September Announcement

If "Early Access" and "Release" are RAZBAM internal definitions rather than direct descriptors of a modules development status...how would I, as an external customer know WHEN to purchase a module and be confident it was in a completed & fully functional state?

Problematic here is that those internal definitions are carried outside and are applied to, i.e. the product status on the ED shop page. This is where internal defintion and external definition clash the most prominently.

I appreciate the definitions of what Razbam considers beta, release, finished, etc. Seems a bit off from the software definitions I've been familiar with, but I know this is typical of DCS in general.

 

Normally, software implemented with barebones features and having constant feature additions would be considered alpha. Feature-complete but buggy or all features added but some not fully complete would be beta. Finally a product with no missing functionality at all and only an acceptable level of bugs and no "show-stopper" bugs would be considered released. Razbam's definitions appear to label alpha as beta, beta as release, and release as "finished". But whatever, now there won't be miscommunication based on clashing definitions anymore.

I fully agree here ... except with your very last sentence.

Things are even more confusing, as there is even a mismatch of what the "normal" definitons of these terms, outside of Razbam, mean. Even ED uses them somewhat in an unconventional way...

Perhaps it is really not feasible to expect the DCS devs to use the "usual" terms - even ED can not jump over their own shadow and apply them to their own products properly. Thus we now have "Early Access" and "Sustainment" of which neither defines the milestone "feature complete".

But at the very least, the same terms and metrics should be used across all DCS devs - as their producs all apper side by side on the ED shop page.

I agree it can be confusing at times. Perhaps in the future we can all work together with other 3PDs and ED to come up with a common definitive system to better describe a modules state. Thats what creative and constructive feedback will lead to when we all work together.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Hello Elmo,

thank you for jumping in as community manager, your open approach to understand all sides and your effort to get all together talking about the same.

I read your statement yesterday, fly 2 hours with the Harrier, slept over it and would like now to put my 2 cents to it:

First I would like to say that now really a lot of the Harrier bugs have been squashed out - especially a lot which have not been stated in the changelog. As example, my Deltasim Slew works now about 95% of the time, while it had before not even 10% and also the "." is working now the first time when pushing in frequencies.

However, it has a odd taste.

The Harrier have always been the same: Big work on it announced, middle to big update(s) delivered, again forgotten for several months. Then the communtiy starts to get out the pitchforks and torches and the cycle continues.

So based on experience, I'm really concerned that this was now (again) a very short pleasure.

But what depresses me much more is now this three module states you are talking about.

I've talked yesterday in the evening to two software engineers independently what they think about that definitions. Both said, that they would immediately loose their jobs if they would announce something like that. That is also my feeling.

Since DCS exists with its EA business modell, there have been two crystal clear modul states:

Early Access: It is beeing worked on. Nothing is suspected to work, nothing is suspected to be complete. It is a process.

Released: It is a finished product. Its "released". If you release something taken literally, you can't do anything more on it. It is done. In DCS, this means all features described in the product page are inside and working as they should.

Of course, if there is something in DCS changed that affects the module, it needs to get some hands on again.

Also you are talking about milestones - What milestone was achieved with what update that the Harrier got moved out of EA to release?

And when we talking about "working as they should", it is also crystal clear. We can do an IFF "working as it should with all its limitations" without violating anything that could have a real life effect. It only depends on the dedication of the guys who are doing it and how they wanna do it.

Long story short:

Your explanation of this three product states is, for me, far away from any logical and understandable definition.

If I would buy the product now in the shop - stumble across all missing and bugged things - and then found out about that definitions - I would feel played a trick on. I bought in EA and still feel like played a trick on. If I could do a refund, I would do it.

ED Staff is always saying "If EA isn't for you, then wait for released". So, for what should we wait now? How can we judge when "finished" is achieved? When should a new customer buy the Harrier when he wants a complete and working as it should aircraft?

Sorry but it even more feels like this is something completely off the reality, just to justify a very soon release of the F-15E.

I love the Mirage, I love the Harrier and I would have loved to fly a MiG-23, but for me it is now crystal clear that I don't see any reason in the future to buy anything from Razbam and, unfortuantely, I don't see anymore reason for interacting anymore with the yet available modules. Its wasted time for me.

I'm disappointed. Deepest. I don't have anymore the smallest bit of trust in Razbam. Its become a farce. For me personaly, Razbam is far away from the quality I expect to get delivered in DCS when buying a module.

Sorry, and thank you for your dedication, I wish you a great time here.

Hello Elmo,

thank you for jumping in as community manager, your open approach to understand all sides and your effort to get all together talking about the same.

I read your statement yesterday, fly 2 hours with the Harrier, slept over it and would like now to put my 2 cents to it:

 

First I would like to say that now really a lot of the Harrier bugs have been squashed out - especially a lot which have not been stated in the changelog. As example, my Deltasim Slew works now about 95% of the time, while it had before not even 10% and also the "." is working now the first time when pushing in frequencies.

 

However, it has a odd taste.

