It's unfortunate that you have to own both modules for this campaign. Looks like it was just a miscommunication:



So if you only own one of the modules with no interest in the other...it would cost you $60 for this campaign since you would have to purchase the other module. Seems pretty steep for a fictitious campaign of this kind. They would probably sell more copies if they freed up the two module requirement.

I know I'm looking forward to Ranger79's "Operation Piercing Fury" for the A10C

A Campaign built from a OEF/OIF Veteran's perspective should be very good I think. Really cannot wait for this one to come out.

Ranger79 has some videos samples up if you want to check it out. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159394

I was thinking the reason ED may put out more Campaigns is to generate some cash flow obviously; would this be to allow ED to grow? (Train up more coders in ED’s own built technology now) to speed up future development after the merging of everything. I guess it would take a considerable time to train up new coders?

From a business stand point, suppose I do understand. Just hope things do go quicker once everything is in place and combined/merged together. Bring on carrier operations, I'm not getting any younger.

Rather, this is a miscommunication

Rather, this is a miscommunication

Kinda reminds me of when "Black Shark 2 - the quest for more money" was released

Hey lets ask people to pay again for something they already have paid for
and put it in the guise of an "Upgrade" , even though we said it was going to be
a modular sim from the start and they already paid once for this product

The misscommunication was that apparently no-one knew they were going to do this until
it was "re-released" that morning??????

Remember the good old days when the fans made campaigns for everyone else, for free? Before all the banning and such. Not liking what this community is turning into.

Yeah I kind of done with DCS until the products I'm owed are released. One half the community doesnt respect the other halves right to complain about the products that they have paid for. The bannings and warnings over on the official shop floor forums just increase the division in the community. It's really not a healthy community. So I bow out of DCS until I receive a newsletter that announces my long awaited purchases are released. I won't hold my breath for that as I'm pretty sure, going on what has gone before, that will take 5 years at the very least.
edit.
The sim just feels like a dead end at the moment. Waiting times, between each small update, are just too long for me to feel like any real development is taking place.

It's a pretty simple solution--make three versions of the campaign. One F-86-only, one MiG-15-only, one both.

Not sure what all the "working" is about.


The Jedi Master

And here we have another new campaign...at least they're keeping ED busy with the installers, support and release at a bare minimum.

More content to test and integrate into the next build when it all goes horribly wrong.

The campaigns are great. Keep em coming.

What installers? Everything is a single build data base, items are merged into builds, and those builds are distributed through the updater.
There are no installers.

Well, 'Ranger79' certainly isn't merging or distributing anything, definition of terms - call it what you want. I'd just rather all resources at ED were concentrating on the core work and not getting sidetracked with all sorts of periphery that's posted about in the 60 pages within this thread.

I'm sure there is enough for ED to be working on regarding incomplete content, multiple branches and then there is the test and integration of all these new campaigns every time a new build is published (or should be). The more content ED allow into the unfinished world, the more there is to test and the more there is to go wrong as DCS World and the engine matures and these problems have already happened in interim releases as proven in the past.

What comes after the 2.5 merge? 35 standalone campaigns of which none that work....and would I be surprised if that happens? No, not in the slightest. Looking forward to that like a hole in the head.

Ouch, Paradaz with the troof smackdown!

More like putting his foot in his mouth. If you don't have a clue how repositories work, you might not be qualified to critisize ED on how much work it is for them to "integrate" a campaign.

Maybe we don't need any clue about "repositories" or how programming works when we've seen in the past how tutorials and campaigns get borked after an "update" or patch??



Just waiting for those that will say "but, but, but.... the people who work on the "core" have nothing to do with those that make campaigns!"

As far as i am aware, ED don't fix 3rd party campaigns, that needs to be done by the developer.

Training missions are something else entirely. Still, the training missions for 3rd party modules need to be maintained by the respective 3rd party. But why bring training missions up? You suddenly object to those too?



So? You not agreeing with that statement for whatever mythological reason is hip for today doesn't make it wrong.

Is there any actual argument coming because so far it's just noise by people who don't have a clue about the process.

Edit:

After rereading this post, i came to the conclusion that it might be a bit harsher than i intended originally. The point i'm trying to make is: There are things where criticising ED is absolutely valid, like how their modules are starting to decline in value (campaigns as DLC instead of at least one packaged with a module) or how they sometimes have knee jerk reactions even to valid criticism. Complaining however that something that costs the repository maintainer 10 seconds to pull into the project and actually generates revenue for ED and a 3rd party takes away resources from development is absolutely nonsensical.

Perfectly demonstrated

You mean your absolute incapability to acknowledge that i am not associated with Eagle Dynamics? Hooray to you, what a tremendous feat.

Why not contribute constructively to the discussion and talk about the topic of this thread instead of ourselves?

Sometimes, the comedy just writes itself!


I feel sorry for the developer then.


Nope, just citing examples where things that used to be working fine no longer work after a patch.


Huh? What are you saying here? I was just trying to predict one of the avenues of argument for these things.



Point 1: how do we know this new campaign didn't pull resources from ED?
Point 2: how do we know this new campaign won't be borked in the neverending patching process?
Point 3: which of the above points are not valid?

Because it was made by Ranger79.



We don't. Updates always have an inherent risk to introduce a regression.


Point 1.

As for point 2, what is the alternative to living with a certain risk of something being broken (at least for a short period)? ED ceasing all feature development, fixing current bugs and then freezing the software forever. Is that something you would want?

So 'Ranger79' fully tests it with an ED future build given that it won't be incorporated with a build that he creates the campaign with.

'Ranger79' prepares the campaign package and tests it in the development build before it goes live.

'Ranger79' manages the campaign upload and file repositories.

'Ranger79' prepares the promotional material and announces the campaign on the ED newsletter.

'Ranger79' sorts out the configuration management of software and documentation.

'Ranger79' maintains the build record and patch notes.

What are ED doing with their resources whilst 'Ranger79' is taking care of all of this?

I doubt that campaigns by 3rd parties are tested against future versions, but that is an assumption.



See above.



Maybe he has it in a repo, but he probably doesn't. Pushing a file tree into a SVN repo is a one-liner in bash.



The trailer was shot by someone named Eight Ball (credits are at the end). I don't know the guy, pretty sure he's not ED staff. Chizh writes a newsletter every week. It probably takes him less time if he can copy paste in a campaign promo paragraph than having to come up with something himself.



You mean the documentation of the campaign? Sure, why not. What else is there to document?



Build record? You are aware that you don't have to compile campaigns, are you? Patch notes, well, i assume he sends ED a text file and they put it in their list. Let me see, reaching for Ctrl+C and then for Ctrl+V, OMG all them ressources!!!!!!



Developing DCS? Just an idea.