Have the Hornet devs moved back from the Viper?

I agree at the current progression rate and the up coming holidays maybe Q1, 2020.

If the Hornet doesn't get significant system work before Q1 2020 - that could be 6 months it will have had minimal updates, and that to me would be absolutely unacceptable abuse of the 'EA' concept.

If the Hornet doesn't get significant system work before Q1 2020 - that could be 6 months it will have had minimal updates, and that to me would be absolutely unacceptable abuse of the 'EA' concept.

Then just don't buy EA. :doh::doh::doh:

Then just don't buy EA. :doh::doh::doh:

EA is a contract between me and ED for me to give money at time X for a completed project at time Y that has not been defined through EDs inability to plan.

If they had said 'it will take >two years to complete and we will in effect stop working on important systems for many months at a time to focus on another EA product' at Hornet EA launch you can absolutely bet I would not have given them ANY money at the time.

That they have deprioritised the product I gave them money for for this long is straining my patience enough as it is - all I am telling them is that for me extending that out another 3 months would be beyond the pale and be unjustifiable to me, as their consumer.

You may have the patience of a saint and allow ED to use resources you have in effect paid for to work on another EA Product instead of working on what you have paid for - but some of us expect ED to act in good faith towards completing their end of the transaction by not abusing the EA principle.

Then just don't buy EA. :doh::doh::doh:

Great idea. Insult your customers and ignore the fact that frequent posts about EA and peoples' disappointment in it are evidence of an underlying issue that needs to be addressed. :doh:

EA is a contract between me and ED for me to give money at time X for a completed project at time Y that has not been defined through EDs inability to plan.

 

If they had said 'it will take >two years to complete and we will in effect stop working on important systems for many months at a time to focus on another EA product' at Hornet EA launch you can absolutely bet I would not have given them ANY money at the time.

 

That they have deprioritised the product I gave them money for for this long is straining my patience enough as it is - all I am telling them is that for me extending that out another 3 months would be beyond the pale and be unjustifiable to me, as their consumer.

 

You may have the patience of a saint and allow ED to use resources you have in effect paid for to work on another EA Product instead of working on what you have paid for - but some of us expect ED to act in good faith towards completing their end of the transaction by not abusing the EA principle.

Yea, no. Sorry nope. Do you have a copy of this contract you entered into with ED? I can't seem to find any posts by ED that say "The Hornet will come out of EA in one, two, three, four, fifty years from this date." Maybe it's time to start your own company to compete with ED, you seem to have an idea of what the business model should look like.

Would you like ED to shutdown any and all aspects not related to the Hornet until the Hornet is complete? I mean work on NOTHING else besides the Hornet until it is finished? Not bug fixing, no new maps, no carrier, no nata? No of course you don't as that would be crazy.

From what I have seen and read, ED isn't some huge company like Activision or Sony Computer Entertainment. They have to work with what they got, people get moved around, project dates pushed forward and backward. I get where you are coming from in regards to EA but I think you are being unreasonable with some of your expectations. Yes any EA module should have priority to get fixed, but if they don't release new modules from time to time, the bills don't get paid. When that happens we are all screwed. I wish you could see the big picture just a little bit.

There is nothing in the EULA that talks about EA status etc so 'fair expectation' must be used, combined with official statements ED make.

Nineline posted in the 'what is EA' that: 'Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible.' (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3662035&postcount=1)

Nineline then stated in a newsletter in FEBRUARY that: (for the Viper) 'progress has been good, and is in no way slowing down Hornet completion.' (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3799781&postcount=183)

I believe (but cannot find the post) that Wags doubled down on that in response to concerns raised on Reddit.

And for them to then say the following in the middle of September : 'In order to hit our Viper release window, we have very recently had to temporarily move a couple of the systems programmers from the Hornet onto the Viper for a short period.' https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4043099&postcount=174

That that was two months ago (and counting) is bad enough, my post, again is pointing out that 'temporarily' is NOT a time frame that should be measured in months in an EA environment, and absolutely that 6 months would be categorically unacceptable.

