Concern about Hornet development goals.

And if everyone was "happy" with these kinds of products no matter how buggy or unfinished they were then the developers could get away with a lot more.

With enthusiast products like flight and race sims the whole business argument that we are customers and they should do what we want gets a bit weak. I would speculate the numbers of very hardcore simulation fans are a small minority, even within the purchasers of DCS. I would expect the aspirations of ED to be in line with the hardcore fans given both are enthusiasts yet from a business perspective ED may well be better off serving a less hardcore market. So playing hardball with the devs in some belief it is for their own good may be missing the mark.

My bigger concern is that the communities will drive away enthusiast companies like ED from creating products like DCS. The argument that they can do what they like as they are the only one doing it has some irony...

The problem as I see it is this is often used as a justification for negativity bordering on or beyond simple rudeness. The "You have to be beastly to developers to get anything done" approach.

 

With enthusiast products like flight and race sims the whole business argument that we are customers and they should do what we want gets a bit weak. I would speculate the numbers of very hardcore simulation fans are a small minority, even within the purchasers of DCS. I would expect the aspirations of ED to be in line with the hardcore fans given both are enthusiasts yet from a business perspective ED may well be better off serving a less hardcore market. So playing hardball with the devs in some belief it is for their own good may be missing the mark.

 

My bigger concern is that the communities will drive away enthusiast companies like ED from creating products like DCS. The argument that they can do what they like as they are the only one doing it has some irony...

Negativity or reality? I don’t agree with rudeness and I would imagine that most of the criticism doesn’t get to the actual developers anyways. Truth be told the developers just do the work that the project managers lay out but I believe the term here is just a catch all for anyone that works for ED. I’m all for setting expectations for an early access product, but the truly frustrating part is the mismanagement of resources. As someone who is a software developer in my professional life I understand the process for doing so. Releasing more and more modules to pay the bills while sharing resources between them is a losing strategy and not being upfront about it is dishonest. Nobody here is telling them how to run the company but being more transparent about the (lack) of progress would be to their benefit, after all they are making software for customers. While I don’t agree with rudeness I also don’t subscribe to acting like a battered wife. We payed for an incomplete product with the expectation that the product would eventually be completed and have every right to after years be frustrated with the lack of progress.

Negativity or reality? I don’t agree with rudeness and I would imagine that most of the criticism doesn’t get to the actual developers anyways. Truth be told the developers just do the work that the project managers lay out but I believe the term here is just a catch all for anyone that works for ED. I’m all for setting expectations for an early access product, but the truly frustrating part is the mismanagement of resources. As someone who is a software developer in my professional life I understand the process for doing so. Releasing more and more modules to pay the bills while sharing resources between them is a losing strategy and not being upfront about it is dishonest. Nobody here is telling them how to run the company but being more transparent about the (lack) of progress would be to their benefit, after all they are making software for customers. While I don’t agree with rudeness I also don’t subscribe to acting like a battered wife. We payed for an incomplete product with the expectation that the product would eventually be completed and have every right to after years be frustrated with the lack of progress.

Agree!!!!:thumbup:

Negativity or reality? I don’t agree with rudeness and I would imagine that most of the criticism doesn’t get to the actual developers anyways. Truth be told the developers just do the work that the project managers lay out but I believe the term here is just a catch all for anyone that works for ED. I’m all for setting expectations for an early access product, but the truly frustrating part is the mismanagement of resources. As someone who is a software developer in my professional life I understand the process for doing so. Releasing more and more modules to pay the bills while sharing resources between them is a losing strategy and not being upfront about it is dishonest. Nobody here is telling them how to run the company but being more transparent about the (lack) of progress would be to their benefit, after all they are making software for customers. While I don’t agree with rudeness I also don’t subscribe to acting like a battered wife. We payed for an incomplete product with the expectation that the product would eventually be completed and have every right to after years be frustrated with the lack of progress.

I disagree. Everyone is aware of what the issues are no need to constantly voice them. People complain about lack of progress, these guys are working with little information on these features that are waiting to be added. Do you have a ATFLIR doc that has a description of the symbology and how the pod integrates with the aircraft? Do you think a lot of SME's are willing to go there with a foreign based company. Not saying this is a reason but it could be...

Look at the end of the day there's a lot of content in DCS if you're not satisfied find something in the sim to do that you suck at and improve on it e.g. BFM, formation flying, Case 1's, etc. But there's plenty to do and learn at the moment. No need to continue to gripe over things out of your control.

