[QuiGon]

Originally Posted by MOHAB

Yes. But its unofficial again. ED has to release something like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm shure that was a lot of work, but I missing official statements. Something that is reliable and not mostly build on guesswork, because I found that "is it, is it not" very confusing.

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

Although being unofficial itself, Silver Dragon is putting a lot of effort in it to always provide the official source of an information. Granted, the sources are buried within the thread and are not included the roadmap itself, but they are there. I'm definitely very greatful for all the effort that SD is putting in this roadmap and collecting all those bits and pieces of informations from various places

[Silver_Dragon]

Dont worry QuiGon, the comunity like a "official" source, not the "Unofficial". Always someone need die.

[MOHAB]

Originally Posted by Silver_Dragon

No offense - Sorry. I'm aware of the amount of work that goes into a list like that without having official sources. Don't get me wrong, that list is more or less what I was asking for. But without ED it's not that "bulletproof." Granted, from what I learned so far it would not be much more "bulletproof" with ED but you know...


So - sorry again, didn't mean to be disrespectful.

[Cunctator]

Originally Posted by MOHAB

Whats missing are clear statements and a clear roadmap of whats to come in the near (or distant) future.

They did this in the past, when DCS as a concept was just announced ca. in 2007/2008, but for various reasons ED had to change their plans repeatedly.

For example:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27694

Remember when the AH-64A Blk. 49A was in active development, or the Mi-24 and F-16C cockpit screenshots from 2008?

Eventually, everything gets done, but from an PR perspective threads like this one are a good example why it isn't wise to announce stuff to far in advance, long before it is ready. It will only create disappointment later.

[MOHAB]

Originally Posted by Cunctator

Eventually, everything gets done, but from an PR perspective threads like this one are a good example why it isn't wise to announce stuff to far in advance, long before it is ready. It will only create disappointment later.

The other option would be, trying to stick to a roadmap or plan or what ever you want to call it. If you dismiss a certain part of that map, communicate it properly and explain why and for what reasons. (Although you don't have to as a company, but it helps if your company is based an a community like this one.)



And for my part it's not disappointment, I totally get it if you have to change plans for whatever reasons. Just tell everyone in an official statement and not on somebodys blog or a post that get's overread by 90% of the people.

[QuiGon]

Originally Posted by Cunctator

They did this in the past, when DCS as a concept was just announced ca. in 2007/2008, but for various reasons ED had to change their plans repeatedly.

For example:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=27694

Remember when the AH-64A Blk. 49A was in active development, or the Mi-24 and F-16C cockpit screenshots from 2008?

Eventually, everything gets done, but from an PR perspective threads like this one are a good example why it isn't wise to announce stuff to far in advance, long before it is ready. It will only create disappointment later.

Exactly, development can and will change for various reasons. That is just the nature of this specific business. So something like that will not be possible:

Originally Posted by MOHAB

If I could have a wish @Eagle Dynamics or @Wags - Get all those third party developer at one table, work out a roadmap and f.... stick to it.

Of course, more transparency is always possible and ED is working on it as I have pointed out on the previous page.

[BIGNEWY]

What are the development statuses of the formerly Belsimtek Attack Choppers? Has the specific variant of the AH-1 been determined?

Belsimtek (BST) has not been in existence for a long time. BST was originally set up as a branch of Eagle Dynamics as a 3rd party example as a business practice. With the establishment of other 3rd parties, it no longer made sense to keep that staff under a separate entity. They were then merged back into Eagle Dynamics.

Much of our modern aircraft team is focused on the F/A-18C, F-16C, and Mi-24 Hind.

Originally Posted by Wags

Hello,

While we hope to simulate the Cobra someday (as well as the F-4E), it's not on our immediate production plan. Our current production for new aircraft is the P-47D, Mi-24, and Mosquito. Between these and supporting exiting aircraft, we are already very, very, very busy. When the guys at BST were moved back to the mothership, former BST project plans had to be revaluated. Sorry for any confusion.

Thanks

Just to be clear while the AH-1 is not on our immediate plans that does not mean it will never happen, Wags clearly states that we hope to simulate the cobra someday ( and the F-4).

as mentioned we a hope to have a clearer picture for you all soon.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...&postcount=220

Development Report #1
In order to provide greater transparency in our endeavours, we are happy to introduce a new series of Development Reports. These will shed light on some of the most requested features and their progress.

Thanks

[NineGzuz]

I'm hoping that the AH-1 hold pattern will allow more time for better information, and perhaps we might the the AH-1W. Which is a beast :-)

[Varis]

Originally Posted by MOHAB

Without being a dick, I would like to know a little bit more about the "politics" involved in making those desicions. At least I have never read a statment like: "Ah, damn it, we need more WWII planes"


Instead the modules I read the most requests about are getting delayed and delayed. Makes no sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced that there are a lot of people for WWII planes as well, but I bet they are not the the majority.

People writing on the forums tend to be different from the mass of paying customers. (Although they are a subset... and often an important one.) The WWII modules are generally the best profit makers - I'd give you a source but I can't remember if Wags said that in an interview or on the forum but it was maybe a year ago. ED and the other developers have to make some hard calls between pursuing their passions, bringing in the money and listening to the fans on the forum.

Originally Posted by MOHAB

I just feel a lack of communication when it comes to new modules, maps, or whatever. It's always like: "ok, here is a little something to get you guys excited, but we will see what we do with it." Whats missing are clear statements and a clear roadmap of whats to come in the near (or distant) future.



There are so many modules in development, every developer is talking through different channels, facebook, blogs - you name it. You get Infos from ten different sources and can than figure it out by yourself and take an educated guess on whats going to happen.



If I could have a wish @Eagle Dynamics or @Wags - Get all those third party developer at one table, work out a roadmap and f.... stick to it.



I guess there is little more the community wants more that simply not beeing left in the bloody dark.

The main thing people should understand is that a flight sim platform is very different from your usual gaming product. The feature set is very demanding and it's a niche product (although DCS apparently has attracted quite a few paying customers over the years). ED's resources are spread very thin. (This is one of the non obvious observations, too.) Also they are not known for being one of the world's leading organizations in terms of software process or customer communication (although things have improved over the time, at least in the last 12 months or so). But it doesn't really matter that much to us long term fans - they have few competitors and they are delivering a great product. Maybe in 2020 we won't see everything that was "promised" for 2017, but DCS in 2020 will still be better than in 2019 even if your favourite module/feature isn't in despite all your hopes. Patient and sometimes very forgiving waiting is the best approach for your sanity.

Originally Posted by MOHAB

Good to know. I just don't get why thats not been done long ago. I my view thats an excel list that needs to be updated once a month by an office worker who calls everyone simply asking: "How's it going?". In the words of mastermind Jeremy Clarkson: How hard can it be?

It's not really that easy. Send in an office worker and they'll not understand the replies, you'll get a status "they're working on it" and when pressed for delivery dates it's "maybe next month". Send in a developer/project manager without a long experience in the business and they will fail to understand the potential problems/blockers still to come down the road and you'll get "probably next year", then you'll again throw a fit when it's not there when the time comes. That's the technical/project management aspect but then there's marketing aspect - they'll have to create some hype and buzz to keep the gaming community interested. And the community management/customer communication aspect... oh boy reading this forum I don't envy the job. (I hear Hoggit and places is even much worse...)