mono

Who's the CH-47 Producer? How many full time equivalents will they have at their disposal for the months from now to EA launch? How many full time equivalents will they have for the year after EA launch? Will there be a developer diary, even for a Cyrillic reading audience? Is there a plan to periodically report on and summarize the CH-47 unit's progress at intervals in a livestream or produced video diary, or possibly even something ambitious like Redkite's Mirage Early Access content that documents for posterity that you have a fit-for-purpose production pipeline for a product of this complexity, and what it looks like at snapshots across the life of the production?

Steam gives you the option to refund a purchase within a set amount of playing time if you were to say, hypothetically, purchase it and quickly realize it did not have the features you thought it would. That is another advantage. (DISCLOSURE: Standalone customer)

Here's some constructive feedback: I will not be putting money into this or any other ED module with an "Early Access" model until ED commits to providing a publicly available, frequently updated development roadmap that at least some chunk of the engaged community deems credible with respect to what it says and when it says it vs. observed reality. A development "roadmap" is a "map" because it contains detailed information about 1. Where the project is now, 2. Where the project's ultimate end state is, and 3. An estimation of expected time of arrival at 2 given the distance between 1 and 2 and the terrain in between. So let's look at this "FAQ" you have provided, instead of what I've just described. Q: Why is the feature list so light? 9L A: "We wanted to be sure we correctly listed features and when they will come out, either at EA release or during EA. We will continue to update the list here and on the store page as we have more info." 9L then goes on to "answer" "frequently asked" questions about planned work on future features that can only be assessed as falling within the "Full set of features will be announced prior to early access release" on the store listing. And so this proceeds as basically a series of questions/requests about features that a CH-47 module would be considered a FAILURE if it reached a development-ended state without: logistics, multicrew, gunner station, water landing, etc. but will not be available at launch and ED will not give a detailed answer for expected time of arrival. So like, yes, great, you are working on/planning on working on all these- I should hope so, they're what would make the module worth working on/not a giant waste! If these were not on the way, the only conclusion to draw would be that ED is frittering away resources extending an early access cash sale confidence game instead of strategically improving your existing products! But this is not our first module, we know ED dreams big, so let's interrogate the dream vs. the strategy to instantiate it, not the dream in a vacuum.null So to your Frequently Requested Dreams I have included the following questions I ask myself frequently about ED products, maybe you could include your answers to them as well, 9L, please and thank-you: Q: Is this the module when ED commits to professionalizing its approach to customer/community relations by providing a credible, frequently updated development roadmap for the duration of its lifecycle, in Early Access and Beyond? Q: What is the size of the team who will be working on this module full time until it exits Early Access? Q: How many developers can we expect to be flexed onto this module for sprints to major milestones/an internal definition of stable and will be moved to other modules after that? Q: If ED experiences internal turnover in the devs working the module, or decide to not pay a contractor who's working on the module (for very good or at least legally defensible in certain jurisdictions reasons I'm sure), when can we expect communication from ED about the impact on the module's development? Q: When a planned feature like water landings is described as waiting on updates to the DCS core before development can begin, can we expect additional information on what exactly is being done and with what level of prioritization in regards to that DCS core work? Supercarrier communication has consistently lacked clarity in terms of what features are simply "in progress" vs delayed pending DCS core updates. Software development being what it is, this can be a porous boundary, but an explanation to the effect of, e.g., "we thought we had an implementation that worked in the current DCS core but it failed such-and-such testing and so $feature now has to wait for $Core_Update" would be appreciated.

Thanks for testing this, would certainly explain a lot why dots will slip in and out of existence depending on where you point your view cone.

It seems I missed the window to suggest pushing this terrain further East to feature more of the Indo-Pak-Chinese interface that has seen a more active history of aerial war where both sides of a given engagement tend to have air forces rather than being a COIN sandtable (which is not to say you didn't manage to squeeze a sliver of Kashmir in here, though if I'm following your infographic correctly it would be added in finished resolution at the very end of the roadmap? I'm just saying it would be nice to have more Himalayas and less sand). Afghanistan has some breathtaking terrain in a vacuum but its particularity means it has some baked in disadvantages for widest adoption by players who already have terrain choices, especially in the multiplayer community where high server pops are valued and playerbase fragmentation is a headwind for us. I think you are seeing most comments here range from puzzled to critical so like could you please try and sell us on why this specific approach with this specific map is something we should be excited/happy about?

Getting this exact same issue. Where the Mission Editor thinks this parked E-3 should be vs. where it appears in-game.

...As their escort you can understand my frustration. The B1s fence in perfectly fine and appear to be starting a run on the POL depot they're supposed to destroy, but then break off and proceed to loiter at low altitude for one or more leisurely orbits of the AO while all hell breaks loose around them. I've made at least 5 attempts now and it's the same every time- all the other attack plane flights do their jobs, but Pontiac never releases weapons and consequently I am a bit stuck in my campaign progress (but getting really good at killing Floggers as they take off). Can provide a few mission tracks or a Tacview file upon request. Playing on the Open Beta channel, was able to replicate just now on Version 2.5.0.15365