DCS: VEAO Hawk EFM & Damage Model

EDITED: Thread disclaimer. 29/04/16 9:32AM AEST

Gents,

I have taken it upon myself, without any inside our outside influence from today forward to add this disclaimer to my first post in this thread after discussions held with Chris Ellis, Director of VEAO and putting forward my thoughts and feelings regarding the EFM and the Hawk module as a whole, privately with him.

My wish is that my posts and the members who have posted in this thread, both for and against my views written herein to stay in this thread with out being edited, moderated, deleted and the like. My views expressed in this thread were at time of writing, a blunt honest incite into the release of the EFM module presented to the 'customers of VEAO' like myself who held a high standard of what the module 'should' have been when the EFM was released. At the time of writing this review, I wrote it as honest and truthfully with the knowledge and evidence gathered through sources and quotes collected through public sources, etc which was presented to me up to this point when I made my first assessment of the hawk module EFM presented to the community.

In hindsight of what I have written in this thread leading up to the views expressed by Chris Ellis, Director of VEAO, my opinion was based entirely on my personal view supported by collective direct quotes,screen shots and\or otherwise from 2012 leading up to the release of the EFM 8 days ago on the 21st of April 2016 AEST. Before I spoke to Chris privately, my opinion and my posts up to that point still stand. At the time of writing my review, my thoughts and beliefs were solely my personal opinion and to this day I stand by them up.

It would be completely biased of me to continue my blunt, honest and hard line' approach and to carry on in this way my review of the EFM. Now knowing I having a clearer understanding of the hawk module presented by Chris Ellis and VEAO. The module as mentioned numerous times, is still in Beta and not the final product presented. I have expressed my views directly to Chris and accept his version and reasons the hawk module is in it's current Beta state and not at the standard I 'expected' it to be at time of the EFM release.

EDIT-2: disregard previous disclaimer as new information has come to light 19-08-17 which proves consumers will not see a completed module within the 6 months as promised to consumers such as myself by VEAO back in April of 2016.

EDIT-3: April 24th (tomorrow being ANZAC day) 2018, everything I have said in this thread is now 'back on the table' so to speak. The module is in a sad state of affairs, the licensing system of 3rd party developer's is still in a sad state of affairs. This thread is going to be kept 'alive' until the consumer get's what they paid for.

EDIT - 4 20-08-18 VEAO have given up on DCS, for the RISE AND FALL OF VEAO Skip to page 32




Feel free to post your findings with the EFM, damage model or multiple CTD issues

Since it is a low quality aircraft....The video has been recorded at the lowest possible quality keeping inline with the developers behind the aircraft

Harrr harrr harrrrrr! That's some mighty British steel and aluminium. Forged by old, left-wing, mighty workers not thwarted by Margaret Thatcher's evil doings.

On s serious note, I don't own the module, so I'm not much bothered by it (monitoring VEAO's situation, however, because I'm VERY interested in their warbird projects). What I can see here doesn't differ much from generally funky damage modelling in DCS planes (perfect for LOLz vids like this one). How does it work in combat, because that's what really matters? Especially against small caliber fire?

I didn't know that the damage model was going to be part of this update. Have you managed to take off? I've read good things on the ED forums once people get into the air.

you will only read good things on the ED forums.....the blunt honest opinion comments have been removed

I'm still in the process of piecing together another video of it in the air....the problem is every time I feel committed enough to start filming, the hawk CTD's time and again.

On a short note. It's damn impossible to break this bird in the air or on the ground, the wings don't snap off (believe me I have tried), the way the pixels (pilot) blacks out and comes to is a joke. The cockpit sounds change every time I can get past the CTD, after take off it sounds like a P-51 keeps buzzing the aircraft every 20 or so seconds. External sounds, the jet doesn't change engine pitch at any distance or with different throttle settings. Get it up to speed 90 degree left or right bank angle and pull the stick back and hold it in an endless turn.....does the plane eventually stall or lose controlled flight? no, I've tried only a few times due to CTD issues. The list goes on but I did say I'd keep it short.

