Hornet Roadmap Discussion

[VirusAM]

Always ready to participate! Where is it?:)

 

look here Frogfut

 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfKuQ53phRBCLQT03QFLX18UcA2UiibvZO6uvGeosGRPhpYrg/alreadyresponded?bx_sender_conversion_id=27023953

 

it is on yesterday newsletter

[DarkStar]

This is so silly.

 

 

This ability exists today, and nobody apparently knows how to use it.

 

 

 

Currently this lacks the ability to set a variety of other settings such as laser codes, CM profiles, PP/PB points, ATTCK RADAR range/bar/distance presets.... everything else. But this could all be added.

 

 

The other major feature is that this screen isn't available for Multiplayer. If it was this would probably solve 99% of the mission planning problems users face.

 

The your last half of your answer demonstrates why this is not silly.

 

This thread is dominated by the early access war, but I'll strike a blow for increased mission planning effectiveness nonetheless.

 

The main problem I have with the integrated channel presets you show in the picture is that it is more of a function for mission building rather than mission planning. As you state, it is not available in multiplayer.

 

Furthermore, when you open the "planner" you get an overview of basically every allied unit in the theatre, even finding your own jet in the cluster of units can sometimes prove to be difficult. Then comes the changing of waypoints and targets, trying to locate your own flightplan in the chaos of the map is no easy task, and god forbid you touch the wrong flights steerpoint and move it, without a "undo" function you can screw up the entire scenario.

 

I believe the planning should be separated from the mission builder. Many functions are, as you say, already implemented in the core, but it needs to be streamlined and made more user friendly, and presented in a manageable fashion.

 

It should also be a standard interface for all flyable aircraft, and not module specific for the general items. Then "attack cards" or aircraft "cards" could be used for module specific items.

 

Look to the real world planning software such as JMPS (Joint Mission Planning Software) which is "joint" in its interface and then add module specific plug-ins.

 

Attack cards and likewise is a step in the right direction, but aiming for a full DTC with unclassified functions might not be much more work other than how it is represented in the GUI of the planner, and be more realistic.

 

 

 

DS

Edited April 25, 2020 by DarkStar

[headbreaker_ger]

And where are that post?.

 

This is nothing new and has been going on forever, ED’s standards and 3rd party standards are one and the same, and has always been. This goes right back to the whole EFM/PFM confusion and the clarifications of Yo-Yo about them

 

A10C:

Its inaccuracies were reported right after the module launched by testers, and ED decided to ignore them

 

NS430: Same story

 

UH-1: Was sold in Early Access with ‘multicrew coming’ and now, 7 years after the module launched there is still no multicrew in sight.

 

MiG-29: Oh dear… The PFM has spawned tens of pages in its thread with a dozen of MiG-29 pilots contributing about its strange inertia characteristics, but hey, a single source knows more than the dozen opposite sources.

 

NEVADA Test and Training Range: Came years late, with the assets that make the NTTR the NTTR missing (thankfully modded in place by some really dedicated guys) and with a resolution that was lower than the old Caucasus map, with only Vegas and the central airfields in high-resolution.

 

Yak-52: Comes up at its 2-year anniversary, with LOD and ADF shining by absence.

 

Belsimtek’s MiG-15: Had a critical bug that literally made it impossible to fly it to the starboard side, and was left there for 18 months (and appears had the thread deleted since then)

 

Leatherneck’s MiG-21 was dumped out of Early Access with only 60% of the aircraft completed, and in the past 4 years had little to no development, with Chizh blatantly (and honestly) saying “If you want to make an accurate model of the MiG-21, there is nothing stopping you”. No, I want to get what I paid good money for…

 

RAZBAM and Polychop: It would surprise me if anyone was unaware about how the community sees the products

 

Heatblur’s Viggen: Instead of finishing this one up first, it has now been over 3 years and will take at least another year of work.

This route of work is being continued with the F-14A, that the team desperately want out of the door ASAP, instead of finishing the F-14B and only then take on a third aircraft.

 

Octopus I-16: The dev mysteriously vanished 6 months ago, and hasn’t shown a sign of life ever since. No updates to the I-16, nothing.

