More updates by VEAO FB about P-40F.
https://www.facebook.com/veaosimulations/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf
3 Likes
Virtual Horseman fly with VEAO P-40F
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2902724&postcount=436
[quote]Or this one…
https://youtu.be/NOJKinBIZgY
A slightly earlier build. Sounds have been updated since this build and the cockpit has had a second pass.
The Virtual Horsemen had some fun in the Kitty’s that’s for sure [/quote]
VEAO Simulations
14 minuti fa ·
Dear VEAO Customers,
I am writing to you to keep you informed about the Hawk and P-40F development programs for DCS World.
As you know, we have seen a list of problems develop with each iteration and patch of DCS with both of our aircraft, through no fault of our own. From engines suddenly not having any thrust to aircraft not being able to take off from the ground to weapons and smoke stopped working to the latest problems we are encountering with the upcoming DCS 2.1 release.
Our development team scramble around trying to fix these issue which are caused by the core simulator being updated. As you can understand this is sometime soul destroying and very time consuming for us, not to mention things breaking for you when flying the aircraft.
You, our customers, are the driving factor for my team and I to keep working on these issues and to provide you with the best experience possible with the aircraft we are developing and we are committed to doing just that.
Therefore I have taken the decision to delay release of the P-40F and future VEAO modules until a stable DCS 2.5 has been released. I feel that this is the only way forward and it is not a decision I have thought about lightly.
While we understand that this news is disappointing to many of you; to demonstrate our commitment to those who have and continue to support us, we are willing to offer a full refund to those customers who purchased the P-40F through the VEAO Store
Please go to this page and fill in the required fields on the form to request a refund:
http://veaosimulations.co.uk/dcs-p-40f-refund-request/
The Activation code that you have been provided with already will still be valid for P-40F when it is released for DCS 2.5. In addition we will provide you with a pre-release version closer to the time of release for you to enjoy.
For Hawk we are still committed to developing the product to its full potential and are working through the bugs presented to us with each DCS patch. This will continue to happen through versions 1.5.6, 2.1 and beyond to the merged stable 2.5 version.
We understand your frustration with our products and no one is committed to solving the issues more than us.
We have taken the decision to concentrate our focus on the development of P-40F and Spitfire along with the updates and changes to Hawk and as such we will not be releasing development updates for unreleased products until they are in the hands of ED and release is imminent. For released products we will of course update you as soon as new features and updates are completed.
Thank you for your continued support and patience.
Chris Ellis
Director
I understand that VEAO has had it challenges with ED’s develoment cycle and their lack of communication but, If they think that ED wont continue to update DCS in the same way they have post 2.5 they are insane. 1.5 has been a relatively stable platform for the last few years and VEAO has still struggled to keep up. I wish these guys the best but I cant imagine that this is helping build any consumer confidence.
1 Like
Don’t worry, we are just around the corner from seeing a Supersonic Donkey Cart pulled by Flying Pigs. Shortly after that we will see the P-40. I don’t get excited about VEAO products anymore. I have seen soooo many screenshots and skins by VEAO. Its just a tease. I wish them luck as a developer. Back to wait and see mode…
Not quite, as far as I understand it, atleast. It has been nowhere near as stable as 1.2 has been for years. I do not think VEAO thinks DCS is going to remain static, forever, after 2.5 is deployed, but the development of DCS will likely be a lot less turbulent after that.
I think the most important reason the P-40F has been delayed for so long is that it was initally ment to be released in a state similair to how the Hawk was when that was released. But after the community outlash about that module, I think they have redecided that they won’t release it until it is in a state better than the Hawk ever was.
I honestly don’t even think VEAO is doing that bad of a job. We waited a very long time on the Hawk PFM, but ultimatly they did deliver. Sure, there are quite some issues with it, like the toppling ADI’s, the damage model and the phantom bombs but that hasn’t really stopped me from enjoying the T1.A.
Their statements may look like they’re putting the blame on ED but honestly all they’re stating is that they’re waiting on new tech before fixing things. I can’t even blame them. The Hawk had been band-aided so often in the past I’m sure it wasn’t even funny anymore, even for them.
This is what @SkateZilla had to say about the situation
Guys, Please do not over-read/assume things outside of what has been stated by PMan/Ells.
2.5 Will likely be the pen-ultimate release for a while,
All Maps Modules (Caucasus 2/HD/Remaster/Reboot, NTTR, Normandy +),
All Core Sim Features (UI Updates, PBR, Deferred Lighting, Etc etc etc.).
after 2.5 is released and moved to stable,
The rash of big under the hood and core code changes will prolly slow down significantly once PBR, Deferred and underlying features currently in the Normandy Alpha are all integrated into Release/OpenBeta Branches.
1.5 to 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.5 is a very complex road. T3 Terrain Engine to T4, to PBR/Deferred/UI/WWII Assets and Scripts, to Caucasus 2.0, to new Damage model sometime, to new Flight Model Stuff , etc etc etc.
it’s a lot to keep up with sometimes.
1 Like
Nice to have the refund option.