I disagree. Everyone is aware of what the issues are no need to constantly voice them. People complain about lack of progress, these guys are working with little information on these features that are waiting to be added. Do you have a ATFLIR doc that has a description of the symbology and how the pod integrates with the aircraft? Do you think a lot of SME's are willing to go there with a foreign based company. Not saying this is a reason but it could be...

 

Look at the end of the day there's a lot of content in DCS if you're not satisfied find something in the sim to do that you suck at and improve on it e.g. BFM, formation flying, Case 1's, etc. But there's plenty to do and learn at the moment. No need to continue to gripe over things out of your control.

I don’t have a ATFLIR document but I also didn’t sell someone software promising to recreate it either. How do you know what information they are working with? You’re not saying that is the reason for the lack of progress, but well that’s exactly what you’re saying. I don’t think that the complaining does any good, but I certainly think that people should voice their displeasure if they want to. We all put money into this product to fund its development and so it’s not as if we are just some passers by. I agree that dcs has a lot of great features and most days I’m playing them and not on the forums, but we’ll have to agree to disagree that we shouldn’t voice our displeasure.

these guys are working with little information on these features that are waiting to be added.

Then maybe they should have taken that into consideration when THEY selected the subjects they wanted to release. Ask the tough question of, Can we do this accurately with unclassified/opensource info and in a timely manner? If no, then move to something that is within your abilities. In both cases of the Hornet and Viper, it appears that it was much bigger of a bite than they could chew.

Everyone is aware of what the issues are no need to constantly voice them.

Sorry, but no. One person posting once about an issue is a relatively minor matter. Many people complaining about an issue should (rightly) require ED to sit up and take notice. If everyone did what you suggest, nothing would ever be fixed.

I would actually turn this around on those who complain about those raising concerns. Surely it's you who shouldn't bother to post, as you appear to have no issues with the game, only with other posters' feedback regarding it.

What concerns me most is the lack of progress in the modules as of late. Even the the F-16 has slowed down quite a bit. The last couple of patches are a good case in point. The night lighting is a nice upgraded feature, the Radar Gunsights for the Hornet and Viper were nice but not what I would consider big upgrades compared to other features that are missing. New clouds were eliminated, and many features were broken, which led to a small hot fix sans features last week. So one step forward and two back. Now we are looking at another week for a patch that will, maybe fix the issues and add little in the way of new features to existing modules? The new KA-50 cockpit update is nice but I feel like that is effort that would be better spent towards finishing the products that are out there. So what we have is 4 weeks with little progress, and I think the community sees ED as focusing on things to the detriment of EA modules left unfinished, which is probably exacerbated by things like Heatblur and Deka releasing modules that are more complete than what ED has out.

Maybe, hopefully, ED is working on big things for the Hornet and the Viper. Maybe big patches with big features are just around the corner, but it doesn't feel like it, and if they are then put it out there. Don't hide the ball we all know whats missing, what needs to be done, and no one is going to be happy if there pet feature is not the one getting worked on. Right now, though, it feels like the focus of ED is on the base game and base features, which are breaking things, and other modules like Supercarrier and the Blackshark 3 and A10C 2 and the unamed module while little focus is on the bought and paid Hornet and Viper. This is what I think is breeding frustration and I think the fix might be more information on what is being worked on for those modules, how far off they are (like a little, not too much, a lot) and maybe just a better statement on where the focus is for the company.

I don’t know how ED is structured and what different teams there are but what I do know is they said no developers from the hornet would be used to make the viper and that turned out to not be true.

I can’t remember how many facepalm moments I had reading this thread but it has to be a record.

 

 

I can’t wait to fly my EA/F18 to my EA/Supercarrier and do some EA/Aircraft recovery work.

 

Haha...you're making a big assumption that it is going to work because the carrier right now doesn't work.

This is a good thread.

Who ever purchases a Early Access Product, should be well aware and completely accept that the product is ready only when it gets released as ready. Before that everyone should be ready to simply step away from computer for some times until they get either wanted features or product gets released. Either way, everyone is free to wait the release before purchase.....

I can’t wait to fly my EA/F18 to my EA/Supercarrier and do some EA/Aircraft recovery work.

I hope I'm wrong, but at present I have my doubts that the Supercarrier will run at acceptable frame rates in VR.

The only thing more useless and annoying than complaining about ED's obviously frustrating development standards and timelines is people complaining about people complaining about it.

The only thing more useless and annoying than complaining about ED's obviously frustrating development standards and timelines is people complaining about people complaining about it.

:thumbup:

The only thing more useless and annoying than complaining about ED's obviously frustrating development standards and timelines is people complaining about people complaining about it.

