DCS: CH-47F FAQ Discussion

[Hotdognz]

11 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

As mentioned in the first post "We wanted to be sure we correctly listed features and when they will come out, either at EA release or during EA. We will continue to update the list here and on the store page as we have more info. This is an important module to DCS and needs to bring all the things you might expect from such a famous helicopter. "

The Supercarrier was an important module for DCS and yet we are here 4 years in with no deliverables at all except night wands and spooky crew at Halloween, and plenty of empty promise's that are now being put back even more as its said at needs Vulcan.

As much as I want to fly the Hook after reading the FAQ, I feel this will be another SC with a long wait for the items in that FAQ, so far ED seems to have a lot on its plate with promises made in this years news letters,  Air ground munitions, Dynamic campaign weather system updates, ECM, ATC, in game radio, ground AI updates, and much more, plus we have older modules still in EA with no updates. (not in the news letters)

If the logistics is high priority is it higher than adding the missing promised features to the SC, where does it sit in the que ??

 

[Northstar98]

I'm afraid I'm definitely with a few commentators here, gashpl pretty much nails it.

This new cargo system was first hinted at in this video on the Hind. This video is nearly 3 years old and as far as I can remember there has been no update on it. Now we have a helicopter where this functionality is downright essential and it's still "later on" and we still don't have a list of features we can expect from such a system, other than that it'll be a "novel logistics system" for a select few aircraft and that somewhere along line we might be able to resupply from the CH-47F. I'm sorry but at this stage this really isn't inspiring me with confidence about this module.

15 hours ago, NineLine said:

Why is the feature list so light?
We wanted to be sure we correctly listed features and when they will come out, either at EA release or during EA.

As I've said before, surely this should've been done before offering up the CH-47F for pre-order, not after? I'm really sorry but speaking completely frankly it's somewhat baffling and worrying that ED found that they were ready to open up the pre-order for this module and start taking money for it, while not being ready to tell us the list of features, even just EA features.

Surely internal discussions would've come up with a plan for the module, before offering it for purchase? How can we be in this state at this stage?

It is bad enough having EA modules (which I have purchased in the past) with planned features that don't materialise for several years down the line (indeed, there are still some outlying features planned, some we've not had an update on in nearly half a decade) and when features that despite being perfectly accurate for a module and well within ED's capability to implement are omitted. Now we're slipping even further backwards by offering up a module for pre-order, with the list of things we can expect still undecided (or if decided, unwilling to be shared).

As it stands I have no idea what I should expect by preordering the CH-47F, aside from a 3D artwork, a flight model and an interactive cockpit, which really should be the bare minimum for a full-fidelity module in DCS World (though saying that, even a damage model isn't mentioned so far) and as it stands I'm completely turned off from pre-ordering this module.

[Silver_Dragon]

7 hours ago, Mohamengina said:

Can we get a list of weapons/attachments you plan on adding to the module?

 

For example, can we go full gunship like in this picture?

 

Also will we get AI for each gunning position like in Huey?

 

 

That has a AC-47A, no a CH-47F version. That need a complete rework.

[markturner1960]

I have brought the Chinook, as I have brought pretty much every module and terrain as well as numerous campaigns, as I feel it is important to support ED in this niche and difficult market sector......However, that said, I do feel somewhat that people like me are getting a little taken advantage of with the EA thing and sheer amount of time it takes for a module release to move from EA to feature complete........some, this never happens. 

I think a maximum of 2 years would be reasonable, but when we are in the situation of 4 years and counting for the SC and the Harrier is not even finished 6 years later, to name just two, these timescales are really too long. 

That said, the Apache & Viper have had regular and substantial updates along the way which is great, no complaints there ( Well, maybe one biggy regarding the flight model for the Apache, which badly needs improving....) so credit where its due.

I used to run my own construction business for many years and I always found that clients respected and accepted the (almost inevitable)  delays & issues if you were honest and open with them and gave them RELIABLE dates and information. 

The same should apply here, to avoid ED pissing off the loyal and supportive customers. So I hope the essential logistics features follow shortly along. 

[ColinM9991]

25 minutes ago, markturner1960 said:

I have brought the Chinook, as I have brought pretty much every module and terrain as well as numerous campaigns, as I feel it is important to support ED in this niche and difficult market sector......

However, that said, I do feel somewhat that people like me are getting a little taken advantage of with the EA thing and sheer amount of time it takes for a module release to move from EA to feature complete........

No offense mate, but the first paragraph contradicts the second. If you do feel you're being taken advantage of then you could refrain from preordering.

The transparency of this FAQ is great, albeit worrying that we're this far down the road and there's no real understanding on what features are expected to ship in due time. The benefits and requirements are usually something that'll be assessed, by a product team, as part of the inception work and that step either hasn't happened or hasn't yet been communicated to the CMs and the rest of us.

[ghashpl]

47 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

As mentioned in the first post "We wanted to be sure we correctly listed features and when they will come out, either at EA release or during EA. We will continue to update the list here and on the store page as we have more info. This is an important module to DCS and needs to bring all the things you might expect from such a famous helicopter. "

I think it's pointless to talk about the same thing all over again but I just want to point out 3 things

1 - for me not giving the list of features but selling a product is wrong (I understand that for some people just flyable module is enough, they don't need more)
From a customer point of view, we can (not forced of course) buy an unknown product. I understand that you are not sure what you can finish for the release, hence no list of the features. 
From company point of view, I think ED is testing (?) the good will of the people or how "blind" are the customers. In other words - let's see how far we can go with empty promises.

2 - I constantly hear "EA is not for everybody but thank you for the support for those who did because we got money to develop the game".
I'm totally sure Ch-47 won't be next SuperCarrier which is a peak of "sell, and put it on the shelf" attitude - 4 years after we paid for it, and no changes.
So what is the limit of "EA is not for everyone"? We trusted you, helped you financially, in return we got no progress. I'm not saying SC is not playable, but it has long lasting problems and it's missing the parts we paid and has been promised.

Saying "this is not an easy task, EA is a long process". I think 4 years is a long time to bring something to the product.
Meanwhile.. how many modules where released since may 2020, also in EA and still not finished?
Doesn't it look like the company is focused on making half baked product, without any need to finished it? Convince me I'm wrong.

3 - I've created a logistic and csar scripts for my missions and the community. Because of that it's hard to find a person who flies in a plane because they enjoy the logistic part of the missions so much!
I know that Ch-47 will probably (probably, because there is no feature list) bring some new logistic stuff. This heli is all about it.
But saying "oh, the community will take care of logistic" is bad from 2 sides:
- we are not responsible to create tools for the missions (we should use them),
- and if we should/could, please gives us the tools and possibility to do so.
API is missing functions (adjusting the weight of internal cargo for example).
here are not civilian models we can use for SAR/CSAR.
Embarking/disembarking troops is meh.
We don't know which unit use F10 menu (API returns only group id).
Cargoes that heli can transport do not affect missions - we cannot transport vehicles or even artillery pieces; I know we can trigger other units, but we did not brought those units.
This is just from the top of my head.

I know people who read the forums have nothing to do with the marketing or how the bussines is run.
I would like to just leave a statement for those who have authority, that what is happening (since many many years) is wrong, and it shows that the company is taking but not giving. I think we would like to see a steady pace of finishing the products before adding new one.

The whole situation in DCS is looking like (just a small joke to vent out my frustration):
- Let's build the City of Rome!
After building the Coliseum:
- Oh, we underestimate the task, the City of Rome is big and it will take more time. LET'S MAKE NEW YORK INSTEAD, preorder with 30% off.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, StandingCow said:

I think ED needs to have a reasonable schedule of when something should go from EA to full release (understanding that things slip and take longer than ED initially intends).  Without derailing the thread I'll just say I am refraining from buying any more EA modules due to how current EA modules are handled, Chinook included.

Setting release dates or deadlines is impossible, especially in a complex development scheme like this simulator. In the past, ED set deadlines, and when he didn't meet them, the anger, attacks, drama, etc. began... from that moment on, Ed said that he didn't set deadlines. Some should learn what happened earlier about "promises."

Edited April 24 by Silver_Dragon

[BIGNEWY]

13 minutes ago, XCNuse said:

This is not to be taken as offense, especially to Nine/BN, but you two really need to get onto someone at work.

