A Beta Test?

[VMFA-Blaze]

go to other Devs/Pubs* like i did... WiC & Frontlines

 

*as in publishers not public houses

 

i've flown planes before being in the Air Cadets.. bulldogs only though but that was over 10yrs ago

 

I have four years in US Marine Corps Avation, its safe to say that my experience is beyound the Air Cadets .. :D

 

As far as those other games that you mentioned... If its not a flight sim you wont see me there... :lol:

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[joey45]

I have four years in US Marine Corps Avation, its safe to say that my experience is beyound the Air Cadets .. :D

 

As far as those other games that you mentioned... If its not a flight sim you wont see me there... :lol:

~S~

Blaze

 

8 yrs in the British Army... USMC A *takes hat off*

tried for the RAF but failed

 

and for the other comment.... its a start

[klecko]

I rode in a helicopter for a tour of Niagra Falls when I was a kid.

 

Am I in?

[SimFreak]

Sorry, but right now we are not looking for new testers. If however any of you feel you can provide something unique to the testing of upcoming DCS: A-10 and DCS: Apache (practical experience with those REAL aircraft), then by all means PM me.

 

I have a great photogenic sense in taking screenshots and ability to sell product on avia-forums by forcing users to drown in own drool . :)

 

Also, I have local mafia that can insure my credentials :D

[joey45]

It all comes down to the Question: Do you know what your looking for/at. They dont want Freeloaders, and basicly i don't blame them.

 

they might give it to some fresh eyes to a quick beta test before they realse it.

[Force_Feedback]

I beta tested Project Entropia, and no, never that horror again, can't imagine that all goed unpayed, yikes. No, never for me.

[rogue_blade]

I think I'm an excellent candidate for the Beta test team because I'm amazingly skilled at Halo 3.

[RedTiger]

I've read through this thread and I understand what ED is looking for, but I think the whole "beta team" thing is a misnomer and thats what could people off. They're confusing it with "beta tester".

 

Actually contributing to the development of something in terms of knowledge and production aren't what most people think of when they think "beta". That's a bit like saying Bud Anderson is you beta tester for your P-51 sim. No, he's you technical expert or technical adviser. Same goes for talented folks who make your skins, textures, and art.

 

I've beta tested computer games before. All I did was play them and report bugs. I didn't even try to do anything crazy to crash it, just played it like I normally would. This is what beta testing means to most people. When a new MMORPG comes out and people sign up for beta, all they really want is the ability to play the game before others. All they're really expected to do is report bugs and not give out any info while under the NDA.

[EricJ]

Ubisoft messed the NDA issue up with not actually making the testers sign an NDA for the GRAW2 beta test (or one of them anyways). They expected it to be a "gentleman's agreement", not a legal binding document that can be used to boot you off. Having a legally binding contract really puts the restraint on you, since you can be actually held liable for your misdeeds, i.e. spilling all the beans. Sure you're expected to delete or not distribute... but realistically it's up to common sense and maturity to expect them not to. Of course that just means you may be persona non grata for further tests. Gaming communities as a whole (depending on the game of course) are pretty small, so if you get canned for doing something you shouldn't have, then well.... you're just marked in a sense. Sure you can change usernames, but overall.. you're going to get noticed somehow and get canned.

[CAT_101st]

RedTiger is right.

Whin I was a beta TESTER for micro prose F4 that is what we did test diffint things to see what would crash the game. and see what worked. There were problems with runway lights not lining up at night and other things of the sort. Fill out a report and send it off. It was crapy work whin you culdn't even get the game to load up at start. Whin we got a good up date we would have some fun to test weapons aginst each other. GBU to roling F16 on runway was fun :D. Hell I still have some of the old patches and one I know is better than the 1.08us.

O well I don't expect to be picted for testing but it would be nice. :pilotfly:

[leafer]

me like surprises. and me no qualify.

 

a question to the beta testers, does it ruin your experience with the final product? See, for most of us, (finally) getting our shaky paws on the final product and taking it home; caressing it, fondling it and finally undressing it is half the fun.

[EricJ]

I don't think so, but in a way yeah.. I guess. Lock On held on to late last year, when I finally removed it from the hard drive. I've flown the various aircraft for quite a bit, and got finally bored with the Su-33, as I think I've done everything with it, so I had to move on.

[britgliderpilot]

I've read through this thread and I understand what ED is looking for, but I think the whole "beta team" thing is a misnomer and thats what could people off. They're confusing it with "beta tester".

 

Actually contributing to the development of something in terms of knowledge and production aren't what most people think of when they think "beta". That's a bit like saying Bud Anderson is you beta tester for your P-51 sim. No, he's you technical expert or technical adviser. Same goes for talented folks who make your skins, textures, and art.

 

I've beta tested computer games before. All I did was play them and report bugs. I didn't even try to do anything crazy to crash it, just played it like I normally would. This is what beta testing means to most people. When a new MMORPG comes out and people sign up for beta, all they really want is the ability to play the game before others. All they're really expected to do is report bugs and not give out any info while under the NDA.

