Jump to content

VEAO & Hawk discussion (please mind the forum rules)


Recommended Posts

Sorry Shagrat, I suppose I am not able to explaine myself very well in english, I am not an haters, this is my second post in this thread, I lost my money, sometimes happens, what I mean is VEAO had the same problems that every 3rd parties and ED have in every module, why ED and other parties can give us beautiful and functional modules (not bug free but very funny to use) and VEAO not? Veao used 5 years to made a Hawk and they want to create EFA, maybe their ambitious outweighed their talent


Edited by NineLine
removed quote for OP
Link to comment
  • Replies 460
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The only thing which is missing in the whole statement is a simple:"We ****ed it up and we are sorry!"

They are like politicians who will never admit that they made a mistake.

Specs:WIN10, I7-4790K, ASUS RANGER VII, 16GB G.Skill DDR3, GEFORCE 1080, NVME SSD, SSD, VIRPIL T-50 THROTTLE, K-51 COLLECTIVE, MS FFB2 (CH COMBATSTICK MOD), MFG CROSSWINDS, JETPAD, RIFT S

Modules:A10C, AH-64D, AJS-37, AV8B, BF109K4, CA, F/A18C, F14, F5EII, F86F, FC3, FW190A8, FW190D9, KA50, L39, M2000C, MI8TV2, MI24P, MIG15BIS, MIG19P, MIG21BIS, MIRAGE F1, P51D, SA342, SPITFIRE, UH1H, NORMANDY, PERSIAN GULF, CHANNEL, SYRIA
 
Thrustmaster TWCS Afterburner Detent
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=223776
 
My Frankenwinder ffb2 stick
Link to comment
looks like VAEO are still updating their website and trying to offer an explanation ??? http://veaosimulations.co.uk/ and by the way there are supposed to be air quotes around the explanation word above

 

"... Each and every one of us were heavily invested emotionally and with passion for the DCS community and we are all devastated to be leaving under such circumstances. ..." :megalol::megalol::megalol:

 

Sorry guys, but if you compare what modders achieved with the A-4E and the MB-339 compared to the Hawk, you can only roll on the floor when reading the sentence above.

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment

A well thought out argument. The problem is there are no redeeming qualities of the Hawk. They had more time than any other 3rd party to get things right, and their quality fell short in comparison in every respect. The SDK might be a good reason for bugs, but not for a crap flight model or terrible artwork.

 

If they'd done well in areas they had control over I'd have given them the benefit of the doubt, but they didn't. As such, it sounds like more excuses.


Edited by NineLine
removed quote for OP
Link to comment

It's even plausible that the legal contract have changed because of them. ED had to protect their platform and customers and VEAO were the weak spot where the chain was breaking.

Do, or do not, there is no try.

--------------------------------------------------------

Sapphire Nitro+ Rx Vega 64, i7 4790K ... etc. etc.

Link to comment

"This decision came at a critical time for us as we were on the verge of signing a new agreement with outsider investors for over £100,000 of investment to recruit a full-time studio to work solely on consumer products for DCS world. "

 

Sounds like a bullet dodged for everyone

Link to comment
It's even plausible that the legal contract have changed because of them. ED had to protect their platform and customers and VEAO were the weak spot where the chain was breaking.

 

 

Which would only ensure their departure. The real failure was in not securing the code/model which I hope the new agreement does for when other 3rd parties fail as one is bound to do at some time.

klem

56 RAF 'Firebirds'

ASUS ROG Strix Z390-F mobo, i7 8086A @ 5.0 GHz with Corsair H115i watercooling, Gigabyte 2080Ti GAMING OC 11Gb GPU , 32Gb DDR4 RAM, 500Gb and 256Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s + 2TB , Pimax 8k Plus VR, TM Warthog Throttle, TM F18 Grip on Virpil WarBRD base, Windows 10 Home 64bit

Link to comment

close this VEAO section:

 

Licensed Third Party Projects » VEAO Simulations <--DELETE THIS

 

 

> VEAO is down.

> VEAO doesn't exist now..

> There is nothing constructive in this forum...


Edited by Satarosa

Real War, Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCs1uki5QsyuHUdvtmWJTOg?view_as=subscriber

 

Real War, Voice Chat: https://discord.gg/UGa3KMe

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
close this VEAO section:

 

Licensed Third Party Projects » VEAO Simulations <--DELETE THIS

 

 

> VEAO is down.

> VEAO doesn't exist now..

> There is nothing constructive in this forum...