Righto my fellow Australians and all those disappointed customers of VEAO around the world.,

Quick update on the EFM released yesterday, This post will be regarding the amazing sound quality experienced by the upset and angry clients of VEAO and the responses by none other than "up the tree at VEAO"

I'll let the quotes do the talking regarding the sound issues experienced with the release of VEAO's Hawk EFM module. Personally, the issues could have been solved had the testers actually tested the module in the Public branch and not the developer branch. Now when I say public branch, it means the branch that is released to the 'Official' testers before it is released to the public. However, I have taken on the role as an unofficial tester, an off the books, unpaid tester to carry out what VEAO's paid testers should have picked up. No need to thank me gents, I'm doing my part for the sim community. Who knows, I may even get my review of the EFM published over at mudspike.

So without further ado....







(when exactly was the last time you checked? Alpha release back in 2013?)







indeed the sounds aren't 'mixing quite right' doesn't take a genius to work that out. I figured that out the moment I got past multiple CTD's yesterday and made my damage model video



Wait for it....since old mate tree hugger is being bombarded with multiple complaints, this is how he handles the situation....



yep, you guessed it, for those who may have missed it



and again just in case it didn't sink in...



I've saved the best quote till last....



So the tree hugger has no idea why his own aircraft is bugged??



I'll tell you WTF??!!, you don't test your own aircraft, hence

nor do you follow up the list of bugs your paid testers should be testing in the public release branches. I could go on but this update is regarding sounds.

like this post from yesterday, which mind you was posted 9 hours before the sound complaints thread came to life



and "up the tree at VEAO's" response several minutes after the complaint



yet it took 9 hours and numerous complaints before someone at VEAO actually looked into the situation.

3 years of development.....SERIOUSLY 3 YEARS????? makes me question....



Source:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165239

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165261

With the MiG-21 grounded and the above (thank you Winfield, this is reaching for comedy gold) I'm getting very very nervous about the upcoming release of AJS Viggen - I'm sure I cannot in any way describe to a non-Swede how much a DCS Viggen means to a Swede having so many years been waiting for a SAAB in the flight sim world.

I am no more dead sure I will be a customer.

Just think about the Typhoon these clowns intend to develop. Oh I can't wait for the MFD function issues their customers will experience on not one but 3 MFD screens in the typhoon.
The HUD in the hawk doesn't even work. i'll re-phrase that because it's not entirely correct. It works, then it doesn't work, it works, and now it doesn't work.

3 years in development and 'the tree hugger' has no idea what his company is doing. If he was the head at Walmart he would of been sacked years ago. Couldn't even run a mcdonalds franchise profitably.

Since he loves Nando's, if he ran a 'Nando's, the only people who would eat there would be his sidekick Pman and himself, no doubt in my mind the other devs would be trying to distance themselves from 'tree hugger at VEAO's' Nando's in fear of food poisoning.

Imagine the food.....place your order then 3 years later it's still not ready. 3 years waiting for an empty plate and no food. The entire project needs to be scrapped and the aircraft moved to the 'mods' section.

Just look at his responses to the people's questions, "nando's nando's nando's" on the odd occasion that he takes a question seriously, you get



Here is rule number 1 when working for VEAO. Let the community post the fix to the problem as VEAO have better things to do (like eat nando's). Here is a fine example of that rule being put into practice....

Bare in mind, rather than issue an official notification to fix the CTD issues, VEAO sit back and let someone who is not a member of VEAO nor on the books and paid by either ED or VEAO, let alone have an 'official title' like "ED Tester", "Moderator" "3rd Paty Dev" and the like write up a post regarding the fix to the problem. What do actually pay their devs to do?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165297



Once the community member has written up the fix (unpaid and off the books of course, basically it would have cost too much to have a dev or someone on the payrole do it) VEAO then take the time to contribute to the fix.



Notice it was sent using Tapatalk on the company phone.....this means "We are at nando's and do not have the time to write a step by step fix"

I know your waiting out for my take on the flight model....stay tuned, it's coming.....like the next hawk patch

My gods, Winfield... You're a [Text deleted].


Do not call other members names. Address the message content, not the author's characteristics.

you just want another green rep square...

What you may not know is that this fix came from Pete (Pman) himself, I merely transcribed it since I tested it with him. So credit effectively goes to him.

It's like an episode of Fawlty Towers.

Yes, Basil used to draw incorrect conclusions based upon partial or assumed knowledge and made himself look silly in most episodes.

Thank you Charlie, i'll redact the comment in my post.

Fawlty towers is like sitting though a decade of watching the golden girls compared to the content written in this thread.