This whole situation is just silly; you guys are trying to sell us hopes and dreams and nothing more; I know you two know it's silly, but, you guys are the tip of the spear and someone somewhere, needs a hot iron put to them to get us real information here.

 

What you're feeding us  is like trying to sell us a car, but you can't tell us how many seats it has, you can't tell us if it comes with any wheels, you can't even tell us if it comes with a steering wheel.

 

Someone at ED needs to realize this is a bit of a cluster.

Sorry if you are not happy, we will share more information as we can. 

Please keep the feedback constructive 

[pimp]

9 hours ago, Benno said:

Will we see updated infantry animations when they are entering and exiting the aircraft?

Will we have physical models of infantry/vehicles/cargo in the rear, as currently with CTLD we cannot see infantry in the back of the Huey as an example.

Will we have some sort of crew chief/flight engineer (not sure on correct term) giving us call outs and such for landings? Will this be a Multi Crew slot eventually?

Bumping these important questions. Don't know it got lost. It's the first post. Can someone from ED provide info?

[SteelPig]

18 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Sorry if you are not happy, we will share more information as we can. 

Please keep the feedback constructive 

EA means core things are missing. No problem with that.
EA doesn't mean I buy a thing and have no clue what I buy. With that I indeed have a problem. 

[Hiob]

6 minutes ago, SteelPig said:

EA means core things are missing. No problem with that.
EA doesn't mean I buy a thing and have no clue what I buy. With that I indeed have a problem. 

Then just wait with the buy until the feature list is updated/published. Problem gone.

Some are acting as if forced to pull the trigger now!

We have at least eight weeks or so to wait for updates, before the module is even expected to drop. Take advantage of that if you're hesitent about missing features.

Edited April 24 by Hiob

[Hawkeye_UK]

Own pretty much all the modules and know how to use them.  Have been flying flight sim's when able for 30+ years.  I also always pre-order content, that stops with recent events and this is final nail if it needed any reinforcement not to do so.

To bring out a LOGISTICS chopper, and such an iconic one at that, and not have the mechanics inplace for this is pretty insulting and a bit of a disgrace it has to be said.  Once again relying on very talented community coders to part solve your problems is not a solution re moose/mist.  Someone once said DCS stands for Digital Cockpit Simulator and well event's like these are not exactly inspiring to change that gowing perception.  The promise of later in Early Access i think for many now, when it relates to such a core function of a module has worn thin.  For context to this you only have to mention mission planning and ready room for the Suppercarrier, what 4 years on now.  Or Combined Arm's and the state that is in still years on with multiple units in one group, or single threaded servers still, or weapons splash damage and not just on the graphics and trees swaying for content creator video's!  Sadly "high priority" means nothing these days when ED say's it, what about Mi24 cargo, that's been out a few years now and already teased years ago regarding its ability for troop carrier, surely this is the same mechanic?

You only have to read this thread, or one's over on reddit to see that this concept of release has been poorly thought through.

Quite simply bringing out logistics choppers without putting the core engine in, would be the same as Heatblur releasing the F4 without any missiles or bombs, it really is that simple and comparable.

There is no other term for it but an absolute shambles.  You may reply with EA is not for everyone, but when someone that has been buying your products  for along time, only about the CEagle and mig 19 i dont own, and would generally pre-order, and i'm one of many that now won't pre-order, you know something somewhere you messed up.

 

Edited April 24 by Hawkeye_UK

[SteelPig]

6 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Then just wait with the buy until the feature list is updated/published. Problem gone.

Some are acting as if forced to pull the trigger now!

We have at least eight weeks or so to wait for updates, before the module is even expected to drop. Take advantage of that if you're hesitent about missing features.

 

Uhm,no. Problem not gone. Cause offer something without saying what you offer ist just a bad behavior. 

Edited April 24 by SteelPig

[Jester986]

I’m not mad about the 47 but I won’t be purchasing until I see some good reviews on it. There’s a problem with modules getting to 90% but can’t go the last mile. I think the business model is in trouble with the work debt versus cash flow problem. I’m sure the chinook will be great, and I’ll happily buy it then. But I’m predicting either a rough launch or a long delay or both. And I’m not thrilled with how things have gone with the lower tier modules. Again no pitch fork and not trying to be rude. I love DCS but my trust is waning. 

