Have the Hornet devs moved back from the Viper? - Page 7 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-08-2019, 02:00 PM   #61
BuzzU
Senior Member
 
BuzzU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,442
Default

I've mentioned in the past that I thought the EA program is a bad idea and this thread is an example of why. What ED has asked is for the general public to pay to be a beta tester. I don't know of any other game developer who does that. Usually, a beta tester is paid to do the job or at the very least gets the product being tested for free as payment. When you offer to the general public an early access plane to anybody willing to buy it. You'll have lots of complaints.

A better system would be to start a beta tester application with a set number of members. ED can pick how many are needed. That will give a chance to weed out the testers. Explain to them what's involved in being a beta tester. Make the forum private so the public can't read it. I know Ed has permanent testers now but i'm sure it's a small group. Letting a certain number of public testers will speed up development but avoid the public forum from being full of complaints.

As it is. A lot of guys who buy the EA planes have no idea what's involved. They just think because they're giving their money early that they get the plane early. They don't want to be a tester. They just want the plane. That shows their impatience and won't be good testers.

Anyway, that's my .02.
__________________
Buzz
BuzzU is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:04 PM   #62
Harker
DCS Ground Crew
 
Harker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: France
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airhunter View Post
Well, the thing is if finishing modules or releasing complete ones from the start isn't profitable for ED they should rethink their development strategy and either stick to WWII warbirds or stuff like maps, ships, heck even offsprings like MAC and let 3rd parties do the full fidelity aircraft. I mean, if Razbam is doing way better than ED with active development and support you know things aren't going well. I would have been fine with the Viper if it were two separate teams but the same team working on two EA aircraft at the same time doesn't work out. Even HB bit off more than they could chew in terms of time management with the Viggen and F-14 being both in EA. My point being, if ED can't make profit sustaining EA modules for more than 1 year and actually finishing them as promised they should rethink their development strategies or allocate resources to increase the sizes of their respective teams in order to focus on only a few projects at every given time. Right now it seems like small teams are working on planes, choppers, maps, core game etc.
Yeah, that's the thing. I think that right now, they should focus on supporting the released content, core sim and just releasing stuff that's presumably nearly done (such as the Supercarrier module, which also supports two existing modules in the game and will bring them some revenue and the Ka-50 / A-10C cockpit graphical upgrades, since they almost exclusively occupy 3D artists and not systems programmers), leaving other full modules, such as the Hind and Mosquito for after the Hornet is 95%-100% done. Then, they can work on the Hind and release it while finishing the Viper etc. Of course, none of us knows ED's capacity. My example allows for two full modules in active development + core sim, but the idea is that they should try and keep a steadily rolling workload, without increasing the backlog.
__________________
Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700k, RTX2080Ti FTW3 Ultra, Corsair Vengeance 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro 512 GB, 970 Evo Plus 1TB, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum 1300W, Acer Predator XB271HK|Hornet grip on T-50 base, Warthog side-stick, Warthog throttle, TPR pedals, 3 MFDs, MT desk mounts, TrackIR|
F/A-18C, F-16C, JF-17, AV-8B, A-10C, M-2000C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3, Caucasus, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf
Harker is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:08 PM   #63
Harker
DCS Ground Crew
 
Harker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: France
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzzU View Post
I've mentioned in the past that I thought the EA program is a bad idea and this thread is an example of why. What ED has asked is for the general public to pay to be a beta tester. I don't know of any other game developer who does that. Usually, a beta tester is paid to do the job or at the very least gets the product being tested for free as payment. When you offer to the general public an early access plane to anybody willing to buy it. You'll have lots of complaints.

A better system would be to start a beta tester application with a set number of members. ED can pick how many are needed. That will give a chance to weed out the testers. Explain to them what's involved in being a beta tester. Make the forum private so the public can't read it. I know Ed has permanent testers now but i'm sure it's a small group. Letting a certain number of public testers will speed up development but avoid the public forum from being full of complaints.

As it is. A lot of guys who buy the EA planes have no idea what's involved. They just think because they're giving their money early that they get the plane early. They don't want to be a tester. They just want the plane. That shows their impatience and won't be good testers.

Anyway, that's my .02.
Correct on that as well. I do wonder how many people actually help with bug reports etc. On another thread, people are complaining about the need to upload .trk files in bug reports... Not that everyone who bought EA needs to be a beta tester, but at least that's the best way to help development, alongside having meaningful discussions about how systems work IRL and providing good info, which can also help the dev team either fix some systems or introduce new functionalities.
__________________
Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700k, RTX2080Ti FTW3 Ultra, Corsair Vengeance 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro 512 GB, 970 Evo Plus 1TB, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum 1300W, Acer Predator XB271HK|Hornet grip on T-50 base, Warthog side-stick, Warthog throttle, TPR pedals, 3 MFDs, MT desk mounts, TrackIR|
F/A-18C, F-16C, JF-17, AV-8B, A-10C, M-2000C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3, Caucasus, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf
Harker is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:40 PM   #64
norbot
Member
 
norbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Germany
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel View Post
Great idea. Insult your customers and ignore the fact that frequent posts about EA and peoples' disappointment in it are evidence of an underlying issue that needs to be addressed.
Could you enlighten us and give us a link to that insult?
__________________
A-10C, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, Yak-52, NTTR, Persian Gulf, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack
norbot is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:45 PM   #65
Flamin_Squirrel
Senior Member
 
