M2000-C problematic roadmap

[FENDER]

HI all,

 

As I have seen many RAZBAM M2K customers (me among them) express there inconvenience with the roadmap of this model since it was release for early access. i do think topic should be evaluated on a dedicated thread here and by all mean is not fit nor related to the update thread, as such i am offering an open discussion here for any users to share with their perception and experience. To start with i will add mine:

 

1. to my honest opinion this model was released in early alpha stages which was quit far from Complying with beta phase, following i see no issue with that as long as the price was Correlated with the real status of the product, to my honest opinion a fair price of 50-60 USD Should more corresponded with final release stages.

 

2. A long the path it seems that the updates that were introduced and released had no clear and obvious vector and suffer from many ups and downs while one thing was fixed there was some degradations with other systems which either ok or fixed already, hence, to me the experience was as if each update in the early stage was introducing a new flight model that requires you to re adapt to. To me this add a major aspect of frustration

 

3. I don’t see any issues with adding the final user into the loop for feedbacks and allow him to add another important perspective and physical touch to the final product, yet at the same time I find it not professional from one side to claim premium price for a product were later you find is far from final stages of development.

 

4. RAZBAM or any other 3rd party professional developer enveloped and govern by ED in general needs to allow them self away to differentiate between the early adaptors which will be more than happy to be involved from the early stages of the development and the conventional consumers which usually are willing to pay a premium price to a final released products that is up to date were all featured were screened under SQA SQC process.

 

5. I can understand the business perspective were the leading rational would be to divert efforts for profit tasks like releasing a new model for hungry a waiting community, yet at the same time it should not affect nor pause finalizing developments to align beta state of older products, moreover when they were charged with full price.

 

6. I am very sure that by addressing the above points, this will allow any potential customer to grow the confidence that any product that he is buying will allow him with a good value for his money. My personal lesson learn is to wait first from some comprehensive reviews that will highlight the true status and envelope of the product that I am about to buy in order to allow me the correct benchmark to evaluate whether I would like to go for it at this point or not.

[kreisch]

Do Not buy early Access if you want a final product - is that so complicated?

 

I Do Not want to attack you, but this is the reality. Beside this the devs Do a good Job in the forums and I really like the m2k, yes - but i knew that i was paying for a Quick glance of the product in the first.

 

Stay with ED products might be better for you. But they need many more years to Release, maaaany! But there you have your quality.

 

Gesendet von meinem C6833 mit Tapatalk

[Paganus]

I purchased in early access. I knew what I was getting. Nobody tricked me. If I didn't want to deal with the growing pains of an early access module, I wouldn't have purchased it.

 

I believe I paid a fair price. If I had thought the price was too high, I wouldn't have purchased it.

 

Again, I was not confused, bewildered, or unaware of what I was buying. It was clearly called, early access.

 

I would advise restraint throwing around terms like "not professional". I could not disagree with you more on this point!

 

I'm happy you have learned that you should wait before purchasing early access modules. I on the other hand will be buying the AV-8 the moment they make it available.

 

Good Day.

[FENDER]

no need to be aggressive, I advice us all to respect perspective of others the same I and many others respect all. I understand your rational, and obviously each will follow his perception - yet I find it hard to understand why even after year + since release users refer to many issues. I have nothing personal against RAZBAM they like others 3rd party dev are aligning to the trend of there consumers which as a side affect is good to their business but that is totally not the main issue here

 

I am just trying to highlight that we all might find our self in the long terms with many half backed models which very few of them if any had reach the final development line.

 

on the other hand it, it good to have a nice merge in the community combined from early adaptors and more traditional buyers in order to keep this platform progress and everyone will fill there expectations.

 

cheers

[myHelljumper]

I purchased in early access. I knew what I was getting. Nobody tricked me. If I didn't want to deal with the growing pains of an early access module, I wouldn't have purchased it.

 

I believe I paid a fair price. If I had thought the price was too high, I wouldn't have purchased it.