Days of our lives is more on par with the seriousness of Fawlty towers in comparison. I agree with your comparison of Basil though, Basil and "tree hugger at VEAO" share much of the same mentality and thought processes.

Would you both like me to post up some gathered transcripts written for Basil in Fawlty Towers with evidence supporting my claim with a few more collective quotes from "tree lover at VEAO"? I am more than happy to contribute so you can see these 2 suffer the same drone effect? Basil in Fawlty Towers and "tree lover at VEAO" or are you both content to research these for yourself?

3 years and this is what the Hawk is? Yeah no, Basil is the dev here, no one else.

As a Brit I was looking forward to the Hawk, the latest fiasco just continues to erode away at the little hope that is left.

I'm frankly scared to start it up.

Thought better of it.

naw you angry you missed out on a green rep square?

never fear, plenty to go round

Green Rep Square

Naw

you know their losing the battle when they get personal

indeed you did....pity you were to slow on the edit button

I don't have the heart to give you a red rep square.....see how generous I am?

Let me show you what will happen if you attempt to start it up....trust me, just uninstall it and sell the key (if you can find a buyer)

Why is the MiG-21 grounded?

Not sure, I just checked the Bug Tracker and wasn't seeing anything specific that's a block.

Quite a few people are having trouble with the Afterburner not engaging, this is believed to be a problem with the game taking Keyboard inputs.

Saphir Radar is apparently having trouble operating to find and lock aircraft.

And there's a general post today on the ED Forums saying that it doesn't seem to work in 2.0.2, but there's no details and I haven't seen any official notice of it, though It wouldn't surprise me.

EDIT: Whoops, totally missed the 2.0.2 changelog, MiG-21 is apparently nonfunctional according to that.

To be honest I haven't been following DCS development that closely as I've been too busy in BMS.

Not having tried it, my first guess would be the ongoing DRM problems the 21 has had. However, there could just be such a large number of serious bugs they feel it easier to tell people not to bother to use it in 2 and stick to 1.5 pending the next patch.




The Jedi Master

..or, you know, it's just a simple crash on load due to the cutting edge branch 2.0.X is.

oh lucky us it's just a simple crash, imagine if it was an advanced crash.
The result would probably be totally different.

Sorry to take the time to dispel strange conspiracy theories.

Also sorry that your Alpha testing version is not perfect and without flaws.

No worries Cobra.
We see different things.
You see a minor issue with your module, I see a total desync between the core product owner, ED, and their 3rd party contractors.
The repetitive issues with the 21, be it activations or other issues, will of course add to the decision making of bying a future module - you do understand that? What you see from the inside is most probably way different than what we customers see.
We on the outside can only decide from what we see.

I really do make it a point not to accept critiscism when the product in question is an alpha version and the customer has a perfectly functioning alternate version to fly in. (that is, unless it's constructive)

I'm really not sure where the desync is supposed to lie either. Everyone, from top to bottom was aware that the MiG-21 was crashing in this particular revision. Considering, again, that the product in question is an alpha, such issues are not (and should not) be considered blockers.

Certainly- I now better understand why some companies are very reluctant to host open, public testversions.

oh, ok.

Is four years considered a long time for a product to remain in Alpha? Is it then going to be in Beta for another 4 years? Just wondering if 8 years will be the tipping point where complaints/criticism will be considered valid.

The whole market shift to paying for unfinished software has not done this industry any favors IMO.

At the risk of being given a "dreaded green box", Cobra is rather clearly referring to the MiG-21 in DCS 2.0, as 2.0 is still in alpha, and not DCS 1.5.

Since these mig-21 lovers who are trying so hard to derail the hawk efm thread in support of VEAO..... fear not my fellow hawk lovers and haters, I am already in talks with my producer regarding script aggreements and NDA aggreements for my next thread. LN seem to be left out of blunt honest opinions, merely due to the tomcat project that quite a few supporters don't want to see canned. However, brace yourself gents change is on the horizon.

LN just haven't pissed me off enough to deserve such awesome reviews and personal views on their aircraft, I am more than happy to review your aircraft Cobra as your feeling left out. So I have ordered a search and rescue crew complete with sniffer dogs to find it burried under the mountains of dust in my virtual hanger. Once you sort out the FAA drama, give me a shout and ill take it up and give you the review your future fans are dying to hear.

