VEAO developments?

I can only give you ED’s stance. I dont want to argue with VEAO.

3 Likes

I don’t have the Hawk or plan to buy any airframe on VEAO roadmap list (such a shame they had to cancel the AH-64 Apache…) - just because i am not interest in these - but it is sad to see that such a thing - what had keep behind close door - goes public again.
2017 is hard for any 3rd. party dev. under DCS World…

Hopfully VEAO can sort out the problems, and keep the communication to their customers (as they did for the P-40 pre-order stuff).

I removed all info relating to the Hawk from my website and the KIF a while back as I was so angry at them for their conduct while it was such a disappointing module. Maybe things changed as regards the conduct - I stopped reading any of their posts at the same time.
I feel the Hawk should simply have been their sole priority until they got it right - just to show us that they could do it right and could be trusted.
I was also really disappointed with ED for allowing this to go on. Seriously, I wanted a refund and there was no chance of that, and this is the only time I have ever wanted a refund for any sim or module. This move by ED has at least restored some hope that they will do the right thing. The problem is, afaic, they did it for the wrong reasons. the right reasons for them, contractually, but the wrong ones for me. The Hawk was flyable but after these years it even still looked pretty awful, yet ED were still selling it, at full price.
I really wanted VEAO to succeed, both because of what they were meant to be bringing to DCS World and because they are Brits. All they did though, as Brits, was embarass me. For starters the very first mission, the start-up tutorial, was filled with fictional liveries. What the hell was that about? Sucking up to US customers? Wrong move imho. There are so many nice and colourful RAF paint schemes for the Hawk T.1 and they gave us a hatload of fictional ones.
Maybe they will do better in future, but I’m afraid I have zero confidence in them.

I bought the C-101 at the same time, and whilst I am disappointed with the lack of what we were promised when we paid for it, I think the Aviojet is a ‘proper’ DCS module and am in fact, very happy with it. Just need that CC model, guys!

Sorry for the long post - hard to say what you mean properly when you feel so frustrated.

3 Likes

I feel… a bit similar.
The Hawk is beautiful from the outside, but it was a bit of a mess. I know it was not solely VEAO’s fault, and I am absolutely sure that they are working hard to deliver good products and I like the guys.
I still don’t fly the Hawk that often, it feels… unfinished. Like something in between a Dino Cattaneo FSX plane and a DCS model. Some stuff is simulated very good and some stuff is…strange.
Also comparing it to the C-101. Aviodev is slow, but more steady. I still want that AFM and the CC version but the rest of the C-101EB we have is pretty much up to DCSW standards now, and it flies very good, even with the SFM. It is fun. The Hawk doesn’t feel that fun.

I bought both to support new devs, but with VEAO I have the feeling that they bit off more than they could chew. So did Aviodev but the lack of communication by VEAO (while Aviodev said “sorry it will take longer, we failed a bit.”) and the fact that they were already moving on and taking money for another plane, while promising three more planes at the same time but not talking about their development made a bit of a dent in their public picture, at least for me.
That’s when they (figuratively speaking) went “on probation” for me.

I still wish them all the best and that they make cool modules for us to fly, learn from any mistakes, and make tons of money. And I am still hyped for a Eurofighter in DCSW. A bit of hype is nice, even for me. :wink:

1 Like

I don’t fly the Hawk enough to make a detailed analysis, but what I see, I very much like. Having witnessed a spectacular display by the Red Arrows back in the 80s, I’ve since held an affinity for the shiney red jets, especially since it has the best performance of all of the light DCS trainers, and can be fitted with AIM9 and gun. Initially I thought that the gray pit looked very flat, especially in VR, but the newer textures are really nice. So, while it might not have reached its potential, I will not regret the purchase. This is not to say that those of you who know the Hawk better than I should not be disappointed. I just don’t think that the lack of polish should prevent you from enjoying this hot little scooter.

1 Like

Oh nice to hear! I should really get the 101 then!

