sedenion Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Since it is a personal list, i don't discuss about "priority", these are my personal priorities list, after some hours of playing/testing, this is just what i see immediatly... take it as you want. - Keybinding absolutely not convenient with many missing commands (think this is now well known) - Rudder keyboard control not working as espected (no automatic returns to center [i'am not concerned directly, but since i saw it]) - Padlock view not working (i'm very concerned here) - In "hot start" mission (from runway or parking), the following things should be allready done: * VTB On * RWR On * D²M On (however i heard that is in fact not available on the 2000C) * Radar alimenter On * Eclair Box On * IFF / TACAN preset to the airfield selected as "landing WP" in the mission editor * Maybe, Radar to "SIL" or "Warmup" - Panel gauge textures needs Mipmaps (currently very pixelated due to lack of mipmaps in dds files) - DLZ symbology not accurate to the real one, and pretty hugly currently - Closure Speed to target orverlaps the DLZ in some cases (digit >= 3). - Gune Snake / Reticle need some tweaks (something is wrong in the line's refreshing method, and with the distance/history size) - Offscreen target symbology (dashed square) have strange behavior in up/left and up/right - VTB Display too small in its screen - Radar TDC more sensitive in Y (up/down, too much sensitive) than in X (left/right not enough sensitive) - Inconsistant TRIM (reported in a dedicated topic) - Strange automatic missile launch order (reported in a dedicated topic) - HUD glass need some love (we need a "double sided" 3D model for these objets [or, a duplicated mesh with reversed normals] to keep the "glass border" visible from inside with more opacity on borders and less for glass faces (as former 3D artist i know exactly how to solve/reduce the problem, but i'am not in the project)) - HUD FOV circle remain a little bit visible (saw in lua, alpha channel is "5") Edited January 20, 2016 by sedenion
NeilWillis Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 It is a work in progress, and a lot of the missing items are already noted. Even after the full release, development continues on most modules. Right now the M-2000C is a Beta release, so you just have to wait and hope. I'm sure it isn't what you want to hear, but that is the reality of DCS World. It is complex, and complex systems take time to perfect.
TomCatMucDe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I agree NeilWillis, but sedenion has a point here. Razbam started working on the 3D model of the Harrier while the Mirage is still unfinished, including the cocpit 3D model. sedenion, I would add: - in PID target altitude is in Feet unit while in PIC it becomes in Meters. Both should be in Feet as your own altitude is shown.
sedenion Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 I'm perfectly aware that this is a WIP... i only tell what i see immediately as player, what "hit me" in the first approach. I let developpers to decides what is a priority or not.
Winfield_Gold Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 It won't happen over night.....but it will happen
Winfield_Gold Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I agree NeilWillis, but sedenion has a point here. Razbam started working on the 3D model of the Harrier while the Mirage is still unfinished, including the cocpit 3D model. Name any dev in DCS who is not working other aircraft while what is already produced is either alpha or beta? Your point is invalid :music_whistling:
NeilWillis Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 The fact that RAZBAM have staff enough to work on several projects is hardly a matter for us to discuss. I accept that you are just saying what you see to be missing too sedenion. I said what I did so that people outside the loop will realise that the things you are saying aren't just proof that RAZBAM have produced a flawed module, and that is how it will stay. Please don't take my reply as criticism, just balance. The Mirage, will become a very well rounded, and worthy addition to the DCS stable. However, right now it is simply a work in progress, and occasionally people need to be reminded of that. That's all. It wasn't a dig. I did see your first remark, so I knew you weren't being negative.
TomCatMucDe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Name any dev in DCS who is not working other aircraft while what is already produced is either alpha or beta? Your point is invalid :music_whistling: First, citing how others do it is not an argument. Everyone is a different case with different ressources. I can cite you one 3rd party dev who has finished their sold 3D model before starting another but I find it disrespectful to compare devs. Second, I am talking about the 3D work that hasnt been finished and sold to customers with a promise to finish as soon as possible. Now I am the first who support Razbam in giving us the Mirage before it is fully finished, but I find it strange that before finishing the 3D of one sold product you start another one knowing that the very limited ressources such small companies have. Third, I said what I said because this list is legitimate IMHO because of the reason stated above, but starting this discussion here will derail the thread
TomCatMucDe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 NeilWillis, I think we can all agree that it is a great module. It just needs some finishing.
