Heatblur F-14 and Forrestal Update

dcs

#2670

…um… so this isn’t the Mig-19 thread? … confused…:confused:

Anyway…I don’t have to wait any longer to get a Tomcat! I found this at the NB Norfolk NEX today…

…sweet!


#2671

I had a similar thought the other day so I hooked up my TM WH HOTAS and fired up DCS and set up a “sand box” with the PG map…some stuff to bomb, some stuff to shoot a HARM at, some stuff to shoot a Maverick at…I was vastly disappointed…not nearly “there” yet. So back onto the virtual shelf it goes for at least another few months…at least I won’t have to virtually dust it. :slightly_smiling_face:

EDIT: If somebody is working on an MBA, they might want to take a look at ED’s and other’s business model–might be worth a paper or thesis. I bet it makes good business sense. Release a product before it is completely done, but has enough functionality that it is usable. This ensures a certain amount of cash flow while the product is being finished…which, as we have seen, can take a few months. It seems to be a win-win, the customer gets to get their hands on something sooner; the company generates income earlier.


#2672

Out of curiosity, what were you expecting from the Bug?


#2673

Eventually, I am expecting a sim that can do much of what the real Bug does. It is taking much longer to get there than I had expected…but that expectation was purely my own. I claim no other reason for my latest disappointment other than my own forlorn hope and impatience.


#2674

I’m easily entertained, though I admit that currently the capabilities are more in line with a 1989-1993 lot aircraft rather than a 2005. In the online arena, it’s probably the most picked aircraft out of everything else. It’s got a ways to go, which I won’t argue, but generally speaking the attack capability is pretty in line along with air defense. When you bring up the HARM, Maverick, and bombing stuff, I’m just wondering what is really missing for you. For me, the lack of a TGP and GPS munitions is the current sore spot, but it’s been interesting working around those in multiplayer, namely in regard to buddy lasing with a Harrier.

So in that regard, what I’m looking forward to the Turkey is having an aircraft capable of working with teams of Bugs in more of an AFAC role – comparable to what it did in the twilight years of its career.


#2675

Well…mostly the HARM, Maverick and bombing stuff. :sunglasses:

In today’s world you just don’t use much CCIP unless competing in a bombing derby. Its all GBU–mostly GPS with some LGB thrown in there for old times sake.

In SEAD you use HARM and jammers. DEAD (pronounced Dee-Add) is where you drop iron bombs on the launchers, etc. …but not until you have HARMed the crap out of the FC radar. I don’t think we ever did any buddy lasing…maybe some during Fallon…not with live ammo.

It will et there some day…just wish that day was tomorrow. :slightly_smiling_face:


#2676

Understandable, you’ll probably be waiting another 6 months at least to get most of that. We’ll get the additional HARM modes, then the first TGP (which will only be accurate for USMC Bugs), then some of the GPS stuff. I figure at least 2 months before the arrival of GPS munitions. So at present time, like I said: a 1989-1993 lot Bug with limited PGM capability.

When I play DCS, I rarely delve into the really hardcore aspects of it. If you present me with a problem and ask me to solve it, I’ll solve it the best way I know how. If that means taking as many Mk82s as I can carry and using CCIP in the Bug to plink tanks, I’ll do that. Is it the best tool for the job? No, definitely not. But we don’t have access to an AH-64 with 16xAGM-114 yet (and probably never), so I use what we have.

I treat the Turkey the same way, in that it will have long legs, a strike capability, a TGP, a second crewmember, and access to one of the longest range air-air missiles ever put on a fighter aircraft. If it’s fun and enjoyable, then I won’t mind going off-script and doing all kinds of weird stuff – from treetop DEAD with Mk82 to high altitude intercepts. And if someone makes a Cold War campaign where the high point of the action is a Bear intercept and escort, I’ll probably play it, too!


#2677

Alas, if only we were allowed to solve all our problems in the real world that way…:wink:

Seriously, i know what you mean :sunglasses:


#2678

What, you don’t keep a few blocks of C4 around for those persnickety problems? :sunglasses:


#2679

It is interesting!
I think it is a better business method, than what we used to see.

Before the early access, paying to beta test, or what you want to call it, there were budgets.
A software developer had to see the future. Make educated guesses as to how many copies that would be sold. That gave the expected revenue. From that they had to decide how many man hours they could put into a project. That decided what features could be had.
And in the end they had to push it out the door in a more or less unfinished state, because of budget constraints…

Now days they state that they will release it in a unfinished state, from the very get go.
The pre sales give them a solid indication about the prospected revenue. They release in early access. Sales increase and dictates how many features that they can afford to implement, If the customers keep paying, there’s no end to the development cycle. Features can be added and improved.

Yeah, it takes a while, but the customers end up getting a much better product…

We can of course say we want finished products and that we won’t pay until it is finished… But that means back to the earlier business model.
I don’t want that.


#2680

Remember the drama of “half baked” sim releases that needed years of patching. Never again.

Heck, even the real world adopted the limited release model, look at how awful early versions of the F-35 software were: limited maneouver envelope, very limited weapons. They called those Pigs. Now a couple big releases down the line they call em Panthers. Who knows where they’ll be in ten years.


#2681

All the bug talk is a tad off yopic, but I find the bug ver capable in the SIM at present. My only gripe with the bug is the lack of tws. It’s just a pain to try and fight with one eye closed because you can’t track other combatants.
But I like ED’s new development model. I also like ED’s new communication model and the great updates from @NineLine. Far better than years ago, though still deficient on f-111 updates which I am sure will improve in time.


#2682

I’m pretty sure it’ll happen… just after the A-6 release! :smiley:


#2683

That has more to do with the nature of flying and testing a new aircraft than with Lockheed Martin trying to sell the DoD an “early access” F-35… The Viper didn’t pull 9G on its first flight either…


#2684

Of course. But there are similarities in that it’s a product under development.
It’s better to have a F-35 that gets regular updates than having to wait until the F-36 is out. Just like DCS…


#2685

There are some similarities, but the reasons for doing so are very different.


#2686

To veer back towards topic…if the F-14 is released as compete as HB’s Viggen was last summer when I purchased it, then you probably ave an “80% to 90% solution.” That is very good. Pick up the next 20% or so over a some time and you all have a great sim.

Would I prefer that to the Bug’s release / development which was much less complete when I purchased it…I’d say roughly somewhere around 40%…it flew, shot some missiles and dropped iron bombs…it was an A-7 that could go supersonic. :slightly_smiling_face:


#2687

Which was still plenty to satisfy the fighter pilot fantasies of 15 year-old me. :slight_smile:


#2688

Naturally.
Nobody claimed otherwise :slight_smile:

That’s true… The level of completeness differs with modules. As does the level of commitment and the speed of development.


#2689

image