I guess since the Hawk and Mig-21 are both in Beta but have versions residing in an Alpha branch...they can be called Balphas? The same point applies...with modules remaining in an unfinished state for years even though they have been sold to the public...you can shrug off valid criticism and any responsibility citing it's "Alpha/Beta" state.

Yeah I feel uncertain as well about what was called Alpha. The latest DCS version, or the Hawk?


Still loving the Fishbed though, best DCS module there is!

.....no those are reserved for members making personal attacks.

EDIT: The quote reply didn't work, this is in regards to Force10's reply to me.

That's uncalled for and you know it.

DCS 1.5 is the current stable version of DCS that we should judge module integrity on. DCS 2.0 is a developer alpha program. It's in constant flux, and it breaks things left right and center whenever an update is put out. Fixes in 1.5 do not always work in 2.0 and vise verse. If you want to judge the MiG, then do so where it's been released to Beta, 1.5. Are there problems with the module? Of course. Has there been a huge issue with Activations, yes. There are plenty of areas to go after LN for mistakes and delays, but judging the product based on its showing in 2.0, which is unstable at the best of times, is unfair to say the least. It would be like comparing a release in Prepar3d and FSX, similar games, but not the same. You wouldn't go around saying RAZBAM is terrible if it released a Mirage that worked perfectly in FSX, but suffered problem in Prepar3d.

I would also like to point out, the list of completed modules is 4 aircraft long. The A-10C, the Blackshark, the F-86 and the MiG-15Bis. Notice anything similar about these modules? They're all BST and ED modules. ED, which has free access to the code, and hasn't released a module in years, and BST, which has a special close relationship to ED given it's made of former devs and has a special agreement. Every other third party is in beta, hell even BST's 2 helicopters, which have been in development for longer than the other Beta modules are still incomplete, with features missing.

If I'm misinterpreting what you're saying Force, my apologies, but I just wanted to make my position a bit clearer

....and here gents is another fine example of a satisfied VEAO customer brainwashed into drawing comparisons between FSX, 1.5, 2.02 Razbam, LN, DCS and the like still trying to prove to himself his money was wisely spent on the purchase of the HAWK

The HUD and Doppler radar still don't get repaired on the Black Shark. This has been the case since its release, so it's hardly finished in any other sense than that ED has dropped support for it.

Hhhmm. I don't think ED know what their own definition of early access/alpha/beta is. Go and take a look at the F86 sub-forum.......Nate and Skatezilla offer completely different interpretations of what 'released' is. You're claiming the F86 is complete yet it's still full of glaring bugs with a constant flow of fixes. I suppose if enough people attempt to justify that certain modules are complete/incomplete/released/supported/unsupported then ED are covering all their bases even though the module is obviously nowhere near finished.

Like I've said before, I was playing Blackshark in 2008 on the Caucasus map, fast forward to 2016 and I can now play Blackshark with glaring bugs on an unfinished Caucasus map alongside a job lot of unfinished modules that have been in the same sorry state for a number of years. There is an option to play on the Nevada map without missions and without a chunk of content and functionality that we were supposed to see about 4 years ago. ED are clearly in reverse.

At what point does 'not fit for purpose' become valid? I'd rather ED didn't answer that question either, I'm sure they have a whole range of answers that have the same meaning as 'never'. Perhaps I'll get my great grand-kids to let me know when ED pull their finger out and actually finish something!

Winfield, please don't lump me in with the coolaid drinkers who think the Hawk is god's gift to simming. You'll find my personal distaste for the way they run their company and the quality of product they've shoveled out to be only slightly less vitriolic than your own. I don't own the module, nor do I intend to purchase any other aircraft that they "produce".

I have however purchased the MiG-21Bis, and in that you have me guilty as charged, and while there is certainly valid criticism to be given, I would argue that of the third party DCS modules, there is none finer. Now if you mean to say that All DCS modules are awful aside from something like the A-10, then that's fine since it merely relates to your higher standards, given the filthy pleb that I am. But to place the MiG-21 on the same level as VEAO is disingenuous and you know it.

Paradaz: I'm not claiming the F-86 is complete, BST is. The list I provided is just the official one and doesn't represent any personal feelings on my part. But I would also like to point out, that the vast majority of complaints you wrote in your second and third paragraph are issues with ED, and not LN, who is the one I'm putting forth my opinion on.

