DCS Flying Legend Aircraft

[EtherealN]

Working in parallel doesn't mean release in parallel .

 

True, but you don't go from there automatically to one causing delay in the other's release. This depends on many more factors. For example, one might be a smaller project than the other. In this case, one can likely get finished quicker, and thus releases earlier - all without specifically stealing any resources.

[Dauntless]

A-6 Intruder!! :pilotfly:

[jotaele]

I would love any legend craft, from f4 to p51.

But why it has to be a fixed wing aircraft? I would like to fly a diferent chopper without complex systems like black shark.

I would like to fly a md500 defender.Its a CAS chopper and is a leyend too.

 

[Randolf]

I don't understand this Flying Legend Aircraft thing. Assuming it's going to be a historical combat aircraft, then in what environment will it be flyable? Will Eagle Dynamics create a whole new world for this aircraft?

By the way here's my personal quess of the "legend":

 

Edited November 14, 2011 by Randolf

[Yo-Yo]

I don't understand this Flying Legend Aircraft thing. Assuming it's going to be a historical combat aircraft, then in what environment will it be flyable? Will Eagle Dynamics create a whole new world for this aircraft?

By the way here's my personal quess of the "legend":

 

 

The key is the right hangar in Nevada...

[MadTommy]

Like others I'm struggling to 'get' this 'flying legend' concept. But happy that there are multiple projects on the go in parallel.

 

If it was to be a WWII bird the only one i'd like to try is the Mosquito... but just can't see any such planes fitting in with the DCS world.

 

Each to their own, choice is not a bad thing.....but it does sound like a someone pet project they decided to try and cash in on. ;)

[skeemo]

Probably before the time of many members here, but revisiting the game play options of "Chuck Yeager's Air Combat" will be interesting for many.

 

Oh nice, if i remember this early beauty correctly it came with

 

P51 vs Fw190

Mig15 vs F86

F4 vs Mig21

 

Did i missed a couple ? Lets google that.

 

Ach, that days, so sweet :)

[Ells228]

 

Each to their own, choice is not a bad thing.....but it does sound like a someone pet project they decided to try and cash in on. ;)

 

Everything TFC/ED has done has been done for a reason. I've always trusted that even before becoming a tester.

 

Of course a TFC fixed wing will not be everyone's choice, but then a lot of people said that about the A-10 when it was released, but I wonder how many are flying it now.

[Moa]

Of course a TFC fixed wing will not be everyone's choice, but then a lot of people said that about the A-10 when it was released, but I wonder how many are flying it now.

 

I'm sure ED has a good reason that we are unaware of. What we are aware of is that everyone is hankering for a DCS-quality multirole aircraft. We have been waiting quite a while now. If this sounds petulant then it is not meant to. It is meant to put attention on what people have actually been asking for.

 

We see every diversion and delay and are always pleased with what ED delivers, and support it with our wallets and voices on this forum. However this is missing the point. Most of the ED customers see all these neat things coming out but also wish ED would have chosen a laser-like focus on the thing we asked for (and have tried to make as clear as we can).

 

We (the community) are a many-headed hydra for sure but anyone who has been paying attention of the surveys has seen a clear 2/3 majority asking for a Hornet on both the ED and 104th surveys (both of which had a lot of votes, so could be seen as reasonably representative of the online community). So all these cool things (A-10C, P-51, FC3) are indeed great, but not what we have been clamoring for since the DCS concept was first released. We have been trying to get this through to ED for the longest time but keep getting told, "ED knows best". Actually, the community knows best what it wants and has tried to make that clear.

 

Basically, we're trying to say ED are building cool things but in the wrong order from the majority point of view.

 

Resources:

There has been debate about resources and whether or not working in parallel causes delays.

* The naiive view is for finite resources working in parallel diverts effort from the main project (schwerpunkt, for those blitzkrieg fans) and causes delays.

 

* The more nuanced view is that resources are not interchangeable and an art team cannot replace a development team so parallel work can be done, and may be more efficient since one team does not cause a bottleneck for another.

