#4388359 - 11/06/17 12:04 AM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: Flogger23m]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
This was your first post in this thread: Um, unless you missed it, that was a highly sarcastic post meant to make a point. Taking that post literally, word-for-word, is just missing the mark by miles... You're seemingly insisting that they prioritize graphical effects over air to ground radar technology or the flight model. I did not insist anything. However, for a module under the name of Digital COMBAT SIMULATION, would you prioritize graphical effects over A-G radar tech or FM? I mentioned it would be pointless for the artists to not continue working on graphical effects just because the radar may not be done. Flogger, the point is this --- if artists are running out of work to do (how long do you think it takes to draw wingtip vortices and vapor trails?) while what should be top-priority work (Hornet, 2.5) keeps getting delayed, then maybe there are too many artists and not enough programmers. I'm not saying fire the lot of them or that they should not do any work, I'm just saying that there's an imbalance somewhere and that this has existed for some time.... therefore bad planning and management on ED's part. Especially since these effects don't necessarily benefit the Hornet only. I may never own the module myself, so I may enjoy these graphical effects far more than the radar implementation on a module I don't own. These things benefit owners of any module. So I'm not sure why you initially got so worked up about graphical effect show cases. Sure, this may work on other aircraft. Yay! But in the bigger context, what gets me "worked up" is that this low-priority item was allocated resources but we're still left wondering about the Hornet's A-G radar or 2.5 status. If you'll look at their April 2015 newsletter (yes, that's not a typo), they showed the A-G radar then. They talked about work continuing on the A-G radar again in June 2016. Where is it now, more than 2 years later? Their October 2016 newsletter states that most of the artwork is done for the Hornet. Do you expect me to believe that they've JUST NOW thought of making the artwork for the LEX vapor trails? Or has the artwork been done ages ago (therefore no work done by artists) and they're more likely referring to being able to program it so that it appears when it realistically should be (therefore work done by programmers)? Still not convinced ED is mismanaged? Then I replied to someone else who wanted "core features", I am assuming radar and avionics, done before artwork. Which makes little sense because I am assuming the artists and avionics programmers, flight model programmers are assigned different tasks. It is especially odd since those effects are not strictly for the Hornet. For all we know the Hornet has a team of 5-8 people, DCS World has a team of 3-5, and these artists work on the DCS World part. Meaning their contributions to the graphics have no effect on the Hornet progress. I really doubt the VFX guy is the same guy who does flight models. I'm assuming ED has one guy who specializes in general VFX which yes, can require some programming. If ED has done their research, then the artwork is already set and done right after the project starts. At the very least, minor tweaking is done on the artwork as the 3D model progresses, but surely everyone in the project knows what the panels in the Hornet looks like, what the outer skin looks like, what the gear looks like, what the various MFD pages and sub-modes look like, and so on. After more than 2 years and you expect me to believe that artists are still working on textures for the Hornet? Sure, there may be 1 or 2 left that keep an eye on the project to ensure it "fits" with the 3D model, but by now, 95-98% of that work should be done. Well they clearly aren't sitting around doing nothing which you also acknowledge. They likely have no effect on the Hornet's avionics progress. So do we agree here? Sure. Then why the overly sarcastic first post? Are they not to show artwork until they show an avionics video for a specific module? What about the people who have no interest in the Hornet? Have I touched a nerve with you with the sarcasm of the post? Please don't put words in my mouth.... I've not said anything about not showing artwork or any of the sort.... I simply pointed out their interesting priorities of working on and showing vapor effects over an A-G radar on a module whose primary feature was supposed to be the A-G radar. Please, please, please try to get this through your head this time.... I'm getting tired of repeating myself. We also know that artwork and programming in game development can never by synchronized perfectly. One may be finished sooner or later, regardless of project management. YOU are the one who thinks artwork is still needed on the Hornet 2+ years after development has begun. Let me ask you this question --- new module is planned, there is zero art for this module. Project is set for a 2-year timeframe. How many artists do you need to make the artwork for the module in 2 years? Follow up question --- 2 years have now passed and hopefully the artwork was done in time, maybe +/- a couple of months.... do you still need that many artists? If yes, what do you do with them? If no, what do you do with them? So is it really a waste if the artists work on improving general graphical effects in the game regardless of where the Hornet may be avionics and programming wise? This comes back to my other question: What do you propose they do? Not work on these effects? Work on them but not post progress of WIP images of it? Lay off all the artists not related to the Hornet and hope to rehire them or similar people? What solution do you have? I'd really like to hear it. Do you really, really, REALLY think they've only thought of LEX vapor effects **NOW** and given the artists that project to work on? If it is true and they have only thought about this now, then what does that say about their project management? If it is false and they've thought about this at project start, then the LEX vapor effect textures have been done a long, long time ago and they've just now figured out how to get it to render realistically..... if this is the case, and artists are still on the payroll, what does that say about their project management? If this is the case and artists are NO LONGER on the payroll, then my case rests. I also love your first sentence here... "So is it really a waste if the artists work on improving general graphical effects in the game".... if that were true, then you're saying they did a sh!tty job the first time around and are now using this "free time" to essentially have a do-over. What does that say about their project management?
