not planned Why don't allow to download a "DEMO" version of the Apache, as it is now?

[Cab]

40 minutes ago, EightyDuce said:

Unfortunately your math doesn't add up when it comes to internet warriors.

While 2 is less the 5, the 2 will make exponentially more negative noise online than the positive/silent 5. Which creates a situation where a newcomer may be dissuaded from DCS all together because of the loud minority spewing whiny garbage all over the web. And just all around create drama.

 

Plus it isn't assured that any of the eight won't still complain if the requested demo is released in the current state. You could wind up with more than the original five people complaining.

People are funny that way.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Cab

[BIGNEWY]

people complained about the viper launch and rightly so, we have other successful launches since then but people still mention the viper to this day, it is important to get it right for early access launch, the delay while not welcome is worth it. 

thanks

[FiveWire]

the apache has a demo version in dcs. It's called the iroquois, and is already available.

[FlankerKiller]

10 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

people complained about the viper launch and rightly so, we have other successful launches since then but people still mention the viper to this day, it is important to get it right for early access launch, the delay while not welcome is worth it. 

thanks

Please take your time. The community will come out with pitch forks if this thing isn't in pretty good shape when it's released. The AH-64 is likely the biggest model you ever made. After the MI-24 I have no doubt you will bring the most accurate simulation of the Apache ever to market. Even I'm excited about it, and I'm not a fan at all of the direction DCS took. Plus if I understood your news letter you had people get sick with Covid 19. I hope they all feel better, and no one got too sick. Peoples health trump's any game. Make it right, and we will love it. 

 

[fragal]

If it comes out in an equal state to the hind or better I’m happy, the viper was a mistake to release, no doubt but it’s now miles above what it released as.

 
Delays happen if it turns out better because of the delay awesome.

it’s no skin off my nose because I didn’t have the Apache last week either and I survived.

It comes when it comes.

[Zarma]

16 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

people complained about the viper launch and rightly so, we have other successful launches since then but people still mention the viper to this day, it is important to get it right for early access launch, the delay while not welcome is worth it. 

thanks

M2K was way worst than Viper LOL

[reeman]

On 1/22/2022 at 5:30 AM, FZG_Immel said:

I disagree. ED is guilty of giving a false date. ppl put money because they were given term. issues can happen, and the first delay was more than acceptable. the second delay proves the first date was clearly never meant to be respected in the first place.                                      

ED is not guilty for anything, All you should have is patience.  Making claims like this won't help at all.

[FlankerKiller]

Delays happen. Personally I would rather ED wait until all the features listed on the early access feature list are polished, and the FM is in a very good state. I don't mind testing for bugs, and waiting on a few hard to implement features to be ready. But I don't want it to feel like a totally different aircraft ether. The MI-24 has been really nice development so far. I hope ED keeps this trend up. Products that are more complete and more polished on release tend to be far better received. 

[Mr_Blastman]

One could always play the latest modded version of EECH for the time being.  The AH-64D has been a part of the experience for ages.    The flight model in EECH is rather UFO, though, but the systems are there and represented pretty well.

 

[M1Combat]

On 1/22/2022 at 10:24 AM, BIGNEWY said:

people complained about the viper launch and rightly so, we have other successful launches since then but people still mention the viper to this day, it is important to get it right for early access launch, the delay while not welcome is worth it. 

thanks

My bolding above -

No Newy.  No.  People are NOT right to complain about the Viper launch.  The Viper was only launched in that state because the people demanded it...  Not because ED really wanted to.  If there's something about the Viper launch that people should "rightly" complain about it was the very fact that people demanded it so loudly that ED ultimately released it almost certainly against their better judgement.  OK...  Maybe you can say it's right to complain about the Viper launch...  but ONLY if it's properly couched in the context that the real problem was the people's demands and tehn the subsequent uproar from both the Viper folks saying "WTH it's not done WAAAH" AND the Hornet folks saying "Wait a dang minute...  Are you even still working on the Hornet?".  This was not "caused" by ED.  You know all this and I'm sure at this point it's largely semantics where we disagree :)...  but I am very firmly of the mindset that any complaining of the Viper launch absolutely MUST be put into that context.  I do respect your interest in taking it on the chin so to speak and not telling the "folks" how it was their doing...  So Kudos to that...  But I'm happy to do it for you :).

 

"release some of the pressure on the Apache deadline."

Sir...  There is no Apache "deadline".  That only exists in the minds of people who find themselves disappointed by their lack of understanding of what Early Access means and the framework of how it works with Eagle Dynamics.  ED suggested a likely "early" release timeframe.  You created this "deadline" you speak of. 

 

All of that said...

I'm SUPER happy to hear all of the gnashing of teeth over this.  ONLY because it means the module is HOTLY anticipated and is going to sell "quite well" and will secure the future development and release of other modules that we all want in the combat sim community.

