Arctander

In that case can you please breakdown the order of delivery and any dependencies (because I am assuming it is not serial) and put this on a webpage as a proper backlog/roadmap with a simple indication of status: Not yet started Work in progress Delivered So we can Assess if you are on track or falling behind to better help conversations on delivery earlier than later. Many of us have been saying for many many months/years that ED continuously overestimates capacity to deliver, so I for one would like to see if you are on track or already falling behind throughout 2020, so we don’t have to wait until December 15th to have another conversation about lack of progress to plan, otherwise I maintain this is just ‘another’ list and nothing has really changed. By doing this you will help to demonstrate improved transparency as well as (assuming you do do manage to hit these goals) an ability to estimate work effort And then deliver to it which will improve confidence in ED in the future. Thanks.

Why is the bdu training bomb, while the least desired weapon, in 2020, and the firebomb which was higher in 2021?!

Kate - you say the list for 2020 is long and the goal is tight. Ok. So what can yo tell us about changes being made internally inside ED that can give us *any* confidence that we won’t be in this exact situation in 2021 talking about ‘what was missed in 2020 that needs to be delivered in 2021, and of the things that should have been in 2021 we can live without’. What, in fact, is different about this list than the list at release or last year?

Agreed

Why does the weekly newsletter mention: a) Sale b) P-47 c) Channel map but NOTHING about either the 2.5.6 performance issues, the supercarrier issues or the Hornet roadmap feedback? That is what many want to know about....

I turn the map off by default. In be the brightness gain symbology and contrast buttons don’t seem to do a thing

You’d have been better of saying ‘not in the one we are simulating’ and leave ‘currently’ out as in the current climate it’s all too easy to read more into that than required. As much as lose lips sink ships, careful choice of wording in the current climate would be advisable...

I’m going to assume that was poor choice of wording and you’re reading too much into it. Any mention of a super hornet or two seat version as a paid upgrade prior to a completed F/A-18C lot 20 would be a folly.

+1

Then how about we thank them not for ‘hard work’, but when they’ve actually delivered the complete product?

Yes - the hornet radar is very unreliable and has generally been getting worse since the Biper introduction.20-30nm is the bad zone for me (and yes I keep the data age relatively high and manage the antenna elevation). This also happens in RWS/Stt or TWS

Two reasons most probably: 1) they said it would be - so ED management have decided to remove things from the ‘delivered in EA’ list so they can claim they hit it, even with putting more resource on it by putting the Viper in the back burner, rather than admit they goofed again and it will now be 2021, which they have done because: 2) they have realised having multiple things in EA is optically very bad and their consumers are starting to revolt over the amount in unfinished things. They know they cannot release another 4th gen jet that they had likely started working on to EA until the hornet is out of EA, and this causes a cash flow issue as they have clearly stated EA is how they stay profitable. At least that is my personal opinion. I would love to hear for sure though.

This is a very good point. As I recall, ED say they have higher standard for third parties because if it is their own module they ‘know’ they will complete it. We don’t. ED must hold themselves to the same level of quality standard for release as the Heatblur and Deka Of this world on OUR BEHALF.

100% agreed.

Agreed. What I am concerned about is given the re-calibration - what is to stop ED 'recalibrating' yet again and moving more to that area. Remember - Wags gave two examples, not an exhaustive list. I think we deserve at least that and a backstop.

Wags - thank you for providing the quote from Steam. However it appears that you are misreading it as *plain English* doesn't support your interpretation. Until all features are deployed on the Hornet - it is 'unfinished' - ergo. Early Access. Steam mentioning 'Release' here is the endpoint, not a step in the path to completion. - Nowhere in the Steam definition was ' in an early stage of development' mentioned. That is something that ED have decided to add into the definition as my bold emphasis of the 'we'. Did you not just say that you will adhere to the Steam definition?! You say that now - but we have precious little recourse if you do put the Hornet so far on the backburner that to all intents and purposes you've stopped. . That is the very least that you should do. Thanks. So now you are saying three phases. Complete your definition of EA in 2020. Then work on other things (hopefully) in 2021. And then if you get round to it, the other things you sold us the product as having in 2022?! That's not acceptable.

I think you may have misunderstood... EA as a concept as used by ED we are told as infinitum will stay as it is important to the continued delivery. What it means needs updating and locking down so all are clear, but that is not the point. The point is that taking the Hornet ‘out of EA’ while still having significant feature gaps that were originally sold as coming in the EA period is what many of us have a huge problem within it is a retrospective ‘changing of the deal’ which cuts straight to the trust that is absolutely required for EA to be a tool ED can use

Personally agree. As much as we would all like the Hornet to leave EA, it can’t until all features originally sold are delivered. Given we are where we are, if the Hornet ‘leaves EA’ with 27+features still to be delivered, given EDs previous track record to date we frankly don’t have any surety that they will be delivered in good time/at all. In addition / if it is not publically sold as EA/incomplete - I believe you will be misleading new customers to a material degree, so whatever you choose to do you must make it clear (even after2020) that the Hornet is not complete, what the roadmap is, and commit to deliver feature complete with a certain timeframe - and this last point this time round we need more than words on this because over the past year EDs word has clearly not been good for it. What that could be though I do not know.

One constructive addition. Aircraft and mission cards should be a priority as both a QOL change, and one that could impact many planes. It was teased a year ago and then went silent. It should have been released sooner and doing it this year would also benefit the Viper.

I’m just going to say it once Saying ‘out of EA in 2020’ and then the long list of fixes to be done in 2021 are mutually exclusive statements and indicate you are attempting to move the goalpost. Secondly, it is good you have indicated the Viper will slow to a crawl. I take this as tacit acknowledgement you have bitten off more than you can chew. Going from purchase of an EA model in 2018, to a failure to deliver in 2019, with several announcement re ‘complete in 2020’ for the Hornet to THIS, basically has ensured I will never trust ED again with money for an EA product. Your treatment of the Hornet has burned any goodwill to ED as an organisation I have left. I will not reply to any comments by any member of the community or ED on this statement, and I hope that it will be left here instead of moderated so it is a visible representation of at least one of your consumers unhappiness.

Then by your own words you disagree. There is no way to hold ED to that proviso - it would in effect be ‘money for nothing’ as you have no way of ensuring that any improvements come any faster. The only way (on the assumption that they need more money, and that higher income will lead to faster more competent delivery which requires better management and methodologies) to deliver that would be a more ‘major feature’ charge for fully completed, tested and delivered improvements to the core sim, with ZERO EA nonsense.

I also would pay a one off charge for a ‘major iteration’ charge to pay for COMPLETED improvements (not Pay is now and by the time the next major iteration is a charged for we’ll have done it). As such a subscription model is right out...

Welcome TrueGrit! Really looking forwards to this one and seeing what you can create!

Hi f4I0, Quick note - just flown in 2.5.6 for the first time in my hornet - firing guns causes a 'stuck' vibration effect for me. Other effects seemed fine in flight ((haven't taken off in 2.5.6 yet) SimShaker for Aviators beta Version 1.3.10.5 Let me know if you need more details.

‘ The time a product remains in Early Access can vary widely ... Eagle Dynamics ... strive to make this period as short as possible’ I would contest that this is still accurate, as we have seen where ED have decided to move resources from an EA product to enable another EA product to be released - and simple logic says if one product is being worked on by a defined size team, and that team then have two products to develop and support, the time to complete the first module WILL be longer.