- Ice
|
|
#4388503 - 11/06/17 08:28 PM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: leigh583]
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
theOden
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
|
Don't be too sure Frederf, look at all ED posts in best "Oh look how pretty it is, take my money" style over there. Like someone here said, Digital Screenshot Simulator. I think some folks have forgotten what gameplay is nowadays, or I am truly getting heck so old (but one thing is for sure, the only heart-pumping run-and-scream events I've had are still from Falcon4 and ArmA-CTI).
|
|
#4388537 - 11/07/17 12:31 AM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
|
Um, unless you missed it, that was a highly sarcastic post meant to make a point. Taking that post literally, word-for-word, is just missing the mark by miles...
But you have yet to offer a solution with these constant sarcastic postings, which now (to myself) seem very spam-like. Even if some semi good news comes out I have to wade through a bunch of junk comments which aren't that clever. It almost feels like reddit or facebook. You have yet to make a point that has any real relevance. I can understand some posts every now and then poking fun at the situation, but most if not all your recent posts are in a similar manner. It has lost its luster a while back. I did not insist anything. However, for a module under the name of Digital COMBAT SIMULATION, would you prioritize graphical effects over A-G radar tech or FM?
You did not insist anything, or so you claim. But then the next sentence you go right on ahead and do just that. Read the words you typed. Lets go back a few posts and re-read this: I'm so glad they're prioritizing vapor trails and making it realistic based on AoA and humidity! This is what we've been waiting for all this time!! This makes it a day-1 purchase for me, sod everything else! After all, that's what I'll be primarily doing in a COMBAT simulator while doing HARD maneuvers ---- checking if the vapor trails come up based on real life situations!
Why do you keep bringing that up? You mentioned it in a sarcastic tone and continue to state similar in a non-sarcastic tone. Just how is ED prioritizing graphical effects over the FM/radar? Because they showed a picture of vapor trails? How does that equate to prioritizing graphics over the radar? They likely aren't showing off the radar because it probably is buggy or isn't fully working. You can post "WIP" all you want but most people will ignore that and complain. It is better to have something presentable. It doesn't matter if they had something semi presentable back in 2015, it might be in a worse state as of that posting. That is software development for you. Sure, this may work on other aircraft. Yay! But in the bigger context, what gets me "worked up" is that this low-priority item was allocated resources but we're still left wondering about the Hornet's A-G radar or 2.5 status.
The first part of this quote boils down to "stop liking what I don't like". "Yay" it may work on other aircraft? This will end up a far more important feature for many of us than the Hornet's avionics. If I end up not purchasing the Hornet I couldn't give a damn about how authentic the radar is or is not. I'll take rain drops on my cockpit over the radar fidelity of an aircraft I don't own. Onto the second part. You're claiming that his low priority item is being allocated resources at the expense of the radar. Do explain how can these resources be quantified. And do explain if you know for a fact that improved graphical effects can at the expense of the radar programming. Because that is one massive assumption. There are a few things we do know: - Programmers are rare, they are a minority in game design - Flight model programmers are even more rare - Avionics programmers are also very rare I can't imagine there are many people with these skill sets in Russia, and I can't imagine many people from the US or western Europe would move to Russia to take up a job at ED. My point being, I don't think ED even has a whole lot of options when it comes to flight model/avionics programmers. Even if they were to layoff some artists there is a significant chance that they may not be able to use the money saved to hire additional workers for these tasks. These too are assumptions, but they are fairly grounded in reality. I sincerely do believe that ED, even if they wanted, likely could not hire more flight/avionics programmers. Maybe a few, but I can't imagine there are that many readily available. But, maybe you have a deeper knowledge of the flight sim designer market than I do.
|
|
#4388551 - 11/07/17 02:38 AM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: leigh583]
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,496
Genbrien
Stick to the plan man!
|
Stick to the plan man!
Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,496
Quebec, Canada
|
from ED's Facebook There have been a lot of questions regarding what sensors and weapons will be available at the launch of the early access DCS: F/A-18C Hornet. This decision is based on balancing a great, first experience, while getting quickly into the hands of those prefer early access adoption. We realize that early access is not for everyone, but for many, it is. If you prefer a completed product, we ask that you wait for the final release. Take that time to monitor previews and early access reports to make an informed purchase. We believe that starting with the more “simple” systems at early access roll-out allows a more shallow learning curve at the start. By then adding new systems gradually, it introduces the Hornet’s sensors and weapons in a more structured manner… much like what a real Hornet pilot goes through when learning the aircraft. This also allows us more time to fully develop the more complex systems in a way that delivers the most realistic experience possible. Note that this is all very much subject to change for our mid-2000s F/A-18C USN Hornet. Sensors: A/A radar with RWS, STT, and ACM modes Weapons: Mk-82 series Mk-83 series Mk-84 series Mk-77 Fire Bomb CBU-99 and Mk-20 Cluster Bombs BDU-33 Training Bomb BDU-45 Training Bomb 2.75 inch rockets 5 inch rockets 20mm cannon AIM-9L/M and CATM Sidewinder AIM-7F/M/P Sparrow Following the early access release, we plan to include many more sensors, weapons, and decoys for the final product. Please note that this list is also subject to change: Sensors: A/A radar with TWS, SCAN RAID, AZ/EL A/G radar with MAP, EXP1, EXP2, EXP3, SEA, GMT, PVU, AGR, IRA, and TA AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Targeting Pod Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) Link-16 AWW-13 Datalink Pod Weapons: AGM-88C HARM AGM-45A/B Shrike AGM-84D Block 1C Harpoon AGM-84E SLAM AGM-84H SLAM-ER AGM-65E Maverick AGM-65F/G Maverick AGM-154A JSOW AGM-154C JSOW Walleye I ER/DL Walleye II ER/DL GBU-10 Paveway II GBU-12 Paveway II GBU-16 Paveway II GBU-24B/B Paveway III GBU-38 JDAM GBU-31 JDAM GBU-32 JDAM AIM-9X Sidewinder AIM-120B/C AMRAAM Mk-40 Destructor Sea Mine Mk-63 Quickstrike Sea Mine Decoys: ADM-141 TALD GEN-X Thanks honestly... I dont know how to feel.....
XBL/PSN/others: genbrien Mobo: Asus P8P67 deluxe Monitor: Samsung 23'' 1920*1080 CPU: i7 2600k@ 4.8Ghz Keyboard: Logitech G15 GPU:GTX 980 Strix Mouse: G700s PSU: Corsair TX750w Gaming Devices: Saitek X55, TrackIr5 RAM: Mushkin 2x4gb ddr2 9-9-9-24 @1600mhz Case: Cooler Master 690 SSD: Intel X25m 80gb
|
|
#4388555 - 11/07/17 03:45 AM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: leigh583]
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,663
mdwa
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,663
Way over in Perth, Western Aus...
|
JHMCs, A/G radar, link 16, ATFLIR TGP, and the majority of the precision guided standoff weaponry won't be available in early access.
Not even TWS on A-A radar...
I think I will wait...
mdwa
|
|
#4388584 - 11/07/17 09:56 AM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: leigh583]
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 14,410
Tom_Weiss
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 14,410
3rd Planet, Sun
|
very sound advice that I plan to take : If you prefer a completed product, we ask that you wait for the final release. Take that time to monitor previews and early access reports to make an informed purchase. although I don't plan to monitor previews nor early access reports - if and when I buy , I'll only do so when it is "final release" and I have the free time to fly it, as I do not believe in buying something I don't fly.
|
|
#4388616 - 11/07/17 01:05 PM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: leigh583]
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,663
mdwa
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,663
Way over in Perth, Western Aus...
|
What about the Hormuz terrain - was that meant to be released with the Hornet? Wonder if early access release or with final... may be waiting a bit for it. Would the modules like working A/G radar or TGP be pay for DLC like that GPS thing?