You may not agree with that, that is your choice, but I think it is fair to say that there is an upswell of EDs consumers who are very concerned at these developments, and I can only hope that ED has listened richly and are acting upon this. Continuing to attempt to deflect these concerns on their behalf is not an activity that will in the long run help ED in my opinion.

Now, I've explained my opinion, you've expressed your opinion, and it's pretty clear that there is clear water between the two that won't be bridged.

Yes any EA module should have priority to get fixed, but if they don't release new modules from time to time, the bills don't get paid. When that happens we are all screwed. I wish you could see the big picture just a little bit.

The problem is that a lot of people do see this big picture. I believe that every single person in these forums wants to see ED succeed. The fear is that the constant need/push of new EA releases will cause ED to dig itself into a deeper and deeper hole, as more and more work keeps piling up and the backlog increases. We're getting news about the Hind, with two released flagship modules being extremely far away from completion.

I believe that the community at large is not concerned about the Hornet specifically, but about the business model as a whole and what it means. Down the line, this can lead to further team fragmentation and even more delays. ED needs to find a better or more efficient way to pay the bills, unfortunately, whether this means higher module prices, subscription or something else.

I really believe that a lot of the current issues arise from that general need to push new modules at a frequency that doesn't allow other modules to be completed beforehand. ED is not the only one at fault here, of course. A large part of the community is always pushing for that, because not everyone cares about full functionality and they'd happily take an FC3 level F-22 if they could. ED is in a delicate position, trying to balance the needs of different parts of their customer base, the needs of their employees etc.

Now, I've explained my opinion, you've expressed your opinion, and it's pretty clear that there is clear water between the two that won't be bridged.

I believe a bridge can be built anywhere as long as both sides try to listen and understand the other (don't have to agree). You clearly have tried to do that and I have as well. That said, I hope we all come out on the other said happy with the products we have purchased and get the answers we want. Clear skies to ya bud.

@Harker

Fair enough, can't really argue that point of view at all.

The problem is that a lot of people do see this big picture. I believe that every single person in these forums wants to see ED succeed. The fear is that the constant need/push of new EA releases will cause ED to dig itself into a deeper and deeper hole, as more and more work keeps piling up and the backlog increases. We're getting news about the Hind, with two released flagship modules being extremely far away from completion.

 

I believe that the community at large is not concerned about the Hornet specifically, but about the business model as a whole and what it means. Down the line, this can lead to further team fragmentation and even more delays. ED needs to find a better or more efficient way to pay the bills, unfortunately, whether this means higher module prices, subscription or something else.

 

I really believe that a lot of the current issues arise from that general need to push new modules at a frequency that doesn't allow other modules to be completed beforehand. ED is not the only one at fault here, of course. A large part of the community is always pushing for that, because not everyone cares about full functionality and they'd happily take an FC3 level F-22 if they could. ED is in a delicate position, trying to balance the needs of different parts of their customer base, the needs of their employees etc.

Well, the thing is if finishing modules or releasing complete ones from the start isn't profitable for ED they should rethink their development strategy and either stick to WWII warbirds or stuff like maps, ships, heck even offsprings like MAC and let 3rd parties do the full fidelity aircraft. I mean, if Razbam is doing way better than ED with active development and support you know things aren't going well. I would have been fine with the Viper if it were two separate teams but the same team working on two EA aircraft at the same time doesn't work out. Even HB bit off more than they could chew in terms of time management with the Viggen and F-14 being both in EA. My point being, if ED can't make profit sustaining EA modules for more than 1 year and actually finishing them as promised they should rethink their development strategies or allocate resources to increase the sizes of their respective teams in order to focus on only a few projects at every given time. Right now it seems like small teams are working on planes, choppers, maps, core game etc.

