Suggestion for an early introduction [Early access]

[falcon_120]

Hello all,

 

Since I'm one of those eagerly awaiting a typhoon as soon as possible, I would like to suggest truegrit an early access scheme to consider.

 

First of all let me say that the EA horse has been beaten to dead in these forum and its not for everyone, so those of you who hate this scheme please stay away.

 

Back to the point, thinking of an EA for the typhoon I would love truegrit could think, establish and present their future customers with an EA access roadmap. This roadmap should contain estimates dates so no one feel annoyed or deceived. This are not set in stones but could give everyone a rough estimation. Let me start this exercise with some made up roadmap similar to what i have in mind.

 

-Phase 1 IOC (Initial operational cappability): In this first phase truegrit could only focus in the FM, 3D art (cockpit and exterior) and basic systems (no advance navigation, no A2G, no DASS, no link16...). Add to that very basic air to air radar festures with sidewinders and amraam maybe. As you can see there is not a lot to do here just train on the plane and help fund the project in case you believe in it. This could maybe be introduced in 6-9 months and should not last more than 6 months up to the introduction of phase 2.

 

Phase 2: In this phase truegrit could introduce some advance navigation functionality, maybe simple link16 and the striker helmet with iris-t and a bit more functionality to the radar. Maybe 6/8 months here would be realistic.

 

Phase 3: after 1 year/12 month in EA we should expect a more mature product, almost complete air to air radar functionality coupled with defensive systems and polished navigation and link16/MIDS. Also basic air to ground. Another 6/8 months.

 

Phase 4: 8 more months to complete all the set of tools this beaty have: pod, dass, maybe meteor...you name it.

 

As you imagine you can brake this as much as you want until the product leaves the EA in 2/3 years (if its similar to other complex ED modules.

 

I hope some of you and specially Truegrit like and consider the idea.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Edited April 10, 2020 by falcon_120

[Eldur]

In a nutshell, the Hornet / Viper way

[falcon_120]

In a nutshell, the Hornet / Viper way

Well, actually yes... i guess , except for the estimates dates thing.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[uri_ba]

I would rather see them take the HB way.

Near completed and actually fun.

[Eaglewings]

I am very eager here too so the idea put up by opening post is worth considering.

I am very at home with the Hornet systems in dcs largely due to the piecemeal introductory approach used.

The Typhoon systems seems more complex and this method would ease the learning curve.

DCS Tomcat style would be good but would most likely take a long time before it get released. She is a modern jet and having 80% systems running at release would take efforts and time.

 

I am really wishing the Truegrit crew Godspeed on this eurofoghter project and hoping for at least a reasonably well kitted early acess. Somethong above the fighting falcon release state would be good enough for me.

[Schmidtfire]

I think mostly feature complete is a better route. Like the JF-17 or Tomcat.

Early Access + Study Sim has disaster written all over it. Trying to figure out what is implemented or not (or if it is a bug), people growing tired of the module before it gets feature complete etc.

For regular games yes, for study simming it quickly turns into a mess for both devs and players.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I think for the sake of TG's success, a path like the Viper or Hornet is not advisable unless a pretty deep discount for such a pre-order is offered.

 

It comes down to a module being competitive. The mission maker may be the best advertisement for a module after the players themselves. If a too-incomplete iteration of Eurofighter drops, mission makers are left asking themselves "What can I exactly do with this right now?" too often, it'll translate to a fairly lazy initial reception. Sure, they'll eventually make those sales numbers up, but they'll lose some profit as people wait for discounts.

 

This is where the Eurofighter does have an advantage; it's performance. In configuration for air to air intercept, we're looking at a Thrust-to-weight of 1.15. It has 40,000lbs of thrust at full AB. We'll be able to supercruise. This is an aircraft with some pretty spectacular figures. If this performance is coupled with functionality, it will obviously see better reception.

 

Basically, you want mission makers to be juggling whether or not they want to use airframes and you want the EF to be within that consideration. So, could it come out with an incomplete arsenal and be successful?

 

Yes, but it has a limit. Release it at a point where you have quite a big chunk of the aircraft's possible stores. We should come to terms that early access releases without complete weapon systems are a financial necessity, but at the same time developers need to tempt those purchases by offering a product whose end of development feels in sight.

 

A release like the Viper would be unacceptable.

[Harker]

I think mostly feature complete is a better route. Like the JF-17 or Tomcat.

 

Early Access + Study Sim has disaster written all over it. Trying to figure out what is implemented or not (or if it is a bug), people growing tired of the module before it gets feature complete etc.

 

For regular games yes, for study simming it quickly turns into a mess for both devs and players.

I agree with this post, especially with the part about not knowing if that's how something works or if it's bugged/WIP. It's fine if some things aren't there, but what is there should work correctly (within reason) and if some aspect of the system is incomplete or bugged, it'd be nice to know so at least we don't learn it wrong. What should be avoided is an initial feature set that leads to bad pilot practices.