1 Like
from @VEAO_Ells
“Yes in short, we rely on more outputs from dcs then other developers do, so when something changes for a dcs update it can throw things out of whack, it’s something we are battling but it’s a fundamental change to approach, it’s getting better but not quite there yet.
Pman”
When we coded the Hawk we were one of the first 3rd party developers to be in contract with TFC and the SDK was in its infancy.
Hawk was coded back then for what existed within DCS at that time.
DCS has evolved massively form 1.2.16 to 1.5 to 2.0 and now upcoming 2.1
A lot of code was re-written when we released the EFM.
However; we have to rely on DCS passing the module certain information; mostly atmospheric but there are a few other core systems that DCS communicates back and forward with the module.
I cannot comment on how other 3rd party developers make their aircraft talk to DCS and vice versa and to what level of detail.
Now with our modules so far we have relied on DCS heavily to pass that information across to the module and back again.
Let’s say DCS uses parameter X and we are looking for a value of X but suddenly that value is no longer X but Y then some co-dependencies of our systems will fall over and could cause cascading faults, which we have to try and bug hunt.
An example of this is the HSI spinning on start-up in Hawk. One version it was absolutely fine and the next patch it started spinning wildly for no reason on power-up.
It took us a while to figure out that there had actually been a power trip caused by the sim and this is why the HSI spins when the DC bus goes live.
Why does it power trip? Well because Hawk has been coded to schematic level and that’s what the real HSI does when a power trip happens.
Why is the sim telling it there is a power trip? We have no idea, still today.
So the easiest answer to that is to remove the power trip function.
Well we shouldn’t have to, that’s how the real aircraft works but let’s suppose that we want to remove it.
There are a ton of dependencies within the AHRS system; navigation, course, heading bug, ILS, VORTAC, Etc. and the code is complicated enough that if we remove the power-trip functionality it could mess up something else entirely so it’s a lengthy process to disect.
We’re not saying the code is incompatible, we are saying we are experiencing problems that we don’t fully understand as to why DCS causes them.
No it shouldn’t be like that but the fact of the matter is that it is.
Another example is with P-40 happening right now. We had a fully flyable aircraft as you’ve seen from Pete and my videos. I could even live stream it right now with the version I have.
The guys did an SDK update last week and now they have no thrust at all.
The throttle moves in animation and the control indicator shows the throttle input moving, but again no thrust.
We’ve not changed anything. So now the guys are going through each parameter DCS is passing to us to see what’s changed and what is causing no thrust.
We can’t allow that to happen when it gets in your hands. So we have to code less dependencies on DCS passing the parameters to us.
And therein lies the problem; we code around this for 1.5.6 but what does 2.0 and 2.1 do. Oh look it’s fine in one of those versions, but why…
The decision to continue to develop but not release until 2.5 means we are not trying to bug hunt for 4 different versions of DCS but 1 or 2 (release and development) which means these sorts of problems shouldn’t crop up and cause similar issues to that Hawk has been having over the years.
1 Like
Sad …
Its sad to put so much time into something and somehow with a very unstable version that change on weekly basis with multiple bugs with each update. Some of 3rd party devs counter those bugs and tweak it and i and the community i assume appreciate it a lot. I dont have anything against or for VEAO but i hope they will gather energy for 2.5 stable release and they will over come the issues.
Good Luck VEAO ! will be waiting for you in v 2.5
1 Like
VEAOs reaction is totally understandable to me.
What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to develop add ons for a sim still in development, and then complain that the sim is…being developed…
3 Likes
Well, as a person much wiser than me once said “you don’t dig a well after you’re gone thirsty”.
DCS World is trying to do something really ambitious - create a healthy ecosystem of third party modules while at the same time further develop the base technology forwards; all within the constraints of budgets and timescales. I think it is positive thing VEAO are offering the P-40 refunds if people want that, but I think most of us just want them to do well in the end. It must be tough.
3 Likes
Yeah, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again - I have plenty of stuff to do and learn in DCS World with all the content out there. So while I’d love to have had a completed Hawk and C-101 years ago, it isn’t like I’m on the edge of my seat wringing my hands because they haven’t been completed. I have other stuff to hold me over…and I’ll revel in those modules when they do reach a level of completion that VEAO is satisfied with.
1 Like
Bummer,But I certainly understand the frustration VEAO feels,With coding man hours costing $$$$ with the product still not able to enter the market because the core of the sim is constantly being changed. I can see why maybe this could of been a factor for Polychop and LNS having dissolved their partnerships.
1 Like
I applaud them for communicating exactly where they are at, what they are thinking, and why they are going about it the way they are. Even in the face of it not being positive news. Takes guts.
5 Likes
My question is:
Why all other devs did not have all those troubles?
Who says they don’t…?
Updating DCS has broken some feature or another of almost every module, I believe.
It’s the nature of the beast. I believe some developers realized this from the get go, and prepared for it. Others didn’t.
I do understand that this must be costly, and frustrating, for a small developer.
It was explained by Pman.
This begs the question… How do they know how much output dependencies other devs use?
1 Like