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

[Nealius]

Public bug tracking doesn't require timeframes. Heatblur and Razbam both have public bug trackers that just give simple status updates like "high/low/med priority," "cannot reproduce," "fixed in dev build," etc. Something like that would be nice.

 

Though given DCS is much wider than just an aircraft that might end up being a massive list in the bug tracker.

[MonnieRock]

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.

 

In my opinion, people are not asking for "Timelines" they are asking for open communication about development progress being made on bugs in a public accessed tracker.

 

People submitting reports and using open beta are, beta testers. I feel they would get a sense of satisfaction to see all the hard work, frustrations, testing, making a difference as they witness the progress. Which in turn, will get you better , more precise, enthusiastic bug reports with the data you need like, tracks and logs, because they see the difference being made

 

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.

 

I disagree. If people are not "blind" to what is going on, they will be more compassionate towards the workload the development team is tasked with thus, will create a calmer, patient community.

 

Using your example, if people see progress being made on multiple items, bugs, One would think they would be willing to accept that there is a queue and the list is moving. Their "passionate" bug might not be at the top but, they will see it moving up the list as multiple other items are being worked on and completed.

 

What would you rather be if you can not have perfect vision? A) Totally blind B) Vision in only one eye

 

I think the community is asking for B

 

 

Happy Simming,

Monnie

Edited August 28, 2019 by MonnieRock

[DucS2r]

When I post comments like this they usually get deleted. But I think Wags was genuinely excited about what he and others thought was a VR breakthrough and shared it. He shouldn’t have, and in a conservative company, the communications department would have stopped it. I guess I am willing to live with mistakes and keep our user relationship with people like Wags less formal, and not like the stockholder announcements I get from Microsoft. But the statement Ninelines made in post 2, #2 should have been made a long time ago. It would have smoothed things over with we users and avoided a lot of annoyance and mistrust. So, communication with DCS is usually good, especially in the last three months or so, IMHO, but it was a mistake to keep is in the dark about what was going on with the VR improvement.

[NineLine]

All that is and can be accomplished through the forums. We have some standout people making bug reports, and I make sure to thank them each time I am able to report it for them, and I am sure they can see the results in the changelogs. Another place to look won't really change that.

 

And to say people are not asking for timelines just not realistic. We get asked daily about timelines on most everything, cows included.

 

In my opinion, people are not asking for "Timelines" they are asking for open communication about development progress being made on bugs in a public accessed tracker.

 

People submitting reports and using open beta are, beta testers. I feel they would get a sense of satisfaction to see all the hard work, frustrations, testing, making a difference as they witness the progress. Which in turn, will get you better , more precise, enthusiastic bug reports with the data you need like, tracks and logs, because they see the difference being made

 

 

 

I disagree. If people are not "blind" to what is going on, they will be more compassionate towards the workload the development team is tasked with thus, will create a calmer, patient community.

 

Using your example, if people see progress being made on multiple items, bugs, One would think they would be willing to accept that there is a queue and the list is moving. Their "passionate" bug might not be at the top but, they will see it moving up the list as multiple other items are being worked on and completed.

 

What would you rather be if you can not have perfect vision? A) Totally blind B) Vision in only one eye

 

I think the community is asking for B

 

 

Happy Simming,

Monnie

[NineLine]

When I post comments like this they usually get deleted. But I think Wags was genuinely excited about what he and others thought was a VR breakthrough and shared it. He shouldn’t have, and in a conservative company, the communications department would have stopped it. I guess I am willing to live with mistakes and keep our user relationship with people like Wags less formal, and not like the stockholder announcements I get from Microsoft. But the statement Ninelines made in post 2, #2 should have been made a long time ago. It would have smoothed things over with we users and avoided a lot of annoyance and mistrust. So, communication with DCS is usually good, especially in the last three months or so, IMHO, but it was a mistake to keep is in the dark about what was going on with the VR improvement.

 

Threads get deleted based on their delivery and where and how they are posted, if someone posts the same thing in a week or two, it could very well get deleted.

 

You are judging ED on communication based on one feature/issue, the VR improvements, I would hardly call users being in the dark, we have had much information on a great many things, and no one is being kept in the dark on the VR improvements, simply there is nothing to report.

 

I want to make sure that we all understand as well that this is a two-way street. And why something like a bug tracking system probably wouldn't be helpful here. Making blanket statements about ED communications based on one issue feels really unfair. An example of how the community can get hyper-focused on an issue and forget the great things going on.

[Sheriff BurneR]

Lol, stop crying go flying...:joystick::pilotfly::megalol:

[BoneDust]

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.

 

Huge disappointment after the hype, but the issue is very little is said after other then it didn't transition well into the update there's been little else said.

 

Its a difficult balance for ED. I think most folks understand that. Personally, I don't want anything new added to the sim yet. I'd like to the baseline stuff bug free, and then new things added.

[msalama]

Just 2 things.

 

1) I'd like to see EA modules completed in a more timely manner. Some don't seem to get any dev time at all after release.

 

2) Yah, they just censor all criticism and ban folks for presenting it? BS. And proven as such by this very thread.

[David OC]

Just 2 things.

 

1) I'd like to see EA modules completed in a more timely manner. Some don't seem to get any dev time at all after release.

 

2) Yah, they just censor all criticism and ban folks for presenting it? BS. And proven as such by this very thread.

 

2. Don't get it...?

 

If that was the case than why is this very thread still open?

 

If your going to spam threads because your one little problem that you think is more important than all others and be disrespectful about it, well yes. Those will be deleted.

[msalama]

No, I said the claims of ED doing so are BS because of threads like this existing. Don't know if I expressed myself badly or what, but that was what I meant.

[Mars Exulte]

Well, it's about right on time. Every two weeks somebody pops up writing a long missive how to fix the company, fix the game, quadruple their income, cure erectile dysfunction, and quit smoking if they'll only ''insert air guitar solution''. I hope these guys get picked up by corporations everywhere. If we can get even a couple of them in positions of authority I'm pretty sure they can cure cancer and solve the global economic crisis.

[The_Pharoah]

ummm all this is great but.....where's my COOP cockpit for the DCS Huey? That product was released in 2013. Thats 6 years ago. I like the fact we have a hornet plus all the additional modules etc however I paid for a Huey which was promised to include COOP cockpits so I could share flying with a mate (or anyone else).

 

Has it come out and I've just missed it?

[Nealius]

Once again a thread on these forums gets derailed. Shocking.

 

The irony of all this is how OP commented on his previous thread getting derailed by 80 pages.

[Mars Exulte]

Once again a thread on these forums gets derailed. Shocking.

 

The irony of all this is how OP commented on his previous thread getting derailed by 80 pages.

 

Because it's been concluded, more or less. OP wrote long letter. Nineline wrote long letter in response. Little back and forth ensues. Nine said he'd try to get some info on specific topics and tried to assuage concerns.

 

What else is there to be said? For him to repeat the same things to every person that comes in here bitching? For Wags to do that? It's not their fault if half the people coming in here can't read.

 

 

@Cylon

Companies pay for useful feedback, not ''the senseless horde'' regurgitating the same predictable complaints ad infinitum.

[SonofEil]

Re: Missiles.

It isn't mentioned often in these forums but you can frequently hear the answer if you listen to outside developer interviews.

ED has a commercial (non-consumer) arm that we aren't privy to, focused on manufacturer/government/military contracts. Each of those contracts are wrapped in reams of stipulations regarding what can and can not be released on the consumer side (DCS World). This is an oversimplified example, but even if there is a library of open source performance data available on, say, the AMMRAM, if the USAF believes that ED's consumer side edges too close to real world performance, ED is going to neuter that performance to maintain their business relationships. And because there are stacks of NDA's preventing ED from even acknowledging those relationships exist, we're stuck in the same missile purgatory we've been in for years. They literally aren't allowed to tell us why they haven't implemented any of the corrections in the thousands of pages of verified documents on missile guidance and performance the community has thrown their direction in the last decade.

In short, it's the same thing preventing ED from simulating full fidelity Russian fighters. It's the same reason there are acknowledged procedural and performance discrepancies between the real and simulated A-10 and F-18. It's the same reason the M61 still has a spread worse than a sawed-off shotgun (when the fix is as easy as changing two digits in a config file).

Simply, ED isn't allowed to make aspects of the sim too real.

(This isn't just conspiracy theory. ED has hinted at this many times over the years, occasionally in these forums but it's most openly acknowledged in media interviews. I also used to work on military contracts for a major avionics manufacturer and saw similar situations on a near daily basis.)

Edited August 28, 2019 by SonofEil

[Worg]

Hello.

 

ED's work on the technical side must be enormous.

I do not want an Ace Combat bis, round to launch missiles, cross to accelerate and square for an air-to-air refueling .....

 

ED offers us a combat simulator.

Ok it is not perfect, but what simulator is perfect?

 

It takes work.

We would like to have the map Syria <3 The super planes <3

 

I am French, the Rafales attack Daesh positions almost every week, I can tell you that the map Syria I wait with great impatience because I like to reproduce the real things in the simulator.

(without the burst on the other hand :()

 

Yet I understand that ED may have other things to manage, even if it is a third party developer who manages this card.

