Jump to content

Can we expect any new features in the future?


Digitalvole

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Steel Jaw said:

FM at this point should be pretty low on the list of to do, other missing features like a DTC and DL should take priority.  FM is too subjective.

I don't disagree that at this stage it's relatively a low priority task (as most of the flight envelope is already quite accurate), however the NFM-000 is pretty specific on high alpha handling qualities, and the stated attainable (instantaneous and sustained) alpha IRL is just not possible with the current flight model, especially when attempting a pirouette. I don't see this as subjective at all, but I do realize that it's not a priority and can take a lot of work to fine tune.

Maybe now that the Viper FM has been updated, and seems to be much more representative of it's RL capabilities, there will be some devs available to have another look at the Hornet. 

Edit:

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

Still looking into that, not conclusive currently. We have a different spin recovery fix coming in this patch regarding frozen data. 

 

Perfect, thanks for the update!


Edited by Mikaa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess if knock-on effects/quiet deliberate fix don't do it in this patch, I'll make a short track to bump those issues up. TBH, they're huge annoyances prone to ruining an otherwise good pattern. You balloon, come down too fast, and by the time you're abeam, you're still trying to stabilize. Then, you can't establish a bank and leave it at that, you have to constantly watch it, and don't you dare go heads-down or glance at the boat, lest the bank slip away from you, which in turn throws your descent out of whack. Once you figure out the trick to the Tomcat, it's actually less frustrating to trap than the Hornet due to being free from those two problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2022 at 5:40 PM, BIGNEWY said:

Still looking into that, not conclusive currently. We have a different spin recovery fix coming in this patch regarding frozen data. 

Thanks for keeping the Hornet faithful updated, BN. We appreciate your help! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2022 at 2:30 PM, Steel Jaw said:

FM at this point should be pretty low on the list of to do, other missing features like a DTC and DL should take priority.  FM is too subjective.

Truth.  DTC's should have been implemented years ago and not just for the Hornet.

FM assessments, meh... usually just someone looking for "game balance" rather than simulation.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 10700K OC 5.1GHZ / 500GB SSD & 1TB M:2 & 4TB HDD / MSI Gaming MB / GTX 1080 / 32GB RAM / Win 10 / TrackIR 4 Pro / CH Pedals / TM Warthog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently in Wag’s latest interview, he made a comment along the lines of:

“Need to be extremely mindful of sourcing, and some F/A-18 functions (namely MIDS) doesn't have enough information to model.” 

Can anyone confirm this? Have our hopes for a more complete MIDs simulation been dashed for good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently in Wag’s latest interview, he made a comment along the lines of:
“Need to be extremely mindful of sourcing, and some F/A-18 functions (namely MIDS) doesn't have enough information to model.” 
Can anyone confirm this? Have our hopes for a more complete MIDs simulation been dashed for good?
I don't know about MIDS, but, for example, MSI (which uses MIDS) has enough info available for a mostly good simulation. At least one that considers Radar + Link 16 + FLIR contribution. All the required info and human-machine interface stuff are described in docs you can easily find online.

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

2 hours ago, Harker said:

I don't know about MIDS, but, for example, MSI (which uses MIDS) has enough info available for a mostly good simulation. At least one that considers Radar + Link 16 + FLIR contribution. All the required info and human-machine interface stuff are described in docs you can easily find online.

It's obvious that by MIDS he was referring to MSI. Wags said that in open source, legally available documentation, there's only vague references to these functions which aren't enough to model them. Therefore it's safe to assume that they consider the 742 not an open source document and the data in it is unusable. Whether or not this is actually true or a justification because they don't want to admit that they lack the resources to finish it is everyone's guess.

