Master List of Wish List Features

[itsthatguy]

Hi,

Just trying to put together a list of features which (AFAIK) were planned at one point and still haven't been implemented, or things I've noticed just aren't finished, and was curious if any of these things are (still?) on the table for the Hornet now that it has left EA.

If there's anything I missed please feel free to add to this list.

-A complete manual (many things are still missing from the EA guide, such as information on the MIDS MFD page
-ACLS
-MUMI page
-UFC BU page (I swear I remember seeing this as a placeholder at one point on the SUPT menu but now it's gone)
-Full implementation of the TGT DATA page
-Surface radar TA mode
-A/A radar ECCM mode
-Ability to address weapons on dual racks individually (May or not have been planned or even actually exist, can't remember where I heard this one)
-Finished implementation of GPS guided weapons
    -FD release mode
    -Pre-panned IZLAR's and multiple attack points
    -To be honest I don't know if the launch point and terminal options are implemented fully or not, I can't find any good info on it
    -Probably other stuff I'm not remembering
-ADM-141 TALD implementation
-Mk 77 Fire bomb implementation
    
What is the status on these things?

Lastly, is there any planned model/texture updates for the Hornet, a la A-10C? The A-10, F-16, and Apache cockpits look amazing and the Hornet has kind of been left in the dust both in the actual 3D model and the textures.

Thanks


 

Edited March 21, 2022 by itsthatguy

[fagulha]

-Mission Card.

I guess all of this will come eventually and i know it will be worked on.

Also i´d like to add the simple feature of stow/unstow the boarding ladder (or with a keybind or through comms, like the A-10C for example). I used a mod for that but no longer work.

I know it´s not by all means a priority but would be neat.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by fagulha

[Swift.]

MSI (Inc track ranking, track contribution indications, track reliability/ambiguity, track designation through other means than radar etc)

Link 16 target sharing

GPS waypoints

HSI Map Slew

HSI Winds Data

HSI CHRT/DTED/CIB cycle

CV INS alignment (RF/Cable)

System failures/damage modelling

Advisories/Cautions relating to the CIT

SINCGARS

Havequick

MITL weapon Coop employment

Maverick TBST/SBST

Proper CBU-99 fusing

Interference Drag

EMCON

LDDI format changes during Mastermode selection

HARM EOM

JDAM MXU-375 nose plugs

Hydra Rockets (Inc M156)

Zuni Rockets (Inc Mk34)

LUU-2

LUU-19

JHMCS Zulu TOD display

Correct Cruise AOA performance

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Swift.

[MARLAN_]

Damage Model Improvements

Flight Model Improvements (G-Onset, Pitch Authority) - the DCS F18 is unable to perform a nose-low merge without overspeeding uncontrollably (as an example, the DCS F16 can, and performs it much more realistically).

DLZ still needs some tweaking, shots are hitting at Mach 2 that the DCS MC says is outside RMax.

RDR/JMR PRI (Looks like RDR PRI was implemented/hardcoded this patch, but you cannot choose JMR PRI on the RDR ATTK Display)

Offboard tracks should appear on AZ/EL

TWS AUTO automatic select conditions

HPRF active mode for AIM-120 (Husky) and appropriate symbology (flashing A / solid A)

Steering Dot should indicate lead & loft and not be anchored on top of the target (works in DCS for the AIM-7, but not the AIM-120)

Radar Fixes (SCAN Raid 0 ATA, LOST Cue, Undesignate Switch in SCAN RAID shouldn't exit SCAN RAID, it should step through trackfiles like it normally does in RWS/TWS)

Ability to set OCID (L16 ID) E.g. "A" "B" "C" "D".

Ability to colonize "CPHR" on the UFC for enabling COMM 1 and/or COMM 2 for secure radio (Even though radios are WIP, SRS could use this colonized state to implement it through SRS)

AIC/FF Channels

ACLS

Edited March 22, 2022 by MARLAN_

[oldcrusty]

Then, there are small things like Hornet's ext. lighting at night (silly looking orb) that could probably be fixed in 5 min.

[Fromthedeep]

Generic features:

1.) Adjusted INS only drift rates and fully simulated update functions.

2.) BITs that actually finish and pass.

3.) M4 OK advisory and associated Betty call out.

4.) Missing HOTAS functions

5.) The ability for the aircraft to automatically capture and display wind data on the A/C data page.

