Have the Hornet devs moved back from the Viper?

Waiting to Q1 2020 and show the "facts"....

And I very much hope there will be a nice long list of facts to read :-)

Goodness, I would think most folks in here realize what EA is with DCS and how long items can remain in EA. Even though I too at times would like to see progress move a little faster, I still love participating in the EA.

Love the anticipation.

:smilewink:

I think its unfair to say about manager's - this is a forum and people can raise or voice their feelings/thoughts.

 

However this has been raised before in terms of concerns. I think the context to this is that people easily forget the community was told earlier this year that the F16 development would in no way affect the rollout or Early Access status of the F18. At the time i think it was fair to say a few of us rolled our eyes and thought that wouldn't be the case which has since proven to be correct.

 

It is also fair to say that since the end of July there has not really been any major advancements in the Hornet systems for early access and that is a full quarter. There are many outstanding issues and systems that need development, the TGP has had nothing more done and it is currently very basic with key features missing, even the HUD marker. We all know the key systems the hornet drivers are waiting on being TWS, AG radar, TGP completion etc.

 

The issue as i always say is ED's communication is generally very poor on milestone developments, even if they said Q3/Q4 target date for this or that system its not the time taken its the apparent lack of direction and treating paying customers like mushrooms. This was highlighted about a month ago and we got a brief statement on plans for both the hornet and the viper.

 

Whilst we are appreciative of this great simulation we should also remember that this is not BMS or community developed and given that it is payware ED should quite rightly have to communicate to their customers like any other commercial venture. It is also correct that they are brought to task when they go back on their promises or don't deliver a system.

 

Releasing the Viper has clearly annoyed some customers given the broken promise of it not impacting the Hornet. I have also noted numerous people saying that they will no longer purchase the Viper EA because its supporting ED's policy of moving on and not finishing modules, encouraging endless EA and chasing the next cash source - that said without support remember what happened to Mircoprose.....

Excellent reply and well warranted. To demonize the criticisms of paying customers is just sad.

I also like EA, which is why I bought all the modules under development. But as a customer, I'd like to have the updates released faster.

With the advent of the Viper, I also believed that updates on the various systems, including the Hornet, took place more quickly.

I hope for the future in the most consistent update release.

Go ahead ED!

Excellent reply and well warranted. To demonize the criticisms of paying customers is just sad.

I'm not sure why they just don't go full on Star Citizen at this point, there are enough sycophants to make it work, release some $5000 skin jobs and people will be bending over backwards to thank them.

The deal I can't let go of is that ED has basically admitted that the the $70 or whatever each of us paid for the F-18 was never going to be enough money to complete the project and the only way for this to move forward is to keep shelling out for further projects - which also have no hope of ever being completed.

So keep feeding the monkey or you get nothing.

I think the question was basically answered, so we can close this thread up, since it just devolved into another argument over Early Access being good or bad and how fast we should get updates and/or a complete module after we pay our discounted EA pre-order or (gasp) full price if we waited until after the release.

Really EA is all about pulling money from he future into the present so they can pay for ongoing development. You really need to want the module or just love ED to buy something in EA, and in addition be happy to wait. No sense complaining. This is complicated software. It’s going to take time. I expect a year at least, personally, with lumpy deliveries along the way. If they’re sharing coding resources between modules, that’s going to be unavoidable unless there is a lot of overlapping shared code between modules. I have a feeling they’re trying to kill two birds with one stone in some cases, but who knows.

IIRC, EA is a major source of revenue for them. Along with just getting noobs to start playing out of the blue, it’s how they pay for core development too, which is probably unwise, but the alternative would be that you’d pay a subscription for the core itself. How’d you like to pay for every DCS core update, as in we get the current download plus new features for a year, then you’re stuck until you renew. Probably should start a new war in a new thread about that thought. LOL.

Loving what they’ve made so far! It’ll get better as long as we shovel money their way.

Peace.

If the problem is money. I'd rather pay to play then get incomplete planes.

I'm up for a subscription model.

