Jump to content

Limit EA/Beta state to 1 year?


viper2097

Recommended Posts

 

..words..

 

I would suggest an easy rule:

 

If it stays longer in early access, customers have the choice to give the module back and get a full refund, or stay with it.

 

Are you serious?

i7-4790K@4.7GHz : EVGA 1070 SC : 16GB Corsair Vengence Pro : 2xEVO 840 SSD : EVGA 850W PSU : CORSAIR H100i Cooler : ASUS Z97-AR MB : CORSAIR OBSIDIAN 750D FULL TOWER

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, I am.

At the moment, I feel like being played a trick on. EA is being abused (especially Harrier, M2000, Normandy, WW2 assets), and it is necessary to stop that. If not, day x will come and the whole dcs-eco system will go upside down.

 

@SharpeXR, you are right with not buying ea, but look at the first sites of this thread, I wrote what is not ea. In that case, you could stop playing DCS...


Edited by viper2097

Steam user - Youtube

I am for quality over quantity in DCS modules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but look at the first sites of this thread, I wrote what is not ea. In that case, you could stop playing DCS...

There’s plenty of stuff that’s out of EA. And DCS modules are so challenging you can spend a lot of time on one. The best is the A-10C. There’s no end to getting the most from that one. If it was the only plane in DCS I would be content with it.

The Spitfire has some great campaigns. So does the P-51 and F-86

Flaming Cliffs is good. M-2000. There’s the Red Flag campaigns.

That gives me enough to do in DCS without touching EA

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"I think ED needs to have a basic set of criteria and contracts for 3rd party devs doing EA so its not abused."

 

They do. Have you seen an aircraft released without a flight model lately? Half the cockpit switches not working? They literally held back Razbam's release of the MiG-19 until it was up to their standards, how can that not be a "basic set of criteria and contracts for 3rd party devs"?

 

The Harrier has had some conflicting information recently and the timeline of further development has been somewhat unclear, but it is definitely still usable. To suggest it's a "dumpster fire" because you can't select and use some MFD pages and/or because the ARBS bombing system isn't modeled yet is absurd. You can do dumb bombing and use LGB's just fine without it.

 

What "critical" systems can you not use that don't allow you to enjoy the Harrier module? Please, I would like to know, so I can understand at least what I'm missing that I could be having in the module. It's not rhetorical, I really would like to know.

 

 

I actually see the mig19 delay as a good thing. But some people see it as indicative of issues with that Dev team. As is the decision to focus on "updating" the mirage given the poor state the Harrier module is in.

 

From what the guys with issues in the harrier tread say, there hasn't been much added in over 6 months, some bug fixes and minor additions, and I'd see that as an issue. I've had it for like 3 months, with nothing much done functionality wise.

 

The ARBS IS the critical system on the Harrier, that level of bombing precision it provided was what made the plane what it was. Its a strike aircraft, if I can't do precision strike its broken. Would you say that an F14 module without a working well modeled AWG-9 radar system was good to go? And currently you can't actually do precision strike missions with dumb bombs. The CCRP auto-bomb functionality is broken, as in doesn't work, and from what I can tell maybe never has. That right there Full Stop is a module breaking bug for a strike aircraft. Moreover, it seems like the devs might not even understand how it actually works in the IRL plane. Thats a further problem.

 

So things that I can't do in the harrier right now:

 

Dumb bomb using auto mode. Functionality broken, there is 10 page thread on this in their bug tracker, its a very old thread.

 

INS bombing mode, i.e. waypoint bombing. Not working/implemented, pretty critical for a strike aircraft going in low level to bomb something. Setting targets as waypoint offsets doesn't work either.

 

Loft bombing mode. Not implemented at all at this point, again pretty important if you don't want to get killed by AAA.

 

Laser guided bombs don't work for me (just posted tracks, this may be a JTAC issue though, haven't tried it with TPOD)

 

ARBS modes (Baut/Raut etc) seem incorrectly used/displayed. And really I don't think its even actually modeled (i.e. the errors you get with those modes), I think we get arcade bomb mode which doesn't even work right.

 

CCIP, dumb bombing this sort of works, some of the symbology seems wrong per some users. And there are other claims it doesn't work with the FLIR/HUD at night.

