Monthly Newsletter Updates Discussion

[3instein]

The mere fact that Wags wrote that they are nearing completion of Nevada,and that it is on course for release later this year,makes it one of the best updates (for me at least) in a wee while.

 

Good job team,keep up the good work and let the updates flow,

Mick. :)

[leafer]

The reaction to the Nevada images reminds me of some of the thoughts expressed by the Planetary Annihilation devs over at Uber some time ago when they were well before a playable Alpha. They showed some very VERY early development stuff that by their own admission wouldn't even be shown to a Publisher and people's reactions made them reconsider showing it until it was more polished.

 

Its so tragic. People complain and end up with nothing to complain about after a while, except that they're not showing them anything new that they can complain about. Its just so obnoxious.

 

I can hear the leak. :D Come Jul 26? oh, dear...we're all out of news! Dave Gahan is a flight simmer. Enjoy the Silence. :photo:

[GGTharos]

Then it would be better to get back to how it was in FC2, so you can simulate both options rather than default one only. This is not correct and can not be accepted since in default option downgrades a Su-27s situation awareness by 30% compared to FC2. Why not chose the other option instead since as experienced FC Su-27 pilot i can confirm that not having auto-lock is much more efficient.

 

It isn't my call, I can just suggest the feature change but I don't believe it will be accepted.

SNP is a mode that would function just fine against lesser foes when automated, and it would not function at all in the presence of ECM wielded by more powerful opponents. Generally speaking I would suggest replacing the SA that you believe it should provide you with EWR/AWACS. While I would like to see a better solution, I believe that will not be done in an FC level title, but rather in a DCS: Flanker. I could be wrong though, so some features are on request.

 

Is the F-15 in default mode as well? since it does not auto-lock in TWS in FC3.

The F-15 'default' mode is lacking a lot of automation, so it's actually the opposite problem. In the F-15 you don't need to slew your cursor to designate targets, they're already lined up for you and you can just target step and designate that way. In fact, there isn't even elevation tracking in the FC3 F-15 which is a very basic feature. Edited July 21, 2013 by GGTharos

[SkateZilla]

With Nevada and F-18C Coming, anyone wanna do this:

 

 

LOL

[smnwrx]

With Nevada and F-18C Coming, anyone wanna do this:

 

 

LOL

 

Haha welcome to earth!

 

EDIT: I mean Georgia :-)

Edited July 21, 2013 by smnwrx

[Cowboy10uk]

Hi guys, thanks for a stunning update, I love the screenshots and seeing Nevada again was the best of the lot. I still have the original files on my machine from the beta, many years ago. ;)

 

However may I ask a question, that you guys may or may not know the answer too.

 

As I'm sure yours aware, when A10 was in Beta, part of the package, was access to A10 Beta, and the full game and Nevada when it came out.

 

Now I appreciate, that the Nevada map , has taken you guys far longer and proberly far more man hours and money than you originally thought. With that being the case, is it still the plan to give The Nevada map to those who originally pledged to beta test the A10, or is it now the case that we will have to purchase the module?

 

Please don't think I'm moaning, I'm certainly not, and I will be happy to pay if this is the case. I loved flying round Nevada in my Hog all those years ago.

 

Cowboy10uk

[Gary]

ATC in or out?

 

Firstly thanks for the heads up with comments like "its ready when its ready" and "everything is subject to change" etc etc etc. Most enlightening. (I have actually been on here a very long time but thanks)

 

Let me be a little clearer with my question.

 

I simply want to know if the ATC improvements are still in or now out of 1.2.5 (I would love more info on what the improvements are of course but hey one thing at a time)

 

I'm NOT bitching about it being dropped. (we don't know if it actually has been yet)

 

A very simple yes or no from someone who knows would be great.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Gary

[159th_Viper]

 

A very simple yes or no from someone who knows would be great.

 

 

That's the thing - it's NEVER as simple as a 'Yes' or 'No'. With the amount of work and permutations involved in the pre-release testing phase, literally the tiniest 'fork-in-the-road' tends to lead to a different destination.