 

* The business view is that the principal resource is money. With money you can get more of any other resource you need and even expand or compress delivery time depending on the acceptable cash burn rate. If you are finding that you are struggling with the number of bugs you deliver or the product is more difficult to complete than expected then get more developers and go easy on the contracts for the artists. Similarly you can ease back on new features and introduce new models if you need to. The point here is that given the fact that cashflows are finite and usually mostly-fixed for a project you can alter the structure of any team to deliver earlier if you really want. In this case, working in parallel diverts cash from the main project that could have been used to hire more developers and quality assurance folk - delivering the main project earlier and with better quality.

 

When seen in this light the parallel work and delay in producing a modern Western multirole aircraft might actually be a strategic (although recoverable) business mistake (IMHO). Falcon 4 BMS is starting to deliver quality aircraft the community want (F-16 and upcoming F-18 ) and is improving at a rate at least as fast as DCS is improving (although the strengths are in different areas). On the FC2 servers I monitor (and compile flight statistics for) and through various forums I've concluded that a lot of regulars have switched focus to BMS and only dabble in A-10C (which is a shame, but that's what the numbers are saying to me). Once BMS gets momentum it will limit the ultimate growth of the DCS series, since BMS is free it will divert community effort (modders) and players/servers. Once the horse has bolted (not quite yet) and BMS becomes entrenched this will be hard to compete with (although ED has the advantage that because it charges for its products it has many more resources at the moment).

Edited November 14, 2011 by Moa
typos, apologies

[Ghillied raptor]

To Moa: While I like the general idea of what you're saying, we have no idea how many DCS users actually frequent the forums. There is a great deal, perhaps, but a majority in terms of total number of people who bought the product? If so one cannot speak up for their opinions. I do concur with what you have said though.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Ghillied raptor

[Rincovsk]

My wish is for MiG-15 or MiG-21 (At least by name, it is the most-produced supersonic jet aircraft in aviation history and the most-produced combat aircraft since the Korean War, and it had the longest production run of a combat aircraft (1959 to 1985 over all variants). Really a flying legend!

[Moa]

To Moa: While I like the general idea of what you're saying, we have no idea how many DCS users actually frequent the forums. There is a great deal, perhaps, but a majority in terms of total number of people who bought the product? If so one cannot speak up for their opinions. I do concur with what you have said though.

 

I know what you are saying. It is completely reasonable to ask whether the surveys are representative of the population of users or not. They are probably representative enough of the multi-player community.

 

The bulk of the single player community doesn't even know about these forums - but those surveys are still the best estimate we have of what they are likely to want.

 

In statistical terms there will be a frequency distribution for various aircraft. The mode of this distribution is probably a Hornet. Now the point is not that one or another aircraft is popular or not, the point is that it is likely that people would have preferred some kind of multirole/fighter aircraft to be built before all the other ED projects. Now ED have released their roadmap (a big thanks there, we know that FC2 will live on as FC3) the decisions about what to build when have been made. What I'm trying to do is not complain about the decisions that have already been made, but to say that maximum effort should be made to get the next main jet project out the door. Significant slippage would not be good.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Moa

[Phantom88]

DCS Flying Legends can only mean one thing!

 

The Next DCS EDGE Map after Nevada will be.....[DrumRollPlease]...

IWO JIMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;)

 

[Executioner]

I know what you are saying. It is completely reasonable to ask whether the surveys are representative of the population of users or not. They are probably representative enough of the multi-player community.

 

The bulk of the single player community doesn't even know about these forums - but those surveys are still the best estimate we have of what they are likely to want.

 

In statistical terms there will be a frequency distribution for various aircraft. The mode of this distribution is probably a Hornet. Now the point is not that one or another aircraft is popular or not, the point is that it is likely that people would have preferred some kind of multirole/fighter aircraft to be built before all the other ED projects. Now ED have released their roadmap (a big thanks there, we know that FC2 will live on as FC3) the decisions about what to build when have been made. What I'm trying to do is not complain about the decisions that have already been made, but to say that maximum effort should be made to get the next main jet project out the door. Significant slippage would not be good.

