Jump to content

Master List of Wish List Features


itsthatguy

Recommended Posts

Honestly, the “ITAR” defence is starting to loosing some of its credibility. For the first 3 plus years of Hornet development, this term was almost never mentioned at all. Now it seems it’s the go to response for every question about incomplete or yet to be implemented features.

Don’t get me wrong, I do understand that there are most definitely things that cannot be done, because the data required isn’t public. The problem is it’s also starting to sound like a convenient ’out’ for features that are just to hard or resource intensive to develop. Especially for a module ED seem to want to move on from.

Personally, I think any further Hornet develop will just be the minimum ED believe they can get away with to get it out of EA, without a mass uproar amongst the community. It would be great however, if ED could prove me wrong, and outline what their vision of a feature complete Hornet looks like, no matter how long it would take to complete. Unfortunately it seems ED have shifted away from the more open communications they had a year or two ago, which the vast majority of users appreciated, so now we’re just left to wait and see.


Edited by norman99
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2022 at 1:21 AM, 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. 
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. 

Why that wasn't considered before, taking into consideration size of the project back in time when F/A-18C Lot 20 USN was layed down as a project in ED and we only hear now that some of the functions that relatet to this exact machine can't be done because of some secret level? What was the point on the first place to choose this exact model, instead of something else? 
I'll join up on my wish related to this project with same what people covered above, starting from TAMMAC, Radar modes and proper realisation of this modes (speed gate, velocity search, MSI...), weapon revisiting with normal terminal parameters (IZLAR, other submodes), CBU fuse (from the start of EA no words on that), HARM EOM mode (we're getting modern fighter, right?), ADM-141 TALD (at least tomcat level to start from), Mk-77, BDU-57-59-60, proper coating and fuse visuals, HSI and all navigation related, multiplayer settings for datalink (wingman set for L16 - ABCD), Proper IFF modes, as JF-17 got... A lot to cover, more above from other people.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I heard Wags say in the latest Air Combat Sim podcast that given the current geopolitical situation and the fact ED has offices/staff in the USSR er I mean Russia they now have to be very careful when it comes to potentially sensitive information.

Thanks Pootin

Edit. Thought I’d better add that I am in no way criticising ED or it’s staff for where they have offices or where they’re from. 


Edited by Digitalvole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

I thought I heard Wags say in the latest Air Combat Sim podcast that given the current geopolitical situation and the fact ED has offices/staff in the USSR er I mean Russia they now have to be very careful when it comes to potentially sensitive information.

Thanks Pootin

Edit. Thought I’d better add that I am in no way criticising ED or it’s staff for where they have offices or where they’re from. 

 

LOL, if there was ever any time for them to disregard ITAR... it's now:biggrin: (j/k)


Edited by Gripes323
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gripes323 said:

LOL, if there was ever any time for them to disregard ITAR... it's now:biggrin: (j/k)

I mean, ITAR isn't exactly black and white. It's a set of rules and regulation around the export of specific material but that doesn't mean said material is impossible to be exported or used in a commercial product, it just has to be done through the proper channels abiding by the regulations regarding the handling of export controlled material. If ITAR really was so strict that they can't even use the NFM-000 then we wouldn't have a Hornet at all.

 

They must have some kind of access to at least some material through legal means. It may not be the exact maintenance docs that we have access to but all in all, the documentation they have must be quite extensive because it covers a lot more stuff than what we have access to publically. It just makes very little sense to me that most of the missing features are "more" export controlled than the ones we have in the game. 

 

The only way this makes any sort of sense is that specific features of the aircraft were deemed to be off limits. The issue is that most of the missing features are not any more sensitive in any way than the ones we already have. What makes terrain avoidance more sensitive than the mapping modes? Why is velocity search more sensitive than RWS/TWS? If anything, these should  be less sensitive, considering they are rarely used and have fairly limited tactical implications. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, norman99 said:

Honestly, the “ITAR” defence is starting to loosing some of its credibility. For the first 3 plus years of Hornet development, this term was almost never mentioned at all. Now it seems it’s the go to response for every question about incomplete or yet to be implemented features.

 

 

That's ED, always a convenient excuse. Thanks for your Trust and Support.


Edited by jethead
  • Like 6

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

Just watched a viper video from a couple of weeks ago with transferring info such as spi or mark points over datalink. Surely we’ll get that, right?

