Limit EA/Beta state to 1 year?

[Rudel_chw]

You can pay now real money for it at official DCS shop? Then it is on the list.

So I would suggest this as "official".

 

 

OK, well, I see your point ... I spent yesterday's night enjoying the CE2 ... would I have rather wait until it is fully released? No, thanks ... and I'm glad that I can still get to make that choice, rather than force the developers onto an inflexible timeframe.

[viper2097]

Yep, thats what EA should be.

 

Then look at the Harrier, and you know what I'm talking about and why I think that some rules are necessary.

 

I can't say how perfect this post is:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3762035&postcount=15

Edited January 17, 2019 by viper2097

[draconus]

...the Su-33, MiG-29, Yak-52, F/A-18 all appeared less than a year ago.

Su-33 PFM: 09-22-2017

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3249920&postcount=108

[Voodoo_One]

What people here are not getting, is that:

 

- one thing is releasing an EA product on which a team with limited resources works on for x amount of time till it's finished

 

- a totally different thing is when a product is released in EA, and then after a few months the limited-resources team moves to launching another EA without finishing what they started, and giving limited resources as an excuse for not delivering what customers have paid for.

 

That should be stopped or regulated IMO. And in fact I am not buying anymore EA from 3rd parties who behaved like this in the past (pretty much every 3rd party so far).

I can agree with this. :)

[Positrons95]

I'd like to point out that some modules need documentation that is quite hard to find. The M2000C was available before RAZBAM started working with the French AdA to improve it.

 

Setting a one year limit would only push devs to do more guess work and remove/change features later, which may annoy people because "its not what they paid for". A more realistic approach would be to ask for some features to be completed for early release, like the flight model, start up, etc. There are quite a few people who enjoy flying the plane even without its full weapon capabilities. They should also have a list of present/missing features on early access description, as most people won't come to the forums and search for it, or simply separate early acces/incomplete modules from fully released ones.

 

I believe DCS offers a much higher quality than other games by using real data/documents rather then guess work and approximations, that's why I'm willing to wait for improvements rather than rush it.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Post of the week.

 

Thanks Positrons

[Mars Exulte]

The label ''EA'' is irrelevant. These products will never be 100% finished, as they periodically receiving updates and overhauls anyway, as with ALL the older modules right now, including the released ones.

 

You should stick to cookie cutter repeats if the EA label offends you.

 

But thanks for the obligatory ''every two weeks'' post complaining about early access. Next you should write some demanding Russian jets, asking for more free modules, and claiming to know how to triple their sales if only they listen to you. Don't forget the very popular 'DCS too hard, make it more casual', too!

Edited January 17, 2019 by zhukov032186

[Voodoo_One]

...

Some critics might say now, that they should do more research (finding documentations etc.) before planing to really do the build. Especially, when the dev has already some knowledge with this kind of projects :music_whistling:

 

 

There will never be the right answer, always something in between.

[viper2097]

Just would like to pump up that thread again...

 

I think that this is a topic were some kind of solution is needed from ED.

Edited February 1, 2019 by viper2097

[Tom Kazansky]

I like the ED way of doing projects.

 

It is like an "advent Calendar" (do english speeking people also use this expression? :huh:)

 

I don't use DCS open beta, but I keep myself informed about what is in development and what do beta users have right now. there are useful threads about it.

 

So I just have to wait till it comes to stable DCS, fly my other planes that got updates, an enjoy walking the way with DCS.

 

The F/A-18C is a good (but not the only) example. If I had to wait for it to be finished and released then, I would have missed a lot fun, excitement and the good feeling of something that is in progress.

 

I get unpatient too if it takes too long till the next update, but I always enjoy getting a good one.

 

Why avoid that by wating till it is 100% finished, what it never is, till buying a project. Just be a part of its developement. =MHO

[Konovalov]

Just would like to pump up that thread again...

 

I think that this is a topic were some kind of solution is needed from ED.

You have a very simple choice to either buy into Early Access or don't. Some for example are very happy to fly the Hornet from day one of it's EA which was very limited compared to it's full capabilities, systems and weapons while others simply prefer to wait for the module to come out of EA. The solution is in your own hands.

[viper2097]

You need to make a difference:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3762035&postcount=15

 

EA & Beta is a cool feature, but there must be done something to ensure that this WIP keeps going on.

At the moment, devs have only minor responsibility. I would suggest some kind of approach to ensure that they will finish their modules and customers get what they have paid for.

[metzger]

I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It is fine that with time and the always evolving model of DCS will never feel completely finished and calling something beta or EA is very subjective and abstract. But there should be also some limitations to this.

 

Razbam is a good example where M2K still has 3 years old bugs or not implemeted features which are in the training missions even. At the same time they have harrier in even worst state and now mig-19. While they state it is different teams involved, this is not true as obviously Zeus is coding them all.