Looking at that list, I’d say VEAO had a highly unrealistic development timetable. Did they just come up with every plane they thought that they’d like to do during the DCS lifespan and claim them all at once?
This team says they’re doing 2, that one says 3, VEAO says “we’ll do a baker’s dozen!”

That’s the kind of thing I would’ve expected from a more seasoned developer and even RAZBAM never made a list that long, even when half the stuff they’re doing was already done for FSX and theoretically half the work is already done.

If there’s one sweeping generalization I will make about the flight sim industry, whether modders, 3rd party devs, or first party commercial producers, while they may have technical skills, their business acumen is lacking.
They all want to work on 15 things in parallel, they all want to start work on the Next Big Thing before wrapping up the Thing That’s Been Here Two Years Already, they all start things and have to give them up because they didn’t understand it was the wrong path given their resources, they all get caught flat-footed on matters that aren’t strictly sim-related like planning and financials or whatever…

Remember TK? Remember Combat Helo? Remember Fighter Ops? Remember F4: Allied Force?

Let’s face it, the skillset to make a great fighter jet or terrain or flight model has nothing to do with being good at hiring people, planning a budget… just plain running a company, even a small one. While it’s true that it may suck to have someone in charge of your business that doesn’t really get what you do, it also sucks to have someone in charge that understands the product but doesn’t understand business. I also think of the two sucky choices, the first one is preferable when it comes to getting stuff done and the business lasting.

1 Like

I think that some of the guys in VEAO are devs who made models for FSX that got very good reviews and they perhaps thought it wouldn’t be too difficult to ‘port’ them over to DCS World, but then found it wasn’t so simple after all. I know one British dev who had been toying with the idea for a long time (it’s his Hunters in that screenshot I posted a short while ago) but refused to do it in the end, because he was wary of both ED and their policies and the very volatile arena that is the DCS customer crowd. I practically begged the guy to do it, but he wouldn’t be swayed - maybe he decided to, with pressure from the VEAO guys?
The reason I think this may be the case is because many of the aircraft on the original VEAO list were aircraft that these devs in the group I knew had produced for FSX. Not only that, most of them were freeware aircraft of good payware quality.
Just a theory, but I know I’m not the only person who thinks that. There was also another group of devs who made mostly military aircraft for FSX, but they were quite a step down from the CBFS group of devs (I don’t want to name names), but there’s a strong possibility that they were involved, not just for the same reason mentioned, but because their attitude very much matched that of VEAO.
Could be complete fantasy - but it wouldn’t surprise me if this was close to what actually happened. I think their ambition is to be applauded, but I really think they needed to get one module to the top tier before telling us they were going to do so many modules in such a short time. They really shot themselves in the foot.
I actually tried to help them with contacts and info, but one day they just suddenly stopped talking to me, after I had been out trying to get people who knew about those airframes to help them. I did the same for another dev - found a gold mine of information for them from a good source, and their reaction was very, very different to that of VEAO.

If you find that surprising, you’ve never been part of the startup scene. Any of the combinations you mentioned are not uncommon in startups. IDK if or how any of that applies to VEAO though.

No, I haven’t, and I have no interest in it. I don’t enjoy the prospect of risking my livelihood on whether some idea can actually be made into a decent business because the guy with the idea insists on also running the business. What percentage of startups fail? 80% or something?

Nope, zero interest.

1 Like

Hence why I wont back Kickstarter projects. The product typically fails to meet the hype.

The Hawk should have been released as a lite FC3 style module. When it was SFM, it actually flew decently and was fun. Sure it had some goofy aspects, but livable. Not at all hardcore. Once they tried their AFM, it went to crap rather quickly and continued to spiral.

That’s a real pity. If the AFM/PFM whatever they called theirs was too much to get right, they most certainly should’ve backed off.

Of course, you have the vocal crowd who slam the SFM as worthless and insist they won’t purchase and planes with it which might have pushed them to go too far.

Honestly, expecting EVERY platform in DCS World to have an uber-detailed FM was never realistic. It should be for the flagship modules, not the rank-and-file as well. Obviously it’s not a simple thing to do.

