Hornet Roadmap Discussion

[Wizard_03]

I don't think i ever got a trophy for doing my best .

 

No ones giving them a trophy I’m not happy with the state of the hornet or the fact that we’re looking at beyond 2020 and EA for completion. But it is what it is.

 

Trashing the developers, the people who want it complete more then anyone on this thread, is not the answer either. It’s not constructive, it’s toxic and pointless. For myself, I was waiting for the hornet to come to DCS, years before it was released, I remember when it was officially announced and I’ve been enjoying it ever sense it came out.

 

It’s been a roller coaster but Im certainly not about to give up on it, or abandon ED when we’re finally talking about the Finnish line now.

[fmedges]

No ones giving them a trophy I’m not happy with the state of the hornet or the fact that we’re looking at beyond 2020 and EA for completion. But it is what it is.

 

Trashing the developers, the people who want it complete more then anyone on this thread, is not the answer either. It’s not constructive, it’s toxic and pointless. For myself, I was waiting for the hornet to come to DCS, years before it was released, I remember when it was officially announced and I’ve been enjoying it ever sense it came out.

 

It’s been a roller coaster but Im certainly not about to give up on it, or abandon ED when we’re finally talking about the Finnish line now.

 

Who’s trashing developers?

[jeffham222]

First, thanks for the communication—regardless of how much hope or frustration it may give.

 

Second, I write this ONLY a customer. I’m not a dev or anything, nor do I pretend to understand what is involved. Here’s my $.37.

 

If I were all-powerful lord god and master of DCS/ED, my priorities set forth would be (maybe not 100% in this order, but generally)—

 

ATFLIR

Mission Cards/MUMI Page (if it is going to modeled in order to download AMU cards)

Flight model

All RADAR Modes—AA/AG/GMT/SEA

 

Things that I see as a waste of time (like Walleye) and really dumb to waste time on and solutions for fellow pilots--

 

Running BITs. What are you gonna do if you have an MC2 fail? Is ED gonna model troubleshooters/maintenance control/NALCOMIS (and it being down for back up)/supply in Lemoore dragging a$$/MAFs not filled out properly and Chief or Gunny telling you about it/etc etc etc? No, you aren’t. The player can set fails if they desire, but I would make the assumption most people want a 100% up jet. Don’t waste time on this.

 

“Actual INS alignment time”. Really? If ya want that just sit there for a few more minutes, or maybe longer. DIY-sim it, Maverick. I don’t want to sit there for longer than I have to.

 

Mines of any kind. Never seen a Hornet loaded with mines past CWTPI. Don’t waste resources on this. They are pointless and I don’t know of a situation where the US Navy, Marines or any other foreign country ever actually mined a harbor with F-18s. Might be once or twice, but meh…

 

ASPJ. Ya know what that stands for? “A $hitty Piece of Junk”. Even if it worked, you’d be able to jam all enemies, right? Then REDFOR would get annoyed because they can’t jam BLUFOR, so then ED will give REDFOR a jammer (I dunno maybe they have one) which will ultimately result in a guns fight. So just do that. You can “simulate” shortcomings/fails/etc of a jammer system, but you probably won’t have knowledge of the “ins and outs” of how it really works, so what is the point of wasting all that time on what “could be”? Skip it.

 

AGM-45 Shrike. Seriously? When HARM ain’t even done yet? Another “Walleye” here—the jet is capable of carrying it, but nobody would when there is something better and more effective like unfinished HARM. Naw, just goofin—I know it ain’t in the list, but incase ya start thinking about it, there’s my argument against.

 

BDU-45. Just use a Mk-82 and don’t arm it. Same exact stuff.

 

I ain’t gonna fight or argue about all the rest of the thing. But this my personal wish list of what I’d like to see concentrated on and ignored. All else is really, “meh” to me.

 

Look, this is a fine sim with some minor (in my mind) shortcomings and a few more major shortcomings (ATFLIR/RDR) but overall, and I think for most people it suits them. Yeah, some people will want their money back, but whatever. If people want THAT much immersion, go to college, get a four-year degree, get commissioned and go fly Hornets. Lots of people have done it, you can, too. It would be unreasonable to expect the Devs to have to model EVERY THING. And if ya can’t because you’re physically not able (only real reason that should stop someone), too dumb or too lazy, then that’s the breaks!

[oldcrusty]

First, thanks for the communication—regardless of how much hope or frustration it may give.

 

Second, I write this ONLY a customer. I’m not a dev or anything, nor do I pretend to understand what is involved. Here’s my $.37.

