Please be more open with information, or about broken code and secretive plans

FalcoGer · August 27, 2019

Recently I had a discussion about the BS3 and it came up that weapon modeling is rather poor in DCS, more prominently noticed by me in the S8-OFP2 and 70in Hydras being completely ineffective except when directly hitting. This post started out as an answer, but it quickly became off topic so I decided to post here.

That particular thread ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=230027 ) has 80(!) pages of pointless discussion, speculations and demands about what the new BS3 update will entail, what the pricing will be and how the systems are going to work. With not a single post from any developer putting forth a roadmap or release plan anywhere on the forum, including that thread, to clarify the issue.

A brief request

I tried my best to avoid violating any of the forum rules here, but I feel like this is either getting deleted or closed, instead of openly addressing my concerns and points of discontent, which in turn would of course be the complete opposite of "open communication".

If any small part of this is violating some rule, I would like the chance to rectify this, rather than have this deleted outright, if you don't mind.

Just having this section just goes to show what I feel this company to be.

Summary

No one likes to be critiqued, it is uncomfortable and puts one on the spot. But without critique one can not improve - you can argue you still can, but that would be because you critiqued yourself. I tried to be civil and constructive and explain from my point of view why I feel like things need to be improved. Feel free to address any or all of those points and disagree with me.

I spent my money on something (WIP modules), and I don't know what is being done with it. It feels like there is no plan to any of this - and whether that's actually true or not is not conveyed. A rough list of features is laid out, but it's very general and lacking a lot of details. No roadmap is presented, no rough estimates are given (because people get mad when deadlines are not met, which is their right, since they gave you their money to meet their demands). Were estimates given and things don't work out - which is perfectly fine, by the way - then delays are not explained. If they'd explain the delays with reasonable reasons, a new estimate and plans to avoid such issues in the future, I'd be way less mad. And because they are not explained, I assume that the delays came about because broken spaghetti code, which makes me madder than if they'd just admit to such a thing.

About Coding, Version Control and Single Responsibility in OOP

I wish DCS would be at least a little more realistic about weapons. Speaking of complexity, yes it is complex. But complex doesn't mean complicated.

But I believe they just borked their code ages ago and can't fix it anymore (= complicated). This becomes evident when you realize that

- They can't release an update because some feature is not ready yet

- > meaning they don't use version control and work on the feature in a separate branch, merging it in when it is ready, but instead always live on the edge and have to have everything in a working state by release date. This slows the production of new features (you can't work on something till the current work is released, you can't work on something that can't be in a half finished state by the next release cycle) and introduces bugs (you can't test it enough, you're rushing) that can be avoided. It also means that features can't be tested independently of each other (like just have a floating laser source and test missile tracking without any aircraft, terrain or target).

- Introducing new systems sometimes breaks completely unrelated things. I even heard that they broke the runway lights at some point when updating some A10 stuff.

-> meaning they don't have a object oriented approach of their aircraft modules with the single responsibility.

-> This can also be seen in how they "redevelop" weapons such as the agm65 3 times for 3 different aircraft, while the weapon itself is the same, same video signal, same seeker, same contrast locking logic, same everything, and only the interface to the aircraft should change.

- They don't release hotfixes for bugs and instead wait for the next release date, which more often than not will be pushed back for some reason. Either because they don't want to or they can't, which the latter indicates the lack of version control again.

About comparisons and censorship

I don't understand how a company that sells modules and maps for 40-80 bucks each can't compete with a "mod to a flight sim from the last century", which shall not be named due to some rules, but which everyone knows, when it comes to even simple things like the flight profile of the Aim120 or proximity fuses of sam systems.

Mind you that "mod" is for free (meaning $0.00, with some mandatory licenscing to the original developers for legal reasons) and worked on by a community, and while technically a mod, it is in fact a complete remake.