I would actually prefer more modern/near modern theatres to do missions in, rather than more planes. And a dynamic campaign of course...
mdwa
|
|
#4388709 - 11/07/17 09:26 PM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: leigh583]
|
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 30
Member01
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 30
Germany
|
I have to quote myself.. because it was so clear that this would happen! We will never get any kind of a well done RADAR Simulation with this DCS Engine. I really believe they try hard to do so but they cannot, not with this old hog of an "engine". The DCS engine, even the new one (which is still the old one with "new clothes"), is not made for that kind of stuff. You can see it at so many things. The whole engine (the new one) still need patches even a simple campaign was made and we don't talk about a simple MiB patch, no it's always a GiB patch. The whole DCS engine is a bad wreck or the programmers are the worst ones I've ever seen . Original link: http://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.p...-f-a-18c-to-be-released-soon#Post4367810 Cool - I was waiting for one of the MFDs to switch to the AG radar page...
On landing couldn't see any IFLOLS - I wonder if it will be in a popup window? I would bet all of my money that the first FA 18 version is an AA only version and those we will have a long time only this version. Even the Harrier version comes without an AG RADAR, for some reason.... ED has no one who can manage the engine to simulate how “real” RADAR would act, even an AA RADAR. I really believe that what we have right now is something like a "visual tracker". That would explain why ED has so much problems to get the AA missiles work like they should and even now all AI can "look" with the “RADAR” through the mountains. And it would explain why it is so easy to flare and chaff each missile, even the chaff or the flare are miles away from the AC and it would also explain why the ARRAAM has so a wide detection range if the missile goes Pitbull but only on foes, which can only be if the missile know/can see who is who. A Missile Radar can't do that like in this game. But we will see.
Last edited by Member01; 11/07/17 09:27 PM.
|
|
#4388723 - 11/07/17 10:36 PM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: Flogger23m]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
But you have yet to offer a solution Oh, you want a solution? We've been doing that a long time ago now and I doubt ED would listen now, but if it's a solution you want, ED should get their act together, make a realistic roadmap, be honest to themselves and to their customer, and work out the cracks in their development plan. There. Happy now? The sad part is I can offer all the solutions in the world; I doubt it'll make any difference with ED. On the other hand, highlighting their shortcomings in a public forum just might convince enough people to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, stop buying early-access and incomplete modules, and put the financial pressure on ED to clean up their act. What do you think is easier? Convincing a potential buyer to hold on to his money and see how the module develops or convincing a game company to turn their act around? Me and my moronic solutions!! but most if not all your recent posts are in a similar manner. It has lost its luster a while back. Maybe it's because ED is still in a similar situation.... but I do apologize, I was unaware that I was working to gain your approval. My bad. However, for a module under the name of Digital COMBAT SIMULATION, would you prioritize graphical effects over A-G radar tech or FM? You did not insist anything, or so you claim. But then the next sentence you go right on ahead and do just that. I love how you just side-stepped that question though. Care to give an answer? You did not insist anything, or so you claim. But then the next sentence you go right on ahead and do just that. Read the words you typed. Why do I always have to resort to semantics in discussions like this?? Sigh... insistverb demand something forcefully, not accepting refusal state positively and assertivelyI'm so glad they're prioritizing vapor trails and making it realistic based on AoA and humidity! This is what we've been waiting for all this time!! This makes it a day-1 purchase for me, sod everything else! After all, that's what I'll be primarily doing in a COMBAT simulator while doing HARD maneuvers ---- checking if the vapor trails come up based on real life situations! I'm stating what they've just done, as evidenced by this feature coming to fruition. I'm not insisting (demand) they do anything, I'm not insisting (state assertively) they prioritize vapor trails. They already did, it's already done. I think the better word is "mocking." Again, taking that post literally, word-for-word is missing the point, yet here you are using it as evidence of me "insisiting" of something I'm not. Please stop insisting that I'm insisting anything, especially when you try to use a sarcastic post to prove your point. Just how is ED prioritizing graphical effects over the FM/radar? Because they showed a picture of vapor trails? How does that equate to prioritizing graphics over the