future of this module?

[zerO_crash]

And who can blame them for not entering into the debate here by replying to this unwarranted vitriol? Like all third party developers, they started out with the best of intentions, but the soul destroying, baying pack has ensured they have changed their policy.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, they're also busy with more than one project, and a simple task like adding a pilot into a cockpit may be affected by things like increased poly count causing an excessive drain on system resources and slower frame rates. They have acknowledged that a pilot would be necessary at some point, but it sure as hell isn't a game stopper.

 

Also, as a separate independent company, why should they not have their own bug reporting system?

 

"Unwarranted vitriol"? Some would call it criticism, others even constructive criticism.

 

And what other people did to them that made them change their policies is something I don`t care about. Is one person, or even a group supposed to ruin for everyone else? Fact is, it seems to me that it is being handled in a unprofessional way.

 

Why have a more complicated bug system, which takes more time to file in bugs, doesn`t give the ability to discuss a "artifact" before labeling it as a bug and taking away resources in the form of testing time? If I report in a bug, I am doing them a favour (in turn myself, as I would like to see the module finished), but if its get`s time consuming by forcing you to register for this process alone, and adjust to it, then it is a bad design choice. Think out of the box for a moment, imagine if every 3rd party had their own system, and you gotta make 5 registrations and join 5 different sites just to report/orient yourself on status of bugs... yeah... (+ future possible 3rd parties)

 

Not going to argue on this anymore, I honestly doubt they`l read this anyways. Fact is, the reason this thread even exists is because there are concerns out there. Have fun

 

EDIT: Pilot body was an example, don`t take it too literally as being any huge issue.

Edited December 15, 2016 by zerO_crash

[Guest deeplodokus]

it feels to me that criticism in this thread has been rather constructive. some people are disappointed by the lack of final polish on this module and it'd be great if leatherneck acknowledged this, possibly replied, and worked on those issues

 

we bought that module and i think we deserve updates (even if just a "we're aware of it, we'll work on it at some point, it will take X weeks/months"). just so we feel and know and are proven that the module isn't abandoned. claiming it's final implies that only minor details will be fixed. is the training a minor detail?

 

fact is, when you buy the mig21, it says EARLY ACCESS on the purchase page (valid today 16 dec 2016). it feels cocky for leatherneck to say the module is final here when eagle dynamics seem to differ. the training missions have blobs of text that say "[this text shouldn't be here in final version]" or something like that. but the module is final eh?

 

leatherneck, please read this and comment. i bought a module over a year ago knowing it was early access. left it on the side for a year and a half. the training missions feel like a disrespectful joke (although they're likely to be the first thing anyone will run after buying the module) that don't teach you anything apart from "turn everything on, who cares what it's for anyway". you claim your module is final but ED doesn't. how serious does that look?

 

there's obviously something fishy somewhere. can either leatherneck or eagle dynamics please comment?

 

frankly i find it quite worrying for the upcoming modules. definitely not buying any other leatherneck module until i'm proven the mig21 isn't abandoned

 

thank you

Edited December 16, 2016 by deeplodokus

[Cobra847]

The MiG-21 has been feature complete since release. Yes, some "optional" features such as the pilot body have not yet been added, but these are not considered part of the base package. If you feel cheated due to the lack of some minor features such as these, then I apologize.

 

Most importantly, fixes are still rolling in for the MiG-21. Sometimes we don't manage to update the ED changelog, as evidenced by several recent patches. I'm sure that is evident from the last few months.

Unfortunately, DCS is a moving platform, and stuff breaks. I wish it didn't, as it sucks away plenty of time and energy from the development team, but it does. And fixes are not instantaneous.

 

That said, there is some sort of false equivalence going on where the consensus is moving towards "the MiG-21 is completely broken". I'm not sure where it is coming from; as from, at least, our point of view- the module is stable. Albeit, of course, with a few flaws that will be corrected.

 

I will try to post more in the MiG-21 section to keep you informed.

[Cobra847]

Also, the Early Access tag was supposed to be removed a while ago. There is no disconnect or mystery, just a simple mistake.

[Cobra847]

..the training missions have blobs of text that say "[this text shouldn't be here in final version]" or something like that. but the module is final eh?...

 

...the training missions feel like a disrespectful joke (although they're likely to be the first thing anyone will run after buying the module) that don't teach you anything apart from "turn everything on, who cares what it's for anyway"....

 

 

That is not a broken feature, or broken missions, or- even a bug.

 

You simply disagree with the style of the training missions- and that is fine. The vast majority like them, they have been useful for thousands of MiG-21 players for the last 3 years, so why is this suddenly an issue?