Speaking of that forum rule, how can ED just censor the mention of competitive products when they should be striving to be better than those? You can't even say "well, [sim name] can do amazing [insert nice feature here]" and be spurred on by that and just get to it, and put one on top, wanting to be better. It is a source of inspiration, not a source of discontent that should be censored. Just because something else is better in one area or other, doesn't mean you should ban the mention of it like some dictator. Instead you should try to improve yourself in that area. I don't mean to make this a forum for all manner of flight sims, but some comparisons like this can't be counterproductive, can they?

Of course that old sim is going to have limitations, which is why I want the good stuff of it be implemented in DCS so I have both good graphics, good avionics, good weapon modeling and good communications.

I suspect the reason is that good ATC is work on the core of DCS, which is put on hold for two reasons:

- It doesn't generate income, being part of the free dcs world

- They're afraid of touching that code because they don't understand it anymore themselves.

Of course that's pure speculation, on the part that no information is ever given out by ED.

But instead such critique is banned for the reason of mention three letters that should be used as inspiration of what DCS could be? What are you afraid of? This seems petty to me.

About an open communication

I don't like the mentality of this company. And I hope they come around to be more open.

Other companies are extremely open with their development process, like for example the staff that creates a well known game where you build automated factories in a 2d world. This is of course completely unrelated to flight simulations, but as a software company, I think ED can learn some things from them.

They release development updates every Friday, and have been doing that over the last 3 years at least. They show their work proudly, tell people how they tackle problems and how they solved them on a technical basis.

As a customer of that company, who bought their early access game, I am happy of this, because I have spent money on an unfinished product and want to see this product become great, I have an interest in that my money is used productively. Their openness shows me that they're doing great work. The people who spent their money can check that it is put to good use.

On the other hand, they put it upon themselves to tell people about their work. I imagine it be like having an open door to the kitchen in a restaurant, you can see what is going on. They have opened the door for their customers to look in, and are now forced to do proper work that isn't sloppy, as the people can see them. This spurs them on to create the best possible experience and do good work. This also allows them feedback, they talk about problems they have and the community can offer solutions, tell them how they want things to turn out, which way to go. All of which done without revealing any code. They talk about which frameworks they use, and general algorithms, sometimes they show some section of buggy code (for the really obscure ones), where the bug lies and what it meant and how they worked around it.

ED doesn't do that, and that's fine. They have their own plans and don't talk to their customers, instead serving what they think is right.

This would be an approach I can live with, but when confronted with the multitude of problems that have been cropping up lately, one has to wonder what is going on in that kitchen.

Why is the salad, that should take 5 minutes to make, with the name of "built in VoiP" not ready 2 years after it has been repeatedly promised? Even without encryption or interference or radio filters or being affected by terrain it would be nice. And those added features could be added progressively.

Wags has started this "openness" a little bit with his "Mini Update" series and I like it quite a bit, but I think it is still far too little and still very secretive.

I don't want the developers to spend half the week to write reports to us, of course. But in the end to them it, too would serve the purpose of being able to document their work, to look back and have a summary of their work, something to be proud of. This is different from a changelog, it's an open communication with your customers.

I don't mean to simply complain, but to address issues and laying out some possible solutions that I see. I simply wish for more communication. Given no information is frustrating. And the "News" feel more like advertisement, which is fine. But nothing about the actual development process is revealed, and they only talk about the big money makers. Updates on progress are limited to releases, not the progression leading up to the releases. Features are promised, no updates given and quietly dropped or put on indefinite hold.

This behavior is putting me off.

I don't claim to know how this company does it's work, but given that I spent my money, I feel like I have a right to know and be involved. Given how that's not the case, I feel discontent. And given how their work is not up to par as of late, I do believe we are owed an explanation.

Of course you are free to disagree, and in fact would like very much to address my points - that is in a manner that's not simply the generic way of talking a whole lot of steam with no content like "We're sorry, but we're trying our best."

NineLine · August 27, 2019

Ok, I will try and address all the points here and summarize at the bottom as needed.

