M-2000C Mid-life Overhaul

Yes the team page needs updating

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Does this mean the information about the MiG-19 team was inacurate ? At this point the main coders on the Mirage and the MLO due last year are the same who spent several months coding the MiG-19P.

In the roadmap topic created two years ago, Prowler said that they would be no conflicts between the projects. At best his statement was awfully incorrect but I fear it was just purely deception.

Some of the members here will argue that we knew what we were buying and I am a 100% ok with you, but the fact is I bought the Mirage last summer after they announced their FAF deal and the promise to deliver the new update by the end of the year. I didn't bought the Mirage when it was released as a preorder because I thought they could use some more time to refine it ; instead I waited and paid full price to show my support in an ingoing project who just secured a major deal. Since, it got pushed back constantly and we are now aiming for a Summer 2019 release at best.

At what point should we get out of the early access ? Three years ? Five years ? The Mirage is on its way to its 3rd anniversary release date and Razbam announced the plane early 2014, five years ago ; that's already a good amount of time to develop a "simple" 4th gen single jet fighter. Some would say that Eagle Dynamics is also developing their Hornet for a long time but the fact is they're not releasing a new plane every year while they're working on a much more challenging plane.

I'm with Dagger on this one. I think Razbam is creating a situation where Eagle Dynamics will need to enforce new rules about new modules development. I'm totally fine with the fact that 3D/textures artists and the FM/engine coder move on when then're done with their part of the job, but the system coders should not be allowed to leave behind projects that are lacking and still in beta state. Razbam is hurting its own brand but it's also hurting ED reputation by allowing modules in an eternal state of development and unfulfilled promises.

To be honest I think third party devs should be forced to work on one single project at a time (unless they can show the completely separate teams are working on different modules) before they can release any new modules.

I guarantee the work involved in producing the Mig 19 was several times that required to fix the M2K radar, but of course with the limited resources, they decided to release new modules instead of fixing major bugs.

Or perhaps they realized that they lack some data on how some of these radar modes work and are waiting to visit France and re-do the whole system once they get more info rather than waste time on fixing this feature now incorrectly?

I think some of you guys need a reality check on all the things developing these modules entails.

First, releasing one complex module every three years (or more) at the current prices is obviously not a sustainable business model. Likewise, finishing the last e.g. 10% of the features and ironing out all the bugs is going to take a while as these are naturally lower in priority. Even HB is still releasing large patches to their Viggen module.

Second, there are things that have to be done in parallel. E.g. once the 3D/cockpit modeler work is done on one module, what should he do? Wait for two years until the systems and the FM is finished, the module is released and all the subsequent bugs are ironed out so the module is declared as finished and he can start working on the next one?

Sure, you can be unhappy about how they run their modules and you can voice that opinion and decide not to buy any further modules until the first two are feature complete. But, you shouldn't presume that the current issues with the modules bother all the customers the same way or that the current release model can be made much stricter without significantly boosting the module price.

At some point, you have to ask yourself whether you're better off to have these modules in DCS as they are or not at all. As last time I've checked, I didn't see any new 3rd parties queuing up to bother with these DCS flight sim modules, so that might give you a hint or two, as well.

Or perhaps they realized that they lack some data on how some of these radar modes work and are waiting to visit France and re-do the whole system once they get more info rather than waste time on fixing this feature now incorrectly?

 

I think some of you guys need a reality check on all the things developing these modules entails.

 

First, releasing one complex module every three years (or more) at the current prices is obviously not a sustainable business model. Likewise, finishing the last e.g. 10% of the features and ironing out all the bugs is going to take a while as these are naturally lower in priority. Even HB is still releasing large patches to their Viggen module.

 

Second, there are things that have to be done in parallel. E.g. once the 3D/cockpit modeler work is done on one module, what should he do? Wait for two years until the systems and the FM is finished, the module is released and all the subsequent bugs are ironed out so the module is declared as finished and he can start working on the next one?

 

Sure, you can be unhappy about how they run their modules and you can voice that opinion and decide not to buy any further modules until the first two are feature complete. But, you shouldn't presume that the current issues with the modules bother all the customers the same way or that the current release model can be made much stricter without significantly boosting the module price.