 

I also know that we are always in the month of August, and that we are therefore in vacation period, so things are progressing less quickly, so less important communications.

I see that nineline doing is possible to keep us always informed of the news they can give.

 

I think that by mid-September or early October, things will move faster.

 

I like this community, there are Americans, Germans, French, English .... I can not name them all.

Yet the passion for this simulator and aviation in general we gather and I love it :)

When I see over my home two burst training I'm like a child :)

 

ED has objectives, maybe even surprises to propose to us in a few weeks - months.

 

Let's try to be patient, the news will arrive quickly, I'm sure.

 

(Sorry, my Englishman must not be perfect)

 

Good flight to all;)

[Nealius]

Because it's been concluded, more or less. OP wrote long letter. Nineline wrote long letter in response. Little back and forth ensues. Nine said he'd try to get some info on specific topics and tried to assuage concerns.

 

What else is there to be said? For him to repeat the same things to every person that comes in here bitching? For Wags to do that? It's not their fault if half the people coming in here can't read.

 

 

@Cylon

Companies pay for useful feedback, not ''the senseless horde'' regurgitating the same predictable complaints ad infinitum.

 

Not everyone who comments on this thread is "bitching." Accusing everyone of complaining is apparently your go-to excuse for disrupting every thread you post in.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Nealius

[Kid18120]

I'm typing this reply after reading through the first 2 posts only.

I'm just going to throw it in here for the sake of making a point ( @NineLine ).

About the part where you say

 

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.

 

This is perfectly undestandable and i think everyone here in the community understands it.

The problem is that a lot of data is not available (at least not with actual numbers and graphs) especially when it comes to weaponry still being used and developed. As such, when info is not available i believe ED should "estimate" those missing parts rather than not having it at all. If you don't have actual flight data for a LOFT profile after firing an AIM-7 for example, it would be much better to have an estimated simulation of it rather than just having the missile fly straight like it has been untill the recent rework for the Hornet.

[msalama]

Not everyone who comments on this thread is "bitching."

 

He never said they are. He said "every person THAT comes in here bitching".

 

But if you're looking for complaints here's one. For crying out loud, give us a German ATC / ground crew for DCS WW2! Kills the immersion quite totally having to communicate in American English (or Russian) when you're flying Axis :huh:

[NineLine]

ummm all this is great but.....where's my COOP cockpit for the DCS Huey? That product was released in 2013. Thats 6 years ago. I like the fact we have a hornet plus all the additional modules etc however I paid for a Huey which was promised to include COOP cockpits so I could share flying with a mate (or anyone else).

 

Has it come out and I've just missed it?

 

It was never promised as a feature for release, it was something BST wanted to do, but were having technical challenges with the shared controls. It is still something they want to do, even now being merged back with ED, but to be clear, there is no "promised" timeline on that. So once again, we cant throw around the word "promised" so much, when I don't think it was ever used, even though it is still our intent to work on making it happen at some point.

[Mars Exulte]

I'm not going to argue with you on that lol. There is useful feedback though, to say there isn't is unreasonable. It's just gets buried sometimes.

 

Yeah, I know. There is useful feedback, there are innocent requests, too. But a lot of times it comes off as angst and frustration from unrealisitic expectations. I have a laundry list of complaints myself, I periodically post some of them, but I don't expect 1 on 1 time from the devs when I do it, especially if it's something common knowledge that's frequently complained about. I just file my peeve and then move on. We're all passionate (good) but imo the gamer tendency to 'hyper focus', as it was put, is really detrimental.

 

@Nealius

Not agreeing or jumping on every bandwagon is not ''disruptive''. This is an internet forum. Dissenting opinions should be expected. If you want to avoid that, the format you're looking for is a ''read only blog''.

[Shimmergloom667]

Its a difficult balance for ED. I think most folks understand that. Personally, I don't want anything new added to the sim yet. I'd like to the baseline stuff bug free, and then new things added.

 

Well, like NineLine said: it is a living company and a living game, and at the end of the day, someone needs to pay the bills to keep the power on in the office and put something to eat on the table.

 

Fixing bugs doesn't do that, in the current business model. New modules do. So they have to do both at once, there is just no way around that fact.

 

I, personally, am willing to accept that stuff will always be borked and broken in some way or another, unless anything changes about said situation. I am working in software development mysself, so to me that is a non-issue.

 

Also, I don't run a business myself, so I wouldn't suggest any other business model to them, anyway - but my gut says, that any other business model, with say "monthly costs" or similar will cause even more problems.

[Grimes]

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.