 

 

It should remain as a discussion platform for those that have VEAO products.

klem

56 RAF 'Firebirds'

ASUS ROG Strix Z390-F mobo, i7 8086A @ 5.0 GHz with Corsair H115i watercooling, Gigabyte 2080Ti GAMING OC 11Gb GPU , 32Gb DDR4 RAM, 500Gb and 256Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s + 2TB , Pimax 8k Plus VR, TM Warthog Throttle, TM F18 Grip on Virpil WarBRD base, Windows 10 Home 64bit

Link to comment

Please return my Hawk

 

I know there will be no further work done on the Hawk but I quite enjoy flying it.

 

 

I bought it from ED as early release, which definition said nothing about withdrawing it if not finished, and I don't think you have the right to disable something I have purchased. Unless of course you are going to refund my money.

klem

56 RAF 'Firebirds'

ASUS ROG Strix Z390-F mobo, i7 8086A @ 5.0 GHz with Corsair H115i watercooling, Gigabyte 2080Ti GAMING OC 11Gb GPU , 32Gb DDR4 RAM, 500Gb and 256Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s + 2TB , Pimax 8k Plus VR, TM Warthog Throttle, TM F18 Grip on Virpil WarBRD base, Windows 10 Home 64bit

Link to comment

Do we really need another thread like this? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=228209

 

I think that everything has already been discussed there. Just live with it, that nobody is going to bring the VEAO Hawk back to you. VEAO can't or doesn't want to and ED can't because they don't have access to the code. So just tell us how you would find a solution, if you were ED?

A-10A, A-10C, A-10C II, AV-8B, F-5E, F-16C, F/A-18C, F-86F, Yak-52, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Syria, Supercarrier, Combined Arms, FW 190 A-8, FW 190 D-9, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Normandy + WWII Assets Pack

 

Link to comment

I bought it from ED as early release, which definition said nothing about withdrawing it if not finished, and I don't think you have the right to disable something I have purchased.

 

 

Actually, ED has not disabled it ... it is you, who updated DCS to a new version in spite of knowing that the Hawk isnt compatible with it.

 

 

If you want to keep flying the Hawk just roll the update back and keep using DCS version 2.5.3 for as long as you want.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
If you want to keep flying the Hawk just roll the update back and keep using DCS version 2.5.3 for as long as you want.

 

Or, more practically, he could have another install of DCSW 2.5.3 for the Hawk..

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
...http://veaosimulations.co.uk/...

Quite the statement. I agree with the community that VEAO had more than enough time to complete the Hawk and their failure is mostly due to a lack of talent and/or resource mismanagement. Their statement is obviously an attempt to save some face while airing dirty laundry and deflecting blame. But, just because the laundry’s dirty doesn’t make it untrue.

We all know there are plenty of decade+ old bugs that ED refuses to acknowledge, much less address. While we find it annoying, imagine having to work intimately with and around that code with little documentation or support, hoping change after change doesn’t break your own product. Still, their statement says, “an example being 4 bugs...in 2014”, then fails to give any actual example. I find it hard to believe ED would hold VEAO financially liable for ED’s own bugs, and even if they tried such a boneheaded move there is recourse for such things. But penalties for letting your own bugs languish for eternity? Sounds good to me, I just wish ED were subject to their own rules.

And a post of mine from December:

...Unless ED is holding reliably updated 3rd party source code in perpetual escrow (nope), their gaining source code access if another VEAO happens is far from guaranteed.

It’s honestly kind of shocking to learn that ED may now require 3rd party source code in escrow. Like it or not VEAO’s code is their IP and likely one of their only assets. To be required to relinquish control of this asset in the event you need it most (business failing) would be a huge liability for any company, and certainly a non-starter for any potential investor in said company. Because of this I actually doubt the escrow requirement is true as portrayed in the statement, or at most it’s a small part of a much bigger picture. But if it is true it’s going to cause some serious reconsideration by any future third parties about developing for DCS World.

Anyways, an interesting read for sure, as long as you take it with a lot of salt and recognize the author’s motivations. While it doesn’t change my almost entirely negative opinion of VEAO, it does provide a small glimpse into the murky behind-the-scenes dealings that ED engages in.

Oh, and the “as a British business” thing is pure bullshit.

Good riddance VEAO.


Edited by SonofEil

i7 7700K @5.0, 1080Ti, 32GB DDR4, HMD Odyssey, TM WH, Crosswind Rudder...

Link to comment

@norbot

there is no 'solution' necessary, just leave the Hawk enabled as it is.

