RADIO ARC 210

[Ignition]

15 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

The upcoming TAD functions are much more important imo. I'm obviously not against the new radio but honestly, why is it that important? In terms of gameplay it really won't give any appreciable benefits but the missing TAD functions will have huge effects, even if we only get the same functionality for preplanned threats as the Hornet and the VIper that will still be a game changer.

The ARC 210 it's also missing from the F-16C, and for that aircraft it's important since it will give another UHF radio.

[WobblyFlops]

Just now, Ignition said:

The ARC 210 it's also missing from the F-16C, and for that aircraft it's important since it will give another UHF radio.

Is that even planned? Isn't that added in a newer tape?

[Sn8ke]

With patiences, this will complete in a matter of months. Im excited!

[Thump]

21 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

The upcoming TAD functions are much more important imo. I'm obviously not against the new radio but honestly, why is it that important? In terms of gameplay it really won't give any appreciable benefits but the missing TAD functions will have huge effects, even if we only get the same functionality for preplanned threats as the Hornet and the VIper that will still be a game changer.

It's not important,  what is revolves around ED being completely unable to finish a module,  let alone one that is already 90% done having been based on their very first DCS module as they left LOMAC.  It is their lack of commitment when it comes to module completion and the constant stringing out of their backers. 

[Foka]

On 11/28/2021 at 1:20 AM, WobblyFlops said:

The upcoming TAD functions are much more important imo. I'm obviously not against the new radio but honestly, why is it that important? In terms of gameplay it really won't give any appreciable benefits but the missing TAD functions will have huge effects, even if we only get the same functionality for preplanned threats as the Hornet and the VIper that will still be a game changer.

First of all it is important for any more advanced online missions, it will allow to use two channels with 2** MHz frequencies (this same benefit as it would be added to Viper).
Secondly - it was one of the main features advertised while selling us the A-10C II module/upgrade. If you'd buy a car and wouldn't get some less important feature would you ignore it, or would you go to a dealer demanding delivering as advertised?

[Snappy]

9 hours ago, Foka said:

First of all it is important for any more advanced online missions, it will allow to use two channels with 2** MHz frequencies (this same benefit as it would be added to Viper).
Secondly - it was one of the main features advertised while selling us the A-10C II module/upgrade. If you'd buy a car and wouldn't get some less important feature would you ignore it, or would you go to a dealer demanding delivering as advertised?

By now, people should be aware of ED‘s standard operating procedure.

They announce features/modules  in a big way , but have huge problems in actually delivering and/or completing.

Either accept it and keep buying into their marketing or make your own decision who gets your money.Not much more to say about it, unfortunately.

Regards,

 Snappy 

 

[Foka]

That doesn't mean we should stay quiet and just let them do it.

[WobblyFlops]

10 hours ago, Foka said:

First of all it is important for any more advanced online missions, it will allow to use two channels with 2** MHz frequencies (this same benefit as it would be added to Viper).

All right, that's a fair point, thank you for the correction. 

 

10 hours ago, Foka said:

Secondly - it was one of the main features advertised while selling us the A-10C II module/upgrade. If you'd buy a car and wouldn't get some less important feature would you ignore it, or would you go to a dealer demanding delivering as advertised?

 

1 hour ago, Snappy said:

By now, people should be aware of ED‘s standard operating procedure.

 

 

I see where you're coming from but at this point it's blatantly obvious that ED have overstretched themselves and they need to sell new modules to fund the development of old modules. And if the even older modules aren't expected to make too much money anymore, spending resources on fixing them would just simply burn through resources faster. I'm willing to bet that ED would love to deliver that quality that people expect but we have to consider two things:

 

1.) In the last 2-4 years the community has transformed a lot. Newcomers aren't interested in having every system simulated, they definitely aren't interested in having to deal with modelled deficiencies or drawbacks and they get very angry whenever something changes. This whole simcade, air quake crowd became interested in DCS because for modern jets, there are very few offerings out there and some of them are objectively terrible. And this is why the vast majority of people actually like when systems are being left out. Less time spend learning, less complexity and they are happy to shoot tanks or plink each other off of the sky on some Air Quake server.

 

2.) ED have a ton of different modules and the core game to manage. After the pretty sim released, they were forced to address some deficiencies in the weather system, with VR becoming more popular and in general better and better they are expected to work on performance and with the addition of popular helicopter modules and a very COIN focused era, they are expected to deal with ground AI issues, add in new AI assets (like the technicals) all the while supporting 3 high fidelity, flagship modules. It's understandable that they are running out of resources to deal with everything.

 

 

[Snappy]

54 minutes ago, Foka said:

That doesn't mean we should stay quiet and just let them do it.

No absolutely not , I agree with you. However I‘m not sure this is going to make them change their MO.. Probably its more effective if they noticed a change in their customers buying behaviour.

@WobblyFlops,

hm yes, but honestly this overstretching is nothing new or recent. Even before the upgrade to A-10v2 was announced.But it’s not my problem if ED picked a questionable business model.They probably can keep going for a while but in the long run I think people will become saturated by it.

That also goes for your point no.2 ED let the core game languish for a long time and now they have loads of issues that need improvement or fixing.

As for for your Point 1, not sure what to make of it. Yes some people might actually like less systems , but again this is not what ED announced or advertises.

regards, 
Snappy.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Snappy

[horstweihrauch]

Is this ARC 210 radio the same as already in the harrier?

