DCS Carrier Discussion

Just found out that is not releasing today I for one did not think it was going to because if the vague reply's from them the past couple of days. I also feel the knew they were not going to make it but from a business stand point it was smart to wait as long as possible to make the announcement. Sales would increase the closer it got to the release date because the price goes up after the release.

If they don't have problems with single player they could have released it with MP deactivated and that would have made a lot of people happy.

O'well now back to my carrier crash landings. :joystick:

What else can I say...

 

Everywhere things are promised, release dates are announced and not kept. Here as well as in Star Citizen and many other games. So why do they even say an exact date?

 

That's why all developers should take a close look at this saying:

 

Better to surprise positively than to fulfill negative expectations.

 

I don't want to belittle you dear developers, I really admire your work. Please don't always let yourself be pinned down to fixed dates, but say, it comes when it comes! Disappointments are unfortunately omnipresent. So just surprise us positively!

Honestly dates are a part of the software business and if you can’t make then your process is flawed. Missing dates in business software is not tolerated and is a good way to lose your business but for some reason it’s tolerated in the game world. The fact of the matter is ED’s process is flawed and it’s spread out so much that honestly I think they have too much to accomplish in parallel. Look at the updated roadmap, it’s a mess and all over the place. The bottom line is that their software development process is a mess and even so it’s still way better than their customer engagement and that’s saying something.

Hello Wags,

if the MP Network issues are the problems then you can release a version for SP and later the MP version.

Marco

Oh well...I had a strong feeling this was coming so was already prepared.

The only thing I don't understand after reading Kate's statement is why they didn't release it anyway for SP? If it was too buggy for MP they could have just included a disclaimer saying that and MP people could have also begun using/training in it in SP now, but whatever...it'll be released when it's released :smilewink:

Dear all,

 

Thank you for your patience, and no one is more disappointed than us that we were unable to meet our planned release date. Although the Single Player experience is quite solid for the Early Access version, we discovered significant network issues during extensive testing over the past week. In good consciousness, we cannot release it in its current multiplayer state.

 

Considering the disappointing F-16C state at Early Access release, we will not repeat the same mistakes for Supercarrier.

 

We are sincerely sorry for this delay, and we thank you for your continued patience as we bring Supercarrier to a state that we can all be proud of.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

You know more than all of us, in your opinion would it be better to be feature complete with a module before moving onto the next one?

Oh well...I had a strong feeling this was coming so was already prepared.

 

 

The only thing I don't understand after reading Kate's statement is why they didn't release it anyway for SP? If it was too buggy for MP they could have just included a disclaimer saying that and MP people could have also begun using it in SP now, but whatever...it'll be released when it's released :smilewink:

I’m sure the functionality is intertwined in the code base and the last thing you want it to merge in some bad code to a working branch. Releasing a module with known bad functionality in one part of it would be a bad move.

If you want a carrier with animated people on it, get the AV8B, the Tarawa has several crew milling around on the flight deck near the island.

Dear all,

 

Thank you for your patience, and no one is more disappointed than us that we were unable to meet our planned release date. Although the Single Player experience is quite solid for the Early Access version, we discovered significant network issues during extensive testing over the past week. In good consciousness, we cannot release it in its current multiplayer state.

 

Considering the disappointing F-16C state at Early Access release, we will not repeat the same mistakes for Supercarrier.

 

We are sincerely sorry for this delay, and we thank you for your continued patience as we bring Supercarrier to a state that we can all be proud of.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

Hi Wags, do you happen to have any new videos prepared? Would be nice to see something.

Disappointed? Not really, that's the way the cookie crumbles, move on fellas, you can still play, just have fun.

I’m sure the functionality is intertwined in the code base and the last thing you want it to merge in some bad code to a working branch. Releasing a module with known bad functionality in one part of it would be a bad move.

I agree about knowingly releasing bad code, but we don't actually know the level of integration of the MP code with the entire SC code base. I'm guessing SC (and all DCS) code is designed in an object oriented approach, as such it could be as simple as not including the MP modules in the final build and locking down any open connections to it in the main modules. That way no suspect code is released and any contact with it is blocked.

Conjecture aside, only ED knows how difficult it would be to isolate the MP code :smilewink:

Dear Pimp,

 

I hope this weekend. While in the hands of our valuable external testers, we've been tuning a lot of fine-line up LSO commands. I think we are pretty close now and to the point I can make a much more representative video.

 

We've also adjusted the PLAT camera quite a bit during the testing stage, and I plan to create a video of that too.

 

Thank you for your patience.