 

If I were all-powerful lord god and master of DCS/ED, my priorities set forth would be (maybe not 100% in this order, but generally)—

 

ATFLIR

Mission Cards/MUMI Page (if it is going to modeled in order to download AMU cards)

Flight model

All RADAR Modes—AA/AG/GMT/SEA

 

Things that I see as a waste of time (like Walleye) and really dumb to waste time on and solutions for fellow pilots--

 

Never seen a Hornet loaded with mines past CWTPI. Don’t waste resources on this. They are pointless and I don’t know of a situation where the US Navy, Marines or any other foreign country ever actually mined a harbor with F-18s. Might be once or twice, but meh…

 

ASPJ. Ya know what that stands for? “A $hitty Piece of Junk”. Even if it worked, you’d be able to jam all enemies, right? Then REDFOR would get annoyed because they can’t jam BLUFOR, so then ED will give REDFOR a jammer (I dunno maybe they have one) which will ultimately result in a guns fight. So just do that. You can “simulate” shortcomings/fails/etc of a jammer system, but you probably won’t have knowledge of the “ins and outs” of how it really works, so what is the point of wasting all that time on what “could be”? Skip it.

 

AGM-45 Shrike. Seriously? When HARM ain’t even done yet? Another “Walleye” here—the jet is capable of carrying it, but nobody would when there is something better and more effective like unfinished HARM. Naw, just goofin—I know it ain’t in the list, but incase ya start thinking about it, there’s my argument against.

 

BDU-45. Just use a Mk-82 and don’t arm it. Same exact stuff.

 

I ain’t gonna fight or argue about all the rest of the thing. But this my personal wish list of what I’d like to see concentrated on and ignored. All else is really, “meh” to me.

 

Look, this is a fine sim with some minor (in my mind) shortcomings and a few more major shortcomings (ATFLIR/RDR) but overall, and I think for most people it suits them. Yeah, some people will want their money back, but whatever. If people want THAT much immersion, go to college, get a four-year degree, get commissioned and go fly Hornets. Lots of people have done it, you can, too. It would be unreasonable to expect the Devs to have to model EVERY THING. And if ya can’t because you’re physically not able (only real reason that should stop someone), too dumb or too lazy, then that’s the breaks!

 

Some valid points there. As far as jammer goes... it probably won't differ too much from Lockon era ASPJ's, which means lots of HOJ shots and... funny ways to counter :D

Edited April 26, 2020 by Gripes323

[Harker]

First, thanks for the communication—regardless of how much hope or frustration it may give.

 

Second, I write this ONLY a customer. I’m not a dev or anything, nor do I pretend to understand what is involved. Here’s my $.37.

 

If I were all-powerful lord god and master of DCS/ED, my priorities set forth would be (maybe not 100% in this order, but generally)—

 

ATFLIR

Mission Cards/MUMI Page (if it is going to modeled in order to download AMU cards)

Flight model

All RADAR Modes—AA/AG/GMT/SEA

 

Things that I see as a waste of time (like Walleye) and really dumb to waste time on and solutions for fellow pilots--

 

Running BITs. What are you gonna do if you have an MC2 fail? Is ED gonna model troubleshooters/maintenance control/NALCOMIS (and it being down for back up)/supply in Lemoore dragging a$$/MAFs not filled out properly and Chief or Gunny telling you about it/etc etc etc? No, you aren’t. The player can set fails if they desire, but I would make the assumption most people want a 100% up jet. Don’t waste time on this.

 

“Actual INS alignment time”. Really? If ya want that just sit there for a few more minutes, or maybe longer. DIY-sim it, Maverick. I don’t want to sit there for longer than I have to.

 

Mines of any kind. Never seen a Hornet loaded with mines past CWTPI. Don’t waste resources on this. They are pointless and I don’t know of a situation where the US Navy, Marines or any other foreign country ever actually mined a harbor with F-18s. Might be once or twice, but meh…

 

ASPJ. Ya know what that stands for? “A $hitty Piece of Junk”. Even if it worked, you’d be able to jam all enemies, right? Then REDFOR would get annoyed because they can’t jam BLUFOR, so then ED will give REDFOR a jammer (I dunno maybe they have one) which will ultimately result in a guns fight. So just do that. You can “simulate” shortcomings/fails/etc of a jammer system, but you probably won’t have knowledge of the “ins and outs” of how it really works, so what is the point of wasting all that time on what “could be”? Skip it.

 

AGM-45 Shrike. Seriously? When HARM ain’t even done yet? Another “Walleye” here—the jet is capable of carrying it, but nobody would when there is something better and more effective like unfinished HARM. Naw, just goofin—I know it ain’t in the list, but incase ya start thinking about it, there’s my argument against.

 

BDU-45. Just use a Mk-82 and don’t arm it. Same exact stuff.