[Guest deeplodokus]

thanks cobra for your message

 

can we hope (and when?) for the training missions to be:

- fixed (radio not working)

- better organised (e.g. training #2 requiring to have done training #4 to understand what's going on... not a precise example but you get the idea)

- useful (no "who cares what that switch is for")

 

thanks

 

edit:

..the training missions have blobs of text that say "[this text shouldn't be here in final version]" or something like that.

That is not a broken feature, or broken missions, or- even a bug.

is that "shouldn't be in final version" text actually meant to stay in the final version?

Edited December 16, 2016 by deeplodokus

[Cobra847]

thanks cobra for your message

 

can we hope (and when?) for the training missions to be:

- fixed (radio not working)

- better organised (e.g. training #2 requiring to have done training #4 to understand what's going on... not a precise example but you get the idea)

- useful (no "who cares what that switch is for")

 

thanks

 

edit:

 

is that "shouldn't be in final version" text actually meant to stay in the final version?

 

We're not planning any changes to the training missions beyond bugfixing (like the radio).

They are working fine for the majority of customers, and while some may not like the style, there are no resources currently to re-do them.

 

Which mission is the final version text in? I have not heard of that bug previously,

 

Thanks!

[Guest deeplodokus]

We're not planning any changes to the training missions beyond bugfixing (like the radio).

They are working fine for the majority of customers, and while some may not like the style, there are no resources currently to re-do them.

 

Which mission is the final version text in? I have not heard of that bug previously,

 

Thanks!

 

thanks for your response. perhaps it's just me who's bothered by the trainings

 

i'll re-do the trainings and i'll let you know which one has the "final version" thinggy. leaving a note to myself to not forget... i'll get back to you soonish hopefully :)

Edited December 16, 2016 by deeplodokus

[Vincent90]

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/m/issue_page.php?id=0000252

 

Any info on the animation arguments?

[zerO_crash]

Happy I`m proven wrong on the communication part then. Good to hear fixes will be rolled out. Wish you best of luck with Viggen release, and hopefully some more updates along the way. Cheers

[Cobra847]

Happy I`m proven wrong on the communication part then. Good to hear fixes will be rolled out. Wish you best of luck with Viggen release, and hopefully some more updates along the way. Cheers

 

Thank you!

[Cobra847]

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/m/issue_page.php?id=0000252

 

Any info on the animation arguments?

 

Not sure if there has been progress on this item.

[grunf]

 

That said, there is some sort of false equivalence going on where the consensus is moving towards "the MiG-21 is completely broken". I'm not sure where it is coming from; as from, at least, our point of view- the module is stable. Albeit, of course, with a few flaws that will be corrected.

Probably just a vocal minority :D. MiG is far from being completely broken. It was my favorite module when I bought it almost two years ago, and it still is now, despite some bugs and flaws.

 

Speaking of flaws, are you planing to address some things that may work as designed, but are not implemented exactly the way they work in reality, like the weapons selector, RSBN and ARK? SAU stabilization could also be improved.

 

Any chance of adding some minor features, like seat raising/lowering? :)

[Whisper]

@Whisper. As it was mentioned before, communication is dead, and to be quite honest, having LN getting their own site for reporting issues, is probably the thing that damages the reports the most. They want it easier, and by that force you to spend more time to register and use their own system for reporting bugs. Sometimes you`r unsure if bug, or simply behaviour you`ve never experienced before on an aircraft, is there any way to discuss it at their bug report? NO.

 

As simple thing as pilot body (come on, Razbam even got it for M2000C before LN even get`s it for MiG, if ever) was requested, and what? Silence to the max. Is LN ignoring posts they flat out would have to reply with a "no" to? I had a very positive idea of LN in the beginning, sadly with time it`s got worse.

 

I don`t favour any 3rd party dev over any other in DCS, I like to think of them as equal. But you can surely see how much more positive guys over at Belsimtek and Razbam are, where just asking for a simple thing, get`s it added the same day (helmet sun protection, or whatever you care to mention), (ED correcting elevator shape and adding additional closing hatch to Spitfire), and those in a so short time Charles Darwin would be astonished. I`m sorry, but LN is just NOT on that level. Asking things here is like slamming your head against a wall, forget getting response, or anything done until next century.

 

I have full respect for them if they have a problem fixing the MiG, might take time, so be it. But not responding to anything at all, and claiming that the module can be considered "out of beta" is just flat out rude to anyone who supported them with their wallet.

