OB Update Delayed

As ED has little to no control over the files and such for 3rd Party products, QA checks are higher for them. We can guarantee more with our own modules, with less control over 3rd Parties, its a higher risk to the user, such as someone making a partial module, taking a bunch of money then closing shop.

Can you imagine running a business and keeping it profitable , yet also plowing money into development , advertising , marketing , the cost of sale of the product , company wages , Director dividends , managing the employees (especially the bad ones ), and then paying for a forum that everyone winges on . And then managing 3rd party modules and sub contractors . All this on a niche corner of the pc community .

Holy , ED my hat is off to you !

Anyway where is my F16 external lights ?

:music_whistling:

Not sure why anyone is surprised by delay.

 

These additions are more complex than others. 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.

 

If I learned anything at BMS rushing things out the door just makes things worse; not better. Stop feeding the "got to have it new and now" people; its killing the sim.

100%. +1

I just don't understand why they can't just finish a system before moving on to the flavor du jour. ED isn't the only dev that does this though, but it baffles my as to why any dev would do it.

100%. +1

EDIT:

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

That is the route I have taken, while awaiting the Hornet completion (or much closer to that state at minimum). Makes me feel conflicted - as one side makes me feel like I am not supporting an entity that provides the only thing close to doing this in real life, and the other makes me feel like I’ve learned and not setting myself up for disappointment successively. Catch 22 it seems.

That being said, as frustrating as it can/has been for things so far with the Hornet, it’s not nearly as bad as it could have been, nor has been with some other digital experiences I’ve encountered (personal opinion). We can all just simply hope that things get in order, sooner rather than later - and if that means we need to individually adjust our expectations/desires, or if ED need to adjust some of their methods/goals/implementations - then so be it.

I’ve been in Cabo for the last week, and while it’s been an absolute treat:

Personally, I can’t wait to drop some digital JDAMS, let some digital 120s off the rails, and dump some digital chaff and some burning magnesium, to make the virtual crew chief have to call “to replace the whole #%$@ bucket!” (That last quote is from a popular fighter pilot group and song, so don’t hate me).

Cheers,

Don

As ED has little to no control over the files and such for 3rd Party products, QA checks are higher for them. We can guarantee more with our own modules, with less control over 3rd Parties, its a higher risk to the user, such as someone making a partial module, taking a bunch of money then closing shop.

This doesn't really answer the question of WHY there isn't a concrete standard across the board. Why doesn't ED have a set standard for first and third party modules before they can be released for Early Access and why isn't this readily available for customers to view so they can make a more informed purchase decision?

I suppose because EA is work in progress , and software developement is not black and white . There are lists of working features you can view . Its not perfect but it is what it is , the trials and tribulations of buying in early .

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.

You have a valid point 7 years is a bit too long for the multiplayer promised during the 2012 Huey release. Your issue with the Huey is as important to me as mine is with the Hornet. Sorry that you feel it justifies your dismissing Hornet owners complaints. Together we stand, divided we fall, when arguing with town hall. That ludicrous position about TWS being tied in with datalink. Wags posted that data link is also coming to the Viper next week.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk