Limit EA/Beta state to 1 year?

[Harlikwin]

Exactly this. In addition, I think we cannot speak about razbam because it's a 3rd party dev and it's up to them to keep their modules updated. If razbam fails, DCS world still goes on. For this reason I do not want to deal with razbam or heatblur or some other 3rd party module, this is for another subject IMHO. Here I want to talk about ED/ex belsimtek, and I think the real issue is that their modules should have been all quickly updated / renewed with 1.5.x becxoming legacy and 2.5 release. But they are busy with new projects (f/a-18, persian gulf map and maybe new heli and f-16), and since their main revenue is from newer modules they can't stop working on them, so they do not have time / resources to put on older modules update that make less money. Something has been done (warbirds update for example) and something else has been announced (a-10c and ka-50 updates) but it is too little and without a time schedule: f-5, huey, mi-8 and korean era jets would need to be fixed / updated too. How much time will it take to do all such things with the actual policy? In the future I fear we'll have an increasingly wider distance between newer modules and older ones, and this would be a sad destiny for such wonderful airplanes. To pay a fee - let's say "for 2.5 transition"? - is the only way I see to solve the problem. Furthermore, as new modules are added, it will be impossible to keep up with everything in good time without a dedicated source of income, in addition to the sale of individual modules.

 

Yeah, I see the older modules getting left further and further behind, UNLESS, new folks are buying them, which we don't really know, but ED does, and I'm sure thats part of their resource allocation strategy, same for 3rd party devs. I'm sure the VR guys would help pay for some non-trivial VR optimization as well, DCSVR or something like that.

[FSKRipper]

You guys have really good and strong arguments.

 

I don't know how ED separates his business between the divisions.

 

From other companies (which I can't name here but one some of you know from tank tims e.g.) working in armed forces contracts I know however that the civilian (our) part is only some kind of add on for the nerds (3rd party devs not included). They fully rely on their military contracts and get 95% of their money from them. The sim part for us is only a nice gesture to make real fans happy.

 

This said you guys should remember that ED is also active in this field and not at every single moment all attention is focused on the development of feature X or the removal of bug Y.

 

As you may have seen a lot of people are beating on the 3rd party devs (could call 4-6 names but why... :music_whistling:). The same is true for bugs in ED/BST modules or left out features as you may have noticed. Only one example, take a look in the F5 bug forum. Some bugs are not even acknowledged after months of existance and proof by screenshots… Funny that only Raz or the other ones get hurt by the pitchforks :huh:

 

There is no golden way and since only ED knows the exact numbers and is in bussiness for 25 years we should accept their bussiness model and refrain from polls, brilliant new ideas or threats and let them do what they can best, produce the best flight sim modules on the public market.

Edited February 4, 2019 by FSKRipper

[Harlikwin]

As you may have seen a lot of people are beating on the 3rd party devs (could call 4-6 names but why... :music_whistling:). The same is true for bugs in ED/BST modules or left out features as you may have noticed. Only one example, take a look in the F5 bug forum. Some bugs are not even acknowledged after months of existance and proof by screenshots… Funny that only Raz or the other ones get hurt by the pitchforks :huh:

 

Well, I think part of it is everyone has their favorite plane(s). And part of it is not necessarily bugs, but also missing features (on the harrier in particular, thats my whipping boy at the moment) I'm fairly sure the F5 is 90% feature complete. Also, some "bugs" can also be user error... For me the F5 is largely functional for A/A (though the textures could use a bit of work) at least it was last I flew it, but I'm a pretty "lite" user of that plane. I can say the same for most of the BST modules, yes the various chopper multicrew stuff would be great to fix, along with other known issues.

 

At the end of the day I think part of the concern with EA/new planes-old planes is the feeling alot of the teams are spread pretty thin. Also I'm not sure the 2 week beta/cycle is always the best, maybe a bit slower pace there could lead to more rigorous testing and bug fixes each month or something, but I'm probably the minority opinion on that.