 

I ain’t gonna fight or argue about all the rest of the thing. But this my personal wish list of what I’d like to see concentrated on and ignored. All else is really, “meh” to me.

 

Look, this is a fine sim with some minor (in my mind) shortcomings and a few more major shortcomings (ATFLIR/RDR) but overall, and I think for most people it suits them. Yeah, some people will want their money back, but whatever. If people want THAT much immersion, go to college, get a four-year degree, get commissioned and go fly Hornets. Lots of people have done it, you can, too. It would be unreasonable to expect the Devs to have to model EVERY THING. And if ya can’t because you’re physically not able (only real reason that should stop someone), too dumb or too lazy, then that’s the breaks!

 

Respectfully, I disagree with the sentiment of your post. DCS is first and foremost a simulator. The whole point is to experience the jet as close as a pilot would and that includes its limitations, such as the requirement for a real INS alignment. The ASPJ is a part of the defensive suite of the Hornet and depending on its implementation, can be marginally to quite useful.

And I don't know about everyone else here, but DIY-simming isn't an acceptable solution in my opinion. If I have to do it, it removes from the experience. You can DIY-sim most games if you're so inclined, but then you wouldn't care for DCS anyway. A large part of the player base is actually going through BIT tests most of the time. It's part of the real experience and we want to recreate that.

As for expecting the devs to model everything, yes, I do, everything within their capabilities. That's how the Hornet was sold, so I don't see why I would expect anything less. ED has demonstrated that they can indeed simulate pretty much everything within reason and and I have faith that they'll do so again. If that means a longer developer time, so be it.

The only thing that I partially agree with you on is the fact that some weapons should be of secondary priority, but should still come later, since they were advertised. And even then, the Walleye was a stepping stone towards the SLAM and SLAM-ER, so I wouldn't include it in the above category.

I'm not even going to comment on the "become a real pilot" thing...

I'm sure that almost everyone here, including ED, wants the Hornet to be the best it can be. And that means simulating every system and aspect of it possible.

[Lancel]

I appreciate the transparency, and hope that the negative comments don't deter such transparency in the future. It's something I feel very strongly for in gaming, and I can appreciate that pivoting can be difficult at first. I know some are impatient, but I'm happy to have it be delivered eventually and right. Time, Quality, Cost, pick two. In this case, I'm pleased that ED chose Cost and Quality.

 

 

My opinion may not be shared by others, but for me I'm happy to have a module like the F/A-18C. It has taught me so much about how fighter pilots actually fly and fight.

[jeffham222]

Respectfully, I disagree with the sentiment of your post. DCS is first and foremost a simulator. The whole point is to experience the jet as close as a pilot would and that includes its limitations, such as the requirement for a real INS alignment. The ASPJ is a part of the defensive suite of the Hornet and depending on its implementation, can be marginally to quite useful.

And I don't know about everyone else here, but DIY-simming isn't an acceptable solution in my opinion. If I have to do it, it removes from the experience. You can DIY-sim most games if you're so inclined, but then you wouldn't care for DCS anyway. A large part of the player base is actually going through BIT tests most of the time. It's part of the real experience and we want to recreate that.

As for expecting the devs to model everything, yes, I do, everything within their capabilities. That's how the Hornet was sold, so I don't see why I would expect anything less. ED has demonstrated that they can indeed simulate pretty much everything within reason and and I have faith that they'll do so again. If that means a longer developer time, so be it.

The only thing that I partially agree with you on is the fact that some weapons should be of secondary priority, but should still come later, since they were advertised. And even then, the Walleye was a stepping stone towards the SLAM and SLAM-ER, so I wouldn't include it in the above category.

I'm not even going to comment on the "become a real pilot" thing...

I'm sure that almost everyone here, including ED, wants the Hornet to be the best it can be. And that means simulating every system and aspect of it possible.

 

Well, allow me to respectively retort, Sir.

 

So ya BIT the RADAR and ya get a hard fail. Like I said, "whattya gonna do? Have shooters and maintenance and all that real world stuff?" What if the shooter assigned to this launch/your airplane is a mech or airframer and doesn't know enough about the RADAR system to get you up? What if you DO get the Avionics God--err, troubleshooter--and he still downs you because your RADAR is FUBAR? So now, in your immersive world, you have a fail that downs you for a BVR CAP mission. If you want immersion to the hilt aircraft that go down on launch are all part of it.

 

I guess ya just shut down, kill the sim and come back later after a cup of coffee while all your buddies go out and shoot down all the bad guys. PS, DCS/ED--I want a ready room with my own personalized coffee cup as well. What time is roll 'em? 7 as usual? Ok. Since the jet is mad-busted and all the bad guys are dead, I'll watch The Matrix for the 700th time.

