OB Update Delayed

So are you talking about the redundant "ED is so great" posts too are just the ones that provide any kind of critique?

 

Has ED even considered once that the current practice of how EA is handled isn't exactly working? I think instead of always pointing the finger at your paying customers, it may be time to do some self reflection while the lights are still on at the ED office.

 

Just a thought.

Do not act like you are some kind of spokersperson for the entire community.

I am an ED customer for 10+ years now, and I don't see what the fuss is about (maybe because I used to flight simming in the era of VGA resolution and 9600 baud modems).

There are always fanbois and critics, but then there is a silent majority who pays silently and enjoys it in their private time. I know a couple of people like that. Me myself I extracted immense enjoyment of every dollar I spent on ED products (compared to eh... Battlefield games? I have some regrets there...).

Be sure that if the fundamental promises are broken, I will too raise my pitchfork, as I'm not a blind loyalist. But until then, I don't see any reason for hysteria. But "yeah well, that's just, like, my opinion, man".

Consider the possibility that work done on the Viper's capabilities is directly transferable to the hornet considering their similar roles and systems. If that is the case, then the devs moved to the viper might not have delayed say TWS for the hornet at all since they function so similarly, or at least very minimally.

If this is true, why not do it the other way around?

 

There are always fanbois and critics, but then there is a silent majority who pays silently and enjoys it in their private time. I know a couple of people like that. Me myself I extracted immense enjoyment of every dollar I spent on ED products.

 

Be sure that if the fundamental promises are broken, I will too raise my pitchfork, as I'm not a blind loyalist. But until then, I don't see any reason for hysteria. But "yeah well, that's just, like, my opinion, man".

+100 - count me in that silent group too.

I really enjoy taking part in EA. I look forward to the regular updates on the open beta to test all the latest, I personally like the EA approach.

I work in R&D (mechanical dev not software) so see this from an inside...ish perspective and totally understand the issues ED must be having. It can't be easy for them and stuff goes wrong for us at work, mostly at the last minute and when you least expect it!

Well, just thought I would chime in with a bit of support here for ED and their EA approach....

As for EA not working, the Hornet has been live for just over a year and a half, and come a long way, is it has slowed, but we are about to push on. Had we not done Early Access the only thing that would have changed is no one would be flying it yet.

This!

Without EA the Hornet wouldn't be any further now than it is now with EA. The difference would just be that no one would be able to enjoy it already, as many do in EA. Progress would probably be even less, because of the missing bug reporting and testing by the EA players! Again, who doesn't like unfinished products and beta testing does not have to participate in EA and can just wait for the finished product... just like if there would not be any EA at all!

But "yeah well, that's just, like, my opinion, man".

And I have every right to have mine, man.

Ok guys, I know some of you want to discuss this, but if you cant do it without insulting each other, then please don't.

 

We still have forum rules, feel free to review them, also look at the one about redundant posts as well. We are where we are on the manpower for the Viper and The Hornet, we are almost back to the Hornet push, we are just trying to get this next patch out. Nothing really left to say.

 

Some people like early access, some people would rather have finished aircraft, chances are the development time wouldn't change whether you were given early access or not, in fact it might be longer as we get a wider testing sampling.

 

So I know some don't like this, but Early Access isn't for everyone.

Some thoughts:

1) by releasing any module into early access - everyone is impacted by that module being in ea. If you buy it, if you have to fly against it, and if it slows down development on what you have bought. Ea is an inescapable thing if you pat pate in DCS. So you cannot say ‘don’t like EA, don’t partake’

2) as many others have said - the bar for EA, the length of time in EA, and the clarity of EA modules and systems Priorities is absolutely impenetrable to us. We as your customers need more than anything to see a roadmap for the modules and core improvements so we can get an understanding of what is the priority and interplay. That roadmap needs to be updated for any new module BEFORE you accept any money from people For EA so they can establish if it is ‘ready’ enough for them, and or if they like the trade offs it may occur. It then needs updating on a semi frequent basis (once a quarter at the worst?)