 

Again, I was not confused, bewildered, or unaware of what I was buying. It was clearly called, early access.

 

I would advise restraint throwing around terms like "not professional". I could not disagree with you more on this point!

 

I'm happy you have learned that you should wait before purchasing early access modules. I on the other hand will be buying the AV-8 the moment they make it available.

 

Good Day.

 

This, if the price was too high then you should't have bought it.

 

And no one is agressive here.

 

Edit : I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to do with this topic....

Edited May 18, 2017 by myHelljumper

[Kayos]

Do Not buy early Access if you want a final product

 

This. It is that simple. Some of us like early access.

[Vatikus]

Do Not buy early Access if you want a final product

This. It is that simple. Some of us like early access.

I think the frustration is more in the line that there is no final product YET as developer switches to a new project.

 

I see this more as ED's fault than 3rd party developers, as ED should had better QA policy for the modules. As of now, we have bunch of half made products with no guarantee that they ever will be finished. It's a mess which only ED can fix.

[OnlyforDCS]

Not sure what this thread is about really.

 

I for one feel that the M2000C is probably the most complete third party module released so far. Sure it had problems and bumps on the way but we now have a great campaign and a mostly bug free and complete module. The FM feels pretty great. The cockpit is almost 100% functional. The weapons work as advertised.

 

Not sure what more you want. Sure there are a few things missing, but nothing critical and all in all the module is great fun both online and in single player.

[NeilWillis]

That's like saying you want professor X to solve the Riemann hypothesis, and he has to do it within 1 year or he's unprofessional.

 

You overlook some fundamental truths when it comes to 3rd party developers.

 

Firstly, they are entirely dependent on an external organisation for the foundations of their project. They have no control over that organisation, and are bound by the framework - ever changing at that - that the external organisation control.

 

Secondly, until a bug or development issue is resolved, the timescale for the solution is unknown, and therefore it is impossible to predict how or when it will be resolved.

 

Thirdly, as previously stated, EVERYONE including yourself agreed to the terms of purchase of the pre-release. As such, you have already accepted that it is an incomplete module, and therefore you have absolutely no grounds to complain. If however you purchased a complete module that had bugs, you'd have some firm argument. You didn't, and therefore you don't, so this thread is entirely pointless.

[Pikey]

And the ED factor. Name me a time when DCSW hasn't been in development.

 

Building Modules on a developing product is a fraught business. Unfortunately I can't share your opinions on the Mirage. I can, for two other 3rd party products, but not the Mirage.

 

You need to know the limits of DCS well before you can make an educated guess on the module reliability in and through early access, and for most of us, it's still a random business due to the mere fact that DCSW doesn't publish any roadmap on the technical aspects it is developing. It merely invites conjecture.

 

Feel grateful you gambled on Mirage and not something else.

[FENDER]

Not sure what this thread is about really.

 

I for one feel that the M2000C is probably the most complete third party module released so far. Sure it had problems and bumps on the way but we now have a great campaign and a mostly bug free and complete module. The FM feels pretty great. The cockpit is almost 100% functional. The weapons work as advertised.

 

Not sure what more you want. Sure there are a few things missing, but nothing critical and all in all the module is great fun both online and in single player.

 

odd as it may sound i totally agree with you, i do find the M2K as one of the interesting and outstanding model in DCS and this is one of our leading model in our virtual squadron - however, the path to that point is the thing i am trying to highlight here and this merge with vatikus thread which i think summarized it pretty nicely and related to the concern if i am an enthusiastic who invest a fair amount of money in early access or beta phase - currently we trust the professional dev that will close the loop for a RTM or equivalent level within reasonable time frame.

 

and i might a good reference to ED more than RAZBAM or any other 3rd party dev that for a certain point there should be a procedure/standard that will ensure that referring the existing models the loop is closed for the benefit of both the dev and the users and not just leave it open were potentially models can be unfinished for long terms

[myHelljumper]

I think the frustration is more in the line that there is no final product YET as developer switches to a new project.

