Virtual Patriots L-39

[Silver_Dragon]

Tango and Silent Eagle, you will can release your product with a simplified cockpit model, and follow the develop to make a realistic cockpit model in the future (similar to the ASM / AFM roadmap in the VEAO Bae Hawk T.1)

[Tango]

Well given that we have been working hard on the systems dev, the cockpit model was low on the list. We were told 3 - 4 months (starting now) for a complete cockpit model (front and back seats).

 

This would coincide with us completing the systems and AFM dev *and* completing internal testing prior to sending to ED for them to test.

 

Given we were ready mid-August to give the go-ahead for a cockpit model, this put us approximately November/December for completion and ready to send to ED.

 

By the time the L-39 would hit the shelves, we'd be within a month or two of all other known 3rd party development releases. Given the complexity and depth of simulation (not to mention being only the second 3rd party developer to release OUT THE DOOR with AFM, after the MiG-21) we thought progress was very good.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Tango

[simis]

There's nothing wrong contracting the cockpit out to a 3d artist, that shouldn't have been the dagger to kill this project and give ED an excuse to make their own L-39 and determine the Patriots L-39 wasn't good enough or being developed fast enough.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Thanks to Wags for clarrification. Just a little transparancy helps a lot to understand some decisions. ;)

[NineLine]

There's nothing wrong contracting the cockpit out to a 3d artist, that shouldn't have been the dagger to kill this project and give ED an excuse to make their own L-39 and determine the Patriots L-39 wasn't good enough or being developed fast enough.

 

Its a pretty big part of the development... but again, we are assuming this is the reason, maybe its only part of it... so lets not assume.

[SkateZilla]

There's nothing wrong contracting the cockpit out to a 3d artist, that shouldn't have been the dagger to kill this project and give ED an excuse to make their own L-39 and determine the Patriots L-39 wasn't good enough or being developed fast enough.

 

Contracting a 3D Artist had nothing to do with it,

The lack of an actual cockpit may or may not have.

[shagrat]

I don't understand, why ED is not COOperating with 3rd parties? Why compete? It would make much more sense to offer VPJT help to finish the cockpit (paid for of cause) as it would have made sense to integrate/sell there already started L-39 to the guys?

For me it sounds like a lot of resources plain and simple wasted!

As for the competition to "get it released" before ED finishes it's own... if ED needs to integrate it into DCS they have the means to stall the release as they want. Not saying they'll do, but from a risk management perspective it is not impossible. So before investing money in a competition with somebody who has all means to prevent you from winning the race, what would you do???

In the end it's simply sad! Very sad! If it helps I will prefer Tangos avionics because I come to love his work and dedication to detail. If you decide to go on I'm a definite customer! Hopefully we see this situation change, again. I would love a coproduction between VPJT and ED on this.

Edited September 8, 2014 by shagrat

[simis]

What about all the coding that was done, i suppose it only counts if you have a few screen shots with eye candy and a non functioning aircraft.

[Tango]

I'd personally like to know why ED thinks we are not capable of finishing (as per Wags post). What on earth gave them that idea?

 

If they wanted a development status update, we'd have gladly provided one (see my post further up).

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Tango

[Rammit]

I'd personally like to know why ED thinks we are not capable of finishing (as per Wags post). What on earth gave them that idea?

 

Best regards,

Tango.

 

I think we all would

[NineLine]

I don't understand, why ED is not COOperating with 3rd parties?

 

Funny, there is 3 Third Parties queued up for DCS releases this year, 2 of which I think Tango are involved with in some sense... I think your statement is confused.

[WinterH]

Just to clarify Tango's comment. We had a deal on the table for a modeler to create the L-39 cockpit and contract agreements were drafted the day before we were informed. We had every intention of completing the project within Q1 of 2015, but it required a financial investment; one that we can no longer provide given the loss of marketability.

 

I would buy yours, rather than EDs, there would likely be others as well, but that wouldn't change overall picture to be honest, I can see another product on the market with same aircraft and same variants, and from how it look in announcement one that is likely to arrive somewhat earlier than yours, likeliness of your investment returning to you diminishes pretty steeply.

 

While I would love to see other modules from you folks, I can understand your position.

 

Just for your notice, if you'd decide to go on the last bits, you have one buyer here. While L-39 was among the aircraft I was interested in most, I still will not be getting ED version on principle grounds, unless I am convinced that my conclusion in this matter is erroneous, what is shared so far did not convince me of that.

