Jump to content

Simulation development philosophy - a question for the Forum


Notso

Recommended Posts

I was pondering the other day about how ED releases modules into a Beta stream for public use and then adds features/systems over time. It seems an unusual business model in the aviation simulation world but I think I understand their reasoning. I'll get to that later. I don't know how other "gaming" companies release similar products, but in the actual flight simulation world, a product would be developed for a year or more and then released pretty much feature complete. And then there would be a development cycle where any updates would be released on a 12-18 month cycle unless there was something really wrong with the functioning of the sim. I recently worked for a major global aviation simulator company and this was their and most of the industry's model.

 

Again this thread is in no way a critique of ED's business model - they have their reasons for how and why they release their modules the way they do. A small company like ED likely needs the income stream from numerous releases to keep going and to be able to fund the improvements we all seek. Whereas a large corporation would have the capital to sit on a new release until it was good to go and feature complete.

 

But my question to the group is: In a perfect world, which way would you prefer to see modules released? Would you prefer:

 

1. The current method of release where you get modules sooner to play with, beta test it, and new features are added or upgraded con a pretty much constant basis? Or

 

2. Get a more complete module (but likely not 100% or perfect) at initial release and then changes are much slower - like a year or more before any new features are added and usually a large change all at once.

 

There certainly is no right answer. #1 gets product to market sooner, but is always in a state of constant change. #2 takes MUCH longer to arrive but is mostly ready to go with very slow changes after release. I think some here LOVE being beta testers and like the idea of being able to influence the direction a particular module goes with their input. While others just want to get in and fly and have it be mostly correct for day 1. I'm sort of in between the 2 camps. I'm just curious where the rest of you guys and gals fall.

 

Edit to add: I know this should have been a poll, but was unsure how to set that up.


Edited by Notso

System HW: i9-9900K @5ghz, MSI 11GB RTX-2080-Ti Trio, G-Skill 32GB RAM, Reverb HMD, Steam VR, TM Warthog Hotas Stick & Throttle, TM F/A-18 Stick grip add-on, TM TFRP pedals. SW: 2.5.6 OB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, #2 no doubt!

As an hard-core simmer I'm always looking for the closest to real thing. Flying this kind of sims at early stages it's only an eye-candy time, or very limited procedures training.

As a real, and ex-military pilot, trying to apply any kind of tactics, or weapon deliveries, are almost impossible. With constant upgrades the procedures change every time.

For my personal perspective a finished product is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you phrased the choices, is there really a difference?

 

 

Choice 1 - Module released on year 1, updated years 2-3

 

 

Choice 2 - Module released year 2.5, then corrected in year 3-3.5.

 

 

If you like choice 2 you can just wait on EA modules. For me there isn't really a difference when it comes to modules. When it comes to the core game though, I'd prefer less often updates with more complete features and stability.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both options are too slow in my opinion.

I think they should stop giving away terrains and planes for free, and instead

sell them, and with the money recruit more programmers, thus

speeding up the whole process.

Mainboard: ASUS Maximus X Hero Intel Z 370

CPU: Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.0 GHz

Memory: 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3000

Graphics Card: ASUS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB

Monitor ASUS PA 329 32" @ 4K

1 SSD Samsung 860 PRO 256 GB

1 SSD Samsung 860 PRO 4 TB

Windows 10 - 64 V. 2004

CH Pro combatstick, throttle and pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you phrased the choices, is there really a difference?

 

 

Choice 1 - Module released on year 1, updated years 2-3

 

 

Choice 2 - Module released year 2.5, then corrected in year 3-3.5.

 

 

If you like choice 2 you can just wait on EA modules. For me there isn't really a difference when it comes to modules. When it comes to the core game though, I'd prefer less often updates with more complete features and stability.

 

No, that's not at all what I said. Choice #1 is what ED currently does.... Release module at day 1 at a 50% state or less and then release patches/updates/new features every 2-6 weeks over the next 1-2 years. In other words, it's in a constant state of change.

 

Choice 2 - Module released on day 1 and is mostly complete and nothing changes at all for a year or more unless there is a patch required to fix a serious bug.

System HW: i9-9900K @5ghz, MSI 11GB RTX-2080-Ti Trio, G-Skill 32GB RAM, Reverb HMD, Steam VR, TM Warthog Hotas Stick & Throttle, TM F/A-18 Stick grip add-on, TM TFRP pedals. SW: 2.5.6 OB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not at all what I said.

 

 

#1 gets product to market sooner, but is always in a state of constant change. #2 takes MUCH longer to arrive but is mostly ready to go with very slow changes after release.

 

 

It is. Choice 1 gets to the market sooner (year 1) and then is constantly updated, it ends up being finished down the line, maybe year 3.

 

 

Choice 2 gets to the market later (year 2 or 3) and then gets a minor patch to fix any issues.

 

 

In the end, you get a completed module in year 3 no matter how it's developed.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both options are too slow in my opinion.

I think they should stop giving away terrains and planes for free, and instead

sell them, and with the money recruit more programmers, thus

speeding up the whole process.