Recently I had a discussion about the BS3

Here is the perfect use of the term "double-edged sword" You guys want to know what we are working on, but when we tell you something early in development, then we are not sharing enough about it for many peoples liking. In the case of the Black Shark updates, we have given you as much as we have right now that we can share, the art is currently being worked on, which has been shown, and data collection is ongoing for what we can and can't do as far as new features for the paid aspect. in this case, we just don't have info. Once it is closer I will ask the team to give a similar development guide like was done with the Hornet and the Viper. Right now, you guys just know all we can share.

A brief request

Here is my attempt.

Summary

As I stated above with the Black Shark, we give what we can. I can give you an example that is still very fresh with the community, ok I will give you two to stress the point. 1) The TGP, 2) VR Improvements.

1) the TGP, we gave the best estimate of when this would be available for the Hornet, then stuff happened, vacation, other issues and boom we ended up delivering later than we had estimated. What happened to that? Every post, update, newsletter, we have 50+ people asking "where is the TGP". We are always trying to push the limits of when we can announce possible release time frames, then we have the "two weeks" crowd come along and spoil it. Real human beings work, sweat and slave over every aspect of DCS World. These human beings also have lives, they have families they take vacations, they run into blocks, errors or problems. All of this is accounted for the very best we can, but this isn't a simple game that is being programmed here, ED is recreating some of the most advanced systems in the military world, many times based simply on how it should work, not actually how it does. What is the answer here? We give fewer updates and people complain we don't communicate, we give more updates, and people complain we miss deadlines we didn't give or they get too hyped up and ask repeatedly where X or Y is.

2) VR Improvements, we got excited and were impressed by early returns in development, as we got farther into testing, trying on all the possible systems and units, with all the different variables out there, and it ended up not being what we had hoped for. VR is still so new, and so many systems out there really aren't up to snuff to handle it to its fullest yet, its a real struggle to stay ahead of the curve. We would love to give an update on where its at, but simply it's being worked on still, and we don't have much right now. Again, we know how important this is to everyone, and wanted to share where we were at, but again, a case of sharing too soon, too much. As well the community got hyped up once again, thinking that no matter what computer they were running, what VR system they had, they would see XX% amount of improvements, and we should all know that isn't how it works.

You paid money for early access. We give you regular updates and information on the Hornet, but even that isn't enough for everyone, people always want more info, and when they get more info, they want even more info. As I tried to set with the examples above, we are trying to balance expectation with real-world development. We want to say X feature will be available in Y number of weeks. But we also know the complexity of feature X, and the fact that halfway through programming, some aspect of it might require a core system update or adjustment that nobody expected. Again, when you are running on the cutting edge of simulations, doing things nobody else has done to the degree ED is doing, things happen. Everything is subject to change, and Early Access is not for everyone. We appreciate all those that dive into EA, and help us test things, but at the same time, we stress that if you don't like waiting for having issues arise, it might be better to wait.

About Coding, Version Control and Single Responsibility in OOP

I am confused by this section, to be honest. So let's look at the history of DCS World. This is a product that was born from individual products, combining these products, adding new products, upgrading the entire graphics engine, upgrading things like FMs, etc, all while people continued to be able to enjoy and use the same things they purchased in some cases almost 10 years ago. Of course there is going to be growing pains, or there are going to be instances when a person who used to work here and coded a certain system, then left, and nobody can figure out how that system worked or known of a more efficient system and it needs to be re-coded for new products, etc.

We offer Open Beta, we offer patches on a very very regular basis, we offer hotfixes when they make sense. What makes sense for another game or software company doesn't always mean it will make sense for what ED does. It is super easy to backseat program, but at the end of the day, even things you list in this section are the reasons ED approaches versions and updates as they do. Yes, they are building a new sim on the old foundation, and at times that foundation needs to be fixed as well. The other approach is to go back to how it was done, and we are paying for a new version every couple of years. I really think when you look at both approaches, its a better road for most doing it how it's being done.