 

Also I think they could get some community input on priority of features/fixes, both for ED/3rd parties. But maybe thats letting the inmates run the asylum too much.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Harlikwin

[David OC]

Part of all this go's back to the Big decision on DX11 / Edge or Fix up all the other things and build a stable game / sim.

 

That Tank military sim stuck with DX9, still is. As they know what it would take $ to move the engine to DX11.

 

This decision would also depend on your clients / consumer needs.

 

Are we happy now ED spent ALL that time (Years) doing this? EDGE,deferred shading, VR etc. Still are vulkan api, ground radar, dynamic campaign.

 

This is why most things are now still further behind. Things are moving forward a lot quick now. More dedicated engineers are working on the Hornet. That would have brought some good $ in for the civi side. Still, these types of modules cost big time to develop, the F/A-18 will help the newer tech for the F-16 etc. The P-51 is the best cost vs sold item in the store.

 

I also feel the pain for all the 3rd parties joining ED. It's a huge STEP up, daunting for any developer I think. ANY developer out there can take one look at the A-10C and think WTF and that's 10 years ago.

 

ED needs 3rd parties that want to step up and get to that level eventually, this will not happen over night and most also have full-time jobs. Even PMDG, A2A would tell you to Poff to build these aircraft and systems at this level lol.

 

So considering what RAZBAM have done so far, there doing really well, in the bigger picture. They will get back to those things and fix them, they are just a small team trying to step up to a very high level set by ED, many years ago.

[sc_neo]

But i do think ED and 3rd parties have taken a good and hard look at this and have come to the conclusion to get to grips with EA. I truly believe its not fun for 3rd party devs to have multiple products in EA, and from what i can see lately happening, at least thrid parties push to release products in a more mature and finished state. We'll be wiser once they go live, but the F-14 and Mig-19 are probably the first two modules in that regard. And, HB has been pretty good communication wise, and Razbam just recently stepped up their game with a dedicated community manager and a proper bug tracker. With those things in place, it'll be interesting to see how fast both 3rd parties will be able to bring their respective products to a feature complete state. So for me 2019 is way more important in regard to EA than anything that came before.

[AJaromir]

IMO the OPs request is bad idea. The result will be: addon will be released out of beta unfinished, which is much worse. Simply noone forces you to buy early acess addons. If you don't want unfinished addons, don't buy them.

Edited February 6, 2019 by AJaromir

[viper2097]

I don't think that they could release something unfinished out of EA just to cut the said timeline. It is quite easy to determine if a module is complete or not.

On the other hand, it must not be 1 year. The dev could easily make a small doc where is stated which functions the module will be able to do, which not and until when it will be released.

As long as they want me to pay for something unfinished, they should have to deliver at least some informations...

 

Maybe the modules are not rushed out cause ED already set maybe a limit fo 1 EA module per 3rd party dev?.

Thats the only explanation I have for Razbam releasing the Mig 19 as complete, and HB trying to release the Viggen RC right now when the Tomcat stands already in the door...

So maybe this is already helping a little bit.

Edited February 12, 2019 by viper2097

[some1]

I don't think that they could release something unfinished out of EA just to cut the said timeline. It is quite easy to determine if a module is complete or not.

 

They already did that in the past. When releasing M2000, Razbam did not make any patch fixing the remaining issues or official announcement, they just changed the status in the shop and put it out on Steam.

 

Half a year later they added the manual.

[NeilWillis]

Just buy it 12 months before it comes out of beta. Problem solved!

[viper2097]

They already did that in the past. When releasing M2000, Razbam did not make any patch fixing the remaining issues or official announcement, they just changed the status in the shop and put it out on Steam.

 

Half a year later they added the manual.

 

So you can see that it is no problem to dtermine if it is done or still not complete.

It would be EDs turn to prevent them from doing things like that.

