Hornet Roadmap Discussion

[VirusAM]

Not a direct comparison, just using as an example. I hope you are right, but i dont like wiggle room just because they want to remove "Early Access" from a title, its not accurate. My guess would be it so they can add another Early Access module to their list without having that list look like its growing.

 

 

 

Ok fair enough.

About your last sentence it clearly has a sense.

We already know that at the end of 2020 they will announce another module.

We already know that there is an hind in development and updates to the warthog and to the ka-50....mariana map...p47...

That is all true.

But still i trust them and I don’t care about tags, until they deliver what they promised.

Of course i will change my mind the first time they won’t.

I really love this genre and too many times we risked to lose it forever...

[Wizard_03]

I have and still play many games since the late early 90's, and I have never seen a community and developer so closely tied together and interact so much, I am sure there are some that come close, but regardless, the point is, we all are interwoven, and working towards the same desires.

 

Saying we are out to command all and smite the doubters is just missing the message I believe. Thanks.

 

Yeah have to agree w Nine on that one, don’t know a single Developer out there that interacts with the community to this degree.

 

Usually with other games they tell you how it is and you just have to deal with it.

[VirusAM]

Virus......I'm talking about the future, not the past.

 

Just in case.

 

 

 

Yes i know and I understand your point.

What i meant is that saying that they will charge us for updates to unfinished products is unfair...they never did. Why would they start now?They know that this would be a painful mistake, and that they will start to lose the community.

I am sure they will finish all the features on that list...early access or not without charging us more.

[VirusAM]

Yeah have to agree w Nine on that one, don’t know a single Developer out there that interacts with the community to this degree.

 

Usually with other games they tell you how it is and you just have to deal with it.

 

 

 

Adding to this.... I never saw the CEO of any gaming developer company interacting directly with their community....It was not always so...but it is know...i think this is valuable.

[BuzzU]

Virus.........It was my way of saying the plane has to get to the finished state.

 

A little insurance. Probably not needed but reading a plane is finished gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

[Krippz]

Adding to this.... I never saw the CEO of any gaming developer company interacting directly with their community....It was not always so...but it is know...i think this is valuable.

 

Agreed.

 

Thanks Wags and team for the clear concise communication. I look forward to seeing the Hornet develop.

[Jabbers_]

I have and still play many games since the early 90's, and I have never seen a community and developer so closely tied together and interact so much, I am sure there are some that come close, but regardless, the point is, we all are interwoven, and working towards the same desires.

 

Saying we are out to command all and smite the doubters is just missing the message I believe. Thanks.

 

Yeah have to agree w Nine on that one, don’t know a single Developer out there that interacts with the community to this degree.

 

Usually with other games they tell you how it is and you just have to deal with it.

 

This just isnt true, I listed at least 3 games that have HUGE community interaction. I can't help it if you dont see that. I would also say that ED falls flat in this department a lot of the time, and the claims in wrong. How many times have we complained about MP and for how long, and we are just now getting some of those things addressed and only because we paid for it with a module (Super Carrier). There are dozens of examples of just flat out broken things that are never addressed. I understand some things take time, but the process feels broken from my point of view. You require so much work out of your customers to prove an issue.

 

All this is beside the point, your claims of "We are unique" in the dept of customer interaction are ignorant at best.

[Santi871]

 

[*]HOTAS commands are certainly an item we will continue to work on but as I am sure most of you understand, these are highly dependent on the actual availability of a system modes, sensors and weapons. Therefore, we will address this feature as part of the specific weapon, sensor, and avionics task, rather than as a single HOTAS catch-all feature.

 

While this obviously makes sense for formats and sensors that aren't there, it's also worth noting there are formats/sensors that are there, with HOTAS functions still missing.

 

For example: in A/A and A/G mastermodes, SCS right should bring up the Attack page on the RDDI if it's not already displayed. In all mastermodes, SCS aft should bring up the HSI page on the MPCD if it's not already displayed. If it is displayed, TDC priority is assigned to it, and further SCS aft actuations toggle the MPCD between HSI and SA formats.

 

Those are a couple of examples of functions that could already be implemented and do not depend on new sensors or other missing things.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Whilst we're on the subject this is also incorrect. You appear to have confused "early development" with "early access". The two phrases are completely unrelated.

Indeed. I can't help but think back of Jabbers' video on the F-16's early access release, and especially the comment that came down to comparing the standards that are held for 3rd parties, to ED's own.

It's pretty normal that people are concerned about this new definition of "early access", especially after the experiences with RAZBAM and the Mirage: remember how people felt about that?

[Krippz]

Indeed. I can't help but think back of Jabbers' video on the F-16's early access release, and especially the comment that came down to comparing the standards that are held for 3rd parties, to ED's own.

It's pretty normal that people are concerned about this new definition of "early access", especially after the experiences with RAZBAM and the Mirage: remember how people felt about that?

 

I think people get too caught up in the term "Early Access": I purchased the module knowing what I would get in terms of features at release, I was fine with that because I got the chance to fly one of my favorite aircraft early. So if the cost of admission for me personally was just the features listed at inception then I would have been fine. I'm fine with them taking their time to get complex features done; I have over 1,000 hours in the Hornet already, I got my money's worth.

[Wizard_03]

This just isnt true, I listed at least 3 games that have HUGE community interaction. I can't help it if you dont see that. I would also say that ED falls flat in this department a lot of the time, and the claims in wrong. How many times have we complained about MP and for how long, and we are just now getting some of those things addressed and only because we paid for it with a module (Super Carrier). There are dozens of examples of just flat out broken things that are never addressed. I understand some things take time, but the process feels broken from my point of view. You require so much work out of your customers to prove an issue.

 

All this is beside the point, your claims of "We are unique" in the dept of customer interaction are ignorant at best.

 

Respectfully, I disagree, and I play almost all those games you mentioned and am involved in respective communities as well. I don’t agree with EDs decisions all the time but I won’t deny their commitment to the community and it makes sense for them too, because this is such a niche market.

 

But besides that, they aren’t modern combat aviation simulators. There’s a tremendous difference in development when your trying to replicate a real life object with mountains of documentation and real life SMEs judging your execution. It would be unreasonable to compare those games and their communities to DCS because they do not have people nitpicking realism. I would argue that most people in this community cannot even define complete for the hornet because they have zero experience in the real vehicle, and therefore couldn’t tell you what’s missing and what’s not in the first place.

 

It’s only because ED has decided to communicate with us what’s wrong with their work that we’re talking about this at all, if not for that and the actual people in the know pointing things out to the slew of casual players here, we wouldn’t need threads like this at all.

[Arctander]

Indeed. I can't help but think back of Jabbers' video on the F-16's early access release, and especially the comment that came down to comparing the standards that are held for 3rd parties, to ED's own.

It's pretty normal that people are concerned about this new definition of "early access", especially after the experiences with RAZBAM and the Mirage: remember how people felt about that?

 

This is a very good point. As I recall, ED say they have higher standard for third parties because if it is their own module they ‘know’ they will complete it.

 

We don’t.

 

ED must hold themselves to the same level of quality standard for release as the Heatblur and Deka Of this world on OUR BEHALF.

[Krippz]

Respectfully, I disagree, and I play almost all those games you mentioned and am involved in respective communities as well. I don’t agree with EDs decisions all the time but I won’t deny their commitment to the community and it makes sense for them too, because this is such a niche market.

 

But besides that, they aren’t modern combat aviation simulators. There’s a tremendous difference in development when your trying to replicate a real life object with mountains of documentation and real life SMEs judging your execution. It would be unreasonable to compare those games and their communities to DCS because they do not have people nitpicking realism. I would argue that most people in this community cannot even define complete for the hornet because they have zero experience in the real vehicle, and therefore couldn’t tell you what’s missing and what’s not in the first place.

 

It’s only because ED has decided to communicate with us what’s wrong with their work that we’re talking about this at all, if not for that and the actual people in the know pointing things out to the slew of casual players here, we wouldn’t need threads like this at all.

 

100% Agreed.

[raelias]

Let me tell you what I think will happen:

 

1. Hornet get's labeled out of EA with all those features missing

2. Viper gets in the priority development and hornet goes into the "slow burn" (to use ED's words)

3. Features will take forever to be developed and we will be very lucky if we get the originally annouced features by the end of 2022

 

It seems to me that you really bit more then you could chew releasing the Viper while the hornet is still so far away from beeing compleated, and don't get me wrong, I love flying both and was really excited by the Viper release, but it seems that you should have waited, or you really need to get more manpower if viable

 

Meanwhile so many things are still broken for ages, carrier issues are back (altho I understand it might be a side effect from coding for the SC), the SC itself got delayed again, multiplayer is almost unplayable due to planes teleporting all around in big servers, simple things like changing the contermeasures quantity (correct me if I'm wrong but this could be done by simply editing the the number on the .lua) don't get done, stuff that's been promissed like the ED's Huey multicrew is still not delivered after many years (even if other modules have it working reasonably well in much more complex modules), and so many more I could go on and on

 

All that considered you have to understand our lack of faith in your capacity to deliver what you are promissing, even if you are not promissing much, the trust is rightfuly shaken after so many mishaps.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I love DCS and I've been using it since 2012, and LOMAC and FC1 before that, even going back to that boxy SU-27 sim that I can't even remember the name, I'm just trying to make you get the point that the community is frustrated because it just feels like you can't deliver stuff you set your own timeline for, I can only imagine that will hurt sales for future EA products big time.

 

Hope you can improve your development proccess, we are all with you, but please, do better

 

~Smokie

[mcfleck]

Great, we have a protocol. Follow Steam's Early Access definition / guidelines

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great, we have Steam's Early Access definition / guidelines

 

 

 

Keywords

 

1. Steam Early Access

 

2. Still being developed

 

3. Unfinished

 

4. Continue to develop for release

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great, we have Matt Wagner's interpretation of Steam's Early Access definition / guidelines

 

 

 

Keywords

 

5. Work in progress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Steam's Early Access definition / guidelines and Matt Wagner's interpretation

 

 

Keywords

 

1. Steam Early Access

 

2. Still being developed

 

3. Unfinished

 

4. Continue to develop for release

 

5. Work in progress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great, huh what? This is confusing :huh:

 

 

 

Keywords

 

6. No longer be in an early stage of development end of 2020

 

7. Out of Early Access

 

8. Late development status

 

9. Still working on adding / unfinished features

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions

 

A) Does Steam's Early Access definition / guidelines differentiate "early stage development" from "late stage development?

 

B) Development means still being developed?

 

C) Development means work in progress?

 

D) Development means unfinished?

 

E) How does the Hornet qualify as "Out of Early Access" if keywords 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 still apply?

 

 

 

 

 

Happy Simming,

 

Monnie

Great summary and exactly the right questions to be clarified!

[gekoiq]

Regardless of your opinion on the quality of current releases and roadmaps, the above statement is fundamentally wrong:

 

 

 

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

 

This needs to be seen and responded to by ED.

 

What Wags said, and what this page on the steam partners page says are in direct contradiction.

 

By Steam's own definition, a game is still in "Early Access" while it is not "feature complete". The roadmap laid out by Wags in the Hornet mini-update thread shows ED plans to remove the "Early Access" notation before the Hornet is actually "feature complete".

[MonnieRock]

Let me tell you what I think will happen:

 

1. Hornet get's labeled out of EA with all those features missing

2. Viper gets in the priority development and hornet goes into the "slow burn" (to use ED's words)

3. Features will take forever to be developed and we will be very lucky if we get the originally annouced features by the end of 2022

 

 

I support your theory 100%. :thumbup:

 

Especially considering that the missing EA features when transitioning to "Out of EA" have been renamed as "DCS: F/A-18C Hornet Improvements in 2021:" :doh:

 

 

If I am wrong, come 31DEC2021, I will publicly admit I made a mistake in judgement, apologize to ED, and buy a EA module at that time. :thumbup:

 

Happy Simming,

Monnie

[NineLine]

This just isnt true, I listed at least 3 games that have HUGE community interaction. I can't help it if you dont see that. I would also say that ED falls flat in this department a lot of the time, and the claims in wrong. How many times have we complained about MP and for how long, and we are just now getting some of those things addressed and only because we paid for it with a module (Super Carrier). There are dozens of examples of just flat out broken things that are never addressed. I understand some things take time, but the process feels broken from my point of view. You require so much work out of your customers to prove an issue.

 

All this is beside the point, your claims of "We are unique" in the dept of customer interaction are ignorant at best.

