Hornet Roadmap Discussion

[Cskelly]

Okay here I go! I absolutely love ED/DCS. There is no other sim on the market like it. That being said I am afraid ED is shooting themselves in the foot by not completing (at least in a reasonable time frame) the projects that they have started before releasing another. ED is causing distrust among a lot of their customer base. When that happens people are less likely to purchase products, and even less likely early access products (which funds completion of those products).

 

My suggestion would be to completely focus the Hornet with the guarantee that as soon as it is done he Viper will come into complete focus. In the future offer EA products at a much deeper discount early on and be transparent when the projected completion date will be. As that time approaches gradually increase the price of the EA product. It's sad that EA modules never seem to be completed. Hornet, Viper, even the Harrier (Not ED's fault).

 

I thank Mat for his honesty and wish the team well. I will continue to purchase ED products but will think heavily before purchasing EA modules unless I know an estimated completion date.

[jasonbirder]

stable DCS here. nothing is broken

 

 

Stable user here too...there's plenty that's broken! How many DLC campaign missions (paid for and ostensibly sold & supported by ED) don't work as new versions break pathfinding, AI, comms & triggers?

[Tom Kazansky]

Stable user here too...there's plenty that's broken! How many DLC campaign missions (paid for and ostensibly sold & supported by ED) don't work as new versions break pathfinding, AI, comms & triggers?

 

 

That's a point. Saying "nothing is broken" came from an emotional reaction I had after all those " everything is broken" posts. Both is not the case and criticism of flawed products is very important.

[InteR]

Okay here I go! I absolutely love ED/DCS. There is no other sim on the market like it. That being said I am afraid ED is shooting themselves in the foot by not completing (at least in a reasonable time frame) the projects that they have started before releasing another. ED is causing distrust among a lot of their customer base. When that happens people are less likely to purchase products, and even less likely early access products (which funds completion of those products).

 

My suggestion would be to completely focus the Hornet with the guarantee that as soon as it is done he Viper will come into complete focus. In the future offer EA products at a much deeper discount early on and be transparent when the projected completion date will be. As that time approaches gradually increase the price of the EA product. It's sad that EA modules never seem to be completed. Hornet, Viper, even the Harrier (Not ED's fault).

 

I thank Mat for his honesty and wish the team well. I will continue to purchase ED products but will think heavily before purchasing EA modules unless I know an estimated completion date.

 

+1.

[jasonbirder]

That's a point. Saying "nothing is broken" came from an emotional reaction I had after all those " everything is broken" posts. Both is not the case and criticism of flawed products is very important.

 

 

:) :thumbup:

[shagrat]

But that also seems to give them licence to break everything as they go along...and deliver unfinished (and possibly never to be finished if the whole Hornet Early Access debacle plays out as I suspect it will) modules at full price.

I can't help but feel that if they'd stop incrementally updating everything as they go along and had simply released the 2.5 Causacus Map as a Paid for Map (like PG and NTTR) and completed modules like the A10C we might be better off...

Half the updates in each incremental patch are to fix something they've previously broken...the rest it is incremental updates to unfinished modules...

They wouldn't need to continually update if they sold significant updates (like the new causacus map) as completed paid for add-on and finished modules...

 

So you should use only stable with released modules and you should have none of these issues you are complaining about.

When you decide to use the OpenBeta testbuild and Early Access WIP modules you agreed deliberately to get a discount and chance to give feedback, try unfinished features way before release and accepted the potential bugs and problems coming with a beta product in active developmen, in exchange.

You gladly accept the discount and benefits if they are beneficial to you, but as soon as typical problems that come with the deal pop up, it is "bad business practice" and a "licence to break things"?

I agree, OpenBeta participation and Early Access modules can be a painful experience, but that is why they are discounted.

Compared to other premium game titles, where you pay premium fees even higher than the release price, to get alpha or beta access years before everyone else, I find Eagle Dynamics Early Access discounts incredibly fair.

Just my two cents.

[shagrat]

That's a point. Saying "nothing is broken" came from an emotional reaction I had after all those " everything is broken" posts. Both is not the case and criticism of flawed products is very important.