3) you really do need to avoid having a similar situation in the future which plays one module off against another. It has done Ed no favours in the eyes of many. If it is mission critical that it needs to be done, you need to be all over the messaging - ahead of any changes being made to plans (not just reacting to questions) and you need to commit to backstops, and make up to people the lost ground in some way. Just ‘thanking for their patience’ I personally don’t think is enough. If you take resource from a module

People own for a signficant length of time, maybe you should give those people a discount on the new module to say ‘thank you’. Might be a win win for you and drive more sales... (that’s the only way I can think off unless you move Viper devs over to the hornet which you’ve said you won’t do. Even if you did I wouldn’t use it as I won’t buy the f16 until the hornet is complete as is the Viper)

The whole EA discussion is getting reaaaaally old and boring now, but the "Don't like EA? Don't buy it" argument is very myopic and disingenuous. There are three fundamental issues with it from my perspective:

 

1. There's no established definition or bar for Early Access. ED could release an untextured, low-poly proxy model with no cockpit and it would still functionally be "Early Access".

 

2. In the absence of a clear definition for Early Access, everyone's going to have their own personal bar of an "acceptable" level of completeness. I haven't been negatively impacted by the lack of TWS in the Hornet, or the absence of external lights in the Viper... but then I don't fly online against F-14's, or spend my time flying formation in night missions.

With regard to these two points, the EA products i've bought (F-18, Harrier, F-14 and F-16) have had a reasonably clear definition available as to what will/won't work on day 1. And if I remember rightly they've also had a list of priorities for post-launch development. And in most cases you also get an idea of what systems will/will not be modelled longer term.

I suspect the bigger issue is the lack of any clear idea of how long that EA phase lasts for and that products eventually pottering along at a crawl in terms of development.

As for the Viper v Hornet spat, it hasn't really bothered me that much. Update cadence for the Hornet exceeded expectation early doors so i'm willing to cut them a little slack for the current lull. Hopefully there is some payback to come in terms of the claimed effort to be able to co-develop features to some extent for the two planes.

Some thoughts:

 

1) by releasing any module into early access - everyone is impacted by that module being in ea. If you buy it, if you have to fly against it, and if it slows down development on what you have bought. Ea is an inescapable thing if you pat pate in DCS. So you cannot say ‘don’t like EA, don’t partake’

 

2) as many others have said - the bar for EA, the length of time in EA, and the clarity of EA modules and systems Priorities is absolutely impenetrable to us. We as your customers need more than anything to see a roadmap for the modules and core improvements so we can get an understanding of what is the priority and interplay. That roadmap needs to be updated for any new module BEFORE you accept any money from people For EA so they can establish if it is ‘ready’ enough for them, and or if they like the trade offs it may occur. It then needs updating on a semi frequent basis (once a quarter at the worst?)

 

3) you really do need to avoid having a similar situation in the future which plays one module off against another. It has done Ed no favours in the eyes of many. If it is mission critical that it needs to be done, you need to be all over the messaging - ahead of any changes being made to plans (not just reacting to questions) and you need to commit to backstops, and make up to people the lost ground in some way. Just ‘thanking for their patience’ I personally don’t think is enough. If you take resource from a module

People own for a signficant length of time, maybe you should give those people a discount on the new module to say ‘thank you’. Might be a win win for you and drive more sales... (that’s the only way I can think off unless you move Viper devs over to the hornet which you’ve said you won’t do. Even if you did I wouldn’t use it as I won’t buy the f16 until the hornet is complete as is the Viper)

Bunkum. It has been said many times that EA is the only way ED can afford to develop DCS. Cashflow is a real issue. Like it or not you are, as a user of DCS, in a niche area of flight simming, itself a niche area of gaming as a whole. There are simply not the big bucks flying around to be invested as returns are lower, so wholesale behind the curtain development then Gold release is just not affordable.

Don't like it? Tough ! Go out and get millions more gamers interested in mil-sim flight simming - that is literally the only way that you will see ED be able to afford to adopt the development ethos you desire.

As for this ludicrous bloody argument over TWS, it has been said - again, many bloody times - that the integration of TWS with the Hornets SA and datalink systems is an order of magnitude more complex than that for the F-16; ergo it will take longer to get it working correctly.

What get's my goat is that you F/A-18 TWS activists seem to forget that there's some of us been around here a lot bloody longer than you and we've been waiting on promised features to be implemented/completed/finalised for other modules for far longer, watching you F/A-18 boys getting lots of new toys, features and functionalities being developed whilst stuff we waited on got de-prioritised time and again. So now it's your turn.

Take a bloody ticket and get in line like the rest of us.

Over entitled, much.