 

Well thanks for your feedback Jabbers, I like to feel I am very experienced in the game industry over the years I have been involved with many of the top companies out there from just user to tester till now, and I can say I see things differently. Calling me ignorant or my claims at least to get your point across doesn't feel constructive though, and my opinions are mine, and yours are yours.

 

I do feel we have a pretty unique community, and I stand by that, we are not just like the other guys, and I am not saying about ED, I am saying it about the community as a whole. Sure there are a lot of similarities out there, but similar isn't the same.

 

Anyways, you are getting lost, the point is that Wags comment was about is being on this journey together, and we feel all of you are important to that journey, that together we are stronger, and we only hope that taking a step back and reflecting on these changes, and how they will impact things going forward that you will see it is for improving the entire process.

 

Thanks.

[MonnieRock]

Anyways, you are getting lost, the point is that Wags comment was about is being on this journey together, and we feel all of you are important to that journey, that together we are stronger, and we only hope that taking a step back and reflecting on these changes, and how they will impact things going forward that you will see it is for improving the entire process.

 

:huh: Getting lost?

 

Someone else here is getting lost because:

 

ED, the ED Staff(including you), DCS, and DCS Hornet are not some candidate(s) to be my future Wife.

 

ED, the ED Staff(including you), DCS, and DCS Hornet are a business, employees and a product I bought as an educated consumer based on this list. Which, is now changing post purchase. For the record, I could care less if EA lasted until all the items are complete and working bug free.

 

If ED wants to change the terminology, great, do it for new items for purchase that arrive for sale after the change.

 

Happy Simming,

Monnie

[NineLine]

For the record, I could care less if EA lasted until all the items are complete and working bug free.

 

In the same sense, why does it matter what it is called as long as all items are completed and working bug-free?

 

I get the overall frustration, but we are still committed to completing the Hornet as fast as we can, and it will be what everyone hoped for when they clicked purchase day 1 or on. This is about managing expectations better, and yes, it would have been better to have the foresight to do it at the start of the project, but as we expand, and as they sim changes, our approach has to change to fit in order to best meet our customer's needs, we feel this is where we need to go.

 

Thanks.

[*Rage*]

I think there's alot of catastrophising here. So you spent $50 on a piece of software that hasn't met with your dreams and expectations yet. Get over it.

 

Even in their current state ive got my moneys worth out of all the EA modules. And they can only continue to get better. Developing modern high fidelity jets is effing hard. Especially for the price theyre sold at.

[Vincent90]

Indeed. I can't help but think back of Jabbers' video on the F-16's early access release, and especially the comment that came down to comparing the standards that are held for 3rd parties, to ED's own.

It's pretty normal that people are concerned about this new definition of "early access", especially after the experiences with RAZBAM and the Mirage: remember how people felt about that?

This is nothing new and has been going on forever, ED’s standards and 3rd party standards are one and the same, and has always been. This goes right back to the whole EFM/PFM confusion and the clarifications of Yo-Yo about them

 

A10C:

Its inaccuracies were reported right after the module launched by testers, and ED decided to ignore them

 

NS430: Same story

 

UH-1: Was sold in Early Access with ‘multicrew coming’ and now, 7 years after the module launched there is still no multicrew in sight.

 

MiG-29: Oh dear… The PFM has spawned tens of pages in its thread with a dozen of MiG-29 pilots contributing about its strange inertia characteristics, but hey, a single source knows more than the dozen opposite sources.

 

NEVADA Test and Training Range: Came years late, with the assets that make the NTTR the NTTR missing (thankfully modded in place by some really dedicated guys) and with a resolution that was lower than the old Caucasus map, with only Vegas and the central airfields in high-resolution.

 

Yak-52: Comes up at its 2-year anniversary, with LOD and ADF shining by absence.

 

Belsimtek’s MiG-15: Had a critical bug that literally made it impossible to fly it to the starboard side, and was left there for 18 months (and appears had the thread deleted since then)

 

Leatherneck’s MiG-21 was dumped out of Early Access with only 60% of the aircraft completed, and in the past 4 years had little to no development, with Chizh blatantly (and honestly) saying “If you want to make an accurate model of the MiG-21, there is nothing stopping you”. No, I want to get what I paid good money for…

 

RAZBAM and Polychop: It would surprise me if anyone was unaware about how the community sees the products

 

Heatblur’s Viggen: Instead of finishing this one up first, it has now been over 3 years and will take at least another year of work.