Do all bugs get addressed in a timely manner? Regrettably, not all (I am looking at you Spitfire sun glare). But we do have limited resources, and some things accidentally fall through the cracks or are harder to deal with than expected. It's always a balance of new free content/new paid content/updating old content. We are not a mod of a dead game, and there are people that need to be paid, and lights to be kept on, so we need to make sure all that is covered. We are also in a niche area of the gaming world, we are not making first-person shooter money, people aren't looking for a new umbrella to float in on with a pink AK-47. We are really on the opposite end of the spectrum, our stuff needs to be real as real, and takes more time than real stuff to build. Someone joked about a team restoring a P-47 faster than we could simulate one... and yeah, sad but true (blame the guys that bought the manufacturer for burning all their documents).

About comparisons and censorship

First off, let's be clear. We are not competing with anyone. We are not trying to be better than a 20-year-old game, or any other game for that matter. We are competing with real life, we are trying to model and simulate our products based on the real-world modules. Bringing up an old game, or another game isn't helpful when there is no other sim/game on the market doing what we are doing. The common theme here? Dynamic Campaign. I will say this for a fact if we released a dynamic campaign exactly like what was seen 20 years ago, we would anger most of our customer base. We need a dynamic campaign and content that works with all aspects of what is available in DCS World, that is multi-era, multi-airframe, multi-player, land, sea, air, and not just them being there, but the ability to have the option to control not only the air but land and sea. So no, comparison to other games, sims, graphic engines, etc is not what we are aiming for. We are not simulating other games, we are again, simulating real-world combat and flight. Are there some aspects DCS World is lacking in that maybe are better somewhere else? Perhaps, but we are building DCS World based on what DCS World needs, but what some other game has or needed.

Your example of ATC. It has NOTHING to do with how much income it would generate, and in fact, I would argue with you that ATC on its own would generate income based on what we have seen as far as feedback based on what we are doing with Carrier ATC. It is absolutely a popular request, and I have no doubt it would bring in many more people if the system was improved. But let's also be realistic and understand how much work it is to design and build a new system. As an exercise, start thinking about every aspect of modern ATC, every phrase, line and variable that would be involved in a complex ATC upgrade. The designing, building, recording, testing etc of such a system is huge. Preliminary work has started in the background, but trust me, it's no easy task. Maybe if we were dealing with one era, and one aircraft, and one country it would be easier, but we are not.

As for missiles and such, sure we could add guesses and opinions in, but as with everything ED, we like cold hard facts, and with things like missiles, they are very complex to add, or just not available. ED requires a certain amount of information and data to enact change, we have people with actual experience in different air forces, and with different systems being modelled. DO we know it all, of course not, but "make missiles better cuz this 20-year-old game was better, or cuz I think they should be better" doesn't cut it. Maybe a game out there had more information than we did, maybe they are using restricted information, maybe they made it up, but again, we are not trying to simulate them, therefor other games end up being invalid sources. These forums are for DCS World, so discussion of Pac-Man or Atari Combat have no impact on development, and shouldn't be discussed here. It is not censorship, it is the focus of this forum, and other games are not the focus. Mudspike is a great place to discuss and compare. I'll see yeah there for those discussions, but if you want to talk here its DCS World 24/7/365.

About an open communication

I am going to outright disagree with you on this for the most part.

First Wags has been incredibly open about development on the Hornet and now the Viper, I have suggested to the team that this should be the bar to which all modules should be developed. As described above, within reason and to set the expectation. We release newsletters every week for quite a while, even the one week since I started working with ED that they were not going to release one, a miss fire of the email system, and they ended up sharing development screenshots of the Supercarrier. Guys like Yo-Yo are always up for discussion, I don't know how many more times I can take him making a video about a one-winged paper airplane explaining how flight works. He is very open and chatty. I answer so many questions on here, FB, Steam, Discord... I am sure I talk DCS in my sleep between obnoxious snoring. I don't see many game companies out there that spend so much time chatting and talking with their community. And don't kid yourself, I came from where most of you are, I was in the trenches on many boards, beta testing different games over the years. I can say quite certainly we have a very open-door policy in many ways.