[FlankerKiller]

5 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

My bolding above -

No Newy.  No.  People are NOT right to complain about the Viper launch.  The Viper was only launched in that state because the people demanded it...  Not because ED really wanted to.  If there's something about the Viper launch that people should "rightly" complain about it was the very fact that people demanded it so loudly that ED ultimately released it almost certainly against their better judgement.  OK...  Maybe you can say it's right to complain about the Viper launch...  but ONLY if it's properly couched in the context that the real problem was the people's demands and tehn the subsequent uproar from both the Viper folks saying "WTH it's not done WAAAH" AND the Hornet folks saying "Wait a dang minute...  Are you even still working on the Hornet?".  This was not "caused" by ED.  You know all this and I'm sure at this point it's largely semantics where we disagree :)...  but I am very firmly of the mindset that any complaining of the Viper launch absolutely MUST be put into that context.  I do respect your interest in taking it on the chin so to speak and not telling the "folks" how it was their doing...  So Kudos to that...  But I'm happy to do it for you :).

 

"release some of the pressure on the Apache deadline."

Sir...  There is no Apache "deadline".  That only exists in the minds of people who find themselves disappointed by their lack of understanding of what Early Access means and the framework of how it works with Eagle Dynamics.  ED suggested a likely "early" release timeframe.  You created this "deadline" you speak of. 

 

All of that said...

I'm SUPER happy to hear all of the gnashing of teeth over this.  ONLY because it means the module is HOTLY anticipated and is going to sell "quite well" and will secure the future development and release of other modules that we all want in the combat sim community.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the Viper release, kinda. I'm not going to go full rant because I am well and truly pissed about the whole 4th gen ED situation. But the Viper fit the trend ED was in for early access standers. The Hornet wasn't exactly in a good state when released ether. Like it was basically unplayable. There wasn't an uproar because no one playing DCS knew what to expect. And honestly ED was trying to figure out what the proper level of completeness for early access was. The Viper wasn't that much worse off then the Hornet to be honest. The lack of damage model being the biggest glaring WTF. Point is they were both rough. Now yes at that time the community was starting to get a little fed up with early access. It's like nobody really knew where the limit was, and the Viper found it. Then along comes the F-14, and JF-17 back to back fully armed, and features present on release. And the community loved it. 

Now as a Hornet guy the bing pissed about the Viper started the moment it was announced. ED said they would be developed in tandem and it wouldn't cause any delays. Well we see how that played out. The Viper being is a <profanity> state at release just rubbed salt in the wound. So yes ED dose have things to apologize for. No at least I am not over it.  The Viper shouldn't have even been announced until the Hornet was nearly complete and about to come out of early access. It's a mistake I hope ED never makes again. 

There was no way I was going to pre-order the Mi-24. But thankfully ED learned and it was actually a decent early access launch. Early last year I predicted the Mi-24 would go smoothly, and the AH-64 would be a train wreck on par with the Viper. I'm glad to see some indication that I might be wrong. 

I actually preordered the AH-64 once I saw that it was delayed in order to fix some small issues with the FM. I too hope the AH-64 launch goes smoothly, and it sales like hotcakes. 

 

[M1Combat]

Of course you can feel how you like but you still miss an important point I made.

ED didn't have a "release date" for EA for the Viper at first.  Of course they had a EA release window.  A "date" didn't come until they mentioned randomly that it was "flyable".  Once that simple comment was said the community came unhinged and pressured ED into an EARLY early access release promising they wouldn't complain about it no matter how bad it was because they knew the focus had to be on the hornet for now... but "Just let us fly it" and we'll be fine and let you go about work on the Hornet.  I mean I get it...  not every single person who's ever installed DCS was on that train...  but it was a pretty sizable train friend :)...  It was...

ED caved to the demands.

The people did NOT hold up their end of the bargain.

They immediately started complaining that "nothing was happening" with the Viper.  So ED moved some devs to the Viper.

Then the Hornet folks started saying "Hey wait a dang minute now..." so ED moved some devs back to the Hornet.

 

Look all I'm saying is that ED's mistake was doing what the community demanded.  Those are just facts.  I'm not trying to say the Viper wasn't released WAY the eff too early.  I'm only talking about WHY ED did that.  It wasn't because they cooked up the idea on their own...

[FlankerKiller]

Nothing in this has happened in a vacuum. As you said the community had been pushing for EA earlier and earlier in the development cycle. The warning that ED missed was that poor Razbam was getting crucified by the people that had bought the AV8B. So there were signs that the community was not going to receive the module well. My beef with it is a bit different. One thay shouldn't have announced it when they did. Maybe at the end of 2020. Finish the Hornet and then drop the bomb. But what's done is done. With the lessons of the F-14 and JF-17, and the successful launch of the Mi-24 Eagle Dynamics would have to be utter fools to launch it before it is ready. It has a lot in common with the Viper. In that both aircraft have a huge fandom. People truly love the these aircraft, and they know enough to spot glaring flaws. The people asking for earlier access will be the same people screaming about those same flaws or inaccuracies. So wait. 14 months from announcement to EA is screaming fast for DCS. You only get one chance to make a first impression. And the Apache needs to make an entrance on launch. So ED is absolutely doing the right thing by delaying it until it's ready. Wether it takes a month or six months the important thing is that it is ready, and dose what it's advertised to do in EA. Anyone the preordered should have known that the launch date was subject to change. 

