Jump to content

Where is our updates? (Mini Rant)


PanicMan15
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would like to echo those sentiments that aircraft systems, flight model and performance should ALWAYS be completed first.

 

I would go as far to say - that no middle should be released into EA until it is a “production ready” aircraft.

 

Specific weapon systems, can be added over time - as is practise in real life.

Taking this approach resulted in an absolute fiasco for many Hornet users. The complaining was so bad they changed priorities for the Viper, with the introduction that resulted. Remember the constant complaints about the lack of AMRAAM? TWS? TGP? IFF? The constant complains "Why are you adding waypoints to the navigation system? we still only have dumb bombs!" "Why are you working on a fuel page? We need a TGP!"

 

I agree with you of course, weapons can be added later. But the same complaints would have been heard. "Why are you fixing ground effect? I don't care about ground effect, where is the A2G Radar?" "Why are you fixing adverse yaw? We need AIM-9X!"

 

I guess what I'm saying is you can't please everybody, and what you (and I) would argue are basic parts of the airplane, for others they aren't important. They want a flying computer that shoots computers strapped to bombs and rockets.... they don't really care about how it takes off or lands.. or turns...:music_whistling:


Edited by randomTOTEN
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thats the complaint being made, its not that we arent getting updates, its that ED has their priorities wrong with what they are updating. I fully understand if work is being done on it, but releasing a priority list where the 2 year old bug fix is lower than new features that dont contribute to even flying the aircraft seems very very wrong.

 

You have to realize that what you consider a high priority doesn't necessarily reflect what the community as a whole considers to be a high priority. As you say yourself, some of the fixes you consider top priority are behind "needless features" in the community priority list. ED has thousands of customers to try to keep happy, other customers priories being different from your own is not cause to be upset at ED. I, for one, would prefer to see weapons and sensor improvements more than a LOD control surface animation fix which affects my game play far less than, say, radar FACQ functionality.

 

Also, the priority work items on the Hornet as a whole may not match up with how developers work internally at ED. It wouldn't surprise me if the programmers who work on the flight model are totally separate from the programmers who work on weapons or on sensors. Should a programmer who's in the middle of development on a new weapon be pulled off that project to help out with flight model updates for the aircraft if they have no experience in flight model programming? Would that even speed the process up? I'm not a computer programmer and I've never worked on a computer game, so I don't really know what I'm talking about, but ED is a company with several hundred employees and I'd guess setting priorities is a bit more complicated than telling everyone "work on this first."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You have to realize that what you consider a high priority doesn't necessarily reflect what the community as a whole considers to be a high priority. As you say yourself, some of the fixes you consider top priority are behind "needless features" in the community priority list. ED has thousands of customers to try to keep happy, other customers priories being different from your own is not cause to be upset at ED. I, for one, would prefer to see weapons and sensor improvements more than a LOD control surface animation fix which affects my game play far less than, say, radar FACQ functionality.

 

Also, the priority work items on the Hornet as a whole may not match up with how developers work internally at ED. It wouldn't surprise me if the programmers who work on the flight model are totally separate from the programmers who work on weapons or on sensors. Should a programmer who's in the middle of development on a new weapon be pulled off that project to help out with flight model updates for the aircraft if they have no experience in flight model programming? Would that even speed the process up? I'm not a computer programmer and I've never worked on a computer game, so I don't really know what I'm talking about, but ED is a company with several hundred employees and I'd guess setting priorities is a bit more complicated than telling everyone "work on this first."

 

 

Speaking of programmer(s). I wonder if the coders that started the Hornet project are the same as the ones currently working on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe the flight model bugs in question were recently voted the TOP priority for fixes, by the community themselves, right?

