Honestly the A-to-G is not my hold back issue with the Hornet's EA. It's the lack of the ATFLIR and datalink. At least you can get buddy lasing from the Hawg.

CCIP/CCRP bombing is fun and more common over today's theater. But without the FLIR to see beyond the Mk.1 eyeball... It's no better than the Hornet mod we were using up til the 1.5.7 and 2.1.1.5.6.7.8.9 updates broke them.
What about Maverick ops? Again, the ATFLIR is a must. HARM?

It just seems ED is expecting alot from the customers to accept as is, until they find the time to figure out a solution to finish it.

You may have linked the wrong video....



Similarly, you can't make an "underlying technology" without having an idea as to what the technology can do. At the very least, they had a rough idea of the A/G radar system when they built the "underlying technology" so what's the issue about "integrating" it into the Hornet?


Yes, there have been many, many, MANY distractions.


Rhetorical question, I guess. The "underlying technology" screenshot was more than a year ago. The Hornet was initally set to be public alpha/beta in the end of 2016. We're past midway through 2017 now and still no demo of the A/G radar at work.... It's not a chicken-egg problem but a focus problem.

Hornet mod?

Yes, the virtual VFA-113 guys had come up with a mod that allowed the Hornet to be flyable. Basic CCIP, A/R, and CV Ops. Fun interim, but has since become unusable post 1.5.7

That's a typical software design thing.

When you write a general purpose software library, you try to make your functions as general as possible so you can reuse them for something else. If ED had gone ahead and wrote a specific Hornet radar from the get go, they'd have to rewrite the entire radar code for the next radar they are doing. Instead, what you do is write a general radar module that takes care of the stuff that is the same for all radars, send out some radar waves, those waves interfere with the environment and are thrown back at you (doing that properly is a complicated task and probably one big part of why everything has been taking so long). The general radar module should not take care of things that are specific to one type of radar like what kind of radar frequency it uses, how the signal is pulsed asf., because then you would no longer be able to reuse it.

The stuff that is specific to the Hornet radar is quite a lot, so essentially that's 2 elephants just for the radar you have to eat. One is done, the other one is in process.

So wile taking this route has increased the time for a finished Hornet radar, by the time the next plane with a ground radar comes around, this will start to save the developers a lot of time.

Radars are immensely complex systems and to simulate them properly in software is a very big task.

You're right. I fixed the video link.

Bummer

You just repeated what I said without really answering anything.

ie, "underlying technology"


ie, "integration into the Hornet"


Granted.

Also from the linked post above:
"the team is now starting to create the various sub-modes such as the expanded modes. We have included a couple of images that show samples of the new air-to-ground radar technology that is based on radar reflectivity logic. "
But after 17 months, we haven't seen any of this.

I did not. I tried to explain to you why you can build the underlying technology without having to know everything about one of the modules that will use it, but you completely ignored my point.

I just broke it up to the two sections I said. Please don't make me have to explain it word-for-word. As to ignoring your point, state your point again in case I missed it.....

You said this:



In response, i gave you a rough outline of why the above is not the case.

If something about my post is unclear to you, please ask about that part, don't just claim that i don't have a point. It is aggravating.

Okay, let me break it up for you....


This is your "rough outline, right?


This is what I said earlier...


When you write a general purpose software library, you try to make your functions as general as possible so you can reuse them for something else.
you can't make an "underlying technology" without having an idea as to what the technology can do.
The stuff that is specific to the Hornet radar is quite a lot, so essentially that's 2 elephants just for the radar you have to eat. One is done, the other one is in process.
they had a rough idea of the A/G radar system [of the Hornet] when they built the "underlying technology" so what's the issue about "integrating" it into the Hornet?

We can see that they've already made a immensely complex radar system from the screenshot.... from March 2016. Where is it on August 2017?

You go from GENERAL to SPECIFIC, but you still have to know what specifics will be asked from your general program that way you can write your general program properly, optimize it better. Therefore, the programmers that made the A/G radar must have at the very least a small idea of the Hornet radar and sub-modes when they made the general A/G radar system.... so my question was what's the issue about "integrating" it into the Hornet?

We'll have to agree to disagree on that "underlying technology" thing.

Is there any reason to assume that there are issues? Can you name anything that would substantiate that claim? The fact that it takes a long time does not automatically imply that there are issues, just that it is a lot of work.

Thank you for not even bothering to explain why.


Well, I don't know if I should be talking to you about it. You don't know "how long it would take," so it could take 3 months or 3 years and you'd not bat an eyelash, right?
Like I said before, if the underlying technology exists on Mar 2016, where is the integration in Aug 2017?

I explained it twice. My patience and time, just as everybody else's, are limited. Can't possibly fault me for that.



Careful now, lest you run headfirst into the "poisoning the well" fallacy.



In development, supposedly. What do you want me to tell you? Software development is complicated, you should try it sometime. Methinks it would be an enlightening experience.

And I've counter-explained as well. You aren't the only one with concepts of time and patience.



Well, this "well" is willing to accept all and any excuse, so why should I bother with it? For all I know, it's already been poisoned!