We sort-of have that with TXDSG, it just functions differently.

REAPER 51 | Tholozor
VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/
Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that ITAR excuse is really just an excuse. There’s hardly anything done by ED that doesn’t use ITAR covered info.

There’s really nothing wrong with knowing ITAR covered information. The issue happen if you are a US person sharing and exporting with non-US persons. There’s nothing illegal about having those document as a non-US person.

ITAR is very different (and much more lax) than classifications.

At this point it’s just used by ED because it sounds official.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

Say what? What’s the deal there then if you don’t mind me asking?

There is a way to do what the viper can now do, but it involves a system that ED have loooong ago said they wont ever model in depth because its too sensitive.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Swift. said:

There is a way to do what the viper can now do, but it involves a system that ED have loooong ago said they wont ever model in depth because its too sensitive.

Is that the MSI stuff? 

If it’s too sensitive, how come the Viper has it? (That question is aimed at ED btw).

If they can model it for the Viper can’t we just have that if the proper way is not possible?

From what I understand (and that’s not an awful lot, admittedly) we should be able to engage data link contacts with MSI, is that correct? If so, and I’m no programmer, that can’t be too difficult to make happen in the sim.

But what do I know, other than the frustration of someone who has sunk many hours into something that now looks like it’ll never get “Properly” finished. But I’m feeling grumpy as I’ve finally got Covid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Digitalvole said:

Is that the MSI stuff? 

If it’s too sensitive, how come the Viper has it? (That question is aimed at ED btw).

If they can model it for the Viper can’t we just have that if the proper way is not possible?

From what I understand (and that’s not an awful lot, admittedly) we should be able to engage data link contacts with MSI, is that correct? If so, and I’m no programmer, that can’t be too difficult to make happen in the sim.

But what do I know, other than the frustration of someone who has sunk many hours into something that now looks like it’ll never get “Properly” finished. But I’m feeling grumpy as I’ve finally got Covid.

 

My understanding is you can designate an off board track from the ATTK RDR, AZ/EL or SA page, as L&S (and possibly DT2?) but still require an onboard radar track to launch an AIM120. One of the benefits of this is that TWS AUTO will center the radar scan on the off board L&S, so your time to acquire a radar track should be minimised.

I’m pretty sure launching weapons entirely at off board tracks only is F35 level stuff.


Edited by norman99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, toilet2000 said:

Yeah that ITAR excuse is really just an excuse. There’s hardly anything done by ED that doesn’t use ITAR covered info.

There’s really nothing wrong with knowing ITAR covered information. The issue happen if you are a US person sharing and exporting with non-US persons. There’s nothing illegal about having those document as a non-US person.

ITAR is very different (and much more lax) than classifications.

At this point it’s just used by ED because it sounds official.

There’s also a certain SuperHornet available for a particular civil flight sim that has a more complete MSI simulation than what ED currently delivers. After 8 years, ITAR hasn’t seemed to cause them to many problems….

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, norman99 said:

My understanding is you can designate an off board track from the ATTK RDR, AZ/EL or SA page, as L&S (and possibly DT2?) but still require an onboard radar track to launch an AIM120. One of the benefits of this is that TWS AUTO will center the radar scan on the off board L&S, so your time to acquire a radar track should be minimised.

I’m pretty sure launching weapons entirely at off board tracks only is F35 level stuff.

 

Thanks for the clarification, that sounds super handy but if I’m honest not game breaking it we don’t get it. All the relevant information is there for us to do it manually.

I just, rightly or wrongly, feel like ED are back peddling a bit on what they promised us with the Hornet. Official news would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Digitalvole said:

Is that the MSI stuff? 

If it’s too sensitive, how come the Viper has it? (That question is aimed at ED btw).

If they can model it for the Viper can’t we just have that if the proper way is not possible?

From what I understand (and that’s not an awful lot, admittedly) we should be able to engage data link contacts with MSI, is that correct? If so, and I’m no programmer, that can’t be too difficult to make happen in the sim.

But what do I know, other than the frustration of someone who has sunk many hours into something that now looks like it’ll never get “Properly” finished. But I’m feeling grumpy as I’ve finally got Covid.

 

Not the MSI stuff, its not a feature I know much about but anecdotally you could broadcast a target to everyone on the same FF network as you, done through the TGT data page or something. I can't remember if I'm honest, it was a while ago now I heard the clip.

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

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...