That said, we are always striving to be better. I submit a community report roughly once a month, I bring up all the issues with the Team, the leads, the bosses, everyone, I bring up the painful ones, the good, bad and ugly. I ask them if we can share more here, or more there. I say things like we can do better with WWII info, or this feature or that. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they have very good reasons to hold info. So this is always being discussed, your issues are always being addressed, maybe not as fast as people want, maybe not to the degree they hoped. But I really think we do a lot better than what the OP suggested.

At the end of the day I don't like to see anyone discontent, upset, or not having fun. And hey, we all have those moments were things don't work how they should, and it's frustrating. We work very hard to make sure those frustrating moments are cut down to a minimum, but DCS World is growing, and only getting bigger, we are trying to expand our resources to keep up with the growth, but as always, how DCS is built and maintained, things can and will get bumpy. I can only suggest keep on giving good feedback and constructive mature criticism. It is an important part of making us better, and trust me, it does get heard, everything.

Edited August 27, 2019 by NineLine

Sangusan · August 27, 2019

Thank you, Nineline, for taking the time. You have the patience of a saint. DCS has its issues, but it's an amazing product, and most people would agree with me there I think. The reddit crowd especially is very vocal, and oft negative, but they wouldn't be so passionate about the game if they didn't love it as much as they do.

Have a great day.

iLOVEwindmills · August 27, 2019

That said, we are always striving to be better.

Maybe then it would be good to respond to some of the points in the post you agree with? What you guys are planning on changing in the near future?

NineLine · August 27, 2019

Maybe then it would be good to respond to some of the points in the post you agree with? What you guys are planning on changing in the near future?

If you read past that, you will see what we are doing. we are always pushing ourselves to do better, but it's always going to be a balance. If we told you stuff you don't know yet today, you would only be driven mad with hype, and would just want to know more and more.

nighthawk2174 · August 27, 2019

Thanks for the response 9line but I still have my concerns... specifically the ed devs aren't focusing enough on if at all on the base game. There's no point to how fancy a specific module is if the base game is just so bad it keeps driving me back to said 20 year old sim after a week or two of playing (although HB's F14 is so good I have stayed playing DCS longer than I ever have but only for the 14.)

As for missiles and such, sure we could add guesses and opinions in, but as with everything ED, we like cold hard facts, and with things like missiles, they are very complex to add, or just not available. ED requires a certain amount of information and data to enact change, we have people with actual experience in different air forces, and with different systems being modeled. DO we know it all, of course not, but "make missiles better cuz this 20-year-old game was better, or cuz I think they should be better" doesn't cut it. Maybe a game out there had more information than we did, maybe they are using restricted information, maybe they made it up, but again, we are not trying to simulate them, therefor other games end up being invalid sources. These forums are for DCS World, so discussion of Pac-Man or Atari Combat have no impact on development, and shouldn't be discussed here. It is not censorship, it is the focus of this forum, and other games are not the focus. Mudspike is a great place to discuss and compare. I'll see yeah there for those discussions, but if you want to talk here its DCS World 24/7/365.

If this is the case then how come IASTAG's AIM-120 CFD hasn't been added? Or a response to my own discovery of SA10B (5v55r) flyout charts made? On top of this there is tons and tons and tons of public, 'open source', and academic sources on how missiles should fly.

For example:

Missile Guidance and Control Systems by George M. Siouris

EW 101 and 102 by David Adamy

Air and Missile Defense Systems Engineering by Warren J. Boord and John B. Hoffman

Radar Homing Guidance for tactical MIssiles by D.A. James

Monopulse Prinicples and Techniques (second edition) by Samuel M. Sherman and David K.. Barton

Radar Handbook 2nd Edtiion by Merrill I. Skolnik

Military Handbook of Missile Simulation Prt 1 (no listed author)

Each one of these I own and have either read in full or partly. Each is widely available, many on amazon, and pretty much in unison say one thing DCS's missile simulation is flawed and seriously lacking. And I use missiles here as they are a core gameplay feature and are the easiest to point to and use as a 'metaphor' for the base game as a whole.