 

CCIP/CCRP bombing conversion, nope.

 

DMT can't track moving targets.

 

Sidearms, some versions/patches they work, some they don't, variously broken on and off.

Mavs have various issues in cooling, but at least these sort of work to include the LMavs and JTACs.

 

So, at the moment, the premier low level night strike attack aircraft, can drop dumb bombs using one mode CCIP (which from what I can tell wasn't used a ton) and even there its probably badly modeled, as are likely the gun/missile modes... It can't use LGB's with JTACs. Can't track moving targets using its DMT. And the best part is the Dev's don't really bother to update the community on when any of it might get fixed. The latest thing they posted was some re-texture pics and calling it a "mid life" update, which pretty much took the cake since the model is unfinished and enraged a good portion of the community that wants some basic functionality, not some nicer looking textures. So that right there is a dumpster fire from a PR point of view IMO.

 

So its well beyond some MFD's and "advanced" functionality thats missing.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been stated countless times that each modules averages about 5 years of development, due to the amount of work to make these aircraft as close to possible flight model, system and sensor wise. I don't know what happened here. I don't know if you don't understand the amount of work involved or what, but you stated an untruth.

I’m well aware it takes a great amount of work to create these modules. But they aren’t worth it to me until they’re finished. Again there is plenty to keep me busy in DCS and gaming in general than to be a beta tester. When a product spends that long in beta, yes it starts to raise a doubt for me that it will ever be finished. That’s not an untruth it’s just my perception. I do think devs would make a better return on their investment if they held off and released more completed work. The excitement of a new product has died off by the time it finishes EA. Also as more and more content becomes available for DCS there is less and less reason for anyone to rush into unfinished modules.

 

Indeed the Mirage is one of those that’s complete enough for me. I know all these aircraft get continual upgrades even the long ago released ones.


Edited by SharpeXB

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the most perfect .gif's I've ever seen, I can't spot the damn loop cut at all!

Re this thread, I think it serves a purpose and shouldn't be closed. Perpetual EA is a growing problem with no easy solution. If anything, threads like this allow devs to see their customers tolerance and frustration levels to said problem. It also looks like there's a 3rd party or two that are testing the bounds of that tolerance.

But yes, the thread's current state is as your .gif describes.


Edited by SonofEil

i7 7700K @5.0, 1080Ti, 32GB DDR4, HMD Odyssey, TM WH, Crosswind Rudder...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard topic. I would like ED to set some ground rules. for in house and 3er parties.

To get the proper functionality in a certain time frame, specified by the dev.

 

We will do this in x timeframe, posible dalay till x. Get propper comunication. you get this at this time, you get tthat at this other timeline, posibly x and y undetermined. Period. Everybody knows waht they are getting into. Simple, clean. keep the EA, and development.

Sell Modules to an informed customer. End of discussion.

 

Now there should be rule on no dev., including ED, bitting more than they could chew. Yes evrybody misses Falcon 4. But if they had concentrated in developing 70s aircraft, more modest systems, better data, and resources...

 

The F 15E is nonsense, the F 16 Block 50, come on Yes its common to the F/A 18 hornet, but is still being developed, tested, working out small and ocasinaly huge bugs...

 

Lots of us would buy a Thud, an A-4, A-7, F-8, a Super Sabre, a mig 17, SU 17, Su 22, I trully believe that the return on a fully modeled A4 wold have made much more money than lots of other modules.. you can see the reception for a MOD on the aircraft. I am not saying its a piece of cake to do this aircrafts but at least you have most systems working allready in the sim. You dont sea complaisn about the Sabre, the 15 or the F-5...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~S

 

+1

 

I also think that it should be limited to a year. I sometimes have the feeling that it is also exploited. What really bothers me is that the modules after the early accses (1-2-3-4 years later ) are still littered with bugs. Something like that must not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm one comparable comes to mind. Falcon 4.0. It was released under Hasbro, then literally thrown in the trash after the source code was leaked. After that the REAL development began. The community of fans and VR pilots who had the source code realeased patch after patch after patch and the game was improved and evolved to what we have today. Honestly, without those hundreds of patches over the span of 7-8 years Falcon 4.0 would not have made it after Hasbro. It has been in development since 1998 and switched more hands than a Thai prostitute but look at it now. An amazing flight sim that is still in development and loved by a strong fan base. From my experience flight sims are the one genre in the gaming industry that will never be labeled as 100% complete and this is mostly due to the high standard the community holds the developers to.