 

The list goes on and on and on… , and I won’t even go over the WWII modules and their problems. The current situation isn't any different than 2013, but with the hype around the full-fidelity Century fighters and the massive increase in user base, the facts remained obscured. Only now, with the increased userbase coming to the same conclusion and some other factor I won't go into, the argument starts to show itself again.

 

With the launch of Flaming Cliffs 3, ED was upfront that it was just a port of FC2 and nothing more. What was wrong with that honesty? Didn’t the module sell well enough to resort to the current model of having to put out new modules to finish unfinished modules?

There is a name for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

 

And finally, I constantly hear about ‘If ED doesn’t do it, nobody will’. First of all, the cake is too big for other devs to ignore and second of all, why stay in a toxic and abusive relationship that only costs you money and where promises are intertwined with lies on a daily basis?

 

Even if I think 3rd party devs are on another hand its EDs responsibility

 

And as he said it isnt all, go to the Anton-Forum and read the discussions

[gorzasty]

This is nothing new and has been going on forever, ED’s standards and 3rd party standards are one and the same, and has always been. This goes right back to the whole EFM/PFM confusion and the clarifications of Yo-Yo about them

 

A10C:

Its inaccuracies were reported right after the module launched by testers, and ED decided to ignore them

 

NS430: Same story

 

UH-1: Was sold in Early Access with ‘multicrew coming’ and now, 7 years after the module launched there is still no multicrew in sight.

 

MiG-29: Oh dear… The PFM has spawned tens of pages in its thread with a dozen of MiG-29 pilots contributing about its strange inertia characteristics, but hey, a single source knows more than the dozen opposite sources.

 

NEVADA Test and Training Range: Came years late, with the assets that make the NTTR the NTTR missing (thankfully modded in place by some really dedicated guys) and with a resolution that was lower than the old Caucasus map, with only Vegas and the central airfields in high-resolution.

 

Yak-52: Comes up at its 2-year anniversary, with LOD and ADF shining by absence.

 

Belsimtek’s MiG-15: Had a critical bug that literally made it impossible to fly it to the starboard side, and was left there for 18 months (and appears had the thread deleted since then)

 

Leatherneck’s MiG-21 was dumped out of Early Access with only 60% of the aircraft completed, and in the past 4 years had little to no development, with Chizh blatantly (and honestly) saying “If you want to make an accurate model of the MiG-21, there is nothing stopping you”. No, I want to get what I paid good money for…

 

RAZBAM and Polychop: It would surprise me if anyone was unaware about how the community sees the products

 

Heatblur’s Viggen: Instead of finishing this one up first, it has now been over 3 years and will take at least another year of work.

This route of work is being continued with the F-14A, that the team desperately want out of the door ASAP, instead of finishing the F-14B and only then take on a third aircraft.

 

Octopus I-16: The dev mysteriously vanished 6 months ago, and hasn’t shown a sign of life ever since. No updates to the I-16, nothing.

 

The list goes on and on and on… , and I won’t even go over the WWII modules and their problems. The current situation isn't any different than 2013, but with the hype around the full-fidelity Century fighters and the massive increase in user base, the facts remained obscured. Only now, with the increased userbase coming to the same conclusion and some other factor I won't go into, the argument starts to show itself again.

 

With the launch of Flaming Cliffs 3, ED was upfront that it was just a port of FC2 and nothing more. What was wrong with that honesty? Didn’t the module sell well enough to resort to the current model of having to put out new modules to finish unfinished modules?

There is a name for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

 

And finally, I constantly hear about ‘If ED doesn’t do it, nobody will’. First of all, the cake is too big for other devs to ignore and second of all, why stay in a toxic and abusive relationship that only costs you money and where promises are intertwined with lies on a daily basis?

+1 This! What Vincent90 said is sadly only top of the mountain. ED it is not only about F18 but about whole thing. How you design your business because from the side of manyyy your customers it doesnt work. I quit this year and only read forum time to time, with hope that someday you will change something in the development. Many of my frinds also quit last and this year. It was to much. They were very dedictated for DCS but that was too much even for them. We fly in other sims right now and many people will if you didnt change anything in your thinking.