 

As such it's impossible to answer with 'Yes' or 'No'. Rather, be pleased that it's coming soon, ie when it's ready :)

[PFunk1606688187]

I suspect perhaps the ATC is dropped until 1.2.6, or they're not mentioning it ahead of the possible decision to do that before the deadline.

 

Frankly, I don't care if it gets held back, ATC is a tricky business. FSX has always had iffy ATC and any third party solution has been with its pluses and minuses. I'd rather they get it right rather than it being a messy kinda better hybrid fix.

[Gary]

Viper,

 

Thanks for the reply - It is appreciated.

 

With the utmost respect I find your answer very hard to understand.

 

1.2.5 is either in release testing with or without the ATC improvements?

 

Of course I understand the complex nature of what you are doing and yes, everything is subject to change.

 

However, the release candidate either still includes it or not surely?

 

Regards,

 

Gary

[Irregular programming]

Maybe they are removing the ATC altogether and in favor of having wags direct all the planes. :)

[Nate--IRL--]

Viper,

 

Thanks for the reply - It is appreciated.

 

With the utmost respect I find your answer very hard to understand.

 

1.2.5 is either in release testing with or without the ATC improvements?

 

Of course I understand the complex nature of what you are doing and yes, everything is subject to change.

 

However, the release candidate either still includes it or not surely?

 

Regards,

 

Gary

 

It may or may not - Testers are under NDA. Please understand we are not allowed to disclose information. Even if it is a simple question.

 

Nate

[159th_Viper]

 

With the utmost respect I find your answer very hard to understand....

 

Understandably so as I neglected (apologies) to mention that at any given time, there are 4, sometimes more, testing versions (all different) running. From these versions testing release candidates are compiled. Said release candidates are also not limited to one reiteration, so as said, content can change from hour to hour.

 

Now I can see that you are attempting to pin me down in attempting to elicit a specific answer relating to the current release candidate and unfortunately I'm unable to answer due to the NDA. I was merely attempting to explain that the people who can provide an answer probably will, at this stage, not provide an answer due to, as I attempted to explain above, the dynamic nature of the testing process.

 

I mean, why admit to something now which might very well change tomorrow? People seem to be crucified for less on these boards.

[Kuky]

Viper, I would just say No it won't be in 1.2.5 :)

[Gary]

Viper, Nate,

 

Again thank you for the explaination.

 

I do appreciate that you only have licence to answer some questions and not to divulge details.

 

My question originally was exactly the same as last time news of 1.2.5 omitted any mention of ATC improvements and as a result of the question of it being not mentioned Wags came onto the forum to say yes it is still included. Same question seeking clarification seemed reasonable in those circumstances.

 

Thank you for the explaination of the release testing process - thinking about it i suppose having various candidates is obvious.

 

To be totally honest I'm not particulary convinced of the answers i have been given so far (but do understand why)

 

Given the logic of the answers so far seems to me a change log would never be published ahead of release - just in case something mentioned within it was broken in the final release candidate. Its obviously not just the ATc feature that could be a problem? (unless of course you already know it is)

 

Not a flame guys i promise. You probably know i have been here a long time.

 

Just a little frustrated as this feature is THE one that i have a personal wish for. (so fingers crossed it does make it)

 

Thanks for all your time.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gary

[Kenan]

Viper, I would just say No it won't be in 1.2.5 :)

 

Finally. A no-drama, straight answer. Thank you.

[Flagrum]

Finally. A no-drama, straight answer. Thank you.

Which doesn't necessarily mean that ATC improvements will not be in the update. It is just the safe answer to keep the expectations low ... but still leaves room for a positive surprise.

