Jump to content

Hopeful answers to slow progress


Recommended Posts

This thread is really directed toward the VEAO devs and is not at all meant to be a bash fest or turn into one.

 

I have read many comments from fellow sim enthusiast who are disappointed in the slow progress of the P-40 and Hawk. At one point I was guilty of slamming you guys because I was one of those frusterated purchasers of the P-40. I sincerley apologize for being that way as I know running a business can take many turns and set backs. I still hold faith in you guys but that leads to the next set of questions which I am hoping you can answer and maybe help the community better understand, if you are in a position to do so.

 

I believe the frusteration with the community is obviously watching other devs bang out modules while VEAO struggles to complete one and release a second. I will give you guys due credit, there have been patches coming out for the Hawk and I know these modules have not been abandoned.

 

If I remember correctly, at one point it was stated you guys wanted to wait till 2.5 was released so you had a more stable engine to work with. I also remember you taking a second endeavor into the commercial sim world, where Flight Sim World crashed and burned (not yalls fault). I would like to know if you could possibly explain some of the setbacks with DCS and what you guys are doing to push forward.

 

Is 2.5 and the newer tech helping with production now? How big is the team at VEAO? Are you still planning on venturing into commercial sims or maybe dedicating more time to DCS again? Is there anything the community can do, aside from positive support, to help VEAO become more productive? Clearly you gents are still in the business to please us and I believe the vast majority of us are still greatful for that. I would just like to better understand VEAO and your roadmap as well as how you plan to get there.

 

Sincerley gents, keep up the hard work and I know someday you will get there. I look forward to flying the P-40 in the future and wish you guys the best of luck.


Edited by robert.clark251
Link to comment

Hi Robert,

Please see my answers below.

 

Thanks,

Chris.

 

This thread is really directed toward the VEAO devs and is not at all meant to be a bash fest or turn into one.

 

If it does I'll close the thread, bashing the team really doesn't help the morale of production very much!!

 

I have read many comments from fellow sim enthusiast who are disappointed in the slow progress of the P-40 and Hawk. At one point I was guilty of slamming you guys because I was one of those frusterated purchasers of the P-40. I sincerley apologize for being that way as I know running a business can take many turns and set backs. I still hold faith in you guys but that leads to the next set of questions which I am hoping you can answer and maybe help the community better understand, if you are in a position to do so.

 

Pete and I have been pretty vocal about the delay issues we have had with both aircraft and tried to keep the community updated with progress on here and our Facebook page.

We get bashed all of the time for telling the truth about problems we experience, so why should we keep posting and answering all the bashing posts, well we don't.

We just keep ploughing away in the background working out the problems and fixing them.

This is evident in the latest patch for Hawk which fixed a few of the bugs.

 

I believe the frusteration with the community is obviously watching other devs bang out modules while VEAO struggles to complete one and release a second. I will give you guys due credit, there have been patches coming out for the Hawk and I know these modules have not been abandoned.

 

They have absolutely not been abandoned I can assure you.

I have personally invested over £100,000 in Hawk development over the years so trust me when I say that it will not get abandoned.

P-40F the same.

 

The issue with Hawk was the original code and the DCS dev at that time. Much has improved with DCS over the past four years and a lot has changed.

To keep up with that the Hawk required a complete re-code, which we posted about last year.

A great portion of the code has been re-written to be more dynamically in-line with DCS development and less buggy.

Most of the core functions are still fully working since the re-code and less are on the priority list, like smoke.

We do encounter bugs still with patches to DCS, this was evident with the sticking on the runway bug. Up until the patch it was fine, patch day it sticks to the runway.

All of the team were like WTF, what's causing that, we didn't change anything.

We can't simply pick up the phone to ED and say, hey guys what's happened, we have to figure it out for ourselves in our code and that takes a lot of time.

This also delays other projects like P-40F because I pull the entire coding team off to figure out the bug.

 

In terms of current and future dev for the Hawk, I have just completed yesterday all of the complete ASM animation integration into the updated cockpit model and textures.

This has been a monumental task and has taken several months since I received the new 3D model and new PBR textures.

This was partly due to the way the switch and gauge animations were originally done and how I had to bring them into the new model.

Also I had to wait for 2.5 to drop to see how it looks.

 

I currently have a few people from the community trying out the new cockpit to look at frame rates, functionality and make sure all that should be working, is working.

So far there is a vast improvement, not only to the look of the cockpit but also frame rates, as we expected with the re-work.

 

Oh one thing to note is that we had clearance to put the parking brake where it should be, so that has changed in the new model. I'll post an update about it and include it in the training missions.

 

When Pete and I are happy that is it fully working it will come in a patch. No fanfare, just patched and you guys can enjoy it.