 

To be fair you are competing with any other game that shares overlapping interests of the "simulation" sub-genre that can take customers time and money away from you. It could be other flight sims, racing sims, ship sims, launching frog people into space with more boosters, or whatever else. Simply because any given game doesn't strive for 100% of another game, doesn't automatically invalidate any comparison between the two. As long as a reasonable connection can be made it should be allowed. In essence such thinking would disallow comparisons between an RTS that has 2 factions and an RTS that has 3 because it requires totally different balancing. Thats where I often take issue at the mindset and rule because it is often used as a Godwin's Law equivalent and deletes the post in the entirety.

 

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.

 

Two things.

1. There is not a lot of aspects of DCS that can be easily replicated by the end user, so stuff like rocket damage generally has some comparison to what unguided rockets do in other games because most of us can't wheel the ole A-10 out of the barn and fire at some old Soviet equipment. Not to mention it is a bit more natural to draw comparisons between video game 1 and video game 2 because they are both, you guessed it, video games. Like it or not but whenever the CV module comes out people will draw comparisons to a mainstream FPS that had a carrier in a level. Not because DCS and it had similar scale or simulation, but because it is a similar enough experience and aesthetic to warrant a comparison.

 

2. Wishing DCS did something better just like how game X does it, is precisely that, a wish. Everyone is going to value the quality and relevance of the wish to DCS differently anyway. There should be little harm in making wishes and referencing other games. It should be viewed as, "how could it apply to DCS?" instead of "ooooh yeah you mentioned another video game, I'm just gonna delete the post."

 

I think it should only ever be considered a problem when used in the context of, "well game X does feature Y, so why can't DCS do it better or as good?" And thats the entirety of it. If they added more info, how that improvement would make this better in DCS, or pointed out bugs in how bugs in DCS currently negatively impact it; then I think it should be fair game and fully allowed. Ultimately beating around the bush to vaguely mention the mere existence of other games provides for a negative experience impacting a number of areas.

[YorZor]

It was never promised as a feature for release, it was something BST wanted to do, but were having technical challenges with the shared controls. It is still something they want to do, even now being merged back with ED, but to be clear, there is no "promised" timeline on that. So once again, we cant throw around the word "promised" so much, when I don't think it was ever used, even though it is still our intent to work on making it happen at some point.

 

 

So we should view product features as an unclear list of things we might expect at some time in the future. I wonder what will happen with the hornet and viper then and their features. TWS 2052?

 

But I've only been waiting 10yrs+ for you guys to figure out the missiles so maybe never?

 

DCS: UH-1H Huey

 

DUXFORD, UK, April 30th, 2013 – The Fighter Collection and Belsimtek now offer "DCS: UH-1H Huey" as a digital download pre-purchase for $49.99. Pre-purchase also provides access to pre-release Beta versions of the title.

The UH-1 Huey is one of the most iconic and recognizable helicopters in the world. Having served extensively as a transport and armed combat support helicopter in the Vietnam War, the Huey continues to perform a wide variety of military and civilian missions around the world today.

"DCS: UH-1H Huey" will feature the same incredible level of modelling detail as the existing Ka-50 Black Shark, A-10C Warthog and P-51D Mustang DCS aircraft and it will be online compatible with them. Working in close partnership with actual UH-1H operators and experts, The Fighter Collection and Belsimtek have leveraged their unique skills and experience to provide the most dynamic and true to life conventional helicopter experience available on the PC.

Key Features of "DCS: UH-1H Huey" include:

• Unmatched flight physics providing the most realistic and dynamic conventional helicopter experience on the PC.
  
• Multiple player positions, including pilot, co-pilot, and door gunner.
  
• Accurate and highly detailed 3D cockpit featuring six-degrees-of-freedom technology.
  
• Interactive cockpit controls that allow you to operate the systems using the mouse.
  
• Highly detailed UH-1H external 3D model, liveries, and weapons.
  
• Realistic modelling of the UH-1H instruments, weapons, engine, radios, fuel, electrical, and hydraulic systems.
  
• Accurate and engaging audio environment based on actual UH-1H sound recordings.
  
• Developed in close cooperation with real UH-1H operators.
  
• Missions that include transport and combat support operations.
  
• Training that includes interactive and video lessons.
  
• Multiplayer coop mode for crew members of the same helicopter under development for a later update.
  

Edited August 28, 2019 by YorZor

[Kaos]

Hey Nine_Line

You have the patience of 100 saints!!!!

To paraphrase an earlier post, GUYS stop whining and go fly!

Thanks for answering the questions at hand and I will echo yet another post by reiterating that this game/simulation is by no means perfect (sometimes downright frustrating) but it's the closest most of your customers will EVER get to hurtling around in some of the most sophisticated and awesome military aircraft the world has ever seen and for that I sincerely thank You, Wags and the whole ED team!!!

SALUTE!!

Edited August 28, 2019 by Kaos