Exactly, I would not even call it criticism, but valuable customer feedback! If a DLC breaks, it is important to get this kind of feedback, so the Campaign developer knows and can figure out what happened and fix it.

"Everything is broken" does not help.

"Mission xyz in Campaign ABC I encountered the following issue, this is how to reproduce" is most valuable feedback...

[DerFangzahn]

So you should use only stable with released modules and you should have none of these issues you are complaining about.

When you decide to use the OpenBeta testbuild and Early Access WIP modules you agreed deliberately to get a discount and chance to give feedback, try unfinished features way before release and accepted the potential bugs and problems coming with a beta product in active developmen, in exchange.

You gladly accept the discount and benefits if they are beneficial to you, but as soon as typical problems that come with the deal pop up, it is "bad business practice" and a "licence to break things"?

I agree, OpenBeta participation and Early Access modules can be a painful experience, but that is why they are discounted.

Compared to other premium game titles, where you pay premium fees even higher than the release price, to get alpha or beta access years before everyone else, I find Eagle Dynamics Early Access discounts incredibly fair.

Just my two cents.

 

 

[Rant on]

Sorry, but fanboying is no help in this situation. Criticizing a company which happily takes my money is the right of customers. ED constantly under delivers, delays releases and features and extends EA periods. While in the same time basically every month a new module in development is announced. Existing modules are not finished and stay in EA.

[i was really surprised that FW190A got finished.]

Hornet is in EA since two years. Basic functions are still not finished and what we hear are excuses.

We pay for these modules full prize. And what we get is the possibility to buy the next EA module with a bunch of missing features?

 

ED development cycle:

F/A-18 Hornet in EA for two years. Lets do the F-16 and release it in EA.

Hey! F-16 EA still misses most of its features. Lets prepare the Super Carrier EA release.

Super Carrier not finished. Lets release [insert random EA module]...

 

And in the mean time Heatblur delivers on the first shot a feature complete module. :music_whistling:

And Deka delivers also a feature complete module. :dontgetit:

 

Do you now understand why a lot of people here are really sick of this BS excuses?

We payed hundreds of dollars/euros and still our favorite planes are incomplete.

 

You would never tolerate this behavior with other products. Like a car or a mobile phone. But in case of DCS and ED its OK?

 

[Rant off]

[Jerec]

[Rant on]

Sorry, but fanboying is no help in this situation. Criticizing a company which happily takes my money is the right of customers. ED constantly under delivers, delays releases and features and extends EA periods. While in the same time basically every month a new module in development is announced. Existing modules are not finished and stay in EA.

[i was really surprised that FW190A got finished.]

Hornet is in EA since two years. Basic functions are still not finished and what we hear are excuses.

We pay for these modules full prize. And what we get is the possibility to buy the next EA module with a bunch of missing features?

 

ED development cycle:

F/A-18 Hornet in EA for two years. Lets do the F-16 and release it in EA.

Hey! F-16 EA still misses most of its features. Lets prepare the Super Carrier EA release.

Super Carrier not finished. Lets release [insert random EA module]...

 

And in the mean time Heatblur delivers on the first shot a feature complete module. :music_whistling:

And Deka delivers also a feature complete module. :dontgetit:

 

Do you now understand why a lot of people here are really sick of this BS excuses?

We payed hundreds of dollars/euros and still our favorite planes are incomplete.

 

You would never tolerate this behavior with other products. Like a car or a mobile phone. But in case of DCS and ED its OK?

 

[Rant off]

 

 

Exactly!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

[Rant on]

Sorry, but fanboying is no help in this situation. Criticizing a company which happily takes my money is the right of customers. ED constantly under delivers, delays releases and features and extends EA periods. While in the same time basically every month a new module in development is announced. Existing modules are not finished and stay in EA.

[i was really surprised that FW190A got finished.]

Hornet is in EA since two years. Basic functions are still not finished and what we hear are excuses.

We pay for these modules full prize. And what we get is the possibility to buy the next EA module with a bunch of missing features?

 

ED development cycle:

F/A-18 Hornet in EA for two years. Lets do the F-16 and release it in EA.

Hey! F-16 EA still misses most of its features. Lets prepare the Super Carrier EA release.

Super Carrier not finished. Lets release [insert random EA module]...