 

(scnr)

[Phantom88]

***Aurora/Area 51***

 

Wouldn't it be kinda neat if DCS could implement the "Mythical Aurora" Hypersonic Jet to suddenly appear over Nevada at random intervals?:D

 

Could you imagine being on a twilight Red Flag CAP in your A-10 with your Wingman heading back,on final to Nellis doing 200 knots and THIS Blows by you at 6X The Speed of sound???:D

 

[chris2525]

With Nevada and F-18C Coming, anyone wanna do this:

 

 

LOL

 

 

...probably have more luck getting official documentation on this thing than you would for F-35

[PFunk1606688187]

To be totally honest I'm not particulary convinced of the answers i have been given so far (but do understand why)

 

Given the logic of the answers so far seems to me a change log would never be published ahead of release - just in case something mentioned within it was broken in the final release candidate. Its obviously not just the ATc feature that could be a problem? (unless of course you already know it is)

 

Just a little frustrated as this feature is THE one that i have a personal wish for. (so fingers crossed it does make it)

 

Thanks for all your time.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gary

 

The reason you often don't see change logs posted ahead of time is because when things change at the last minute and something has to be axed form the patch and held back for a later one people don't understand and are liable to be hard on the developers and/or their intermediaries.

 

If you've never been a tester for anything then maybe you don't understand how fluid the things that get put in or taken out can be. Sometimes they're pretty sure they've fixed it, they test it, realize they need another tweak, then that tweak turns everything upside down and suddenly you can't make that feature meet deadline if you want it to be at the required level of finish.

 

Basically, trying to figure out why they'd tell you something, then take it away, just tells them they shouldn't tell you anything until they're 100% sure. Project Reality used to release redacted upcoming change logs and people would try and piece together the changes, which was pretty tough. They were having fun with the community, but also showing that they didn't want to tell people their plans lest any changes be received poorly.

[Gary]

P*Funk,

 

I really really do appreciate what you are saying.

 

And i do understand that for exactly the reasons you state "everything is subject to change" is often quoted.

 

i have no issue with what is or is not included in 1.2.5 (well i obviously do want the ATC stuff but if it aint ready it aint ready)

 

All I wanted was some idea if it is or is not likely to be included.

 

Apart from a couple of informative replies (about testing process etc) all i really got was two smart arsed answers from those who should know better and a whole bunch of when its ready crap.

 

Think I tried to come across as someone who understood the complexities and that things change.

 

Jaded perhaps???

 

Kind regards,

 

Gary

[PFunk1606688187]

Apart from a couple of informative replies (about testing process etc) all i really got was two smart arsed answers from those who should know better and a whole bunch of when its ready crap.

 

Just because someone is formally associated doesn't mean they actually know anything per se. I think Wags was saying something about not actually having first hand knowledge of whats happening with the guys working on the terrain engine and Nevada, only that he gets some info he can pass along for these little PR dealios.

 

The assumption that those in the fold are equal to those in the know is wrong.

 

And even then, if they know something, doesn't mean they're allowed to say anything. If it was cleared for release as info it would probably have already been said. As much as information starvation can seem like apathy or indifference from the makers and wheeler and dealers, what to say is carefully managed, owing to the preponderance of jackasses who'll stir up a mess about anything from any angle (not an accusation towards you, but a general observation in niche gaming development for which I can provide many absurd examples).

 

 

 

Personally, I tend to think that if they don't want to say anything about something in particular, and if its a big enough deal, they should say "there will be no information about this feature until further notice" but absent that people will speculate, and the semi-knowledgeable testers and moderators will have to endure accusations of being smart asses.

[MegOhm_SD]

With Nevada and F-18C Coming, anyone wanna do this:

 

 

LOL

 

Nice, but I would like to have this one in DCS.

 

[Gary]

P*funk,

 

Obviously an intelligent guy. And yes I do understand.

 

My only observation is that ATC improvements have previously been stated and then in the latest update seem to vanish.

 

I'd much rather someone of some authority came online and simply said - we dont know if it will make next update - then that would be fine. ~~at least we all know its at risk or not.

 

All i asked is for some more information..not for someone to say its all subject to change or just tell him its out with a silly smiley face...

 

If its in then great.

 

If its out then great - cause it obviously needs more work

 

and if its not been decided - then great.

 

just dont like being told something is coming - then omitted from the update and nothing but smart arsed answers...

 

seems pretty reasonable to me!

[Wolf Rider]

just look at it this way.... it might make it, it might not but in any regard - its all subject to change