Flagrum Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 My personal "pet topics": - several, between missions not cleanly initialized avionic components (radar settings, PCA/PPA, radios?) - full LGB support (1.5 and 2.0 :o), including the DCS standard JTAC comms menu so that SP can have fun with the LGBs as well. - A2G gun pipper - INS implementation
sedenion Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) I said what I did so that people outside the loop will realise that the things you are saying aren't just proof that RAZBAM have produced a flawed module, and that is how it will stay. Please don't take my reply as criticism, just balance. The module is very cool, and i can see/suspect/guess, the amount of work that was done since now... i just say: There some obvious things that need some works. several things, are basic gameplay things, and when it's done, you don't have to come back after, it's done (it's not the case of the radar modelization for example, or the Flight model, that are subject to change, tweaking, fixing). And i suspect that these things are not very heavy to implement/fix (typically: Padlock view, Setting at mission start... key binding)... Maybe Razbam didn't had the reflex to "see" these thing, because too concentrated on others aspects... so i just say: what is what i see immediatly as player, that is missing or is a problem, and some (in the list) that prevent me to enjoy the module, typically, the padlock view and key binding (event if the radar is not perfect, if the missiles are not well modelized, if the INS is not fully fonctionnal, etc. )... Edited January 20, 2016 by sedenion
Aginor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 My "pet topics" that prevent me from playing at the moment: - INS implementation - LGBs - aerial refueling and quoting Flagrum: - several, between missions not cleanly initialized avionic components (radar settings, PCA/PPA, radios?) DCSW weapons cheat sheet speed cheat sheet
NeilWillis Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I am talking about the 3D work that hasnt been finished ... Third, I said what I said because this list is legitimate IMHO because of the reason stated above, but starting this discussion here will derail the thread Utterly irrelevant because you have absolutely no idea how many 3D modellers happen to be working on what at RAZBAM. Just because they are developing a second module - or even more - in parallel to the M-2000C, doesn't mean that the M-2000C is being neglected. To imply that is utterly absurd unless you happen to sit in on the development meetings they're no doubt holding regularly at RAZBAM. Also, where was the 3d modelling being questioned in the OP? He mentioned bitmapping of the cockpit, but the majority of the discussion was about systems modelling. Why oh why do discussions often end up revolving around myth and assumption instead of just sticking to the facts? Who is working on what is not a matter we should be debating because we have no knowledge, no input, and no business prying into internal matters at developers studios.
TomCatMucDe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Utterly irrelevant because you have absolutely no idea how many 3D modellers happen to be working on what at RAZBAM. Just because they are developing a second module - or even more - in parallel to the M-2000C, doesn't mean that the M-2000C is being neglected. To imply that is utterly absurd unless you happen to sit in on the development meetings they're no doubt holding regularly at RAZBAM. Also, where was the 3d modelling being questioned in the OP? He mentioned bitmapping of the cockpit, but the majority of the discussion was about systems modelling. Why oh why do discussions often end up revolving around myth and assumption instead of just sticking to the facts? Who is working on what is not a matter we should be debating because we have no knowledge, no input, and no business prying into internal matters at developers studios. No need to be aggressive NeilWillis. Where do I interfere with Razbam internal matters? and where do imply that the Mirage is neglected? Working in parallel on the 3D model of the harrier inevitably slows down the working on the Mirage. Besides, Razbam has acknoledged a lot of bugs but didn't acknowledge a work on the cockpit. The question is then legitimate. Where did the OP talk about 3D work? Maybe you havent read till the end. Here you go: - HUD glass need some love (we need a "double sided" 3D model for these objets [or, a duplicated mesh with reversed normals] to keep the "glass border" visible from inside with more opacity on borders and less for glass faces (as former 3D artist i know exactly how to solve/reduce the problem, but i'am not in the project))
sedenion Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 Also, where was the 3d modelling being questioned in the OP? He mentioned bitmapping of the cockpit, but the majority of the discussion was about systems modelling. Some are more focused on new "features" than fixing the existing ones... Other only ask that basic/standard features to be implemented, and the existing ones, fixed... (this is also how i see a developpement timeline, but, i'am not the developper, so... maybe Razbam would prefer finishing all feratures, then go back to what is seen to him as "details"... [which are NOT details to me, but fundamental features])