They are in a precarious position alright, the financial model will need to change if this sort of cash grabbing is to be ended, and things planned out properly with sustainable income.

It's unavoidable..

I've mentioned in the past that I thought the EA program is a bad idea and this thread is an example of why. What ED has asked is for the general public to pay to be a beta tester. I don't know of any other game developer who does that. Usually, a beta tester is paid to do the job or at the very least gets the product being tested for free as payment. When you offer to the general public an early access plane to anybody willing to buy it. You'll have lots of complaints.

A better system would be to start a beta tester application with a set number of members. ED can pick how many are needed. That will give a chance to weed out the testers. Explain to them what's involved in being a beta tester. Make the forum private so the public can't read it. I know Ed has permanent testers now but i'm sure it's a small group. Letting a certain number of public testers will speed up development but avoid the public forum from being full of complaints.

As it is. A lot of guys who buy the EA planes have no idea what's involved. They just think because they're giving their money early that they get the plane early. They don't want to be a tester. They just want the plane. That shows their impatience and won't be good testers.

Anyway, that's my .02.

Well, the thing is if finishing modules or releasing complete ones from the start isn't profitable for ED they should rethink their development strategy and either stick to WWII warbirds or stuff like maps, ships, heck even offsprings like MAC and let 3rd parties do the full fidelity aircraft. I mean, if Razbam is doing way better than ED with active development and support you know things aren't going well. I would have been fine with the Viper if it were two separate teams but the same team working on two EA aircraft at the same time doesn't work out. Even HB bit off more than they could chew in terms of time management with the Viggen and F-14 being both in EA. My point being, if ED can't make profit sustaining EA modules for more than 1 year and actually finishing them as promised they should rethink their development strategies or allocate resources to increase the sizes of their respective teams in order to focus on only a few projects at every given time. Right now it seems like small teams are working on planes, choppers, maps, core game etc.

Yeah, that's the thing. I think that right now, they should focus on supporting the released content, core sim and just releasing stuff that's presumably nearly done (such as the Supercarrier module, which also supports two existing modules in the game and will bring them some revenue and the Ka-50 / A-10C cockpit graphical upgrades, since they almost exclusively occupy 3D artists and not systems programmers), leaving other full modules, such as the Hind and Mosquito for after the Hornet is 95%-100% done. Then, they can work on the Hind and release it while finishing the Viper etc. Of course, none of us knows ED's capacity. My example allows for two full modules in active development + core sim, but the idea is that they should try and keep a steadily rolling workload, without increasing the backlog.

I've mentioned in the past that I thought the EA program is a bad idea and this thread is an example of why. What ED has asked is for the general public to pay to be a beta tester. I don't know of any other game developer who does that. Usually, a beta tester is paid to do the job or at the very least gets the product being tested for free as payment. When you offer to the general public an early access plane to anybody willing to buy it. You'll have lots of complaints.

 

A better system would be to start a beta tester application with a set number of members. ED can pick how many are needed. That will give a chance to weed out the testers. Explain to them what's involved in being a beta tester. Make the forum private so the public can't read it. I know Ed has permanent testers now but i'm sure it's a small group. Letting a certain number of public testers will speed up development but avoid the public forum from being full of complaints.

 

As it is. A lot of guys who buy the EA planes have no idea what's involved. They just think because they're giving their money early that they get the plane early. They don't want to be a tester. They just want the plane. That shows their impatience and won't be good testers.

 

Anyway, that's my .02.

Correct on that as well. I do wonder how many people actually help with bug reports etc. On another thread, people are complaining about the need to upload .trk files in bug reports... Not that everyone who bought EA needs to be a beta tester, but at least that's the best way to help development, alongside having meaningful discussions about how systems work IRL and providing good info, which can also help the dev team either fix some systems or introduce new functionalities.