 

Kind regards,

Matt

I appreciate your reply. I'm looking forward to anything new. I hope you can get to them this weekend also. Any chance a recovery video is doable?:)

I agree about knowingly releasing bad code, but we don't actually know the level of integration of the MP code with the entire SC code base. I'm guessing SC (and all DCS) code is designed in an object oriented approach, as such it could be as simple as not including the MP modules in the final build and locking down any open connections to it in the main modules. That way no suspect code is released and any contact with it is blocked.

 

 

 

Conjecture aside, only ED knows how difficult it would be to isolate the MP code :smilewink:

True but who knows if their project is modularized that way and even it if is how many hooks they have into the rest of the project. I’m not a c++ developer or know the normal project setup unfortunately.

We've also adjusted the PLAT camera quite a bit during the testing stage, and I plan to create a video of that too.

Any chance you would be willing or able to show it in VR as well?

Thanks!

I agree about knowingly releasing bad code, but we don't actually know the level of integration of the MP code with the entire SC code base. I'm guessing SC (and all DCS) code is designed in an object oriented approach, as such it could be as simple as not including the MP modules in the final build and locking down any open connections to it in the main modules. That way no suspect code is released and any contact with it is blocked.

 

 

 

Conjecture aside, only ED knows how difficult it would be to isolate the MP code :smilewink:

At a guess, the various "spahgetti code" comments from earlier this year have something to do with it. My guess as to what it really means, is the following: IF we released the SC module even for SP, it would probably totally break MP, because of the various MP sync/desync stuff that we put in for the carrier to fix deck sliding/collisions etc. Which is why it isn't being released for SP, part of the module rewrote the network code to fix various issues, and they didn't fix them yet.

I appreciate Wag's comment that they don't want this to be another F16 fiasco, or another 2.5.6 broke a bunch of stuff for MP/VR fiasco. But if I can offer a point of constructive criticism, the day of the release is probably not the best day to announce indefinite delays. This should have been pushed back last week if those issues were known then, not at literally the last hour. Nor should the "big test" be 3 days before release IMO, but at least there was one so at least they got that right.

Yup! How was your Chivas?

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

Still in isolation in its bottle. Hasn't been released yet.

Ended up hitting some Newfie vodka.

True but who knows if their project is modularized that way and even it if is how many hooks they have into the rest of the project.

Exactly :thumbup:

I wrote C++ & Java for many years, but that was back in the '90's and it was a business not gaming environment so no way I can accurately comment on how ED would approach/structure current development. When we had a large project, everyone was assigned a module to complete and we would write and debug them as standalone functions with their own local variables and libraries. At the end, everyone knew their hooks to tie in to the main codebase and we'd move to system test and recheck the whole thing. The goal was to keep the necessary tie in hook in the main codebase to a single point of contact for each module which returned a simple 'success' or 'fail' code. At least, that was the goal anyway...in real life it didn't always work out so efficiently ;)

At a guess, the various "spahgetti code" comments from earlier this year have something to do with it. My guess as to what it really means, is the following: IF we released the SC module even for SP, it would probably totally break MP, because of the various MP sync/desync stuff that we put in for the carrier to fix deck sliding/collisions etc. Which is why it isn't being released for SP, part of the module rewrote the network code to fix various issues, and they didn't fix them yet.

Unfortunately, as a system evolves and gets more and more complex it's more susceptible to code being tacked on to other code rather than being properly isolated as a separate module/object. Then you have to clearly document how one piece of seemingly unrelated code can break another which can break another unrelated piece and you have a major headache whenever changes are necessary. Hopefully that's not the situation because once on that path, you're building on a broken foundation and sooner or later will have no alternative but a major redesign...

Wags, do you think the Arleigh Burke could be released pre-SC's full release?

At a guess, the various "spahgetti code" comments from earlier this year have something to do with it. My guess as to what it really means, is the following: IF we released the SC module even for SP, it would probably totally break MP, because of the various MP sync/desync stuff that we put in for the carrier to fix deck sliding/collisions etc. Which is why it isn't being released for SP, part of the module rewrote the network code to fix various issues, and they didn't fix them yet.

 

I appreciate Wag's comment that they don't want this to be another F16 fiasco, or another 2.5.6 broke a bunch of stuff for MP/VR fiasco. But if I can offer a point of constructive criticism, the day of the release is probably not the best day to announce indefinite delays. This should have been pushed back last week if those issues were known then, not at literally the last hour. Nor should the "big test" be 3 days before release IMO, but at least there was one so at least they got that right.

So true about testing so late and the lack of a timely announcement. Our stuff at work is tested months in advance, I but I have no idea how the gaming places do it. Even at the various places I’ve worked it’s been different. I’d imagine testing up until the deadline would lead to some ulcers.

Hey Wags, thanks gor the answer. Any ideas how big the Delay will be?