 

I believe all major features and bugs should be fixed in the current modules before a new project is started and this is fair to be asked for.

 

From ED/Belsimtek side, there are countless of bugs which also are there for years and not payed attention for, I don't want to go for examples now, but checking each modul forum sections will show it. While all the resources are focused on the Hornet for quite long time already and nothing else has been touched pretty much.

 

While I do accept their model, I believe they can do a bit better with handling bugs and EA states. And pay more attention to forum bug reports, give more information when something is expected to be fixed or checked. As now many reported bugs in multiple threads are just ignored and this is a bit frustrating.

[metzger]

You need to make a difference:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3762035&postcount=15

 

EA & Beta is a cool feature, but there must be done something to ensure that this WIP keeps going on.

At the moment, devs have only minor responsibility. I would suggest some kind of approach to ensure that they will finish their modules and customers get what they have paid for.

 

+1

[SharpeXB]

Completely agree with the OP

I don’t purchase any EA products. And I feel that by doing this I’m actually helping the development because I’m giving the dev an incentive to finish. If everyone buys EA then we will all end up with unfinished or a too lengthy development process where all the money is collected in EA and there is no reason to finish the module. The Early Access period for these modules is too extreme. Some are in EA for several years. Some are never finished like the Hawk, P40 and Mig21.

EA and Beta is not necessary to get a great experience from DCS. There are plenty of modules that are completed and really good.

[Erich Alfred Hartmann]

100%100 agree, Not only with the DCS planes, with everything, that is ... with the video game industry and / or entertainment software in general, there is a lot of EA that then leaves them abandoned, I do not say that is the case of DCS, I have understood that Eagle supervises the aircraft and if they do not meet the quality standards they do not go on sale

Edited February 1, 2019 by Raytheon

[fjacobsen]

I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It is fine that with time and the always evolving model of DCS will never feel completely finished and calling something beta or EA is very subjective and abstract. But there should be also some limitations to this.

 

Razbam is a good example where M2K still has 3 years old bugs or not implemeted features which are in the training missions even. At the same time they have harrier in even worst state and now mig-19. While they state it is different teams involved, this is not true as obviously Zeus is coding them all.

 

I believe all major features and bugs should be fixed in the current modules before a new project is started and this is fair to be asked for.

 

From ED/Belsimtek side, there are countless of bugs which also are there for years and not payed attention for, I don't want to go for examples now, but checking each modul forum sections will show it. While all the resources are focused on the Hornet for quite long time already and nothing else has been touched pretty much.

 

While I do accept their model, I believe they can do a bit better with handling bugs and EA states. And pay more attention to forum bug reports, give more information when something is expected to be fixed or checked. As now many reported bugs in multiple threads are just ignored and this is a bit frustrating.

 

 

+1

Exactly !!

[Low Blow]

I'm happy to pay full price for Early Access if the devs are responsive and proactive during the EA period. Without naming names, recently there has been one very high profile dev who in my opinion has dropped the ball in this area and is losing the trust of me and many of the people I fly with for that particular module.

 

When they then release a new module without having proactively addressed their customer concerns or even communicating simple acknowledgement of a serious issue with a prior EA module this does not inspire wallet-opening confidence.

 

In other words, why should I pay full price if you won't fix glaring and widely acknowledged problems with your EA module? Not even so much as a satisfactory response to issues raised by MANY customers regarding the same issue. In what other line of work is that acceptable? Put another way, early backers of this particular module got slapped in the face. They paid the highest price and had to tolerate being literally ignored. Yet someone who comes along a year and a half after release pays half price and doesn't have to deal with any of that.

 

I agree, put an 18 month time limit on EA status. If they can't pull it out of EA by then then they shouldn't be allowed to release more EA modules.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Low Blow

[Emmy]

Open Beta =/= Early Access

 

One is a test bed for the overall system (and I get that)

The other has become a license to sell digital Snake Oil and that needs to stop.

[SharpeXB]

I feel the exact opposite way. If a developer makes the majority of its money on its products in early access or even at launch lets say, then it's in their interest profit wise to keep releasing as many products as fast as possible. Waiting 5 or 7 years to release a module one at a time is not a financially viable or sustainable business policy.

I’m not trying to be negative with my statement. I really just don’t feel it’s a good use of my time and money buying products that aren’t complete. I have plenty of stuff to keep me busy in DCS. I can wait for the finished products. Learning the modern aircraft is quite difficult and time consuming enough when they’re finished let alone when a lot of it isn’t working.

The devs take so long to complete modules precisely because they have no real incentive to finish. If Early Access is seen as a way to help speed the development, it’s not working.

