early access Is Hornet complete yet?

[VDV]

Harker what means that?

[Fromthedeep]

3 hours ago, VDV said:

Harker what means that?

ACLS is a much more accurate tool to conduct an approach with than ICLS, with lower minimums, the ability to show accurate information in pitching and rolling deck conditions and it's based on a 2 way datalink communication.

[ReddLeggs]

On 4/16/2022 at 7:41 AM, BIGNEWY said:

Are we just plucking figures out of thin air now? 

When we are ready to take the hornet out of early access we will let you all know. Until then we continue to work on our features list from the store page and from Wags posts. 

I get it, some of your are passionate about the hornet and have different ideas of what can be publicly modelled and what can not be, we will not break any ITAR rules when it comes to our F/A-18C.

thank you

Got back into DCS after taking a couple years off for family priorities. I have to say the F/A 18C is an amazing accomplishment and so much has been added and fixed since my initial purchase. The vast amount of weaponry, 2 different targeting pods, A2A radar, flight performance, modeling, etc., The list goes on and on. 

Its a shame that some players think they purchased a 30MM navy jet for ~$80 US and want ALL Systems modeled perfectly with no bugs. If you want that, go to school, get accepted into the naval academy, put in the hours of training and maybe someday you can fly the real thing! If you don’t want to do all that, fly the damn plane, recognize how much you have for 80 bucks and stop whining. The plane is awesome as is the game. That’s right….GAME. it’s not real life…it’s a GAME. Pretend harder.

Thanks ED for the many hours of challenging entertainment you have provided with the wide range of product offerings. I for one appreciate what has been created here and it just keeps getting better! I do have some experience since I’ve been flying combat sims since the Janes F15 and Falcon AT days. Man have we come a long way since then. Take care. Redd.

[Steel Jaw]

1 hour ago, ReddLeggs said:

The plane is awesome as is the game. That’s right….GAME. it’s not real life…it’s a GAME. Pretend harder.

You are in the WRONG community to pitch that ideology.  Maybe head back to COD flying or some such.  I DO have a grip on life, but this is a SIMULATION.  Go ahead, call it a "video game", go all the way.  Now, wheres that negative rep option...?

1 hour ago, ReddLeggs said:

I do have some experience since I’ve been flying combat sims since the Janes F15 and Falcon AT days. Man have we come a long way since then. Take care. Redd.

As do I, those included, but also going to Hellcat Ace and MSFS1.

[Swift.]

1 hour ago, ReddLeggs said:

Got back into DCS after taking a couple years off for family priorities. I have to say the F/A 18C is an amazing accomplishment and so much has been added and fixed since my initial purchase. The vast amount of weaponry, 2 different targeting pods, A2A radar, flight performance, modeling, etc., The list goes on and on. 

Its a shame that some players think they purchased a 30MM navy jet for ~$80 US and want ALL Systems modeled perfectly with no bugs. If you want that, go to school, get accepted into the naval academy, put in the hours of training and maybe someday you can fly the real thing! If you don’t want to do all that, fly the damn plane, recognize how much you have for 80 bucks and stop whining. The plane is awesome as is the game. That’s right….GAME. it’s not real life…it’s a GAME. Pretend harder.

Thanks ED for the many hours of challenging entertainment you have provided with the wide range of product offerings. I for one appreciate what has been created here and it just keeps getting better! I do have some experience since I’ve been flying combat sims since the Janes F15 and Falcon AT days. Man have we come a long way since then. Take care. Redd.

Hi there, you seem that have generated this impression of the community that people expect as you'd put it 'a 30MM navy jet for $80'. However, what you will hopefully soon learn is that there are a *lot* of things that people accept we won't ever see because its just an $80 game as you say. Now sure, it would be *fantastic* if we could get those things, but its understandable that we won't.

Now, having said that, there *are* some things that we do 'expect' (for lack of a better word). For the most part, the things we 'expect' are things where clear evidence exists from which such a feature could be modelled (eg MSI being the big one).

So yes, we do 'whine' but we whine because we know DCS *can* be better, and it can be so much better with not a whole shedload of more work. What you won't see (hopefully ever) is people 'whining' for unrealistic expectations, for example CAS page was a big request and would be a fab feature, but its accepted now that not enough evidence exists. So its been dropped. 