Edited by Akula
  • MB: MPG Z790 EDGE WIFI
  • Memory: WD Black SN850X 2TB PCIe Gen4 NVMe M.2
  • CPU: Intel Core i9-14900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8P+16E) 36M Cache
  • EVGA 1200W Gold PSU
  • MSI RTX 3090
  • TrackIR on Samsung 49 inch Odyssey Widescreen
  • No money in my pocket lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone advise which modules entered and completed EA within 12 months?

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't confuse keeping products up to date and adding new features with EA as it is ATM. Obviously, when the game engine is upgraded, products that depend on it should update as well. If new data is discovered and confirmed, even the "stable" (again, not as it is classified of now in DCS) things can be subject to change. If module starts being uncompetitive with others, it can be renewed to continue to attract customers. But when after several years of public release in EA status the aircraft flies wrong, it's equipment works wrong, etc -- something has to be done. Moreover, this something has to be done prior to that.

 

Proposed 1 year EA doesn't mean developers have to crank their production inside a 1-year timeline, creating less quality or feature-complete modules. It means that ED should check that the 3rd party actually does have a module that can be finished in 9-10 months, they have enough knowledge, manpower, resources and planning to actually complete it in said period and it's core functionality (physics, cockpit instruments, equipment, etc) is on par with ED itself -- before allowing it into the store at EA conditions with concrete ETA tag of 1 year. Before that moment, 3rd party can develop their module for 3,4,5 -- or whatever it takes them -- years, receive consultation and advice from ED and prepare for the aforementioned expertise (which can be and probably should be paid). It's the only way to guarantee to some degree that we won't have abandonware in still supported simulator.

This proposition seems very well thought and I agree with it completely. After 1 you-know-which-supersonic-jet and you-know-which-light-helicopter I strictly stick with either ED or BST products, preferably finished ones, because I don't have a way to know where's the real deal and where's "I couldn't do it" excuse. And that should never be the case.

 

One addition to the above proposition from me would be the following. If the 3rd party still fails to deliver within the set period, it can be given time to correct for that, but if they still fail, the module has to be classified as abandonware, all the rights to production and profiting from their module (aka future sales) should be passed to ED and ED should have to finish that product themselves (or remove the module from their shop and completely refund the customers their investments + normalized bank interest rates if there are serious obstructions to said completion). Remember, they have signed with adding this product to their store after their own expertise -- so it's only fair to do either of that.

They are not vulching... they are STRAFING!!! :smartass::thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As OP I would not nail it down to 1 year.

Inwould nail it down to the fact, that devs should need to adress what they will do until when. And if they won't do it, dou should have the ability to get your money back.

EA is a way to support devs, and they should be thankfully about us doing it and paying a full price for a not complete module.

Instead it feels like EA abuseing with not finishing modules and head over to the next one. That needs to be stopped.

Steam user - Youtube

I am for quality over quantity in DCS modules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to ruin your bussiness 101: Give the possibility to refund after a year of full access.

 

What a joke.

''Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.''

Erich Fromm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't confuse keeping products up to date and adding new features with EA as it is ATM. Obviously, when the game engine is upgraded, products that depend on it should update as well. If new data is discovered and confirmed, even the "stable" (again, not as it is classified of now in DCS) things can be subject to change. If module starts being uncompetitive with others, it can be renewed to continue to attract customers. But when after several years of public release in EA status the aircraft flies wrong, it's equipment works wrong, etc -- something has to be done. Moreover, this something has to be done prior to that.

 

Proposed 1 year EA doesn't mean developers have to crank their production inside a 1-year timeline, creating less quality or feature-complete modules. It means that ED should check that the 3rd party actually does have a module that can be finished in 9-10 months, they have enough knowledge, manpower, resources and planning to actually complete it in said period and it's core functionality (physics, cockpit instruments, equipment, etc) is on par with ED itself -- before allowing it into the store at EA conditions with concrete ETA tag of 1 year. Before that moment, 3rd party can develop their module for 3,4,5 -- or whatever it takes them -- years, receive consultation and advice from ED and prepare for the aforementioned expertise (which can be and probably should be paid)It's the only way to guarantee to some degree that we won't have abandonware in still supported simulator.