[Harlikwin]

While I think DCS is a developing ecosystem, so things might break and bugs need to be fixed I basically look at a complete module as one with all of the functionality working (or as much as the Dev promised and can do). And I think the Devs need to keep support going for their existing modules within the broader DCS ecosystem. I look at alot of the older BST modules as being the gold standard here, the Mig15/saber/F5 are all good/complete and being periodically updated/fixed as it goes on.

 

I also think that EA has been variously abused by several 3rd party Devs. I'm looking at the dumpster fire that the Harrier has become as the prime example but there are others (the infamous gazelle FM). But as a counter point I look at the F18 and the Viggen modules as a better example of what EA should be, i.e. regular updates, features added bugs fixed etc. And while I'd like EA modules to get finished quickly I'm also a realist and if it takes 1.5 years instead of 1 because of whatever reasons thats ok. But something thats in EA for 3-4 years, at that point I think EA needs to intervene somehow. I think with each EA module there is a roadmap, of what will be added and an estimate of when upon first release and a way of tracking those promised features.

 

I actually wonder if the Mig19 being released as "complete" might be an indication of Razbam being on double secret probation and not allowed new EA modules or something like that.

 

I think that EA should probably be limited on a per company basis, You get 1-2 EA modules (could be more based on company size or number of already finished modules), and if you have something in EA it needs to get decent quarterly updates or some criteria like that which are communicated to the customers. I.e. for Q1 we will try to implement features A,B,C,D and stretch goals of E,F,G. And given what development is, its understood that maybe you end up with A, C, D, and F. But then B becomes the key feature to get done in Q2. This basically prevents over promising and under-delivering to some extent. I'm not sure what is done if non-strech goals are regularly missed, maybe refunds if people want them?

 

Anyhow, my .02...

[Horns]

I'm quite new to DCS (started around autumn 2018 ), but I have yet around 200 in game hours and I own some modules / maps. (So I've spend enough money to have a voice, and also spent enough time to know what the topic is about)

 

Comeing from other games, the handling of the early access / beta states of modules and maps is quite uncomfortable to me.

It feels for me, that it becomes a bigger and bigger problem that modules or maps won't get finished, stay in early access over years etc...

I can understand that everyone would like to have their hands on a new product as fast as possible, and I can also understand that features (like weapons, as it is done at the moment with the F-18 ) can be added trough that time.

But on the other hand, there are paying customers who paid money for a module which will probably never finished because the developers already head over to the next one (understandable, bug fixing does not generate money, a new module does).

 

So, I'm pointing at you Eagle Dynamics:

Aren't you afraid that this will mess up the whole DCS system over short or long? That people get more and more angry and will leave?

There are a lot of new people incoming because of the Tomcat and the Hornet, so the playerbase is rising. There will be even more comeing with the F16 being released.

 

I would suggest an easy rule:

Once a module / map is released for purchase / integrated functionaly into DCS, there should be a time period of one year for early access.

If it stays longer in early access, customers have the choice to give the module back and get a full refund, or stay with it.

Also the have to specify what will be modelled and what not before the module can be purchased.

This would force the devs to finish their products, or at least deliver an acceptable product during a specified timeframe. And every customer knows what he can expect.

 

Personaly, I can't believe that the actual situation is accepted by the playerbase.

Sorry, but as a "new" DCS player I have no understanding for letting modules / maps unfinished over years, but already heading over / releasing new modules / maps.

 

What do you guys think?

Is there some action needed? Is it fine for you all the way it is now? Do you think the situation will be getting better or worse?

I'm sure many will say that I see that topic far too serious, but for those ones I can only say that I think they are seeing it far to unserious...

Please understand that this rule will not see consumers get the same product faster, you will just get lower quality modules, because developers will aim for a much lower level. That is because they will aim for whatever level they are sure they can complete in the allotted time, advertize it as having those features and then declare it "complete" and avoid further work (beyond bugfixes due to engine updates) lest that be viewed as evidence that the module was not actually finished within the required timeframe.

 

The Viggen is a great example. I learned that beginning to end over a year ago, and it was well and truly at a state that Heatblur could have asserted was "finished" in order to meet a deadline. Instead, HB kept the EA tag because they still wanted to come back and add a little more before deeming it "complete". That may not have happened if they were concerned about justifying it was already "complete".

Edited February 2, 2019 by Horns
Added "advertize it as having those features"

[Harlikwin]

The Viggen is a great example. I learned that beginning to end over a year ago, and it was well and truly at a state that Heatblur could have asserted was "finished" in order to meet a deadline. Instead, HB kept the EA tag because they still wanted to come back and add a little more before deeming it "complete". That may not have happened if they were concerned about justifying it was already "complete".

