We hear you and understand your wish for more news about the Hornet project. Virtually all the work is in code at this time, but I can say that work continues and the electrical, hydraulic, and gear systems are all almost complete. The next step will be to tie these systems into the cockpit. Other systems have been tied to the cockpit and the HUD symbology integration is on-going. Once that task is complete, we can begin work on the flight model prototype.
The cockpit is done though and includes functionality for JHMCS. What weapon systems will be included in the Early Access is TBD.
As mentioned earlier in the year, it’s our hope to release the Hornet into early access by the end of the year. However, that is only a best estimation at the time and many things can alter this. Only a date announced with the start of a pre-purchase should be taken as a date you can bank on. We are quite accurate with such dates.
When there is more information to pass along on this project, we will do so.
I’m sure the other forums would continue to be the mature, intelligent, balanced paragons of rational discussion and free thought that they’ve always been of late.
I’m most likely alone on this, but I am not so excited about the JHMCS. This probably also means a lot of GPS guided weapons. I was hoping we would get an early block Hornet.
I think there is a point from where more technology actually decreases fun, rather than adds to it. By far the most air-ground fun I had in the past 10 years was putting Mk-82 on target with the F-5E using nothing more than a depressable pipper and a bomb table. When was the last time you have actually shouted out in joy when scoring a direct hit? I bet you weren’t employing a GPS guided weapon…
I with you in spirit. I find the most fun in a jet is dropping LGBs and iron bombs. That said there’s nothing stopping you from turning off, or even failing any systems that are too modern for your or the missions taste. The only things you can’t really change are the effectiveness of the newer radar and whatever advantages the ATFLIR offers over the older nitehawk pods
@MBot and @near_blind
That’s a perfectly valid opinion. For me it is the other way round though:
First of all: Nobody prevents you from using dumb bombs in modern planes. Flying the A-10C I frequently use dumb bombs, because no overhead. Just pipper over the target and drop.
Then from a realism point of view: Dumb bombs are cheap, you should use them. It makes sense.
BUT for me the fun in modern planes is the planning and mastering the controls of the systems. If we could finally do simultaneous JDAM bombing on different targets by designating points, programming the coords on the fly into different bombs, then rippling and BOO-BOO-BOOOOM hitting all targets almost simultaneously, that’s awesome as well!
Same goes for dogfighting. Getting that radar lock and the radar gun pipper over the target just feels so good.
I kinda agree with the fire and forget A2A weapons though. AIM-120 as well as all aspect heat seekers are kinda boring and I wish there was some situation in which an AIM-7 (which requires a bit more pilot skill) or a rear aspect heat seeker launch is actually better.
I see where both of you are coming from in regards to limiting weapons. For a time I have been using the A-10C without TGP and guided bombs, limiting myselfe on this and that, pretending I was flying an A-10A. But it was always too aparent that I was just pretending, it simply killed my suspense of disbelief. Ultimately I stopped flying the A-10C alltogether (in it’s modern C-essence, I consider it a terribly boring aircraft, I call it a “manned drone”). Limiting air-air weapons has been slightly more succesful for me (no AIM-120) but of course you can basically forget about playing missions you didn’t craft yourselfe, as these are almost always using the latest and greatest.
I hope to use the Hornet in its Desert Storm fashion with dumb bombs. Of course this is already technologically so advanced that for me it remains to be seen how much fun it will be in the long term. It comes down to this for me:
Manual bombing: Plan your intended bomb run before the flight, check the table to select your parameters. Fly your planned bombing profile as precise as possible. Do split second mental error corrections for any deviations from the intended parameters. After dropping the bomb and pulling up, then come the seconds of utmost thrill: How good was my pass, will the bomb go long, will it be short? The satisfaction when you see a close impact will be priceless.
CCIP bombing: What you pickle is what you will get. At least there is still some maneuvering involved to fly the pipper on target.
CCRP bombing: Do some avoinics mumbo-jumbo, fly left/right, the computer pickles for you.
CCRP/LGB: When the timer reaches zero, you are certain to see a video of your target blowing up. Thrill = zero.
GPS bombing: Do some cockpit avionics mumbo-jumbo, fly somehwere near the target, done.
Why would people jump over you?
You just expressed your opinon, hardly anything to be upset about.
I for one can’t wait to simply have more available airframe in any specific map.
Skilled mission makers, and there are quite a couple here alone @Mudspike!, can craft already REALLY exciting stuff…
More airframe make everything even more articulated and modular!
What makes the modern deliveries so simple (and yes, I even somewhat agree with the “boring” part) is that the environment allows it.
An example I am struggling with right now in my test missions is the following:
flak in DCSW only reaches about 10,000ft.
You can circle with your A-10C at 14,000ft all day long, designate your targets and drop JDAMs on them. That’s indeed kinda boring.
Same for LGBs. If you don’t have to jink you will only rarely have problems lasing the LGB into its target.
We desperately need things like 85mm flak and low-tech SAMs like the SA-2 to spice things up. If you have to jink around even a JDAM delivery isn’t that easy anymore. If you can fly lazy circles and straight lines at medium altitudes the enemy is doing it wrong.
And we don’t only need the systems, we need the AI. Gunners and SAM operators are so dumb in DCSW. Terrible. They don’t wait for you to be in range, for example. They fire way too early and give away their positions. I understand the low skill AI should act that way, but it seems all of them do. But if we had the systems and a halfway proper AI they could sure mess up your JDAM delivery!
Tank AI is horrible as well. Killing moving targets with LGBs is hard, and with JDAMs it is impossible. But in DCSW if you hit a tank with a bomb the other ones drive… like… 10 meters and stop again, doing nothing. Allowing you to hit them with bombs precisely.
Guided weapons work almost flawlessly, you don’t have to keep their parameters in mind. Weather for example! In real life LGBs don’t work well in rain, or through fog, smoke, clouds and so on.
And as someone working with GPS-based systems in real life I can tell you GPS isn’t always quite perfect either.
Clever mission design can mitigate a few of those points. But in the long run there is just stuff missing, and that’s what makes it boring IMHO.
In real life it isn’t boring at all, and much more prone to errors, because of different factors. I want that in DCSW too. Proper AAA guns (even with bad AI) and weather effects affecting gameplay would be a simple first step.
