I'm losing faith in the early access

[Dovivan]

I'm seriously frustrated by Early Access politics.  

Im playing DCS from Flanker 2 era and i'm trying stay optimistic, but now beginning to believe that it is a pernicious path. 

becouse this few facts for example....

F/A - 18 Hornet. more like 9 YEARS develoment and still not finished. 9 Years. ( A10C with KA-50 has FINISHED with better damage modules in much shorter time, but not EA exist in this era.. )

DCS Supercarrier : 5 years in development (4 in EA) and update progres is very slov. Briefing room was announced 3 years ago. In the same time was finished huge AAA titles in Games or Films. 

DCS: Sinaj.   Last roadmap update 14 july 2023. Absolutly dont follow promises and no info from developer. I want money back. 

DSC F15E Strike Eagle + other modules from RB No commutication to users, no explanation situation about razbam. No updates in laste patches. Now is just  next unfinished modul with unfilled promises, but payed. If this module not continue in progress, return money. 

Other reported minor problems have not been fixed for years, for example  GBU-28, static objects activate/deactivate in ME, MFD maps scales and others...

And story can continue with more modules...

 

I am no longer interested in new module announcements. i payed, and I was patient, but you  don't keep your promises. 

your profit has become dependent on Early Access announcing, and not on FINISHED works.

For me "thank you for your patience" it's not enough anymore. Im leaving DCS Afganistan, DCS Chinook and others in future, because these are just other unfinished modules. until you dont change access to EA.

sorry.

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2024 by Dovivan
corections

[Silver_Dragon]

3 minutes ago, Dovivan said:

I'm seriously frustrated by Early Access politics.  

DCS: Sinaj.   Last roadmap update 14 july 2023. Absolutly dont follow promises. I want money back. 

Last news of Sinai map was April 2024

 

[Dovivan]

good news, i take it out. Thx for info

Edited May 17, 2024 by Dovivan

[BIGNEWY]

30 minutes ago, Dovivan said:

I'm seriously frustrated by Early Access politics.  

Im playing DCS from Flanker 2 era and i'm trying stay optimistic, but now beginning to believe that it is a pernicious path. 

becouse this few facts for example....

F/A - 18 Hornet. more like 9 YEARS develoment and still not finished. 9 Years. ( A10C with KA-50 has FINISHED with better damage modules in much shorter time, but not EA exist in this era.. )

DCS Supercarrier : 5 years in development (4 in EA) and update progres is very slov. Briefing room was announced 3 years ago. In the same time was finished huge AAA titles in Games or Films. 

DCS: Sinaj.   Last roadmap update 14 july 2023. Absolutly dont follow promises and no info from developer. I want money back. 

DSC F15E Strike Eagle + other modules from RB No commutication to users, no explanation situation about razbam. No updates in laste patches. Now is just  next unfinished modul with unfilled promises, but payed. If this module not continue in progress, return money. 

Other reported minor problems have not been fixed for years, for example  GBU-28, static objects activate/deactivate in ME, MFD maps scales and others...

And story can continue with more modules...

 

I am no longer interested in new module announcements. i payed, and I was patient, but you  don't keep your promises. 

your profit has become dependent on Early Access announcing, and not on FINISHED works.

For me "thank you for your patience" it's not enough anymore. Im leaving DCS Afganistan, DCS Chinook and others in future, because these are just other unfinished modules. until you dont change access to EA.

sorry.

 

 

 

 

Hi Dovivan

Sorry to here you have lost faith, early access can be a very long process we know, sadly without this it would not be possible to create many of our modules. Using early access supports the team and the feedback and bug reports we get during early access from the users is essential for completing the projects. 

Supercarrier work is in progress, however we had to wait for multithreading support before we could continue with features like the airboss and briefing room, we will hopefully be able to share news soon about progress.

Regarding RAZBAM situation, I am sorry but we can not say any more than the initial statement we made, although RAZBAM went public it is a private matter that needs to be addressed between the parties, we all hope it can be resolved. When the time comes to say more I am sure we will.