 

Shouldn't we remember that DCS:Next Fighter was specifically listed as being developed "in parallel" with the other projects ? How is that potential slippage or not maximum effort ? I'm curious (although I expect the answer is obvious) how many forum posters would refrain from buying DCS:Next Fighter simply because it came out after DCS:Flying Legends(1). I'd be surprised if it was even one person. We have a rough estimate of when DCS:FL will be available - we have no information regarding DCS:Next Fighter. They "surprised" a lot of people with the release of BS2 (yes, let's not talk about the price, just this once huh) - who's to say there won't be a nice early 2012 or Xmas 2011 surprise release of Next Fighter (would be great huh ? ;))

 

I could understand it if these statements were buried under pages of other announcements and obfuscated in odd language, but they aren't.

 

We're also aware that Matt isn't personally creating these titles on his own and therefore it's entirely possible (however small anyone "suspects" ED is) that there are plenty of aircraft developers to go around :thumbup:

 

I work pretty hard as a developer (not for ED) and I expect a certain amount of misunderstanding or misrepresentation as to how much effort goes into particular features, or how long a bug will take to be fixed, or whether I truly understand what User A or User B would like - FROM the general user population of the various applications I'm involved with - but I would find it extremely insulting that, when faced with information directly from myself, they basically turned around and said to my face "hey - we don't believe you" or "hey - I think you're not capable of getting this stuff done at all, even though I don't know how you do it currently".

 

Thankfully - in the part of the industry I work in, people just don't do that. They ask for things (badly in a lot of cases, or at least without knowing exactly what it is they're looking for :music_whistling:) - they demand other things, which we talk about and, if necessary, give them information as to how or why that isn't possible or not likely in the short term. They never insult us by suggesting we don't know how/why or what we're doing.

 

Payment or not is how we define our main interaction with our users. ED are no different in that regard. To suggest they are less than capable of defining what they want to do or how they wish to proceed (without being a direct member of their staff) is truly insulting. :(

 

I buy ED sims - I play ED sims - I don't play MP at the moment. I haven't taken part in a poll (here or on any other forum). I'm probably one of many people who, at least up until now for me, quietly go about their sim-time, buying things they like and never mentioning that it all works for them or they enjoy it as is or are happy to pay for the next thing when it's out and meantime will continue with what they have. Unfortunately these people are likely the silent majority of customers for ED, who will therefore have other business means they rely on for gauging their requirements (outside of this forum.):)

 

Passion is a wonderful thing, but lets all try not to passionately convince the people creating things we might like to play that we're not worth talking to, as we take everything out to some extreme or other ;)

 

(great - another post complaining about forum stuff - just shoot me now - I'm clearly no good for anything else!)

[Smokin Hole]

Forget P51s and Bearcats. Plenty of other products currently or will eventually offer those. I want a Su25 with a shared laser code with the Ka50.

[Moa]

Hi Executioner. Nice to meet another professional developer on the forums.

 

Please see my post at

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1329203&postcount=84

for an explanation of why I believe parallel development is unlikely to be the fastest way given a finite amount of cash - based on the information we have in public.

 

I don't think it is an insult to point out what alternative possibilities there are - especially if you have some years of experience. I certainly try to keep an open mind on how development processes can be improved and the arguments for doing things certain ways - and have profited in the past for having done so. I know ED read these forums and I hope they also have an open mind, and receive what we're trying to say in the spirit of debate it was intended.

 

Many years ago a concept called 'Ego less programming' was in vogue. While every developer has pride in their work (I do, you probably do, and I'm sure the ED team do to) we have to fight some aspects of this pride (ijtihad!) and own expertise on the product in question aside for a moment and listen for the merit in what someone else is trying to say. Like I said, I became a vastly better developer when I did so. This is not to say you or ED don't also do this, but to say that is it ok for other points of view to be made and actually listened to, and for things to be examined critically.

 

Even if you disagree with my comments on resourcing at least you might agree that BMS is making great strides (visit their forums sometime) and will become a significant competitor for the mind-share (and modding talent and has kept FC/FC2 relevant for most of us) in this niche quite soon. Like I said, I conclude this given the numeric evidence I've seen in player flight hours.

 

pax

Edited November 15, 2011 by Moa

[GGTharos]

The parallel development isn't hogging resources. If say, for example, cockpit work has finished on one project, those devs move onto the next project, etc - so in some ways you can have things being made in parallel.