Great idea. Insult your customers and ignore the fact that frequent posts about EA and peoples' disappointment in it are evidence of an underlying issue that needs to be addressed. :doh:

Could you enlighten us and give us a link to that insult? :doh:

Could you enlighten us and give us a link to that insult? :doh:

Possibly a culture thing, but if a company's response to a legitimate criticism about the length of their EA period was 'you shouldn't have bought EA', I'd consider that insulting.

Possibly a culture thing, but if a company's response to a legitimate criticism about the length of their EA period was 'you shouldn't have bought EA', I'd consider that insulting.

That's your opinion that not everybody has to share.

Here’s a solution, and I quite believe we would need to do something like this. But anyway -

Have an early access period split into two stages. An Insiders Program that customers can apply for, that doesn’t discriminate based on circumstance or hardware, and doesn’t have a number cap for participants. But it does have essentially an agreement that serves the purpose of testing the product whilst it is in mid development, with the standard fluidity of development, and everything subject to change. Those of us who aren’t worried about the state of early access modules like the Hornet and Viper can gladly sign up and test a basic product, with all its bugs and missing features, and be happy.

Later on, once the product reaches a high level of completion it can progress into public alpha, in a state where most of its features are implemented and most of its bugs are squashed. Those that are concerned about missing key features have far less to be concerned about.

In a perfect world we would all just buy into the product on our own accord, because you know, we’re adults right, and we invest into things when we have weighed up what we are getting. But for whatever reason some people need ED to call the shots on when they spend their money. So this way, those that are concerned have the public alpha as their purchase window, and those that aren’t concerned, can enter into the Insiders Program.

We can then all be generally confident we invested at the right time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's your opinion that not everybody has to share.

So you consider your opinion worthy but no-one else's?

Yeah, that's the thing. I think that right now, they should focus on supporting the released content, core sim and just releasing stuff that's presumably nearly done (such as the Supercarrier module, which also supports two existing modules in the game and will bring them some revenue and the Ka-50 / A-10C cockpit graphical upgrades, since they almost exclusively occupy 3D artists and not systems programmers), leaving other full modules, such as the Hind and Mosquito for after the Hornet is 95%-100% done. Then, they can work on the Hind and release it while finishing the Viper etc. Of course, none of us knows ED's capacity. My example allows for two full modules in active development + core sim, but the idea is that they should try and keep a steadily rolling workload, without increasing the backlog.

Remember WW2 team has diferent team of other module teams, and Mi-24 has the old "BST" team. ED has Moscow team, old "BST" studio and Kiev team (Map team).

I've mentioned in the past that I thought the EA program is a bad idea and this thread is an example of why. What ED has asked is for the general public to pay to be a beta tester. I don't know of any other game developer who does that. .

I think where that analogy breaks down is those cases are 1 developer: 1 game in development, or in extremis 1 developer like (EA) with a huge number of sub studios each working on their own game.

Here it is one simulation, in alpha, with different modules all in varying stages of completion, and the single developer moving people from module to module depending on the priority of the month - and that's all perceptible on the outside - which leads to delay, messaging issues, and frustration.

Having a separate 'closed' alpha would at least lead to a much better understanding of the 'bar' at which a product is released and help ED stay 'on message' such that as you say, people could buy in at a specific 'stage' that suits them.

As it is we have Open Beta where all the Multiplayer servers live (because people want the new stuff sooner( - so we have to deal with things like the Viper damage model and IFF (in addition to bugs) when it shipped. if that had all occured in a closed environment - then that wouldn't be a pressure point.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not?

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not?

I'm agreeing with you. There should be a closed beta that is used to sort out stuff that shouldn't have been released (Viper no damage model, iff, external lights, etc etc) so that those of us who fly MP don't have to deal with them in the servers (as people will demand them there asap once released)

Exactly.

Possibly a culture thing, but if a company's response to a legitimate criticism about the length of their EA period was 'you shouldn't have bought EA', I'd consider that insulting.

+1