Edited April 24 by Jester986

[SlipHavoc]

16 minutes ago, PatatOorlog said:

Wags addressed a logistics update in a video three years ago

To be clear, here is the totality of what was "addressed" in the Hind video: "In addition to its role as an attack helicopter, the Hind also has a compartment for up to 8 passengers.  This functionality will come later in development as part of a larger update for DCS World."  I think people are ascribing much more to this extremely brief quote than was actually there.

[mono]

Here's some constructive feedback: I will not be putting money into this or any other ED module with an "Early Access" model until ED commits to providing a publicly available, frequently updated development roadmap that at least some chunk of the engaged community deems credible with respect to what it says and when it says it vs. observed reality. A development "roadmap" is a "map" because it contains detailed information about 1. Where the project is now, 2. Where the project's ultimate end state is, and 3. An estimation of expected time of arrival at 2 given the distance between 1 and 2 and the terrain in between. So let's look at this "FAQ" you have provided, instead of what I've just described.

Q: Why is the feature list so light?

9L A: "We wanted to be sure we correctly listed features and when they will come out, either at EA release or during EA. We will continue to update the list here and on the store page as we have more info." 9L then goes on to "answer" "frequently asked" questions about planned work on future features that can only be assessed as falling within the "Full set of features will be announced prior to early access release" on the store listing.

And so this proceeds as basically a series of questions/requests about features that a CH-47 module would be considered a FAILURE if it reached a development-ended state without: logistics, multicrew, gunner station, water landing, etc. but will not be available at launch and ED will not give a detailed answer for expected time of arrival. So like, yes, great, you are working on/planning on working on all these- I should hope so, they're what would make the module worth working on/not a giant waste! If these were not on the way, the only conclusion to draw would be that ED is frittering away resources extending an early access cash sale confidence game instead of strategically improving your existing products! But this is not our first module, we know ED dreams big, so let's interrogate the dream vs. the strategy to instantiate it, not the dream in a vacuum.null 

So to your Frequently Requested Dreams I have included the following questions I ask myself frequently about ED products, maybe you could include your answers to them as well, 9L, please and thank-you:

Q: Is this the module when ED commits to professionalizing its approach to customer/community relations by providing a credible, frequently updated development roadmap for the duration of its lifecycle, in Early Access and Beyond?

Q: What is the size of the team who will be working on this module full time until it exits Early Access?

Q: How many developers can we expect to be flexed onto this module for sprints to major milestones/an internal definition of stable and will be moved to other modules after that?

Q: If ED experiences internal turnover in the devs working the module, or decide to not pay a contractor who's working on the module (for very good or at least legally defensible in certain jurisdictions reasons I'm sure), when can we expect communication from ED about the impact on the module's development?

Q: When a planned feature like water landings is described as waiting on updates to the DCS core before development can begin, can we expect additional information on what exactly is being done and with what level of prioritization in regards to that DCS core work? Supercarrier communication has consistently lacked clarity in terms of what features are simply "in progress" vs delayed pending DCS core updates. Software development being what it is, this can be a porous boundary, but an explanation to the effect of, e.g., "we thought we had an implementation that worked in the current DCS core but it failed such-and-such testing and so $feature now has to wait for $Core_Update" would be appreciated.

[Northstar98]

On 4/24/2024 at 4:31 PM, SlipHavoc said:

To be clear, here is the totality of what was "addressed" in the Hind video: "In addition to its role as an attack helicopter, the Hind also has a compartment for up to 8 passengers.  This functionality will come later in development as part of a larger update for DCS World."  I think people are ascribing much more to this extremely brief quote than was actually there.

And in those 3 years, the only progress on this front is this:

Quote

[...] we will be developing a novel logistics system for the CH-47 and other cargo/transport aircraft, when we have more details to share on what this will entail we will be sure to share.

So we've gone from "we're planning a cargo system update" (paraphrased, but this is what this quote, even if brief, implies) to "we're planning a novel logistics system".