If you feel a bug report or issue has been over looked or forgotten feel free to PM me so I can check its status. 

If early access is not something you can support any more we do understand, it is completely optional, and even if you waited until you were happy we would be grateful for your support. 

I hope in the future we can meet your expectations, thank you for flying with us for so long, have a great weekend. 

best regards 

bignewy

[Silver_Dragon]

About F/A-18C, Roadmap has on your near final stages, and some funtionality require "core" improvements first.

The actual Damage models on modern helos and aircrafts has the same from the old times, new damage models builded on WW2, has no improved yet on modern content.

The "Supercarrier Briefing Room" has none exclusive from that module and ED has claim, that funtionality as CAG post, plane directores, ATC, etc, will use on the future to improve ground base environment, on fact SC has only a "testbed", and many of them, require Vulkan release first.

 

[rwbishUP]

@Dovivan ,still no word on the, abandoned Strike Eagle that we just shelled out $56 for.
 

Edited May 17, 2024 by rwbishUP

[Rhinozherous]

I own almost all modules, but this is the first time I stopped buying ANYTHING for DCS since the F15E stuff began... Opening my wallet again when they bring a solution to this mess (development or refund). 

Edited May 18, 2024 by Rhinozherous

[Ignition]

No more module for me either until we have a solution for the F-15E.

Thanks to Razbam to comunicate about the status, if it weren't any communication it would be even worse.

[Kang]

11 hours ago, Ignition said:

Thanks to Razbam to comunicate about the status, if it weren't any communication it would be even worse.

Maybe it's because I am not overly involved with the F-15E and only enjoy their older modules, but I personally think that the overall communication in this matter has been utterly awful all around. If it hadn't been for members of the community spreading news around this place would probably not even had a decent general statement at all. Sure, they have ostensibly been talking to people on their Discord and there has been some discussion on obscure Reddits, but as far as channels like these official forums or their website go, it has all been pronoun games and vague prophecies. My personal status is still: «Something, which we do not name, has happened and we are trying to find a solution. Thank you for your patience.»

[Ignition]

4 hours ago, Kang said:

Maybe it's because I am not overly involved with the F-15E and only enjoy their older modules, but I personally think that the overall communication in this matter has been utterly awful all around. If it hadn't been for members of the community spreading news around this place would probably not even had a decent general statement at all. Sure, they have ostensibly been talking to people on their Discord and there has been some discussion on obscure Reddits, but as far as channels like these official forums or their website go, it has all been pronoun games and vague prophecies. My personal status is still: «Something, which we do not name, has happened and we are trying to find a solution. Thank you for your patience.»

Oh, yeah. The platforms used to communicate weren't great. But still it was better to talk about it instead of complete silence for months. We aren't stupids, this was going to go off sooner or later if Razbam didn't update their modules for months.

[Dovivan]

@BIGNEWY

 

Thanks for reaction BIGNEWY,

 

DCS is geart product and i love it. and i have no problem with directly Early access. 

what I'm writing about is that you sell something that you don't have time to finish until the situation comes when you need a new product to be able to sell again, because you understandably need money. and this is where the problem begins. The product has already been sold, but it still needs a lot of work, it won't make much money anymore. so from the point of view of the business plan, it is very difficult to allocate capacity for the work of something that will no longer earn as much as a new module.

in short, 3+ years for early access is too much and in my opinion it is a road to hell.

Because there will probably come a time when the new module will no longer be so expected (..becouse experience with older). I'm already here. so take this just like simple feedback.

 

About RAZBAM, this stiuation its not about two parties ED and RAZBAM, but about three, + USERS WHO HAVE PAID. please don't forget it. 

THX for ut time BIGNEWY, I wish the whole team much success.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2024 by Dovivan

[inZane]

I am not a huge fan of EA either, but ED is not alone in this. There are hundreds of games on Steam that are stuck in EA limbo, plus the king of all Alphas.... Star Citizen. As for this RAZBAM thing, it is getting to a point where there should be some news about something or there should be the offer of a refund to people who have lost faith in this situation. For all the users know, this could be a year or more before the issue is settled (in or out of courts).