NeilWillis Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) No need to be aggressive NeilWillis. Where do I interfere with Razbam internal matters? and where do imply that the Mirage is neglected? I'm not being aggressive, I'm sorry if it comes across that way. However, despite what has been said, you insist in re-hashing something totally irrelevant. By saying that the Harrier modelling is in progress at the same time, you are implying that RAZBAM are diverting resources, and you have absolutely no idea if that is happening or not, and whether or not the same people are working on both projects. You don't know if progress on the Mirage is slowed one jot by who is working on what. It has often been said on this forum that throwing more resources at problems don't necessarily make them go any faster at all. The simple fact is, that you have no clue what RAZBAMs priorities or work schedules are, and therefore raising that as a reason for assumed delays is a moot point. Just because you know how to fix something doesn't mean anything in the context of RAZBAMs schedule or workload does it. The module has been out less than 2 months, and you're complaining it is delayed? Maybe they have scheduled 6 months from Beta to full release, and they are actually ahead of schedule. Do you know? No one outside the loop does, so to debate it is utterly pointless. Let's move on. Edited January 20, 2016 by NeilWillis
sedenion Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) hey guys, stay cool... i'am cool... i'am Fonzy... yeah... we (i) just talk about what is obvious a problem to us (me)... The developpers have theire free will, they will choose what "need priority", what is the "best way"... they are in the project, we are not... the only thing we have to do, is to say "THAT is a problem to me/us", because they are not omniscient, and some thing can stay "invisible" to them, since they don't play as "we" play, they don't experiences as we, etc... Let the disco invade you, guys... [ame] [/ame] Edited January 20, 2016 by sedenion
TomCatMucDe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 The module has been out less than 2 months, and you're complaining it is delayed? Maybe they have scheduled 6 months from Beta to full release, and they are actually ahead of schedule. Do you know? No one outside the loop does, so to debate it is utterly pointless. Let's move on. You made me read my posts twice! Where do I complain about delays? I am a big supporter of Razbam and of the Mirage. I never complained about the beta status neither delays. Simply because Razbam has been the only relevant 3rd party that hasnt delayed their product after announcement. It is crazy how you put words on the mouth of people and then compain about it! Razbam is a small company. They are a couple of guys not more. Working on the Harrier takes ressources from the Mirage, this is simple logic. You are free to refuse to see logic. Please, stop lashing out on any geniun Razbam supporter who emmits an opinion that is different from yours on this work. You arent flying this Mirage mroe than me I bet. Move on.
NeilWillis Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Razbam started working on the 3D model of the Harrier while the Mirage is still unfinished, including the cocpit 3D model. You don't actually say it, but why make that statement at all unless you saw it as an issue, and therefore causing delays to the Mirage? I'd be very interested to know what other interpretation there could be. Because if you didn't mean that the way RAZBAM was deploying its resources was delaying the Mirage, what exactly did you mean? Enlighten me please. Where did you get the information regarding the number of employees at RAZBAM? I haven't seen any corporate statements, or shareholders annual reports, so I'm curious about how you know. Or is that just a presumption too? Lashing out? I did say quite clearly that I wasn't being aggressive, and apologised for that if you misinterpreted my tone.
TomCatMucDe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 You don't actually say it, but why make that statement at all unless you saw it as an issue, and therefore causing delays to the Mirage? I'd be very interested to know what other interpretation there could be. Because if you didn't mean that the way RAZBAM was deploying its resources was delaying the Mirage, what exactly did you mean? Enlighten me please. Where did you get the information regarding the number of employees at RAZBAM? I haven't seen any corporate statements, or shareholders annual reports, so I'm curious about how you know. Or id that just a presumption too? Lashing out? I did say quite clearly that I wasn't being aggressive, and apologised for that if you misinterpreted my tone. just read the words you use in your posts and you would see that many of them sound aggressive to people. You are too quick to draw wrong conslusions The answer is another post of mine in this very same thread. What I said doesn't mean the stuff is delayed. I said that Razbam acknowledged a lot of bugs and missing features and that they are in the works. They didn't acknowledge a work on the cockpit, ie, instruments and HUD. so to summarize for you the possible meaning of what I said, I hope it would "enlighten" you, or at least think a bit before you jump on people's throats: - Delayed Mirage => not what I meant - We will have it before the end of the beta => with a focus on the Mirage we could have it even earlier - No change or very little work on the cockpit => it is a possiblity, since Razbam hasnt acknowledge nor commited a work on the 3D cockpit
NeilWillis Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Again, I wasn't jumping down throats. So, if you weren't implying delay, and you weren't suggesting anything, then why bother saying it at all? How on earth can simple bald correctly written English be interpreted as aggressive, when all I was doing was entering into a debate with you. By it's definition, a debate has to be conducted from a position of opposition, so in that, then yes, it is adversarial, but to imply aggression means something entirely different. I'm not, and never have been aggresive here. I have already said sorry if you interpret anything I say as coming across that way, what more do you want me to do? If you don't want to debate a subject, then don't reply. So the way I now interpret your comments is that your contribution states that the module is a work in progress, and there have not been and will not be, any delays bought about by RAZBAMs deployment of its resources? Funny, but I could swear that had already been covered. I'm still waiting for your answer to my question regarding your knowledge of the corporate structure of RAZBAM though. Nicely side stepped!