 

Last time I checked, I didn't see a lot of 3rd parties queuing up to bother with these DCS flight sim modules, so that might give you a hint or two, as well.

+1

I'm with you on this Dudikoff, if it's your main job, 1 module at a time isn't sustainable. You need to run parallel projects.

Or perhaps they realized that they lack some data on how some of these radar modes work and are waiting to visit France and re-do the whole system once they get more info rather than waste time on fixing this feature now incorrectly?

[...]

Second, there are things that have to be done in parallel. E.g. once the 3D/cockpit modeler work is done on one module, what should he do? Wait for two years until the systems and the FM is finished, the module is released and all the subsequent bugs are ironed out so the module is declared as finished and he can start working on the next one?

Regarding the lack of data, they said multiple times they finally had all the requirements to finish the module thanks to the FAF deal. I assume they set an initial MLO release date in regards with this data and their ability to integrate it into their module. You can have a setback once, even twice in a row, but at some point you need to learn from your mistake, that's what we all do on a daily basis right ? But to be honest that's not even the point, you're just diverting from the real problem in my opinion, which is : the same team is working on multiple modules despite the fact they said it was not the case.

Don't assume unhappy customers are not aware of the current business model dilemma. As I stated in the message you didn't quote, it's perfectly ok that artists and coders who are done with their work move on to the next project. As you said, nobody is expecting them to sit in a corner waiting for the module being complete. A new question arise : how others 3rd party developpers sustain themselves with long term projects ? As you mentionned another 3rd party developper, I will just say that in the last year they just redo entirely their Air to Ground radar with their own expertise and made their specific ordinance operational in single and multiplayer while we are waiting for the BAP 100 for more than two years.

I do understand people who are supportive of 3rd parties developpers, they add so much to the DCS environment. But it must not become an excuse to accept some dubious behaviors. If you really want to support them, pay their module full price, the money is everything and they need it if we want them to provide us quality content.

But to be honest that's not even the point, you're just diverting from the real problem in my opinion, which is : the same team is working on multiple modules despite the fact they said it was not the case.

Wrong thread.

Wrong thread.

I'm guessing you have a philosophers degree on the subforums as you have been constantly trying to undermine him. Let the man write his opinions hes talking about M2K and long awaited overhaul.

For me having a 2k how it is right now is an amazing thing, and no one can said we have an other one like that elsewhere.

Like a lot of DCS modules it become better and better polish after polish, like the shark and the hog, going back few step and be back to it is the best way for remembering that we have some pretty unique modules right here even if they are not as perfect as we want.

It's frustrating for us but because I have work on some lock-on modules in the past, I can said that working while the community can't wait is a very special feeling and following the wave and wish is not an easy trick, some time you said something that seem feasible and one month later "oh crap it's not that easy to make it done in time", and I'm pretty sure all devs right here know this feeling.

I'm guessing you have a philosophers degree on the subforums as you have been constantly trying to undermine him.

No I'm not and I don't understand what you are trying to say

Let the man write his opinions hes talking about M2K and long awaited overhaul.

Yes, he can do that and I urge him to do it.

But talking about how the team work has little to do with the MLO, you guys can talk about it in another thread like the team presentation one.

I'm just tired of reading things that have nothing to do with the MLO in the MLO thread (IDC how the team(s) works), and I don't have anything against anybody expressing their opinions on it taking longer than said.

Regarding the lack of data, they said multiple times they finally had all the requirements to finish the module thanks to the FAF deal. I assume they set an initial MLO release date in regards with this data and their ability to integrate it into their module. You can have a setback once, even twice in a row, but at some point you need to learn from your mistake, that's what we all do on a daily basis right ? But to be honest that's not even the point, you're just diverting from the real problem in my opinion, which is : the same team is working on multiple modules despite the fact they said it was not the case.