We can like flight sims, like each other, even be your free testers but after all we pay for the products and you should care about its quality. Now you dont.

I really hope you will reconsider your aprouch to the game as a whole and start make changes that return hope in many of us. A lot of people will return then to this title and Im sure you will see this in your income. Right now, in this shape I would rather not recomend this game. Sorry. There is incredibly large potencial so... everything seems open.

 

Wysłane z mojego SM-G960F przy użyciu Tapatalka

[flybull]

Hello ED Team.

 

May I offer a voice of reason?

 

It is obvious that the user base is passionate. Only a small proportion are vocal. This vocal minority DO represent a fair cross section of the community.

 

The "Open Beta" moniker is probably to blame for some issues. it IS the default release version, and it costs the full amount.

 

The "Early Release" (within Open Beta!) model causes HUGE frustration. I understand that your financial model benefits from it. If you are to keep operating on this basis - then there needs to be clear communication AT THE START, as to what will be included in the Final Release. Obviously bug fixes, should continue, but the all FEATURES advertised for the product should be included, before the module is finally released.

 

I would prefer to not see "Early Access" modules EVER.

 

Changing the definition of early access - and making contradicting claims (ie conforming to STEAM's definitions) will cause anger and frustration.

 

Announcing developmental delays (on day of expected release, per SC) will cause anger and frustration.

 

Anger and frustration is felt, because there are many other underlying issues (as other members have explained). It is a built up feeling.

 

Specifically WRT F/A-18:

 

Accept that the module is in EA until you deliver what was promised.

Prioritise the outstanding items NOT by ease of implementation, but by importance to the simulation.

 

My suggestion:

 

Focus on NATOPS stuff first. Aircraft Systems, Flight Model etc.

Then focus on Aircraft Weapons Systems,

lastly - add weapons, stores...

 

Implement the long-made promises to core simulation. Vulkan anyone?

 

Don't tell us what's this weeks roadmap is. SHOW us by releasing something that is complete.

 

ED - you DO have a credibility issue. Im sorry to call it out.

 

Please don't announce/release any new modules until you have fixed, completed, implemented all your previous promises.

 

When you're ready to release something new - please dont make it "EA"

 

After you have built up good faith with your user base - you could then revert to the "EA" model if you insist. This can only be done with a community that trusts you - which it doesn't.

 

I understand this may be felt as very critical - I cant apologise for being direct.

 

MICROPROSE might be looking at some of your customer base - time to shape up.

 

Thank you

 

PS: May your next (fully complete) offering be an F/A-18E

Edited April 25, 2020 by flybull
add text

[strikerdg]

Hello ED Team.

 

May I offer a voice of reason?

 

It is obvious that the user base is passionate. Only a small proportion are vocal. This vocal minority DO represent a fair cross section of the community.

 

The "Open Beta" moniker is probably to blame for some issues. it IS the default release version, and it costs the full amount.

 

The "Early Release" (within Open Beta!) model causes HUGE frustration. I understand that your financial model benefits from it. If you are to keep operating on this basis - then there needs to be clear communication AT THE START, as to what will be included in the Final Release. Obviously bug fixes, should continue, but the all FEATURES advertised for the product should be included, before the module is finally released.

 

I would prefer to not see "Early Access" modules EVER.

 

Changing the definition of early access - and making contradicting claims (ie conforming to STEAM's definitions) will cause anger and frustration.

 

Announcing developmental delays (on day of expected release, per SC) will cause anger and frustration.

 

Anger and frustration is felt, because there are many other underlying issues (as other members have explained). It is a built up feeling.

 

Specifically WRT F/A-18:

 

Accept that the module is in EA until you deliver what was promised.

Prioritise the outstanding items NOT by ease of implementation, but by importance to the simulation.

 

My suggestion:

 

Focus on NATOPS stuff first. Aircraft Systems, Flight Model etc.

Then focus on Aircraft Weapons Systems,

lastly - add weapons, stores...

 

Implement the long-made promises to core simulation. Vulkan anyone?

 

Don't tell us what's this weeks roadmap is. SHOW us by releasing something that is complete.