 

Now if you are talking about systems going into test and never failing, then I guess I still don't understand... What is the point of BITing a system when it will always come back good? Furthermore, what is the point of setting up a failure that could pop before you get off deck? I mean, yeah, I get it Harker... Sometimes you want all the stuff. That is cool and huge bragging points for DCS/ED, but I would ask how many people actually do Fire Loop tests on start-up. I mean I don't, because it's a waste of time and always comes back good. I do the FCS I-BIT, because it's cool watching the surfaces move, but what can we do IF it randomly failed?

 

It's like we want the immersion, but the immersion could cause us not to fly--which is the point of this simulator.

 

There are a ton of things guys who have worked around these things in RL could bring up that just is not practical to model here.

 

That being said, I see what you are saying--and it would be cool to have all the BITs and systems work like they do in real life, but I, personally, have no hope--nor desire--to see it modeled for many reasons. And if it did, it will be 2030 before it's done (at this rate).

 

So, in light of that, I suggested if someone wants more immersion, go do it in real life. I understand there are real world hornet pilots that fly this, but even they would probably tell you it would be pointless to attempt a 100% accurate model because it just can't be done (again for MANY reasons). I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying there are reasonable limits we can expect from these guys. And I still think Walleye was a waste of time. AWW-9/-13 pods I understand are needed for SLAM-ER. But Walleye was just dumb, IMO. I'll be the guy that hates Walleye, but I digress.

 

Again, the sim is great! Thanks, Devs for everything thus far (except Walleye)!

[Mr_Burns]

I would skip the start up for a hot start everyday, jet powered up in the Hangar with Scramble Scramble Scramble is as far as I want to go, on a Carrier, prefer already lined up but will taxi from hot.

 

 

I agree with you Jeffham, in the A-10C you used to get launch hang ups and MFDD failures...flown all mission to pop off a Maverick and it hangs up.....wtf, im not even flying a dynamic mission where this makes a difference!!

[randomTOTEN]

Now if you are talking about systems going into test and never failing, then I guess I still don't understand... What is the point of BITing a system when it will always come back good?

because the jet can do it. The switch/OSB option exists in the real thing, and the real pilot might be required to perform the BIT during their procedures. We should have the ability to perform the same BIT if we so desire.

I would ask how many people actually do Fire Loop tests on start-up.

Unless I'm scrambling, or I'm just sick of doing it for the 20th time today, the answer is every time...

I mean I don't, because it's a waste of time and always comes back good. I do the FCS I-BIT, because it's cool watching the surfaces move

and I like to hear Betty go through her announcements, see the lights illuminate, have the Bleed Valves close, and waiting for the tape to rewind before trying the second loop.

 

I currently don't know what a Fuel BIT looks or sounds like in a Hornet, or what to look for, because it doesn't exist. Learning how to perform this test is just as much a part of operating the aircraft as selecting a target with the A2G radar.

 

One of the biggest breakthroughs I had with the L-39C last week was finding the location of the Lights Test switch. Many of us like these details.

That being said, I see what you are saying--and it would be cool to have all the BITs and systems work like they do in real life, but I, personally, have no hope--nor desire--to see it modeled for many reasons.

I want the jet to at least be able to perform and pass all the BITs that are required to be performed by real crew operating the real aircraft. I'm not interested in failures either, but that's not the point.

 

So, in light of that, I suggested if someone wants more immersion, go do it in real life.

Likewise, I would respond to you that if you don't want an extremely realistic combat aircraft, down to the BIT tests and everything... go play Ace Combat.

 

 

I understand there are real world hornet pilots that fly this, but even they would probably tell you it would be pointless to attempt a 100% accurate model because it just can't be done (again for MANY reasons).

Microsoft just revived a 40 year old franchise which for decades had the motto: "As real as it gets." 100% is of course not the standard, but it is the aspiration.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying there are reasonable limits we can expect from these guys. And I still think Walleye was a waste of time. AWW-9/-13 pods I understand are needed for SLAM-ER. But Walleye was just dumb, IMO. I'll be the guy that hates Walleye, but I digress.

The walleye is fun! Big heavy TV bomb go BOOM! And trying to get a handle on the jet when you drop one of those suckers while SAM's are lighting you up and MiG's are bearing down on you is exciting! If you're not interested in older and outdated weapons that's your problem, not DCS. I like to step into the F-86F, MiG-21Bis or other classic aircraft after I perform a sortie with the Hornet. I will enjoy and use training munitions when they become available too...

 

 

Again, the sim is great! Thanks, Devs for everything thus

Entirely agree with your amended statement.

[Harker]

Well, allow me to respectively retort, Sir.

