Jump to content

VEAO Update - May 2017


Recommended Posts

Dear VEAO Customers,

I am writing to you to keep you informed about the Hawk and P-40F development programs for DCS World.

 

As you know, we have seen a list of problems develop with each iteration and patch of DCS with both of our aircraft, through no fault of our own. From engines suddenly not having any thrust to aircraft not being able to take off from the ground to weapons and smoke stopped working to the latest problems we are encountering with the upcoming DCS 2.1 release.

 

Our development team scramble around trying to fix these issue which are caused by the core simulator being updated. As you can understand this is sometime soul destroying and very time consuming for us, not to mention things breaking for you when flying the aircraft.

 

You, our customers, are the driving factor for my team and I to keep working on these issues and to provide you with the best experience possible with the aircraft we are developing and we are committed to doing just that.

 

Therefore I have taken the decision to delay release of the P-40F and future VEAO modules until a stable DCS 2.5 has been released. I feel that this is the only way forward and it is not a decision I have thought about lightly.

 

While we understand that this news is disappointing to many of you; to demonstrate our commitment to those who have and continue to support us, we are willing to offer a full refund to those customers who purchased the P-40F through the VEAO Store

 

Please go to this page and fill in the required fields on the form to request a refund:

http://veaosimulations.co.uk/dcs-p-40f-refund-request/

 

The Activation code that you have been provided with already will still be valid for P-40F when it is released for DCS 2.5. In addition we will provide you with a pre-release version closer to the time of release for you to enjoy.

 

For Hawk we are still committed to developing the product to its full potential and are working through the bugs presented to us with each DCS patch. This will continue to happen through versions 1.5.6, 2.1 and beyond to the merged stable 2.5 version.

 

We understand your frustration with our products and no one is committed to solving the issues more than us.

 

We have taken the decision to concentrate our focus on the development of P-40F and Spitfire along with the updates and changes to Hawk and as such we will not be releasing development updates for unreleased products until they are in the hands of ED and release is imminent. For released products we will of course update you as soon as new features and updates are completed.

 

Thank you for your continued support and patience.

Chris Ellis

Director

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I think you took a wise decision. I did not bought P40 , but I find the refund with preserving the key a good brand recovering for VEAO. Whish you best and real hope you can put VEAO back were it was in the begining... I am sure you can, even it will be after 2.5 .

 

As a side note, the issues faced should be assumed as it not sounds very nice to delegate them to DCS core features/changes. It is part of process... a process were you committed in.

Romanian Community for DCS World

HW Specs: AMD 7900X, 64GB RAM, RTX 4090, HOTAS Virpil, MFG, CLS-E, custom

Link to comment

Thx for the info Ells, as annoying as it may be. Constantly trying to hit a moving target when it comes to programming is hell and in the long run, it's better for us too if you guys wait for some stable water on EDs end first rather than having our planes break every new release cycle.

 

I'll keep my P-40 preorder because I want to see more developers working on ww2 aircraft in DCS, not less.

Link to comment

But even when 2.5 is released its not going to be a fixed unchanged versión. There are going to be updates, changes and modifications over 2.5.

 

So every developer must adapt, change, update his products according to new 2.5 updates.

 

Why the actual VEAO products problems with 1.5 or 2.0 updates will be fixed in a updated, changing 2.5?

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
But even when 2.5 is released its not going to be a fixed unchanged versión. There are going to be updates, changes and modifications over 2.5.

 

So every developer must adapt, change, update his products according to new 2.5 updates.

 

Why the actual VEAO products problems with 1.5 or 2.0 updates will be fixed in a updated, changing 2.5?

 

It depends on what and how much changes. Currently DCS is in a major revamping phase that probably affects a lot of different systems VEAO has to take into account (from FM modelling, to sound and lighting engine to damage modelling and so forth). Depending on how and what they integrate, that could mean completely scrapping and rewriting whole portions of the code (I don't know how involved that is since only ED acknowledged third party devs get access to the engine at this level but I would assume it not to be done with just a search and replace job on the codebase).

Link to comment

Somehow I doubt 2.5 will be released as a final rock solid definitive stable version. Even the name suggests transition... 2.5.