 

And in the mean time Heatblur delivers on the first shot a feature complete module. :music_whistling:

And Deka delivers also a feature complete module. :dontgetit:

 

Do you now understand why a lot of people here are really sick of this BS excuses?

We payed hundreds of dollars/euros and still our favorite planes are incomplete.

 

You would never tolerate this behavior with other products. Like a car or a mobile phone. But in case of DCS and ED its OK?

 

[Rant off]

 

There are some possible reasons for the apparent slowness. For example, I understand Deka used the tech ED developed for Hornet and Viper to make their module work. ED have to develop the tech and their modules simultaneously, which is harder work.

 

That said at face value I can see where you're coming from, which is why I don't get why ED don't put a bit of effort into their PR.

[jasonbirder]

So you should use only stable with released modules and you should have none of these issues you are complaining about.

I do only use stable - and whilst I have purchased a number of EA modules to qualify for discount...they're all "parked" with minutes on the flight hours!

My point is that updates to the STABLE build repeatedly break functionality & DLC/User Campaigns and Missions...as essentially "stable" is little more thana slightly older Open Beta Version.

I'm saying its "bad business practice" as on multiple occasions EDs own stable updates breaks paid-for & supported ED content, you can colour that however you like...but to me thats the very definition of "bad business practice" - selling something, then rendering it unusable after the fact.

 

 

My point is that drip-feeding constant tiny updates and features gives multiple opportunities to "break" functionality, less time and motivation for it to be fixed quickly (its only going to break again soon) and that it would be better to have occasional wide-ranging complete, tested and working updates to the core game and for modules to be released WHEN they're finished (like the A10C was)...rather than when they're 40% complete...then add another 5% on in a month...and another 5% ad in-finitum with all the additional error pints that introduces.

Edited April 30, 2020 by jasonbirder

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

That said at face value I can see where you're coming from, which is why I don't get why ED don't put a bit of effort into their PR.

Now that's the problem, isn't it? The vast majority here doesn't have a problem with delays (stuff happens): I'd happily pay for a subscription model if that's what it takes to keep ED in business and to make sure they are able to attract the necessary talent to keep developing modules at the level of detail the customers have come to expect.

But calling something "out of early access" while it clearly isn't, is misleading advertisement. Hence the need for more/better PR.

 

Anyway, I think the point's been made now...

[BuzzU]

Here's the truth and my observation of ED for a long time. Way back in Lock On ED realized they could push out unfinished content and get away with it due to a lack of competition.

 

Nothing has changed and i'm sure it never will until they have direct competition.

[VpR81]

[Rant on]

Sorry, but fanboying is no help in this situation. Criticizing a company which happily takes my money is the right of customers. ED constantly under delivers, delays releases and features and extends EA periods. While in the same time basically every month a new module in development is announced. Existing modules are not finished and stay in EA.

[i was really surprised that FW190A got finished.]

Hornet is in EA since two years. Basic functions are still not finished and what we hear are excuses.

We pay for these modules full prize. And what we get is the possibility to buy the next EA module with a bunch of missing features?

 

ED development cycle:

F/A-18 Hornet in EA for two years. Lets do the F-16 and release it in EA.

Hey! F-16 EA still misses most of its features. Lets prepare the Super Carrier EA release.

Super Carrier not finished. Lets release [insert random EA module]...

 

And in the mean time Heatblur delivers on the first shot a feature complete module. :music_whistling:

And Deka delivers also a feature complete module. :dontgetit:

 

Do you now understand why a lot of people here are really sick of this BS excuses?

We payed hundreds of dollars/euros and still our favorite planes are incomplete.

 

You would never tolerate this behavior with other products. Like a car or a mobile phone. But in case of DCS and ED its OK?

 

[Rant off]

 

Well spoken! +1

 

There are some possible reasons for the apparent slowness. For example, I understand Deka used the tech ED developed for Hornet and Viper to make their module work. ED have to develop the tech and their modules simultaneously, which is harder work.

 

This is a faulty excuse! Aston Martin uses Mercedes Benz V8 engines in their cars, saving the developement of engines, while Mercedes has to develope both, the car and the engine. Still Mercedes is able to deliver everything, the engines for Aston Martin, the engines they use in their own cars and their cars in time. So what?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Here's the truth and my observation of ED for a long time. Way back in Lock On ED realized they could push out unfinished content and get away with it due to a lack of competition...