 

 

 

So ya BIT the RADAR and ya get a hard fail. Like I said, "whattya gonna do? Have shooters and maintenance and all that real world stuff?" What if the shooter assigned to this launch/your airplane is a mech or airframer and doesn't know enough about the RADAR system to get you up? What if you DO get the Avionics God--err, troubleshooter--and he still downs you because your RADAR is FUBAR? So now, in your immersive world, you have a fail that downs you for a BVR CAP mission. If you want immersion to the hilt aircraft that go down on launch are all part of it.

 

 

 

I guess ya just shut down, kill the sim and come back later after a cup of coffee while all your buddies go out and shoot down all the bad guys. PS, DCS/ED--I want a ready room with my own personalized coffee cup as well. What time is roll 'em? 7 as usual? Ok. Since the jet is mad-busted and all the bad guys are dead, I'll watch The Matrix for the 700th time.

 

 

 

Now if you are talking about systems going into test and never failing, then I guess I still don't understand... What is the point of BITing a system when it will always come back good? Furthermore, what is the point of setting up a failure that could pop before you get off deck? I mean, yeah, I get it Harker... Sometimes you want all the stuff. That is cool and huge bragging points for DCS/ED, but I would ask how many people actually do Fire Loop tests on start-up. I mean I don't, because it's a waste of time and always comes back good. I do the FCS I-BIT, because it's cool watching the surfaces move, but what can we do IF it randomly failed?

 

 

 

It's like we want the immersion, but the immersion could cause us not to fly--which is the point of this simulator.

 

 

 

There are a ton of things guys who have worked around these things in RL could bring up that just is not practical to model here.

 

 

 

That being said, I see what you are saying--and it would be cool to have all the BITs and systems work like they do in real life, but I, personally, have no hope--nor desire--to see it modeled for many reasons. And if it did, it will be 2030 before it's done (at this rate).

 

 

 

So, in light of that, I suggested if someone wants more immersion, go do it in real life. I understand there are real world hornet pilots that fly this, but even they would probably tell you it would be pointless to attempt a 100% accurate model because it just can't be done (again for MANY reasons). I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying there are reasonable limits we can expect from these guys. And I still think Walleye was a waste of time. AWW-9/-13 pods I understand are needed for SLAM-ER. But Walleye was just dumb, IMO. I'll be the guy that hates Walleye, but I digress.

 

 

 

Again, the sim is great! Thanks, Devs for everything thus far (except Walleye)!

 

@randomTOTEN pretty much covered me with his response. As for what I'd do if my jet was grounded due to a fault, I'd probably jump into another mission-ready jet, just as it's done IRL in a lot of cases. That's easily solved through MP slots.

As for the Walleye specifically, I don't think it was a useful addition, not at all. I've used it 3 times I think. But ED was asked this question before and they said that they introduced it because it was a simpler MITL weapon than the SLAM and more of a proof of concept that was easy to add. Some bugs were indeed found and fixed for the Walleye and this probably helped with avoiding those bugs in upcoming MITL weapons. So while it's not useful as a weapon (in our opinions), it was certainly useful as a simpler testbed. So at least I see value in that.

And yes, DCS is indeed amazing. But the main reason for that is its impressive accuracy. It's the identity of the sim/game. It's great that you don't need all the details in, it means that you'll be 100% happy with your Hornet before I'll be and that's OK, because I'll be 95% happy. I'm fine with the more obscure details coming later. I (and others) just want to offer constructive criticism and help push the devs into adding that final 5%, if it's something that can be done.

[ellutscho]

Green, yellow, red...wags. Basic or AA caps first. Complex tasks later.

[AMEDooley]

Honestly? No. Here's why. And this will be my last reply about this topic because it's offtopic actually. :)

 

ED has stated in the past that the average WWII warbird takes approx. 1,5-2 years to fully develop.

 

The F/A-18C is a modern fighter jet. In Wags' Hornet EP3

he states the different new systems they had to develop first for this jet and that specific video:

 

• Engines
  
• Air turbine Starter (ATS)
  
• Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive (AMAD)
  
• APU
  
• Fuel
  
• Electrical
  
• Hydraulic
  
• Flight Control Systems (FCS)
  
• Caution & Advisory System
  
• Ground Proximity Warning System
  
• Built-in Test (BIT)
  
• Integrated Fuel & Engine Indicators (IFEI)
  
• Fire Test System
  
• Bleed Air System
  
• INS
  

And then there will be the following systems after that (vid):

 

• AA Radar including submodes
  
• AG Radar including submodes
  
• JHMCS
  
• Datalink
  
• IFF
  
• Different new & advanced weaponry, both AA & AG
  
• EW
  
• TGP
  

And I'm sure I forgot a bunch. Now, if I take a look on the product page of the Hornet, I can read the following:

This tells me ED has taken on a huge task, because they needed to create several new technologies in a way that it's both simulated (not just guesswork) and works as intented, like the real thing.