 

No offense  to Wags or anyone at ED, but to me it seems that there is some kind of fundamental misunderstanding regarding the difference between MSI (which is the name of air to air sensor fusion) and MIDS-Link 16. You know that but many don't, so to sum it up:

While MSI uses Link 16 data, MSI itself it's not a datalink function. It's also not a datalink-ownship data correlation, as seen in the F-16 or F-15E. It's a system that's designed to integrate all sensor data that can contribute to air to air trackfiles and display that on the MSI displays. In theory, it could function even if you don't use datalink/MIDS at all because you still have many other contributing sensors to air to air trackfile generation such as the radar, FLIR, OCS or HARM seeker. 

 

With that being said, even if they never add MSI, there are many other issues with the Hornet regarding a plethora of different systems that require substantial extra work. It's kind of disappointing that we never know what ED are planning and what they aren't planning. We do know that VS and TA for the radar are not coming, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Communication is key and clearly explaining which of the missing or incorrectly implemented features get reworked or added would be vital.

 

As a sidenote, I'd like to add that it would be nice if ED could justify as to why these features get pruned out. For example, we know that they consider MSI and EOM mode of the HARM as a sensitive aspect or there's not enough documentation. Regardless of how true that is, let's accept it for now. However, what's the justification of not adding the missing radar modes, the full fidelity INS simulation (at the very least, realistic drift and update modes), the missing IAM functions, the functionality of the static pages like the TGT DATA page, the missing functions of the navigation system and more. I think ED should hold themselves to the same standard that every other developer is held to, and if so many systems cannot be added to the module, there should be at least some kind of explanation as to why. 

 

I understand that developing such a module is hard and there may not be enough resources to model all the features and that's perfectly fair. I'd rather have the current Hornet than no Hornet at all. But if the lack of available resources are indeed the case, there should be clear communication on that and they shouldn't state that the Hornet is only missing a few functions. It is missing a lot more that may or may not end up in the game and that shouldn't be covered up in my opinion.

I also think that due to the nature of the product (it's not really an artistic product like a conventional video game but the stated goal is to reproduce the functions of an existing aircraft) there should be more community involvement when it comes to these decisions. If resource contraints are so severe at ED, they should utilize the community polls and votes more often. They should state how many different systems they can add based on the amount of resources allocated for the project and at what level of fidelity, and the community should vote about the priority of these systems. 

 

I know for a fact that I'd much rather have access to map slew and AUTO bombing loft cues than the FUEL BIT function or the static pages that they never intend on finishing, for example. 


Edited by Fromthedeep
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that now the AH64 is out that we’ll get some info from ED on what is going on with the Hornet. But supposing the above is the case and our hopes for MSI are dashed due to lack of information (that ED can use legally) I feel that puts the idea of “a specific airframe from a specific timeframe” on very dodgy ground.

Not to mention it’s a pretty big cock up on ED’s side to only be finding this out now. (If that is what is ofc). And at the very least we would be owed an apology. Finding out that a relatively major feature of an aircraft is undoable at this stage is pretty poor in my opinion and very disappointing. It’s tempting to take a screen grab of any roadmaps for future modules on release day, just in case. (Again the above is only relevant if it’s true we won’t get it.)

The F16 is getting some MSI features, is that right? 

I’d argue there is good reason to “best guess” it, as surely our F18 is more realistic with a guesstimate MSI than no MSI at all. Or do we remove features to make it an accurate earlier Hornet?

As I said, I hope we can get some info sooner rather than latter now the Apache is out. Being left in limbo sucks and doesn’t do anyone any good. And just to be clear I’m not demanding new features, just a couple of paragraphs of text and maybe some bullet points if they are feeling generous. Surely that wouldn’t take long.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Viper got some MIDS stuff implemented, not MSI. It doesn't have MSI at all (in IRL and DCS). MSI is the Hornet's internal system for sensor fusion, MIDS is about data sharing.

I agree that without at least a partial MSI implementation (Radar + MIDS + FLIR data), our Hornet is missing an integral part of its avionics, simple as that. Also, at this point, ED can simply use the forums threads to model MSI.

  • Like 4

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

At the absolute very least, we need to be able to designate offboard tracks so that we can properly run the targeting and reattack phases of BVR combat.