 

@rudel_ch

Updates are offered automatically with a simple question "do you want to update?". I accept there will be things in the update I am not aware of but it is unnecessary to disable an aircraft I have paid for. The update itself is unlikely to have moved DCS to a place where the Hawk won't work as that would inevitably affect other aircraft. It is more likely that positive action has been taken place to disable or exclude the Hawk. I do not understand why ED found it necessary to do this even having read the newsletter 26th December especially as it can obviously still be flown in 2.5.3 so why not keep it in? Nor do I understand why the arbitrary date of 1st October 2018 should be set for refunds. By the way it is still available as AI on the ME.

 

I do not wish to be tied to an old version or install another version. Why should I?

 

My question was to ED and it would be more helpful if they would respond.

klem

56 RAF 'Firebirds'

ASUS ROG Strix Z390-F mobo, i7 8086A @ 5.0 GHz with Corsair H115i watercooling, Gigabyte 2080Ti GAMING OC 11Gb GPU , 32Gb DDR4 RAM, 500Gb and 256Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s + 2TB , Pimax 8k Plus VR, TM Warthog Throttle, TM F18 Grip on Virpil WarBRD base, Windows 10 Home 64bit

Link to comment
Yeah, it should remain open, people still use the Hawk. It will move to the Legacy section soon though as that statement pretty much cements they aren't coming back or making the Hawk available...

 

 

Nineline, can you please find out the technical or legal reason why the Hawk has been disabled. If there are genuine reasons I would understand but as a purchaser of the Hawk I think we are owed an explanation, not just "we have removed it". I would like to continue flying it.

klem

56 RAF 'Firebirds'

ASUS ROG Strix Z390-F mobo, i7 8086A @ 5.0 GHz with Corsair H115i watercooling, Gigabyte 2080Ti GAMING OC 11Gb GPU , 32Gb DDR4 RAM, 500Gb and 256Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s + 2TB , Pimax 8k Plus VR, TM Warthog Throttle, TM F18 Grip on Virpil WarBRD base, Windows 10 Home 64bit

Link to comment

Basically; the code for the module has to be (re) compiled for any new version of the DCS core.

 

Because VEAO has not, and will not do this, the Hawk's code will not be updated to any new version of DCS.

Asking ED is also pointless, as to be able to do this the source code is required, which is IP owned by VEAO and will not be surrendered to ED.

 

Effectively, the 2.5.3 is the "highest" version of DCS compatible.

 

You can run multiple versions of DCS should you desire, so you can fly the hawk in the 2.5.3. version.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Once again, ED doesn't have the source code to create updated dll files for the Hawk in order to keep it in the sim, we asked for them from VEAO, we have yet to be given anything. So without the updated Hawk files or the source code, it cannot and will not work in newer versions of DCS World.

 

Covered ad infinitum in this thread . Can play in 2.53 & earlier versions only .

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
I agree with the community that VEAO had more than enough time to complete the Hawk and their failure is mostly due to a lack of talent and/or resource mismanagement. Their statement is obviously an attempt to save some face while airing dirty laundry and deflecting blame. But, just because the laundry’s dirty doesn’t make it untrue.

We all know there are plenty of decade+ old bugs that ED refuses to acknowledge, much less address. While we find it annoying, imagine having to work intimately with and around that code with little documentation or support, hoping change after change doesn’t break your own product. Still, their statement says, “an example being 4 bugs...in 2014”, then fails to give any actual example. I find it hard to believe ED would hold VEAO financially liable for ED’s own bugs, and even if they tried such a boneheaded move there is recourse for such things. But penalties for letting your own bugs languish for eternity? Sounds good to me, I just wish ED were subject to their own rules.

 

+1.000.000

 

Veao may not be the most talented devs out there, but ED are far away from being saints.

In Austria we say, if you point with one finger on someone else, three fingers point at yourself.

Maybe ED should also consider this...

 

However. In the Hawk situation, its a pitty. While I welcome ED for being more demanding on 3rd parties, I can also understand that they are refuseing to sign a contract like that. But honestly, I won't have a better idea to solve the problem of "what if the 3rd party won't update there module or is going out of business"...

I think there are unbelieveable much problems at the roots of DCS, and it would be nice if they would start to work at those things...

 

The letter from Veao is still very interesting for me.

Beside their work, it is intersting to know that ED cashes 35% gross from every sold module. Thats not nothing... If you calculate the including taxes and for steam, you end up as dev with around 20% net...

And as thank for that, you get no documentation, no help, no information and every update breaks, without further notice, any other in thing in your module.

 

May the truth be somewhere in the middle...


Edited by viper2097

Steam user - Youtube

I am for quality over quantity in DCS modules

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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