6.) Weapon release tone function

7.) RWR correct threat ranking logic and filter options

8.) PVU radar mode

9.) Simulated degraded control modes (DEL and MECH)

10.) Missing cautions and advistories

11.) MDATA subpage

 

Air to ground features:

1.) AUTO loft bombing cues

2.) Azimuth stabilized bricks on the AG radar display

3.) Having EXP 3 work like an actual SAR

4.) Terrain awareness mode

5.) Simulated and/or boxable functions in the ATFLIR setup page

 

Air to air features:

1.) Simulated speed gate function

2.) Properly simulated TWS AUTO mode with centroid tracking

3.) Proper trackfile ranking logic

4.) Velocity search radar mode

5.) The ability to slave the ATFLIR seeker to the HMD LOS

[isotaan]

AIM-7P

[AKULA_OPTIMUS]

The TONE function when releasing a weapon, the option is there, but it does nothing, quite a nice thing to have IMHO

[Northstar98]

On 3/21/2022 at 7:55 PM, itsthatguy said:

Lastly, is there any planned model/texture updates for the Hornet, a la A-10C? The A-10, F-16, and Apache cockpits look amazing and the Hornet has kind of been left in the dust both in the actual 3D model and the textures.

On that note, there's still plenty of these errors still present, with the model holes on the brake pressure gauge being pretty noticable.

 

I'd also add (though very low priority), Quickstrike and Destructor series mines (the Mk62 and Mk40 were on the list, and then were removed).

[Harker]

In addition to other radar and MSI stuff that were already mentioned, Radar-only track memory and MSI track memory (different things).

RDR/JMR priority.

TAMMAC, with CHRT, DTED and CIB (can be used in essentially the same way as in the Apache, and since ED did it already there, they can do it here).

ATFLIR TWS mode.

RWR filters. RWR-INS coupling, emitters should smoothly move in azimuth during turns, regardless of the actual RWR signal update rate (which corrects the detected azimuth).

Harmonization of display element refresh rates on the HUD and JHMCS, specifically the RWR stems (see above) and DT2 target box.

[oldcrusty]

and... whatever radar adjustment/gate/filter stops me from stepping through my own A/A missiles in TWS would also be good to have. 

That and proper RWR and JHMCS modelling that Harker mentioned... I'd be ready for prime time play in MP. 

[BarTzi]

TGP offset and accurate tracking modes 

[NineLine]

While this is a good idea, it would be best to include a link to the original wish list item for each. Thanks!

[BIGNEWY]

Please note that anything we add to the game must have public reference data that is not ITAR or classification controlled.

[Ahmed]

Most has been said by others. Just adding:

1) Fixed RWR threat rings (i.e. correct what goes into non-lethal, lethal and critical rings) and associated HUD EW.

2) Improved radar model. As mentioned recently in another thread, having the radar have 100% probability of detection of something at e.g 48NM but only be able to STT It at e.g. 36NM is very wrong.

3) Radar resolution cell modeling.

 

On 3/22/2022 at 10:44 AM, Swift. said:

LDDI format changes during Mastermode selection

An yes please.... get this easy thing fixed. LDDI changing is not correct for the year and operator of our Hornet (SMEs will confirm)

[Fromthedeep]

7 minutes ago, Ahmed said:

Improved radar model. As mentioned recently in another thread, having the radar have 100% probability of detection of something at e.g 48NM but only be able to STT It at e.g. 36NM is very wrong

This is a pretty good point. At this stage, I feel that every developer should up their game and try and deliver a radar that's on par with what Razbam achieved with the Mirage. The bare minimum I feel that should be delivered is a pD based radar modelling that handles a dynamic RCS that changes with loadout and aspect, PRF ambiguities, proper RAID processing and all the missing radar functions of course.

 

18 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please note that anything we add to the game must have public reference data that is not ITAR or classification controlled.

Okay, I'll list all the features that are described in the generic NFM-000 document and aren't tactical or combat related. I don't know what ED considers ITAR controlled but I think we can safely assume that at the very least the basic NATOPS manual is a resource that can be used, otherwise systems like fuel, hydraulics, engine, FCS and flight controls, electrical systems and many more would also be missing. Even if all the rest of the issues were limited by ITAR or run afoul of some kind of OPSEC constraints, these features below are very benign in nature, have nothing to do with combat systems or tactical employment and are detailed in the NFM-000.

 

If ED also can't use the NFM-000 I don't know how we can have any kind of Hornet at all.

 

-UFC BU page
-mission card-MUMI page
-GPS waypoints/waypoint transfer and GPS page
-HSI MAP slew and winds data
-Proper HSI layout that reflects our TAMMAC bird
-CHRT/DTED/CIB cycle (as done in the Apache)
-CV INS alignment and all the missing INS features (realistic drift rate, fully simulated update functions, preferably simulated degraded modes of operation)
-Failures and damage modelling
-HQ and SINCGARS
-The ability to colonize CPHR on the radio
-Simulated BITs
-M4 OK advisory and Betty call out
-DEL and MECH
-Missing cautions and advisories
-MDATA supbage

[Hulkbust44]

21 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please note that anything we add to the game must have public reference data that is not ITAR or classification controlled.