As you've said, we've come such a long way since Janes F15 and Falcon AT. Now wouldn't it be a real shame if people suddenly stopped pushing for better? If people just accepted was is as is and moved on?

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, ReddLeggs said:

Got back into DCS after taking a couple years off for family priorities. I have to say the F/A 18C is an amazing accomplishment and so much has been added and fixed since my initial purchase. The vast amount of weaponry, 2 different targeting pods, A2A radar, flight performance, modeling, etc., The list goes on and on. 

Good to see you are back, enjoy, but please remember we have a varied community from all walks of life. 

17 minutes ago, Swift. said:

Hi there, you seem that have generated this impression of the community that people expect as you'd put it 'a 30MM navy jet for $80'. However, what you will hopefully soon learn is that there are a *lot* of things that people accept we won't ever see because its just an $80 game as you say. Now sure, it would be *fantastic* if we could get those things, but its understandable that we won't.

Now, having said that, there *are* some things that we do 'expect' (for lack of a better word). For the most part, the things we 'expect' are things where clear evidence exists from which such a feature could be modelled (eg MSI being the big one).

So yes, we do 'whine' but we whine because we know DCS *can* be better, and it can be so much better with not a whole shedload of more work. What you won't see (hopefully ever) is people 'whining' for unrealistic expectations, for example CAS page was a big request and would be a fab feature, but its accepted now that not enough evidence exists. So its been dropped. 

As you've said, we've come such a long way since Janes F15 and Falcon AT. Now wouldn't it be a real shame if people suddenly stopped pushing for better? If people just accepted was is as is and moved on?

Community is passionate for sure and want the best they can get, we work hard to bring the best possible DCS to you all, but some do go a little to far sometimes and forget we have laws we have to consider when creating these aircraft. Patience is essential as you know and if we can bring a feature to DCS we will. 

[ReddLeggs]

49 minutes ago, Swift. said:

Hi there, you seem that have generated this impression of the community that people expect as you'd put it 'a 30MM navy jet for $80'. However, what you will hopefully soon learn is that there are a *lot* of things that people accept we won't ever see because its just an $80 game as you say. Now sure, it would be *fantastic* if we could get those things, but its understandable that we won't.

Now, having said that, there *are* some things that we do 'expect' (for lack of a better word). For the most part, the things we 'expect' are things where clear evidence exists from which such a feature could be modelled (eg MSI being the big one).

So yes, we do 'whine' but we whine because we know DCS *can* be better, and it can be so much better with not a whole shedload of more work. What you won't see (hopefully ever) is people 'whining' for unrealistic expectations, for example CAS page was a big request and would be a fab feature, but its accepted now that not enough evidence exists. So its been dropped. 

As you've said, we've come such a long way since Janes F15 and Falcon AT. Now wouldn't it be a real shame if people suddenly stopped pushing for better? If people just accepted was is as is and moved on?

Interesting points. I do agree that anyone shouldn’t  just accept what is and move on. Always pushing for better is in our nature. After reading many posts here I think sometimes people get wrapped around the spokes of getting what they don’t have instead of appreciating what they do have and a little recognition for that can go a long way. Thanks.

Edited August 20, 2022 by ReddLeggs

[Tiger-II]

DCS is a simulator, not a game. Argue that point as much as you like - there IS a difference!

As far as systems simulations go, our modern computers are more than capable of simulating them to *sufficient* detail to make them operate and behave like the real-world units. This is not as hard as you would think. It doesn't need to technically conform 100% to the real unit as it is not for that level of simulation, however, if we can get the operation, behaviors, and the major/important limitations in there, then mission accomplished!

The sticking point is what can be legally modelled. Some systems are classified, and as such we know the ED position on that. Others may be required to be dumbed-down, but that doesn't mean they can't still be believable.

I get the impression that some people want these things to fire laser beams with a 1000% [sic] probability of kill so they can insta-kill everyone on a server. That's not simulation, that's a different GAME entirely. Go play Star Wars.

I'm definitely in the camp of "if it can be made more accurate/realistic", do so. We're not here for 1% accuracy.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Tiger-II

[NineLine]

32 minutes ago, Tiger-II said:

DCS is a simulator, not a game. Argue that point as much as you like - there IS a difference!