Of course there's a ton more that should be modeled as well, and information is available online and on the forums as well like you mentioned Harker.

I wonder what exactly is the requirement for "public enough" information? If it has to be officially public release to be used, 90% of what is in DCS is breaking that rule.

  • Like 1

 1A100.png?format=1500w  

Virtual CVW-8 - The mission of Virtual Carrier Air Wing EIGHT is to provide its members with an organization committed to presenting an authentic representation of U.S. Navy Carrier Air Wing operations in training and combat environments based on the real world experience of its real fighter pilots, air intercept controllers, airbosses, and many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Harker said:

The Viper got some MIDS stuff implemented, not MSI. It doesn't have MSI at all (in IRL and DCS). MSI is the Hornet's internal system for sensor fusion, MIDS is about data sharing.

 

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying that. 

Seems like a tough spot to be in for ED: We don’t want to model it if we can’t do it accurately, but if we don’t model it the entire module isn’t accurate.

Proper Preparation etc… 

Im going to keep my fingers crossed and try to keep my mouth shut now, I’ll just be repeating myself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious that by MIDS he was referring to MSI. Wags said that in open source, legally available documentation, there's only vague references to these functions which aren't enough to model them. Therefore it's safe to assume that they consider the 742 not an open source document and the data in it is unusable. Whether or not this is actually true or a justification because they don't want to admit that they lack the resources to finish it is everyone's guess.
 
No offense  to Wags or anyone at ED, but to me it seems that there is some kind of fundamental misunderstanding regarding the difference between MSI (which is the name of air to air sensor fusion) and MIDS-Link 16. You know that but many don't, so to sum it up:
While MSI uses Link 16 data, MSI itself it's not a datalink function. It's also not a datalink-ownship data correlation, as seen in the F-16 or F-15E. It's a system that's designed to integrate all sensor data that can contribute to air to air trackfiles and display that on the MSI displays. In theory, it could function even if you don't use datalink/MIDS at all because you still have many other contributing sensors to air to air trackfile generation such as the radar, FLIR, OCS or HARM seeker. 
 
With that being said, even if they never add MSI, there are many other issues with the Hornet regarding a plethora of different systems that require substantial extra work. It's kind of disappointing that we never know what ED are planning and what they aren't planning. We do know that VS and TA for the radar are not coming, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Communication is key and clearly explaining which of the missing or incorrectly implemented features get reworked or added would be vital.
 
As a sidenote, I'd like to add that it would be nice if ED could justify as to why these features get pruned out. For example, we know that they consider MSI and EOM mode of the HARM as a sensitive aspect or there's not enough documentation. Regardless of how true that is, let's accept it for now. However, what's the justification of not adding the missing radar modes, the full fidelity INS simulation (at the very least, realistic drift and update modes), the missing IAM functions, the functionality of the static pages like the TGT DATA page, the missing functions of the navigation system and more. I think ED should hold themselves to the same standard that every other developer is held to, and if so many systems cannot be added to the module, there should be at least some kind of explanation as to why. 
 
I understand that developing such a module is hard and there may not be enough resources to model all the features and that's perfectly fair. I'd rather have the current Hornet than no Hornet at all. But if the lack of available resources are indeed the case, there should be clear communication on that and they shouldn't state that the Hornet is only missing a few functions. It is missing a lot more that may or may not end up in the game and that shouldn't be covered up in my opinion.
I also think that due to the nature of the product (it's not really an artistic product like a conventional video game but the stated goal is to reproduce the functions of an existing aircraft) there should be more community involvement when it comes to these decisions. If resource contraints are so severe at ED, they should utilize the community polls and votes more often. They should state how many different systems they can add based on the amount of resources allocated for the project and at what level of fidelity, and the community should vote about the priority of these systems. 
 
I know for a fact that I'd much rather have access to map slew and AUTO bombing loft cues than the FUEL BIT function or the static pages that they never intend on finishing, for example. 
+1

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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