Development Update September 2015

Imho Hawk without multicrew lost 50% of his sex appeal.

Ok, we can't have rear seat feature's tomorrow or next months, that's clear.

But, at least, you can always work for a medium-long-period implementation.

Bye

Phant

Imho Hawk without multicrew lost 50% of his sex appeal.

 

Ok, we can't have rear seat feature's tomorrow or next months, that's clear.

 

But, at least, you can always work for a medium-long-period implementation.

 

Bye

Phant

Agreed. I hope that VEAO can work out the multi-crew capability in the long run. I'm not sure about what the greater DCS community does, but I play almost exclusively online multiplayer - everything is more fun with a friend to watch you crash :)

But, at least, you can always work for a medium-long-period implementation.

That, of course, assumes that they have the finances to be able to support such on-going development. An undertaking such as completely rewriting the entire code-base is far from cheap.

I have no insights at all into VEAO's financials, but it's well worth considering before making assumptions about what they can reasonably take on in the background.

Financially the company does not have a problem, well apart from spending thousands of pounds to get it working :/

At the moment all of our resource is tied up on other things, including stuff on Hawk that needs fixing.

Actually multiplayer is a very small percentage of people that fly in DCS. That does not detract from working on MP issues and solutions, just pointing it out.

Thanks,

Chris

Ok so it seems that someone is trying to "muddy the waters" over at SimHQ forums.

I will not comment on contractural issues but when someone doesn't fix bugs or work on features or even give updated DLL's for projects I have to seriously look at that resource and what damage it does to current modules that you, our customers, are flying.

My job is to make sure you have continuity of the aircraft you are flying that you bought from VEAO.

And I will do whatever it takes to ensure that happens.

That certain person does not have the multi-crew cockpit code as far as I know and therefore does not know what needs to happen to the code they wrote to make it work.

I stand by my original statement at the beginning of this thread.

Chris

A lot of people in other forums complain about the development of the Hawk and all the problems related. I really admire you hard work and efforts to deliver a quality product. As a customer and owner of the Hawk I must say Thank You to the Devs and keep your good work. It is much appreciated here. :thumbup:

Cheers

Chris, you can only do the best you can with the information you have at the given time! I for one and I know I'm not alone in this, really enjoy the hawk and can't wait to see you guys develop it further!

Thanks for the news, Chris. :thumbup:

You little scoundrel you, look at the update and changelog. Lot's of good things coming for the Hawk!

Thank you for the extensive update Chris! Keep up the efforts and the good work :thumbup:

I'm just typing October's update now...stay tuned

Hope you have some good news for us:cheer3nc:

I'm just typing October's update now...stay tuned

Tease:P

:joystick: Hope some news about the P40. :pilotfly:

Tease:P

Never :thumbup:

Hey guys, thanks for the comprehensive update.

I bought the hawk in a sale so i'm not too concerned about the fact that it will likel never get any rear seat functionality which was kinda implcitly expected on my part, but whatever... Would a simple ride-along-feature be feasible, like in the current OB L-39?

Still, many times when I put up money up front for projects in DCS they turned out differently than expected. This has led me to taking a far more conservative approach with my "investments". Surely others think the same way and I'm sure you are well aware of this. I really appreciate your openness with regard to these and other concerns, but i did noch t want to pre-purchase the P-40 until now whereas I did not think too long about getting the L-39. I know, you are not in an easy position, but some of this still lacks the substance I'd expect before buying something.

Anyway, I don't want to sound harsh, but for me the 3rd party craze is mostly over. Renders and demo videos are nice, but that's basically all they are. I'm looking forward to see how your next release turns out. :thumbup:

To be fair, nowhere on our product description page where you bought it does it say rear cockpit integration or even ride along despite what you implicitly expected. That's the whole point of a features list. I don't go in expected a new car to have SatNav when it doesn't say it has on the sale page for it.

That being said, we are looking at the ride along facility and if it is feasible to get it working with the current code we have.

To be fair, nowhere on our product description page where you bought it does it say rear cockpit integration or even ride along despite what you implicitly expected. That's the whole point of a features list. I don't go in expected a new car to have SatNav when it doesn't say it has on the sale page for it.

 

That being said, we are looking at the ride along facility and if it is feasible to get it working with the current code we have.

When you guys do the HAWK LIFT, you can fully implement the multi-seat capability

*Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink*

but just ride along would be pretty cool, we appreciate your efforts to implement the feature :)

When you guys do the HAWK LIFT, you can fully implement the multi-seat capability

*Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink*

 

but just ride along would be pretty cool, we appreciate your efforts to implement the feature :)

Maybe if we do the T2 ;)

The main thing is that now we know how ED have implemented multi-seat capability, in a new aircraft we can code it to be included easily.

Retrospectively changing the entire 8000 lines of code for Hawk to work for it will take a lot of resource and time.

Retrospectively changing the entire 8000 lines of code for Hawk to work for it will take a lot of resource and time.

of course, we all understand you do run a business, and it would delay everything else.

Maybe if we do the T2

"Maybe"

noun

1.

a mere possibility or probability.

"no ifs, buts, or maybes"

I'll take those odds :)

just as an aside, I hope you guys can transfer code between modules for some systems, so for example, if you have coded a MFCD for the Eurofighter, hopefully you could transfer the same code to another plane, eg, like the A10c, then just update the model/images and slap the coding in and its done!

that way your coding is more efficient. *

but seriously,

thanks guys, I've been following these forums for ages and looking forward to your future releases :)

you guys are also the most responsive and forum present software company I've known.

*this sounds really basic, so you guys probably do this anyway :)

of course, we all understand you do run a business, and it would delay everything else.

 

 

 

"Maybe"

noun

1.

a mere possibility or probability.

"no ifs, buts, or maybes"

 

I'll take those odds :)

 

just as an aside, I hope you guys can transfer code between modules for some systems, so for example, if you have coded a MFCD for the Eurofighter, hopefully you could transfer the same code to another plane, eg, like the A10c, then just update the model/images and slap the coding in and its done!

that way your coding is more efficient. *

 

 

but seriously,

thanks guys, I've been following these forums for ages and looking forward to your future releases :)

you guys are also the most responsive and forum present software company I've known.

 

*this sounds really basic, so you guys probably do this anyway :)

We are working on something similar for the warbirds for sure.

Once the p40 is complete alot of the more basic core code will be done as well. When we started the warbirds for various reasons we didn't have direct access to the asm source code so I took the decision to start over and in the process modularise the development of it. This has lead to a longer lead time but will pay off in the longer term.

Pman

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

We are working on something similar for the warbirds for sure.

 

Once the p40 is complete alot of the more basic core code will be done as well. When we started the warbirds for various reasons we didn't have direct access to the asm source code so I took the decision to start over and in the process modularise the development of it. This has lead to a longer lead time but will pay off in the longer term.

Excellent!

Goodluck with your work!