[MAXsenna]

@M1Combat Very well written. Exactly my take of what happened.

[frostycab]

So if I understand the original post, what you're asking for sounds like early-early-access? To me, EA as it now is pretty much what you're describing; you get to fiddle with the WIP version of the module, bugs and all and missing features, until the finalised version is released.

In the nicest possible way, unless I'm missing something in your post, it just sounds like impatience. And where should ED draw the line for what is needed in a module before releasing a demo version? If you take it to extremes people would be asking for modules to be released the moment they are flyable.

For my part, I'm happy with the current strategy that ED has for new modules, and I'm actually very grateful to them for even having an EA programme. In truth we all benefit from it. Players get to enjoy new modules many months before they are deemed fit for a "release" version, and ED (and ultimately the players again) get the benefit of a much wider network of testers pointing out bugs and problems which drastically shortens the overall development time. Very few developers give people this opportunity with their software.

Personally, I would almost prefer it if ED *didn't* announce new modules so far ahead. I remember my heart racing when I was the Apache teaser just over a year ago, and I've been desperate to get my hands on it ever since, but I'd still be just as excited it they only told us about it a few weeks before the original planned EA date, or even just dropped it on us in a Deka Ironworks fashion. 

I just think that if we sit back and wait patiently we'll get a great product *when it's ready.* 

[daemon1808]

Sorry, but I'm growing tired of repeating myself about the DEMO vs EA concept.

EA: A not completed product that is in process to be complete at some point in the future. It is expected to be updated regularly until it is complete and the bugs fixed in a reasonable period.

DEMO (As we know from the old days when all this EA, Betas, Alphas stuff doesn't exists): a DEMOstration of the product that shows some functionalities of the whole product, maybe stage-1 of a multi stage game, etc... to let the players know what to expect when the whole product is released. It is a one-shoot launch and it is not updated or fixed ever.

You call the F-18 or the F-16 a DEMO? no, isn't it? That because F-18/F-16 are in EA yet, but are not a DEMO.

The point of my proposal is not "just sound like impatience". It was to offer an alternative to the "I'm happy to wait a couple of months... blablabla".

For me is just the opposite: "I'm happy to not having all the planned functionalities, as long at it is playable and enjoyable". And this approach is as legitimate as yours.

If there are more people than me that prefer the DEMO approach, I was just asking ED to take it in consideration, if they think that it is doable without much efford.

In any case, provided ED considered it a plan B if the delays needed are more than expected, it will not we an inconvenience for those that prefer the "waiting mode". Just do not download de DEMO and keep waiting.

 

 

 

...And said that, ED had decided that the DEMO is not an option, and seems that people is happy waiting or complaining about the delays.

So for me the  thread can be close.

[Raptor9]

The point of Early Access is to allow a much greater player base to provide feedback and bug reports to the dev team.  The sheer variety of both hardware use cases and unique situations the masses may experience provides the dev teams with a great resource for product refinement.  But if a product is in such an early state of development that much of its systems and functionality are works-in-progress and don't reflect anywhere close to the final state, or if they are rapidly changing and evolving, the problem becomes the sheer volume of bug reports the devs and community managers have to sort through to find legitimate issues that need to be addressed.

This is the difference between closed and open betas.  Closed betas are typically much more focused and controlled in a manner that allows an efficient [test -> report -> fix -> update -> test] process.  When you go to open beta, the volume of reporting goes up, but so does the ratio of false or invalid reports.  This can add additional inefficiency to the process, requiring more resources to dedicate to processing the available reports, slowing down the overall process.

I read your posts, and yes I see that you are talking about a one-time build to allow players to play it without expectation of bug reports, but you should realize that human nature is not so cooperating.  Even now, there are people that claim too many bugs are allowed into the Open Beta of DCS because "everyone plays on Open Beta, so Open Beta is more or less the release version of DCS." You yourself even stated something similar in your OP.  So even though Open Beta is clearly for the player base to aid in product refinement, there is still a huge portion of the player base that insist on using it for general gameplay purely for enjoyment purposes, and then react negatively about issues with new features or updates.

Historically, the point of Demos are to demonstrate a product for the purpose of increasing consumer interest in purchasing the product.  Allowing people to play an early build of a product that is below a certain standard a developer has for the public to see defeats the purpose of that, despite any and all warnings of "Works-In-Progress".  I understand your intended purpose of this idea, but it's not a smart move from a developer point-of-view.  Regardless of the intended purpose of an early-build demo version for pre-purchasers to use, there would still be a lot of negative reactions from the masses over an early version, which in itself could generate negative sentiment towards the product.  First impressions are very important, and I doubt anybody would want to show off their "beautiful cake" when it is still a mess of raw eggs, flour and butter.