...ED has basically admitted that the the $70 or whatever each of us paid for the F-18 was never going to be enough money to complete the project and the only way for this to move forward is to keep shelling out for further projects - which also have no hope of ever being completed.

So keep feeding the monkey or you get nothing.

Heck, I'd give them another $70 or 700... (naa/maybe) if they guarantied (w/ refund) that I'll be flying a Hornet with fully and properly functioning FCS, especially in PA mode and corrected few quirks with weigh/drag and put that Hornet in a properly functioning carrier environment... by the end of this year. I'll play this exciting waiting game with the rest of the systems.

What!? did I just say that?:D

I'm up for a subscription model.

Ditto

If the problem is money. I'd rather pay to play then get incomplete planes.

I would gladly "pay to play" as well. The base game should not be free. They are also working on a free map, which should also not be free. They put a lot of hard work and resources into all of this, and they should rightfully charge for it.

However, "pay to play" would require a faster development process for modules as well as the base game and also not letting something like the F-16 release happen again. The status quo could not continue.

I would gladly "pay to play" as well. The base game should not be free. They are also working on a free map, which should also not be free. They put a lot of hard work and resources into all of this, and they should rightfully charge for it.

 

However, "pay to play" would require a faster development process for modules as well as the base game and also not letting something like the F-16 release happen again. The status quo could not continue.

I think a lot of us probably feel like that tbh...

I'm not an avocate of the "pay to play" suggestion, but something is going to have to change, if the current system is considered to be working it's days are numbered. As stated above they should charge (a resonable price) for the new map to help the cash flow instead of giving it away for free.

I'm not an avocate of the "pay to play" suggestion, but something is going to have to change, if the current system is considered to be working it's days are numbered. As stated above they should charge (a resonable price) for the new map to help the cash flow instead of giving it away for free.

I wouldn't have said it better.

The "pay to play" model never attracted me much; either the bird is mine, or it isn't.

(But I'm the kind of guy who would buy boxed modules, if they were still produced.)

On the new map I also agree, it would always be some revenue to support the business going.

I wouldn't have said it better.

 

The "pay to play" model never attracted me much; either the bird is mine, or it isn't.

(But I'm the kind of guy who would buy boxed modules, if they were still produced.)

 

On the new map I also agree, it would always be some revenue to support the business going.

My words. Remember the days when you could order the A-10C box from TFC, and the printed manual as well. That was the last one though...

As for the devs, after seeing the latest weekend newsletter I'm pretty sure they still are on the Viper - doing that TWS stuff which then also gets added to the Hornet which probably is the point where they'll go back to that module. Basically they're working on both at the same time in a certain way.

The problem with a subscription model is that they would have to switch to it before we see the benefitsnin the core sim. it’s a cart before horse situation - do you give them money for something ‘free’ that is broken in many ways, or wait to see fixes?

I would gladly move to a ‘purchase major iteration’ model like Xplane *but I just don’t trust ED* right now

If the problem is money. I'd rather pay to play then get incomplete planes.

You don’t get incomplete planes unless you opt into early access. The Hornet and Viper are still being developed.

The systems we have now is actually fantastic, because it doesn’t discriminate. It gives all of us the option to buy the product and use the product when we wish. I could buy the Viper with the prerelease discount, then not use it for a year if I wanted to. Or I could buy the module when it exits early access. This is brilliant because no one in this thread is prevented from doing what they want to do. Personally, I was able to buy the Viper at a discount then start flying it last month, which is exactly what I was hoping to do. I didn’t have to wait for it to have TWS or other random features, I could just fly early on.

The problem is, for whatever reason, people don’t want to wait. So I don’t think a different model is needed, they just need to help people understand the compromise of early access, probably through an application process for alpha testing that people sign up to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I, as a Hornet fan, give thanks that other consumers have invested in the Viper, because that offers a budget to continue developing the Hornet. In this way we all have what we want without magic wands.

You don’t get incomplete planes unless you opt into early access. The Hornet and Viper are still being developed.