 

And what? People expect ED to code all this, without bugs, in 1,5 years after the EA release? That's just not realistic. Sure. Maybe ED has had this as a deadline, but given the fact the majority of responses towards ED is negative, I can understand them in wanting to give a deadline in the first place. Even though the task is enormous, and completely new with regards to the tech that needs to be developed.

 

If people would think for a second before blasting of and complain on and on about things not begin finished, they would know the huge and complex task ED has given themselves. That they are trying their best, it's not like Wags, Nick or Kate get up in the morning thinking how they can screw the community that day.

 

I know ED states they thrive on the responses given by the community, and I believe to a certain amount that they do. But nobody, including ED, wants to be criticised on everything they do. It's unreasonable, and not justified.

And they don't need to be told how to run their company as well, it's disrespectful. Like I said, they do their best, let's recognise that for a change.

 

So this jet has been in development for over five years. The reason I know this, is it was the only reason I got into DCS back in 2015. And from what I remember, it’s been that long so I’m a bit fuzzy on it, they stated that they had been developing it for about a year before that. So that’s six years. They also released photos of the A/G radar, 3years ago. Yet here we are still waiting. If it’s taking them this long, saying the Hornet is out of EA will only make those features take longer (Multi-crew, ATC, clouds, anyone?).

 

Yes this is a complex jet, but ED themselves continues to shoot themselves in the foot. The complexity of the jet had nothing to do with them lying about the viper team not affecting the Hornet. And the phrase “subject to change” doesn’t mean at the last second we change everything and tell the user base “we said subject to change.” If they can’t get the docs for it, we get that. Just say it, and most of us would be okay with that.

 

Bringing this jet out of EA, as defined by Steam, before it actually meets that criteria would further erode the already thin trust a lot of users have with ED. Unfortunately there isn’t any options to go else where, but that’s no excuse for ED and their constant moving of the goal post.

 

This module has been in development, according the ED, for 5-6 years. AAA titles don't generally take this long, or when they do they don’t come to us in such a sorry state (F-16 ring a bell). I was actually okay with what shape the Hornet was when it was released EA. And I think that the progress has been good. But ED needs to deliver on their promises that they’ve made. This road map doesn’t do that. Do not remove it from EA until it meets the Steam definition.

[Notso]

First, thanks for the communication—regardless of how much hope or frustration it may give.

 

Second, I write this ONLY a customer. I’m not a dev or anything, nor do I pretend to understand what is involved. Here’s my $.37.

 

If I were all-powerful lord god and master of DCS/ED, my priorities set forth would be (maybe not 100% in this order, but generally)—

 

ATFLIR

Mission Cards/MUMI Page (if it is going to modeled in order to download AMU cards)

Flight model

All RADAR Modes—AA/AG/GMT/SEA

 

Things that I see as a waste of time (like Walleye) and really dumb to waste time on and solutions for fellow pilots--

 

Running BITs. What are you gonna do if you have an MC2 fail? Is ED gonna model troubleshooters/maintenance control/NALCOMIS (and it being down for back up)/supply in Lemoore dragging a$$/MAFs not filled out properly and Chief or Gunny telling you about it/etc etc etc? No, you aren’t. The player can set fails if they desire, but I would make the assumption most people want a 100% up jet. Don’t waste time on this.

 

“Actual INS alignment time”. Really? If ya want that just sit there for a few more minutes, or maybe longer. DIY-sim it, Maverick. I don’t want to sit there for longer than I have to.

 

Mines of any kind. Never seen a Hornet loaded with mines past CWTPI. Don’t waste resources on this. They are pointless and I don’t know of a situation where the US Navy, Marines or any other foreign country ever actually mined a harbor with F-18s. Might be once or twice, but meh…

 

ASPJ. Ya know what that stands for? “A $hitty Piece of Junk”. Even if it worked, you’d be able to jam all enemies, right? Then REDFOR would get annoyed because they can’t jam BLUFOR, so then ED will give REDFOR a jammer (I dunno maybe they have one) which will ultimately result in a guns fight. So just do that. You can “simulate” shortcomings/fails/etc of a jammer system, but you probably won’t have knowledge of the “ins and outs” of how it really works, so what is the point of wasting all that time on what “could be”? Skip it.

 

AGM-45 Shrike. Seriously? When HARM ain’t even done yet? Another “Walleye” here—the jet is capable of carrying it, but nobody would when there is something better and more effective like unfinished HARM. Naw, just goofin—I know it ain’t in the list, but incase ya start thinking about it, there’s my argument against.

 

BDU-45. Just use a Mk-82 and don’t arm it. Same exact stuff.