 

ED - you DO have a credibility issue. Im sorry to call it out.

 

Please don't announce/release any new modules until you have fixed, completed, implemented all your previous promises.

 

When you're ready to release something new - please dont make it "EA"

 

After you have built up good faith with your user base - you could then revert to the "EA" model if you insist. This can only be done with a community that trusts you - which it doesn't.

 

I understand this may be felt as very critical - I cant apologise for being direct.

 

MICROPROSE might be looking at some of your customer base - time to shape up.

 

Thank you

 

PS: May your next (fully complete) offering be an F/A-18E

 

F/A-18F* :)

[Speacy]

Hello ED Team.

 

May I offer a voice of reason?

 

It is obvious that the user base is passionate. Only a small proportion are vocal. This vocal minority DO represent a fair cross section of the community.

 

The "Open Beta" moniker is probably to blame for some issues. it IS the default release version, and it costs the full amount.

 

The "Early Release" (within Open Beta!) model causes HUGE frustration. I understand that your financial model benefits from it. If you are to keep operating on this basis - then there needs to be clear communication AT THE START, as to what will be included in the Final Release. Obviously bug fixes, should continue, but the all FEATURES advertised for the product should be included, before the module is finally released.

 

I would prefer to not see "Early Access" modules EVER.

 

Changing the definition of early access - and making contradicting claims (ie conforming to STEAM's definitions) will cause anger and frustration.

 

Announcing developmental delays (on day of expected release, per SC) will cause anger and frustration.

 

Anger and frustration is felt, because there are many other underlying issues (as other members have explained). It is a built up feeling.

 

Specifically WRT F/A-18:

 

Accept that the module is in EA until you deliver what was promised.

Prioritise the outstanding items NOT by ease of implementation, but by importance to the simulation.

 

My suggestion:

 

Focus on NATOPS stuff first. Aircraft Systems, Flight Model etc.

Then focus on Aircraft Weapons Systems,

lastly - add weapons, stores...

 

Implement the long-made promises to core simulation. Vulkan anyone?

 

Don't tell us what's this weeks roadmap is. SHOW us by releasing something that is complete.

 

ED - you DO have a credibility issue. Im sorry to call it out.

 

Please don't announce/release any new modules until you have fixed, completed, implemented all your previous promises.

 

When you're ready to release something new - please dont make it "EA"

 

After you have built up good faith with your user base - you could then revert to the "EA" model if you insist. This can only be done with a community that trusts you - which it doesn't.

 

I understand this may be felt as very critical - I cant apologise for being direct.

 

MICROPROSE might be looking at some of your customer base - time to shape up.

 

Thank you

 

PS: May your next (fully complete) offering be an F/A-18E

 

I totaly agree,

and please stop thinking every point of view shared here is isolated.

Lot of customers know money they have invested for F-18 early access was used for F16 early access launch, like they know UH-1 story (with belsimtek team now working for you) and others modules released without announced features, like the Early-access quantity at same time dont cease to grow, year after year (what the next? When?... If you don't change your mind soon i suppose)

 

No we don't have to be grateful, we paid for what you sell, its good thing only if you delivers what we paid for.

What have you really done since A-10 ? (and not for us… but mainly to satisfy air national guard).

 

Don't tell to trust you, just prove we can

[imacken]

I can't believe what I am reading in this thread. I mean, how much have you guys 'invested' in the Hornet? Between $40 and $80. How much fun have you had for this realtively small amout of money over the last year or two? Do you guys see how much games that last a few hours cost on Steam?

 

Honestly, I think some appreciation of the amazing job that ED do to give us this great sim that we all love is well overdue here. Sure, things are slower than most of us would like, and maybe some features that were promised are going to be missing or seriously delayed but things can change over time. Best laid plans and all that.

 

And, all this 'trust' stuff. I mean, seriously? You'd think that DCS is more important than life itself the way some people are talking on here. Look around you, there are more important things happening in the world.

 

Personally, I think that ED should charge a fee for access to the EA version, and then charge a further fee - discounted for EA buyers - for the 'finished, feature complete' product. That would stop the EA whingers, and they could all hold back till the final product was available and miss out on the development phase that they all seem to hate so much.

