Jump to content

Any updates on the Hornet, ACLS and MIDS functions?


Cytarabine

Recommended Posts

Your post is about to be moved to the Wish List section.

ED is currently busy developing the remaining functions of the F16 and the release of the AH64D

The remaining features of F18 will be shelved for quite a long time, from my personal point of view, I already think they "abandoned" F18, the last few updates have been fixing bugs in F18.

Every time ed promises, some of them are not realized

So on the good side, these features are what they promised, and we'll just have to be patient.
But on the bad side, it's not known how long it will take.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post is about to be moved to the Wish List section.
ED is currently busy developing the remaining functions of the F16 and the release of the AH64D
The remaining features of F18 will be shelved for quite a long time, from my personal point of view, I already think they "abandoned" F18, the last few updates have been fixing bugs in F18.
Every time ed promises, some of them are not realized
So on the good side, these features are what they promised, and we'll just have to be patient.
But on the bad side, it's not known how long it will take.
The thing is, it's not even the major bugs.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:
3 minutes ago, Steel Jaw said:
YAAAAAWNNN...the Viper.
Still waiting on the DTC for my Hornet.

The AMU functionality was stated to be a core development.

Mmmm, K:  so where the Heck is it?

  • Like 1

"You see, IronHand is my thing"

My specs:  W10 Pro, I5/11600K o/c to 4800 @1.32v, 64 GB 3200 XML RAM, ASUS RTX3060ti/8GB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, FrostLaufeyson said:

Your post is about to be moved to the Wish List section.

ED is currently busy developing the remaining functions of the F16 and the release of the AH64D

The remaining features of F18 will be shelved for quite a long time, from my personal point of view, I already think they "abandoned" F18, the last few updates have been fixing bugs in F18.

Every time ed promises, some of them are not realized

So on the good side, these features are what they promised, and we'll just have to be patient.
But on the bad side, it's not known how long it will take.

I know it will. Which is kind of sad given how long we have been waiting for a completed Hornet. 

At this stage it seems complete will be perhaps ACLS and a trailer on YouTube to say “out of early access” and then maybe a couple of features trickling in if we are lucky over the next couple of years. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED is short on devs. They can work on one project at a time. Past ~2 years there were patches for Hornet every few weekes, and almost nothing for Viper. Last year they moved almost all devs from Hornet to Viper, so now it will be other way around. Get used to not have updates, no bugs fixed for months.
And after AH-64D release it probably will be even worse.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, you guys are pessimists. Yes, it would be great if stuff got finished faster, especially since the Hornet is at a very high level of completion already and we are using it for so long - but now it's the Viper's turn, and it sorely needs it. As we saw, a lot of Hornet developments speeded up Viper development, and later on we will profit off that in the Hornet as well because stuff will arrive faster.

Judging the Hornet to be "abandoned" is just absurd. A bit on the backburner? Yeah, obviously. That will change in good time. Just my 0.02$, I am not in a hurry.

  • Like 6

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, the Viper people were posting the exact same thing when it was the Hornet that was in focus. In fact, the complaints were even more fierce, since the Viper was missing rather a lot of features at the time. 

Hornet's time will come, and it'll be the Viper folk whining when it does. Viper's ECM, datalink and loft bombing are currently in focus, so that'll probably be the first things updated in the Hornet once they switch back. MIDS in particular is being implemented in the Viper right now. When this happens, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they haven't forgotten the Hornet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also possible that these features have open source, legally available documentation for the Viper but none for the Hornet. (Remember, just because you can buy a manual online that describes how that works that won't necessarily mean that a company making a product through legal channels can use the same manual.)

 

Obviously there are some really easy pickings when it comes to the missing features (like the map slew, I mean come on, that one is just indefensible) but assuming that certain features will get implemented to module A just because they were implemented for module B is not necessarily going to be the case. The Hornet is a licensed product and they may very well be under heavy limitations as to what they can implement.


For the MSI stuff, I simply can't believe that ED didn't know what it actually stands for and how it should behave. I mean Wags surely knows more about the Hornet than all of us, non SMEs combined. It's his favourite aircraft as far as I can tell and he even worked on a previous Hornet simulator that for its time had these things implemented at a suprisingly high fidelity. The MSI is one of the most famous features of the Hornet, it being the first example of proper sensor fusion. No one should believe that they simply didn't know how to actually implement this stuff or what's missing. It's much more likely that the contract limits them when it comes to fidelity. Case in point, preplanned threat symbols are possible for both yet they aren't simulated in the A-10, and based on the last post by Nineline regarding the topic, it may never even be allowed to be implemented.

 

I'm sure that eventually the Hornet will have all the easy pickings and bugs added and fixed but I personally wouldn't expect anything more than that. A realistic expectation is map slew+waypoint creation, ACLS functions, the ability to designate from the SA page and see offboard datalink tracks on the Az/El display. To actually properly finish the Hornet, they'd essentially need to rework the entire trackfile correlation and memory logic and rebuild certain functions with MSI in mind plus fix at least 10 radar bugs, many of them are incredibly complex and intricate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also possible that these features have open source, legally available documentation for the Viper but none for the Hornet. (Remember, just because you can buy a manual online that describes how that works that won't necessarily mean that a company making a product through legal channels can use the same manual.)
 
Obviously there are some really easy pickings when it comes to the missing features (like the map slew, I mean come on, that one is just indefensible) but assuming that certain features will get implemented to module A just because they were implemented for module B is not necessarily going to be the case. The Hornet is a licensed product and they may very well be under heavy limitations as to what they can implement.

