Bummer! Well, maybe I can at least hope they’ll ditch Starforce and go with the new DRM system. It’s not a super expensive module, so if they can bring it up to current standards, I’d be willing to buy it.
I’m waiting for the bundle with Mach Loop DLC …
The Hawk intrigued me, but reading about some it’s early struggles put me off. Now that it’s had some of those issues fixed and is coming along, might be time to pick it up.
The new cockpit really makes a difference in terms of immersion. If you compare the original “Chuck’s guide” of 2016 with the one I just updated with the new cockpit textures, you can compare directly what changed and how.
VEAO cancel all develop on DCS World
I can’t say I am surprised, given that P40 development was already halted and the Hawk didn’t seem to get much attention. I hope for them that they find something else to work on.
For our Hawk flying compadres on here:
I will say this right now, we are planning on pulling the Hawk from the E-Shop and Steam until we can determine VEAO’s intentions towards the support of the Hawk.
Once that is established, we will have a better idea of how the Hawk will fit into the future of DCS World. I would love to give you all more info, but that is all we have right now.
Thanks, and sorry guys.
Quoting @NineLine from the ED forums there.
Actually the Hawk has “not available” on ED shop. On Steam, surely take more time.
That’s a shame. I hope the Hawk lives on in some fashion, whether adopted by another developer (hey Just Flight…now is your moment to dive into DCS World!) or open sourced or something. It’s a plane that fits well into DCS World. I’d take an FC3 level T-45 too…
I bought the VEAO Hawk a long time ago at a discounted price ($20). It is disappointing that the project has ultimately failed, but I think I had my $20 worth, so my pitchfork is staying in the barn. I have bought a number of other payware aircraft for X-Plane that were not exactly outstanding for a similar price, or had to completely repurchase an entire airplane after they updated it for XP11 (Carenado, I’m looking at you!)… Anyway, here’s hoping someone can pick up the DCS Hawk and finish it up to an acceptable level.
I think what would work out best would be to add a free T-45 to DCS with a paid upgrade available for the full Hawk with combat capability. Given the focus on carrier aircraft development, having something that people can train on and get a taste for the flagship Bug would secure more sales than the limited Su-25T and TF-51.
I feel bad for all the folks that pre-ordered the P-40 that had an initial release date of Sep 2015. I guess they’re out of luck.
Yeah that was pretty bad… I think they have had a refund program running on that, starting a few years ago, so customers suffered no financial damages, only broken
Edit: not sure now: I really, vividly remember Ells posting P-40 customers should contact VEAO for a refund, but read the <10th comment on that thread about not getting a refund.
I managed to get one, but that was maybe a year or so ago when whatever it was they said was going on, change of focus i think it was? iirc it took maybe a month or so to come through (possibly more)
If anything, this debacle proves that modern simulators are not easy or straightforward to make or work on. You can’t use passion alone to make it work; you also have to have some idea of what you’re doing. It also falls along the same feelings I have about products in this field, in that announcing them during a development process and allowing preorders is a sure road to failure. Sure, everyone may go nuts when you announce [popular aircraft here], but when you know it will be another 3 years before anything is ready, it is foolhardy to whip up hype.
It’s another case of a team biting off more than they can chew and I honestly believe most developers would be better suited to starting off with a comparatively simple aircraft to hone their process and techniques before diving into a more complex one. But that doesn’t generate hype like popular aircraft do, which seems to be the key reason developers dive into this business to begin with.
I agree completely. The Hawk is a relatively simple aircraft, which just goes to show that something like the Typhoon would have been way out of reach. It is very disappointing to me because a lot of the aircraft on their development list were used by the RAF. That made them of particular interest to me.
IMHO it is not. If anything, that would mean that small studios would have to sell their souls to investors to even get off the ground. It works for other developers so i don’t think that this is the case.
This is all a bit speculative, but i feel like where VEAO failed was in aquiring the right talent and managing their projects, not their business model. I was given to understand that much of the teams background was/is in developing for FSX. This may have put them in a false state of complacency where they crudely misjudged the level of engineering and coding skill it takes to develop for DCS, or they simply hired the wrong people for it (it’s hard for non coders/engineers to hire good, professional coders/engineers). I won’t point any fingers, that’s just what the scarce evidence leads me to believe has happened.
A T-45 can require a license… outside of RAF.
Man this thread is depressing.
Sure, I bought the Hawk for 20€ or so and barely flew it at all, but… it sure is sad.
What Franze said! I’ve been flying the X-Plane Hawk (Yeah, there’s a dev, but I forget their names) around the carrier. No hook so you can’t trap but still loads of fun. It would be perfect for carrier training–especially 2-up!
Hey @PaulRix, you are one of the few who owns both. How did they compare?
Just coming from my background on the free mod side of the house. I saw a lot of announcements for FP/ArmA and they either failed to live up to the hype or just went dead. Or it turned out they were using stolen models and just lying their butts off. To be fair, these typically came from people who weren’t well versed at developing anything. But these were also projects that weren’t being done for money, though I’ve no doubt many of them would have taken money were the option on the table.
So my impression is that hype generation creates warm fuzzy feelings which can lead to people and teams not being realistic about what they can do and deliver. That leads me to believe a lot of people do it for the “rock star” treatment rather than actually making a product. Kind of like it used to be for a lot of mods, you’d have someone announce they’re doing XYZ, but then say they need an entire team of artists, coders, scripters, etc. to implement their vision while bringing nothing to the table themselves. Did VEAO fall down this trap? Dunno. But it strikes me that by picking an announcing a bunch of popular aircraft like the Typhoon before the Hawk was done to spec that they were in it for the wrong reasons.
I’ll be fair that if someone starts up a business and gets a license from ED to bring something like a T-34 (the Mentor, not the glorious Soviet tank) to DCS, there’d probably be no end to the bellyaching and whining, even though that’s probably one of the better ways to get started and find out if one can hack it. There’s a lot of aircraft that could serve as good starters for teams that want to give a shot for more complex modules, but once again these aren’t what you’d call popular and thus not hype generators.
Just look at the absolute reaming Leatherneck took for the Christen Eagle as well as ED for the Yak-52. Brutal.
I bet it could still be done, just have to hit up the lawyers. They did get the Bug in, after all.