[gorzasty]

It is not like this. ED is not doing this for us but for them. That is their job. They earn money. They sell products. Every seller should take care about quality. ED is not doing all this stuff for free.

 

Another example. I will tell you to pay me 100$ to clean your car. You say ok, I take the money and nothing... you ask me when I clean it and my answear - two weeks ;) but more serius - Im working on this. Mayby this year. Maybe... how would you feel?

 

 

 

Wysłane z mojego SM-G960F przy użyciu Tapatalka

[Airhunter]

Really appreciate the poll guys! Let the community decide on what has higher priority and what doesn't. :thumbup:

[Speacy]

I can't believe what I am reading in this thread. I mean, how much have you guys 'invested' in the Hornet? Between $40 and $80. How much fun have you had for this realtively small amout of money over the last year or two? Do you guys see how much games that last a few hours cost on Steam?

 

Honestly, I think some appreciation of the amazing job that ED do to give us this great sim that we all love is well overdue here. Sure, things are slower than most of us would like, and maybe some features that were promised are going to be missing or seriously delayed but things can change over time. Best laid plans and all that.

 

And, all this 'trust' stuff. I mean, seriously? You'd think that DCS is more important than life itself the way some people are talking on here. Look around you, there are more important things happening in the world.

 

Personally, I think that ED should charge a fee for access to the EA version, and then charge a further fee - discounted for EA buyers - for the 'finished, feature complete' product. That would stop the EA whingers, and they could all hold back till the final product was available and miss out on the development phase that they all seem to hate so much.

 

 

Yes buying at early access stage is investing, or what is it, donation?

I think no, invest is based on promises, and i don't think the actual state worth the 80$ i've paid.

And yes i regret, even you're right, it's not more important than life itself, really not lol …

But more people disapointed = less sales at next early access module.

 

I just react to Nineline when he said we have to be grateful , its false, its business, not charity

Edited April 25, 2020 by Speacy

[Echo179]

Not sure if it's been asked here yet, but what about the GRID position entry for targets and such? Didn't see that anywhere on the list of upcoming features, but it would be really nice to have.

[BuzzU]

ED.........You need to define exactly what early access means? Please don't push it off on Steam. You use early access when you sell the module.

 

So, when you take a plane off of EA. What can someone expect when they buy it at that point? For the Hornet, it seems to mean there will still be 27 updates to go. Is that the standard? Can we expect the same for the Viper?

 

We understand what EA means when we buy a plane on EA. What does it mean when you take it off EA? Be specific.

 

Ignoring this post is not an answer.

Edited April 25, 2020 by BuzzU

[Speacy]

Not sure if it's been asked here yet, but what about the GRID position entry for targets and such? Didn't see that anywhere on the list of upcoming features, but it would be really nice to have.

 

Yes, there is a mod for that but we dont use mods, we are also waiting for this feature, for finally doing CAS with hornet without human JTAC need

[mdee]

I am done buying any modules for foreseeable future. Not only the goalposts are being moved as it suits ED, but also it's being announced in condescending way - I am tired of "we are special, therefore this is what you get" tone.

 

Good luck on Steam. They can be quite effective in managing developers who don't deliver on EA or try to re-define EA.

[Schmidtfire]

Same here. The last few days of EA debacle left a bad taste in my mouth (in combination with DCS 2.5.6, Super Carrier delays and upcoming F-16 delays).

 

A shame really, I was on the verge about the P-47 and was very excited about the Mi-24P, but my wallet will be remain closed for Early Access products.

[canned_fire]

-Over the past 2 years I don't recall anybody ever talking about Steam definitions of early access. You are changing the rules midway.

 

-It doesn't matter if I have enjoyed the F18 so far. This is a business, you promised something and we paid. If $80 doesn't cover your costs then on the next project charge something else.

 

-No matter what you call it, come January 2021 the people working on the F18 will be moved to the F16 (which will be on pause for 8 months), to the Hind, to the SC, to the P47, to the yet to be announced next project, etc. Them the list of 2021 will simply not happen, just like the multicrew for the Huey. Also "every thing is subject to change", right?