 

I ain’t gonna fight or argue about all the rest of the thing. But this my personal wish list of what I’d like to see concentrated on and ignored. All else is really, “meh” to me.

 

Look, this is a fine sim with some minor (in my mind) shortcomings and a few more major shortcomings (ATFLIR/RDR) but overall, and I think for most people it suits them. Yeah, some people will want their money back, but whatever. If people want THAT much immersion, go to college, get a four-year degree, get commissioned and go fly Hornets. Lots of people have done it, you can, too. It would be unreasonable to expect the Devs to have to model EVERY THING. And if ya can’t because you’re physically not able (only real reason that should stop someone), too dumb or too lazy, then that’s the breaks!

 

DING DING DING! Well said.

[hanab]

So this jet has been in development for over five years. The reason I know this, is it was the only reason I got into DCS back in 2015. And from what I remember, it’s been that long so I’m a bit fuzzy on it, they stated that they had been developing it for about a year before that. So that’s six years. They also released photos of the A/G radar, 3years ago. Yet here we are still waiting. If it’s taking them this long, saying the Hornet is out of EA will only make those features take longer (Multi-crew, ATC, clouds, anyone?).

 

Yes this is a complex jet, but ED themselves continues to shoot themselves in the foot. The complexity of the jet had nothing to do with them lying about the viper team not affecting the Hornet. And the phrase “subject to change” doesn’t mean at the last second we change everything and tell the user base “we said subject to change.” If they can’t get the docs for it, we get that. Just say it, and most of us would be okay with that.

 

Bringing this jet out of EA, as defined by Steam, before it actually meets that criteria would further erode the already thin trust a lot of users have with ED. Unfortunately there isn’t any options to go else where, but that’s no excuse for ED and their constant moving of the goal post.

 

This module has been in development, according the ED, for 5-6 years. AAA titles don't generally take this long, or when they do they don’t come to us in such a sorry state (F-16 ring a bell). I was actually okay with what shape the Hornet was when it was released EA. And I think that the progress has been good. But ED needs to deliver on their promises that they’ve made. This road map doesn’t do that. Do not remove it from EA until it meets the Steam definition.

 

Totaly agree with you !!

[jamie_c]

One thing I'm not seeing on the roadmap is other HSI improvements:

1. GRID Coord Entry
   
2. GPS Coord XFER
   

 

I'd consider these two bare minimum to bring it up to a similar level to the A-10C CDU, and that's in addition to any other improvements that are on the roadmap (MK points, Offsets etc). The current GRID Coord display is placeholder text, it doesn't change with LL Coord.

 

Other than that, this is roughly how I responded to the survey:

 

1. Flight Model
   
2. Navigation
   
3. Radar Modes/TGP
   
4. Counter-Measures
   
5. Boom Boom
   
6. Training Munition - agree with jeffham222 here.
   

 

As for running BITs, INS alignment time etc, lower priority for me, can see arguments for/against, would like OPT-IN through the Options for the jet. HSI for me is a much higher priority and I don't see how someone wanting to do BITs isn't annoyed by a half done HSI.

[Jaccob]

Hello ! Good news update :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: ! For concurency The future arrived of EF/2000...

 

Always is important ! But pumping in fly not good , need :

- More stabilyty aircraft (pumping effect)

 

- More and more munitions... (AGMx2, HARMx2 Load...) and Other Missiles :D and Bomb Guided !!

 

- More damage with MK82/83 needed... (No damage at 3-4 meters to target... (More damage with rocket ....) More Munition need !

 

- Chaff Flare more yes !

 

- Better sound in flight :smilewink:

 

- Better Radar (Target locking disapear...) Datalink...

 

- Possiblility for unlock Mode AG AA on Groung for Hot AGM or other checklist...

- Lower sensibility couple on Take-off and more stalility with Full Flaps (too many tangage)

- Patch Refuel Bug please....

 

- Up By default Head pilot (realist)

- Update Numeric cockpit display its actualy ancestral plzzz...

- !!!!! Important !!!! Possibility To Axes For Airbreak !!! Plzz ! (you can increase decrease Hotas System...) :cry:

 

I think make the around...

 

With the M-2000 C, i think the FA/18 are the BEST aircraft product of the game ... plz compleet more ! :D:D:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

Thanks For your Good Work !:!!!:.

PS: More Missions Campaign it's welcome...

[Speacy]

Hello ! Good news update :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: ! For concurency The future arrived of EF/2000...

 

Always is important ! But pumping in fly not good , need :

- More stabilyty aircraft (pumping effect)

 

- More and more munitions... (AGMx2, HARMx2 Load...) and Other Missiles :D and Bomb Guided !!