I had a choice - to wait some two years for the finished Hornet or take part in EA.

I have chosen EA and i'm enjoying it.

I work as an engineer and i can see how our company have many delays in most of our project, often in the least anticipated cases, because that's life. If a bunch of people who do not know the exact specifics of my work start to moan to me like that, I would lose my nerves fast.

As long as some other company prove it's possible to model full fidelity combat aircrafts better or faster - ED is the best in the world.

And just imagine the situation ED coders, inspite of their best efforts and extra hours will not be able to finish this F-16 update and they will be forced to delay it one more week to clear some bugs. What you gonna do?

Time to grow up.

Bunkum. It has been said many times that EA is the only way ED can afford to develop DCS. Cashflow is a real issue. Like it or not you are, as a user of DCS, in a niche area of flight simming, itself a niche area of gaming as a whole. There are simply not the big bucks flying around to be invested as returns are lower, so wholesale behind the curtain development then Gold release is just not affordable.

 

Don't like it? Tough titties! Go out and get millions more gamers interested in mil-sim flight simming - that is literally the only way that you will see ED be able to afford to adopt the development ethos you desire.

 

As for this ludicrous (redacted) argument over TWS, it has been said - again, many bloody times - that the integration of TWS with the Hornets SA and datalink systems is an order of magnitude more complex than that for the F-16; ergo it will take longer to get it working correctly.

 

What get's my goat is that you F/A-18 TWS activists seem to forget that there's some of us been around here a lot (redacted) longer than you and we've been waiting on promised features to be implemented/completed/finalised for other modules for far longer, watching you F/A-18 boys getting lots of new toys, features and functionalities being developed whilst stuff we waited on got de-prioritised time and again. So now it's your turn.

 

Take a (redacted) ticket and get in line like the rest of us.

 

Over entitled, much.

Where did I mention TWS? It’s the overall system gaps that I want worked on. And yes - I agree that the most egrarious example of Ed’s ea policy is the Huey multi crew. Hence my advice/suggestions. I would also reiterate nineline A’s instruction to respect other people - plus you said a profanity which goes against forum rules so you really should have your post deleted.

I've been flying DCS/Lomac since god was a kid. I currently fly the Hornet in EA. I can't get LGBs to run with the TGP. So, I drop MK-82 in CCIP.

I fly the Hornet, guys. I fly it. I bolter a lot because I'm clumsy. But I fly the Hornet.

We'll get there when we get there, okay? Let them know if your landing gear fails to come up. But be happy you can fly whatever you fly.

The problem is ED keeps making announcements to feed the need, but cannot make the deadlines it sets. Why release VOIP when from what I've read the audio will be crystal clear and only have one channel for each side? This is yet again a completely unfinished add on being rushed out the door. If VOIP doesn't sound like a radio and cannot use frequency it is completely useless for online play. Best to keep it internal until its finished to a better state.

I agree here. The VOIP system that will be integrated into the sim should basically be ED's version of SRS. If it's just basic VOIP communications like we have with TS or Discord then I find almost no point in having it.

I agree here. The VOIP system that will be integrated into the sim should basically be ED's version of SRS. If it's just basic VOIP communications like we have with TS or Discord then I find almost no point in having it.

+1,000,000

Yeah, I really don't get why they just dont cut out the 16 stuff from the update

Because doing this costs an high amount of time on development. That is just the reality of how software development works.

They could have an update every week by filtering only the things that are ready, but then general development speed would be cut by like 30%

ED coders, inspite of their best efforts and extra hours will not be able to finish this F-16 update and they will be forced to delay it one more week to clear some bugs. What you gonna do?

Like all the others who bought F18. Wait for updates from F18, to switch to F16 and give $79.99...

The idea behind DCS core and modules was to have independently updatable modules.

 

A developer should be able to commit updates for his module no matter at what stage of development is some other module. Of course, that requires version control system for each module which existence is unknown for me.

 

In a good architecture, updating local module code should never trigger core version change.

.. He said knowing nothing of the code structure.

How do you know that ED don't edit/tweak/correct/add parameters of their base code to allow for functionality of certain modules, their own or others?

Who understands EDs code better, them or you? Who's in a better position to decide how they implement their version control, them or you?

LOL, there seem to be a lot of would be CEO's in here.