TomCatMucDe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 So, if you weren't implying delay, and you weren't suggesting anything, then why bother saying it at all? I explained you what I meant in 2 clear points? Where do I say that I dont suggest anything? Please read the post before carefully! Razbam introduced themselves in this forum somewhere, and it is a small team of a very few guys. Very productive guys if you ask me. I cant search that post for you and it is irrelevant for this thread. end of the discussion for me.
sedenion Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 So the way I now interpret your comments is that your contribution states that the module is a work in progress, and there have not been and will not be, any delays bought about by RAZBAMs deployment of its resources? Funny, but I could swear that had already been covered TomCatMucDe just speaks about its worry, maybe in a clumsy way, but nothing abominable... Some are worried (and i am a part of it) about how and when the module will become a "real beta" (since currently, it appear as "advanced alpha" for some of us: all is about perspective), and this is normal: We don't know what is planed for fixing or not in a reasonable delay... We just know that some speak loud about "INS", "Air Refueling" and some other features they judge vital (because this is mainly how they would enjoy the module, but not all have the same priorities to enjoy the module)... I think Razbam is perfectly aware that the INS, Air Refueling, and so on, should be fixed/implemented...but for some other details, it seem more blur, and specially because they are details. (the chance that a detail become completely forgotten and stay as it is, is much more probable than a main feature will not be implemented: the main feature, we obviously know that it is missing, the detail... is a detail)
TomCatMucDe Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 but for some other details, it seem more blur, and specially because they are details. (the chance that a detail become completely forgotten and stay as it is, is much more probable than a main feature will not be implemented: the main feature, we obviously know that it is missing, the detail... is a detail) +1
NeilWillis Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 [quote=sedenion;2650591 Some are worried (and i am a part of it) about how and when the module will become a "real beta" (since currently, it appear as "advanced alpha" for some of us: all is about perspective), and this is normal: We don't know what is planed for fixing or not in a reasonable delay... We just know that some speak loud about "INS", "Air Refueling" and some other features they judge vital (because this is mainly how they would enjoy the module, but not all have the same priorities to enjoy the module)... I think Razbam is perfectly aware that the INS, Air Refueling, and so on, should be fixed/implemented...but for some other details, it seem more blur, and specially because they are details. (the chance that a detail become completely forgotten and stay as it is, is much more probable than a main feature will not be implemented: the main feature, we obviously know that it is missing, the detail... is a detail) Worried? Also, the whole Alpha/Beta debate is another can of worms. Why not just accept that what a developer chooses to call it is all there is to it. No one was suggesting you shouldn't raise points about what you feel ought to be included, I am sure that kind of thing would be extremely useful to any developer. My first post was added not to criticise, as I have already stated, but to emphasise that the module is in development, and naturally, the developers need to be given ample time to complete it. My whole reason for entering into the debate with TomCatMucDe was over the totally separate issue of encroaching into areas that are of absolutely no relevance whatsoever to your post. How many people are in a team, and what they work on or don't work on is of no concern to ANY poster on this forum. The team maybe one or fifty, so what? It is an internal matter for the companies that produce modules, it involves none of us here whatsoever. He has demonstrated no inside knowledge, and he is therefore just speculating, with no basis whatsoever for criticism or comment. Why he even mentioned it if it wasn't to say that RAZBAM are delaying things by diverting resources is beyond me! Also, trying to imply that questioning his post was aggressive dumbfounds me, especially after I went to great lengths to deny that it was the case, just shows how weak his original premise that the matter was relevant was, that he had to try and hide behind being attacked instead of having a rational conversation. My thought on the whole matter of discussing the internal workings of the teams producing modules is that there should be a new rule, banning the subject - it is of absolutely no concern to us, and is a subject no developer will ever willingly enter into a discussion about here. it is entirely a confidential matter with no relevance to us, the consumers, and should be treated as such. What priority they choose to attach to a particular project is not our concern. That some items need attention is entirely a different matter, and as long as the points are made in a reasonable way - as you did - then that is definitely a function of the forum.
Recommended Posts