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...s-roadmap-2020

You are very much correct. To say that the majority vote of the community doesn't reflect the community as a whole is contradicting. The users of the Hornet have voted that fixing the Hornet's day 1 bugs and making the flight model correct is the top priority, and looking at this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...updates/page10, you can see that posted 2 months after the survey was taken, the #1 user vote is #6 on ED's priority list. Like OP said, it is getting very frustrating and annoying being shown results of what we want fixed not being fixed and sort of being put as a side project. And yes, I think you are also right about having multiple teams working on separate projects, but to counter your point about someone working on missiles and bombs, we're talking about a flight sim here. Everything has flight mechanics, even the missiles, so to say that a programmer that works on weapons doesn't know programming of flight models is overlooking arguably the hardest part of their job.

 

I have tried to back up everything I'm saying with links to references (NATOPS manual, survey, and Gripes323's analysis) in the attempt to help ED correct their mistakes. I mean, I'm complaining that they have been offered public information that can be translated in-game, with lots of tweaking and work of course, but that's their job. That's why we pay for the module, because we expect a high quality, true to life reflection of the flight model, not something that is put together and hits a few parameters of capability just to dogfight or drop bombs. We want a full model that acts according to the real one in almost every circumstance, and that is reflected by the majority vote in that survey.

 

Edit: I know that these flight model changes don't pertain to dropping bombs and or radar functionality, but do you not think its crucial to have a correct flight model of how the plane is actually supposed to behave before getting addon features? I mean, I want the ATFLIR pod and AG radar just as much as anyone else, but its hard to build a building on a wobbly foundation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To say that the majority vote of the community doesn't reflect the community as a whole is contradicting.

Sorry; I misinterpreted your comment with regards to placement at #6 and #17 on the priority list and, stupidly, did not go and check the community survey thread to confirm what I was commenting on.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, people need to freaking chill up with the bitching and whining. I joined DCS or should i say, back then, A-10C Warthog in 2009, at an era there was Blackshark servers and A-10C servers, that's it, then they started by merging both Games together, we could Fly A-10c and come across some KA-50's, then, DCS World seen birth, then others Aircraft seen birth, then we discovered DCS World 1.5, wow that was a change, not to mentionned 2.5, then, ED gave permssions to third party developpers, and then tons of new modules seen the day. So many changes, so many new adition to bring us Simers notch up to realism (Wing Tip Vortices, Turbulence, Vapors etc..etc) list is long, Tendem Aircrafts, though yeah sorta buggy some times.

 

So, unless of crying and bitching, just freaking be thankful and greatful to ED to bring this all along these passed years, if so, us, Military aircraft lovers, would stil be flying in crappy FSX with ugly looking and boring aircraft with stupid not modeled collision and doing mid air refluling on a tanker but imaginating an invisible floating bubble around the drogue basket. Or shooting down targets with some packs that sorta explodes etc....

 

Back then yes games weren't as buggy, but, game weren't launched on Early Access, Open Beta weren't much offered to public, you wanted something, you had to wait until it reaches the shelves in stores. You want no buggy games, simple, don't grab Early Acess Stuff, don't play games that have constant evolution in or changes or addition modules etc.. Grab a Console, and wait til games reaches the Shelve, then, yes, you might have less and less bugs issues.

 

So let's keep bitching and whining, and maybe, ED will get fed up, stop supporting their product or release stuff years after it's done it's developpement so we don't get any bugs, or simply start treating DCS as a stactic not eveolving Sim World.

 

So next time you bitch, or any others, sit down, lok back, think about what all that had happened and evolved in DCS / ED World, in less than 11 years, and maybe, using your head, you might try to understand al the hard work done to get there.

 

That's my own opinion, BTW you want almost no nug stuff, grab A-10c Warthog or Blackshark or any crap non-clickable cockpit from FC3 and enjoy them, they are really old and pretty much finiched and almost bug free, though make sure not to use any new implemented stuff. ;)

 

 

And next time you wish for something in your own order, your own little update, remember, there is maybe thousands of people in this community, with each having their own favorites modules, their own little whish list, their own little stuff they want fix, so take for exemple 200 people, having at least 2-3 item each different as priority, makes the math at how ED can please everyone at the same time, we just gotta stop being selfish and all wish our own little things. Gaming community got so much whiners and bitching since we can get games by a simple Download button, we sit in our confortable computer chair, after a hard day of work, or some of you guys after a day at school, and all we gotta do is press a freaking button that says PLAY or DOWNLOAD, while on the otehr side of the fence, those, are the ones who works their ass off on the day, and we dare whining at them like frustrated bitches and some even dare insulting them that they cannot work properly etc,, and have freaking no clue what developping a game involves. Always easy to bitch and criticise when not in the others shoes.

 

Sorry had to say something about this, cuz each time i waste my time looking at update news on FB all i get to read is people bitching, asking their own little world bug fixes, thinking about their own little belly button.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all whine if updates don't come fast enough but y'all also when updates get released buggy. Speed comes at the expense of quality and vice versa.

 

+1 i was going to same the same thing. i think it is better for the devs to take their time. the weekly patch releases were a logistical fiasco. not blaming anyone. just reality of a venture that is DCS cannot keep everyone happy.

AKA_SilverDevil AKA Forums My YouTube

==============================================================

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. Mark Twain

==============================================================

Alienware Aurora R12, 2TB M.2 PCIe SSD, RTX 3090 24GB , i9 11900KF, 128GB Quad Channel DDR4 XMP at 3400MHz, Dell AW3420DW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm understanding correctly, the issue isn't so much the amount of time updates take, but the fact that ED seems to be applying a different priority list to these updates, after asking their customers how things should be prioritized and then claiming they were going to do that.

 

The Hornet flight model is a great example - they asked how they should prioritize things and received good data... then ignored it. They further stated that the flight model update would be out... several updates ago. The upshot is, the broken ground effect specifically significantly impacts the way that one flagship module - the Hornet - interacts with another flagship module - the Supercarrier. Pass grading is broken because of the spurios AoA reduction just before touchdown.

 

Is ED legally required to honor customer requests or provide accurate estimates of bug fixes? Absolutely not. Are they ethically *required* to do so? Not really... but at some point, there's a question of what's good business practice. Requesting data from your customers and then ignoring it is probably not great practice, and does not encourage participation in future data collection. Missing previously issued release estimates for long-standing bug fixes without any explanation or updated estimate? Probably not great practice either. Sure, things crop up and release dates slide, we all know that... but a little transparency / explanation would go a long way.

 

...And especially when the bugs in question have been existent for, what, a couple years? And the priority has been placed on new weapons with often redundant capability, instead of making the thing FLY correctly, as noted earlier. Of course a video game is never *really* going to fly like an airplane, that's true of any desktop sim and even the multi million dollar level D sims we use at work, but something like ground effect being reversed is kind of egregious.

 

Pointing all this out is not whining. It's providing honest feedback on how many customers view this issue; that's something most businesses would be interested in hearing. Now, people do get overly emotional and express these things in unprofessional ways sometimes, with personal insults and wild punctuation, and that's childish. But there IS a fair point to be made here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With respect, you should expand your horizons dude, FBMS is a contender with a longer lineage and will hit DX11 in time.

 

Wake me up whenever they move from Direct Input and we can natively use modern controllers with more that 32 buttons.

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How many buttons does the real HOTAS have?

 

All of them! :D

 

Natural Born Kamikaze

 

-------------------------

AMD Ryzen 5 3600, AMD Fatal1ty B450 Gaming K4, AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT, 32 GB RAM Corsair Vengeance LPX, PSU Modecom Volcano 750W, Logitech G940 HOTAS, Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How many buttons does the real HOTAS have?

 

Less than that, but that doesn't help me really: my stick has over 32, my throttle has over 50 buttons, and too many axis. Since BMS still uses Direct Input, the game wont natively recognize all of them. Unfortunately, that means that I simply cannot use some of my buttons without 3rd party software to remap shit (for example the 4-way-plus-press that is in the position to emulate the TMS on an F-16 stick is partly above the 32 limit, so a few of it's presses are not recognized), and this is even worse once you start taking the axis into account.