The Harrier have always been the same: Big work on it announced, middle to big update(s) delivered, again forgotten for several months. Then the communtiy starts to get out the pitchforks and torches and the cycle continues.

So based on experience, I'm really concerned that this was now (again) a very short pleasure.

 

But what depresses me much more is now this three module states you are talking about.

I've talked yesterday in the evening to two software engineers independently what they think about that definitions. Both said, that they would immediately loose their jobs if they would announce something like that. That is also my feeling.

 

Since DCS exists with its EA business modell, there have been two crystal clear modul states:

 

Early Access: It is beeing worked on. Nothing is suspected to work, nothing is suspected to be complete. It is a process.

Released: It is a finished product. Its "released". If you release something taken literally, you can't do anything more on it. It is done. In DCS, this means all features described in the product page are inside and working as they should.

Of course, if there is something in DCS changed that affects the module, it needs to get some hands on again.

 

Also you are talking about milestones - What milestone was achieved with what update that the Harrier got moved out of EA to release?

 

And when we talking about "working as they should", it is also crystal clear. We can do an IFF "working as it should with all its limitations" without violating anything that could have a real life effect. It only depends on the dedication of the guys who are doing it and how they wanna do it.

 

Long story short:

Your explanation of this three product states is, for me, far away from any logical and understandable definition.

If I would buy the product now in the shop - stumble across all missing and bugged things - and then found out about that definitions - I would feel played a trick on. I bought in EA and still feel like played a trick on. If I could do a refund, I would do it.

ED Staff is always saying "If EA isn't for you, then wait for released". So, for what should we wait now? How can we judge when "finished" is achieved? When should a new customer buy the Harrier when he wants a complete and working as it should aircraft?

 

Sorry but it even more feels like this is something completely off the reality, just to justify a very soon release of the F-15E.

 

I love the Mirage, I love the Harrier and I would have loved to fly a MiG-23, but for me it is now crystal clear that I don't see any reason in the future to buy anything from Razbam and, unfortuantely, I don't see anymore reason for interacting anymore with the yet available modules. Its wasted time for me.

 

I'm disappointed. Deepest. I don't have anymore the smallest bit of trust in Razbam. Its become a farce. For me personaly, Razbam is far away from the quality I expect to get delivered in DCS when buying a module.

Sorry, and thank you for your dedication, I wish you a great time here.

Its been reccomended to hold of on future project developments until the larger portions of current modules is finished and we agree. Just today I went through two pages of the Harrier bugs section and got things organized. In the coming days, I'll be able to tackle the mirage and 19. Mirage has minor fixes that need addressing before considered Fully Finished while the 19 really only requires FM tweaks and occasional support after large updates.

Sad to see someone go but know that theres always room if you decide to reverse the decision. You know I'll be the first one in line to say welcome back.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Early access, release and finished. These descriptors on a module has long since been debated and I would like to better clarify how RAZBAM classifies them. Note that RAZBAM uses these definitions as “milestones” rather than direct definitions to denote the stage of an aircraft in the development timeline, as ED does with their internal versions, and with the various beta and stable versions.

Does this really means, that ED allows each 3rd party developer to define their own meaning of "Early access", "Released" and "Finished"?

That would effectively mean there is no QA from ED's side on 3rd party modules. Strange!

To be fair, this definition of "Released/Out of EA, but not finished" is not exclusive to RAZBAM, but is also used by ED themselves:

Dear Community and Hornet Pilots,

 

Today I would like to discuss with you our DCS: F/A-18C Hornet roadmap. We look forward to working with you in a constructive and efficient manner to create an achievable and transparent roadmap that covers the features to be delivered by the end of 2020 that will bring the Hornet out of Early Access.

 

I have also included the features that we plan to work on in 2021 to sustain the Hornet after Early Access completion:

As you can see, there is a HUGE list of feature that are planned to come after the module gets out of EA.

Welcome RAZBAM_ELMO. Being the new CM cannot be an easy task, but cudos to you for stepping up. Hopefully this will be a new chapter in a better direction.

I don’t know how this will be resolved, but perception of Early Access, ”Milestones”, ”Product sustainment” etc. is radically different between devs and it’s customers. To a lot of us it is just twisting of words and re-branding no matter the actual state of the product. It does not sit well and it is quite tragic that software customers need to argue a case for what Early Access means in 2020. Most of us has seen waves and waves of other games and sims in EA and know what to expect. Trying to make own definitions will not change that, but just add more fuel to the fire.

But it is not all on you, I hold Eagle Dynamics equally responsible for the current situation. As partners and publishers they should be in control over and certify (through testing) what is Early Access or not. This will sadly affect my A-10C II and Mi-24P purchase as I will hold until I can see some change for the better. I like to know what Im

buying and what the gameplan is.

But above all... It is about delivering results. The latest update had some really good stuff for the Harrier. Keep that up and the perception will change for the better. Same with the new RWR for M2000C, no one asked for it but Razbam decided to do the work to make it more realistic. Keep going like that. There are no shortcuts really. A great product speaks for itself :)

To be fair, this definition of "Released/Out of EA, but not finished" is not exclusive to RAZBAM, but is also used by ED themselves:

As you can see, there is a HUGE list of feature that are planned to come after the module gets out of EA.