 

-What is going to happen with the 3rd party modules? Is the F14 out of early access now?

 

-Why don't you tell us why the F18 "HAVE" to be out of early acess by 2020?

[Arctander]

-Why don't you tell us why the F18 "HAVE" to be out of early acess by 2020?

 

Two reasons most probably:

1) they said it would be - so ED management have decided to remove things from the ‘delivered in EA’ list so they can claim they hit it, even with putting more resource on it by putting the Viper in the back burner, rather than admit they goofed again and it will now be 2021, which they have done because:

 

2) they have realised having multiple things in EA is optically very bad and their consumers are starting to revolt over the amount in unfinished things. They know they cannot release another 4th gen jet that they had likely started working on to EA until the hornet is out of EA, and this causes a cash flow issue as they have clearly stated EA is how they stay profitable.

 

At least that is my personal opinion. I would love to hear for sure though.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Arctander

[Avalanche110]

Early access has not detracted from me enjoying this module IMMENSELY......

I’m looking forward to new features..... when they are ready.

For now, I’ll just continue to enjoy my favourite toy.

 

This might get lost amongst all of the angry posts.....

But For what it’s worth.....thank you ED.

This is by far the best product I EVER invested in.

[falcon_120]

It is not like this. ED is not doing this for us but for them. That is their job. They earn money. They sell products. Every seller should take care about quality. ED is not doing all this stuff for free.

 

Another example. I will tell you to pay me 100$ to clean your car. You say ok, I take the money and nothing... you ask me when I clean it and my answear - two weeks ;) but more serius - Im working on this. Mayby this year. Maybe... how would you feel?

 

 

 

Wysłane z mojego SM-G960F przy użyciu Tapatalka

How is that cleaning example even close to what ED does? Arent you able to fly the hornet, operate almost all their systems, enter flight plans or use more than 20 weapons just to name a few things?

 

Just to put thing into perspective. A T-shirt is 14/30$, a pint of beer could be 10$ in some places, a night out is probably 80$. A shitty vr game that you can use for 3 hours is maybe 40$.

 

Many of you here are too used to the client is always right thing. So much that you have made yourself believe you are some kind of heroe with your money spent, it even seems lile you saved a company from misery.

 

Trading and fair market should be a win situation for all, one where you pay a price and you expect a fair good or service in return. In this case, 80$ is a way way low price for a product like ED modules. If you calculate the $ per hour you spent, which is actually a fair metric to use, it is even ridiculous.

 

And the culprit here is precisely that, the point you need to understand is that, because ED is not charging a fair price, something that is sustainable for them, so they can keep the engine up to date while keeping all modules as much bug free as possible while running an ever evolving engine, they are in constant need of creating content just to keep the wheel running and rushing sometimes certain modules into EA. If instead of 80$ per modules, you would be paying a monthly fee like in many other games or services, then you would be right and you would be crying with all the right reasons.

 

I've always thought ED should charge more so some of your cries about unfinished products could actually make any sense.

 

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Edited April 25, 2020 by falcon_120

[HILOK]

I can't believe what I am reading in this thread. I mean, how much have you guys 'invested' in the Hornet? Between $40 and $80. How much fun have you had for this realtively small amout of money over the last year or two? Do you guys see how much games that last a few hours cost on Steam?

 

Honestly, I think some appreciation of the amazing job that ED do to give us this great sim that we all love is well overdue here. Sure, things are slower than most of us would like, and maybe some features that were promised are going to be missing or seriously delayed but things can change over time. Best laid plans and all that.

 

And, all this 'trust' stuff. I mean, seriously? You'd think that DCS is more important than life itself the way some people are talking on here. Look around you, there are more important things happening in the world.

 

Personally, I think that ED should charge a fee for access to the EA version, and then charge a further fee - discounted for EA buyers - for the 'finished, feature complete' product. That would stop the EA whingers, and they could all hold back till the final product was available and miss out on the development phase that they all seem to hate so much.

