DCS: CH-47F FAQ Discussion

[dsc106]

Hi, can you please be more specific, what precisely is the criteria failing to be met by Steam pre orders? It has never been a problem in the past. What, exactly, changed?

This is a big deal as it is impacting now the Phantom, Afghanistan, and finally the Chinook. It makes us loyal Steam customers feel like 2nd rate citizens.

In a constructive request, barring any other solution, can you offer the 30% Pre Order pricing on Steam on the day of launch for the first 24 hours? Or get the pre order live several days before it officially announces?

 

[Jester986]

Just now, dsc106 said:

Hi, can you please be more specific, what precisely is the criteria failing to be met by Steam pre orders? It has never been a problem in the past. What, exactly, changed?

This is a big deal as it is impacting now the Phantom, Afghanistan, and finally the Chinook. It makes us loyal Steam customers feel like 2nd rate citizens.

In a constructive request, barring any other solution, can you offer the 30% Pre Order pricing on Steam on the day of launch for the first 24 hours? Or get the pre order live several days before it officially announces?

 

You should migrate to standalone. I know steam is convenient but ED would be in a better place if they weren’t paying steam their cut. There’s no benefit to being on steam other than all your games are in one spot. And I don’t see the advantage of that when I still launch DCS with a desktop icon. 

[mono]

19 minutes ago, Jester986 said:

You should migrate to standalone. I know steam is convenient but ED would be in a better place if they weren’t paying steam their cut. There’s no benefit to being on steam other than all your games are in one spot. And I don’t see the advantage of that when I still launch DCS with a desktop icon. 

Steam gives you the option to refund a purchase within a set amount of playing time if you were to say, hypothetically, purchase it and quickly realize it did not have the features you thought it would. That is another advantage. (DISCLOSURE: Standalone customer)

[MysteriousHonza]

22 minutes ago, Jester986 said:

You should migrate to standalone. I know steam is convenient but ED would be in a better place if they weren’t paying steam their cut. There’s no benefit to being on steam other than all your games are in one spot. And I don’t see the advantage of that when I still launch DCS with a desktop icon. 

For one, ability to refund when something happends, like launch of F16 for example. Just yeet it back at them for unfinished abomination. 
Other one is, better customer protection and possibility of 3rd party being actually paid considering they are named under the product. 
Considering they even DARE to take money from preorders while stating this (most likely breaches some sort of EU consumer laws considering they are NOT telling you what you are buying, its in fact gambling). Thanks god there are no preorders. 
null

[TLTeo]

Just a few thoughts:

First, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between what the community is saying, and what ED is hearing. Nobody is questioning the quality of DCS flight models, or the implementation of (most) systems, or what have you. I'm sure all those things will be amazing in the Chinhook. What many in the community are trying to say is that our enjoyment of those systems is inextricably tied to the quality of the environment they are put in. You can imagine a sim with even more numerous and realistic modules than DCS, amazing weather and ATC, but no combat - that environment would immediately not be of interest to many of us, despite the presence of better modules. You can not give feedback on a module without talking about the environment it's flown in.

Second, I think the reasoning of "if EA is not for you then don't buy the module" is very flawed. The entirety of DCS is in EA in some way or form, to the point where we have given up the pretense of having a Stable and Beta branch, it's just Beta now. What you are essentially telling many of us when you say "EA may not be for you and that's fine" is really "our product is not for you", which I think is very silly given ED has a near monopoly on the high fidelity combat sim market.

Finally, and this is the most frustrating thing to say, I feel like the misunderstanding or breakdown between the community and ED is so deep that I no longer believe giving feedback will actually improve the product. I'm writing this post because I need to get some frustration off my chest, not because I think it will in any way help DCS achieve some of its potential.

edit: I also want to add, I realize the points I made are not something Nineline or Bignewey are expected to address. I wish I felt like they were being relayed to whoever makes decisions at ED though.