Or people complaining about people complaining about DCS progress :smartass:

It’s just like inception.

Interesting thread.

Essentially most here write the same idea in different words or approaches.

What I don't understand is why some are angry at ED.

Looking at the facts, from ED's history along the years, its business strategy is quite apparent.

Not according to words and statements but actions.

They gradually invest less in making whole complete true to life modules and more on modules that satisfy features enough customers shall pay for.

It is abundantly clear, to me, that there is no way the Hornet will be complete in the A-10C standard in 2020.

I'm inclined to think it might never be there...unless some air-force signs a contract that will enable cost effective continued development.

More than that...the Hornet is not alone and while many like it (me included) there is no economical or other reason to invest resources into developing specifically the Hornet and not other modules at its state.

Last fact: combat jet simmers prefer to use DCS to other jet combat sims and they pay, each time, no matter what's the product's condition.

As long as the customers pay no mater what ED has no real incentive, profit for that matter, to invest money and personnel into making WHOLE modules.

It is what it has been for quite a long time.

Probably . . . ;)

What I don't understand is why some are angry at ED.

I'm not sure where you've detected anger in this thread. People have expressed their concerns in a perfectly reasonable manner.

Not according to words and statements but actions.

The only single thing ED need to do is release a REALISTIC plan, an honest plan based on reality, then everyone is on the same page knowing what to expect and when, there is no arguments then. Currently we are in the loop of ED releasing news and schedules and then either never delivering it, or dropping so far behind people lose all faith it will ever arrive, which in turn leads to threads like this once per month at least !!

In game Cows/Livestock anyone ?

Seems kind of ironic, but I just found this, I find it quite amazing ED have not made a special effort to MAKE SURE all customers saw this communication,

For all those who never saw it (like me)....some good news and information here.

The only thing more useless and annoying than complaining about ED's obviously frustrating development standards and timelines is people complaining about people complaining about it.

:thumbup:

The only single thing ED need to do is release a REALISTIC plan, an honest plan based on reality, then everyone is on the same page knowing what to expect and when, there is no arguments then.

What makes IT projects more complex is it isn't usually repeating tasks previously done but creating something new, even if it is just adding up sales of widgets by geographic region.

Add the complexity of real pioneering work and determining what is realistic is incredibly hard, they simply don't know how long it will take and many find that simply unacceptable and demand a timescale which is nothing more than guesswork.

Seems kind of ironic, but I just found this, I find it quite amazing ED have not made a special effort to MAKE SURE all customers saw this communication,

 

For all those who never saw it (like me)....some good news and information here.

 

 

I saw that but again, that is another vague statement or planned timeframe. Saying "mid term" can mean just about anything. The last major feature the "modern jet team" from ED pushed was TWS for the Hornet and that has broken other radar modes and still doesn't even work how it should. Since then there has been silence in pretty much all areas.

You could ask that of a building developer who build the same houses over and over again. How hard can it be to estimate how long to build the next? Yet still they are notorious for delays. Blame it on the weather like it doesn't usually rain in winter...

 

What makes IT projects more complex is it isn't usually repeating tasks previously done but creating something new, even if it is just adding up sales of widgets by geographic region.

 

Add the complexity of real pioneering work and determining what is realistic is incredibly hard, they simply don't know how long it will take and many find that simply unacceptable and demand a timescale which is nothing more than guesswork.

That is absolutely true. Project management of this scope and complexity is a complicated manner but given their past experience with numerous other projects I think one could safely say that they aren't doing this for the first time. Another question would be why ED decides to model these highly complex and digitalizd aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18. Sure, everyone wants those and those are iconic jets but from a developmental standpoint something like the F-4E Phantom II, Mi-24P Hind, Mig-29A/S etc. seem to be way more doable within a reasonable timeframe. Let alone the fact that ECM isn't really a thing in DCS and most new ED modules. Just some food for thought.

Another side effect of these open ended EA modules and several projects at the same time is that long term most people will not be inclined to pre-order or jump onto yet another EA product, which in turn means lost revenue and reduced profits. This business model sure isn't sustainable in the long run, provided they don't find secondary means of monetary influx.

But I don't find A-G radar as important feature, fancy and nice to have in future, but not such critical one.

Disagree bro: A2G radar is vital to locating ground targets especially vehicles. In BMS I use the A2G radar ALL THE TIME in ground strike roles, especially the GMT mode.

Disagree bro: A2G radar is vital to locating ground targets especially vehicles. In BMS I use the A2G radar ALL THE TIME in ground strike roles, especially the GMT mode.

That's because BMS AG Radar is unrealistically optimistic