DCS 1.2 + 1.5 Beta + 2.0 Alpha...What will be the next one ?

[Razorback]

ED,

 

I want to be honest in my following comments and despite my sincerely pleasure to play with DCS I think that some of us must also give a critical analysis of the current situation.

 

Sorry but since few days it's really difficult for me to understand the ED philosophy !

We have now 3 different version of DCS, a normally following module (1.2) and two other Beta, Alpha including many issues.

 

Can you explain to us how it will be possible to install the next annouced modules (Mirage 2000 + Gazelle) in three different versions ?

 

What will be the next version ? A pre-Alpha , an alpha first version ? Sorry but for me it's not serious ! Yes the DCS community can support ED as "beta tester" but we are really loosing the advantage of this with now 3 different version of DCS.

Some of us have and enjoy DCS in order to "fligh" and not to spend hours and hours to find issues or to report buggs in three different version of it !!!

 

At the moment I didn't downloaded 2.0 and NTTR map, I will not pay for a product far away from what you can expect...

Same for WWII modules simply because, for the moment, I don't see any interest in it (Spitfire, BF-109,... in Caucasus or Vegas....No kidding !!! :music_whistling:).

 

My feeling is that there have been so many complaints following the delay in the output of previous modules that now ED want to respect the announced release...

 

So please ED let us enjoy your "nearly finished" products and don't dissapoint some of us with 2, 3 or more alpha, beta,...version...

 

Your devoted fan !

[intx]

I don't understand your criticism. No one said you had to install either the alpha or beta. If you only want to play one version, please do so. Your post implies that we have to be testers for ED. We don't have to be but some of us want to be.

[Capn kamikaze]

I think I see your point, and someone correct me if I am wrong, but I was round at a friends house the other night and they have the steam version of some of the modules, something really needs doing about this mess with steam vs non-steam modules....... so we downloaded DCS from steam and it looked like you can only get the 1.2 version from them.... and if I'm correct about that then that is a bit of a problem since we want to do some MP, so he would be limited to using 1.2, which means I am, if I want to MP with him.

 

At the very least 1.5 needs to at this point be declared officially not a beta anymore, now that 2.0 is out, and steam need to host 1.5 rather than 1.2.

[Silver_Dragon]

1.2.6 version go to extinct them and dont receive any updates (old T3 engine).

1.5 beta version will replace by the 1.2.16 as release version as bug fixed and get stable.

2.0 Alfa convert on beta version as stability and more problematic bugs as fixed. That version has the test version of T4 map support and NTTR map as the initial release (Hormuz and WW2 comming later)

 

As Caucasus map convert will be convert to T4 map format, 1.5.X will be upgrade to 2.X version.

 

The M2000 and the gazzele coming to future 1.5.X and 2.X versions.

[MTFDarkEagle]

Don't like many versions? Don't install it.

 

Simple as that, nothing more, nothing less.

We're granted (early) access via the beta/alpha versions, and if you only want to fly in a finished version, please do so and don't start moaning about multiple versions

 

*sigh*

[Razorback]

I don't understand your criticism. No one said you had to install either the alpha or beta. If you only want to play one version, please do so. Your post implies that we have to be testers for ED. We don't have to be but some of us want to be.

 

So, for you DCS is perfect ? Sorry but for me it's still far from that.

You right no one said that I have to install alpha or beta but when you launch a new terrain or a new version everybody want of course to tried it. Since who many years we play on the same map without any improvement ( exept mods from the community) on DCS ?

1.2 is the more stable version but if you want to play in a beter Caucasius map you have to install the beta 1.5 AND if you want to flight above vegas you need to install an other version....

Hopefully, maps of Normandy and the other one in the Gulf are far from ready...5 different version of DCS...why not ? Hahaha

I am pretty sure that DCS is the only one to do so...I don't have any problem to pay the full price (even more expensive than actually) for an advanced module but if you give me a draft from a draft who will stay so during few months...

Put your people on one or two project only and at the end the releasable version will be much more serious, playable and expected by the community compare to the actual situation...

[tarracta]

unbelievable ...

 

years of justified complains that one promise was broken after another and no really new content came to DCS for years, now ED is making a christmas present and people (just who want to!) get a chance to fly around in great new content, and some people start to complain again.

 

What's the other choice? ED does only internal / closed beta test and the rest of the players is waiting another year until finally a playable product will be released.

 

I have pretty much fun with NTTR, encountered not any very relevant bug, for me it's like a final =)

 

Of course I don't play 1.2 or 1.5 anymore, but senseless wating just for the consolidation of the versions is not an option for me.