????

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2548018&postcount=4

My apologies for missing the WWII birds, I had been under the impression they were still in early access.

AS for Bugs, There's always going to be bugs, some are introduced by patches, others are introduced via outside software (Virus Protection, Harddisk Tooks, DirectX Injectors, 3rd Party / Un-official Mods, User Error, etc).

Are you guys Telling me there's no Bugs in FSX, P3d, Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows 10??
All Of Those are Considered "RELEASED"

Simple:
Released: Feature Complete (All Planned Features Included)
Early Access: Planned Features in Development.

Official DCS Modules will Always Be Supported, so Bugs will be checked, reported and resolved.

If you Guys Nit Picked FSX/P3D or BMS half as hard as you do DCS, You'll find several glaring bugs/issues w/ that software as well.

No Large Software Suite is Perfect, No Support System is Perfect, No Forum is Perfect, No Society is Perfect.

To Sit and Claim there have Not been Software Advances, Releases, Content, Etc Published by Eagle Dynamics is mis-guided and unfounded, You're being blinded by your Hatred and disgust from your personal experiences, which in every company Differe Greatly depending on the person. (ie, I Know people that Swear Up and Down EA has the Best Support team ever, and well we know people that swear EA has the worst team ever, and heard stories from both sides).

Did EDGE Take Longer than Expected to Be available to Consumers? Very Likely.
Coding an Entirely New Graphics Engine From Scratch is NOT a 8-16 Months of a Code Copy/Paste Development Cycle.
DirectX 9 -> DirectX 11 is a Significant Change in Coding Style and Shader Model, it's not a Take your Source Code and Paste into a Converter and Re-Compile w/ DirectX 11 API.

E.D. Did not license a Engine (ie Unreal, FrostBite, etc), which is why EA and Other companies can pump out Games in 10 month cycles.


You guys are Passionate, Great, we need more people like that, but your hatred and rage is mis-guided, mis-informed and over-zealous.

@ Tirak

No problems on my part.........I'm just highlighting the blur that ED have created by using these pre-release terms but not actually defining their interpretation to anyone - most likely intentional as I thinking they find it easy to mask the true state of all their unfinished content.

@Skatezilla

I don't think anyone has ever mentioned there hasn't been any advances however ED often take 1 step forwards and 5 backwards. Are you really trying to make excuses for the incompetency shown by ED with everything they have ever done been delayed by huge margins? As for Edge been late....that you're even questioning that is late makes you quite the comedian. A look at some posts from 2 years ago will give you a bigger laugh followed by the fiasco that followed last year ultimately ending with the split Dev branches - you're gonna tell us it was all part of the plan they rustled up on the back of a fag packet next.

No-one expects anything to be perfect, yes other companies release software with bugs that need patching/fixing .....however people do expect ED at the very least to learn from all their previous mistakes and start hitting dates in the same centenary that they actually start something. They blatantly stumble from one mess-up to the next without taking anything on board and this is the big difference between them and other companies. I'm embarrassed on their behalf, it really is nothing short of an absolute shambles.

TBH, That's the nature of software development, you fix one Problem, and 3 or 4 introduce themselves as a result of the change made to the code to fix the original, and even then, those 3 or 4 problems wont surface on the hardware profiles, and it takes wide spread distribution before users w/ unique hardware and software profiles start to find the new problems.


ie, Using an Example from Xbox on Windows 10/UWA Testing, we are still finding major bugs, and reporting them and the issue is not even Microsoft's problem to fix, they have to wait for an outside source of the problem to address the problem on their end, it's the Drivers used by specific devices causing the problems because some companies take performance shortcuts in compiling their drivers;
Specifically AMD, nVidia, ASMedia and about 3 dozen USB 3.0 Chip companies.

I'm sure you guys can relate that to DCS, as there are issues AMD Users see that nVidia users dont, and vise versa.


The Split branches (1.5/2.0 I Assume are the ones you referring too), have nothing to do with EDGE, Both Branches Run EDGE.

AS for "Missing Dates", no Direct Release Dates for ED Items have been stated in a while, just broad (Q1, Q2, etc etc), unless you're speaking of the "We expect it to be released this Friday" announcements only for it to slip to Monday or mid-week next week, those cant be helped, stuff comes up, it's not like when they announce a specific day that they are already sitting on the intended build waiting for that day to come, it's a best case scenario hence the "we hope/we aim/our goal" comments in those announcements.