 

At the risk of sounding emotional and/or instigative (neither are my intentions, as stated, my decision lies purely on principle grounds); While I am interested in all WW II warbirds like P-47 and Spitfire, and am supportive of DCS World platform, ED's vision of all-inclusive and totally top quality sandbox sim engine, and most likely would be interested in anything that would be announced on the way, I will get only the ones I am extremely interested and have been waiting for long : Bf-109K and F-18C. Besides those, I will stick with 3rd parties for my module purchases for a long while to come.

[Druid_]

I'd personally like to know why ED thinks we are not capable of finishing (as per Wags post). What on earth gave them that idea?

Come on Tango lets be fair about this. Where did Wags say this? He said "given the massive amount of work we still believe needs completed, we see that this would be difficult for them." which to be honest you have admitted to by the fact that you have waited until the very end of your development cycle to get a third party to develop a cockpit for you. In summary, read 'difficult' as opposed to 'not capable'.

 

If you can get something out of the door by December as you say then you know full well that you will be ahead of ED on this given ED's previous development cycles. To just abandon the project on this announcement is confusing to me to say the least.

 

I have every wish for third parties to do well and I hope you reconsider your options on this especially as you have already completed so much of the project already.

[NRG-Vampire]

In my dream world, I would love to see your team and ED work together to create the perfect L-39 for the community!

 

^ exactly

guys, is that albatros cockpit model comes from ed ?

if yes then: ed has the cockpit, vpjt has the efm/pfm and the asm, where is the problem ? you must put it all together, case closed (<hopefully it will be so simple like this)

 

Edited September 8, 2014 by NRG-Vampire

[Tango]

Come on Tango lets be fair about this. Where did Wags say this? He said "given the massive amount of work we still believe needs completed, we see that this would be difficult for them." which to be honest you have admitted to by the fact that you have waited until the very end of your development cycle to get a third party to develop a cockpit for you. In summary, read 'difficult' as opposed to 'not capable'.

 

That is totally unfair! We did NOT leave it "until the last minute". If you read my post further up, I explain the timing. The cockpit is in no way delaying the project.

 

http://www.flightsimlabs.com/development-status-update-beta-test-applications/

 

It’s hard to believe that it’s now been a good four years since we started

These guys are not doing it part-time, either.

 

I can't begin to explain how much time/effort goes into software development. If you do it for a living, you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

If you can get something out of the door by December as you say then you know full well that you will be ahead of ED on this given ED's previous development cycles. To just abandon the project on this announcement is confusing to me to say the least.

I'm under NDA, so I can't tell you what we know. Wags knows this, which makes his comments so bizarre.

 

I have every wish for third parties to do well and I hope you reconsider your options on this especially as you have already completed so much of the project already.

If Wags would clarify his comment about us releasing before ED, then we would certainly consider it. I'm under NDA however, so can't comment on what we know.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Tango

[Dr_Arrow]

^ exactly

guys is that albatros cockpit model comes from ed ?

if yes then: ed has the cockpit, vpjt has the efm/pfm and the asm, where is the problem ? you must put it all together, case closed (<hopefully it will be so simple like this)

 

 

It won't be as simple, we've seen start-up and takeoff video of Mig-21 on 15.1.2014 and it is still not released...although L-39 is much simpler aircraft it takes a lot of effort to integrate all cockpits systems and their models, flight model, damage model, LOD, textures, moreover the multiplayer cockpit possibility and many other things... I think there is huge amount of work together with lot of testing, bugfixing and other unexpected obstacles (like we've seen when Mig-21 was cancelled)... So far only Belsimtek has shown that they can pull off new modules and hopefully a few more will do so this year. But it only shows that the process of creating such high fidelity aircraft is a very complex task that needs a precise project control and lot of effort and time.

[chev255]

Tango & team, what about releasing your module first with a basic cockpit while the better cockpit is being worked on?

I am sure there is plenty of goodwill in the community to support you guys!

We surely don't want you to leave, hope that you can have some discussion with ED and clear things out.

[VTJS17_Fire]

Funny, there is 3 Third Parties queued up for DCS releases this year, 2 of which I think Tango are involved with in some sense... I think your statement is confused.

Oh ... what's with EDGE and Nevada? Last year, this year, next year? :music_whistling:

The F-15C PFM was also announced for November 2013, IIRC.

 

Also, the first delay on the Hawk was initially due to legal issues, IIRC. Tango is a coder.