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:

1.) In the last 2-4 years the community has transformed a lot. Newcomers aren't interested in having every system simulated, they definitely aren't interested in having to deal with modelled deficiencies or drawbacks and they get very angry whenever something changes. This whole simcade, air quake crowd became interested in DCS because for modern jets, there are very few offerings out there and some of them are objectively terrible. And this is why the vast majority of people actually like when systems are being left out. Less time spend learning, less complexity and they are happy to shoot tanks or plink each other off of the sky on some Air Quake server.

Quite frankly, these people need to read DCS' product description and the plans for the modules contained within.

I mean, what they're doing is the equivalent of me going over to Ace Combat and complaining it's not realistic enough for me.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Northstar98

[Taco-Taylor]

11 hours ago, horstweihrauch said:

Is this ARC 210 radio the same as already in the harrier?

The radio yes, control interface no.

What we see and interact with in the cockpit is in actual fact just the 'control unit' or 'radio head' the radio itself is the same as the Hornet and Harrier but the control head is the new cool bit  

[Thump]

unregard...it was not a picture of the arc-210 itself

 

 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Thump

[byteman59]

Any more news on when the ARC-210 update will be completed?

 

[Foka]

Two weeks.

[Kev2go]

On 11/27/2021 at 7:20 PM, WobblyFlops said:

The upcoming TAD functions are much more important imo. I'm obviously not against the new radio but honestly, why is it that important? In terms of gameplay it really won't give any appreciable benefits but the missing TAD functions will have huge effects, even if we only get the same functionality for preplanned threats as the Hornet and the VIper that will still be a game changer.

 indeed.

 

Disapointing that ED cant even be bothered to include SAM threat rings into the A10C TAD page when that TAD feature isnt even needed to be SADL dependent but based on pre planned information like you already have included in other modules like Viper and Hornet.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Kev2go

[BuzzU]

Speaking of planes never getting done.

 

Is the A-10C 1 done?

What's left to do on the Hornet?

[Sn8ke]

On 11/24/2021 at 11:47 AM, Thump said:

This is simply the ED cycle.  They will miss taking care of the A-10 and will promise more help early 2022.  They will then address one or two of the non-critical issues as a sign of "working on it" in Q1 with nothing really being done until Q3 after much frustration being voiced.  It happened with the Hornet when the Viper came out.  It's happening with with the Viper as SC and Hind came out. And, it will happen again when the Apache comes out.  

It was already explained at the Apache’s release, it will be comoarable to a bare-bones “A’ model rather than a ‘D’ model longbow, with features coming out later in release.

On 1/11/2022 at 5:05 AM, BuzzU said:

Speaking of planes never getting done.

 

Is the A-10C 1 done?

What's left to do on the Hornet?

They have admitted they have spread their developers thin on many projects. Apparently, they only have one developer assigned to the A-10C II, and he was reassigned months ago to other projects, which is why we’ve seen virtually no updated]s on the A-10C II since release. 

[Thump]

1 hour ago, Sn8ke said:

It was already explained at the Apache’s release, it will be comoarable to a bare-bones “A’ model rather than a ‘D’ model longbow, with features coming out later in release.

They have admitted they have spread their developers thin on many projects. Apparently, they only have one developer assigned to the A-10C II, and he was reassigned months ago to other projects, which is why we’ve seen virtually no updated]s on the A-10C II since release. 

I think you misread my post.  I was referencing the dereliction of the A-10CII and the standard cycle that ED goes through when releasing a module into EA.  The point is that the modules previous to it get put aside for about a year (or more if you're a SC fan) until the uproar is annoying enough for them to do "something" that shows that they actually remember that they released that module.  The initial effort for those unfinished modules will be minimal so as to keep the hype for the new module going by giving it 'maximum support.' 

[Thump]

2 hours ago, Sn8ke said:

 

They have admitted they have spread their developers thin on many projects. Apparently, they only have one developer assigned to the A-10C II, and he was reassigned months ago to other projects, which is why we’ve seen virtually no updated]s on the A-10C II since release. 

 

And this is the crux of my issue when it comes to previous module support/completion.  Hence, the cycle.

[BuzzU]

4 hours ago, Sn8ke said:

It was already explained at the Apache’s release, it will be comoarable to a bare-bones “A’ model rather than a ‘D’ model longbow, with features coming out later in release.

They have admitted they have spread their developers thin on many projects. Apparently, they only have one developer assigned to the A-10C II, and he was reassigned months ago to other projects, which is why we’ve seen virtually no updated]s on the A-10C II since release. 

Yes, but I was asking about the A-10C. Not the A-10C II. If the original A-10C isn't done according to ED. No plane will ever be done.

[Snappy]

This is just ED‘s MO. As long as people buy into the hype train and throw money at them for the new EA module it won’t change.

[Snoopy]

7 hours ago, BuzzU said:

Yes, but I was asking about the A-10C. Not the A-10C II. If the original A-10C isn't done according to ED. No plane will ever be done.

ED considered the original A-10C feature complete years ago.  That being said the TAD never had all the features the real suite 3 or 5 had.

version 2 of the A-10C is missing even more TAD functionality, HUD symbology, TGP symbology, the HMCS is missing lots of symbology as well.  Unfortunately we won’t get any of that and I’m not holding my breath for the ARC-210 or long ECM pod in 2022.  

[Alpiinoo]

Still no news...

Edited January 15, 2022 by Alpiinoo

[Sn8ke]

37 minutes ago, Alpiinoo said:

Still no news...

 

They said once a developer is available they will reassign him/her to the A-10C II. Two weeks? Two Years? Been almost a year without an update to a released A-10C II.