 

Even this is a miss-conception, RB did not change project, they just have to focus on the harrier for now for undisclosed reasons.

 

Zeus said this a few weeks ago and then said that a major change on how the PCA work was planed.

 

If people could just read and stick to the facts and stop making up stuff life would be easier for them and for the devs.

 

I don't see RB releasing another module before releasing the M2000C (Unless there are two teams), that would be a bad move and I don't think that ED would allow it.

[Pikey]

Oh and another thing. Notice ED scrapped all mention of "Beta" following these types of discussions, to somewhat comply with the generally held standard that Beta is a feature complete product with only bugs to iron out. Now it's just "Early Access". If you don't notice these little things, you can't work out what they are thinking. WHilst the standards have subsequently been enforced, they did have to start somewhere, or this Simulation woudl have been dead in the water years ago. We are supporting it's continual development, you need to know what you did.

[myHelljumper]

and i might a good reference to ED more than RAZBAM or any other 3rd party dev that for a certain point there should be a procedure/standard that will ensure that referring the existing models the loop is closed for the benefit of both the dev and the users and not just leave it open were potentially models can be unfinished for long terms

 

Are there facts on this ? Is there a model is DCS where development have totally stopped ?

[azm]

Thirdly, as previously stated, EVERYONE including yourself agreed to the terms of purchase of the pre-release. As such, you have already accepted that it is an incomplete module, and therefore you have absolutely no grounds to complain. If however you purchased a complete module that had bugs, you'd have some firm argument. You didn't, and therefore you don't, so this thread is entirely pointless.

In case if you missed that:

It has the release date and it is not marked as "Early access".

And there is no information what else need to or will be done.

Now you please tell me what is actual module status?

Should I wait for "release" release or should I report a bug for each feature I found not working?

 

P.S. I like M2000 very much, it`s not a problem for me to wait until everything is done. Just want to know its status.

Edited May 18, 2017 by azm

[FENDER]

Are there facts on this ? Is there a model is DCS where development have totally stopped ?

 

by all means - no!. on top of that i don't believe there will be one that will dropped out. still, try to think once a new model will be introduced - you can expect that a lot of focus will be given to troubleshot as feedback from the community which might effect the progress of existing models.

 

I guess this is something related to perception and expectations, i am part of DCS community since early days of lock-on and even more years part of FSX back in the 90's. in the bottom line it all comes to the simple customer/provider handshake that relay to the expectation that within reasonable amount of time the product will reach full release status from that point it can endless grow with new features.

[Pikey]

Are there facts on this ? Is there a model is DCS where development have totally stopped ?

 

This is an interesting statement. Let's pick up on the difference from the OP and this one, for friendly discussion. You cannot prove that development stops, I can touch some code in 6 months from now and say it was in development. So we can say, for sure, there is a grey line. I believe the OP is infering this, I certainly took him that way, where does the grey line stop? We can take some examples. Mig21, C101 for discussion.

 

Mig21, development definitely slowed to a point where there was increased pressure from the forums after things subsequently broke and weren't fixed for a long time. Team subsequently splits on this. Coincidence? Who knows. Side note: Viggen? > F14, moving on quickly...

 

C101: The change logs show quite a lot of fixes. If you scan https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147601&page=5 count the number of "Fixes" vs the number of "Added". Half/half to my eyes. Is that development or fixing? Are the C101 team meeting enough of a development pace to get to a release stage whilst the core Sim changes, given we are about to go through yet another massive engine overhaul and we are 2 years down the line? It's fair to say, at a minimum, the devlopement is very slow, given the state of the module at purchase point still does not comply with ED's internal standards for a release.

 

It's perfectly fair to raise a point that development and release standards are questionable. Where we each sit on this will obviously differ, but the main OP point is valid until it touches on the subjective parts on what is "enough" or what is measurable.