Alot of People Assume EDGE was announced in Early 2011, it was not, EDGE was not Announced w/ A-10C Beta either, and the NTTR Currently in 2.0 Alpha is not the same NTTR that came w/ A-10C Beta.

I've given a detailed breakdown of the timeline before, multiple times here, only for it to be dismissed within seconds of my posting it, further supporting the "if it doesn't support my views on ED I don't want to hear it" mentality.

Development Renders from an External Early Version of EDGE were posted LATE 2011, After The Decision that the DX9 Engine would Not be Able to Handle the Object Count, Dont mistake those renders for a Fully functional engine, it was an external program running basic rendering (3d mesh, Light source, shadow). This is not even mentioning the fact that the Licensed Team behind the NTTR in the A-10C Beta Dissolved, and ED Literally started it over again from Scratch Retaining No I.P. to develop Alongside the New GFX Engine and fullfill the Promise to A-10C PrePuchase Customers.

Graphics engines are developed Externally from a Game or Simulation, and then integrated, whether or not a Professional Simulator Company Came along and purchased a license to use said engine while it was in development and using it for themselves is another story and not uncommon, there's a history of Major Companies Licensing out their unfinished engines to development companies who may or may not complete the engine to their own specs quicker than the company that leased it.
(ie a Non DCS Example: the USAF Licensed the Engine from ThirdWire, and Integrated Items for Modern combat that Thirdwire didnt even have planned and still never integrated into their own base code,
Microsoft ESP (Pro Version of FSX, is Licensed by at least 2 Dozen Private Simulator Companies and Manufacturers, Why do you think Boeing Bought the IP, because it was Dead in the water, and they wanted to use the Engine for their own Simulators).

However these Completed Engines are specialized to a specific group of hardware, and usually coded a lot quicker, and would have issues running on the millions/billions of different desktop hardware profiles in the world today.

So the Comments regarding say AviaTS, the Base Graphics Engine is Obviously the same as EDGE, however it was very likely programmed and compiled by AviaTS to run on a Specific Hardware profile, and likely not any profile of hardware used in anyone's Residential Home.

If ED only had to develop a Hardware Pool of 2-4 Types of CPU's, a Specific GPU and Specific hardware set of controls, then Im Sure they would have been able to pump out their Completed Version of EDGE Prior to late 2015, that's not the Case, the Current Market offers well over 6 dozen types of active production GPU's, spanning at least 8 Architectures and about 200 Performance Profiles.

2012->2015 w/ a Few Breaks in Development (Which were announced in the update threads in the "official updates" section a few times.
3-3.5 Maybe 4+Years for a new rendering engine from scratch from a Small/Med Size Genre Specific Studio is actually a decent Development cycle, if you remove the "development on hold" times , it's less than 3 years.


Another Example:
Prepared3D v1.0 Released November 2010 based off the last version of Microsoft ESP SDK which had Partial DX11 Coded Items included Already.
Prepared3D v2.0 Released November 2013 w/ DirectX 11 Graphics Engine.
And Lockheed is a Significantly Larger Studio, and they did Not have to Model Combat Essential Systems or Weapons.

You See development cycle a pattern Here?,

I'm not coming from a position of hatred or rage Skate...just frustration.

It's seems that this method of how ED/3rd parties are releasing content is flawed...and there is no end in sight. You have modules being released in varying states of early access/Alpha/Beta that are relying on a game engine that is also in a perpetual state of early access/Alpha/Beta. It's a constant merry-go-round of unfinished work revolving around an unfinished engine that leads to something always being broken.


That's just my opinion of course.

sorry, took a minute, but I significantly edited my post w/ some clarifications/details.

You make valid generic points in your examples Skate.......however the likes of VEAO having a non-functional module as a DCS example isn't hardware related it's quite simply incompetence because it should easily have been captured during testing.

The mere fact that internal builds don't even have the same integration testing or alignment with the release builds isn't even funny....it's yet another example of being unprofessional. Basic mistakes that should never even see the light of day.

You have even described previous mistakes after release as 'simple compiler issues'......if they really are simple then we shouldn't be seeing them in the first place. I'm probably not the only one bored and fed up of these pathetic excuses. Remember what I said about learning from mistakes?......obviously not in ED or 3rd party vocabularies.