 

A major problem with testing DCS is that the depth of modelling is such that you'd barely scratch it in normal playing.

 

Nearly all the helicopter's systems are modelled - but how many people will regularly use the more complex features of the ABRIS, or the radionavigation equipment, or some of the more arcane weapons system dials . . . .

 

The testers need to learn these systems in great detail to understand what the bugs are, and in some cases the theory behind them as well. If they understand the theory or systems first, that's a big advantage!

 

In addition, I'm expecting a huge load to be placed on the testers as instructors and troubleshooters once Black Shark is released - because we do know the Ka50's systems and the quirks thereof.

 

 

It'd be a bit presumptuous to say that testing for DCS is harder than testing for other sims - but from what I've seen so far, being included on the DCS beta team does drop you into an immensely challenging environment, with a wider range of learning and input than may have been required for "simpler" sims.

 

You've really got to know your stuff, and you've got to be dedicated to the project. Yes, ED do try and get advisers and SMEs on board as they develop new features . . . and combining the role of an adviser on a feature with testing on that and other features seems to be working well for them :)

 

 

 

To some extent the joy of discovering the sim all at once does suffer from beta testing . . . but it's still exciting seeing new features come into the sim. If it wasn't fun, why would we do it? ;)

 

I'm still looking forward very much to flying the campaigns in the final product - it's hard to reconcile an advancing storyline with test scenarios.

That should be an epic adventure . . . can't wait!

[leafer]

man. i just wrote a lengthy response to you guys but when I clicked post reply, it asked me to login...

 

frug!

[leafer]

EricJ,

 

The 33 is one of my top three favorite aircraft of all time and I wish ED would give it an AFM ... soon ... as in within a few years ...

 

Nearly all the helicopter's systems are modelled - but how many people will regularly use the more complex features of the ABRIS, or the radionavigation equipment, or some of the more arcane weapons system dials . . . .

 

I am sooooo looking forward to the ABRIS and the radionav... my question is, do we get one of those map/chart thingy? How will we know where everything is located?

 

In addition, I'm expecting a huge load to be placed on the testers as instructors and troubleshooters once Black Shark is released - because we do know the Ka50's systems and the quirks thereof.

 

And don't forget those that will condemn you guys for the inevitable bugs that will show up in the final product. Have fun dealing with them. :D

 

 

It'd be a bit presumptuous to say that testing for DCS is harder than testing for other sims - but from what I've seen so far, being included on the DCS beta team does drop you into an immensely challenging environment, with a wider range of learning and input than may have been required for "simpler" sims.

 

Can we say F4 is merely a game at this point? :D Or did you mean BS is king of helicopter sim. :D

[RedTiger]

A major problem with testing DCS is that the depth of modelling is such that you'd barely scratch it in normal playing.

 

Nearly all the helicopter's systems are modelled - but how many people will regularly use the more complex features of the ABRIS, or the radionavigation equipment, or some of the more arcane weapons system dials . . . .

 

The testers need to learn these systems in great detail to understand what the bugs are, and in some cases the theory behind them as well. If they understand the theory or systems first, that's a big advantage!

 

In addition, I'm expecting a huge load to be placed on the testers as instructors and troubleshooters once Black Shark is released - because we do know the Ka50's systems and the quirks thereof.

 

 

It'd be a bit presumptuous to say that testing for DCS is harder than testing for other sims - but from what I've seen so far, being included on the DCS beta team does drop you into an immensely challenging environment, with a wider range of learning and input than may have been required for "simpler" sims.

 

You've really got to know your stuff, and you've got to be dedicated to the project. Yes, ED do try and get advisers and SMEs on board as they develop new features . . . and combining the role of an adviser on a feature with testing on that and other features seems to be working well for them :)

 

 

 

To some extent the joy of discovering the sim all at once does suffer from beta testing . . . but it's still exciting seeing new features come into the sim. If it wasn't fun, why would we do it? ;)

 

I'm still looking forward very much to flying the campaigns in the final product - it's hard to reconcile an advancing storyline with test scenarios.

That should be an epic adventure . . . can't wait!

 

Its a shame that ED probably doesn't have the time and money to compile a set of references on the real aircraft, kind of like a "DCS/Black Shark Bible" and make that required reading for testers. They might be surprised at how quickly people can pick things like that up and have a good working knowledge for testing purpose. I guess with their limited resources you have to already bring that to the table.

[EricJ]

No, they just don't have all the manuals to do it. Alot of that stuff is classified, and nobody's going to jail over a simulation.

 

@leafer:

I'm not sure what an AFM is for a high speed jet. Flanker 1 had Anatoly Kvotchur as a SME for the flight modelling, so I highly doubt that the FM for the Su-27/33 is too far off. It's smooth and really should be, and it's understandable a subsonic boat that the Su-25 is should be a pain, but really don't see why the Su-33 needs to be any more tweaked IMHO.