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Less than that, but that doesn't help me really: my stick has over 32, my throttle has over 50 buttons, and too many axis. Since BMS still uses Direct Input, the game wont natively recognize all of them. Unfortunately, that means that I simply cannot use some of my buttons without 3rd party software to remap shit (for example the 4-way-plus-press that is in the position to emulate the TMS on an F-16 stick is partly above the 32 limit, so a few of it's presses are not recognized), and this is even worse once you start taking the axis into account.

 

I understand and have the same problem but I can program enough to fly the Viper as it should be. It's not a deal-breaker to not fly it at all. For me anyway.

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand and have the same problem but I can program enough to fly the Viper as it should be. It's not a deal-breaker to not fly it at all. For me anyway.

 

Yeah, I cannot, for very specifically I can't invert an important axis and buttons that are just in the right place to emulate the necessary functions of a real F-16 can't be used due to that old-ass Direct Input limitation. And come on, who was talking about BMS arriving at DX11 at a proper time? DX 11 got released 11 years ago, all that stuff is just hopelessly outdated and there's only so much longer that the Falcon codebase of BMS can be supported into the future.

 

 

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No big loss if they do :D

 

Basically just ranting in reply to that guy talking about BMS' heritage earlier. Yes, it has a long heritage. Doesn't help when it's hopelessly outdated. Anyway, enough with that and back to DCS. :)

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm understanding correctly, the issue isn't so much the amount of time updates take, but the fact that ED seems to be applying a different priority list to these updates, after asking their customers how things should be prioritized and then claiming they were going to do that

 

Thank you! This is exactly what the issue is and its a little disappointing seeing comments like "stop whining and complaining when updates are buggy" when the bug that's being complained about didn't come from an update, it came from release 2 years ago. I love that they are working on updates, just the wrong kind. You also got the nail in the coffin with pointing out that they literally sent out a priority list survey to customers, and then just completely ignored it and started working on things that were further down the list rather than the #1 most popular voted request.

 

"Seriously, people need to freaking chill up with the bitching and whining. I joined DCS or should i say, back then, A-10C Warthog in 2009, at an era there was Blackshark servers and A-10C servers, that's it, then they started by merging both Games together, we could Fly A-10c and come across some KA-50's, then, DCS World seen birth, then others Aircraft seen birth, then we discovered DCS World 1.5, wow that was a change, not to mentionned 2.5, then, ED gave permssions to third party developpers, and then tons of new modules seen the day. So many changes, so many new adition to bring us Simers notch up to realism (Wing Tip Vortices, Turbulence, Vapors etc..etc) list is long, Tendem Aircrafts, though yeah sorta buggy some times."

 

I just wanted to point out that despite my join date on the forums, I have been flying DCS since 1.5 and have been here for a while as well. Please dont take me as ungrateful, just worried about priorities. Also, I don't feel that bringing up thing that were relevant 11 years when they clearly are not today. Yes, it does show progression, but pointing out the little things a small game starting out had is not applicable to the same game 12 years later, especially after becoming increasingly more popular. It's the same logic as a father saying "back in my day." Yeah things were different, but its useless to bring up non-applicable things. The complaint being made is a bug that they can fix that hasn't been fixed for 2 years. These bugs didnt come from an update, it came from the release of the aircraft. It sort of pisses me off to do a quick google search and find the NATOPS manual with all of the correct data on the same aircraft that was made in 1997 and updated in 2000. This is 8 years before the sim even came out, and 18 years before the Hornet module. The fact that they have all of these resources to use, including real pilots as references, is a little disappointing that they still managed to get it wrong after working on redundant features. Is it fun dropping GBU-10s with extreme precision? Yes of course, but I'd rather have a true-to-life flight model before getting fancy weapons with only more precision than a Mk-84.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...