Is true that no othe third party dev made same anouncement of stopping releasing anything until 2.5 but for sure they haven't stop developing the future modules nor fixing or finishing up the old ones even if they don't have solid release dates.

Also, sorry to say, they don't blame the patches for their bugs. They try to fix them and move on. Even Aviodev.


Edited by zaelu

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A,

Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least

Link to comment

Thats my point.

 

DCS is evolving continuosly. Sometimes at low speed, sometimes quicker and other third parties are working keeping his products Up to date.

 

Im sure this updating process for third developer is also painful, difficult and hard sometimes but they didnt give up. Arguing that 2.5 will benefit VEAO with much desired stable Code base and all development must stop until then doesnt make sense for me.

 

With all my respect to VEAO team.

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
Somehow I doubt 2.5 will be released as a final rock solid definitive stable version. Even the name suggests transition... 2.5.

Is true that no othe third party dev made same anouncement of stopping releasing anything until 2.5 but for sure they haven't stop developing the future modules nor fixing or finishing up the old ones even if they don't have solid release dates.

Also, sorry to say, they don't blame the patches for their bugs. They try to fix them and move on. Even Aviodev.

 

That is not what we have said now is it? We have not said that we are not working on our modules, we have simply said that we are not looking to release P-40 before 2.5 merge is complete for various reasons.

 

So please, dont twist what we have said

 

Pman

Link to comment

Sorry then for arguing you are stopping the development of future modules.

 

You are still working on then and delaying the release until 2.5.

 

My apologies

" You must think in russian.."

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Windows 7 Home Premium-Intel 2500K OC 4.6-SSD Samsung EVO 860- MSI GTX 1080 - 16G RAM - 1920x1080 27´

 

Hotas Rhino X-55-MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals -Track IR 4

Link to comment
That is not what we have said now is it? We have not said that we are not working on our modules, we have simply said that we are not looking to release P-40 before 2.5 merge is complete for various reasons.

 

So please, dont twist what we have said

 

Pman

 

Neither did I. Read again your quote.

 

I said stop releasing. The announcement not what they actually do which is normal to differ.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

I5 4670k, 32GB, GTX 1070, Thrustmaster TFRP, G940 Throttle extremely modded with Bodnar 0836X and Bu0836A,

Warthog Joystick with F-18 grip, Oculus Rift S - Almost all is made from gifts from friends, the most expensive parts at least

Link to comment

We could go around this all day long Zaelu.

We have not stopped release, we have delayed it for various reasons which we detailed.

 

What other 3rd party devs do is up to them, this is our decision and it will not change.

 

Thanks for your support,

Chris.

Link to comment

My post may sound a bit.......impatient maybe? But I assure that it is not. I did not order the P-40 and I'm not all that invested in the Hawk so my question is purely a curiosity question, as I would like to understand the process.

 

I get that ED makes changes and that 3rd parties have to roll with those punches. But I'm trying to connect the dots as to why VEAO seems to have a much harder time keeping up with the other 3rd party devs.

 

Otherwise: I do not see this many issues (if any much of the time) cropping up in any of the other 3rd party projects coming along every time ED makes changes. And when they do occur, it seems as though all of them work together with ED to get things sorted out in short order. A good example would be a few patches ago when several modules failed in quite a few areas and became unusable. The problem persisted for about a week and then it was fixed. Outside of that update, we have rarely seen any one particular module being continually plagued by the same issues for long periods.

 

I'm really not trying to pick on you guys. I would very much love to make the Hawk one of my favorite AC. I love it's look and feel. But it seems to me the VEAO seems to have more issues than the other 3rd party devs at this point. I sympathize with you guys but you seem to have a lot of pokers in a fire that may be just a little too hot to handle at this point.

 

Again, I cannot pretend to know the complete process. I know very little about how this stuff works. I can only compare what I see. And what I believe that a majority of us are seeing is very confusing and leads us to draw very negative conclusions. Maybe wrongfully so. But still.....you have to admit that it certainly looks like something is not quite right.

 

Thanks. I hope you understand where I am coming from on this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Guys, Please do not over-read/assume things outside of what has been stated by PMan/Ells.