This proposition seems very well thought and I agree with it completely. After 1 you-know-which-supersonic-jet and you-know-which-light-helicopter I strictly stick with either ED or BST products, preferably finished ones, because I don't have a way to know where's the real deal and where's "I couldn't do it" excuse. And that should never be the case.

 

One addition to the above proposition from me would be the following. If the 3rd party still fails to deliver within the set period, it can be given time to correct for that, but if they still fail, the module has to be classified as abandonware, all the rights to production and profiting from their module (aka future sales) should be passed to ED and ED should have to finish that product themselves (or remove the module from their shop and completely refund the customers their investments + normalized bank interest rates if there are serious obstructions to said completion). Remember, they have signed with adding this product to their store after their own expertise -- so it's only fair to do either of that.

I agree, it doesn’t limit anyone to one year total development time, it limits the range and scope of modules to however long they can fund development from their own capital reserves plus 12 months.

 

I think a language barrier is preventing me from understanding what you mean about expertise that should be paid, but if you mean ED should front the money for experts the business relationship becomes much more complicated and very different to what it is now.

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to ruin your bussiness 101: Give the possibility to refund after a year of full access.

 

What a joke.

 

What would you then suggest, if you have bought an EA module and three years later, several things are not working, bugged and nothing happend since 1+ year?

At the moment, it is a one sided game with none responsibilities or consequences to the devs.

Thats the same joke.

Easy thing: money back if not delivered as advertised.

Or can you make another suggestion to solve the problem of not finished modules?

Steam user - Youtube

I am for quality over quantity in DCS modules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you then suggest

 

Stop buying EA modules? This model clearly isn't working for you. Nobody is forcing you to put yourself through this pain and hardship. I'm sorry you have such an utterly unplayable experience but to be honest you only have yourself to blame. You've purchased numerous EA modules and haven't learnt from your previous experiences.

i7-4790K@4.7GHz : EVGA 1070 SC : 16GB Corsair Vengence Pro : 2xEVO 840 SSD : EVGA 850W PSU : CORSAIR H100i Cooler : ASUS Z97-AR MB : CORSAIR OBSIDIAN 750D FULL TOWER

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you then suggest, if you have bought an EA module and three years later, several things are not working, bugged and nothing happend since 1+ year?

At the moment, it is a one sided game with none responsibilities or consequences to the devs.

Thats the same joke.

Easy thing: money back if not delivered as advertised.

Or can you make another suggestion to solve the problem of not finished modules?

 

Simple. Learn from it and don’t buy Early Access from that developer again, or all of them. It’s clear that anybody suggesting a 1 year EA period limit has no experience devleoping something as complex and constantly changing as module for DCS. Even ED themselves couldn’t stick to a 1 year Early Access for the Hornet. Sometimes things just take time. In all cases the solution is simple, don’t buy early access.

Proud owner of:

PointCTRL VR : Finger Trackers for VR -- Real Simulator : FSSB R3L Force Sensing Stick. -- Deltasim : Force Sensor WH Slew Upgrade -- Mach3Ti Ring : Real Flown Mach 3 SR-71 Titanium, made into an amazing ring.

 

My Fathers Aviation Memoirs: 50 Years of Flying Fun - From Hunter to Spitfire and back again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey viper2097,

 

We had a discussion about the right focus a little while ago. I posted some links as to why it is how it is these days. Know one but ED are doing it at these insane levels that WE and ED all love.

 

To keep going they needed to change the business structure.

 

Quote

"I do refer to the late 90s at the "golden era," in the sense that flight simmers had a variety of quality products to choose from and the titles were continually getting better and better. We sort of peaked around 1998-1999 with Falcon, the Jane's titles, Flanker (for some of us, anyway). But that was about as far as flight sims could go in terms of development cost before they stopped making money for the people making them. Lock-On was one last attempt (credit to Ubisoft, by the way), but even though it did well in the market, it was apparently not well enough to justify further investment."

