Hornet Roadmap Discussion

[Wizard_03]

"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.

 

Well in the real world you can’t just pop out of the cockpit and look the aircraft over. Your Bit and FCS pages may be the only indicators that you have a problem, along with the caution lights and are probably gonna be your only tools for figuring what happened and what your gonna do about it. They’re essential in the diagnosis of problems, especially little ones that don’t require you to go home or leave the jet.

 

Right now damage to the aircraft is simplistic and catastrophic. In real Life tons of things can happen that don’t outright create an emergency. Many of which have nothing to do with combat such as getting swiped by the basket, lightning, or goddamn birds. But they do require attention, and or action on the part of the pilot to continue with the mission and can drastically complicate other tasks. The aircrafts fault monitoring system is pretty important for stuff like that.

[Wizard_03]

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'!

 

 

Even That would be preferable to what we have now. Right now the BITs tell me I should abort.

[jeffham222]

Well in the real world you can’t just pop out of the cockpit and look the aircraft over. Your Bit and FCS pages may be the only indicators that you have a problem, along with the caution lights and are probably gonna be your only tools for figuring what happened and what your gonna do about it. They’re essential in the diagnosis of problems, especially little ones that don’t require you to go home or leave the jet.

 

Right now damage to the aircraft is simplistic and catastrophic. In real Life tons of things can happen that don’t outright create an emergency. Many of which have nothing to do with combat such as getting swiped by the basket, lightning, or goddamn birds. But they do require attention, and or action on the part of the pilot to continue with the mission and can drastically complicate other tasks. The aircrafts fault monitoring system is pretty important for stuff like that.

 

But an IBIT is NOT going to help you! Wait, we have been talking about IBITs, right? That's what I've been talking about. The sim already shows a fail via the modeled periodic BITs...

 

AS far as the damage model being off, Ok... Not arguing that...

[randomTOTEN]

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...

Dude, your expectations are about 15 years out of date. DCS aircraft have working circuit breakers. And by that I don't mean "protects against over-voltage" because over voltage probably doesn't exist in the sim. But they are animated, mouse interactive, and will disconnect electrical power to the associated system.

 

 

On day 1 of the Hornet's early access, the rewinding of the audio message tape was simulated.

Edited April 26, 2020 by randomTOTEN

[Wizard_03]

But an IBIT is NOT going to help you! Wait, we have been talking about IBITs, right? That's what I've been talking about. The sim already shows a fail via the modeled periodic BITs...

 

AS far as the damage model being off, Ok... Not arguing that...

 

 

No I'm talking about the Periodic ones. About half of them "work" in the sense that they say nothings wrong. But a bunch of them show failures on the BIT pages.

 

The Ibits are more of a TO/Launch/maintenance thing like you said.

 

 

 

One that really annoys me, is the dispenser turns off as soon as wheels touch the deck and causes a bit advisory for ALE-49 that shouldn't happen. I'm talking about stuff like that.

 

Even if its a simple Go/No go situation, I don't think its unreasonable to ask for that. Almost all the other jets in DCS have them to some degree. If the level of complexity is too much for deep system and subsystem failures to be accounted for, I could understand that. But At least give us a Go lol

[G B]

Reading these past couple of pages makes me realize there’s a large misconception by the community to both the mechanics of how BITs/BLINs/Resets/etc. work, and the mentality and mechanics of troubleshooting systems on deck and in the air. Klarsnow did allude to some of this earlier.

[jeffham222]

Maybe my expectations are too low and I am out of date. Ok, I'll take that.

 

My whole point to a lot of this is I don't know how many people actually would use some of these features and if that number is high enough for the devs to take it on. Maybe that should be another poll.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have that stuff, but I can't expect it as it seems like SO much work and if they are only "this" far after two years, I don't know if we'll ever see that based upon what has happened so far.

 

Also, I hate the cold black type when it comes to stuff that people are passionate about. Things can get taken the wrong way. So, if you wanna discuss this on Discord or whatever, Random, I'd be more than happy to talk there. Send me a DM if so. I think we are probably more on the same page than not, but apparently my expectations are lower. I'll talk to anyone if ya give me the time!