 

2.5 Will likely be the pen-ultimate release for a while,

All Maps Modules (Caucasus 2/HD/Remaster/Reboot, NTTR, Normandy +),

All Core Sim Features (UI Updates, PBR, Deferred Lighting, Etc etc etc.).

 

after 2.5 is released and moved to stable,

The rash of big under the hood and core code changes will prolly slow down significantly once PBR, Deferred and underlying features currently in the Normandy Alpha are all integrated into Release/OpenBeta Branches.

 

1.5 to 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.5 is a very complex road. T3 Terrain Engine to T4, to PBR/Deferred/UI/WWII Assets and Scripts, to Caucasus 2.0, to new Damage model sometime, to new Flight Model Stuff , etc etc etc.

 

it's a lot to keep up with sometimes.


Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment

The Code

 

Let me understand the problems, Veao is currently experiencing problems due to ED's code not being compatible to Veao code? Shouldn't it be the other way around, Veao code is not compatible with ED's code? Just wondering...TC

  • Like 1

Win 10 Pro 64bit | Half X F/T Case | Corsair 1200AT ps | Asus ROG Maximums XIII Extreme | I9 11900K Clocked@4200 | Nepton 240 W/C | 64GB DDR4-3600 Gskill Mem | Asus 3080 gpu/8gb | SB-Z audio | Asus 32" 1440 Monitor | Winwing Super Tauras/Super Libra | Crosswind R/P | Track-ir-5 |

Link to comment
Guys, Please do not over-read/assume things outside of what has been stated by PMan/Ells.

 

2.5 Will likely be the pen-ultimate release for a while,

All Maps Modules (Caucasus 2/HD/Remaster/Reboot, NTTR, Normandy +),

All Core Sim Features (UI Updates, PBR, Deferred Lighting, Etc etc etc.).

 

after 2.5 is released and moved to stable,

The rash of big under the hood and core code changes will prolly slow down significantly once PBR, Deferred and underlying features currently in the Normandy Alpha are all integrated into Release/OpenBeta Branches.

 

1.5 to 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.5 is a very complex road. T3 Terrain Engine to T4, to PBR/Deferred/UI/WWII Assets and Scripts, to Caucasus 2.0, to new Damage model sometime, to new Flight Model Stuff , etc etc etc.

 

it's a lot to keep up with sometimes.

 

 

Sorry SkateZilla, I just don't get it. I understand that there are issues. But these issues only seem to be plaguing VEAO to the degree of crippling their ability to effectively operate. Other 3rd party devs have more modules out and running and ED changes seem to have a minimal impact on their modules.

My lack of understanding comes from VEAO seemingly being completely crippled in some ways by issues that don't seem to be having the same effect on the other companies dealing with the same problems presented by the changes being made by ED.

I am not trying to single VEAO out. It's just odd to me. And yes....the situation unfortunately leads to confusion, and speculation.

I get that when someone pre pays for something and 2 years later it's still not around, it can get pretty upsetting. So in that case I can see where speculation about it would become inevitable. And I don't blame those guys.

But I'm not making any speculations. I'm really just trying to understand.

 

I can see that this is potentially a very explosive subject.....I'll just take my leave of it. It's really not worth any answers that I may come away with.

Link to comment
My post may sound a bit.......impatient maybe? But I assure that it is not. I did not order the P-40 and I'm not all that invested in the Hawk so my question is purely a curiosity question, as I would like to understand the process.

 

I get that ED makes changes and that 3rd parties have to roll with those punches. But I'm trying to connect the dots as to why VEAO seems to have a much harder time keeping up with the other 3rd party devs.

 

Otherwise: I do not see this many issues (if any much of the time) cropping up in any of the other 3rd party projects coming along every time ED makes changes. And when they do occur, it seems as though all of them work together with ED to get things sorted out in short order. A good example would be a few patches ago when several modules failed in quite a few areas and became unusable. The problem persisted for about a week and then it was fixed. Outside of that update, we have rarely seen any one particular module being continually plagued by the same issues for long periods.

 

I'm really not trying to pick on you guys. I would very much love to make the Hawk one of my favorite AC. I love it's look and feel. But it seems to me the VEAO seems to have more issues than the other 3rd party devs at this point. I sympathize with you guys but you seem to have a lot of pokers in a fire that may be just a little too hot to handle at this point.

