no documentation Missing HARM EOM

[Ahmed]

Now that the viper got EOM implemented, the Hornet is still missing PB/EOM and TOO/EOM and associated HUD/HSI symbology. FRM versions dating back to 2003 have information on this.

[Ahmed]

@BIGNEWY, if I may as a question: why was this moved to the wishlist? The DCS Hornet was advertised with SP/TOO/PB HARM modes as a feature, and EOM is just a submode of TOO and PB (entered by simply selecting TOO/PB a second time). There is a lot of documentation available on them in publicly available docs.

[BIGNEWY]

Currently not planned, which is why it was moved to wish list. 

thanks

[raus]

@BIGNEWY this is honestly disheartening. IIRC, when @Wags announced some viper HARM features, he was saying this level of simulation would be later coming to the Hornet. Also, I think we all understood the whole concept about things developed in the Hornet would make viper progress faster, would be a 2-way road, where eventually the Hornet would also benefit from viper development.

Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with the EA scheme. I do have patience and understand things take time. But falling short on well known and documented features, that are even made available for another module feels wrong. Id have absolutely no issue if you were saying "I can't tell when will this feature come to the Hornet" or "It will still be a long way until we can put manpower back into Hornet to bring these kind of updates"... but just telling it will simply not happen, as it is no longer planned... well, bummer

I know the CM take flak whatever they announce, and that is impossible to keep everybody happy, but it feels that we do not get any update on what is yet to be expected for the Hornet, and neither on when could we expect anything. And, when we get an update, it is just to communicate things that won't be done... 

Edited March 9, 2022 by raus

[med-taha]

16 minutes ago, raus said:

@BIGNEWY this is honestly disheartening. IIRC, when @Wags announced some viper HARM features, he was saying this level of simulation would be later coming to the Hornet. Also, I think we all understood the whole concept about things developed in the Hornet would make viper progress faster, would be a 2-way road, where eventually the Hornet would also benefit from viper development.

Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with the EA scheme. I do have patience and understand things take time. But falling short on well known and documented features, that are even made available for another module feels wrong. Id have absolutely no issue if you were saying "I can't tell when will this feature come to the Hornet" or "It will still be a long way until we can put manpower back into Hornet to bring these kind of updates"... but just telling it will simply not happen, as it is no longer planned... well, bummer

I know the CM take flak whatever they announce, and that is impossible to keep everybody happy, but it feels that we do not get any update on what is yet to be expected for the Hornet, and neither on when could we expect anything. And, when we get an update, it is just to communicate things that won't be done... 

 

This ^^^

Amazing how things changed from « this level of simulation would be later coming to the Hornet » to « actually Not planned »

Edited March 9, 2022 by med-taha

[al531246]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

Currently not planned, which is why it was moved to wish list. 

thanks

Can we know why this change was made? Lack of documentation, lack of developers, lack of money or something else?

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, raus said:

@BIGNEWY this is honestly disheartening. IIRC, when @Wags announced some viper HARM features, he was saying this level of simulation would be later coming to the Hornet. Also, I think we all understood the whole concept about things developed in the Hornet would make viper progress faster, would be a 2-way road, where eventually the Hornet would also benefit from viper development.

I will speak with Wags later about this but as far as I am aware he did not mention EOM specifically. 
Thanks

[Dragon1-1]

No, he spoke about the much improved HARM simulation that we were getting for the Viper, and he made no indication he'd exclude EOM from that statement. If it's not planned, it really should be, especially since docs aren't a problem. It's the same missile, it should be implemented to the same degree on both airframes.

Put in in the post-release phase if you need to, but do put it somewhere. Unlike things like UFC BU and MUMI pages, which are mostly cosmetic, this actually affects HARM employment on the Hornet.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[raus]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

I will speak with Wags later about this

Hey, @BIGNEWY I appreciate the action. It is always good to have confirmation in either way, as much as we hate to hear some news, even though I understand they might be needed for business continuity.

However, even when those weren't the exact words or phrasing, I clearly remember that was the spirit, and I think mostly everybody would agree to that. Not trying to be nitpicky, but if we were to go by what was exactly said, we could also argue that:

Which clearly is not the case, as the Hornet has not yet left EA. That being said, I understand it would do nobody good to leave the developers in the Hornet, and leave other modules unattended. I could even accept (I know many people wouldn't) Hornet already leaving EA, as it is, when there was a firm promise of a roadmap being completed later on (with a given list of features). I, anyway, have other modules to employ my time into, and enjoy them... but we should also think in people that purchased the Hornet based on some assumptions, when there was no viper, no Apache... and now are left aside...

No hard feelings, and I'm not trying to pick on you. As I said, I appreciate the effort, and if you come back after checking with Wags to share some bit of "official" info, it will be more than welcome  

[BIGNEWY]

This thread will go off topic very quickly I can see. We are discussing the specifics of the inclusion of EOM for the Hornet, which as mentioned was not planned. 
There are documents out there but it is my understanding they are ITAR restricted and if that is the case EOM for the hornet is unlikely to happen. Again I will ask Wags about it and we will look into it, but currently EOM is not planned. 

[WobblyFlops]

What people are likely referring to is this comment:

 

This doesn't indicate that all the actual HARM modes will be included for the Hornet as well but rather that the seeker limitation will eventually end up getting modelled. 

 

[Hulkbust44]

This thread will go off topic very quickly I can see. We are discussing the specifics of the inclusion of EOM for the Hornet, which as mentioned was not planned. 
There are documents out there but it is my understanding they are ITAR restricted and if that is the case EOM for the hornet is unlikely to happen. Again I will ask Wags about it and we will look into it, but currently EOM is not planned. 

Even It's most simplest implementation would be fine. Just let us fire the HARM when the VV is not on the ASL to "simulate" EOM. In theory this should be a very simple task.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

"No documentation" 

I suppose all the other threads  about this where people posted videos and images went into the shadow realm

[Hulkbust44]

I'll leave this here again. 2:36
 

 

[Ahmed]

I think that they mean that there is not enough documentation to model them, not that there is no documentary proof of a 2005 Hornet having TOO/PB EOM.

There is limited documentation about those in some 2001 documents that don't have any mention to export control in their distribution notice. Currently we seem to have the older non-EOM HARM avionics (partially) simulated.