 

This will then bring the visuals in-line with the new PBR standards we are seeing in DCS 2.5.

 

The re-code is continuing and we are seeing less things breaking with patches, so it must be working.

 

 

If I remember correctly, at one point it was stated you guys wanted to wait till 2.5 was released so you had a more stable engine to work with. I also remember you taking a second endeavor into the commercial sim world, where Flight Sim World crashed and burned (not yalls fault). I would like to know if you could possibly explain some of the setbacks with DCS and what you guys are doing to push forward.

 

The setbacks with DCS are really as I've explained with Hawk above and similarly for P-40F.

Pre-patch we have a fully functioning working aircraft, come patch day, engine stops working.

We figured that one out that a parameter that we check for in the sim for atmospheric conditions had changed and essentially the engine was being starved of oxygen.

This is the level of realistic detail in a flight model that most people don't really see.

When something like that changes in core-sim it's a big set back.

 

With DCS 2.5 we are still seeing some things like this happen; however we do not have to develop for three versions of the sim anymore, just one, so that's a huge strain relief on the coding team.

 

We understand the frustration that customers have waiting for the product and we are just as frustrated not to have it out the door yet.

 

In terms of other sims outside of DCS, that's a completely different skill set and different team under BlueSky FS.

The only interchangeable assets are the 3D model and textures.

The ESP engine uses standard arguments for animation, no ASM systems need coding, well very little needs tweaking to the standard xml, and the flight model is completely different.

The way the engine sounds work is vastly different also and although we use the base recordings they are compiled in a vastly different way.

Hence having a separate team and a separate company developing those models.

 

I can assure you the VEAO DCS coding team haven't touched anything outside of DCS, it's a different skill set.

 

FSW was a toe-dip into the ESP based marketplace to see if and how our assets could be brought to a wider audience and how the look and fly (could they be as realistic as DCS was my question).

I'm proud of the work the BlueSky team and I did to bring P-40F to FSW, the visuals of the aircraft were on par with DCS and the systems logic was pretty close within ESP engine limits.

It certainly was a first for FSW and an ESP based platform.

 

I'm personally continuing that journey with P3D v4 right now with the BlueSky team.

Again none of the DCS team are involved, they are working on Hawk and P-40F, they have no interest in the ESP based platforms.

 

Is 2.5 and the newer tech helping with production now? How big is the team at VEAO? Are you still planning on venturing into commercial sims or maybe dedicating more time to DCS again? Is there anything the community can do, aside from positive support, to help VEAO become more productive? Clearly you gents are still in the business to please us and I believe the vast majority of us are still greatful for that. I would just like to better understand VEAO and your roadmap as well as how you plan to get there.

 

Having one sim as in 2.5, as I said above, is less strain on the team to develop for, rather than multiple versions of DCS.

 

The entire VEAO team is around 40 but that's everyone that has or is working on modules.

Each aircraft takes a minimum of 8 people to make, more people for more complex aircraft.

Also don't forget this isn't their main job, they all work during the day and work on modules in spare time at night and weekends.

Contrary to popular belief we're not making millions of dollars selling these modules to pay for a big employed full-time team, you can see that in our company accounts which are publicly available.

 

Right now all aircraft for DCS outside of Hawk and P-40F are on hold, as per our company update.

When P-40F is in your hands during Beta we will re-focus some of the team onto the next project for DCS, BUT only when P-40F is out the door.

 

At the moment there isn't much that the community can do apart from be patient and yes I know that's hard. Hopefully the updates to Hawk visuals you'll get really soon will help with that.

 

The next step for P-40F is to sit down with Nick Grey, head of TFC, to fly the module and get his feedback, seeing as he's flown the actual thing.

When he's happy, the module will be released to you.

 

We've also learnt a lot of lessons from Hawk development, which mistakes will not be repeated with P-40F.

 

Sincerley gents, keep up the hard work and I know someday you will get there. I look forward to flying the P-40 in the future and wish you guys the best of luck.

 

Many thanks, and thank you for the candid questions which I hope I have answered honestly for you and give an insight into what's going on.

 

Cheers,

Chris.

Link to comment

Thanks for the look behind the scenes, Ells. Very informative. I enjoy the Hawk, myself, folks raise too much ruckus while nitpicking. Keep crackin' guys, there's an end eventually :p

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment

Great news Chris, sounds good going forwards.

 

Interesting that you have some community members carrying out functionality testing

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.

Plato

Link to comment

Chris,

 

Thank you so much for the detailed response. It is very much appreciated and I am very happy to hear things are going as you stated.

 

I am also very happy to hear you guys are looking at P3D V4. I have been using it for about a year and will for sure invest in your aircraft when you bring them to P3D.