Edited April 24, 2024 by TLTeo

[admiki]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Guys keep the focus on the CH-47, some are trying to drag it off into another direction, I will only mention that 3 years ago we didn't have the extra performance we do now with MT as well we have Vulcan coming that is going to help new game features such as things coming with the Supercarrier, but again, this thread and FAQ is about the CH-47, please stick with that. If you do not want to buy it right now, then you don't have to but you don't need to share that here, it's OT. Thanks.

I respectfully disagree. It seems ED has somewhat lost its course regarding customer relations. While it is true that EA never had any definite deadline, your business model seems to steer towards pumping out new modules/terrains to attract money on at the expense of finishing development of existing modules. Hence years of EA status.

I doubt every single module has its own exclusive team or you would be one of the biggest game developers in the world. That then means you are prioritizing workload. We, as customers, feel you are doing it wrong. If anything, I would be thankful that we are voicing our grievances before we start voting with our wallets.

2 hours ago, Strider21 said:

Information on EA features will be available soon? Why the rush to open up pre-orders then? ED should only open up pre-orders when they are ready to provide information on what the product will entail. 

I have a feeling this was done to take the aim away from some other things that have happened recently.

 

EDIT: I do agree that what I wrote above is not strictly on topic of this thread, but with the answers you have provided us so far, what else is there to talk about?

Edited April 24, 2024 by admiki

[MysteriousHonza]

4 minutes ago, Vortexstate said:

Logistics and a crew chief/flight engineer are the two most NEEDED things in the Chinook. You've got 100ish feet behind you that you can't see at all, so having peak communicant is needed.

"we are planning to add it but not during early access"... 
Just wait 8 years and you MIGHT get it as part of 30 dollar upgrade package. 

[mono]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Guys keep the focus on the CH-47, some are trying to drag it off into another direction, I will only mention that 3 years ago we didn't have the extra performance we do now with MT as well we have Vulcan coming that is going to help new game features such as things coming with the Supercarrier, but again, this thread and FAQ is about the CH-47, please stick with that. If you do not want to buy it right now, then you don't have to but you don't need to share that here, it's OT. Thanks.

Yes, we will go through and make sure all questions, requests and wants are passed to the Producer on the CH-47, we have already been doing this 100% Thanks. The issue just becomes when people mess up the thread with OT stuff. Thanks!

Who's the CH-47 Producer? How many full time equivalents will they have at their disposal for the months from now to EA launch? How many full time equivalents will they have for the year after EA launch? Will there be a developer diary, even for a Cyrillic reading audience? Is there a plan to periodically report on and summarize the CH-47 unit's progress at intervals in a livestream or produced video diary, or possibly even something ambitious like Redkite's Mirage Early Access content that documents for posterity that you have a fit-for-purpose production pipeline for a product of this complexity, and what it looks like at snapshots across the life of the production?

[Statua]

If ED staff is relying so heavily on the community to support this airframe during EA through mods and scripting, why are they not involved very closely with these communities? I do not see a single staff member actively engaging with members in the Moose discord, one of the most popular and versatile script libraries. 

Providing more API access to in-game elements such as sling load events and having a more reliable multiplayer aircraft crash event are a few of the most critical features that are holding the scripting community back. We want to fill in these gaps while we wait for an official logistics system to be produced. 

I'm also wondering where community feedback and direction for a logistics comes from as I have not seen ED ask about it in the Moose discord or any of the rotary wing communities. 

[Jester986]

Well all that being said I really look forward to flying the 47 when it’s in a state that I find good enough. 

[ignition22]

2 hours ago, Vortexstate said:

It's pretty evident that most people will buy it anyway, which allows big companies like ED to get away with this.

There are maybe a few dozen people who post in social media all kinds of complaints and concerns, some reasonable and some hysterical / fanciful meanwhile thousands of other people pre purchase or later will buy the module. It's easy to make the mistake of thinking these forums or reddit are representative of all customers but they are more like echo chambers where a lot of people who get tired off all the full-time negativity leave and don't come back. It's a mistake to assume these posts reflect the general feelings of EDs customers.  

Time after time people seem to have a difficult time understanding that software development process is unique. No development cycle is the same as any before it and so making future predictions about how it will go is like predicting the stock market, impossible. 