 

+1

i am sharing that view of things, very good idea! :thumbup:

[hanab]

Nick, Kate, Matt, cm and all ED team,

 

I sincerely believe that there is a problem with most of those who have followed you for years. Everyone who has been playing since the start of lock on or BS1 begins to no longer understand anything about your behavior. After the lack of update on the hornet since December, after the failure of the 2.5.6 and the SC, this announcement of the « out of the early access » but with an incomplete plane is too much.

 

listen to us and keep this plane in EA until it is finished! otherwise you will not sell anything because most of us will no longer trust you.

[dawgie79]

Nick, Kate, Matt, cm and all ED team,

 

I sincerely believe that there is a problem with most of those who have followed you for years. Everyone who has been playing since the start of lock on or BS1 begins to no longer understand anything about your behavior. After the lack of update on the hornet since December, after the failure of the 2.5.6 and the SC, this announcement of the « out of the early access » but with an incomplete plane is too much.

 

listen to us and keep this plane in EA until it is finished! otherwise you will not sell anything because most of us will no longer trust you.

Sigh. I wish people would just speak for themselves, thank you.

I for one couldn't disagree more with you and sentiments like yours.

[Mverick]

I will try to make my point without look like a complain.

 

As I already see mentioned by a lot of people, a lot of features that were said to be on the early assess are still pending and now moved down on the priority list.

This is a bit a bit disappointing as an example, I can clear remember Wags mentioning when the F/A-18 announced, year ago, one of its main features was the AG radar, and that without it, it didn't even made sense to release the airplane, and now after all this time here we are.

 

Now when asked to give an opinion to help ED to rebuild once more the road map, is difficult to separate the consumer point of view from the empathy to ED, as an engineer that also has time lines to deliver job done, and knows that for more better plans we do, there is always that bastard detail that can break all plans down.

 

So my very, very small contribution will be to try to merge both consumer and engineer point of view.

 

First, all agree for sure, that level of detail on systems and simulation in our days as reached a point that its complexity is not comparable to the games in the 90's and early 2000's, what 20 or more years ago took few people and couple thousand code lines to accomplish, become a task that need experts of several engineering areas and hundred of thousand lines of code, if not more, are need to achieve levels of simulation and immersion we see today on DCS.

On top of that DCS uses code with several years old, and as one the practical rules in engineering, something that is not broken should not be fix, the problem is that by touching on something that worked for years to try to make it better or adapt it to new systems or features, it will affect other things that were perfectly fine and did not need any improvement, as we all already experienced on multiple occasions.

 

Being this said, in my very personal opinion ED at this stage should break the development into two groups, aircraft systems and weapons/subsystems development.

We already have an airplane with multiple systems and ordinance types, the will of ED to try to satisfy everyone and try to reach of the maximum possible costumers, made them not only on this module but on all others, to try to develop multiple things simultaneously, something that to the business point of view made sense, but creating sometimes more problems than solutions.

 

So my simple proposal, now that we already have an airplane, why not to let finish the airplane systems and features first, all the systems and all the features planned for the machine it self, let's have fully functional F/A-18 with all systems and features 100% working prior to move to the final weapons and external subsystems. Then what ever needs to be added as external subsystems and weapons can be created always with the premisse that a fully working airplane exists and none or minor changes will to be made to the core part, the airplane.

Trying to satisfy everyone will always put ED on the path to delays and last minute issues, because in the end the modules will not be a project, but a fragile collection of patches stitch together that a the minimal modification will risk to make collapse everything.

 

I can almost bet we will see the same happening on the Viper and other to come modules, if ED does not change their methodology of planning.

Once more I fully understand that a company must make money to survive and to make money, they must provide products to sell and to sell they must try reach the maximum costumers, I can accept that if properly justified and explained, I can buy a module in early stage to help the company, but I cant, as consumer, accept that a module will be an eternal WIP, sorry, but no.

 

This is my personal opinion, i know I will get critics saying that if I want an 100% fully flyable airplane to go to FSX, X-Plane or P3P, and programming is not not an exact science that will always fallow an exact and precise time line as planned... but even so if a company like ED ask for an opinion pretty sure is not only because Wags wake up on the wrong side of the bed! So here it is my small contribution! :)

[BuzzU]

I was just told the Tomcat is finished. When was it released as EA? When was the Hornet released in EA? When will the Hornet be finished?