[SOLIDKREATE]

I just order when they release. As awesome as the F-4 Phantom II is, I'm not blowing my money on it until it is in-game (see BAE Hawk). What would help all of this is a hard cap on announcements. ED, these are only my thoughts and in no way demanding any of this.

 

HARD ANNOUNCEMENT CAP: All developers cannot announce a new product for pre-sale until it is 60 days out of release for beta testing (all players). This has been an ongoing problem for years now. We have a new module announced by 3rd parties and ED themselves and it is always years away from release. It is like me telling you my Christmas plans of 2035 in the current year or having that car in your lawn you're going to fix up someday that has grass growing in it now.

HARD DEVELOPMENT CAP: All devleopers cannot announce the development of a new product unless it is 180 days from release of beta testing. They shall have more than just screen shots showcasing the aircraft / rotorcraft. Alpha testing (select players, yotubers ect) shall be made available at this time as well for pre-review and powering the 'Hype Train'. 

MORE FRIENDLY AND OPEN DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT: There are single individuals in here who can out-develop major 3rd part vendors of DCS. ED should not be so strict in witholding information on how systems work. We'd probably have a lot more aircraft by now. Looks at the Su-22 and AH-1 and a handfull of top quality MOD's we've all see here. Imagine if they had ED support. If you are all familiar on how DE (Digital Extremes) cultivates its modding community for the game Warframe, you'll understand. The process is very well thought out and put together, and readily available. Just give us template aircraft that we can edit and submit to you. For example: single / multi engine propeller, single / multi engine jet, same for helicopters. Then template avionics and weapon systems we can edit to data we've accquired. The hurdle would then simply be boiled down to refinement and making the model. I know I'm making this sound easy =o). The product would then be submitted for review by ED and sent back with any feedback to be addressed. Allow Map making for Modders as well. Vietnam would've been done by now as well as Korea.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2024 by SOLIDKREATE

[Exorcet]

31 minutes ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

I just order when they release. As awesome as the F-4 Phantom II is, I'm not blowing my money on it until it is in-game (see BAE Hawk). What would help all of this is a hard cap on announcements. ED, these are only my thoughts and in no way demanding any of this.

 

HARD ANNOUNCEMENT CAP: All developers cannot announce a new product for pre-sale until it is 60 days out of release for beta testing (all players). This has been an ongoing problem for years now. We have a new module announced by 3rd parties and ED themselves and it is always years away from release. It is like me telling you my Christmas plans of 2035 in the current year or having that car in your lawn you're going to fix up someday that has grass growing in it now.

HARD DEVELOPMENT CAP: All devleopers cannot announce the development of a new product unless it is 180 days from release of beta testing. They shall have more than just screen shots showcasing the aircraft / rotorcraft. Alpha testing (select players, yotubers ect) shall be made available at this time as well for pre-review and powering the 'Hype Train'.

These sound unreasonable. If it were possible to plan out exactly when something is releasable, we wouldn't have delays in the first place. Buyers should set their own expectations and standards when considering what module to buy or follow the development of. I'd much rather have announcements made early as it just gives me more information and more choices.

[Kang]

4 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

I just order when they release. As awesome as the F-4 Phantom II is, I'm not blowing my money on it until it is in-game (see BAE Hawk). What would help all of this is a hard cap on announcements. ED, these are only my thoughts and in no way demanding any of this.

 

HARD ANNOUNCEMENT CAP: All developers cannot announce a new product for pre-sale until it is 60 days out of release for beta testing (all players). This has been an ongoing problem for years now. We have a new module announced by 3rd parties and ED themselves and it is always years away from release. It is like me telling you my Christmas plans of 2035 in the current year or having that car in your lawn you're going to fix up someday that has grass growing in it now.

HARD DEVELOPMENT CAP: All devleopers cannot announce the development of a new product unless it is 180 days from release of beta testing. They shall have more than just screen shots showcasing the aircraft / rotorcraft. Alpha testing (select players, yotubers ect) shall be made available at this time as well for pre-review and powering the 'Hype Train'. 

