Like what’s happening to the Mirage now. That’s been complete for quite some time, but is now getting a MLU making it even better. Sadly this also has us re-learning some of her systems, as they were simplified or implemented wrong before.
I would prefer devs have a specific feature list that they MUST meet to be able to get out of EA, and that they are barred from working on other projects until that’s done. That doesn’t mean the module need be feature complete, merely that it is most of the way there. From that point, feel free to patch, add content, work on other modules etc. For that matter drop the whole product, and go to something different.
Yes, I clearly recall the fundraising campaign for the MiG-21 in 2012. This is 2019. That’s a bit long, look at where DCS itself was then and now.
This is precisely my point.
Imagine developing a module for a core software that has evolved as much as DCS has… I imagine it involves a lot of rebuilding and compatibility adjustments.
If DCS was static, making a module would be easier and have a shorter development time. Don’t you think?
2 Likes
And then we should consider the fact that we paid our $50 seven years ago. It amazes me that it is financially viable for a developer to support a module that long. They can’t be selling all that many MiG 21’s in 2019 to provide funding.
8 Likes
Underrated post is underrated.
+1
4 Likes
It would be nice
BUT
software development is not like building a house.
Honestly- I’ve been part of that and, with all due respect, it’s not a viable option, especially if we’re talking about more modern planes than WWII.
Or better you either have someone that foot the bill until that feature list is met 100% (and then has to recover the costs) or… how would that be viable?
Writing simulation software (especially for a forward moving platform like DCS) is truly tough.
If that thing was applied, many modules would simply never happen.
3 Likes
I would agree, except for every other module that came out in EA after the MiG-21 that is now considered released.
Sure, they still need updates or fixes or whatever, but they are considered “done”. If the MiG-21 was the sole non-ED module in DCS World, it might be more understandable. But it isn’t, there are many others. Is this merely a case of the definition being applied too loosely, and it really IS done by most metrics but they haven’t bothered to call it that? Could be.
YGTBSM! 
That thing is so done. Like I said, it is one of my favorites–neck-and-neck-and-neck with the Mig-19 and Viggen. The Mig-19 still has a couple of oblivious flaws…
Flaws
- Gun arming buttons are backwards - Press key/button for L and R arms and vice versa
- ARK/Comms switch is backwards (in cockpit)
- ARK tuning is pretty much totally broken from kybd/controller mapping
…and I guess they could fix the Mig-21 wingman landing light always on thing…but other than that, these are done.
2 Likes
Well, all modules are not created equally… 
Some seem to be more dependent on changes to DCS than others. And then you have the LN/HB split.
Belsimtek are closely related to ED, it seems, and that’s another factor.
2 Likes
I’ll have to disagree here as well (so we’re now at a nested two levels of disagreement for those keeping track ;)). I worked in the console gaming industry for several years (PS2, Xbox, GameCube era), where patching was basically impossible. The Xbox had the capability, but the PS2 and GameCube, if it wasn’t on the disc it didn’t exist. We had one complete an utter gamebreaker make it into the wild on GameCube, and there was nothing that could be done about it. Yes in this day an age some studios do patch on console, but that is almost ALWAYS for MP game balancing. 98% of titles won’t be patched, unless they are pushing out new/additional content (and usually paid content)
My point being that in the other half of the gaming world (consoles) getting a working/semi working product out the door and into the players hands by a hard date is a common practice. Once upon the time in the PC world this was common practice as well. We have allowed developers to move away from this, which I think to an extent is fine, but I think we have gone too far.
Now I am not saying that they need to have 100% done and bug free. I am saying that the developer needs to have a published spec/feature list for the their module that marks the end of EA. That may have 95% of everything possible, or 5% of everything possible, that is between the devs and ED. As a consumer I can look at the spec/feature list and go “hmm I like where they’re going, and I know that unless they fold I will eventually get all those features, and I can live without the rest.” Or alternatively “hmm I don’t think those are enough features, I am going to hold off if/until they implement them after EA.”
This ensures as an EA buyer I am not hosed by a product that never leaves EA, and thus is never really developed. It also will IMO generate more EA sales as people can see exactly what they are guaranteed to get from their product before the devs potentially move on to something else (assuming a reasonable achievable EA spec/feature list).
I honestly don’t know how to word this… But - no offense meant- acknowledging your past experience allow me to understand why you think the way you think.
You’re not outright wrong.
You’re lacking the tools, experience to fully localize the issues of a product like a study sim.
It’s not my intention to change your mind, on the contrary I thank you for letting me understand your POV.
2 Likes
I think the problem here is that this is a niche market (study level combat sims), within a larger, but still niche market (flight sims in general). The number of expected sales will be tiny compared to a console game release. So we have a situation where the small customer base expects a phenomenally detailed product but they want most of the development costs to be put up front by the developer (which is not a huge company).
Just because of the niche nature of the product, I think that an extended and open ended Early Access period is inevitable to some extent.
Isn’t ED still in the commercial market too? Isn’t that how we originally got the A10-C? A dumbed down version of their commercial simulator? Which ain’t too bad BTW…
We should be happy we get what we get. If not, you can always purchase a combatFlightSim from _______.