[GGTharos]

It's also an old and rare aircraft that needs replacement; it's meant to shoot down incoming cruise missiles and enemy submarine hunters (that is the Kuz's raison d'etre ... protecting the submarine fleet) and doesn't stand much of a chance against a modern USN fighter right now ... neither in quality, nor quantity. As such, i don't really see ED bothering with it.

 

Eric: The difference between supersonic and subsonic flight is pretty significant in terms of physics, and LO doesn't have it quite right from the few things I've heard ... it deals with control/engine issues etc.

 

EricJ,

The 33 is one of my top three favorite aircraft of all time and I wish ED would give it an AFM ... soon ... as in within a few years ...

[Dudikoff]

No, they just don't have all the manuals to do it. Alot of that stuff is classified, and nobody's going to jail over a simulation.

 

I'm sure he meant that this Ka-50 bible should contain the systems description as how they are/should be modelled in the sim which is, after all, what is necessary for testing and will be contained in the user manual afterwards.

[britgliderpilot]

Its a shame that ED probably doesn't have the time and money to compile a set of references on the real aircraft, kind of like a "DCS/Black Shark Bible" and make that required reading for testers. They might be surprised at how quickly people can pick things like that up and have a good working knowledge for testing purpose. I guess with their limited resources you have to already bring that to the table.

 

. . . . like a manual?

 

Draft manuals have been available to the beta team for learning and editing for some time. But reading the whole thing and testing each function of each piece of equipment can make you go cross-eyed. Remember Wags' "600-page manual" quote?

[RedTiger]

. . . . like a manual?

 

Draft manuals have been available to the beta team for learning and editing for some time. But reading the whole thing and testing each function of each piece of equipment can make you go cross-eyed. Remember Wags' "600-page manual" quote?

 

 

Well, yes and no. I mean the raw documents ED used to develope the sim "compiled" somewhere easy to reach all at once. Manuals, technical documents, essays, papers, etc. That way they'd have the knowledge to tell what should be there and what shouldn't be. I mention this in the interest of getting more beta testers on board for a better end product. Most beta testing I'm familiar with isn't paid beta testing, either.

 

And yes, I mean unclassified stuff. If you're saying all this stuff is classified, then how are they making a high-fidelity sim?

[britgliderpilot]

Well, yes and no. I mean the raw documents ED used to develope the sim "compiled" somewhere easy to reach all at once. Manuals, technical documents, essays, papers, etc. That way they'd have the knowledge to tell what should be there and what shouldn't be. I mention this in the interest of getting more beta testers on board for a better end product. Most beta testing I'm familiar with isn't paid beta testing, either.

 

And yes, I mean unclassified stuff. If you're saying all this stuff is classified, then how are they making a high-fidelity sim?

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

I'm told that Kamov offered unprecented access to ED regarding information on the Ka50 - what form that took I don't know. Might be possible to pool it on a server for the beta team.

 

Problem with that is that Kamov is Russian. I don't know how far the other testers will go, but learning Russian is a bit far beyond my level of dedication :D

 

"You have to think in Russian!"

[CAT_101st]

"You have to think in Russian!"

 

OK fire fox :smilewink:

[EricJ]

It's also an old and rare aircraft that needs replacement; it's meant to shoot down incoming cruise missiles and enemy submarine hunters (that is the Kuz's raison d'etre ... protecting the submarine fleet) and doesn't stand much of a chance against a modern USN fighter right now ... neither in quality, nor quantity. As such, i don't really see ED bothering with it.

 

Eric: The difference between supersonic and subsonic flight is pretty significant in terms of physics, and LO doesn't have it quite right from the few things I've heard ... it deals with control/engine issues etc.

 

Well yeah, but I meant more of complexity though, but agreed.

 

And as far as capability... yeah it's not the greatest, but as a strike aircraft it'd be great, least IMHO.

 

And yes, I mean unclassified stuff. If you're saying all this stuff is classified, then how are they making a high-fidelity sim?

 

Er.. I think I'm just not being clear enough maybe. If Kamov gave unprecedented access then that's Kamov. But saying like (for example!) the legacy Hornet. Sure it's been around for quite awhile, but there's still classified information on it, so while the Ka-50 is a high fedility aircraft and being simmed particularly, some of the manuals I got for the Super Hornet are unclassified, and on the web, but some things, like how the radar operates, capabilities, are not, and naturally the USN is still keeping that under wraps as far as true capabilities, such as AMRAAM/MICA performance. Alot of actual performance data is still classified, and one USAF/French exercise the results were kept secret, so it's based more on the particular aircraft, and if ED themselves want to go through the trouble of simming it.

[GGTharos]

I have to disagree with you there Eric, for practical reasons:

The Su-33 was never meant to be employed as a strike aircraft, as it's not a vehicle for projecting power. As such its strike capabilities are rather primitive compared to say, an F-16 or a MiG-29SMT, etc etc - that's aside from the fact that you would -probably- never ever see a Su-33 used as a strike airfract.

 

Well yeah, but I meant more of complexity though, but agreed.

 

And as far as capability... yeah it's not the greatest, but as a strike aircraft it'd be great, least IMHO.