End Quote

 

 

Read the rest here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3722839#post3722839

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a language barrier is preventing me from understanding what you mean about expertise that should be paid, but if you mean ED should front the money for experts the business relationship becomes much more complicated and very different to what it is now.
ED is the expert here. Before committing a module to EA they should check it out as best they can, including it's development plan and 3rd party's buisness plan to make sure that the module is indeed of DCS quality and said 3rd party will make it to the release -- thus, conducting an expertise on the matter. For working on that expertise they should probably be paid by same 3rd party.

 

Stop buying EA modules? This model clearly isn't working for you.
ATM this model can not guarantee delivery from EA at all. Thus, it isn't working not only for OP, but for everyone else as well. Meaning, sometimes modules go release, sometimes they don't -- and both cases are clearly not bound to the current EA model.

 

Simple. Learn from it and don’t buy Early Access from that developer again, or all of them. It’s clear that anybody suggesting a 1 year EA period limit has no experience devleoping something as complex and constantly changing as module for DCS. Even ED themselves couldn’t stick to a 1 year Early Access for the Hornet. Sometimes things just take time. In all cases the solution is simple, don’t buy early access.
If ED couldn't deliver during a whole year, let's ask ourselves: perhaps they released this module to EA too early? But the thing is ED care for their modules, since it's their game and thus their lifeblood. As for the others, we generally don't have any clue. How long before one understands that, how much will he (probably) waste and, most importantly: is this situation really unavoidable? OP suggests that this mess can be avoided with a bit more strict organisation, and I agree with him.

As for complexity and release deadline interconnections, please clarify your point of view. How much longer in your opinion should EA take and why?


Edited by Черный Дракул

They are not vulching... they are STRAFING!!! :smartass::thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for complexity and release deadline interconnections, please clarify your point of view. How much longer in your opinion should EA take and why?

 

 

Things are / seem to be getting better as the base is getting more stable (long development) Hard on 3rd parties (Many changes)

 

This is possibly some of the hardest coding / inventing you can do for the PC? Especially the hard ones. swept wings f 14 (FM), Ground radar (F/A-18, vulkan api, etc.

 

Some of these new technologies will help speed up (F-16) future modules. How long will it take? How long is a piece of string? Hope it doesn't take to long... I don't envy ED's engineers trying there best to develop these new technology's without melting my PC.

 

and the also important one... ED would rather it done quicker to, as time = more $ on development. Hard when these guy's are really creating / inventing, hard to give an exact time.


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If ED couldn't deliver during a whole year, let's ask ourselves: perhaps they released this module to EA too early?

 

As OP I would not nail it down to 1 year.

 

 

And again your own choice…

Who believe the F-18 will be finished one year after release? Should they have kept it from releasing? In my opinion no. I learn the plane with every added feature instead of getting a 720 pages handbook with the A-10C.

 

Same for the 3rd Party guys. Developers doing stuff like VEAO loose their credit and their lifeblood. Sorry, but who ordered the P-40 can blame himself.

 

I can understand some people but in the case of small studios, what should an artist do when just coding work is left?

 

Your answer will be probably Miltech-5. You get your stuff when it's ready, but it can take some additional years :thumbup:

 

So I prefer the current EA politics

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Thus, it isn't working not only for OP, but for everyone else as well...

 

Really? You speak on behalf of me and the silent majority? Please count me out of your generalisation.

i7-4790K@4.7GHz : EVGA 1070 SC : 16GB Corsair Vengence Pro : 2xEVO 840 SSD : EVGA 850W PSU : CORSAIR H100i Cooler : ASUS Z97-AR MB : CORSAIR OBSIDIAN 750D FULL TOWER

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens if ED changes the underlying code and fully released module (out of Early Access) suddenly develops several debilitating bugs... What are the developer's obligations then?

 

Some modules are with us for years now, and sometimes it's not very easy to tell if they are still early accesss or abandoned and will never be fully functional at all...

 

Example, Mig-21 was released as Early Access in September 2014. It has been "feature complete" for quite a long time, and in September 2016 developer (quietly) announced they consider the module out of Early Access. But one could argue that the module was in more bug-free state during the active development in Early Access state than now, when it's supposedly finished.

 

And I have heard people argue that we can't expect modules to be actively developed forever - you buy it, get few years of support, and then it will slide more and more out of focus - and if you wait for the module to come out of Early Access, how long will the module be maintained afterwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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