I’m kind of like that now, but a sort of ‘lite’ version, as I will inevitably buy something I really want regardless of my position today. I don’t have the discipline to hold out if I need a new toy.
Text is bad at showing it but my care-o-meter isn’t super high on this subject, it’s more just talk. Over the last hundred years we’ve been talking about DCS there is always high and low tides of this debate. I think they’re a good sim maker for sure.
Same here. I am hard to excite (positive or negative) anyway, right now I am excited for 3D modding, MSFS2020 and Baldur’s Gate 3.
DCSW might get back onto the list soon, who knows. But not in its current state.
I would like to just add that there was nothing wrong, from my perspective, with Viper EA. All the EA lunch features were clearly stated by ED back then iirc.
I will challenge that with the official newsletter outline what would be in Phase 1 and Phase 2 EA of the Viper: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/206282-planned-f-16c-systems-and-payloads/?tab=comments#comment-206555
The glaring issues that made the Viper release notorious are on neither list, and omission does not automatically mean we won’t get something…until we start getting aircraft without landing gear 
In fact, I’m pretty sure the radar gunsight should have been under the ACM radar modes but it was missing from the release.
I agree with a lot of the sentiments here, but a lot of them are lacking qualification. By that I mean, you can’t just lay down a blanket “they know it’s WIP so they have no right to complain,” you have to qualify the standard of “WIP.” If it’s above a certain standard, then yes they have no right to complain. If it is below a certain standard then they have every right to complain. Leaving “WIP” and “EA” so ambiguous as to be manipulated by the company (or the opinions of the masses) is antagonistic to consumer protections. It’s not a black-and-white issue that can be discounted like that.
Sure, that was the announcement which set the maybe false expectations.
But later that year, when Viper EA was launched, it was accompanied with list of included and wip features.
Anyway, I see that you would like to see some EA standards. Sure that.
For me it is the other way. I am ok with no standards for EA. When the EA launch is accompanied with the list of included and wip features, thats good enough for me. Really doesnt matter to me that one EA has no HUD and another no gear or no damage model.
I definitely prefer EA rather than Pre-Order.
There’s a difference between complaining and giving constructive feedback, but I think I know what you mean. The whole purpose of EA is to give feedback on the status of module development.
But I don’t understand why the level of development, at the entry into Early Access, is important. What I think is important is how the development progresses from that point.
Case in point, the F-16C was not as developed as many would’ve liked, when released into EA. But development has progressed at a steady pace and that module is now far more developed.
Why should the F-16C EA example persuade people to not buy into the next EA? I think the F-16C is a perfect example on how EA and customer feedback should work…
To me, just a 3D model would be an acceptable starting point for EA. As long as development progress from there.
In fact, I’d feel cheated if EA meant 90% finished. I want to see the systems being developed, watch the videos, read the updates and discussions…
But I think the key word is ‘access’. I bought the F16C early, but its lack of features meant it wasn’t accessible for me, so I put it aside until recently. I think its reasonable if EA gives you an accessible product (for a flight sim I’d consider just a 3D model to fall short of that measure), but what people will accept is subjective for sure.
The whole concept of EA is so rubbery its open to lots of debate. Some definition, or categorisation by the developer would be useful, informed by different customer viewpoints. Its not so useful if your EA product puts some people off other products you want to sell.
And the problem isn’t much bigger than that…
This is the part that troubles me. Who makes the standard? What is an acceptable standard for EA? Because a jet like the F16 and for instance the Mosquito are completely different, what about the helicopters? I’m not being silly here, you can’t apply a blanket standard to these releases. You couldn’t even do it across the just the jets. There almost cannot be a “standard” for this software as the expectation and realisation are just so different.
I think I need to agree with @Troll here, a basic 3d model, possibly a flight model and that is all you could reasonably expect from early access unless it is specifically stated as otherwise.
ACM modes and ancillaries like this are impossible to hold to a standard because the whole systems vary so much from aircraft to aircraft. They are not plug and play and need to be developed independently of each other, couple that with upgrades to the base engine (2.7…) plus the need to work on and upgrade PREVIOUS releases its a damn near impossible job for a small development team and the diminished returns on every further release only can apply.