This route of work is being continued with the F-14A, that the team desperately want out of the door ASAP, instead of finishing the F-14B and only then take on a third aircraft.

 

Octopus I-16: The dev mysteriously vanished 6 months ago, and hasn’t shown a sign of life ever since. No updates to the I-16, nothing.

 

The list goes on and on and on… , and I won’t even go over the WWII modules and their problems. The current situation isn't any different than 2013, but with the hype around the full-fidelity Century fighters and the massive increase in user base, the facts remained obscured. Only now, with the increased userbase coming to the same conclusion and some other factor I won't go into, the argument starts to show itself again.

 

With the launch of Flaming Cliffs 3, ED was upfront that it was just a port of FC2 and nothing more. What was wrong with that honesty? Didn’t the module sell well enough to resort to the current model of having to put out new modules to finish unfinished modules?

There is a name for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

 

And finally, I constantly hear about ‘If ED doesn’t do it, nobody will’. First of all, the cake is too big for other devs to ignore and second of all, why stay in a toxic and abusive relationship that only costs you money and where promises are intertwined with lies on a daily basis?

[Santi871]

In the same sense, why does it matter what it is called as long as all items are completed and working bug-free?

 

I get the overall frustration, but we are still committed to completing the Hornet as fast as we can, and it will be what everyone hoped for when they clicked purchase day 1 or on. This is about managing expectations better, and yes, it would have been better to have the foresight to do it at the start of the project, but as we expand, and as they sim changes, our approach has to change to fit in order to best meet our customer's needs, we feel this is where we need to go.

 

Thanks.

 

If the label doesn't matter, then it's better to just keep the EA label until it's feature complete.

 

Why? Because gamers are wary nowadays about EA titles. This has nothing to do with ED in particular, it's just a matter of fact that in the industry, many developers have burned customers in the past by not fulfilling their EA. This has led to many people being unable to trust developers' words.

 

Why does this matter if ED has nothing to do with those other developers?

 

Because regardless of what ED is like, people are extremely wary of anyone who seemingly tries to scramble to finish an EA product, be it ED or anyone else. It is perceived as untrustworthy, again because so many have been burned by others before.

 

Given that ED has never had an EA project of this magnitude, it's reasonable that people ask, at least for this first time, that it remains in EA until completely finished. That will solidify people's trust in ED. With more trust, people will be less wary of the EA model in the future.

 

This is just a trust building exercise, and not needlessly doing anything that could be perceived as untrustworthy (even if it's not actually, it may just look that way, and sometimes words aren't enough).

 

I personally trust ED, but I can understand if others don't feel the same way after having bad experiences with other games/devs.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Santi871

[MonnieRock]

In the same sense, why does it matter what it is called as long as all items are completed and working bug-free?

.

 

1. Accountability

2. Correct status

3. Creates goals for the company to complete the product to change status to "Completed" "Released" "Final Product"

4. Instills consumer confidence.

5. Follows the guidelines ED set following Steam's Early Access Definition / guidelines

 

Transitioning From Early Access to 'Released'

When you consider your product "feature complete" and no longer in a significant state of change, you may transition from Early Access to 'Released.' It is worth noting this does not mean you should stop adding features or updating your product--you should keep adding content or fixing bugs as is appropriate for your title.

 

Note: If your product is no longer marked as Early Access, the expectation from customers will be that your product is stable and delivers a complete experience.

 

Happy Simming,

Monnie

[Bloodhound57]

In the same sense, why does it matter what it is called as long as all items are completed and working bug-free?

 

I get the overall frustration, but we are still committed to completing the Hornet as fast as we can, and it will be what everyone hoped for when they clicked purchase day 1 or on. This is about managing expectations better, and yes, it would have been better to have the foresight to do it at the start of the project, but as we expand, and as they sim changes, our approach has to change to fit in order to best meet our customer's needs, we feel this is where we need to go.

 

Thanks.

 

What about some information on the Early Access Super Carrier? It was considered broken, not released then no information. Someone has said it before, this early access stuff seems like a "Ponzi Scheme" (Someone, 2020). Almost 6 months since ED started taking our money (great trailer btw) and limited information. Is this what Pre-Release means? Should I pre-order Madden 2027 this week?

 

Steve

Edited April 25, 2020 by Bloodhound57