Well duh!!
Let me try to give you simpler questions to break it down:
1. How long did it take to make the "underlying technology"? We can see from the above screenshot that it is available and possibly working to a degree in Mar 2016.
2. Now if the "underlying technology" is supposed to be able to cater to different A/G radar and sub-modes so that it can be used with other aircraft, then it is much more complex than the needs for the Hornet radar, correct?
3. So now that we know that the "underlying technology" has been available, how far along are we on the integration?

You can claim software development all you want, it still isn't an excuse for why some things take so long.
ps. unless you have evidence to bring forward, consider question #3 to be rhetorical...

So why do you accuse me of not bothering when i've just explained twice? That's unsubstantiated.



To a degree, yes. In other words, we know diddley squat as to how far it was in terms of being ready for productive use. That shot could be from a proof of concept that was so bad performance wise that that single frame took minutes to render. We simply don't know.



This is exactly where we disagree. I do not think that the underlying technology can do everything that the Hornet needs for the A/G radar, nor should it. That is the reason why i believe that they have still a lot of stuff to do.

Imagine you just made 4 tires. They roll alright, but they won't drive you to the mall. You need a car to put those tires on. But you haven't made that car yet. The tires are the "underlying technology". They serve one single purpose, they roll and you can put them on any car that is designed for those tires. But they won't drive by themselves.

The point is, we haven't seen the "underlying technology" being integrated in the hornet, we haven't seen any of the radar modes that the hornet can do, we haven't seen the output being rendered inside the hornet pit, we haven't seen it being linked to all the controls in the hornet, we haven't seen bugging targets, we haven't seen scan logic, we haven't seen failure modes, we haven't seen ECM/ECCM (if they are doing such a thing) etc. We have only seen a single picture of a synthetic aperture radar display.



It is for me. If it isn't for you, there's nothing i can do about that.

Unfortunately nobody can be just told why software development takes a long time. You have to experience it for yourself to truly understand.

While not in the same exact field...I know what it's like to deal with 3D modeling, rigging etc. for both stills and animation. While I agree that most clients don't understand if they make this one change that seems easy...it affects a myriad of things that you can't always explain to them.

Where I have a problem on the ED side of things...is they never seem to have any deadlines. There isn't a publisher pushing them for a release date...on anything. Where I work (and most of the rest of the world) have to deal with customers deadlines constantly. The funny thing is, when we have
a deadline approaching...that's when most of us rise to the challenge and do our best work. There are certain folks that may crack under the pressure...but most seem to gain focus and shine.

It just seems ED has a forever free pass and have zero sense of urgency on anything. That's particularly bothersome when money has already change hands.

Just my 2 pennies.

Hahahaha... yes, yes, let's argue about how many times who has explained what and let's argue about accusations and let's talk about time and patience! Should we talk about that point that was explained twice but is still unclear? Heck no! Why bother?



Of course! Let's see.... I guess this line means absolutely diddley squat as well....
"Work is mostly focused on the air-to-ground radar that is making good progress; the team is now starting to create the various sub-modes such as the expanded modes."

Yep, yep.... so bad performance, much fail.



Hahahahahaha.... your analogy is so funny.... and so wrong.

You have a module/part/item that is designed to scan the ground and give radar returns. That is the ENTIRE car. You now need that item to perform based on certain requirements, ie radar sub-modes. That means you want the car to stop from 60-0 under 200ft., have airconditioning, satnav, something like that. That means you may need bigger, stronger brakes, better tires, more electronics, or whatever, but the UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY is already there, the car is there, you just need it to now spit out the information in a format that is specific to certain sub-modes just as you need the car to perform in specific ways.

The tires are just one part of "technology." I cannot fathom how you imagine "car" and think "tyres" is "underlying technology." The A/G radar is your "general-purpose software" so that you can re-use them for different aircraft that is to follow, just as your vehicle carcass is the "general-purpose template" that can be used for a red car, a blue car, a pink car, a car with airconditioning, a car without airconditioning, a car with satnav, and so forth. It may not do EVERYTHING needed for the Hornet radar, but it damn well should or at least cover a good majority of the requirements.



Totally correct.... and so the question is now WHY?? 17 months and Wags insists on talking about which parts are steel, which parts are plastic, loaded and unloaded weight... OOoooo! Look at this gauge! Let me turn on the electrics!
Again, unless you have evidence to put forth, consider the above a rhetorical question.



Hahahahahaha!! What a lame cop-out! "Experience it for yourself"?? So people go to a software company with a requirement for certain software and when asked how long it'll take, "Oh, it takes a long time... I can't really explain it to you unless you build/write software yourself!"
Can we stop these types of excuses please?

How long was the forecast to build the Hornet module?
How far along was the module when they said public alpha/beta at end of 2016?
Why are we still not seeing A/G and carrier ops in detailed action mid-2017?

"Well, we can explain it to you but you really have to experience software development to understand and appreciate why all these delays are happening."
Bollocks.

It seems like Razbam harrier is going to be released probably before hornet EA.
will be a good product to keep us busy