NineLine · August 27, 2019

Thank you, Nineline, for taking the time. You have the patience of a saint. DCS has its issues, but it's an amazing product, and most people would agree with me there I think. The reddit crowd especially is very vocal, and oft negative, but they wouldn't be so passionate about the game if they didn't love it as much as they do.

Have a great day.

I never have an issue with being vocal, I just need respectful and mature, and it works better for all involved :)

We are all passionate about this.

NineLine · August 27, 2019

Missiles are always a touchy subject, Chizh is off visiting relatives right now, but I will talk to him about your points when he returns and see if I can get some answers.

Thanks for the response 9line but I still have my concerns... specifically the ed devs aren't focusing enough on if at all on the base game. There's no point to how fancy a specific module is if the base game is just so bad it keeps driving me back to said 20 year old sim after a week or two of playing (although HB's F14 is so good I have stayed playing DCS longer than I ever have but only for the 14.)

If this is the case then how come IASTAG's AIM-120 CFD hasn't been added? Or a response to my own discovery of SA10B (5v55r) flyout charts made? On top of this there is tons and tons and tons of public, 'open source', and academic sources on how missiles should fly.

For example:

Missile Guidance and Control Systems by George M. Siouris

EW 101 and 102 by David Adamy

Air and Missile Defense Systems Engineering by Warren J. Boord and John B. Hoffman

Radar Homing Guidance for tactical MIssiles by D.A. James

Monopulse Prinicples and Techniques (second edition) by Samuel M. Sherman and David K.. Barton

Radar Handbook 2nd Edtiion by Merrill I. Skolnik

Military Handbook of Missile Simulation Prt 1 (no listed author)

Each one of these I own and have either read in full or partly. Each is widely available, many on amazon, and pretty much in unison say one thing DCS's missile simulation is flawed and seriously lacking. And I use missiles here as they are a core gameplay feature and are the easiest to point to and use as a 'metaphor' for the base game as a whole.

nighthawk2174 · August 27, 2019

Ok, if this time that turns out to be the case great! I want to help you guys fix the missiles it is what really bothers me about this game, being an aerospace student and having a basic understanding of this stuff skews me towards these issues.

NineLine · August 27, 2019

Ok, if this time that turns out to be the case great! I want to help you guys fix the missiles it is what really bothers me about this game, being an aerospace student and having a basic understanding of this stuff skews me towards these issues.

I get it of course, but I know its a complex issue. So I will see if I can get some more answers about missiles in general, I know work is ongoing, and I also know they have been working on ballistic missile FMs so perhaps it's just hung up somewhere.

Max1mus · August 27, 2019

If this is the case then how come IASTAG's AIM-120 CFD hasn't been added? Or a response to my own discovery of SA10B (5v55r) flyout charts made? On top of this there is tons and tons and tons of public, 'open source', and academic sources on how missiles should fly.

Youre acting as if ED has not made their own research, does not have their own sources. Who are you to say that this individual research, which in case of IASTAG is motivated by biases like him expecting "100 mile range" (actual quote), is more serious than a company that has done this for over a decade and is employing people who are qualified in this area?

I_Gamer · August 27, 2019

Thanks for trying to answer these, NL. Honestly; I'm kind of surprised that ED hasn't integrated a better/more efficient bug tracker that both the dev team and users can look at to get an idea of which issues are being worked on - or on EA aircraft; which features are either planned, work in progress or completed already.

I hate to compare, but honestly the feedback tracking system that Bohemia Interactice uses on a lot of their products is fantastic. I honestly think that a better/more efficient bug / feedback tracker would solve a lot of the "communication" issues people are complaining about.

NineLine · August 27, 2019

I don't want to skew this into a missile debate guys, I will get answers separate from this discussion. It very well could be that there is a good reason those sources are not used.

NineLine · August 27, 2019

Thanks for trying to answer these, NL. Honestly; I'm kind of surprised that ED hasn't integrated a better/more efficient bug tracker that both the dev team and users can look at to get an idea of which issues are being worked on - or on EA aircraft; which features are either planned, work in progress or completed already.