 

And they can release 10 separated versions if they want to, my harddrive is big and my internet connection is strong ;-) Just a migration tool for the game settings would be nice :D

 

Over the WW2 setting we've discussed many times before. Many people like it and appreciate it and I have understanding for this, even it's completely useless stuff for myself personally, too. No interest in clunkers. But many other people have another opinion about it and pay necessary money for it - that helps us all for better prodcuts.

Edited December 6, 2015 by tarracta

[Razorback]

Don't like many versions? Don't install it.

 

Simple as that, nothing more, nothing less.

We're granted (early) access via the beta/alpha versions, and if you only want to fly in a finished version, please do so and don't start moaning about multiple versions

 

*sigh*

 

Look on the forum and also on the other international forum on DCS and you will see that i am not the only one to share this opinion.

I really love DCS but since ka-50 and A-10C I am dissapointed by the proposed products....in beta version since months or years....don't be blind and accept the criticism from others unless all is perfect for you...

[Silver_Dragon]

Razorback, has not any clue of "4 or 5" versions about DCS: W install of future maps.

 

DCS: W 2.0 "Alpha" has only to test the new T4 archive format, not have "exclusive" to NTTR map. Dont expected a version 3 or 4 or a pre-alpha / pre-alpha-alpha to Hormuz or WW2.

 

Do you understand the term "modularity"? Actual DCS: W modules (aircrafts, helos, campaing, CA) enter into the "modular" concept, maps coming as modules and 2.0 test that new map format and the modular concept to maps, Hormuz and WW2 have modules to 2.0, no to 3.0 or 4.0 version.

 

Put your people on one or two project only and at the end the releasable version will be much more serious, playable and expected by the community compare to the actual situation...

 

You miss the point as a software project has planning and execute. When a 3D modeller or a programmer complete your task on a module, need move to a new project to get new work load. You can´t fired them, and wait to release a project and start a new project to rejoin them, if you use your "propose" format, the company dont survive.

[NeilWillis]

Razorback, the options are simple.

 

Option 1, wait for the full release of everything - which will probably happen in a few months, or maybe even longer.

 

Option 2, have 3 versions so you can try it all out before it is the finished thing, but at the slight disadvantage of having 3 separate versions.

 

Option 3, have all three and moan about it without any justification.

 

I respect your choice of going with option 3. I went for option 2, because that was my choice. No one is forced to download anything, it isn't as if it is forced down the internet onto your machine is it!

 

The real issue, and one that is simply beyond anyone's control is the time it takes to get this complex software fully developed. We have the stuff as soon as possible, but that means some compromises and bugs. That's all there is to it, and moaning will not change anything except how the rest of the community sees you, and will make ED think twice about embarking on big projects like this, or make the wait even longer. Either way it is a lose lose situation, so why not think a little more before you start making such a fuss?

[Silver_Dragon]

Look on the forum and also on the other international forum on DCS and you will see that i am not the only one to share this opinion.

I really love DCS but since ka-50 and A-10C I am dissapointed by the proposed products....in beta version since months or years....don't be blind and accept the criticism from others unless all is perfect for you...

 

you check the "roadmap" to see all products of progress of the ED, BSK and 3rd party in progress?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

 

Remember the 4 generation Multirol fighter and advanced combat helos are under restricted law and require very expensive licenses to build them, and when yoou get them, you require a great quantity of work to implement accurate systems and funtionality (as the ground radar on the F-18C in progress by ED or the military contract by VEAO with the EFA, "approved" to release as Trenck I Bk5 on the entertainment market).

 

If you dont like the beta version, only can wait to the release and final versions.

[Razorback]

Razorback, has not any clue of "4 or 5" versions about DCS: W install of future maps.

 

DCS: W 2.0 "Alpha" has only to test the new T4 archive format, not have "exclusive" to NTTR map. Dont expected a version 3 or 4 or a pre-alpha / pre-alpha-alpha to Hormuz or WW2.

 

Do you understand the term "modularity"? Actual DCS: W modules (aircrafts, helos, campaing, CA) enter into the "modular" concept, maps coming as modules and 2.0 test that new map format and the modular concept to maps, Hormuz and WW2 have modules to 2.0, no to 3.0 or 4.0 version.

 

 

 

You miss the point as a software project has planning and execute. When a 3D modeller or a programmer complete your task on a module, need move to a new project to get new work load. You can´t fired them, and wait to release a project and start a new project to rejoin them, if you use your "propose" format, the company dont survive.

 

I really understand your point but since the NTTR map and the issue explained by the community I decided to wait my installation despite my excitation to play on it... I will continue to flight on the Caucasius map and wait a 1.5 final version....

But thx for the explanations Silver Dragon

Edited December 6, 2015 by Razorback

[sobek]

1.2 is the more stable version but if you want to play in a beter Caucasius map you have to install the beta 1.5 AND if you want to flight above vegas you need to install an other version....

