all the other ancillary stuff to be as 100% accurate as possible - I would submit then that they also take the good with the bad for true realism. For instance, I would propose that one of the requirements of the game to be able to fly in any campaign (SP or MP) would be to pass a NATOPS EP and mission checkride. So that during start up, what are you going to do if you get an AMAD or engine fire? If you fail to take the corrective actions properly, then you fail and don't move on. It might even kill you if you don't recognize it. It might even set adjacent aircraft on the carrier deck on fire and then the entire strike package doesn't launch that night. Or you might get a random bird strike down an intake. Or the radar takes a dump pre-FEBA and you have to abort and come home. What if one gear is giving an unsafe indication on landing. What if you have a hung unsecure MK-84? What are you going to do?

 

This is as real as it gets. So not also simulating this stuff means you are not getting everything the real jet has to offer. Maybe you kill yourself trying to land an unsafe jet and you have to start your entire player career all over.

 

I'm all for having BITs and have no issue for the guys who want to run them to see the pretty lights and hear Betty's seductive voice and have the option to skip if we want also. But I would submit for those of you clamoring for the "Perfect" simulation - I would say that beast doesn't exist. Even in $50M full motion domed military combat simulators. Even they have flaws that don't replicate the jet exactly the same way. So to expect an $80 software package to be at that level of fidelity is just silly. I would also say that there are only a very handful of people who really do want it to the level of detail where it replicates the jet. Because REAL jets break, stuff doesn't work and it's a PITA to get them to fly. As Jeffham correctly points out, there's a reason there is an entire cadre of troubleshooters, MX techs, etc on hand for every launch to respond to Redballs and such when stuff breaks. And that often means you are late to takeoff, sometimes there are no spare jets available and sometimes you abort and come home before getting to the target. I would just say be careful what you ask for. If you're not willing to take the good with the bad and accept these sorts of "mission and/or pilot killing" sometimes daily occurances, then you are lying when you say you want a 100% perfectly accurate sim.

 

Agreed, the BITs are also important when the aircraft sustains damage. I personally do not just end the mission when I take a hit. But one day when we have proper a damage model to go with it. We can put the stripped section that comprises half the manual to use. Right now it’s a lot of cowboy seat of your pants flying, without many of the consequences that go with that, and while that’s certainly is fun its not really representative of what it’s actually like flying around a multimillion dollar vehicle. Which I think is the whole point playing this game vs something like Ace combat or war thunder.

 

And when we have dynamic campaigns it certainly seems possible to build in the reality of down aircraft and aborted missions/ground accidents or other events that directly influence mission execution and readiness states, without it being too absurd from a gameplay perspective. So while of course 100 percent is certainly out of question, I think it’s in the realm of possibility to get reasonably close in sim we have.

 

But like I said earlier I think most people would agree, the “functional” aspects like sensors, flight modeling, weapons, and navigation definitely need to come first. Then afterwards the nitty gritty bonus points stuff like BITs and Degraded modes.

 

*Edit* Which is why I’m happy ED asked for our input on what next. :)

Edited April 26, 2020 by Wizard_03

[jeffham222]

"Agreed, the BITs are also important when the aircraft sustains damage."

 

When you lose a flight control surface, or it has holes, or a computer has a round or shrapnel through it, a BIT isn't gonna do anything, bruh.

[KlarSnow]

As said unless they start throwing random failures into stuff, IE your radar just decides to stop working, this set of flight controls has a fault for whatever reason, constant bit checks arent really a part of combat flying, and are mostly ignored... When battle damage occurs you are more concerned with the meat and potatoes of flying the jet away, BIT's and what failed and didn't are like the last thing on your mind... If you can even access the bit page to begin with.

 

Last NATOPS Check I did he gave us a "battle damage" setting, it completely blanked ALL of our displays and shut one of our engines down. there was zero bit checking, just running over ok, with one engine down we have these systems and these ones are gone, do your best to fly on the standby and lets get on the ground...

Edited April 26, 2020 by KlarSnow

[Jester2138]

99.9% of the time, the BIT's there to make sure you're good to takeoff. I'm not aware of anybody simulating jets with broken parts before takeoff so BITs in DCS are entirely pointless IMO outside of just thinking it's cool they're there.

 

It's like pouring development into making sure the ladder-climbing mechanic to get into the jet is super realistic. Neat, I guess, and can serve as a bragging point WRT other sims, but entirely pointless to the actually simulation and gameplay involved and a waste of development resources while more important things (basically everything else) still aren't done.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

99.9% of the time, the BIT's there to make sure you're good to takeoff. I'm not aware of anybody simulating jets with broken parts before takeoff so BITs in DCS are entirely pointless IMO outside of just thinking it's cool they're there.

 

It's like pouring development into making sure the ladder-climbing mechanic to get into the jet is super realistic. Neat, I guess, and can serve as a bragging point WRT other sims, but entirely pointless to the actually simulation and gameplay involved and a waste of development resources while more important things (basically everything else) still aren't done.