All This may be true. So then where does it leave us? Stop developing the core sim so 3rd party devs no longer have a moving target? close out 3rd party devs until the sim is "complete"? Is there a solution to this that won't frustrate people but still makes business sense?

I cannot comment on 3rd parties, or their development.

However regarding "compiler issues", I can give a example that occurred withing the last 24 hours.

I spent 4 hours last night and today re-coding my Updater Utility, which is less than 2000 Lines of Code, because a Visual Studio 2015 HotFix/Update Pushed out by Microsoft in the last batch of updates decided to modify my code without any prompts, and actually breaking some functions in the SDK that worked fine prior to the update, and when I asked MS about it, I was told "those functions are no longer available, use these", with a smidge of an example piece of code that offered no link to the actual code I was using previously that worked 100% fine, but was removed for undisclosed reason.

These Things happen, I've dealt with them first hand.

Frustration building over the state of the Hawk and C101, sure, I can see it, ED can See it, VEAO, AvioDEV, and everyone involved with DCS Can See it,
No one wants to get the Hawk EFM and Systems Done more than VEAO, They've had their share of setbacks as well.

Other 3rd Party Developers have as well, the whole situation between Beczl and Now formed Leatherneck Sims and the Looooong awaited MiG-21Bis.
RAZBam Encountered some issues at first, but have experience in Code Development, Customer Service and Public Relations as they have been developing products for FSX for a significant amount of time, it's nothing new to them Customer Service and Public Relations wise, simply a new API and Development Language, which they have demonstrated significant development curve on.

I'm not gonna sit here and post these stupendously long explanations on everything, as it would honestly and rightfully so be seen as me trying to persuade you not to be mad or frustrated, which I do not have the right to do so.

As for Customer "Moderation" on the other Forum, There's rules, those rules exist for a reason, while there's no wiggle room for any form of negative ranting, there is room for Constructive Product Feedback, It's a Business Forum, As Such, Behavior and Feedback is to be done professionaly or in a manner that's mature

This is A Community Forum, Outside General Behavioral guidelines, you are free to do as you wish.

Would you goto a official meeting place of a company you buy products from and just have a temper explosion of emotion in the middle of their lobby, or would you wait until you same them at a public undisclosed random place to give them a piece of your mind in a casual environment/scenario?

I'll tell you, I would NOT goto any of my Suppliers' Office Lobbies or Forums and Publicly Let out an Emotional Bomb over Products I buy from them for use personally or in my company, I'll just goto the casual environment (chatroom, bar, tech bar, etc) and find someone else with a similar issue and discuss it with them privately and in a unprofessional capacity, and possibly find comfort in knowing I was not the only one, or a fix for the problem or alternative product to use).


Like I Said, not gonna sit here and participate aggressively in this discussion, but decided to offer a alternate perspective for you to consider, just a lil one..

Given all that you've said Skate, I can see where there's a disconnect. It's pretty clear you've been involved in many areas of software development for awhile...so much so, that you probably can't Identify what it's like to be just a regular ole' customer that's paid for something that's not working properly. Even if you say you can.

The points you laid out are good insight...but these are things that shouldn't be necessary for a paying customer to understand. The level of patience required to be a DCS customer seems to be growing larger as development continues instead of shorter as the product matures.

Q.E.D



(this is a late metallic surface specular test, tomorrow I'll do a Beta with the normal map alpha and specular alpha , aiming for final release on late Saturday and a SP1 on Sunday if needed if I pork the installer )

A very big good afternoon to SimHQ's and ED's fine VEAO EFM Lover's and hater's.
After a few more tests and comparisons, this slapped together, low budget presentation will be on the 5+ years worth (the hawk lover's guessed it...more evidence supporting this 5+year development claim) of texture development regarding this awesome piece of flight sim software. Now due to the team of researches I gathered together (just myself), a think tank of quality control if I may, that is providing you all with the best flight sim experience and entertainment that can be mustered.

Side note: During the research and development phase, I have uncovered the exact moment in time when the cracks first began to appear between the developer VEAO and Tango (no offence Tango)

If there is a story to be told in the flight sim texture world gents.....this is it, a back to roots 2012 texture announcement and comparison to what was released on the 20th April 2016 Australian EST.