 

I don't mind the tag of EA. Or feature incomplete. I do think there needs to be a vaguely realistic timline at the release when to expect functionality X. In the case of the Viggen I understand that the ground mapping radar took a fairly long while to get done. Given its role, I'd say that was a core functionality and should have had high priority.

 

At a minimum, I'd say a EA module needs to have at the start, steam gauges, basic switchology working (startup/shutoff,comms, some sort of basic nav), A 1.0 version of the FM (an ok one). And be capable of the "basic" mission of the aircraft.

 

For example

 

For the F14 for example, basic mission was fleet air defense, so it needs the AWG9, phoenix, aim7, aim 9, and gun functionality. A/G is nice but can be added later. And for the most part it looks like it will have all that at release.

 

For the Harrier: its main mission was precision Strike/CAS. 1+ year later, you can't use basic CCRP auto bombing modes for dumb bomb delivery. The ARBS, a core component may or may not even be modled accurately and the developer may not even intend to do it. Those are major issues. And stuff that should have worked on day 1. Lmav's and IR mavs, ok those sort-of work but could have been added later. Same for the Sidearm. And various folks have open questions on the FM.

 

For the mig21. Many years later... People still wonder about which version of the FM was right, each version was deemed accurate by their SME. The ASP (gunsight) doesn't work like IRL which given its major functionality as an interceptor/fighter is a pretty major issue.

 

I mean I get it, some things are hard to model like its IRL counterpart. But i think the Devs need to basically figure out apriori if they can actually model the core system in DCS or not. And if not, then don't do the plane. I'm a lot less bothered by the fact that the harrier DMT can't be slaved to the sidewinder seeker than I am by the fact I can't deliver dumb bombs with a high degree of accuracy. A/A was never a "core" mission of the AV8BNA, yes it could do it in a pich, but it was always a strike aircraft, not a dogfighter.

[SharpeXB]

I also think that EA has been variously abused by several 3rd party Devs.

 

...

 

I think that EA should probably be limited on a per company basis

There’s an easy solution for this. Don’t purchase EA modules!

And ED should probably abolish the whole practice. It just means 3rd parties can release unfinished projects and then go belly up, take the money and run. It’s just being a smart customer in any business to never pay for something until it’s finished. Like you wouldn’t pay a house painter before they finish painting your house would you?

I used to think I was helping to further the development by funding these things early on. Then I realized I was in fact taking away any incentive for the product to be finished. So I have stopped buying anything until it’s finished EA

[Harlikwin]

There’s an easy solution for this. Don’t purchase EA modules!

And ED should probably abolish the whole practice. It just means 3rd parties can release unfinished projects and then go belly up, take the money and run. It’s just being a smart customer in any business to never pay for something until it’s finished. Like you wouldn’t pay a house painter before they finish painting your house would you?

I used to think I was helping to further the development by funding these things early on. Then I realized I was in fact taking away any incentive for the product to be finished. So I have stopped buying anything until it’s finished EA

 

Yup I get it. But at the same time if 3 guys buy the EA plane, it will probably never get done. Honestly I view EA as a "cry for help" hey guys we got the plane like XX% finished but we need to pay our coders please buy our half finished plane so we can finish it. At this point I own say 2/3rds of the modules and I mainly find the "finished" ones most to my liking, mainly because if something doesn't work its most likely a "me" problem. But the "finished" modules are a real limited plane set. And in that case and I can live with some bugs or missing functionality. For example I honestly have 0 issues with F18 being EA, I can work with the way its being done and updated and I have faith it will be done at some point soon.

 

The Harrier is a major counterexample, lack of updates, lack of Dev communication etc, its a currently a dumpster fire. I also have no problem buying the F14 as EA, I have faith HB will make it work. At this point I'm not buying another razbam module until they show me they are serious about fixing/finishing the harrier, and believe me I want to buy the mig19 and REALLY want to buy the 23 because I like flying red air. But I won't, because they pooched the harrier so badly. The mig 21 is something in between, it mostly works, but things aren't quite right (ASP). I'm not gonna bash them on the framerate thing, because they are a) fixing it b) it was released for DCS 1.XX not 2.xx and its nice of them to fix it. And at the end of the day I will support them by buying their next actual combat plane (sorry guys no love for the acrobatics here).

 

Also, I think ED needs to have a basic set of criteria and contracts for 3rd party devs doing EA so its not abused. And I also think ED needs to do some support of adding functionality to the core engine.

<3rd party dev> We want to do plane X, but its core system/functionaliy/mission (ARBS, AWG9, APG77 , GCI logic, A FLIR system that doesn't suck balls, whatever) is either really hard or impossible to do in your engine.

<ED> Yeah, ok, we will work with you to fix that in the engine so you can actually implement it instead of doing a clever but cheezedick hack to make it work.

<3rd party dev> Thanks, the community would like that.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Harlikwin