This has supposedly been in the plans for at least 3 years and we still know very little about it, other than that it'll apply to cargo/logistics aircraft and we might be able to use the CH-47F as a sort-of mobile FARP. We haven't even had progress on the details and features about the system, let alone progress on its actual implementation.

I'd hazard a guess that it's this fact that people are concerned about. That in 3 years we still don't even have a list of what this system is supposed to do, especially so when we're now getting modules where transportation and logistics have greater focus, where this functionality is arguably essential for them to have a practical role.

Edited April 28 by Northstar98

[gnomechild]

5 hours ago, rurounijones said:

> We can say that we are developing a novel logistics system for the CH-47F that dynamically allows the player to determine what is loaded and unloaded from the aircraft based on weight and area.

Will this be accessible via the scripting system (e.g. setting load & unload zones to integrate with this system, limiting what can / cannot be loaded) ? Will there be events emitted to the MSE to allow for scripts to react to loading and unloading events? Will scripts be able to load / unload the aircraft themselves without UI. (e.g. Deploy troops immediately on landing without needing pilot interaction)

Alternatively. Will ED actually actively collaborate with server owners, mission makers and scripters so that a system that meets their needs, as well as any of ED's needs, is delivered?

 

@BIGNEWY, I think these questions might have been missed. But this is something that really really needs to be brought up internally in order for the upcoming logistics work to be fully usable in a multiplayer environment. Not just for the Chinook but for all future logistics aircraft. 

Edited April 24 by gnomechild
I can't spell

[NineLine]

47 minutes ago, SteelPig said:

EA means core things are missing. No problem with that.
EA doesn't mean I buy a thing and have no clue what I buy. With that I indeed have a problem. 

You are buying the CH-47 and I think based on our past modules you will be buying the most faithful and realistic version seen to date. If you want to wait until further development that is always a choice, this is but one option right now for purchase. YOu are welcome to wait till EA or even after EA. I am not sure why people feel like they need to worry about not purchasing the pre-order, if you don't want to pre-order, then don't this is the info we have to share now, more will come, this is a very important module to us, it will be a great module. That's it, it doesn't have to be complicated or dramatic. 

4 minutes ago, gnomechild said:

@BIGNEWY, I think these questions might have been missed. But this is something that really really needs to be brought up internally in order for the upcoming logistics work to be fully usable in a multiplayer environment. Not just for the Chinook but for all future logistics aircraft. 

 

The questions haven't been missed we just do not have info to share, hence why I asked in the FAQ to share your hopes and desires for everything CH-47 related. It doesn't mean we can answer right now. We will be sharing more on the logistics system and other things CH-47 as we go. Thanks.

[SlipHavoc]

11 minutes ago, PatatOorlog said:

Indeed, it's frustrating that even a small feature like that hasn't materialized after three years.

 

A "small" feature like what?  No specific feature was mentioned.

[gnomechild]

 

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

The questions haven't been missed we just do not have info to share, hence why I asked in the FAQ to share your hopes and desires for everything CH-47 related. It doesn't mean we can answer right now. We will be sharing more on the logistics system and other things CH-47 as we go. Thanks.

All good, just wanted to make sure they were seen and discussed somewhere. Thanks

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, SlipHavoc said:

A "small" feature like what?  No specific feature was mentioned.

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.

2 minutes ago, gnomechild said:

 

All good, just wanted to make sure they were seen and discussed somewhere. 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!

[Teeeeeeeter]

Is the expectation that the Chinook will only be available for free flight on release? 

 

I'm genuinely curious what the expected mission profile is like for single player. If it's not moving cargo and troops, what is it that I'm expected to be doing?

 

 

[Strider21]

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. 

[NineLine]

Dear all, I have cleaned up the thread some. Please read the FAQ for all the answers we have now.

Please leave your wants and desires for the CH-47F

Please do not use this thread to bring up issues with other modules or any other drama going on right now. I don't want to start handing out warnings, this thread was meant to help inform what we know and see what all of you expect to do and want from the CH-47F. If we can't control ourselves here I will just close it I thought this would be helpful for everyone to express what you want from a CH-47 in DCS.