Back on the topic.. I've never really been super interested in the chinook but its great to hear that general logistics functionality is high in the priority list at ED. As always it can't come soon enough and like others I hope it's not towards the end of some many years long early access. If the logistics is done well and really flushed out I can imagine being tempted into buying the chinook and c130 some day in the future. 

[NineLine]

Ok guys, I guess maybe we are not ready for a thread like this, I was hoping to see what you guys were looking for in the CH-47F, get some good questions and generate some more content for the FAQ but now we are just discussing way off topic things. I cleaned the thread a little but feel like I will just lock it for now until we have some more info. Sorry for all of you that were playing nice, I will try and get some of those questions answered and added to the FAQ. Thanks.

[NineLine]

Dear all, I have reopened this thread for questions about the CH-47, please try your best to keep it focused on that. Discussions about subscription models, other developers, etc are not going to be answered here. Thanks. 

[ThorBrasil]

Will this be possible in the DCS version? Thanks!
 

 

[NineLine]

35 minutes ago, ThorBrasil said:

Will this be possible in the DCS version? Thanks!
 

 

As I understand it we are doing a Block 1 (need to add that to the FAQ) and that refueling is a Block 2 thing (someone can correct me if I am wrong) BUT the team would like to look at this down the road as they agree it would be a very cool feature to have.

[NineLine]

Added Block version and CMWS info to the FAQ:

What Variant is the DCS: CH-47F?
Currently, we are doing the CH-47F Block 1.

Will our CH-47F have CMWS (Common Missile Warning System)?
This is currently planned, but as with any defensive system for any aircraft, we need to carefully consider this system and implement it in a way that will not dip too close to a controlled and classified system. As such this will come later on in development. 

[ThorBrasil]

40 minutes ago, NineLine said:

As I understand it we are doing a Block 1 (need to add that to the FAQ) and that refueling is a Block 2 thing (someone can correct me if I am wrong) BUT the team would like to look at this down the road as they agree it would be a very cool feature to have.

Thanks for answering!

[Hawkeye_UK]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Added Block version and CMWS info to the FAQ:

What Variant is the DCS: CH-47F?
Currently, we are doing the CH-47F Block 1.

Will our CH-47F have CMWS (Common Missile Warning System)?
This is currently planned, but as with any defensive system for any aircraft, we need to carefully consider this system and implement it in a way that will not dip too close to a controlled and classified system. As such this will come later on in development. 

This would imply ED have controlled or classified information about the chinook subsystem's.  I find this highly doubtful and completely improbable.  ED may or may not have SME's with this knowledge but again i wouldn't expect them to release any information for a video game given the consequences.  Thus i'm not sure why we are even referencing classification of systems on this thread as a context of development, its very irrelevant given the people writing the code will not have the relevant clearances to be party to this information even.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Vortexstate said:

The -10 is online, not sure if it's CUI, but it's online. That means they can without a doubt implement the CMWS, but I'm not sure of the legalities of that. They made the ICH-47F for the Italian government, so I wouldn't doubt they don't.

There is A LOT of stuff online and we have SMEs that know a lot of this stuff as well, but that doesn't always translate to being able to add it faithfully 1 to 1. But I hope you guys know we will do our very best to make an engaging and interesting (and believable) system even if a real CH-47 gup comes along and says "well it's not exactly like that" At the end of the day we don't want to get ourselves or anyone else in legal messes as well we do not want to risk real lives by compromising a system for the same of a sim/game. 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

This would imply ED have controlled or classified information about the chinook subsystem's.  I find this highly doubtful and completely improbable.  ED may or may not have SME's with this knowledge but again i wouldn't expect them to release any information for a video game given the consequences.  Thus i'm not sure why we are even referencing classification of systems on this thread as a context of development, its very irrelevant given the people writing the code will not have the relevant clearances to be party to this information even.

I cant say what we have or don't have mostly because I do not know right now. I know I helped steer 2 SMEs in the team's direction but as I stated above we want to make sure we don't do anything to jeopardize ourselves or anyone that helps us make the most realistic CH-47 possible. So for example on defensive systems, there might be some give and take. 