 

- More damage with MK82/83 needed... (No damage at 3-4 meters to target... (More damage with rocket ....) More Munition need !

 

- Chaff Flare more yes !

 

- Better sound in flight :smilewink:

 

- Better Radar (Target locking disapear...) Datalink...

 

- Possiblility for unlock Mode AG AA on Groung for Hot AGM or other checklist...

- Lower sensibility couple on Take-off and more stalility with Full Flaps (too many tangage)

- Patch Refuel Bug please....

 

- Up By default Head pilot (realist)

- Update Numeric cockpit display its actualy ancestral plzzz...

- !!!!! Important !!!! Possibility To Axes For Airbreak !!! Plzz ! (you can increase decrease Hotas System...) :cry:

 

I think make the around...

 

With the M-2000 C, i think the FA/18 are the BEST aircraft product of the game ... plz compleet more ! :D:D:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

Thanks For your Good Work !:!!!:.

PS: More Missions Campaign it's welcome...

 

The goal il to bring jet as real as is get, not a tailored module.

 

AF is not on axis on real plane, flight model need to be same as NATOPS perf charts, payload limits are real, i think you can't take 2 HARM at same pylon (but i need to check to make sure).

Edit: No you can't

Edited April 26, 2020 by Speacy

[Harker]

As for running BITs, INS alignment time etc, lower priority for me, can see arguments for/against, would like OPT-IN through the Options for the jet. HSI for me is a much higher priority and I don't see how someone wanting to do BITs isn't annoyed by a half done HSI.

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.

[sigzegv]

Always is important ! But pumping in fly not good , need :

- More stabilyty aircraft (pumping effect)

 

- More and more munitions... (AGMx2, HARMx2 Load...) and Other Missiles :D and Bomb Guided !!

 

- More damage with MK82/83 needed... (No damage at 3-4 meters to target... (More damage with rocket ....) More Munition need !

 

- Chaff Flare more yes !

 

- Better sound in flight :smilewink:

 

- Better Radar (Target locking disapear...) Datalink...

 

- Possiblility for unlock Mode AG AA on Groung for Hot AGM or other checklist...

- Lower sensibility couple on Take-off and more stalility with Full Flaps (too many tangage)

- Patch Refuel Bug please....

 

- Up By default Head pilot (realist)

- Update Numeric cockpit display its actualy ancestral plzzz...

- !!!!! Important !!!! Possibility To Axes For Airbreak !!! Plzz ! (you can increase decrease Hotas System...) :cry:

What you ask for is Ace Combat, you're in the wrong game.

[jamie_c]

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.

 

Yes, I would hope not, which is why I said lower priority, I'd still consider that an essential part of the end state.

 

I'm just hoping to avoid this Roadmap being the definitive list of Hornet capability and getting to the end of 2021 with ED proclaiming "We're finished!".

[Cintra]

This is the same story as with the A8. What do you call released? Missing tons of features???

[Silver_Dragon]

Mines of any kind. Never seen a Hornet loaded with mines past CWTPI. Don’t waste resources on this. They are pointless and I don’t know of a situation where the US Navy, Marines or any other foreign country ever actually mined a harbor with F-18s. Might be once or twice, but meh…

 

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. Just use a Mk-82 and don’t arm it. Same exact stuff.

 

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.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Silver_Dragon

[Hiker1]

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.

[Black Hawk 76]

Are we going to get every weapon system possible?

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=836&t=1&sid=45f96b53645dbbc9f00d88245e76c809

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1276

 

 

Would be cool to have stuf like the:

 

 

 

TALD

CNU-188

NAVFLIR

ALE-41 chaff

ALQ-167

SUU-20

MK-36 Mine

MK-62 Mine

MK-40 Mine

600 gal tank pod

 

 

 

 

What do you think?

[Silver_Dragon]

TALD

CNU-188

NAVFLIR

ALE-41 chaff

ALQ-167

SUU-20

MK-36 Mine

MK-62 Mine

MK-40 Mine

600 gal tank pod

 

-ADM-141 TALD has planned, 3D model has into DCS, by ED, not HeatBlur and waiting to implement them.

-CNU-188 has a travel pod, as the MXU-648 Travelpod on A-10C. ED has not talk about them.

-Hughes Aircraft AN/AAR-50 NAVFLIR provide navigation capabitily with the AN/AAS-38 Nite Hawk FLIR targeting pod, and not used on C version.

-ALE-41 chaff has unkonow, chaff pods has not implemented on DCS.

-ALQ-167 has a EW training pod, unkonow yet.

-SUU-20, other training pod with bomb and rockets, unkonow on DCS to some aircrafts.

-Mk-36, 40 destructor mine, Mk-62 QuickStrike has planned (3D model added).