 

Development doesn't work like that unless the analysis is done to a very fine-grained level ( IE the coders are told absolutely what they have to write, and there's no room for interpretation ) - there is a point where adding more programmers slows a project down. What adding more coders would do - if they can even get any, this is a bit of a niche job market - would let them develop more projects in parallel, but to speed up a single project needs the project broken down in a suitable way which might not even be possible with the way the underlying game engine is put together.

 

As for the business model - until recently the whole EA model would have been something you'd be roasted over as a games company, but nowadays it's not unusual to put a game out in EA so you can help keep development funded - I'm not sure if that's less or more risky than eating the dev costs & gambling on the release day myself. I generally don't buy games in EA; I think the second Subnautica game is the only one I have right now & I'm not going to play it until it's released anyway, it was just cheaper :p Assetto Corsa Competitzione was the other one recently for me, and that one's release date seemed somewhat arbitrary given ( as I expected ) a year on it's *now* starting to mature into what it set out to be. There are many many other games or addon products that have been thrown out into release at an arbitrary point & development continued, so honestly I don't see a huge problem with the EA model itself.

 

What I do have a problem with is the way our aircraft are released - I want the basics complete before I get my hands on anything, like the flight model. If all I can do on initial release is fire IR missiles & drop dumb bombs, and I have to navigate VFR because none of the nav systems are there yet, then ok, but I want the bits I have to be finished.


Edited by Richard Dastardly

Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Development doesn't work like that - there is a point where adding more programmers ( I agree that is probably the slow bit ) slows a project down. What adding more coders would do - if they can even get any, this is a bit of a niche job market - would let them develop more projects in parallel, but to speed up a single project needs the project broken down in a suitable way which might not even be possible with the way the underlying game engine is put together.

 

Well, "develop more projects in parallel" would mean that when somebody is busy with say

ATC or AI, then some body else, AT THE SAME TIME, would be working on say, the F-16, the

result would be that we get both issues in the half of the time, twice as fast....

Mainboard: ASUS Maximus X Hero Intel Z 370

CPU: Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.0 GHz

Memory: 32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum DDR4-3000

Graphics Card: ASUS NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB

Monitor ASUS PA 329 32" @ 4K

1 SSD Samsung 860 PRO 256 GB

1 SSD Samsung 860 PRO 4 TB

Windows 10 - 64 V. 2004

CH Pro combatstick, throttle and pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rightly or wrongly...its essentially a ponzi scheme isn't it

 

(Not necessarily a critisism says the owner of many modules/theatres/campaigns)

 

ED need money now...so early access is essentially taking less money now (EA discounts) instead of more money in the future (Full-price for finished modules)

That enables them to fund new product development out of self-said same products revenue streams...

The only question is...will "cash cows" (Single seat, modern Jets) run out and what will happen when they do?

Airbag_signatur.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rightly or wrongly...its essentially a ponzi scheme isn't it

 

(Not necessarily a critisism says the owner of many modules/theatres/campaigns)

 

ED need money now...so early access is essentially taking less money now (EA discounts) instead of more money in the future (Full-price for finished modules)

That enables them to fund new product development out of self-said same products revenue streams...

The only question is...will "cash cows" (Single seat, modern Jets) run out and what will happen when they do?

 

Unless the "eagerly awaited" aircraft is a single seat modern jet then they're not doing any at all right now.

Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I was pondering the other day about how ED releases modules into a Beta stream for public use and then adds features/systems over time. It seems an unusual business model in the aviation simulation world but I think I understand their reasoning. I'll get to that later. I don't know how other "gaming" companies release similar products, but in the actual flight simulation world, a product would be developed for a year or more and then released pretty much feature complete. And then there would be a development cycle where any updates would be released on a 12-18 month cycle unless there was something really wrong with the functioning of the sim. I recently worked for a major global aviation simulator company and this was their and most of the industry's model."

 

 

Notso, was the "major global aviation simulator company" that you worked for in the business of developing and manufacturing simulators for the aviation industry? If so, I would submit that there is absolutely no comparison between that and ED's business model for the fact that the simulator companies have complete control over all of the hardware as well as the software that the customer buys. Not only that, the simulator is usually delivered by the manufacturer and set up and then calibrated and approved by an aviation authority such as the FAA or CASA or ENAC etc. etc.

 

 

 

When ED or any of the 3rd party developers put something out to this community, they have absolutely no control over any of their customers' hardware, much less the abilities of the customers to deal with some of the issues that routinely pop up that may or may not have anything to do with the product yet may greatly affect how well it runs, or how poorly it runs. I don't see how ED or any other "game" developer could do it any other way. They surely could wait longer for their engineers to be fairly certain that the product is stable and feature complete but that would not cure the requirement for constant updates to account for an infinite number of possible problems caused by the infinite combinations of hardware out there in all of our homes.

 

 

I, for one, have no issues with the way ED is doing things, other than the normal frustrations of waiting for the next update to either cure a glitch caused by a prior update or for a much anticipated new feature for my favorite ride at the moment. :pilotfly:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is. Choice 1 gets to the market sooner (year 1) and then is constantly updated, it ends up being finished down the line, maybe year 3.

