Hornet Roadmap Discussion

[NineLine]

Guys, please don't bicker amongst yourselves, respect each other's opinions even if you don't agree.

[Jaccob]

And can we have a central tank for refuel other FA/18 ? it's possible ? (Possible in F Model):music_whistling:

[NineLine]

And can we have a central tank for refuel other FA/18 ? it's possible ? (Possible in F Model):music_whistling:

 

Hey Jacob, yeah, sorry, this isn't available on the model we are creating currently, thanks!

[Mouse_99]

When any product comes out of "Early Release", what is it called? My biggest concern is ED will focus on more new releases instead of actually finishing what they already have, and I believe that is what is bothering most people. When people say I don't want to buy anything in "Early Release" they will then think they are getting a finished product and in fact, they won't be. Then, for some unknown reason, Steam comes into the conversation, WTF? It doesn't even match what ED has said in the past and they are clearly not following.

 

Now, we are getting newer "versions" of a somehow "finished" products like Warthog 2, that is what? We have updates, improvements as a maintenance update to a supposedly finished product, and they add a weapon system and here we go a "new" product.

I don't think people are really concerned about the "Early Release model" that ED does, it's all about what comes after. Now apparently we have some kind of vote as to what is a priority in a product that no longer IS a priority.

I said before, there is no joy in Mudville and I meant it. ED has to state clearly and effectively what their new product will be, what features it will have and what will be considered finished and a reasonable timeline. I am hoping their software engineers are learning and gaining experience with each release that will enable them to move quicker in the future and remove the fog from the so called "transparency".

[Notso]

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

 

Totally agree. I'm just saying BITS and stuff like that should be at the absolute back of the train. "Nice to haves" not need to haves right now.

[SDsc0rch]

especially since this is a COMPUTER PROGRAM and it will always work 100%

 

(yes, i know there's a *possibility* of failure but the vast majority of us move that slider to 0%)

 

 

so... why worry about BITs??

[shagrat]

When any product comes out of "Early Release", what is it called? My biggest concern is ED will focus on more new releases instead of actually finishing what they already have, and I believe that is what is bothering most people. When people say I don't want to buy anything in "Early Release" they will then think they are getting a finished product and in fact, they won't be. Then, for some unknown reason, Steam comes into the conversation, WTF? It doesn't even match what ED has said in the past and they are clearly not following.

 

Now, we are getting newer "versions" of a somehow "finished" products like Warthog 2, that is what? We have updates, improvements as a maintenance update to a supposedly finished product, and they add a weapon system and here we go a "new" product.

I don't think people are really concerned about the "Early Release model" that ED does, it's all about what comes after. Now apparently we have some kind of vote as to what is a priority in a product that no longer IS a priority.

I said before, there is no joy in Mudville and I meant it. ED has to state clearly and effectively what their new product will be, what features it will have and what will be considered finished and a reasonable timeline. I am hoping their software engineers are learning and gaining experience with each release that will enable them to move quicker in the future and remove the fog from the so called "transparency".

Ehm, did you consider the fact, that the real world A-10C Warthog has gone through multiple "Upgraded" as well? Actually to a point where it got additional weapons capabilities, a HMD (JHMCS) etc. and guess what the US Air Force needed to pay for these Upgrades with tax payers money. It wasn't for free, despite the plane was supposed to be only a tank killer to defend against a flood of Russian armored vehicles during the cold war.

When the Pentagon decided to upgrade it into a modern CAS and COIN platform they did not approach Grumman and later Boeing without paying for these upgrades.

As for DCS World and especially the A-10C has one of the longest standing software supports I have ever seen in the video game industry. Even enterprise software with remotely similar lifecycles and support cost you a considerable percentage in maintenance fees (support subscriptions) per year...

Edit: I understand the point but the A-10C is a pretty bad example.

Edited April 28, 2020 by shagrat

[Thump]

Ehm, did you consider the fact, that the real world A-10C Warthog has gone through multiple "Upgraded" as well? Actually to a point where it got additional weapons capabilities, a HMD (JHMCS) etc. and guess what the US Air Force needed to pay for these Upgrades with tax payers money. It wasn't for free, despite the plane was supposed to be only a tank killer to defend against a flood of Russian armored vehicles during the cold war.