 

Again, I cannot pretend to know the complete process. I know very little about how this stuff works. I can only compare what I see. And what I believe that a majority of us are seeing is very confusing and leads us to draw very negative conclusions. Maybe wrongfully so. But still.....you have to admit that it certainly looks like something is not quite right.

 

Thanks. I hope you understand where I am coming from on this.

 

I'm wondering the same, no blame or anything, just trying to understand.

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment

To quote Pete on our FB page:

"Yes in short, we rely on more outputs from dcs then other developers do, so when something changes for a dcs update it can throw things out of whack, it's something we are battling but it's a fundamental change to approach, it's getting better but not quite there yet.

Pman"

 

When we coded the Hawk we were one of the first 3rd party developers to be in contract with TFC and the SDK was in its infancy.

Hawk was coded back then for what existed within DCS at that time.

DCS has evolved massively form 1.2.16 to 1.5 to 2.0 and now upcoming 2.1

A lot of code was re-written when we released the EFM.

 

However; we have to rely on DCS passing the module certain information; mostly atmospheric but there are a few other core systems that DCS communicates back and forward with the module.

 

I cannot comment on how other 3rd party developers make their aircraft talk to DCS and vice versa and to what level of detail.

 

Now with our modules so far we have relied on DCS heavily to pass that information across to the module and back again.

 

Let's say DCS uses parameter X and we are looking for a value of X but suddenly that value is no longer X but Y then some co-dependencies of our systems will fall over and could cause cascading faults, which we have to try and bug hunt.

 

An example of this is the HSI spinning on start-up in Hawk. One version it was absolutely fine and the next patch it started spinning wildly for no reason on power-up.

It took us a while to figure out that there had actually been a power trip caused by the sim and this is why the HSI spins when the DC bus goes live.

Why does it power trip? Well because Hawk has been coded to schematic level and that's what the real HSI does when a power trip happens.

Why is the sim telling it there is a power trip? We have no idea, still today.

So the easiest answer to that is to remove the power trip function.

 

Well we shouldn't have to, that's how the real aircraft works but let's suppose that we want to remove it.

There are a ton of dependencies within the AHRS system; navigation, course, heading bug, ILS, VORTAC, Etc. and the code is complicated enough that if we remove the power-trip functionality it could mess up something else entirely so it's a lengthy process to disect.

 

We're not saying the code is incompatible, we are saying we are experiencing problems that we don't fully understand as to why DCS causes them.

No it shouldn't be like that but the fact of the matter is that it is.

 

Another example is with P-40 happening right now. We had a fully flyable aircraft as you've seen from Pete and my videos. I could even live stream it right now with the version I have.

The guys did an SDK update last week and now they have no thrust at all.

The throttle moves in animation and the control indicator shows the throttle input moving, but again no thrust.

We've not changed anything. So now the guys are going through each parameter DCS is passing to us to see what's changed and what is causing no thrust.

 

We can't allow that to happen when it gets in your hands. So we have to code less dependencies on DCS passing the parameters to us.

And therein lies the problem; we code around this for 1.5.6 but what does 2.0 and 2.1 do. Oh look it's fine in one of those versions, but why....

 

The decision to continue to develop but not release until 2.5 means we are not trying to bug hunt for 4 different versions of DCS but 1 or 2 (release and development) which means these sorts of problems shouldn't crop up and cause similar issues to that Hawk has been having over the years.


Edited by Ells228
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Sorry SkateZilla, I just don't get it. I understand that there are issues. But these issues only seem to be plaguing VEAO to the degree of crippling their ability to effectively operate. Other 3rd party devs have more modules out and running and ED changes seem to have a minimal impact on their modules.

My lack of understanding comes from VEAO seemingly being completely crippled in some ways by issues that don't seem to be having the same effect on the other companies dealing with the same problems presented by the changes being made by ED.

I am not trying to single VEAO out. It's just odd to me. And yes....the situation unfortunately leads to confusion, and speculation.