 

Personally, I feel that for DCS, Early Access is a neccessary evil in order to get it moving with cash flow. But I do believe the point that the standardisation was terrible at the start and the communication of core DCS development that the 3rd parties are bound by, is so limiting that the end user could not reasonably be well educated in what to expect. I also believe personally, that it would benefit from a feature list whereby the 3rd parties have to stick to, of which lets say Mirage ground radar is perhaps something outwith control. And to stick to something that is not in your control, is where the difficulties lie, having responsibilities to both your End Customer, and your partner. So I propose a two tier system, whereby the development they can achieve should be binding and set, and the development that is out of their control should be clearly highlighted, such as "muliplayer cockpit, ground radar" are outwith our control, yet we would like (but not promise) to do them if the core technology is there.

Nevertheless, I find the Mirage, the least disappointing of modules, if we want to compare apples to oranges, where is BST's multi player in Huey and Mi8? No one is immune from this problem.

[Vatikus]

Even this is a miss-conception, RB did not change project, they just have to focus on the harrier for now for undisclosed reasons.

Look, I never wrote that M2K is abandoned and that it will stay in the current state forever... I understand just fine what was the RB statement.

Fact is, there is/will be no progress available for M2K for unknown time table. This is what is making users uneasy and they have all right to be, as you have yours to be ok with the current state.

 

Again, as I said it before, I see the culprit of the problem in ED not RB as they are the one who allow this type of work -> not enough manpower to work on multiple projects at the same time, resulting in hurting the development of the released module.

[FENDER]

In case of you missed that:

[ATTACH]162343[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]162344[/ATTACH]

It has the release date and it is not marked as "Early access".

And there is no information what is absent and what need to or will be done.

 

At this point i agree - this is pointless.

 

let me just say we all about to eat what we are cocking to our self. since we are a huge community - it will be hard to hit for the taste of all - to some it will be awesome and for some not so...

 

one thing for sure - we will keep fly DCS regardless of anything!

 

cheers to all

[myHelljumper]

I understand your concerns but I don't think anyone can do anything about it.

[lemoen]

I think the frustration is more in the line that there is no final product YET as developer switches to a new project.

 

I see this more as ED's fault than 3rd party developers, as ED should had better QA policy for the modules. As of now, we have bunch of half made products with no guarantee that they ever will be finished. It's a mess which only ED can fix.

 

Also, remember another thing. Software is updated in cycles. start -> Bug report / Feature req -> Investigation -> reproduce bug / plan feature -> fix bug / implement feature -> test -> add to next update -> wait for ED to release an update -> goto start

 

Some of these things doesn't require the developer to do anything so they have time to work on other things. Keep that in mind.

[Dehuman]

Fact is, there is/will be no progress available for M2K for unknown time table. This is what is making users uneasy and they have all right to be, as you have yours to be ok with the current state.

 

 

LATEST CHANGES IN

Current Release 1.5.6.4546.280

Current Open Beta 1.5.6.4546.280

Updated April 21, 2017

 

The M-2000C is averaging an update per month. :music_whistling:

[kobeshow]

Sooo, what is up with ED not having included any of the changes to the Mirage in their official updates, however small they may have been since the Harrier announcement?

[=Pedro=]

That's like saying you want professor X to solve the Riemann hypothesis, and he has to do it within 1 year or he's unprofessional.

 

What ? Are you comparing solution of The Riemann Hypothesis to finishing a toy ? :megalol:

[NeilWillis]

In case if you missed that:

[ATTACH]162343[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]162344[/ATTACH]

It has the release date and it is not marked as "Early access".

And there is no information what else need to or will be done.

Now you please tell me what is actual module status?

Should I wait for "release" release or should I report a bug for each feature I found not working?

 

P.S. I like M2000 very much, it`s not a problem for me to wait until everything is done. Just want to know its status.

 

They must have changed the status without announcement then. Probably on Friday with the release of the Steam version. Apologies. This does somewhat change matters!