Other than that, I'll definitely get it at EA, if it's done well. It's been years since a module excited me as much as the Eurofighter did.

[BlackLightning]

It’s nice that you all say your opinions, but there should be a summary of them.

 

IMO there should be a poll like the following:

Question: how complete should the module be at release?

Choices:

- 100%: I won’t buy early access

- mostly

- I can accept missing features, but the features released should be complete

- I want most of the features released to a basic level, to be completed later

 

It would be nice if TrueGrit chose the possibilities for the poll, possibly adding comments about the estimated time for each of them.

 

Personally, I’m more oriented to the possibility with some complete features and other missing completely, up to the extent of feasibility, since some features work together. For example you cannot say that the aircraft is completely capable to land until it can use navigational features.

[TLTeo]

Considering that much of DCS is about having a 3rd party dev interacting positively with the community, I think if possible they should wait and release for a release as feature-complete as possible.

[lokodehortaleza]

Release when it's feature complete, please. If that's in 2023-2024, then so be it.

[QuiGon]

Release when it's feature complete, please. If that's in 2023-2024, then so be it.

 

No, please do release in EA. I want to try the Eurofighter as early as possible and support the team with bug reports and such :)

Edited April 12, 2020 by QuiGon

[probad]

you guys are already setting up the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't cross.

the problem starts right here. with your expectations.

its also solvable. by you.

 

why make devs take the heat for ideas you came up with? this is an injustice.

i think this shouldnt even be a topic in the first place.

Edited April 12, 2020 by probad

[Harker]

you guys are already setting up the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't cross.

the problem starts right here. with your expectations.

its also solvable. by you.

 

why make devs take the heat for ideas you came up with? this is an injustice.

i think this shouldnt even be a topic in the first place.

I agree with your sentiment. At the end of the day, although I posted my personal opinion above, I'd prefer that they release when they're happy with their work, feel like it's at a good place to be released based on their own criteria and they do not succumb to the community's pressure.

[Coxy_99]

You forgot in that list:

 

A release date.

When.

now.

And i want.

[Knock-Knock]

I would like to see them release it in their own way in their own time.

[BlackLightning]

@ Truegrit: I do not mean to put any pressure on you and I wish you a pleasant work with this module.

 

Every organisation works for its customers and we are Trugrit's potential customers. They are working to satisfy us and so it sounds blatant to me that our opinions are interesting to them.

For those of you who can, I suggest that you read the paragraph 5.2.1 of the ISO 9001 standard about focusing on the customer; unfortunately, since it's a commercialized standard I can't share the text here.

 

Debates about EA are typical when a new module is released, so, instead of debating after the release, why don't we debate now that development is at beginning?

If Truegrit opens a poll and makes it a sticky and keeps it open for, say, 6 months, then they could use it for their advantage:

• they would have collected potential customers' wishes,

• they could answer by saying whether they will fulfill these wishes or not and maybe why,

• they could even reference to it after the release in case someone complains about it, like:
  customer: «Truegrit, this product is too incomplete!»
  TG's answer: «sorry customer, but there has been a poll about this and we have just worked according to your wishes: you customers gave priority to an early release with less features»

 

And if Trugrit doesn't want to do all this, then never mind, sometimes suggestions are not put into practice.

[DashTrueGrit]

Hi everyone,

 

thank you for the discussion. We know that EA and overall release state of the AC are an emotional topic. But it is an important one also.

Our goal is to bring you a capable and exciting Typhoon. Wether we will realize it in an Early Access phase or not will be a decision made further down the road. A poll to get an idea what you (our customers) would prefer is a good idea and we will discuss the possibility.

 

Thank you for staying tuned and excited guys! Keep up discussing, I know you can't wait to fight this beast.

 

Dash

[jasonbirder]

Having been badly bitten by the F/A18 - i learned my lesson and avoided the F16

Much as I'd love Truegrit to develop a fully functional late model Eurofighter I'll support them in the traditional way...when they release a working product I'll support it with my hard-earned pounds.

[kotor633]

Please: Not this early access crap!

[QuiGon]

Please: Not this early access crap!

Early Access is always optional. No one forces you to participate in it.

[norbot]

No, please do release in EA. I want to try the Eurofighter as early as possible and support the team with bug reports and such :)

 

 

+ 1 :thumbup:

[norbot]

Please: Not this early access crap!

 

Those who don't want EA don't have to participate. Just sit and wait. ;)

[Spectre11]

 

In this interview with Gero he made a couple of remarks how he/the team envisions the release. Everything is of course subject to change. I agree however that no one is forced to participate in EA. So what's all the fuzz about it?

[Etirion]

Perhaps the EA release could just work the same way the Eurofighter got introduced, Public Info permitting.