Flamin_Squirrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 2,200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbot View Post
Could you enlighten us and give us a link to that insult?
Possibly a culture thing, but if a company's response to a legitimate criticism about the length of their EA period was 'you shouldn't have bought EA', I'd consider that insulting.
Flamin_Squirrel is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:49 PM   #66
norbot
Member
 
norbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Germany
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel View Post
Possibly a culture thing, but if a company's response to a legitimate criticism about the length of their EA period was 'you shouldn't have bought EA', I'd consider that insulting.
That's your opinion that not everybody has to share.
__________________
A-10C, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, Yak-52, NTTR, Persian Gulf, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack
norbot is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:04 PM   #67
hughlb
Member
 
hughlb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 483
Default

Here’s a solution, and I quite believe we would need to do something like this. But anyway -

Have an early access period split into two stages. An Insiders Program that customers can apply for, that doesn’t discriminate based on circumstance or hardware, and doesn’t have a number cap for participants. But it does have essentially an agreement that serves the purpose of testing the product whilst it is in mid development, with the standard fluidity of development, and everything subject to change. Those of us who aren’t worried about the state of early access modules like the Hornet and Viper can gladly sign up and test a basic product, with all its bugs and missing features, and be happy.

Later on, once the product reaches a high level of completion it can progress into public alpha, in a state where most of its features are implemented and most of its bugs are squashed. Those that are concerned about missing key features have far less to be concerned about.

In a perfect world we would all just buy into the product on our own accord, because you know, we’re adults right, and we invest into things when we have weighed up what we are getting. But for whatever reason some people need ED to call the shots on when they spend their money. So this way, those that are concerned have the public alpha as their purchase window, and those that aren’t concerned, can enter into the Insiders Program.

We can then all be generally confident we invested at the right time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
| Windows 10 | I7 4790K @ 4.4ghz | Asus PG348Q | Asus Strix 1080TI | 16GB Corsair Vengeance 2400 DDR3 | Asrock Fatal1ty Z97 | Samsung EVO 850 500GB (x2) | SanDisk 240GB Extreme Pro | Coolermaster Vanguard S 650Watt 80+ | Fractal Design R4 | VirPil T-50 | MFG Crosswind Graphite | KW-908 JetSeat Sim Edition | TrackIR 5 |

hughlb is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:25 PM   #68
Flamin_Squirrel
Senior Member
 
Flamin_Squirrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 2,200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbot View Post
That's your opinion that not everybody has to share.
So you consider your opinion worthy but no-one else's?
Flamin_Squirrel is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:25 PM   #69
Silver_Dragon
ED Translator
 
Silver_Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harker View Post
Yeah, that's the thing. I think that right now, they should focus on supporting the released content, core sim and just releasing stuff that's presumably nearly done (such as the Supercarrier module, which also supports two existing modules in the game and will bring them some revenue and the Ka-50 / A-10C cockpit graphical upgrades, since they almost exclusively occupy 3D artists and not systems programmers), leaving other full modules, such as the Hind and Mosquito for after the Hornet is 95%-100% done. Then, they can work on the Hind and release it while finishing the Viper etc. Of course, none of us knows ED's capacity. My example allows for two full modules in active development + core sim, but the idea is that they should try and keep a steadily rolling workload, without increasing the backlog.
Remember WW2 team has diferent team of other module teams, and Mi-24 has the old "BST" team. ED has Moscow team, old "BST" studio and Kiev team (Map team).
__________________
More news to the front
Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings
My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893
DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.p...91#post4076891
21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/
Silver_Dragon Youtube
Silver_Dragon is offline  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:35 PM   #70
Arctander
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzzU View Post
I've mentioned in the past that I thought the EA program is a bad idea and this thread is an example of why. What ED has asked is for the general public to pay to be a beta tester. I don't know of any other game developer who does that. .
I think where that analogy breaks down is those cases are 1 developer: 1 game in development, or in extremis 1 developer like (EA) with a huge number of sub studios each working on their own game.

Here it is one simulation, in alpha, with different modules all in varying stages of completion, and the single developer moving people from module to module depending on the priority of the month - and that's all perceptible on the outside - which leads to delay, messaging issues, and frustration.

Having a separate 'closed' alpha would at least lead to a much better understanding of the 'bar' at which a product is released and help ED stay 'on message' such that as you say, people could buy in at a specific 'stage' that suits them.

As it is we have Open Beta where all the Multiplayer servers live (because people want the new stuff sooner( - so we have to deal with things like the Viper damage model and IFF (in addition to bugs) when it shipped. if that had all occured in a closed environment - then that wouldn't be a pressure point.
Arctander is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:22 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.