 

The systems we have now is actually fantastic, because it doesn’t discriminate. It gives all of us the option to buy the product and use the product when we wish. I could buy the Viper with the prerelease discount, then not use it for a year if I wanted to. Or I could buy the module when it exits early access. This is brilliant because no one in this thread is prevented from doing what they want to do. Personally, I was able to buy the Viper at a discount then start flying it last month, which is exactly what I was hoping to do. I didn’t have to wait for it to have TWS or other random features, I could just fly early on.

 

The problem is, for whatever reason, people don’t want to wait. So I don’t think a different model is needed, they just need to help people understand the compromise of early access, probably through an application process for alpha testing that people sign up to.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Part of the issue IMO is the fact people expect EA to take a few months or a year at most like many other EA games. So I dunno, maybe put an expected complete date boldly on the EA packaging. You can buy it in 2018 but anticipated competition date is in 2021 or whenever for the hornet. I don't know if it would help with the incessant bitching, probably not, but it might.

I wonder if ED has any data on guys who bought exactly 1 module, and said, nah F-it after they figured out it was half done and wasn't gonna get "done" for another 2 years.

You don’t get incomplete planes unless you opt into early access. The Hornet and Viper are still being developed.

 

The systems we have now is actually fantastic, because it doesn’t discriminate. It gives all of us the option to buy the product and use the product when we wish. I could buy the Viper with the prerelease discount, then not use it for a year if I wanted to. Or I could buy the module when it exits early access. This is brilliant because no one in this thread is prevented from doing what they want to do. Personally, I was able to buy the Viper at a discount then start flying it last month, which is exactly what I was hoping to do. I didn’t have to wait for it to have TWS or other random features, I could just fly early on.

 

The problem is, for whatever reason, people don’t want to wait. So I don’t think a different model is needed, they just need to help people understand the compromise of early access, probably through an application process for alpha testing that people sign up to.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the problem is money and i'm not saying it is. If it is, then something has to change. They only make money now if they sell new planes and terrain. That has its limits. I hate pay for play as much as anybody but I want to see ED be successful. Don't you?

I think that might help Harli. Anything that clarifies both the purpose and scale of early access is a good thing. If it weren’t a Steam product, getting away from calling it “early access” would also be a good idea, because yes, people equate it to other games. That’s why an “insiders program” really makes it clear that this is a public phase of development, and not a released product.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Part of the issue IMO is the fact people expect EA to take a few months or a year at most like many other EA games. So I dunno, maybe put an expected complete date boldly on the EA packaging. You can buy it in 2018 but anticipated competition date is in 2021 or whenever for the hornet. I don't know if it would help with the incessant bitching, probably not, but it might.

 

I wonder if ED has any data on guys who bought exactly 1 module, and said, nah F-it after they figured out it was half done and wasn't gonna get "done" for another 2 years.

It's what happens when you treat an early (early) alpha like a beta.

So a new weapon and datalink pod isn't even considered a minimal update?

no one cares about the walleye (maybe a couple people do), when the targeting pod can't slew to waypoints, nor can you see it on the hud... sorry... but the walleye is like you trying to take credit for work in progress toward the SLAM ER... but after 2 years, there's no more credit for works in progress. We want some finished systems in the hornet and we want some more attention to the under-performing flight model... and i speak for a huge majority of hornet owners that have more civility than i. Only then will these kinds of threads stop appearing.

no one cares about the walleye (maybe a couple people do), when the targeting pod can't slew to waypoints, nor can you see it on the hud... sorry... but the walleye is like you trying to take credit for work in progress toward the SLAM ER... but after 2 years, there's no more credit for works in progress. We want some finished systems in the hornet and we want some more attention to the under-performing flight model... and i speak for a huge majority of hornet owners that have more civility than i. Only then will these kinds of threads stop appearing.

Such a shame when a post like this appears. It serves to casually disregard all the ongoing work since the Hornet entered early access, the near fortnightly effort to update the module, and the depth of systems already available. It’s disappointing for the team working on the Hornet to read.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk