jasonbirder

Hey...only another 4 months to go till we geta fix for this in stable!

A sale is Great news!!! I see there's a few campaigns reduced as well... I'd love to grab the Enemy Within 3.0 and the Maple Flag Missions F/A18 Agressor Campaign... Could someone just let me know if they're working without problems in the current STABLE version before I drop my $s ?

Damn those Mission Builders foolishly confident that an AI wingman will be able to taxi out of its own HAS without crashing...if they'd only not put in such complicated scripted behaviour...everything would be OK!

You believe??? Feel free to tell me which currently available paid for (IE: SUpported by ED themselves) DLC Campaigns are currently working in stable... Then assuming the overwhelming majority of them are broken (Clue - they are) tell me when there is likely to be a hotfix for that? (Clue NO word from ED) Given the above...why are you so vocal about the fact everyones current problems are simply caused by using the Open Beta Branch when they obviously aren't...

You mean apart from the bit where AI planes crash into you/other AI planes/other assets making a substantial proportion of missions/campaigns completely unplayable...ditto the borked Fround Unit pathfinding... You know game breaking bugs like that in stable?

Presumably won't work in stable...right? (Which is ironic in itself...) Any comment from ED on that? I'll be more than happy to be contradicted...

Fantastic BD...and my post was in no way intended as a critisism of your stellar work producing the content that DCS deserves!

I'm going to say (in a non-patronising way) poor old Big Newy you've got a pretty thankless task and I do appreciate you're merely communicating stuff you don't have control over... You do your best in what you say within the limitations of the mesages you're tasked to communicate... BUT surely you realise that the best answer to "we waited nearly 6 months for a Stable update and when it arrives it didn't work" is "in future Stable updates will work" rather than "Don't worry next time it'll be far less than 5 months for an update that may/may not work" Its a QUALITY issue far more than a CHRONOLOGY one...

Its not so much the development cycle its that the latest stable update might be STABLE (In that it doesn't CRASH) but it has introduced critical problems that make it essentially unplayable for Single-Player users (Who presumably are a a large majority of stable users) forcing a roll back to a legacy version...SP users are going to be flying Missions, flying Campaigns...by definition they're not going to be spamming AMRAAMS in Airquake - so if their content doesn't work, if AI doesn't work, if Ground Units don't work - what do you expect them to do? The latest Stable release is essentially a pretty buggy OB release (without the benefit of any potential fixes short/medium term) If you're only going to update Stable every 6 months...SURELY there's an expectation you'll use those 183 days to ensure when you do release it - it WORKS...

My point was the latest STABLE build is essentially unplayable for Single Player Users... Unless anyone wants to volunteer and tell me which Missions/Campaigns aren't broken by the AI Taxi and Ground Unit AI pathfinding bugs... So if OB is borked (at least its getting a hotfix today) and Stable is borked (no remedy timetabled according to YOUR post https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4330717&postcount=1 ) You're left with rolling back to an old Legacy version to play on BOTH OB AND Stable aren't you...is that REALLY acceptable for an expensive suite of software?

Isn't the key issue with current OB version being essentially unplayable...that the last stable release (DCS 2.5.6.49798 ) essentially unplayable too (at least for Single Player users - the overwhelming majority of users) It is possible to go back and find a version of stable that works (I've rolled back to DCS 2.5.5.41371) and presumably OB users can find a point to roll back where there is a "sweet spot" of maximum functionality and minimum game-breaking bugs BUT a) that option isn't available to Steam Users and b) is it REALLY acceptable that to obtain a normal gameplay experience on a suite of software that typically costs hundreds of dollars in total (for most users) you've got to wade through multiple old releases to find an (obselete) version you're happy with?

Yeah that's why I questioned current "stable" - I've had to roll back to an older 2.5.5.xxx release

Is that the current Stable version...or the one you have to roll back to - to play any of the DLC Campaigns...

Whilst I understand the logic (shorter mission lengths/accessibility) regular multiple AARs is such a prominent feature of most Carrier Aviation sorties (and indeed in the books themselves) because of fuel considerations...I was hoping its importance would be replicated in the campaign... Not to worry I'm looking forward to it...as I do all of baltic Dragons work...

No paying customer should be obligated to do QA testing on an entertainment product they've purchased for FUN...

You're right on one level...I forgot about the Hueys the Argentines deployed to the islands (and were pretty heavily used for logistical flights) Though a transport helicopter, a partially supported Mod and a long way into the future RAZBAM module is still pretty lean pickings!

Given how far away the likely Sea harrier release is...it begs the question what Aircraft will fly on the Falklands Map...there is - barring the A4 Skyhawk mod (future compatability uncertain & wrong variant) and b*stardising the AV8B NA as a Harrier GR7 nothing currently in DCS that fits in the inventory or EITHER side at any point from the '80s to the present day is there?

Thanks for all the answers (I'll be charitable and assume they weren't all being patronising but what I asked was: Which purchased DLC Campaigns (Discounting OPF which has already been discontinued despite being available for purchase merely months ago) are currently working as advertised? They're a paid for Product SOLD by ED so it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect to be able to fire one up in the STABLE version and play it through from start to finish without the AI crashing, refusing to take off, without Ground Units wandering off course never to be seen again, without the scripting having broken down so never triggering actions, radio communications etc... I wondered if someone from ED could let me know which one(s) I could hope to play through without error or interuption (I emphasise IN STABLE release) without me having to discover the problems as I go along...then replicate thema few times to ensure its the product and not user error... I've paid $s so it doesn't seem out of order to ask and get an answer from ED...

A10C, Viggen, JF17 and F14 (F5 is pretty complete but has some bugs that haven't been looked at for a while... None of the Russian jets are full-fidelity, the F18 is still WIP...(but will be in a decent state by the end of the year) F16 development stalled at the mo...

Having had problems with a number of PURCHASED products (DLC Campaigns) since the latest stable update (predominantly, but not exclusively AI crashes/Taxiing errors & ground uniot movement errors)... I wonder if ED can let us know which of them are currently working as advertised in the current STABLE version (2.5.6.49798 ) I'm most emphatically not on the Beta version...and have little/no interest in getting involved in working out what works/what errors are replicable, reporting errors, sharing track files etc... Is it possible to simply circulate a list of the products you are currently selling which are working without problems? So I can spend my time enjoying those?

What will I have to moan about now!!!! :)

For the majority of users (Two thirds) its NO patch in nearly six months...and NOT one (let alone two in sight) I won't complain tho' - as has been pointed out to me on many, many occasions - expecting bug fixes to allow use of Aircraft modules and DLC campaigns costing literally hundreds of $s is an unreasonable demand...and highlighting it on the forums in the hope that Ed might listen nothing bar, simple "attention seeking"... Luckily for me I didn't spend all that money in the expectation of being able to play DCS now...I merely put the money down in the hope that it'll be usable at some unspecified point in the future...

Well i own a whole heap of aircraft, maps & campaigns too (as if that's important)...and I feel as if ED hasn't offered ANY support for the last six months...Oh scratch that I don't FEEL as if ED hasn't offered any support over that period... its a rock solid documented fact they HAVEN'T offered a single scrap of support over that timeline... Anyway...as has been quite forcibly pointed out...its me that's at fault here...its utterly ridiculous that I should expect any bug-fixes to content in that ridiculously short time frame... A mere six months is nothing, I just need to suck it up and WAIT longer...but patiently of course...expecting any communication is another unreasonable request isn't it? Not for you VIP's over in OB land tho' eh...you're already timetabled another release...https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4330717&postcount=1 which makes the pollyannas suggesting we could see stable update in 2 weeks seem a little bit premature!

I understand perfectly well how DCS is developed...they don't consider ongoing support of their stable build user base to be a priority so their current and chosen development cycle is to continue to build sequential open beta builds - each of which contains cummulatively more and more functionality and features...in the hope that eventually one of them works sufficiently well to be released into the stable branch... Now i'm sure that you can understand that isn't the only way software can be developed is it? They could quite easily stop building in more and more functionality with every sequential OB build and focus development resources on working on performance issues and bugs to release it into the stable branch more promptly. They could go back to the latest stable branch build 2.5.5.41371 and add in bug fixes and non 2.5.6.xxx specific content (I used the JF as it existed in OB 2.5.5.41962 as an example - but updated documentation .miz file fixes to DLC campaigns in a broken state in 2.5.5.xxx etc etc all fall into this category) They don't do this currently...they aren't choosing to do this moving forward...but it doesn't mean to say they CAN'T if they desired...does it? Their existing development cycle isn't the ONLY way of doing things is it? At the end of the day truth is...DCS is (for most people with multiple modules/terrains/DLC etc) an expensive piece of software - hundreds of $s and no support/bugfixes for nearly six months with no promise of/timetable for any future fixes isn't really acceptable at that level is it? Or as you quite vehmently point out maybe it IS acceptable - maybe I am the one in the wrong...expecting what i've invested in to work properly or expecting at the very least an explanation of when/if its going to be fixed is an outdated concept...

Whilst I REALLY shouldn't rise to the bait...I can't leave this one hanging... It being Condition based ISN'T set in stone is it? Its NOT the way things HAVE to be...When BN says ED CAN'T release a patch for the Stable branch until they're happy about the performance of 2.5.6.xxx...It ISN'T a law of nature is it? Its not immutable...all they mean is "we don't CHOOSE to do any additional work on the stable branch - to incorporate any bug fixes or pre-existing third party content because we'd rather allocate development resources to the OB 2.5.6.xxx branch" They could quite happily turn around and say...you know what...not been alot happening with stable for a very long time, that's the bulk of our customer base...we'll throw a bit of resource their way and prepare an out of sequence stable update that includes non-version specific updates (IE; .miz files/documentation etc) and 3rd party content that was prepared for 2.5.5.xxx release (IE: the JF17 as it existed in OB 2.5.5.4196) They CHOOSE not to because they don't consider it a worthwhile allocation of resources...despite users on the stable branch being by far the bulk of the user base...and I can't help but feel that part of the reason it's not considered worthwhile is because for every voice that says..."hey ED, an update to stable aftyer 6 months would be nice" there's half a dozen white knights who'll say "don't worry...6 months for some bug fixes is de-rigour in software suites costing hundreds and hundreds of dollars...nobody minds...its really no big deal" whilst elsewhere people are moaning "OMFG...outrageous...OB not had a D/L fix for the F16 for two weeks what the hell is going on"