 

 

Choice 2 gets to the market later (year 2 or 3) and then gets a minor patch to fix any issues.

 

 

In the end, you get a completed module in year 3 no matter how it's developed.

 

But delivering completed modules probably involves higher costs because you need more internal testing.

 

Also the commercial advantages. Eg. when ED has the option to cash in at year 1, 2 or 3 - their choice - on each module, the financing is much more easier and flexible.

SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if ED offered the choice, I am quite sure the vast majority of players would in fact stay with option #1.

 

 

 

It's easy to see in real time, every time a new EA plane comes out, people pay pre-order, or first day purchase on release even if ED says its still a very early access to a barely functioning module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe they should try this modus - crowdfound module, deliver it in fairly finished state. Use closed beta instead open one. Keep the price up untill finishing it plus a year or so. Then start attracting new people with sales. Current system, where you pay for full module and it is early access for prolonged period and knowing, that rather sooner than later the price will go down by 25, 50 or even more %, is totaly weird. We get half finished product instead more complete one just because some people want hands on new module asap. In my days, beta testing was internal and external, but rarely open to everybody. Maybe in final stages...

EA is alpha and open beta is just open alpha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if ED offered the choice, I am quite sure the vast majority of players would in fact stay with option #1.

 

It's easy to see in real time, every time a new EA plane comes out, people pay pre-order, or first day purchase on release even if ED says its still a very early access to a barely functioning module.

I quite agree. If open beta was to become closed beta you would have many people begging to get on the list. People like getting access to the new stuff, some just to get a glimpse of what is coming down the line others to try it out and be part of the development however small. They tend not not to be so vocal but I think it is a decent number.

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would absolutly prefer #1 (the current method)!

 

Why? Well, first of its just nice to not having to wait as long to get my hands on a new toy and play with it. More importantly though, because I with being able to test new modules much sooner, while they're still in very active development, it allows me as a player to notify the devs of issues and inaccuracies of the module with a much higher chance of them being adressed than at a later stage.

 

One important thing to consider: It's totally up to the player to join in during EA! If someone prefers a more finished module he can already wait until the module has reached this stage. So with the current method players already have the choice if they prefer #1 or #2!

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone prefers a more finished module he can already wait until the module has reached this stage.

 

So...who want a finished product, at the present time, can only fly 1 or 2 modules, because all the others are under development... which is fair to me! Just have to accept that fact!

F18 is still in early access almost two years after EA release, with a lot of missing systems, and a lot of bugs too. On top of that they put the Viper, with the same problems, and probably (unfortunately) with the same timetable...And then, you have all the 3rd party modules, with their own bugs, and compatibility with the DCS World...which, by the way, also update from time to time. And the cycle begins again...

So for me, with this kind of system, you are always in an Early Access state, which some might say it's in constant development, but others, like me, say, we will never get a steady platform to enjoy our sim the way we want.

This opinion it's just what it is...an opinion, a personal way of seeing things. And of course I don't point to economical side of the question, which probably ED finds to be best way of getting the most of it, but I'm not able to judge on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So for me, with this kind of system, you are always in an Early Access state, which some might say it's in constant development, but others, like me, say, we will never get a steady platform to enjoy our sim the way we want.

Well, that's the nature of evolving software. The alternative would be that ED stops any new development on DCS and leave it as it is. Do you want that? I don't!

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want that? I don't!

 

Neither do I. But we have different ways of enjoying the sim, probably. Which is good...

But do you ever thought on flying the Tornado in DCS World, and enjoying it, in all it's capabilities, in an closest to real scenario, and all the goods DCS is capable of?

With this "evolving software" thing, not on our live time;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think ED should be doing is work on the modules they already have, get them finished asap and get a stable platform. Leave the development of new modules to 3rd parties, and just work on their integration on DCS world. And they have plenty to do...

 

Once again I'm not pointing to financial aspect of the thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither do I. But we have different ways of enjoying the sim, probably. Which is good...

But do you ever thought on flying the Tornado in DCS World, and enjoying it, in all it's capabilities, in an closest to real scenario, and all the goods DCS is capable of?

With this "evolving software" thing, not on our live time;)

My biggest dream for DCS is actually flying the Tornado with all it's capabilities in a true Dynamic Campaign and for this to become a reality it requires DCS to evolve ;)

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think ED should be doing is work on the modules they already have, get them finished asap and get a stable platform. Leave the development of new modules to 3rd parties, and just work on their integration on DCS world. And they have plenty to do...

Plenty to do and no (or very limited) income!

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest dream for DCS is actually flying the Tornado with all it's capabilities in a true Dynamic Campaign and for this to become a reality it requires DCS to evolve ;)

 

Not evolve, in my opinion...

But develop the module, get it finished (they already done that with A10C) and integrate it in DCS World.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not evolve, in my opinion...

But develop the module, get it finished (they already done that with A10C) and integrate it in DCS World.

But the Dynamic Campaign is an evolvement of the DCS environment, just like new graphics updates like the new lighing effects or other things like AI improvments. I would like ED to keep improving DCS and not just leave it be and only getting new modules out.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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