When the Pentagon decided to upgrade it into a modern CAS and COIN platform they did not approach Grumman and later Boeing without paying for these upgrades.

As for DCS World and especially the A-10C has one of the longest standing software supports I have ever seen in the video game industry. Even enterprise software with remotely similar lifecycles and support cost you a considerable percentage in maintenance fees (support subscriptions) per year...

Edit: I understand the point but the A-10C is a pretty bad example.

 

 

 

Depends on how you want to look at it and at what price point ED is going to sell the A-10C 2. If they sell it at full price, your analogy does not work. For your analogy to work, ED would have to plan a price point well below normal module costs if they are doing a "support subscription". Going off of JHMCS current cost numbers of about 250K (since finding the cost of a scorpion is difficult to find readily) in comparison to the A-10's cost back in 1984 (18.8 million), you are looking at a less than 1% increase in cost. So even if we say that the scorpion costs a million dollars, you're looking at a 5% increase in cost. Granted the A-10C 2 will have more than just the Scorpion, is it going to cost $80? Or is it going to be a DLC rate of approximately $20-30?

 

I'm not expecting an actual answer from you or the Devs. I'm just sayin' you're analogy is a pretty bad example if they are selling it at full price.

[isotaan]

Hey Jacob, yeah, sorry, this isn't available on the model we are creating currently, thanks!

 

 

"creating currently"

 

 

You sly dog, you :pilotfly:

[Arctander]

"creating currently"

 

 

You sly dog, you :pilotfly:

 

I’m going to assume that was poor choice of wording and you’re reading too much into it.

 

Any mention of a super hornet or two seat version as a paid upgrade prior to a completed F/A-18C lot 20 would be a folly.

[NineLine]

I’m going to assume that was poor choice of wording and you’re reading too much into it.

 

Any mention of a super hornet or two seat version as a paid upgrade prior to a completed F/A-18C lot 20 would be a folly.

 

Wasnt a poor choice of word, currently, we are not doing one that supports it, what the future holds nobody knows. I certainly couldn't rule anything out in the distant future. I wouldn't rule out anything...

[Arctander]

You’d have been better of saying ‘not in the one we are simulating’ and leave ‘currently’ out as in the current climate it’s all too easy to read more into that than required.

 

As much as lose lips sink ships, careful choice of wording in the current climate would be advisable...

[NineLine]

You’d have been better of saying ‘not in the one we are simulating’ and leave ‘currently’ out as in the current climate it’s all too easy to read more into that than required.

 

As much as lose lips sink ships, careful choice of wording in the current climate would be advisable...

 

I think you might be taking this a little too seriously, but thanks for the suggestion.

[Callsign JoNay]

Let’s not forget CAS. Right now, I try to play missions (which came with F-18) with a JTAC and cannot input the grid coordinates that are given! And the JTAC only provides them in grid.. there is no grid entry (or CAS page). Definitely a critical feature to allow the aircraft to do anything resembling CAS.. should be in early access for a sure.

 

+1

 

JTAC is nearly useless as it stands right now. They give you coordinates that are not even usable in the current sim! We're forced to use the laser search function which really only works from about 10 miles or less, which means you already need to know where the bad guys are in the first place.

 

It's been this way for too long now.

[NineLine]

+1

 

JTAC is nearly useless as it stands right now. They give you coordinates that are not even usable in the current sim! We're forced to use the laser search function which really only works from about 10 miles or less, which means you already need to know where the bad guys are in the first place.

 

It's been this way for too long now.

 

It is planned, and in the queue, but not sure of a timeline right now. But it is not forgotten. Thanks.