 

All you *have* to do is exercise some patience and self restraint until what you want is on the stable branch. If you don't want to worry about the most heinous of bugs, then you need to stop wanting the bleeding edge stuff that's in the beta builds right now.

Edited December 6, 2015 by sobek

[Tumbleweed]

1.5 and 2.0 are not updates they are Beta and Alpha release candidates - respectively. Their sole purpose is for testing and bug hunting.

 

Anyone wanting stability should remain on the stable 1.2 version until told otherwise. The Alpha and Beta are optional installs ONLY for testing and are not, I say again NOT updates.

 

To be fair, both 1.5 and 2.0 both clearly state what they are so the problem is with the people downloading it expecting it to be the next evolutionary step in DCS when it isn't. Not quite yet.

 

Everyone is welcome to download the Open Beta and Open Alpha and contribute to hunting out those pesky bugs, that's what they're for but this is optional.

[MTFDarkEagle]

Look on the forum and also on the other international forum on DCS and you will see that i am not the only one to share this opinion.

So?

 

I really love DCS but since ka-50 and A-10C I am dissapointed by the proposed products....in beta version since months or years....don't be blind and accept the criticism from others unless all is perfect for you...

You see me complaining?

No I won't simply "accept" criticism. Why should/would I?

If there is criticism surely it can handle some opposed argumentation no? Otherwise it's just criticism for the criticism.

[jvanhoog]

All is perfect for me.

[Beeroshima]

Dont like it? Stick with 1.2.

 

Some people hate being given options. I'll never understand.

 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

[Kev2go]

1.5.1 beta feels pretty stable, and smooth right now.....

 

1.5 actually runs better than 1.2, i think becuase it actualy takes advantage of newer hardware, rather than being stuck with very dated direct x 9 rendering. I actually get less stuttering and a bit higher fps in 1.5

 

I;d expect v 1.2 to become upgraded to 1.5 fairly soon they way things are going, thus leaving only 2 builds of the game until finally Caucasus gets integrated into a stable 2.0 build.

[cichlidfan]

Regardless of our individual opinions of the current situation, it is a fairly safe bet that from ED's perspective, the less time they have three versions in the wild at the same time, the better.

 

Of course, I think I had four of five versions installed before v2.0 was released anyway. :P

[Lange_666]

On a sidenote, the space sim Elite Dangerous works a bit the same way.

I currently have: Elite Dangerous (32-bit), Elite Dangerous - Ships beta (32-bit), Elite Dangerous - Ships beta (64-bit). Didn't sign up for the Horizons beta (yet).

But their updates come a lot quicker then the DCS ones....

[sobek]

it is a fairly safe bet that from ED's perspective, the less time they have three versions in the wild at the same time, the better.

 

As far as i can tell, 1.2 support has ended, so that's not much of a problem. Not sure how far 1.5 and 2.0 have diverged besides the obvious terrain infrastructure.

[OnlyforDCS]

Unbelievable, I really can't comprehend the logic behind this complaint. So what would your solution to this problem be OP? Remove the Alpha and Beta products and just have the stable release version for everyone? How would that benefit anybody? How would Eagle Dynamics benefit from a greatly expanded testing phase? For some reason you can't or won't be bothered to install either the Alpha or the Beta and you somehow you feel justified in complaining that this is somehow unfair?

[Darkwolf]

What's unbelievable is the people that still believe things will get out of beta someday. :P

 

You can't just shoot someone because he is worrying about the current situation. The initial plan was to have an openbeta build to get things tested a little bit ahead the release, usually both version being at same version within a week. Release version is now abandonned.

 

Now we have the community split between those in stable, those in openbeta, and those who own nevada. This is concerning.

 

-Belsimtek has released 3 modules, they are still in BETA for 2.5 years.

-Leatherneck module is in beta for a year now.

-Hawk and C101 aren't going to be final anytime soon.

 

They are a LOT of concerning things. Caucasus being away from 2.0 ? Why is that ? 1.5 wasn't supposed to be new T4 engine to begin with ?

 

The reality is : Nothing is finished or is likely to be soon. We can't complain because it's the nature of DCS of evolving daily - we can't also go against a player that is worrying about this. But whenever i see the word "wait it's finished then". I'm laughing real hard. :P

[sobek]

If you don't like beta modules, don't by them. Simple as that. There is enough content by ED that is not in a beta state.

 

The base being in beta, those phases are few and far in between. Yes we are in such a phase but it will pass soon enough.

 

You can't bunch some 3rd party modules and the simulation base development together. The past has shown acceptable timeframes for open beta phases of the simulation base. Your view is too simplistic, things are not as bad as you make believe.