[Fleshpiston]

I would like two things from ED:

 

1. A flying tree that uses Squirrels as ammo (this should be an easy task for them)

2. When I saw Flying Legend I thought of sitting on the back of Jimmy Hendrix or Winston Churchill. Swooping through the clouds either playing a fantastic riff or throwing out some awesome quotes that will stand the test of time.

 

 

;) Look forward to any of the next instalments to be honest. To me this is all good news!

[Moa]

The parallel development isn't hogging resources. If say, for example, cockpit work has finished on one project, those devs move onto the next project, etc - so in some ways you can have things being made in parallel.

 

Yes. But at some point you have finished the cockpits and vehicles and are spending money on improving the tree textures because you have artists on hand when instead you could release the artists (if they are contractors they will already have a queue of other work waiting for them to finish their current work) and get more developers or full-time testers (who test the boring nooks and crannies that volunteers don't want to touch) - or whichever resource is the critical bottleneck. This is what allows you to speed stuff up on the main effort without spending more money overall.

 

So yes, some stuff can work in parallel but the converse is also true, some of the resources used when working in parallel (budget) could have instead be applied to the main effort to speed it up by getting more of the critical resource early. That's all I was trying to say - since I've seen it done both ways. Either way we all get cool stuff available to buy, just in a different order.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Moa

[Dudikoff]

Now the point is not that one or another aircraft is popular or not, the point is that it is likely that people would have preferred some kind of multirole/fighter aircraft to be built before all the other ED projects. Now ED have released their roadmap (a big thanks there, we know that FC2 will live on as FC3) the decisions about what to build when have been made. What I'm trying to do is not complain about the decisions that have already been made, but to say that maximum effort should be made to get the next main jet project out the door. Significant slippage would not be good.

 

IMHO, you're posting a lot of assumptions regarding the development of ED projects without stating to have any internal insight into their operations. I'd say that developing a new DCS module takes a lot of time where extra resources can't necessarily speed everything up. E.g. if you have 1 guy working 6 months on the FM (or A2G radar, etc. ), you can't just add 5 more people and expect it to be done in one month. There are some core things which depend on individual people who are experts in those particular areas and have a clear vision of how things will need to be done. So, from an economic point of view, it certainly makes sense to develop some extra products which should take relatively little effort (like FC3) or even try to expand the consumer base (the supposed P-51B release) since the next module might take like 18 months anyway.

[4csNIp]

its gonna be mig21. any one want to bet with me?

[Yo-Yo]

IMHO, you're posting a lot of assumptions regarding the development of ED projects without stating to have any internal insight into their operations. I'd say that developing a new DCS module takes a lot of time where extra resources can't necessarily speed everything up. E.g. if you have 1 guy working 6 months on the FM (or A2G radar, etc. ), you can't just add 5 more people and expect it to be done in one month. There are some core things which depend on individual people who are experts in those particular areas and have a clear vision of how things will need to be done. So, from an economic point of view, it certainly makes sense to develop some extra products which should take relatively little effort (like FC3) or even try to expand the consumer base (the supposed P-51B release) since the next module might take like 18 months anyway.

 

Good point!

[Boberro]

E.g. if you have 1 guy working 6 months on the FM (or A2G radar, etc. ), you can't just add 5 more people and expect it to be done in one month. There are some core things which depend on individual people who are experts in those particular areas and have a clear vision of how things will need to be done.,

 

You can speed it up, but it takes a time and you need suitable people for this. You can add experienced teammate. Both of them shares opinions, the first one can't stand without second and second without first. They make very close team. Relying on one person is for me doubtful in longer perspective.

[EtherealN]

However, you can't just throw people at it either Boberro. You need to first find people with the approrpriate skills - this is not always easy. You then need to train them on the exact task, they need to fam with all the tools, etcetera etcetera. And for all of this, the guy or guys you already have will need to take time off from productive work to help this come to pass.

 

Anyhow, the illustration used was just an illustration. If you want a workable idea about what resources are available for specific things, check the credits in the manual. The general point still stands - it would be very weird if workload always was such that everyone is needed fulltime on the same project.

[Nobody96]

Its a rule of software development that, if you double the team working on a mature project, you double the time it will need to be completed.

 

so long

Mathias