jasonbirder

Ok, ok guys, I get it...I really do...I'm WAY too impatient...6 months between patches for even the simplest of fixes (IE: to fix a broken .miz file in a a DLC campaign) is nothing to sweat about...I shouldn't be so demanding... Why don't YOU tell me WHEN I should start getting impatient...after 8 months? after 10 months? after a year? Longer? And we'll reconvene back here then...

According to ED...before the end of 2020...now, just remind me WHEN did ED say we were getting an update to stable (you know the version the overwhelming majority of their customers utilise) ??? That's right...they didn't

I wouldn't say laughing at them that's a little too emotive...I'd merely suggest, they don't feel its important to allocate resources to working on a functioning stable build as they continue to add in more and more complexity and new functionality into every new OB iteration...rather than getting existing functionality working to the point it can make the transition to stable. I'd also suggest that given their obvious reluctance to add BUG FIXES (not new functionality) to the 6 month old 2.5.5. release (bug fixes are already integrated into subsequent 2.5.6.xxx releases) that the user experience for customers on the stable branch is most emphatically NOT a priority... Compare and contrast the functionality of the Mirage 2000C in stable and in OB and tell me which is working better if you want the most egregious example. Its not that people are desperate for an update to the stable branch because they're impatient for NEW content...they'd merely like previously working but currently broken modules and campaigns they have PAID for to be back in their proper functioning state... Perhaps most worrying is the point blank insistance from ED of giving absolutely NO information, timetables, deadlines, feedback or reassurance about the status of an update to stable...lets be honest we all have a better idea of when we're likely to see a new P47 module, a new Mosquito module or a new Marianas map...than we do of when our previously functioning modules and DLC campaigns might work again...

ED were quite happy working the F/A18 and F16 in parallel until concerted moaning about the F/A18s development pace - especially in light of EDs "work on the F16 won't delay release of the F/A18 promise" prompted them to allocate resources back to the Hornet and give a hard date of it moving from early access (even if not featuire complete) So yes - strong customer feedback can cause ED to allocate resources accordingly - so speeding up of slowing down development on certain projects... Why wouldn't it...what company completely ignores customer feedback? The key problem is the forum feedback is completely skewed - the most vociferous and vocal are on Multiplayer (far more ED users are single player) ditto those on open beta constantly calling for week on week fixes and updates (more than twice as many ED users on stable branch) and VR users (substantially less than 10% of user base) being given unwarrented resources... Listening to the forum you'd imagine that DCS was predominantly multiplayer, with most users on open Beta...with a substantial VR user base...when in actual fact the complete opposite is true.

Even back in the 80's All weather strike aircraft didn't bomb targets off an INS fix... As for not being able to use Radar to lock up ground targets in bad weather...i'd suggest you talk to a few cold war era a6/f111/tornado drivers!

It certainly SEEMS insane...but then if its not abandonware presumably ED would just come out and say Yes, we do intend to update stable by Summer 2020/Autumn 2020/the end of 2020...(delete as appropriate) As i've pointed out before, putting dates to ACTIVE projects doesn't seem to be a problem for ED - Supercarrier, the Jug, the Marianas, the Hornet out of early release etc etc all have end dates attached to them... An update to stable DOESN'T have an end date attached - and as we all know from our professional lives...no date, means it doesn't happen...as its not enough of a priority.

Will they refund the money people have spent on the A10C module if they're no longer able to use it? WIll they refund money spent on DLC like the Maple Flag Campaigns, Baltic Dragons TEW etc if they're no longer functional?

There's truth in what you say - but where's the incentive for someone to buy Supercarrier? No release date, no estimated timeline, no confirmation from ED it'll even be available in 2020...(a sneaking suspicion it might never be available is starting to float past many people i'm sure given EDs radio silence on the future of the stable branch) That's for TWO THIRDS of the user base...and same will apply to the P47 and also to third party releases...though as evidenced by ED refusing to release the JF-17 to stable (not a hold up from Deka at all) they're not THAT bothered about licenced product generating revenue streams. Its not the same as buying a product in EA...its far, far more ambiguous than that... Without money from the majority of their existing customers...how sustainable are things?

Is the current OB/Stable model sustainable as a business for ED... Two thirds of ED Customers are on stable...but they can't access any of the newer content (IE: They've still not got access to the JF-17 6 months after Deka released it to ED) they're not going to have access to Supercarrier...(or presumably the P47D etc) Now that's obviously not THAT important to everyone on open beta (but they're a minority...and just because they're REALLY passionate on the forums/Hoggitt doesn't make their $s any more valuable)...but if that 60% of the user base (on stable) has no reason to buy ANY new content (be it modules, terrains, DLC campaigns etc) because they'll not be able to access it and because ED point blank REFUSE to give any information about when/if it becomes available...that means ED is now only selling to 30% of its potential customers...in what's already a niche market... After the Jeff and SC...nobody on stable is going to be buying any add-ons until they know whether they'll ever be able to access it...will they?