Ps Jason’s company doing great work but for WWII era only.
Pss Some folks get so bent out of shape over ED (other sites, not here) that it reminds me of people threatening to starve themselves unless they get what they want. And you know how that works out.
I don’t have any issues with an extended EA period, what I do have an issue is where apparently having benchmarks, milestones, design documents, progress reviews, process reviews, etc all go out the window. Thus leading to 4-5 year EA periods, when in fact the product is simply no longer being developed at all.
So in addition to working in the gaming industry I have a background in commercial software development. Unless there is something super special about flight sims that I’m not aware, they all SHOULD share the same process and progress controls as most other software development. I agree having a changing code base like DCS has, does present issues. However I still contend that having a design document that the vendor is required to meet specified sections to be consider in fulfillment of their contract, is not untenable in DCS module design. It’s how 99.9% of all commercial software is written when spread among multiple parties.
That’s what I’m advocating for, having a listed design spec that the dev must meet to be able to say a product is done in EA. A very limited example:
A2G munitions listed under ordinance will be droppable/launchable.
TGP MDF page will exist - NO TGP functionality
The end user has a specific set of milestones to review, ED has a specific set of milestones to enforce, and the dev has a specific set of milestones to work towards. Until they exit EA, the dev should have the majority of their efforts focused on completing that module. I am again confused on WHY this would not apply to a commercial flight entertainment product such as DCS (I am actually confused on how it wouldn’t apply to a military flight sim too, but that is for a different discussion).
1 Like
“Culture has strategies for breakfast”
Seems to me that you are describing a sound business and development strategy.
I know very little about software development, besides what I have learned from many years as a user.
I have seen many game projects started by a few enthusiast and grow from there into something much bigger than they first set out to design, costing more than they budgeted, if there was a budget from the beginning, being paid for by a much too small userbase.
This is absolutely the case when it comes to some DCS module developers, and to ED in some extent.
If we look at the scope of DCS, and where it is now, compared to where it was several years ago, I think it is safe to say that nobody predicted, or planned, for all of this to happen. Not from the beginning, anyway.
Implementing a strategy, after the fact - so to speak, is more or less like trying to help an alcoholic by telling him to cut down on the booze.
Sure, they should’ve planned this from the get go.
Barring that, they should set their strategy now.
Easier said than done.
I think they’re trying.
I don’t think it’s easy.
I think it’s easier if you are a big developer with a lot of funds.
How many flightsim developers are there, competing with ED and DCS…?
I think the answer to that question speaks volumes about cost vs. benefit of making niche software.
Yet there are many users asking why we can’t/don’t/won’t get this or that…
My take on this is; It’s not that simple.
3 Likes
I think the definition should be rather straightforward.
What are the planned features? Are all of them in? If not, it’s still early access, regardless of how well (or not) the included ones work.
If they are all there, then it’s released, even if some don’t work the way they should or cause a crash if you try to do a procedure out of order, or whatever. Released no longer means work stops and you move on to the next thing.
Now the big caveat to this is if a feature planned earlier (especially if it was announced) has been pushed aside in favor of fixes to the existing features and maintaining currency with the code base. If the module has been in EA for literally years and said feature is still not there, what should the proper course be?
If it’s been cancelled, well you don’t stay in EA forever and keep quiet about it, that’s ridiculous. You obviously should say “released” with an apology that you won’t be getting to that feature.
If you still plan to do it but are waiting on the code base, which has taken far longer than you thought it would due to their changing priorities, such that you don’t know when it will happen, I also think you should say “released” with an apology that feature X is not yet there but as soon as DCS supports it you will patch it in.
If it’s a lack of resources such that you’re not waiting on anything, you just don’t have the staffing to implement them at the same time that you’re keeping up with changes to the code that are breaking things that once worked fine, and you of course don’t want people to go 6 months after patch X to get your plane flyable again, I honestly don’t know what the correct course is. If your business was a plane, I’d say you were in a stall and at risk of crashing if you can’t get your speed up.
Is this the situation so many of the 3rd parties find themselves in now? Working at a business that has been aggressively cutting staff to boost stock prices for years, I know what it’s like when you have 5 people with work for 10. You have to prioritize and hope for the best. The work is never going away, so you have to hope at some point the financials will justify more people again. 
2 Likes
And it’s worth repeating that in this context, ED & DCS are competing with all Flight sims (not just combat flight, WWII or Modern/Jet) for the share of the user’s time and money when we consider how many people own multiple sims.
On another note, here is some more insight worth reading from Polychop in regards to the Gazelle. I’ve heard that module received a considerable amount of flak, although I don’t own it or know the story outside of being told of it and the evidence seen in the thread.
I think this also fits with your point @Troll, where growth in customer base and expectation far outpaced development & development resource.
2 Likes
It’s a game. And in the end, that’s all that it is.
4 Likes
A lot of people have a hard time accepting that though. Unlike a regular game, I think a lot of hardcore simmers are getting a taste of a dream that for various reasons (aka ‘Life tm’) they were/are unable to pursue. I have been very fortunate in that regard…but I still wish I had been able to fly fighters, and my sim hobby at least gives me a taste of that, along with other types of flying that I know I will never experience for real.
4 Likes