 

 

 

I see where you come from with that suggestion, but I beg to differ. I know that the wait is sometimes, well, not exactly easy, but I for one like to know what is being worked on and what is in the pipeline. There are some 3rd party modules coming up that I am very excited for, but I understand they are probably years away still.

That being said I definitely see the point with some other developments within DCS, especially things that even when they are released seriously beg the question of what mysterious and highly complicated background system exactly was the holdup, because sometimes none of it makes any appearance to the end user. And while those grind my gears there is also the bits that I can understand the complexity of and have respect for ED trying to do these things 'right' instead of twice, but still wonder what good it did to announce the vague ideas years and years in advance.

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

MORE FRIENDLY AND OPEN DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT: There are single individuals in here who can out-develop major 3rd part vendors of DCS. ED should not be so strict in witholding information on how systems work. We'd probably have a lot more aircraft by now. Looks at the Su-22 and AH-1 and a handfull of top quality MOD's we've all see here. Imagine if they had ED support. If you are all familiar on how DE (Digital Extremes) cultivates its modding community for the game Warframe, you'll understand. The process is very well thought out and put together, and readily available. Just give us template aircraft that we can edit and submit to you. For example: single / multi engine propeller, single / multi engine jet, same for helicopters. Then template avionics and weapon systems we can edit to data we've accquired. The hurdle would then simply be boiled down to refinement and making the model. I know I'm making this sound easy =o). The product would then be submitted for review by ED and sent back with any feedback to be addressed. Allow Map making for Modders as well. Vietnam would've been done by now as well as Korea.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for seeing DCS do better and have more, but I am not sure you totally understand everything that goes into DCS. While I get better-supported modding would be wonderful, people already create incredible mods based on what they have, to suggest that we give away all our information and everything that makes DCS unique and popular would do more harm than good. These mod creators are more than welcome to approach us and look at ways they can grow or expand their mods but agreements must be signed for anything beyond that. At the end of the day, DCS is a product and a very niche one at that. Making it so everything can be done freely with no form of QA would not make things better, at least not long term. DCS is not a template program, you don't just have a template and plug in the numbers, it's well beyond this. So while I want to see modding support grow, it has to be balanced with what best supports DCS overall and continues to fund its development.

Maps are a whole other beast, and suggesting that Vietnam or Korea would be done now if we just released the tools, sure might be true, but most certainly these maps would be unplayable as we have stated there are technical hurdles to jump to get to the point of maps with so much vegetation and different geographical features. It's just not so simple. 

Nobody wants development to proceed faster than we do at ED, but it's not always as simple as throwing more people at it. 

Thanks

 

[SOLIDKREATE]

Oh of course I dont. I guess my main point was that all devs should not announce when they just have an un-baked smooth model and no code yet. I'd like to see some video of it working and an alpha and beta phase. I know the 'Two Weeks' has been a running inside joke but I think that should change.

My post was not meant to be retalitory in any way. I hope it wasnt taken that way. The timelines were just there as an example. A couple of people said my ideas were unreasonable but I disagree. Accountability is a big issue for me but maybe that is just engrained in me because of the environment I work in. 

For example I tell my "customer/temmate" I have the solution to a tool design for the Main Injector Install. First thing I am asked for are all of my hand calculations and my Structural Analysis package proving my concept. Then we go into a detailed design review phase later one then a final design phase and lastly full release for vendor sourcing. I guess I am saying we need a little more "completeness" proving to ED and us that the team can accomplish this.

Edited May 22, 2024 by SOLIDKREATE

[Art-J]

Keep in mind that the whole "early project announcement" thing, which resulted in a sudden flood of planned modules mentioned in newsletters last year, was encouraged and done by ED in order to avoid developement effort duplication (which already happened in DCS in the past). So, yeah, 3rd parties tend to announce projects that are still years away from completion just to "book" certain aircraft or map before someone else does it or to avoid wasting time on something already started by other party.

Edited May 22, 2024 by Art-J