 

There's a reason there's no competition - no-one gets into this genre to make (a lot of) money.

 

And they may release unfinished products, but it's not like they abandon them. 10 years later the A10C is still getting attention.

[Silver_Dragon]

There's a reason there's no competition - no-one gets into this genre to make (a lot of) money.

 

And they may release unfinished products, but it's not like they abandon them. 10 years later the A10C is still getting attention.

 

And what part of "A-10C" never was completed?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

And what part of "A-10C" never was completed?

 

:huh::huh::huh:

 

I never said it wasn't completed? Sorry don't understand what you're saying.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

This is a faulty excuse! Aston Martin uses Mercedes Benz V8 engines in their cars, saving the developement of engines, while Mercedes has to develope both, the car and the engine. Still Mercedes is able to deliver everything, the engines for Aston Martin, the engines they use in their own cars and their cars in time. So what?

 

Before you dismiss that as a possibility, perhaps pick a better example, preferably in the same sector.

[Silver_Dragon]

:huh::huh::huh:

 

I never said it wasn't completed? Sorry don't understand what you're saying.

 

And they may release unfinished products, but it's not like they abandon them. 10 years later the A10C is still getting attention.

 

please explain...

[jasonbirder]

The A10C was released in a pretty much complete state...but it has been updated recently with a redone cockpit and changes to the cannon accuracy

[Flamin_Squirrel]

please explain...

 

You're not making sense. The fact that the A10C is still getting attention 10 years later is evidence they don't abandon their products. The new cockpit being a good example.

[dawgie79]

[Rant on]

 

 

You would never tolerate this behavior with other products. Like a car or a mobile phone. But in case of DCS and ED its OK?

 

[Rant off]

Right. Car manufacturers didn't lie about fuel usage of their cars. They didn't cheat on tests and lied to customers. And they went bankrupt after that, right.

Edited April 30, 2020 by dawgie79

[Thump]

Right. Car manufacturers didn't lie about fuel usage of their cars. They didn't cheat on tests and lied to customers. And they went bankrupt after that, right.

 

And it didn't go well for them.

 

"With VW recalling millions of cars worldwide from early next year, it has set aside €6.7bn (£4.8bn) to cover costs. That resulted in the company posting its first quarterly loss for 15 years of €2.5bn in late October. But that's unlikely to be the end of the financial impact. The EPA has the power to fine a company up to $37,500 for each vehicle that breaches standards - a maximum fine of about $18bn."

 

 

What has been VW's response?

"We've totally screwed up," said VW America boss Michael Horn, while the group's chief executive at the time, Martin Winterkorn, said his company had "broken the trust of our customers and the public"

[VpR81]

Before you dismiss that as a possibility, perhaps pick a better example, preferably in the same sector.

 

ED = company developing and selling products

Car manufactor = company developing, producing and selling products

 

DCS F/A-18 = product

Car= product

 

 

ID Software / DOOM:

 

Developement staretd in 2014, released 2016 (feature complete!, almost bug free - i experienced none, played through 2 times + 200hrs online). Own graphics engine ID Tech 6 (technology) development in tandem, still delivered in time and with outstanding quality. I'll give to ED, that Flight sims are more complicated than Shooters but this still does not justify the delays we got with the Hornet and by far not the "new" definition of EA. And developing a graphics engine on the ID Tech 6 level is hard work as well.

Edited April 30, 2020 by VpR81

[VpR81]

And it didn't go well for them.

 

"With VW recalling millions of cars worldwide from early next year, it has set aside €6.7bn (£4.8bn) to cover costs. That resulted in the company posting its first quarterly loss for 15 years of €2.5bn in late October. But that's unlikely to be the end of the financial impact. The EPA has the power to fine a company up to $37,500 for each vehicle that breaches standards - a maximum fine of about $18bn."

 

 

What has been VW's response?

"We've totally screwed up," said VW America boss Michael Horn, while the group's chief executive at the time, Martin Winterkorn, said his company had "broken the trust of our customers and the public"

 

And still VW has record sales worldwide again. Strange world.