For the MSI stuff, I simply can't believe that ED didn't know what it actually stands for and how it should behave. I mean Wags surely knows more about the Hornet than all of us, non SMEs combined. It's his favourite aircraft as far as I can tell and he even worked on a previous Hornet simulator that for its time had these things implemented at a suprisingly high fidelity. The MSI is one of the most famous features of the Hornet, it being the first example of proper sensor fusion. No one should believe that they simply didn't know how to actually implement this stuff or what's missing. It's much more likely that the contract limits them when it comes to fidelity. Case in point, preplanned threat symbols are possible for both yet they aren't simulated in the A-10, and based on the last post by Nineline regarding the topic, it may never even be allowed to be implemented.
 
I'm sure that eventually the Hornet will have all the easy pickings and bugs added and fixed but I personally wouldn't expect anything more than that. A realistic expectation is map slew+waypoint creation, ACLS functions, the ability to designate from the SA page and see offboard datalink tracks on the Az/El display. To actually properly finish the Hornet, they'd essentially need to rework the entire trackfile correlation and memory logic and rebuild certain functions with MSI in mind plus fix at least 10 radar bugs, many of them are incredibly complex and intricate.
Such decisions and limitations should be known before development work starts. If they knew they couldn't model stuff as fundamental as MSI and trackfiles, then they shouldn't advertise it as a mid-2000s Hornet, simple as that.

MSI right now doesn't exist at all in the DCS Hornet. Radar symbology is missing. Radar trackfile memory is wrong and that has nothing to do with MSI (you have radar memory and MSI memory, two different things). TWS AUTO is wrong.

These are fundamental elements of the Hornet's A/A suite, not details. Without them, we might as well have a 90s Hornet with IAMs, JHMCS and SLAM-ER. And even then, the stuff specific to the radar would still be wrong. I can't fathom that they'd actually leave the A/A suite in such a state and call the Hornet "complete".

Unless ED says so, I can only hope that they'll deal with them at some point. I'd indeed be nice to have an update on that, although it doesn't seem like anyone's working on anything new for the Hornet for some time now.

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lordfacker84 said:

easy answer....i never buy an early access module....so ed will wait my money for long time....The hornet is in "stand by" state....very well ....also my money

You've waited a long time for the Hornet. I bought it in 2018.

  • Like 1

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that 'MSI' (if you could call it that) in hornet was kinda alright up until about mid 2019. And then it just broke, and has remained broken since.

So whilst its possible that there might be contractual reasons, however dubious. It is made even more unbelievable when those reasons didn't limit them before.

  • Like 5

476th Discord   |    476th Website    |    Swift Youtube
Ryzen 5800x, RTX 4070ti, 64GB, Quest 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some other systems that have been misunderstood from public docs and implemented wrongly (e.g. several ALR-67/HUD EW issues, including threat ring logic), that are also not due to contractual reasons.

As EA doesn't have a set end (and that is to many extents a positive thing), I hope that ED take time to fix some of these major system issues in the hornet prior to releasing it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that 'MSI' (if you could call it that) in hornet was kinda alright up until about mid 2019. And then it just broke, and has remained broken since.
So whilst its possible that there might be contractual reasons, however dubious. It is made even more unbelievable when those reasons didn't limit them before.
The RWS mode display was more correct, with trackfiles displaying correctly, but that was still not MSI (as you already state). Just radar+datalink correlation.

I also have a hard time accepting that everything related to MSI would be off limits. There's another commercially available (Super) Hornet sim that features several avionics functions that are absent from our Hornet.
  • Like 2

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why ED keeps making "best of the best" instead of aircraft they got information about? If they have 2003 docs for F/A-18, why decided to make 2005 version, cause it's better? What was the reason to take ANG F-16 when they get Greece docs? What was the reason to start working on AH-64D when there is no radar environment? Why carrier and combined arms when they're not working on main features but give priority to visual effects? Why? Cause you can't sell radar environment and full fidelity Lot 10 F/A-18, but "best of the best, top dog" whatever called - but still latest platform and visualisation instead of internal systems. It is nice to hear from our belover community managers that we know less than managers... but we want to have working product at the end of the day, and not promisses of better life somewhere later in EA. And still we understand that it's a development but how's beta could not be different from stable version of the game featuring same bugs? How can you tell us few years ago that you'll delay updates for better patches and then we get what we have right now. 

I guess it's time to change look on things and start listen to customers, than managers, or you'll keep taking too big pie and struggle to eat it, and when budget will come to an end you'll get another F-5/Huey. With that you can call youself best of the best but in that will believe only blind people who did not look through Reddit, forums and YT.

 With all love and respect - fan of Igor Tishin's work and legacy that turned away from way he wanted to see it...

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still not understand why ED not finish hornet before to move the team to viper. 

the end of EA could have shown the consideration of the players.  I think that they prefers profit above all.  but I'm afraid it will backfire.  Because even the most faithful will be fed up about it.

That's why I won't buy any more EA signed by ED. I've been playing dcs for more than 10 years, and I can't stand this way of doing things anymore

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I personally don't believe they did this intentionally. Being a licenced product literally means nothing and only allows you to use it's real name and brand (logo). It looks more like lack of documentation or misunderstanding of documentation, because let's be honest, apart from some research papers there really isn't much out there in the public domain. Funnily enough a certain Super Hornet in another sim has this modelled mostly correctly. At this point, this late in it's devcycle I doubt we'll see any reworks or changes for the Hornet - those woudl require significant resources and time, which at least financially doesn't make sense for ED.


Documentation is available though and a literature study is a standard first step in projects like these. You don't just start developing. At least this should be the case.

As for the Hornet's budget, we of course can't know where it's at, but if ED burned through it already, then standard practice for an already-sold product is to still finish it, take the loss and consider the whole thing as a learning experience.
  • Like 5

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...