It’s a bloody hard industry in my eyes. It’s almost impossible to make a profit when you consider that 2 or 3 aircraft released you have to support forever PLUS designing and releasing new stuff.
I think we need to cool the ferocity and see the juggling act these poor guys are doing. Yes they make money out of it but if they NEED EA to support the business model we really need to step back and cut some slack to them before we drive them out entirely
Two factions are at play here and their goals don’t always coincide. The developer needs cash to fund development. EA does that. The customer wants his shiny new thing now, but also has a very individual concept of what “ready enough” is. We are all different. When the Harrier came out, ALL I cared about was hovering. I couldn’t give bees’ nuts about dropping a bomb or firing a rocket. If the developer is totally honest about what is in the EA module and what is PLANNED to be in the EA module, then the customer can make an informed choice. But there should be no sympathy for the customer who was given an honest feature list, purchased anyway for an early endorphin hit, only to immediately complain about the foil-wrapped turd he was tricked into buying.
I think as long as ED announces what features are going to be in EA, and they are present at launch… Then gives a good roadmap of features to be implemented … I don’t think they can go wrong, of course there could be bumps in the road and unforseen bugs … But that is the nature of software development
I think it is getting better. I mean…with all of the Wags videos it is really hard to not know what you are getting these days.
On a slightly different topic - can you imagine being a brand new person that has just realized they like sims and are getting into DCS World? Most some of us have been on this ride since the Flanker and LOMAC days, so we’ve watched decades of development and roll-outs. Imagine a guy (or kid) seeing the list of flyables right now on Day 1…damn…talk about a kid in a candy store!!
They have to walk that tricky line of creating enough hype that people buy it and managing expectations as well.
It’s got to be a totally thankless task hasn’t it.
I need money to live so I offer a product I’m working on. I make it clear its being worked on and unfinished and instead of the hype being created by people who are quietly having fun with the product, the noise is made by people whinging it is unplayable because the tyre has 3 lines of tread instead of 4 and the 4 treaded tyre wasn’t released till the 8th Month of Vietnam and only on odd numbered aircraft.
So all anyone sees who is searching for your product is unhappy people complaining about an unfinished product and your income diminishes anyway!
I liken it to paying a bricklayer to build a wall. You pay him upfront to buy his bricks and he says it will take a week to build and on the Wednesday you sack him because the wall is still being built.
Cant we just learn a bit of patience?
In fairness they only have to be supported “Forever” because EDs Software Development methodology means each new release potentially breaks historically finished content…
Not every piece of Software is structured such that adding new content/functionality BREAKS legacy features…does it?
I stated soon before the Hornet and already felt that way when it came out. Imagine if I was starting today?!
It comes with innovation. DCS is still doing that and will always have to
I’m on the stable branch of DCS for exactly that reason. Can’t be arsed to waste time on inconsistencies.
You can’t really fix that by design, though good design can make it easier on you. It just happens. The rest is rigorous testing. When you are in a non-safety-critical environment like gaming, a certain amount of regressions is just part of the deal.
So would we prefer they release a new version of DCS world every few years that wipes the slate clean and we have to purchase all modules maps and campaigns again? Because that is an expensive way to make a point…
Sadly I’ve discovered the opposite.
Before I gave it up I persuaded at least four people to make a DCSW account and buy a few planes.
They all complained about tiny maps, poor performance, worse ATC, mediocre environment, unrealistic lighting, mediocre documentation, and the need to run additional software to really use it.
At this point DCSW is very much a niche thing for older people with a masochistic streak and a LOT of patience. Like, you know, us.
Well, to be fair…I think WE were kind of in a similar situation growing up. Everyone else around me was playing Mario Brothers and Doom…whereas I was playing sims 95% of the time. I think the people interested in sims is always going to be fractionally small. But who knows…with what appears to be a successful wider appeal with MSFS…we might get some trickle down into our combat sim hobby…
I agree.
Although graphically MSFS2020 makes things worse for DCSW, at least right now. The weather for example is so great there. I hope DCSW 2.7 brings DCSW a notch up in that regard so it doesn’t scare off the players.