 

Maybe long term we'll have persistent aircraft between missions; that would make doing checks/BIT etc worthwhile.

 

Features that aren't well developed or have limited utility now may do in future. You've got to start somewhere, so I think there's value in introducing basic functionality now. I would agree it's a backburner item though.

[fmedges]

99.9% of the time, the BIT's there to make sure you're good to takeoff. I'm not aware of anybody simulating jets with broken parts before takeoff so BITs in DCS are entirely pointless IMO outside of just thinking it's cool they're there.

 

It's like pouring development into making sure the ladder-climbing mechanic to get into the jet is super realistic. Neat, I guess, and can serve as a bragging point WRT other sims, but entirely pointless to the actually simulation and gameplay involved and a waste of development resources while more important things (basically everything else) still aren't done.

 

You’re thinking of a bit as far as an actual test being run, but not from a game software point of view. Adding the functionality to query if something is broken or not is not as complex as a real bit test it’s an abstraction.

[Radial9]

I lived in a small Alaskan community for over 30 years. You could always tell when February had arrived (besides it being -30 outside) by reading the editorial pages of the local newspaper. People get a bit “snarky” about then. Cabin fever is indeed a reality. There are A LOT of armchair pilots here that have been “holed up” way too long…. Hit the off button. Go outside, get some fresh air. Spend some quality time with people you love and tell them why they are important to you.

 

I sit in my “pit seat” with my F18C and all the high tech toys (TM WH, TrackIR etc.) surrounding the seat with my headset on and crash after crash after crash…. Get up, dust myself off and hit “replay”. Again and again. I have a notepad next to my HOTAS filled with “X’s”, one for each hour of hi tech burning balls of fire. There are times while learning to fly and learn the F18 I truly am awe struck by the breathtaking technology I’m using and am simply in XXXXXXXX amazement.

 

For the money I have given ED I have been repaid beyond measure for what I have been given entertainment wise in return. Value at the cutting edge highest level. Simply unbelievable technology.

 

Having said all that…

 

I spent most of my life in mid management of a Fortune 500 company. Goodwill is something that once lost, is seldom, if ever, regained. Building breathtaking entertainment technology and maintaining customer loyalty and trust are two separate, and more importantly separately managed, tasks.

 

You haven’t, but if ED were to ask me what to do if I were KING, I would tell them to get ALL senior management and owners in on the same conversation, for whatever time it takes, and lay out a detailed prioritized roadmap, in order, of what you’re going to release for the F18, and when, and why, in chronological order.

 

If it were my sandbox I would suspend ALL work on other modern jets and focus on completing the F18 and the Supercarrier. Doing so will gain you goodwill beyond your expectations. You have a serious company image issue here and I believe you realize that by now. First the Supercarrier MP issue, now a pandemic caused priority EA definition undertasking issue. One of my favorite sayings: “Leaders Lead”. Cold, but true. Once you lay it out. STICK TO IT, come hell or high water. People are VERY forgiving if your honest, reasonable and transparent. You have an amazing product.

 

I was going to close by making a passing comment generalizing the character of many of the posts in this thread, and yes I read them all, as being somewhat akin to over privileged snowflakes or something along those lines, but I will catch myself and not be so judgmental.

There are some very SERIOUS issues in our society and the world today folks, and this is simply not one of them.

 

My completely unsolicited opinion. Cheers.

[fmedges]

I lived in a small Alaskan community for over 30 years. You could always tell when February had arrived (besides it being -30 outside) by reading the editorial pages of the local newspaper. People get a bit “snarky” about then. Cabin fever is indeed a reality. There are A LOT of armchair pilots here that have been “holed up” way too long…. Hit the off button. Go outside, get some fresh air. Spend some quality time with people you love and tell them why they are important to you.

 

I sit in my “pit seat” with my F18C and all the high tech toys (TM WH, TrackIR etc.) surrounding the seat with my headset on and crash after crash after crash…. Get up, dust myself off and hit “replay”. Again and again. I have a notepad next to my HOTAS filled with “X’s”, one for each hour of hi tech burning balls of fire. There are times while learning to fly and learn the F18 I truly am awe struck by the breathtaking technology I’m using and am simply in XXXXXXXX amazement.

 

For the money I have given ED I have been repaid beyond measure for what I have been given entertainment wise in return. Value at the cutting edge highest level. Simply unbelievable technology.

 

Having said all that…

 

I spent most of my life in mid management of a Fortune 500 company. Goodwill is something that once lost, is seldom, if ever, regained. Building breathtaking entertainment technology and maintaining customer loyalty and trust are two separate, and more importantly separately managed, tasks.

 

You haven’t, but if ED were to ask me what to do if I were KING, I would tell them to get ALL senior management and owners in on the same conversation, for whatever time it takes, and lay out a detailed prioritized roadmap, in order, of what you’re going to release for the F18, and when, and why, in chronological order.