1 Like

As a counter point, I’ve spent probably a few hundred hours flying in DCS this year, and 0 of that has been in SFM aircraft. DCS (and BMS) is where I go to try hard and fly the jet as close as I can to the real deal. When I’m feeling like whatever goes macross missle massacre, I go fly SF2.

4 Likes

I’m the opposite. I love the A-10A. It does exactly what I want without a thousand button pushes.
My go to jet is the F-5 though. Tiger… ahhhhhh

The A-10A has AFM. The only aircraft that don’t are the Fulcrums, the Su-33 and the C-101.

2 Likes

In other news, 30 days to process the refund has come and gone (plus a few more) still no money yet. That concerns me more than missing sub forums

So that pretty much undermines your statement, then.

You’ve spent zero time in SFM aircraft, but the only ones that exist are really old FC3 models that have been around since LOMAC in one way or another and a 3rd party plane almost universally described as disappointing. No big surprise you haven’t been flying them.

If the Hornet was released with an SFM and you refused to fly it and just waited for a better one before you touched it, THAT would be a weighty statement.

Also, you made a false correlation that an SFM must mean basic avionics and ease of use. There is zero reason for that to be true, past releases being that way does not mean future ones must be also. After all, the A-10A and F-15C have AFMs but still have their FC-level avionics, so the inverse could be true for other planes just as well.

Oh, and SF2 lacks MP and looks quite dated compared to DCS 1.5/2 now, so there’s every reason to want to fly DCS World without wanting to spend half your time working submodes in MFDs.

As proof, I have no time in SF2 for the last 2 years and probably almost 15 hours in DCS this year. I would have more, but I often can’t muster the energy to deal with all the systems after a long day and miserable commute. Too bad the FC3 planes are old hat and there are no newer ones. I spend 15 mins in the Viggen, MiG-21, or F-86 and just give up and go back to the Ka-50, 25T, and A-10C because they’re the only ones I know really well.

I find I spend more time flying ROF than DCS because I have an engine, a couple MGs, and maybe a couple of bombs and that’s all there is. If I don’t fly it for 4 months, there’s no relearning when I go back. I go that long in DCS and it’s a month-long slog to get decent in the A-10 again.

I guess that’s fair, I guess. From my perspective SF2 has the better variety of units, eras, maps, weapons, and if we’re being honest, it’s flight models feel better than DCS’s SFM. Why would I want to spend money on a DCS product that compromises the one area DCS outshines all other sims, when I can get the same thing cheaper and better in another sim?

I fly DCS because I love it’s feeling of flight, of feeling the aircraft’s responses change in each regime. I cherish the experience of desperately clinging to the edge of the envelope while desperately trying to get a shot off, of trying to coerce a bloated aircraft loaded with stores to the target or crippled by damage back to base. SF2 doesn’t do this. BMS doesn’t do this well, and I couldn’t give two flying flips about WWII ETO so I don’t know how IL2:BoX does it, nor do I care. I don’t fly the MiG-29s or the Su-33 because they offer nothing I want at a price I’m willing to pay. If someone were to sell me an aircraft with SFM, I’d laugh in their face. Hornet included.

I don’t like simplistic systems modelling, but I tolerate the existing examples because of their vestigial link to the past. For the record I primarily fly the F-15C, so it mustn’t bug me too much. That said going forward I don’t foresee purchasing any modules with SSM unless it had some other major draw, Hornet included.

Finally, I don’t know your life, but I empathize with not wanting to climb a mountain for your hobby after a long day at work. I’ve been there, done that, got the T-shirt and a broken Arma habit to prove it. That said DCS has air starts, hot ramp starts, and auto startup for those that just want to get stuck in. Of the aircraft you’ve listed as problematic, none of them would require more than five to ten button presses to get into a configuration where you could bomb/strafe/missile to your heart’s content. Expedient guides exist to aid in this very process.

All this to say, how will making aircraft less interesting to fly help fix your motivation block?

@JediMaster will never be truly happy until he hits the ‘Like’ button at least the once. :heart: :wink:

6 Likes

Will @JediMaster do it , tell us what you think discobot

@discobot fortune

4 Likes