 

Don't assume unhappy customers are not aware of the current business model dilemma. As I stated in the message you didn't quote, it's perfectly ok that artists and coders who are done with their work move on to the next project. As you said, nobody is expecting them to sit in a corner waiting for the module being complete. A new question arise : how others 3rd party developpers sustain themselves with long term projects ? As you mentionned another 3rd party developper, I will just say that in the last year they just redo entirely their Air to Ground radar with their own expertise and made their specific ordinance operational in single and multiplayer while we are waiting for the BAP 100 for more than two years.

The point I'm trying to make is not to throw money at them without any critique, but just to lower the expectations realistically as the thread started going towards asking ED to forbid the 3rd party devs from releasing an early access module until the previous one is 100% feature complete which I don't think is a viable option to say the least.

And by lowering expectations, I mean, don't hold every developer comment and estimate as something set in stone and then feel cheated if things don't pan out as expected. If they're silent, they get hit at, if they give a current best estimate, they also live to regret it. E.g. HB at one point practically sweared that the F-14 will be out in 2017.

In development, things change rather quickly, unexpected problems pop-up, not to mention constant changes or limitations present in the base DCS engine. So, 3rd parties being rather small teams, have to manage and shift their priorities constantly and for many I'd presume this is their side-job so there's only so many work hours available.

All valid points.

I just wanted to share my opinion, it is done now and I have no reason to harrass the team who made my favorite and only module.

DECOY, are both the ADA Airbase and the Mirage team in France?

In a previous post and on the October 2018 video update they said they were going to Orange, home base for the 2/5 Ile de France. Someone is specifically flying there to scan the cockpits with their new technology.

we are waiting for the BAP 100 for more than two years.

A anti-runway bomb without a popper functionality not implemented realistic by ED on DCS World, the same as the Betab and other anti-runway bombs.

DECOY, are both the ADA Airbase and the Mirage team in France?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

So, which Mirage bugs can we expect to be fixed in the meantime while we are waiting at least another half year for the MLO?

So, which Mirage bugs can we expect to be fixed in the meantime while we are waiting at least another half year for the MLO?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I know what you wrote about May/June but sorry to say so, given Razbams way of operating in the past I‘m taking that with a huge grain of salt.

But the question was serious.You said work on minor fixes continues nontheless.

So which bug fixes may we expect while waiting for the MLO?

Kind regards,

snappy

And when are we going to get specific lists of what is missing on both airplanes? I feel like I need to promise that I'm not "trolling", in case you want to delete a legitimate quesiton again. It's been ~55 days since you said that such lists were in the works and since they have not appeared, contrary to what was indicated, I feel like we deserve an update.

Maybe you have lately answered my question, and I simply do not know about it. In that case I'm sorry, but could you fill me in anyway?

Hope they will finally fix this engine sound problem at shutdown...

really disturbing that silence during the engine stop.

Nice day to all DCS community

Hope they will finally fix this engine sound problem at shutdown...

really disturbing that silence during the engine stop.

 

Nice day to all DCS community

I haven't seen this one but will look for you

PM me if you can:)

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I know what you wrote about May/June but sorry to say so, given Razbams way of operating in the past I‘m taking that with a huge grain of salt.

 

But the question was serious.You said work on minor fixes continues nontheless.

So which bug fixes may we expect while waiting for the MLO?

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

snappy

SALT MINE REQUIRED, not just a grain.

They are busy working on another 4 modules, at least, but the Mirage that needs serious TLC is getting none, their newest module's flight model is like its from ace combat and not a combat simulator. The lists of complaints on other platforms are evident that the module STILL was not ready for release.

A flight model for a flight simulator should be the first thing you get right, not a after release after thought.

I wonder if they will listen to their community and get their act together or follow VAEO's route.

It would be sad. Razbam once had so much promise.

I took the mirage for a spin and as I fly in VR,I don't bond anything else than HOTAS functions as everything else is done with hands. But I found that it was not so easy to find the real HOTAS functions and their operation.

Like how does the stick buttons work and what modes they should have. As it now was like the controls were paired unlike the manual stated,or the functions were not possible be binded at all.

So is that as well being checked that it is possible bind all functions correctly?

Dont you think this question is out of the MLO thread OP?

I've followed the pics inside the manual to bind the HOTAS functions and all are working for me.