 

If it were my sandbox I would suspend ALL work on other modern jets and focus on completing the F18 and the Supercarrier. Doing so will gain you goodwill beyond your expectations. You have a serious company image issue here and I believe you realize that by now. First the Supercarrier MP issue, now a pandemic caused priority EA definition undertasking issue. One of my favorite sayings: “Leaders Lead”. Cold, but true. Once you lay it out. STICK TO IT, come hell or high water. People are VERY forgiving if your honest, reasonable and transparent. You have an amazing product.

 

I was going to close by making a passing comment generalizing the character of many of the posts in this thread, and yes I read them all, as being somewhat akin to over privileged snowflakes or something along those lines, but I will catch myself and not be so judgmental.

There are some very SERIOUS issues in our society and the world today folks, and this is simply not one of them.

 

My completely unsolicited opinion. Cheers.

 

You had me until the last paragraph. All of your good points are wiped out my generalizing people that you don’t know.

[jeffham222]

Maybe long term we'll have persistent aircraft between missions; that would make doing checks/BIT etc worthwhile.

 

Features that aren't well developed or have limited utility now may do in future. You've got to start somewhere, so I think there's value in introducing basic functionality now. I would agree it's a backburner item though.

 

I DO "fly" the same "aircraft" all the time! Lol...

 

I hear what you are saying and understand what you are getting at, but again, let's look at another example of the persistent aircraft concept **EDIT--and I'm not getting after you, Squirrel!**--

 

Mission 1--MC1 fail. Mad busted. Don't work.

 

Mission 2--Oh, there is no Mission 2 because you have a bad MC1. SO let's get into that, shall we?

 

In short, there are so many moving parts involved with this issue it would be impossible to be effectively and realistically modeled.

 

I mean, even when you select the "repair" option on deck, we still don't have aircraft jack stands, ground support equipment or personnel modeled and showing up to do the required repairs. The jet floats in the air--which I'm not complaining about, this gives the user the impression heavy "phase-type maintenance" is being done and that is fine.

 

IRL, An MC1 swap can be done in 2-3 minutes and on the launch in some places, other places it could take longer because of all the moving parts involved with this, wanting to go step by step as per the maintenance publications, not to mention ability of techs and other issues that could go wrong...

 

This is probably one of the simplest things that could go wrong and it would darn near impossible to fully model, not to mention totally F&^%ing boring to anyone who doesn't do this for a living because most don't understand (maybe they can "appreciate", but don't understand) what all is involved. Let's not even talk about the various maintenance inspections that need to be done at specific times resulting in our "persistent aircraft" being in a down status! :-)

 

People have mentioned having other squadron aircraft to fly--well there ya go! Cause in the real world, LT Pete "Maverick" Mitchell doesn't just fly the plane with his name below the windscreen. He'll take any aircraft in an UP status that can perform the mission he needs to perform. This really renders the whole argument null and invalid as it is pointless and if you really want a failure, set one up and limp it back home.

 

Again, whether they realize it or not, people are asking for WAY too much from the devs. I mean if you just want to hit a button and it go in test then come back go a few seconds later, then I guess that's cool, but like previously mentioned, that is all it is. You're not going to be able to troubleshoot the jet because most of the people here don't know the jet enough TO troubleshoot it, nor does DCS/ED know enough to model the jet for that--even if this is false, you're going to be put back into to a similar situation like my above example. It's pointless at the end of the day!

 

Take your up jets and fly the heck out of them and have fun! Don't worry about maintenance--maintenance guys never get any credit anyway!

 

;-)

Edited April 26, 2020 by jeffham222
Clarification

[randomTOTEN]

I mean if you just want to hit a button and it go in test then come back go a few seconds later, then I guess that's cool, but like previously mentioned, that is all it is.

Yes,

 

This is what (at least personally) I mean when I say I'm discussing a BIT Test. It performs properly, and gives the proper indications that it has been passed, whether that's as simple as a momentary delay and PBIT GO, or if an entire subsystem needs to be tested for a pass, or if other indications are required. I assume the Radar currently fails its PBIT due to lacking many modes, including all the ground ones...

 

You can quite literally track the development of the Hornet just by looking at what fails on the BIT page.

Edited April 26, 2020 by randomTOTEN

[jeffham222]

If all you want is the "GO" indication...

 

THAT, in my mind should be easy. Code the button to show "IN TEST", for 10-20 seconds then show "GO". That should assumedly take a few moments per IBIT button... Should be done by 5PM today really. It's 1PM here, best get crackin'!

 

And no, I'm not being sarcastic or starting anything. I'm literally saying it appears to be pretty easy. TOO easy for what these guys have done this far! And if it is, downright insulting it hasn't been done yet.

 

But you aren't asking for that. You're ultimately asking for the jet in the sim to function as the RL jet. You are asking WAY too much man...