Is this plane the ugly stepchild of DCS?

[reece146]

8 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

True in general and I mostly agree with you. But here that sentence in particular shows the matter, not that easy to fix when you're working a whole new engine model for warbirds. Should they stop everything and work around a bug which probably won't be a bug after the new engine model happens, or just use that time and effort to get the engine model finished and running ASAP despite it been a huge endeavour? Hard to say for me, I guess for ED too.

That's the issue many people apparently don't understand about the "living platform" in constant change we have here which obviously affects so many things already done and working when they were first released. Because we aren't talking about long standing bugs since "ever" in the module's life and never solved, we are talking about bugs appearing after game core, features updates, or whatever it is because whenever you touch a thing in the house of cards, and it's a bigger and bigger house of cards since 2011, many things are affected, but we also want the updates in the house of cards so they can't stop the constant changes, upgrades, updates, new features, new everything.

I guess when the whole core and game engine would be "finished" with regards to features and so that kind of bugs just wouldn't happen any more, but while the game is changing in a sort of daily basis they are going to happen every patch. And even when the game core is up to ED's goals, we will be wanting a new thing for sure, so probably it'll never stop. It's a precarious balance we ask ED to have, new things, new modules, new core features, but please don't mess with what we already have, and that while we play… OpenBeta… I mean, knowing all of that which I'm not privileged to know or something, it's just public info out here and out there, I don't feel like asking ED much more than we have and they do, and I know they do their best because we wouldn't be here talking about things didn't even exist a few years ago, but some people just keep demanding more and more, but please no bugs or anything. IMO it's just not fair to them, and I'm pretty much aware of the money we put on the modules and everything, don't think I'm not.

You are likely correct with the premise that a lot of the bugs are due to game engine or similar scale subsystems being upgraded and their API contract or similar having been changed.

There's an argument that this is the case where communications are important. There is a difference between pinned by architectural changes and just not having resources to do the work. To be fair, not sure how you discuss that publicly with your customers.

There's another argument that if the code was sufficiently designed and architected that the contract could be extended versus immediate deprecation of interfaces upgrades.

I dunno, speculating wildly out in left field obviously, but given the scale of the engine and modules in DCS the development model  should be following some form of large scale devops development model and be architected such that API interfaces can deal with different versions of the contracts - much like is done with applications gateways and microservices these days.

It's all blather.  Perhaps they are doing these things, perhaps it's all best effort in a semi-coordinated way, who knows.

It seems like ED has been doing well with delivery. There's much less big borkages with OB releases in the last 12-18 months from memory. Everyone is pinning hopes on the new threaded/Vulkan backend letting things get updated in a consistent manner. Things like these old modules will need to be brought forward at the same time and hopefully the items I was going on about above has been considered as part of that process.

$0.02

[Callsign112]

19 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

...Should they stop everything and work around a bug which probably won't be a bug after the new engine model happens, or just use that time and effort to get the engine model finished and running ASAP despite it been a huge endeavour? Hard to say for me, I guess for ED too...

As difficult as it would be for a paying customer to accept, I think the obvious answer to the question you raise is that they should finish the core upgrade first, and avoid as much as possible any work that would simply have to be redone after the upgrade. In the long run, I think this serves everyone's interests best.

19 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Perhaps bug fixes and updates to mustangs in general could be financed by a new B/C module?

A new Mustang B/C module would be worth the purchase for existing owners and new ones alike, while the work done on it or covered by the team's scope could cross over and cover much of the existing D module, making the old module attractive to new users and bringing it up to standard for the current owners.

 

This is a very good suggestion.

[Magic Zach]

On 4/18/2022 at 12:33 PM, Callsign112 said:

Going by other modules and threads on the forum, I think most seem to support this concept. Especially for anyone that becomes attached to the module in question. I would certainly buy an updated P-51 if ED decided to add it.

Same.  I'd buy an upgrade to the 51.as much as $30.

I'd also buy an entirely new Mustang B-15 for a regular module price too.  The prettiest Mustang

[ddc196]

I'd definitely be willing to pay for an older model Mustang and for upgrades to the D. 

[Brigg]

Yeah I would happily pay full price for a B/C Pony and a Razorback Jug