They are not releasing a full fidelity FA/18........not even close.

And based on their previous history, we are unlikely to ever see it being completed either.

^^^ this

The only rain ED creates are tears of disappointment. Which makes me wonder, what update did ED release in the last 2 days??

Not a single word about 2.5 progress in today's newsletter......it's all about the new map!

Perhaps the renamed beta has fixed itself and no more effort is required.

Wait for when the paid DLC comes out with it and consumers have to pay for the buildings. After the balls up with Nevada a patch or so ago, ed's think tank will no doubt see their failure as a way to turn it into a positive. Like ThreeLine did with the so called 'memory leak'

Seems like you are greatly unaware of how the "launch" of the Hornet is going to happen. Might be best to familiarize yourself with that first.

As for re-using tech, ED is indeed "rebuilding the wheel". Either that or the Hornet has more A-A radar modes than the Eagle? Either that or the Hornet uses different weapons from the Eagle?

I'd argue the two most relevant data points are the previous DCS aircraft, Blackshark and A-10C. They both did eventually reach "full fidelity", or at least as "full" as is realistically feasible for a public desktop based simulation.

The key word in that sentence of course, is "eventually"

Yes, but releasing the Shark and the Hog at... say 90% feature complete is not the same as what features are in the Hornet when it releases.

So far we've not seen any A-G radar yet and ED are just working on the other A-A modes. Heck, the Hornet won't even release with the AIM-120s! So a 30% feature complete is not the same as how the Hog and Shark was released.

Right, but you were saying the previous history was informing how the hornet launch would go: "and based on their previous history, we are unlikely to ever see it being completed either."

and I'm saying they've a pretty good history of releasing top-notch modules...eventually.

Any while yes, they've never released something as complex as the hornet before, that's the exact point: it motivates the completion of the hornet because it's the gatekeeper for showcasing the versatility of platform in both the retail and contractor space.

A-10C did not reach full fidelity as is realistically feasible for a public desktop-based simulation. It has lots of errors and omissions still which are well within the ability of the programmers and hardware to model correctly. The previous releases made no mention of incompleteness and were not complete then nor now. The Hornet is specifically planned not to be complete at release which is a step backward. The only motivation to complete a project is a customer base that demands completion in exchange for currency. Pre-order numbers for the Hornet suggest that the base is not sizeable.

Sorry, yes. I should have included clearer reference to the Hog and Shark but I assumed it was understood that these two were the last time ED did something right. When I mean "based on previous history," think of it as "post Hog and Shark release".


Yes, and we will have peace on Earth.... eventually.


They fumbled their own release of 2.5. They've already set the expectations for Hornet release to be very, very low. It can showcase the versatility of the platform (I assume you mean DCS Core) but it won't be able to do that until it is mostly feature-complete, say about 80-90% which will happen... eventually. I fear that with the pace at which ED works, by the time the Hornet becomes everyone's wet dream, the rest of the flight simulation world and technology will have moved on and that it will be old news by that point.

Yes, but what percentage would you say that the A-10C is at compared to a full fidelity release? Still way up there compared to other modules.

Now what percentage would you say the A-10C was at its release compared to how the Hornet will be at its release? Big, massive step backwards IMHO.

I am wondering if it is intentional? Probably some things the government won't disclose to a foreign (especially Russian) contractor or won't allow in a commercial product. Just like how ED had to entirely omit the more modern RWR of the Su-25T. Not that the plane was of the fidelity of the A-10C, but the Russian government wouldn't allow ED to model the more modern equipment.

My understanding is the A-10C shown in DCS is very out dated in any case as there have been various Suite upgrades.