[KittyVCAW-1]

They are clearly advertised as WIP and by purchasing you consent to the fact that you are ok with it being incomplete. If you aren't willing to endure the development process than it's pretty easy to just wait until it's finished. No one is forcing you to participate in an open beta program or to indulge on the chance to get into a new module ASAP. Trying to impose a rule on a developer to finish a module on your time frame is kinda self centered. I'm all for a developer to take as much time as they need to turn out the best product possible. It's this sort of attitude that consistently turns out broken unplayable disasters in modern AAA gaming. I'm not sure anyone who really cares about the quality/accuracy of this simulator is going to have the same opinion. I'm also not sure you really understand the amount of work that goes into making a game. Particularly one of this caliber. Maybe Bethesda could make a flight sim for you by next Christmas, I guarantee it would be a colossal dumpster fire.

[viper2097]

I think you should read the thread again from the beginning. Nobody has a problem with WIP. The problem is, when nothing happens anymore. Look at the Harrier.

And "take the time you need, even if it is 3 years for two lines of code" is not a valid statement. The customer paid, so the dev have to deliver what they promised. Nobody want's them to do 80h weeks and code something in a hurry.

And they all knew what they are doing when they decided to do a module for DCS.

 

Another example:

I bought the Mig21 during the sale.

Got yesterday familiar with it. Awesome module, excellent work.

 

Then I noticed two bugs:

The main wheels are floating in the air, and the pitot tube selector does nothing on the first click (internal position does not match the optical position before click).

Searched for this and found out that the floating wheels are there for at least 1 year, and the pitot selector bug for at least 3(!!!) years...

 

So, you think that this is ok and must be accepted by a paying customer? I don't think so and I'm sure that this two things would be fast and easy to fix for the devs. Heaven knows why they did not do it.

 

For me it is very clear:

DCS needs definitely clear rules in the future, and it must be secured that those are also executed. Otherwise I don't see a long time future for DCS...

Edited February 14, 2019 by viper2097

[nessuno0505]

I think it will always be a long time future for DCS until people buy in early access.

I only buy release status modules, because I'm not confident with incomplete features and no manual, but I think it wolud be harder for ED if everyone did like me. Less modules sold means less money, and less money means less development, both for newer and older stuff.

[Harlikwin]

 

For me it is very clear:

DCS needs definitely clear rules in the future, and it must be secured that those are also executed. Otherwise I don't see a long time future for DCS...

 

I'm with you 100%, aside from this last bit. Its pretty clear since there is no other viable alternative, people will keep on keepin on with the current state of DCS. As long as that is true there is basically no incentive to change the business model really.

[viper2097]

What about the idea to pay 100% for an EA module, but ED holds back 50% of the payment until it is leaving EA and gets finished?

As I see now, the situation is, that we have to pay 100% for a not 100% module. If they will ever reach those 100% (or even 90% or 95%) nobody knows, and if not -> bad luck only for us...

 

Would maybe a way to commit the devs to still work on a module until its finished.

 

Tomcat is realised tomorrow. Together with the F18 and later the F16 this will bring tons of new players to DCS. I'm sure they don't see that EA abuseing as relaxed as old DCS users are seeing it.

[SharpeXB]

Tomcat is realised tomorrow.

And as hard as it is to resist, I’m not going to purchase the Tomcat until it’s out of EA

There are still plenty of things to do in DCS to keep me busy until then.

[Kang]

What about the idea to pay 100% for an EA module, but ED holds back 50% of the payment until it is leaving EA and gets finished?

As I see now, the situation is, that we have to pay 100% for a not 100% module. If they will ever reach those 100% (or even 90% or 95%) nobody knows, and if not -> bad luck only for us...

 

Would maybe a way to commit the devs to still work on a module until its finished.

 

Tomcat is realised tomorrow. Together with the F18 and later the F16 this will bring tons of new players to DCS. I'm sure they don't see that EA abuseing as relaxed as old DCS users are seeing it.

That's an interesting idea. It would at least counter the problem that development often takes so long that a vast majority of those interested in the (not that big) community probably bought modules in early access to help fund further development that subsequently is no longer economically viable.

But then, guess one could just go up to that point and just declare 'release version' without doing much more about it either.