 

Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. This clears up a lot for me and I think questions others have had. I look forward to a bright future with VEAO and DCS!

 

Regards

Robert

Link to comment

Thanks for taking the time to for this detailed explanation, Chris, and for your perseverance in dealing with all the setbacks. I hope that you will reap the rewards when the new Hawk and P-40 are out the door, and that the difficulties will be behind you then.

Link to comment

Just noticed this thread and it is indeed a great read with a lot of very interesting information! Makes a lot of things more clear. Thank you very much for taking the time to write that down. I really appreciate this.

 

While I'm personally not really interested in the Kittyhawk as an aircraft I'm very happy to hear that there might be new modules comming after it. Keep it up! :)

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment

Thanks Ells, still have high hopes for VEAO.

 

Phanteks Enthoo Evolv Tempered Glass, Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero, Intel i7 7700K @ 4.8, Corsair HX 1000i, Nzxt Kraken 62, 32gb DDR4 3000Mhz Corsair Dominator Platinum, Nvme SSD Samsung 960 Evo 1Tb, Asus Strix OC 1080ti, Philips 43" 4K Monitor + 2 x Dell 24" U2414H, Warthog HOTAS, Track IR 5, Obutto R3volution, Buttkicker Gamer 2, MFG Crosswind pedals, Occulus Rift CV1, Windows 10 Pro.

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
Thanks Ells, still have high hopes for VEAO.

 

I don't have high hopes but I do hope they finish the hawk and working compatibly with DCS 2.5. One thing I do understand is DCS is a fluid ever evolving concept and I can also understand the strains on the third party developers. It's a sink or swim situation...almost ! Not quite as the Mig 21 was riding very high until recently, it's now showing lack of commitment but that's another story. I have stopped having high hopes from the few developers other than Heatblur, Belsimtek and Razbam. I don't think I will be buying any more modules unless they are the developers.

 

Mizzy

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Great! New textures are welcome, screens are looking very good.

 

Did a couple of tests last night and found some stuff still borked on the Hawk.

Maybe to get fixed after textures?

 

 

WEAPONS

 

Invisible ADEN pod

 

Sidewinder volume can not be turned down

 

Sidewinders should be all-aspect and have longer range

 

Addition of AIM-9L

 

Gunsight rework?

 

 

FLIGHT MODEL

 

This might actually be an issue with damage model. 30+ G instant manouvering is possible

and does not harm the airframe.

 

The behaviour with the nose during hard turns is a bit strange. I get the effect Pman is after,

but inside VR you really notice that this does feel unrealistic. Maybe pull back on that effect a bit?

 

 

DAMAGE MODEL

 

Hawk tanks way to much damage. I can fly without wings and on fire. Seems to be something borked here. In multiplayer, If I get hit badly, I dissapear from the map. But I can still fly and fight.

 

To me, these are the bugs that holds Hawk back from being a really good module.

I think it has a lot of potential if it become a bit more polished. Fun to fly airframe. svept wings, can do light attack / intercepts and are used around the Persian Gulf.

 

Hope too see more improvements towards a solid module. Thx :)


Edited by Schmidtfire
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Absolutely love the Hawk.

 

Thank you for such and amazing module,

 

I love the hawk as I do DCS with all the bugs, as is. The thing is, I am a software engineer and a programmer so I know difficulties you face every day.

 

Every time I find a bug, I ask myself if I could do a better job myself. The answer is, basically that you, DCS coding guys and module coding guys are semi-gods in what you can do with ones and zeros.

 

Thank you again for all your hard work.

Kind regards,

 

Mimes

 

"Joined forum in 2004 but flying Flanker since 1995 :o)"

Link to comment
Thank you for such and amazing module,

 

I love the hawk as I do DCS with all the bugs, as is. The thing is, I am a software engineer and a programmer so I know difficulties you face every day.

 

Every time I find a bug, I ask myself if I could do a better job myself. The answer is, basically that you, DCS coding guys and module coding guys are semi-gods in what you can do with ones and zeros.

 

Thank you again for all your hard work.

 

 

I would like to endorse that, I would not know how to code a full stop, what these guys do to bring us a virtual world just amazes me.

Link to comment
I would like to endorse that, I would not know how to code a full stop, what these guys do to bring us a virtual world just amazes me.

 

Concur, I'm not a developer or software engineer but I did take a C+ coding class a couple semesters ago. It gave me a whole new appreciation for game developers and especially flight simulator developers who have to put up with such demanding customers. Flight simmers can be as bad or worse than the scale modeling communities' "rivet counters", but the developers have to deal with all the backend physics modeling that we never see and take for granted. Scale model manufacturers are just molding plastic from CAD files. If you actually looked at all that code it would be mind boggling.

 

 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...