 

In case any LN-associate actually bothers to read this, know this: I still love your module and will continue to, but you might want to consider fixing things soon, as one update is one step forward, and two steps back, it seems.

 

Just chiming it to answer here, I never talked about communication.

The point that made me react was this :

I don't know if you've ever been in a hair-raising dogfight in the MiG-21, but the workload of switching between the weapon stations, switching between IR/SAR (which is also a "priority switch" IRL), flying your plane, keeping your enemy in sight, and watching your energy status is just ridiculous. And if they call it a simulation, they should in fact simulate the real plane. I would suggest to first finish a module and all its systems, before starting some Viggens and Tomcats and whatnot, but that's just my two cents.

+1, that last part is spot on.

As far as I've seen, the "last part" was : "I would suggest to first finish a module and all its systems, before starting some Viggens and Tomcats and whatnot, but that's just my two cents."

That has nothing to do with communication, but with asking LN to only do bugfixing on current released modules and do zero work on upcoming modules, to which I cannot agree due to reasons I explained above. I was not commenting on their lack of communication :) You neither, btw, when writing "last part is spot on" ;)

There's 2 parallel issues, comms and actual bug fixing. Again, asking to stop other module dev to only bug-fix the Fishbed is unreasonable imho. That means it takes more time to get things done? Too bad, I don't think it's an issue if it keeps LN afloat.

 

Comms? Well, Cobra just seems to have answered your issues :) Using a separate bugtracker isn't that a bad idea, imho. It makes actual bugs and reproductability THAT much better for devs, and yes, it slows down a bit the dev process. From what I've seen it doing to BI and ArmA3, I can see the benefits. A3 may be now 3x slower in devs, buts it's heads and shoulder above the previous (poor) ArmA quality state.

[Datek]

thanks for your response. perhaps it's just me who's bothered by the trainings

 

i'll re-do the trainings and i'll let you know which one has the "final version" thinggy. leaving a note to myself to not forget... i'll get back to you soonish hopefully :)

 

The training mission with the "remove this from the final version" text is a joke, not a bug; its supposed to say that.

[Sokol1_br]

We're not planning any changes to the training missions beyond bugfixing (like the radio).

 

Training missions issue is not really a "bug" - but seems the issue is used old files, that don't reflect DCS World radio changes.

 

They just lack the actual radio list (left side on picture) in new format, I think.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2975108&postcount=16

 

Single and Quick Missions can be fixed re-saving in M.Editor,

Training Missions require add the list manually.

 

But if the mission files in ED backup was not updated, this "looping" fix, "broken" by patches never end. :noexpression:

 

Even user's can fix this and send the updated files for you send for ED, for future patches.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Sokol1_br

[Guest deeplodokus]

The training mission with the "remove this from the final version" text is a joke, not a bug; its supposed to say that.

 

thanks for confirming. well then... i've already said what i think about those training missions :)

[sobe]

Sokol1_br

I could not locate any of the lua files to open that contained anything like you posted. Where are they?

[Dugong]

And who can blame them for not entering into the debate here by replying to this unwarranted vitriol?

 

I think the vitrol as you call it actually stems from the complete silence. People get frustrated that the module has seemingly made little progress since launch, and where there is progress it's hard to tell because there are either no, or very infrequent patch notes.

 

I'm siting here wondering if the ASP and weapon selector will be getting the rework it needs, LN may consider fine needing no further work, but as customers we just don't know do we?

[Stratos]

Is the landing gear strenght going to be improved? We all have seen rought landings of Fishbeds in both Runways and conventional roads, and the DCS 21Bis landing gear is very sensitive, not really suited for rough operations .

[Sokol1_br]

Sokol1_br

I could not locate any of the lua files to open that contained anything like you posted. Where are they?

 

The above quote is from mission files, not from LUA.

 

In Training missions is need add manually the "Radio" list - left side of picture, right side is original file.

 

In QM just re-save in ME add the list.

 

Campaign mission file are OK.

 

But until this was not changed in missions in ED backup files the next patch will broken your fix. :D

 

Bottom line: nothing wrong with the plane radio, but with mission files.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Sokol1_br

[sobe]

Sokol1_br

What do you use to open a MIZ training file with so that you can edit it?

[grunf]

Sokol1_br

What do you use to open a MIZ training file with so that you can edit it?

Miz is basically a .zip file. Rename .miz to .zip and you'll be able to open it as any other zip archive.

[Sokol1_br]

I open with WinRar, no need rename or extract.

 

And use Notepad++ to open the "Mission" file inside the WinRar, make the changes, save and WinRar ask if want add changes in their files, confirm.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Sokol1_br