2 hours ago, Vortexstate said:

No, Block 1 aircraft can also refuel.

Good to know, this might be simply my misunderstanding of how it works. I think it still stands that the team would like to do it at some point though. 

[Hotdognz]

14 hours ago, NineLine said:

Dear all, I have reopened this thread for questions about the CH-47, please try your best to keep it focused on that. Discussions about subscription models, other developers, etc are not going to be answered here. Thanks. 

Thanks for re opening this important discussion, I feel doing this small step was a step in the right direction for a open conversation with ED staff.

Thank you very much

[NineLine]

15 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

Thanks for re opening this important discussion, I feel doing this small step was a step in the right direction for a open conversation with ED staff.

Thank you very much

I just wanted to slow it down a bit and get it back on track, we know what we want to do, but its important to make sure those are aligned with what all you expect which is ultimately more important. 

[cow_art]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

I just wanted to slow it down a bit and get it back on track, we know what we want to do, but its important to make sure those are aligned with what all you expect which is ultimately more important. 

That's fair, and great if you know what you want to do internally. But unfortunately we really don't know a lot about what you want to do, so it is pretty hard to give constructive feedback and ask questions.

So with this out of the way here are some things I would expect from an early access product that I would want to support:

• a finished flight model (this really is a minimum for me. I can live with lots of other features missing during early access, as long as I can have a fun time flying the Chinook. Please not another Apache-style release where the FM is still unfinished after 2+ years of early access)
• at least an indication what systems you currently plan to have ready for early access (a lot of the screens shown in the trailer are clearly placeholders / nonfunctional)
• an indication how you expect your novel logistics concept to work (if you are already working on it, I expect you have at least a rough outline that you can share?)
• an indication about the damage model. What do you plan to have ready for early access? At least some reasonable reactions to ground and weapons damage would be great.

Thank you!

Edited April 26, 2024 by cow_art

[Hotdognz]

+1 for @cow_art comments, these are very much what I would like to see prior to the EA release.

I would also like to see what the novel logistics system that you are planning that are going to be available for us later on in EA and for the future of DCS core, I'm pretty sure the roadmap for this will have been discussed within ED and should really be available for all to see here as this also affects the Hind, Huey and Mi8.

Thanks you

[MorgothNL]

2 hours ago, cow_art said:

That's fair, and great if you know what you want to do internally. But unfortunately we really don't know a lot about what you want to do, so it is pretty hard to give constructive feedback and ask questions.

So with this out of the way here are some things I would expect from an early access product that I would want to support:

• a finished flight model (this really is a minimum for me. I can live with lots of other features missing during early access, as long as I can have a fun time flying the Chinook. Please not another Apache-style release where the FM is still unfinished after 2+ years of early access)
• at least an indication what systems you currently plan to have ready for early access (a lot of the screens shown in the trailer are clearly placeholders / nonfunctional)
• an indication how you expect your novel logistics concept to work (if you are already working on it, I expect you have at least a rough outline that you can share?)
• an indication about the damage model. What do you plan to have ready for early access? At least some reasonable reactions to ground and weapons damage would be great.

Thank you!

 

Same questions here. We now know the CH47 will basically be released featureless when I comes to anything outside of the ‘physical’ module itself. So then how about the core core concepts of the module?

- is the flight model 100% done? (with tweaks required in the future after testing and feedback ofc)

- does she have a full damage model? Or is it at invincible apache levels or even less?

- what about system limitations? Engine overspeed effects, airframe overspeed etc 

 

^^ these simple things are essential for basic implementation in any multiplayer server. Even though cargo etc is also 100% essential to the module, at least server hosts can give it the same CTLD options as other modules. But things like the Apache being near invincible long after the initial release, is really sad and unacceptable. 
 

Basically, is everything in place to prevent her from being called ‘broken’ aside from ‘very much incomplete and lacking’? 

[Phantom_Mark]

Will ED consider publishing a roadmap with this EA, and all future EA's , there is nothing I can see which would be outlandish about such a request and only serve to give customers more oversight about what they are entering into with EA products ?  It feels to me like the very least ED could do when requesting money for an EA product?