I hate to compare, but honestly the feedback tracking system that Bohemia Interactice uses on a lot of their products is fantastic. I honestly think that a better/more efficient bug / feedback tracker would solve a lot of the "communication" issues people are complaining about.

We are upgrading to a new bug tracking system, we were using Mantis, now we are using JIRA, we are slowly moving to that, we just started moving testers over and then we will move 3rd Parties I believe, I don't know of any plans to allow any level of user access at this time, which is why we try and manage the forums to track issues.

undertheradar · August 27, 2019

"but as with everything ED, we like cold hard facts"

You guys see the AMRAAM in game, right? That is based on facts?

nighthawk2174 · August 27, 2019

Yeah, its a case of they upgraded the missile model to be more realistic but didn't update the drag, lift, or guidance from the pre-upgraded missile model.

I_Gamer · August 27, 2019

We are upgrading to a new bug tracking system, we were using Mantis, now we are using JIRA, we are slowly moving to that, we just started moving testers over and then we will move 3rd Parties I believe, I don't know of any plans to allow any level of user access at this time, which is why we try and manage the forums to track issues.

That's nice to hear, hopefully that will allow a better and more efficient workflow for you guys. Tracking the amount of feedback and bug reports DCS gets seems like it wouldn't be a very fun task, especially having to manually sort through forum posts. ;)

average_pilot · August 27, 2019

We are competing with real life

Maybe, ED having a goal like that as developers, and many customers expecting only 100% real reality in what is ultimately just software, entertainment software in fact, could kill the whole thing eventually.

NineLine · August 27, 2019

"but as with everything ED, we like cold hard facts"

You guys see the AMRAAM in game, right? That is based on facts?

Believe it or not, there isn't a ton of really hard data out there for missile performance and not many SMEs (exactly 0) that are allowed to talk about it. So yes, its based on their research. They are also still working on better improvements to guidance and such.

Again, I don't want this to turn into a missile debate. As I said above, I will look into more feedback on missiles.

NineLine · August 27, 2019

Maybe, ED having a goal like that as developers, and many customers expecting only 100% real reality in what is ultimately just software, entertainment software in fact, could kill the whole thing eventually.

The head of ED is a real pilot, he has flown a good many aircraft, from WWII aircraft to MiG-29/Su-27. We know that 100% isn't possible, but our goals are to simulate real life as much as possible, not other games.

David OC · August 27, 2019

Maybe, ED having a goal like that as developers, and many customers expecting only 100% real reality in what is ultimately just software, entertainment software in fact, could kill the whole thing eventually.

ultimately just software, entertainment / IRL training software.

DCS is also like this because it's also inline with the other side of the business.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139334

Wags has said before that the "game part" needs work.

Edit

Another good example of being able to develop at this level of simulation is Heatblur / MetaSimulations, Meta Aerospace group partnership. Congrats Heatblur.

Edited August 28, 2019 by David OC

StandingCow · August 28, 2019

1) the TGP, we gave the best estimate of when this would be available for the Hornet, then stuff happened, vacation, other issues and boom we ended up delivering later than we had estimated. What happened to that? Every post, update, newsletter, we have 50+ people asking "where is the TGP". We are always trying to push the limits of when we can announce possible release time frames, then we have the "two weeks" crowd come along and spoil it. Real human beings work, sweat and slave over every aspect of DCS World. These human beings also have lives, they have families they take vacations, they run into blocks, errors or problems. All of this is accounted for the very best we can, but this isn't a simple game that is being programmed here, ED is recreating some of the most advanced systems in the military world, many times based simply on how it should work, not actually how it does. What is the answer here? We give fewer updates and people complain we don't communicate, we give more updates, and people complain we miss deadlines we didn't give or they get too hyped up and ask repeatedly where X or Y is.
2) VR Improvements, we got excited and were impressed by early returns in development, as we got farther into testing, trying on all the possible systems and units, with all the different variables out there, and it ended up not being what we had hoped for. VR is still so new, and so many systems out there really aren't up to snuff to handle it to its fullest yet, its a real struggle to stay ahead of the curve. We would love to give an update on where its at, but simply it's being worked on still, and we don't have much right now. Again, we know how important this is to everyone, and wanted to share where we were at, but again, a case of sharing too soon, too much. As well the community got hyped up once again, thinking that no matter what computer they were running, what VR system they had, they would see XX% amount of improvements, and we should all know that isn't how it works.

