Vision - Mission Statement - Road Map

... actually damage the morale of the development team ...

I don't think they can be arsed, or at least that's the impression I'm getting from the lack of updates.

But then again I'm not privy to the "insider info" some of you (pretend to) have.

I also don't think the expectations are high; is it too much to ask for (regular) updates you think?

Edited December 22, 2015 by Hans-Joachim Marseille

Is it just me or does anyone else find the irony here delicious?

 

Bravo Hans. No, really. Really, well done.

Hans I was not trying to impress you, be a smart-ass or insult you.

 

I am merely attempting to manage some people's expectations - and yes this time that does include you - by highlighting some aspects they *might* be unaware of, or at least making them consider the business implications of both the situation and the software idiom.

 

You're right, you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion. But given that the opinion you proffered shed development of WW2 features in DCS in a very despondent manner,

the gist of your argument being that DCS WW2 is headed to vapourware territory given this long gestation, it is one that is - in my equally valid opinion - inaccurate.

 

I didn't want others to take that at as gospel and spread the bad word without context.

 

I have merely highlighted the many probable causes for this drawn out development span and that your vapourware fears were likely unfounded; a fact most timely proved by the link to the ED newsletter.

 

Is further DCS WW2 content taking a while. Yes! Am I disappointed? Mildly. I'd like to see a new map, modules and ground units as much as you, trust me.

 

Where can I get the Thesaurus you're using?

 

 

I'm sure DCS WWII will be pretty cool when it's released in 2021.

 

Until then, we still have Cliffs of Dover to hold us over.

Cliffs of Dover to hold us over, rhymes. :music_whistling:

Is it just me or does anyone else find the irony here delicious?

 

Mmmmm, tasty indeed.;)

I don't think they can be arsed, or at least that's the impression I'm getting from the lack of updates.

But then again I'm not privy to the "insider info" some of you (pretend to) have.

I also don't think the expectations are high; is it too much to ask for (regular) updates you think?

Yea it is, I don't see how you are entitled to any information!

 

You participated in a kickstarter, you did not buy a product.The kickstarter failed, be happy there is anything left of it ...

And next time research a bit more before funding projects.

 

Sent from my XT1072 using Tapatalk

Yea it is, I don't see how you are entitled to any information!

 

You participated in a kickstarter, you did not buy a product.The kickstarter failed, be happy there is anything left of it ...

And next time research a bit more before funding projects.

 

Sent from my XT1072 using Tapatalk

 

Basically, yup. +1

 

We are not shareholders in ED, therefore we cannot demand updates nor expect them to acquiesce to our development ideas. Be thankful that they, the developers, are actually active in this forum.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm champing at the bit for the Spitfire mkIX and decent map/campaign for it; and to be honest if there was another product that could support my needs I'd jump ship. However, DCS is the only place in town at the mo, so we basically have to be patient. Patient, whilst still gently reminding the development crew that we WW2 fans might not be in the majority, but we've still got cash to burn should the right product(s) appear.

 

In my experience a polite smile and a gentle reminder every so often is far more efficacious than "whining"...

I have to agree with the "Stern von Afrika" here... Yes, this is a niche market. Yes, teams are small. Yes, development of modules is complex and takes time. Yes, ED took over a mess from Kickstarter. I don't have a problem with any of that.

 

What I do have a problem with is the lack of information and the inabilty to keep deadlines. If deadlines can't be kept, INFORM us about it before everyone realises this by themselves.

 

Have a look at the pinned DCS WW2 FAQ:

 

Its believed the map is not very far along at all, and delivery date of said map backs that up. (expected May 2015 with period AI units)

 

Spitfire IX: No progress images or videos of this one where made public, no real news at all. (stated to deliver Dec 2014)

 

P-47D-30: Model was in works, that’s all we were shown. (expected March 2015)

 

I know these were all estimates and I fully understand ED took over a complete mess. But please, keep us INFORMED. Some level of transparency won't hurt if you ask me. If ED is working on the Normandy map - show us some teasers just like they did/do with Nevada. If all hours are being put into making a release candidate of Nevada - let us know.

 

My two cents...

El Hadji - I think the snag is that the FAQ is not being updated. There certainly have been updates/teasers on the Spitfire mkIX threads, and also in the emailed/facebooked updates. Pics are available here:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/screenshots/

 

(No idea about any of the others though...)

 

I totally agree about a need for more realistic release dates, or at least some caveat regarding their... mobility.

 

(As an aside, this may also be to do with what one expects from the word "deadlines". I work in the public sector, where a "deadline" is an entirely arbitrary date concocted by management and there is little real expectation that it will be stuck to - and is usually over-run by months, if not years. I understand things are a little different in the private sector though... :P Seriously though, when I hear "deadline" I hear "it would be nice if it could be finished by then, but there is really no imperative that it must be". YMMV, as they say.)

your argument being that DCS WW2 is headed to vapourware territory given this long gestation, it is one that is - in my equally valid opinion - inaccurate.

 

Hi Fenrir. Correct me if I'm wrong please, preferably without being so verbose, but an 'argument' cannot be 'inaccurate' in this instance, whereas an 'opinion' is wholly valid either way. Both you and the other guy have an opinion, both are equally valid, neither can be 'inaccurate', due to the absence of factual information.

 

Me, I just think of the guys who bought the A-10 beta, who are only now gaining access to another beta which they were promised for free way back when......

 

Normandy. Maybe one day, hopefully before I have to pawn my mill-workers footwear. That's 'pop my clogs'. That's 'die' for anyone not familiar with English colloquialisms.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Dooyar

I hope that a decent WW2 environment is not that far away given hat the growth of DCS is exponential and the more it grows, the more third party developers will be involved with the sim which would result in more aircraft, supporting models and scenery added year on year.

 

We already have 7 WW2 aircraft on the horizon (not including the Horton, ME-262, Bearcat or Buchon) - Spitfire, P-47, P-40, Meteor, F-4U, Stuka, I-16 - the future for DCS WW2 looks bright although somewhat unbalanced!

I just think of the guys who bought the A-10 beta, who are only now gaining access to another beta which they were promised for free way back when ...

Well said. I don't have massive issues with ED putting a project on the back burner, but I would like to hear it from them (not the "keeping up appearances" / "window dressing" that happens now).
Edited December 27, 2015 by Hans-Joachim Marseille