 

 

Just to clarify Tango's comment. We had a deal on the table for a modeler to create the L-39 cockpit and contract agreements were drafted the day before we were informed. We had every intention of completing the project within Q1 of 2015, but it required a financial investment; one that we can no longer provide given the loss of marketability.

I would buy it to support your work/ Team and I would also participate on a(n) Kickstarter/ Indiegogo campaign ...

[NineLine]

Oh ... what's with EDGE and Nevada? Last year, this year, next year? :music_whistling:

The F-15C PFM was also announced for November 2013, IIRC.

 

I'm sorry, this has to do with the topic how?

[kazereal]

For me this sounds like there could be improvement on how ED and 3rd parties manage things.

 

Ok, if there is worry about who owns which part of work it can be simple if it's all done by one party. However, if all work is dependent on single entity that puts a lot of strain in one "basket" and credibility as a platform isn't as high as if there were multiple parties working together.

 

I don't know the reasons behind the decisions but I hope it does not fall down on single entity grabbing work from others.

[Flagrum]

Oh ... what's with EDGE and Nevada? Last year, this year, next year? :music_whistling:

The F-15C PFM was also announced for November 2013, IIRC.

 

Also, the first delay on the Hawk was initially due to legal issues, IIRC. Tango is a coder.

The way I understood it, it is not that they did not meet their dead-line that was agreed upon with ED ... as there is no such agreement. It is not about delays, it is about some sort of "non competing agreement" that simply has run out before VPJT was able to finish their product.

[NRG-Vampire]

It won't be as simple, we've seen start-up and takeoff video of Mig-21 on 15.1.2014 and it is still not released...although L-39 is much simpler aircraft it takes a lot of effort to integrate all cockpits systems and their models, flight model, damage model, LOD, textures, moreover the multiplayer cockpit possibility and many other things... I think there is huge amount of work together with lot of testing, bugfixing and other unexpected obstacles (like we've seen when Mig-21 was cancelled)... So far only Belsimtek has shown that they can pull off new modules and hopefully a few more will do so this year. But it only shows that the process of creating such high fidelity aircraft is a very complex task that needs a precise project control and lot of effort and time.

 

sorry but you are totally wrong, asm is done (if i understand correctly) - asm: advanced system modelling

cockpit model is the only one 3d model which DOES NOT need lod models - there are only two options for cockpit: you see it because your are in the cockpit or you cant see it because your are seeing the external aircraft model - there are no level of detail for cockpits

Damage model also not needed because it's already done on the external model by DGambo.

So if they need a cockpit model only then they should cooperative/work with ed or with 3d model makers of ed, like DGambo or GK (su-27 and f-15c external and internal models from GK, while P-51D and L-39 model from DGambo, FYI)

if ed have an animated cockpit model and if vpjt has the full asm then i can implement a working cockpit in two weeks and im not kidding !

so can you imagine what ed can do if vpjt works with/for ed as a partner ? i can !

Edited September 8, 2014 by NRG-Vampire

[Druid_]

That is totally unfair! We did NOT leave it "until the last minute". If you read my post further up, I explain the timing. The cockpit is in no way delaying the project.

Sorry T but once again you are exaggerating quotes, first Wags and now mine. I did not say 'until the last minute', I said "until the end of your development cycle" which surely it is given the existing development timeframe?

 

Obviously, emotions are high but please don't exaggerate quotes that cloud perception.

 

Obviously, you and ED need or have communicated on this and in the end its your decision but I think given the aforementioned support it's a shame if you do not continue with this project.

[Tango]

which to be honest you have admitted to by the fact that you have waited until the very end of your development cycle

Different words, same meaning. You suggest we are finished with everything, and are now looking at the cockpit model. You suggest the cockpit model is the only thing left to do, and is delaying release.

 

Your statement is incorrect.

 

I think given the aforementioned support it's a shame if you do not continue with this project.

As I keep saying, we are under NDA and can not tell you what we know. We would like Wags to clarify his statement:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129829

 

They are free to sell their project well before the Eagle Dynamics version.

Best regards,

Tango.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Tango

[jctrnacty]

Shit happens and it is right this case. VP vere working on l39 for 28 month so i understand to their outrage. On the other side, L39 for ED is a plane where they can demostrate their 2 seat capability developed for other products and i think that its not that "hard" (i think that every plane is hard,but i mean compared to A10c or KA50) plane to simulate.

 

Solution? There isnt any, maybe let VP finish l39 and make it better than EDs L39. who knows?

 

Its a blind alley situation.