I can't quote the wags comment but i leave the link https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4300736#post4300736

This said also applies to razbam.

Frankly I am shocked. Now enough, I leave this sim for good. What is happening is scandalous. Have you read the part about the F-16? It's a life that I say it!!

Don't make multiple modules at the same time! we don't want them! we don't buy them!

I would like to ask Wags, can we have an exact and scientific definition of what a complete and finished module is?

Razbam's definitions of early access versus released aka "feature complete" makes me not want to buy the F-15E. Period.

And I won't. It's hysterical that you can call something feature complete and yet some of the features clearly aren't fully working.

I might be able to look the other way for Prowler's behavior (and other Razbam members from that turbulent week) now that Razbam has a CM that seems to understand what public relations are, but when it comes to my wallet, I can't have this wishy washy uncertainty about what it is I'm actually buying.

I continue to look forward to updates on the Harrier I own, but the Mudhen will truly have to be feature complete (meaning ALL of its features done, finished, and working to a reasonable degree) before my wallet comes out.

What is good with this story and out of EA mistake is that the bug fixes list is really impresive and that it is great to have you on board ELMO. I have better feeling for the future concerning the Razbam modules that I love and without this story nothing would have changed soon.

However, as a developer, I have unfortunately no other words than bullshit for the definitions of the « milestones ». I don’t really care to be honest but it sounds not a good idea to play with the definitions on which the business model is based.

You have your internal processes but customers have only one: they buy in EA with the trust and knowledge that things will be added and bug will be fixed and one day, the module will be considered and aggreed as released because fundamentaly complete. One week later, people will start to ask new textures, refreshed cockpit etc. because lot of time passed between :)

People want to see their favorite modules in the release note. This is the best process to create trust with us and it was the real issue before it was hidden by some not so usefull definition.

But it seems things are changing, thanks

Don't know why I have a deja vu. In any case welcome to the forums in your new task, and good luck in dealing with the masses madness :thumbup:.

S!

Welcome Zack, thanks for the introduction. I’ve been too busy learning other modules to be focused on the drama but of all the modules I have activated and fly regularly the harrier is most definitely one of them and the new patch is excellent. I agree with positivity over negativity so keep her lit

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not a matter of definitions, it's a matter of facts: if ED itself can declare the f/a-18 out of early access even if they plan to add other stuff later, then why RB should not declare the av-8b finished now? I have never bought early access module, from now on I'll check carefully what to buy even among so called "finished" modules. Opinions and comments on the forum will be my friends to decide, assuming someone will still take the risk to buy out of early access stuff that is not finished. To understand each other is the thing that matters, now I understand, thanks for clarification.

So first of all: Welcome Zack!

I didn't follow these problems with the Harrier and the dev and the community and although I bought and casually fly the Harrier I never tried to use it in combat, so I wasn't ever really let down by it or can comment on that.

But I flew both the Mirage 2000 C and the MiG-19 from very early on in the early access and could follow especially the changes being made to the physics model of both modules. I also got several other modules that compare pretty much to those two in the pace that things are completed or introduced. The only real difference that I felt with RAZBAM from the start was that they usually got their modules into EA much sooner than most. So there had to be a lot more to be finished by them on those modules compared to those of other devs.

I for one always considered that a prize I could pay for getting more modules in a shorter time in EA but less complete and with a long completion time until they really worked fine.

And I say they worked fine. Not they are ready. Or they are complete.

I'm at this Sim for a long time, starting out with Lock On Modern Air Combat. And I can't really understand this attitude towards RAZBAM, that they do something incredibly wrong in not bringing complete modules out in "Release" or "Feature Complete", because that is something that was with this sim from the very beginning and is in itself a good thing because we can get a more or less capable aircraft to have fun with and always know in the back of our minds that problems with this Module that are not real life problems of the original will at some point in the future be adressed and the deal will be getting better the longer we wait. Except of course the dev goes bankrupt as with VEAO. That's sad for every one.

So what I think about the problem: It might be a good idea if ED and their third parties come together and negotiate a terminology for customer communication as to try and prevent these things from happening again.

And if for a native speaker (I'm btw. from germany) feature complete has to mean that all the features are completed as opposed to all the features are completely implemented but not all are complete, than that may be so. Maybe a slightly week point though from my point of veiw...

One last thing. I for one am grateful for all the work the devs and especially RAZBAM puts in their Modules. It can't be easy to push projects while others are in EA and all the while everything has to be updated to fit the ever changing code of the game. We buy one of these modules for the same prize I pay for one weeks worth of food - so it's not exactly the prize of a sportscar, right? - so it might be a bit unfair to always demand and very seldom give back some sort of Thank You to those that keep it all running.

So for a change Zack, give the Team my Thanks for a wonderful Mirage 2000 and a in terms of physics very much improved MiG-19. I haven't lost my faith in them and understand that these especially are hard times for us all.