 

Anyway, cheers guys! Thanks again devs for the sim--I sure ain't mastered it yet and although I have my gripes, I'll say I am about 90% happy with the product thus far. Of course, we all want everything "RIGHT NOW" at one point or another... so... Humans, I guess.

 

:-)

[Notso]

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

 

Ha!

[Wizard_03]

Reading these past couple of pages makes me realize there’s a large misconception by the community to both the mechanics of how BITs/BLINs/Resets/etc. work, and the mentality and mechanics of troubleshooting systems on deck and in the air. Klarsnow did allude to some of this earlier.

 

 

Could I ask you to educate us a little? I mean that in most respectful way possible. All I have to go off is the manual and it doesn't give you much in terms of "how" your supposed use that information.

 

 

 

I'm under the impression that these kind of fault monitoring systems are important for troubleshooting from the pilots perspective. Are you and Klar saying that in real world you'd just kind of ignore that page completely and work off what you can and cannot do by trying it, In Flight rather then go through those pages?

 

 

 

I guess In other words what mentality would you have?

[BuzzU]

Well, regardless of the negative posts, including mine. I'm going to stay with the Hornet.

[wilbur81]

Well, regardless of the negative posts, including mine. I'm going to stay with the Hornet.

 

Agreed, Buzz. This jet is absolutely spectacular, even in its current, unfinished form. It probably doesn't occur to many of us here that, in many ways, ED Devs have it harder than some of the real life jet software developers. Hughes, for example, "only" has to develop all things radar hardware/software. ED has to develop all the software, then model everything else (sunlight, physics, ground AI, air AI, sounds, clouds, radio chatter, the carrier, missiles, tire screetching sounds, etc. etc.) Heck, Hughes doesn't have to paint the jet in real life... ED's team kind of does.

 

Is ED over committed to projects? Absolutely, 100% they are. Are they spread too thin? Of course they are. Do I wish they'd just focus on my favorite project items? (the Hornet, Vulkan API, and Dynamic Campaign) Of course I do. With all that said: They have created a simulation that is impossible for military aviation enthusiasts (like myself) to resist

 

Keep up the hard work, ED! It's not perfect... it's just spectacular. :thumbup:

[BuzzU]

They're trying hard and I can't ask for more than that.

[lucky-hendrix]

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.

Not every single bit needs to be simulated of course.

 

But it should be possible to follow and recreate official real world procedure to a point.

 

Once the product is "feature complete", I expect very similar level of simulation as the A-10C ! No more no less. Of course those can fall at the lowest priority but they shouldn't be forgotten

 

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

[deadpool]

Indeed: we clearly see that with the Mirage 2000C, which - 3 years after "release" status is it? - is still not completed. It sets a bad example, rather than something other developers should follow...

 

Thanks!

 

And the mirage is the only modern jet out of Early Access. Go figure.

[Silver_Dragon]

Not every single bit needs to be simulated of course.

 

But it should be possible to follow and recreate official real world procedure to a point.

 

Once the product is "feature complete", I expect very similar level of simulation as the A-10C ! No more no less. Of course those can fall at the lowest priority but they shouldn't be forgotten

 

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

Remember A-10C was a military trainer destock product approved to release on entertainment market by the ANG Air national guard on USA under military contract. CA was similar, based on JTAC trainer to UK army.

 

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[Silver_Dragon]

And the mirage is the only modern jet out of Early Access. Go figure.

And now, under modification by the French Air force to training pilots, rework features, systems and more.

 

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[TomCatMucDe]

guys, everybody is unhappy with delays including me, but this is the price to pay when we ask for ultra modern jets. They are doamn complex to develop in real life and in advanced simulators. Thanks for ED for not giving up and trying their best despite all the setbacks.

[Tom Kazansky]

guys, everybody is unhappy with delays including me, but this is the price to pay when we ask for ultra modern jets. They are doamn complex to develop in real life and in advanced simulators. Thanks for ED for not giving up and trying their best despite all the setbacks.

 

 

+1 :thumbup:

[Wilcino]

Thanks ED for giving us a way to feel like we are contributing to the direction of travel and that constructive attempts are being made to gather feedback from the community.

 

Its a long list of options, some of which I didn't even understand in general, or what such a 'feature' would entail once implemented. I appreciate going into more detail would give people more ammunition when things change in the future. This did lead me however to put a low priority on things I didn't understand.

 

As for everyone, the exact thing they want probably wasn't listed explicitly. I certainly value the quality of life upgrades, primarily the ability to set a waypoint seqeunce in multiplayer. This appeared to be under "mark points", or mission data card, so hopefully I've picked the right categories.

[pbishop]

guys, everybody is unhappy with delays including me, but this is the price to pay when we ask for ultra modern jets. They are doamn complex to develop in real life and in advanced simulators. Thanks for ED for not giving up and trying their best despite all the setbacks.

 

I agree, and I think the majority of people here have understood that and can live with it. The majority of the complaints I have read here don't seem to be related to the current delay. The complaints all seem to be related to the early access definition, and the worries about the time frame in which the remaining features will be completed after it is out of early access. It's the delay after early access people are worried about, and rightfully so.

[headbreaker_ger]

guys, everybody is unhappy with delays including me, but this is the price to pay when we ask for ultra modern jets. They are doamn complex to develop in real life and in advanced simulators. Thanks for ED for not giving up and trying their best despite all the setbacks.

 

I think you miss read what some people here meaning, many people have no problem with the delay.

 

The Discussion is about ED want to call the Hornet out of Early Access and rename Features, they promised to deliver in EA as "Improvements" and that the problem for many here.

 

It's not that we can't wait,... as I said days ago, just let the FA18 in EA as long features are missing or not full implemented. And Im sry but if now a Mod says "But the INS/GPS is working" and try to define Early Access, say the use the specs from Steam and on Steam the FAQ says ~After EA comes the Release-Version,..... yeah than sry but something here is fishy.

 

And ED has a reputation-problem,... Im sry but so it is,... and even I dont know Wags, Kate, Nine, or or or,... Im sure they are nice people and nobody wants to attack them and yes now comes the BUT....

 

ED did promises, they take the Money THEY set the Price! And I didn't Buy the Hornet in Sale, I nearly bought all Modules even I only really fly 2,... because that's a Way you can support and got something,....

 

And yes now some people and also me are frustrated, because we're getting excuses, but they don't tell us WHY they want to do this, so we have to speculate and maybe the reasons they have are others but as long they don't tell us and try to find excuses,... they just rake the frustration,...

 

They say " we hear ya" but where is the Poll about the EA release by the end of the year, with missing features, sure,... most of the Improvements come later BUT as I said so often by now, you never can be sure,... If ED don't implement a simple thing like a beacon for a plane or at least 3 full Modules,... how can I be sure they will bring the full INS/GPS system or the ATFLIR and so on, these things are FAR more complicated than a beacon,... and you can defend ED, and to a certain point that okay,... but also critic is right and important, because you don't get better by strokes on your Back you're getting better by show your critics that you can improve.

 

Nobody says thank you because you did your job. That's where you get your Money for ;)

[BuzzU]

 

Nobody says thank you because you did your job. That's where you get your Money for ;)

 

You have a strange outlook on life.

 

Have you ever thanked your doctor for healing you? He was just doing his job. He makes his living doing it.

 

I can give you hundreds of examples like that. Thanking someone is the polite thing to do when you receive something. Even if you did pay for it.

[headbreaker_ger]

You have a strange outlook on life.

 

Have you ever thanked your doctor for healing you? He was just doing his job. He makes his living doing it.

 

I can give you hundreds of examples like that. Thanking someone is the polite thing to do when you receive something. Even if you did pay for it.

 

I can tell you that's a classic German adage and it's maybe a bit exaggerate.

 

But there's nothing strange about it,... sure I say often Thx and also I said also thx to ED a few days ago but here the case lays a bit different and yes as I said Im also frustrated about the situation but now because of delay

[Arctander]

You have a strange outlook on life.

 

Have you ever thanked your doctor for healing you? He was just doing his job. He makes his living doing it.

 

I can give you hundreds of examples like that. Thanking someone is the polite thing to do when you receive something. Even if you did pay for it.

 

Then how about we thank them not for ‘hard work’, but when they’ve actually delivered the complete product?

[BuzzU]

Then how about we thank them not for ‘hard work’, but when they’ve actually delivered the complete product?

 

That would be like thanking you for your whining.