As far as systems simulations go, our modern computers are more than capable of simulating them to *sufficient* detail to make them operate and behave like the real-world units. This is not as hard as you would think. It doesn't need to technically conform 100% to the real unit as it is not for that level of simulation, however, if we can get the operation, behaviors, and the major/important limitations in there, then mission accomplished!

The sticking point is what can be legally modelled. Some systems are classified, and as such we know the ED position on that. Others may be required to be dumbed-down, but that doesn't mean they can't still be believable.

I get the impression that some people want these things to fire laser beams with a 1000% [sic] probability of kill so they can insta-kill everyone on a server. That's not simulation, that's a different GAME entirely. Go play Star Wars.

I'm definitely in the camp of "if it can be made more accurate/realistic", do so. We're not here for 1% accuracy.

 

DCS World is a simulation game. One of the many types of games out there.

Also I am not sure what this has to do with a topic called "Is the Hornet complete yet?" Lets stay on topic and not go down silly paths. 

[dorianR666]

19 hours ago, Tiger-II said:

DCS is a simulator, not a game.

this is entertainment software, therefore a videogame. flight simulator is merely a genre, like a first-person shooter.

 

21 hours ago, ReddLeggs said:

want ALL Systems modeled perfectly with no bugs.

i dont think having a not-too-buggy-to-use MSI is an unreasonable demand.

Edited August 21, 2022 by dorianR666

[Top Jockey]

1 hour ago, Atazar SPN said:

It is not my intention to contradict the administration, but the appeal of this platform is to get closer to reality. Change that and whoever pays will have the last word, silly as that sounds. Sorry if my opinion seems silly, but I'll be here while the realism lasts and I'll be gone when it becomes a game.

This weird thread rescue seems more like an attempt to lower expectations by telling everyone: Hey guys, never mind this is fake, buy and play!

 

This in bold ^

Completely agree.

[VFA41_Lion]

ED seems focused on bringing F-16 features up to parity with Hornet, the latest video update has all the things the Hornet can already do (if its part of the Hornet originally). Curious if dev time will switch over to bringing F/A-18C into a release state once thats done or its full steam ahead on F-16 first and then F-18 after

[Dragon1-1]

Looking at the roadmap, not much is left to get out of EA. There's UFC BU, which is basically there for kicks (or scripted missions with partial failures), there's LOFT modes and extra JDAM/JSOW functions (loft cues are already in the Viper), and then there are big ticket items like FM and INS reworks, which will probably be spread out over several updates.

I hope they finish the BIT page at some point, too. I want to run a realistic startup, complete with running automatic BITs. One thing I love about the A-10 is how detailed the UFC and MFDs are, including seldom used functionality like tests or entering wind data.

[FrostLaufeyson]

2分钟前，Dragon1-1说：

Looking at the roadmap, not much is left to get out of EA. There's UFC BU, which is basically there for kicks (or scripted missions with partial failures), there's LOFT modes and extra JDAM/JSOW functions (loft cues are already in the Viper), and then there are big ticket items like FM and INS reworks, which will probably be spread out over several updates.

I hope they finish the BIT page at some point, too. I want to run a realistic startup, complete with running automatic BITs. One thing I love about the A-10 is how detailed the UFC and MFDs are, including seldom used functionality like tests or entering wind data.

I currently especially need the SLEW function of HSI, because I really want to completely get rid of the dependence on F10

[BuzzU]

Putting this much money and time into DCS.

I prefer to call it a sim than a game.

[Dragon1-1]

I'd say, it's a great sim and a medicore (at best) game. The difference is not necessarily in degree realism, but in design philosophy. A game prioritizes gameplay, a sim prioritizes replicating the system being simulated, including things that are not fun to use (Harrier's HOTAS, for example, it's so confusing that it would never pass muster in a game, and that's even when it works right).

To use DCS campaigns as an example, Rising Squall prioritizes action and as such, is light on difficult and tedious stuff like long enroute legs, AAR or carrier landings. It mostly drops you in the air, close to action and aims for good gameplay first. Zone V, meanwhile, gives you the same narration during the in-flight briefing, missions are somewhat repetitive, and you need to take off and land after each one. It's the simulation philosophy, in this case of a generic TOPGUN-like exercise. It's done really well, and if you're into doing things the way real pilots did it, it's great, but it's clearly focused on learning the Tomcat more than on pure fun. It's still fun, but that wasn't the primary design parameter.

[Steel Jaw]

DTC please.