I just wanted to touch on this point.... most of the hype is ED's own doing. A good example is the whole VR improvement up to 50% thing, it became a pretty big deal for folks that fly in VR and then it ended up being... well not much of a thing. I am not sure why ED isn't a lot more conservative with their timelines, add a few extra months to when a new feature is expected then if it comes out early well it makes ED look even better. I know this is a very simplified version of what goes on but I hope my point is clear.

I agree with you that the constant questions on when something is coming gets old, and the "Patch today?" questions EVERY two weeks does as well, but there are steps ED could take to prevent this. Again, I believe most of the hype is something ED can control with more conservative and clear communication.

NineLine · August 28, 2019

I agree with you that the constant questions on when something is coming gets old, and the "Patch today?" questions EVERY two weeks does as well, but there are steps ED could take to prevent this. Again, I believe most of the hype is something ED can control with more conservative and clear communication.

It is a balancing act if we don't give a date, then we get the same "where is it" questions, so not really a simple answer either.

robgraham · August 28, 2019

So I asked this once before and got deleted as it was offi the topic I did, this ones on topic for that same question, why doesn't eagle dynamics use something like trello to show people a roadmap? I mean look at how epic did it for the epic game store, there is no 'firm' release dates on it, just delivered, near term, medium term and long term with general time frames. It gets updated as they go and has a general outline of what is being worked on for each item.

Yes it takes a little to set up but once done it's done, tie it to a bug tracker and you could also let people check if bugs have been fixed.... boom half the complaints from us on the forums felt with, as the issues tend to be that there is no public up to date roadmap or bug tracker.

Even if you didn't use trello but something like Jira etc again front end lets people see and report bugs and keep an eye on the status of them because right now it's hard to work out what reported bugs have been fixed, what's returned, etc.. because there is no public means of checking beyond patch notes and if you or newy say 'we fixed that' and we go 'it's back then'.

NineLine · August 28, 2019

I don't think we will ever see a public bug tracking, this is my own personal opinion. I can't speak to Epic at all but am not sure it's a good comparison. Our bug reporting system doesn't generally use timeframes, we have priorities, and flags for stoppers and crashes, but you won't really see a timeline. It can be pretty dynamic based on the complexity of a system, and the amount of work. As it is, it's tough to contain the excitement or frustration over new features, I think putting them on public display like that without the context of time or effort might just make things worse.

Because we have a smaller sized team, and bigger sized tasks, there can be some movement and resource sharing, and people tunnel focused on one feature or bug might not understand or accept seeing something slow up for something else if that makes any sense.

As I listed above, the Spitfire sun glare, it would only drive people madder, seeing it idle there not being fixed as long as it's been, seeing it on an official bug tracker wouldn't make anyone happier.

So I asked this once before and got deleted as it was offi the topic I did, this ones on topic for that same question, why doesn't eagle dynamics use something like trello to show people a roadmap? I mean look at how epic did it for the epic game store, there is no 'firm' release dates on it, just delivered, near term, medium term and long term with general time frames. It gets updated as they go and has a general outline of what is being worked on for each item.

Yes it takes a little to set up but once done it's done, tie it to a bug tracker and you could also let people check if bugs have been fixed.... boom half the complaints from us on the forums felt with, as the issues tend to be that there is no public up to date roadmap or bug tracker.

Even if you didn't use trello but something like Jira etc again front end lets people see and report bugs and keep an eye on the status of them because right now it's hard to work out what reported bugs have been fixed, what's returned, etc.. because there is no public means of checking beyond patch notes and if you or newy say 'we fixed that' and we go 'it's back then'.

Please be more open with information, or about broken code and secretive plans

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members