I get that when someone pre pays for something and 2 years later it's still not around, it can get pretty upsetting. So in that case I can see where speculation about it would become inevitable. And I don't blame those guys.

But I'm not making any speculations. I'm really just trying to understand.

 

I can see that this is potentially a very explosive subject.....I'll just take my leave of it. It's really not worth any answers that I may come away with.

 

 

 

It's not my place to comment on the internal structure of VEAO's Coding team.

 

That being said, any discussion of coding in detail is likely a NDA Violation as well.

 

The Core Sim Likely Changes faster than the Coders can keep up with, and trying to develop across what's 4 Branches now (REL, OB, OA, Normany Closed ALpha), can cause a head ache as to why a function works in one branch and not another.,

 

So it's best to pick a single Branch (ie 2.5), and develop for that one, as when 2.5 is released it will eventually take over all branches, and the code base will be the same across REL, OB, OA branches.


Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
To quote Pete on our FB page:

"Yes in short, we rely on more outputs from dcs then other developers do, so when something changes for a dcs update it can throw things out of whack, it's something we are battling but it's a fundamental change to approach, it's getting better but not quite there yet.

Pman"

 

When we coded the Hawk we were one of the first 3rd party developers to be in contract with TFC and the SDK was in its infancy.

Hawk was coded back then for what existed within DCS at that time.

DCS has evolved massively form 1.2.16 to 1.5 to 2.0 and now upcoming 2.1

A lot of code was re-written when we released the EFM.

 

However; we have to rely on DCS passing the module certain information; mostly atmospheric but there are a few other core systems that DCS communicates back and forward with the module.

 

I cannot comment on how other 3rd party developers make their aircraft talk to DCS and vice versa and to what level of detail.

 

Now with our modules so far we have relied on DCS heavily to pass that information across to the module and back again.

 

Let's say DCS uses parameter X and we are looking for a value of X but suddenly that value is no longer X but Y then some co-dependencies of our systems will fall over and could cause cascading faults, which we have to try and bug hunt.

 

An example of this is the HSI spinning on start-up in Hawk. One version it was absolutely fine and the next patch it started spinning wildly for no reason on power-up.

It took us a while to figure out that there had actually been a power trip caused by the sim and this is why the HSI spins when the DC bus goes live.

Why does it power trip? Well because Hawk has been coded to schematic level and that's what the real HSI does when a power trip happens.

Why is the sim telling it there is a power trip? We have no idea, still today.

So the easiest answer to that is to remove the power trip function.

 

Well we shouldn't have to, that's how the real aircraft works but let's suppose that we want to remove it.

There are a ton of dependencies within the AHRS system; navigation, course, heading bug, ILS, VORTAC, Etc. and the code is complicated enough that if we remove the power-trip functionality it could mess up something else entirely so it's a lengthy process to disect.

 

We're not saying the code is incompatible, we are saying we are experiencing problems that we don't fully understand as to why DCS causes them.

No it shouldn't be like that but the fact of the matter is that it is.

 

Another example is with P-40 happening right now. We had a fully flyable aircraft as you've seen from Pete and my videos. I could even live stream it right now with the version I have.

The guys did an SDK update last week and now they have no thrust at all.

The throttle moves in animation and the control indicator shows the throttle input moving, but again no thrust.

We've not changed anything. So now the guys are going through each parameter DCS is passing to us to see what's changed and what is causing no thrust.

 

We can't allow that to happen when it gets in your hands. So we have to code less dependencies on DCS passing the parameters to us.

And therein lies the problem; we code around this for 1.5.6 but what does 2.0 and 2.1 do. Oh look it's fine in one of those versions, but why....

 

The decision to continue to develop but not release until 2.5 means we are not trying to bug hunt for 4 different versions of DCS but 1 or 2 (release and development) which means these sorts of problems shouldn't crop up and cause similar issues to that Hawk has been having over the years.

 

I know that pain all to well.

 

Over the past year you sort of get the hint EDs on Normandy as the main branch and then they backport changes to beta and release. NTTR was a proof of concept and hence its limbo.

 

Problem is most often then not it fubars the mainline. Almost as if the merges aren't tested in any thorough way.

 

Tons of PBR pre-processor switches through all the shader code only makes me believe it more.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...