radar? Because they show this effect as done whereas they've shown nothing of A-G radar. Please try to convince me that they're prioritizing A-G radar when they're talking about vapor trails. Please try to convince me that they're prioritizing A-G radar when their latest videos show nothing of if despite making an A-G attack. Please try to convince me that they're prioritizing A-G radar when the last Hornet tour episode was 3 months ago and he's yet to make a pre-flight and startup video. It doesn't matter if they had something semi presentable back in 2015, it might be in a worse state as of that posting. That is software development for you. This is true... especially given ED's track record. I rest my case. The first part of this quote boils down to "stop liking what I don't like". Please don't put words in my mouth. That's rude and dishonest. This will end up a far more important feature for many of us than the Hornet's avionics. If I end up not purchasing the Hornet I couldn't give a damn about how authentic the radar is or is not. I'll take rain drops on my cockpit over the radar fidelity of an aircraft I don't own. Not for the people who are a fan of the Hornet. Heck, I'd even state not for the people who are a fan of COMBAT. And in case you are lost, the thread title is not "Vapor Trails," it's "DCS: F/A18C Hornet." How many people do you think buys the Hornet for the vapor trails? How many people do you think buys the Hornet for the A-G capabilities of which the A-G radar is at the forefront? You like the vapor trails? Yay! Good for you. I'm sure you've been waiting for vapor trails for a long time. Enjoy it. Now please don't insist that we celebrate alongside you when we've been waiting on the A-G radar and don't care about vapor trails. Onto the second part. You're claiming that his low priority item is being allocated resources at the expense of the radar. Do explain how can these resources be quantified. And do explain if you know for a fact that improved graphical effects can at the expense of the radar programming. Because that is one massive assumption. There are a few things we do know: - Programmers are rare, they are a minority in game design - Flight model programmers are even more rare - Avionics programmers are also very rare Oh boy..... the comedy just writes itself! You accuse me of making an assumption, then you go and make three. I can't imagine there are many people with these skill sets in Russia, and I can't imagine many people from the US or western Europe would move to Russia to take up a job at ED. My point being, I don't think ED even has a whole lot of options when it comes to flight model/avionics programmers. Even if they were to layoff some artists there is a significant chance that they may not be able to use the money saved to hire additional workers for these tasks. These too are assumptions, but they are fairly grounded in reality. Even if we take your three assumptions to be true, it only proves my point further. There is limited skill and resources in this area.... and resources have been allocated to work on vapor trails. There's only two explanations here.... ED have hired additional manpower to work on vapor trails and thus this has not affected A-G radar or ED have allocated people from it's limited pool to work on vapor trails. Which one do you think is more realistic? I sincerely do believe that ED, even if they wanted, likely could not hire more flight/avionics programmers. Maybe a few, but I can't imagine there are that many readily available. But, maybe you have a deeper knowledge of the flight sim designer market than I do. There you go. So they could not hire more programmers.... and with the limited pool of resources they have, they allocated some of it to work on vapor trails.... while the development of the A-G radar of what would likely be their hottest-selling module is pushed back and their core engine (2.5) is nowhere near completion yet. What does that tell you of ED's project management? Still not convinced it's mis-managed?
- Ice
|
|
#4388724 - 11/07/17 10:44 PM
Re: DCS: F/A-18C Hornet
[Re: Force10]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
from ED's Facebook honestly... I dont know how to feel..... Wow... they put Link 16 on that one as well? Not even a TGP on the initial release? What, do they think we're all new to this A-G game? Obviously just using this as an excuse for their excellent planning and management skills. We believe that starting with the more “simple” systems at early access roll-out allows a more shallow learning curve at the start. By then adding new systems gradually, it introduces the Hornet’s sensors and weapons in a more structured manner… much like what a real Hornet pilot goes through when learning the aircraft. How long does it take for a pilot to go from zero to being signed off on the Hornet? 4 years? 6? So I guess it'll take that long as well for them to release everything on the Hornet. No TWS, no A-G radar, no TGP, no LGBs, not even Mavericks on initial release? ED's really out-doing themselves this time!! Will the early access have carrier ops? Seeing what they've cut out from early access, I doubt it'll have the new carrier ops. Might still be able to land on the current carriers though.
- Ice
|
|
|
|