If, as many people with real world experience keep re-iterating - the AG radar in the Hornet isn't utilised...am I the only person who is concerned that CVBGs have no bad weather strike capability? TGP won't work in rain, you can count on severe GPS degredation vs a peer level adversary and likewise you can't depend on target acquision by HVAs/drones in a heavily contested environment... I know a CVBG brings along a few TLAMs...but not THAT many!

You mean apart from DCS P47D - due to be released this year (ED) DCS Marianas Map - due to be released this year (ED) F/A18C out of early access Dec 2020 (ED) ??? There's a structured timetable in place for all of EDs sseriously active projects... Becasue, as we all know from our professional lives...if something doesn't have a date/timetable attached to it...its not going to get done... Without a deadline, as sure as apples is apples something of more important witha date/timetable attached will come along and push it to the bottom of the pile... In the real world...a project without dates is just a wishlist...that will probably never happen... Supercarrier was given an April release date...and when that was delayed they've worked hard on it to push it out the door ASAP for a revised deadline...because getting it out the door as close to that date is a priority for ED Beta patch releases are highlighted with dates...when they're missed its communicated and a new short term deadline is given...and its usually w aweek or at most a fortnight away...because its a priority to ED... There is no release date for a stable update, no timetable, no indication its being worked on frantically...ED have declined to say there'll be a release date in 2020 AT ALL... Draw your own concusions from that as to its likelihood...or importance to ED

Its called confirmation bias. ED's own figures from Kate based on user ACTIVITY Though i'm not quite sure what "new users don't matter" really means? How long do you have to have been playing DCS for your user experience to be important? Do you need to be active on the forums? On Hoggit? Do you need to be a L33t PVPer for your opinion on the game to have any validity? I've been around since Flanker 1.5 In the old SSI days but maybe I just "don't know any better"

Less than a THIRD of DCS users are on Open Beta...which makes you wonder WHY the stable Branch really is the Black Sheep/Cinderella/Orphan Child

You assume that ED wants an up to date, reliable widely used stable build and a small group of Beta testers on OB sending ED, Bug Reports to incorporate in their development and testing. I suspect ED would like to see the Stable Version wither on the vine and be dropped leaving them with Open Beta (which will become the default version) and a closed beta for user testing & feedback. It allows them to release ad hoc haphazard updates piecemeal without the difficulties of bringing them to a polished, bug free conclusion, without commiting to any "completion dates" as development and release can be an ongoing rolling process rather than something which starts and finishes and it better supports their Early Access model...work can be allocated here and there without focus and with no pressure to develop a finished product. Lets breakdown the logic... ED is in the business of SELLING modules to generate Revenue (or re-selling 3rd party modules) the most recent releases AREN'T even available on the stable build...(JF17 currently, soon to include Supercarrier & the P47D) yes plenty of people have bought previous modules in Early Access - but I think the JF17 debacle will have taught many people a lesson...ED have NO intention of allowing access to this content to stable branch users. There are no plans, no feeedback, timelines. ED cannot project customers continuing to keep buying into "early access" of products they may NEVER have access to...so with no plans to incorporate the JF17/Supercarrier/P47D etc into the stable branch we have to concude it is going to be quietly dropped or left as a "legacy version - (in the same way 1.5 still exists) ED have completely stopped communicating about development of the Stable branch - everything in the Newsletters, promotional videos, open letters from Nick/Kate references content for the Open Beta version ONLY...will anyone on the stable branch be able to access the Supercarrier short term/medium term (or indeed ever)? The P47? The Marianas Map? Third party content? Without the communicated prospect of an update incorporating that content into the stable release version...the answer has to be no... Originally the ED ecosystem consisted primarily of a release version & a Betatest version - Openbeta long ago ceased to be a "test version" (how many people ever submit bug reports, out of those how many ever submit detailed repeatable bug reports with detailed information) and has become a de facto "latest version" with their new closed Beta taking the place that open beta originally occupied. If there was any intention whatever of a 2.5.6 update to stable they'd have worked on it and got it out the door before adding in more and more code, complexity and new content...the fact that 2.5.6 Open Beta is an everchanging, evergrowing, ever more complex beast indicates that rolling code out to a stable build is no longer a priority. In the same way that development resources were canibalised from the F/A18 to work on the F16 - so have resources needed to work on testing, finishing and perfecting the OB code for stable release been sucked away into developing more, new OB content - with the F/A18 there was enough of a vociferous kickback from the forums to draw them to account, with the Open Beta vs Stable divergence the difference is vocally, in the community NOBODY CARES about the stable branch, there will be no holding them to account of their inaction or lack of commitment to it. Without any feedback from ED as to what the status of a stable update is (worked on? Close? Distant?) without any timeline of potential release dates (Q2? 2020? 2021?) without any reassurances as to the importance of those customers to ED we can all safely assume that they hope if they leave it untouched long enough its user base will dwindle to a tiny ratio and it can be left as a dead, legacy version.

Well that IS fantastic news...very encouraging...so we can hope (in an ideal world) for an update to stable early June (2 weeks after the 20th May OB?) Thanks!

Hehe! No worries :)

Most??? More than twice as many on stable as on open Beta which is less than a third of the DCS user base.

I don't understand how they can confidently give estimates for barnd new product development (Supercarrier, F/A18C, P47 etc) but they can't give an estimate for things that have already been developed, tested in closed beta and are currently with a portion of the userbase in openbeta... What's the difference? Witht he greatest of respect to BIGNEWY who has admittedly a thankless task...he's done nothing...there has been no communication about updates, new product releases, new functionality, when modules will be available, when the F/A18 will move out of Early Access for the vast majority of the userbase (IE: those on stable) AT ALL...nothing, not one word, hint or suggestion... Now, imagine if the Open Beta crowd (a minority lets remember) who get upset if the Supercarrier OB is pushed back a few weeks or a D/L Hotfix for the Viper isn't added immediately...got THAT level of support and comm's...there'd be blood on the forums!

I apprecaite there's probably preblems, development & testing to iron out...but would be nice if they'd give an estimated release date... After all...there'll be preblems, development & testing to iron out on the Supercarrier release...but ED have given an estimated release date of late May, there'll be preblems, development & testing to iron out on the F/A18 Hornets functionality - especially complex new systems like the AG radar and the ECM pod release...but ED have given an estimated release date of December. I know the Stable version of DCS is a bit of a "cinderella" (I mean only TWICE as many people use it as Open Beta) but SOME communication would be nice... Given the reams and reams of Communications, Video's, newsletters, feedback from the Senior Management Team at ED, forum feedback from the Community reps here etc etc devoted to news for the Open Beta version... Surely just a tiny, tiny fraction of the communications devoted to the Open Beta version could be spared for what is, in actuality the overwhelming majority of their customers...

I'm not the OP...I just got involved in the discussion downthread! :)

Blimey, please don't say it could be TWO patches away from the open Beta release - that'll take it into 2022 by current calculations (Dec 2020 to open Beta + six months twice over for two stable patches) :megalol:

I have no interest in "the latest updates" if I did I'd run open Beta...if I did I'd have opened up my Hornet module...what I do want to know is when a module I purchased in Early Access will be released...I'm hardly impatient - its nearly 2 years in EA...and I'm asking about a posited release date 7 1/2 months away...SURELY its not too much to ask that ED confirm they mean Hornet will be out of EA and RELEASED by end of December 2020... Its relevent as ED THEMSELVES (Wags I believe) said the Hornet will be out of EA by the end of December...they've been very, very specific about the functionality which will be completed to meet that benchmark...no ambiguity - so why can't they offer the same clarity about what RELEASED and "out of early access actually mean?" So you're comfortable with ED saying a product is "Feature Complete" AND "out of early access" when its not in the stable version and still only in Beta testing? That's a fairly loose definition of "released" to me...Released...but not in available in the games release version?

I have no problems understanding that...i'm not an idiot! My question is...ED have stated the Hornet with the functionality Wags outlined, will be out of early access by the end of 2020...now to me (and almost anyone I'd imagine) "out of early access" means "released" NOT "in testing" SO yes...you're right it may well have to mean that Hornet Functionality will be released into OB before that end date (Dec 31st) Given the recent posting of a screenshot with the AG radar, some of that functionality could well be in OB SIGNIFICANTLY before the end of the year...no issues with that, no problem understanding that... All i'm looking at is for them to clarify whether "Out of Early Access by the End of the Year" really does mean "release version by the end of the year" rather than the alternative "still in Beta Testing by the end of the year" Its a binary yes/no answer - and I'm talking about something 7 1/2 months away...over on the Patch notes thread people moan and bitch about not getting a patch THIS Week...and BigNewy/Nineline will jump on and assure them its being worked on...there'll be one planned for next week...not sure why its so difficult for someone to say yes, plan is for Hornet RELEASE by December 31st (subject to delays) or alternatively no, we have no plans for a RELEASE by Dec 31st...our only intention is to have the Hornet Functionaity in testing...we'll define THAT status as "Out of Early Access"

:lol::lol::lol:

Whilst I appreciate your answer...I'd hesitate to say they have... Its easy to assume (as ngreenaway did above) that "When an aircraft is complete, all features introduced on OB will have been moved over to stable" as that seems logical - but i've scoured and scoured every thread I can think of to find confirmation from ED that the F/A18C functionality that will complete its move out of Early Access will be available on stable by the 31st of December and I can't find any...even when its asked as a direct question none of the usual ED reps will seem to give a yes/no on that... Which leaves the question...is it REALLY out of early release (on that date) if thats not in the release version...but ONLY available to beta testers...