[shagrat]

Depends on how you want to look at it and at what price point ED is going to sell the A-10C 2. If they sell it at full price, your analogy does not work. For your analogy to work, ED would have to plan a price point well below normal module costs if they are doing a "support subscription". Going off of JHMCS current cost numbers of about 250K (since finding the cost of a scorpion is difficult to find readily) in comparison to the A-10's cost back in 1984 (18.8 million), you are looking at a less than 1% increase in cost. So even if we say that the scorpion costs a million dollars, you're looking at a 5% increase in cost. Granted the A-10C 2 will have more than just the Scorpion, is it going to cost $80? Or is it going to be a DLC rate of approximately $20-30?

 

 

 

I'm not expecting an actual answer from you or the Devs. I'm just sayin' you're analogy is a pretty bad example if they are selling it at full price.

 

I am pretty positive for owners of the A-10C there will be a discount.

ED does not plan any support subscriptions, as far as I am aware. I mentioned that to point out what other companies that support their software for over a decade do to make it financially viable. ED is giving us a LOT of updates and upgrades for free, that usually you would see as a separate product when it comes to other game developers.

[strikerdg]

It is planned, and in the queue, but not sure of a timeline right now. But it is not forgotten. Thanks.

 

Just a heads up, the CAS page was not on the f18 roadmap though.

[med-taha]

Just a heads up, the CAS page was not on the f18 roadmap though.

 

Many features were missing in the last road map. Hope we’ll see them one day

[dali]

it would be only fair to state at announcement of the model

a) which features will be availible at Release

b) which features will be availible in EA

 

don't promise too much and then state "it is TBA". No, make a plan, stick to it (in terms of features and if possible in terms of time span of development). It is realy bad to have EA for years. EA should be max 3-6 months before final release.

[dSAF Dancer]

Because this is a discussion and opinion thread, I want to also state my opinion.

The order of things on the Roadmap does not bother me too much, as long as there is progress, because the most important and fun features to get the airplane usable are ingame already. It is also a bit special for me because I love simulating Swiss Air Force operations and Switzerland does not have a2g weapons and only uses the litening pod for reconaissance, not the atflir.

 

What really worries me however is, calling the hornet out of early access with so many core systems missing. I have no problem with needing time to get the features right, but please don't call it out of early access when it has many of the promised systems not yet implemented.

 

I know it is just a different way of naming things, but with ED striving for the most accurate simulators, as a customer I expect a module out of early access to have all of its promised features implemented, because people who wait until it is out of early access, decide to wait for a completed product.

[Notso]

You’d have been better of saying ‘not in the one we are simulating’ and leave ‘currently’ out as in the current climate it’s all too easy to read more into that than required.

 

As much as lose lips sink ships, careful choice of wording in the current climate would be advisable...

 

:doh:

[Thump]

I am pretty positive for owners of the A-10C there will be a discount.

ED does not plan any support subscriptions, as far as I am aware. I mentioned that to point out what other companies that support their software for over a decade do to make it financially viable. ED is giving us a LOT of updates and upgrades for free, that usually you would see as a separate product when it comes to other game developers.

 

And I can guarantee that is a business decision for them to give the graphical and cockpit updates, not an altruistic one.

[jasonbirder]

ED is giving us a LOT of updates and upgrades for free, that usually you would see as a separate product when it comes to other game developers.

 

 

But that also seems to give them licence to break everything as they go along...and deliver unfinished (and possibly never to be finished if the whole Hornet Early Access debacle plays out as I suspect it will) modules at full price.

I can't help but feel that if they'd stop incrementally updating everything as they go along and had simply released the 2.5 Causacus Map as a Paid for Map (like PG and NTTR) and completed modules like the A10C we might be better off...

Half the updates in each incremental patch are to fix something they've previously broken...the rest it is incremental updates to unfinished modules...

They wouldn't need to continually update if they sold significant updates (like the new causacus map) as completed paid for add-on and finished modules...

[Tom Kazansky]

stable DCS here. nothing is broken. I'm sure the next stable DCS version will be even better. just have to wait. had a lot of fun with the Hornet so far. most "boring" modules are those completed. just mho. I respect yours though.

[Thump]

most "boring" modules are those completed.

 

Well you sir are in luck.