It'd actually be much better to have as much shared code as possible between modules, in the sense that modules would just utilize the same blocks of core code, with added stuff, specific to each module. Things like radar simulation, RWR simulation, lights etc could be shared and just have different coefficients, limitations and interfaces, depending on the module.

This would also ensure common behavior between modules, such as radar logic being similar, with the only difference being the radar specifics (power, processing power, antenna size, resolution etc), but all radars would behave in a similar way. Same for lights; some modules have much better lights than others, for example.

ED could simply make a majority of their issues go away if they did one simple thing. Establish an CONCRETE STANDARD OF WHAT "EARLY ACCESS" IS. What features dictate an Early Access module from a finished module.

Early Access must have * to be considered ready for early access release.

Once that standard is established, stick to it, be open to their customer base about it. Why has not be done yet? especially in the wake of the Viper release with an unfinished external model. As an example the Hornet was released in a much better off state than the Viper but both were considered ready for Early Access, this makes no sense. What standard did their QA department use before they cleared the Heatblur Tomcat or the pending Deka JF-17?

There needs to be a standard, this would go a LONG way into setting realistic expectations for the customer and ED.

ED could simply make a majority of their issues go away if they did one simple thing. Establish an CONCRETE STANDARD OF WHAT "EARLY ACCESS" IS. What features dictate an Early Access module from a finished module.

 

Early Access must have * to be considered ready for early access release.

 

 

Once that standard is established, stick to it, be open to their customer base about it. Why has not be done yet? especially in the wake of the Viper release with an unfinished external model. As an example the Hornet was released in a much better off state than the Viper but both were considered ready for Early Access, this makes no sense. What standard did their QA department use before they cleared the Heatblur Tomcat or the pending Deka JF-17?

 

There needs to be a standard, this would go a LONG way into setting realistic expectations for the customer and ED.

100%.

There needs to be a common bar between an ED Module and a 3Rd party. Either can choose to exceed it, but no one is allowed to undershoot.

For the most part, Early Access and current modules were in a good place until the F-16 came along. The F-16 tipped the scales by causing a workload that seems to exceed ED's current resources and capabilities. It also changed what Early Access means in DCS. The Hornet set the bar high, as of course the Tomcat did too. Heck, all previous ED modules set a pretty high standard for Early Access release that for some reason, the F-16 still has yet to meet. Take the F-16 away, and all is well with ED and DCS again.

Development takes a long time, but the Hornet was progressing well. Why stop all that and hurt your flagship product along with upsetting your customer base? Was the income from the F-16 worth all of this mess?

As the latest Newsletter has pointed out, there seems to be now one team working on both the Hornet and Viper...I remember Wags mentioning that there were only four programmers working on the Hornet systems at one point...that puts things in perspective.

The F-16 is causing delays...Hornet customers have to wait for development to start again...and wait even longer until that development leads to the completion of weapons, systems, and features. Heatblur has an update ready for the Tomcat...but it too is delayed by the F-16. How can we not be concerned and upset?

No worries though. The JF17 will ship on the 4th and we can have a mostly finished jet to fly while they sort out the Viper and Hornet.

For the most part, Early Access and current modules were in a good place until the F-16 came along. The F-16 tipped the scales by causing a workload that seems to exceed ED's current resources and capabilities. It also changed what Early Access means in DCS. The Hornet set the bar high, as of course the Tomcat did too. Heck, all previous ED modules set a pretty high standard for Early Access release that for some reason, the F-16 still has yet to meet. Take the F-16 away, and all is well with ED and DCS again.

 

Absolutely!:thumbup:

Which product (from ED, not from 3rd party devs) has been taken out of EA incomplete so far?

The FC3 Flankers with their updated FMs. You simply can't fly them with FFB without disabling FFB which is not the point in having FFB. Well, theoretically you can, but have fun pressing the stick fwd all the time with nose trimmed all the way down already. And correctly working input methods are the absolutely raw base of a functioning sim module. This is not given yet in that very case. Not that much of a problem since I totally prefer to fly fully-fledged DCS modules, but those ones simply ain't finished. But noone said they won't stop working on things just because they've been taken out of EA. In this case it's probably just lo prio. And I have tons of other things to do while waiting for a fix to that. DCS is so big - it has lots of issues, but also lots of possibilities to get around those and still having fun.

Regarding the discussion, over and over again, as a whole:

But "yeah well, that's just, like, my opinion, man".