Can you give us an example? NFM-000 for sure as on the RU side ED encouraged people to read it before the Hornet release. Does that mean anything internet available that is statement C? 

[BIGNEWY]

just because it is on the internet does not mean it is not ITAR controlled or does not have a classification. I can not stress enough how careful you need to be with information of this type. 

[MARLAN_]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

just because it is on the internet does not mean it is not ITAR controlled or does not have a classification. I can not stress enough how careful you need to be with information of this type. 

Could ED clarify what is allowed? It's not very clear. If statement C is blanket not permissible then almost nothing in DCS at all is permissible so you can probably see how everyone is confused.

[BIGNEWY]

8 minutes ago, MARLAN_ said:

Could ED clarify what is allowed? It's not very clear. If statement C is blanket not permissible then almost nothing in DCS at all is permissible so you can probably see how everyone is confused.

not allowed, best rule of thumb at the moment is unless its A or older than 1980 we have to be very careful. 
PM is best if you are not sure, if something is posted in public and no check has been made or sources with links showing it is public domain it will just get deleted. 

[Fromthedeep]

18 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

not allowed, best rule of thumb at the moment is unless its A or older than 1980 we have to be very careful. 

I understand that it's not permitted on the forums, but I assume that through the license agreement with Boeing, at least some level of official documentation was also given to ED, otherwise there really is not any way to have a Hornet module of any kind. The truly open source data includes cruise videos (which can help with a very limited number of the symbology and DDI pages), the GAO report (very limited data on the FM) and the University of Tennessee whitepapers (one of which details the CAS page which was never even mentioned by ED once).

 

If all the other requested features fall under the ITAR umbrella, how did ED manage to get the features that are already implemented? Something other than those extremely limited resources must have been used (in a legal way I assume) to model most of the systems. Are there at least some of these requested features that don't fall under ITAR and we can expect them? I just don't understand why it would be okay to have all the current radar modes for example, but adding the missing ones like velocity search and terrain avoidance would be problematic. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Fromthedeep

[Harker]

1 hour ago, Fromthedeep said:

I understand that it's not permitted on the forums, but I assume that through the license agreement with Boeing, at least some level of official documentation was also given to ED, otherwise there really is not any way to have a Hornet module of any kind. The truly open source data includes cruise videos (which can help with a very limited number of the symbology and DDI pages), the GAO report (very limited data on the FM) and the University of Tennessee whitepapers (one of which details the CAS page which was never even mentioned by ED once).

 

If all the other requested features fall under the ITAR umbrella, how did ED manage to get the features that are already implemented? Something other than those extremely limited resources must have been used (in a legal way I assume) to model most of the systems. Are there at least some of these requested features that don't fall under ITAR and we can expect them? I just don't understand why it would be okay to have all the current radar modes for example, but adding the missing ones like velocity search and terrain avoidance would be problematic. 

 

I've been told on a forum 

I'm thinking the same thing. To get where we are already, it's clear that certain documentation was used, because info on the DDI pages and other avionics functionalities is not available anywhere else in the public domain, otherwise others would be able to find it as well. So, when we talk about certain features, they are often on the same chapter or even page as something that's already in DCS.

I assume ED has the same or better access to manuals than most of us, so all we do is point to pages in docs they already used, to an extent. Are certain parts in these docs out of limits? Why is one thing OK and not another, when both things are on the same page? ITAR doesn't work like that.

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

My wish: dont take it out of ea without being fully complete from an objective pov

[Fromthedeep]

14 hours ago, Harker said:

I assume ED has the same or better access to manuals than most of us, so all we do is point to pages in docs they already used, to an extent. Are certain parts in these docs out of limits? Why is one thing OK and not another, when both things are on the same page? ITAR doesn't work like that.

Not to mention that these systems aren't more sensitive or more difficult to model than what's already included. We have jamming, NCTR and new countermeasures, all of which are actually classified and sensitive. I fail to see how they were allowed to model those but for example terrain avoidance radar or a fully feature complete INS would be off limits.

In any case, once the ACLS is done and they want to move the Hornet out of EA, they need to review the documentation and clearly state which of these features are possible and which are limited due to ITAR. 

[med-taha]

1 minute ago, Fromthedeep said:

how they were allowed to model those

That’s the real question !