With out further Ado....


06-23-2012, 09:07 PM
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1489471&postcount=6








Then the tree termite posts a photo of this from the real aircraft to support his bogus claim



followed by....



I can't tell the difference between this early build and what we have now...



Hold onto your hats gents, brace yourself against something firm because this next post knocked me off my chair.



How is that military contract deal working out for you now? That is what later became their calling card when asked why VEAO were building the hawk. At first it was "we love the hawk" then it was "military contracts" now it's "I wish we didn't"

Just in case you did not read that right.....



One last time, just for those who are still standing



The arrogance of the man shining through in the early days



This post is proof 'the tree lopper' is inhaling more than avgas fumes....



Moving onto some more textures....



One of these shots I edited, I took the screen shot in 1.5, cut the plane out and pasted it over an early build in the following.....can you guess which one that was?? No, neither can I



Have a go at this. I actually remembered reading it back in 2012 when I first mentioned the outside textures being a cut and paste job from the FC2 mod. Not long after this I made mention of the FSX quality cut and paste job on the cockpit....you guessed it, those posts were removed. But there is it, Old mate 'I love trees' had the external model already developed as far back as 2010.
The cockpit as you could imagine with the FC2 model was a WIP....see what I did there? same as the sounds, textures, nando's.....all a WIP



No idea what this 'tree lopper at VEAO' was flying back when he made this post....it can't have been the hawk EFM, Razbam must have shipped an early access model of the Mirage and 'i love trees' thought he was still flying it



Have a go at this one....



SERIOUSLY???? a 'professional' developer who previously stated



Is an absolute laughing stock in the flight sim world.....



WTF??!!Indeed, I keep asking myself the same thing every time the hawk fails to load.
Who can tell the difference between 2012 and 2016?.....Tom Weiss.....VEAO need your help
Where has all the development hours actually gone?.....seems more than likely to be a tax fraud to me, Do up some dodgy invoices, bill them out as hours spent and claim them back on tax. That is what it looks like to me, a tax haven for dodgy devs calling themselves VEAO. No doubt a bunch of tree loppers who couldn't wait to get out of the sun and this was an 'easy' way out

Yet another 'professional' perspective on the 2012 textures and i'm still waiting on a 'promised' worn cockpit....which now i will have to pay extra for when a modder releases it as paid DLC for DCS....What exactly has the 'texture artist' been doing for that last 5+ years.



and a rep from VEAO's response



Confirmation the 2012 textures are now here to stay as Pman 3.5 years later informs the flight sim world



I'll tell you where VEAO have been the last 5 years.... With none other than 'I plant trees' on holiday



and a lot to answer for considering your module now in 2016 is worthless and how your company got this far under the 3rd party title raises many questions that need answering.

Ear gents.....I mean hear...uh here gents is a reference to my page 1 posts in this thread regarding sounds for our money spent on wasted download bandwidth of what VEAO are calling a DCS module



hmm 2016 and the what sounds? numerous posts regarding the issues experienced from 2 days ago listed in this thread.


Who exactly are the 'RL' pilots who tested the hawk?�mind you I am still waiting for display. Yet take a moment....These 'RL' are the same ones who no doubt 'tested' the recently released EFM.....As the self proclaimed Unofficial tester, I will be testing this once I've burned through the bugs list comparing the pre alpha release (2012) to the EFM in 2016



Yet....have a crack at this, I know your all keen for it





Have they?? seriously were they modeled from the start??? because it's now April 2016, 2 days after the EFM release I get this in the latest official DCS update.





And here it is gents�..the first sign the cracks started to appear



I bet I can find a quote from Pyroflash 3 years on from this post probably wishing he never wrote those words�..



I laughed hard at this comment�.Yep, it set the standard in failure. Take note of the flaps, brakes and nando's working back in 2012..... Like I said, laughing stock of the flight sim world, hey to the lovers and backers of VEAO.....he said it, not me



Anyone else remember the �gear issue� not so long ago, or with the release of 1.5?? it was still an issue in 2012



Yet I have saved some of the best for last....Even after watching these hawk lovers post on these very forums criticising the hawk haters thoughts and posts regarding VEAO. Do you want that refund or is the hawk buried under a ton of dust like my mig-21 module? still waiting to be found by a rescue party complete with sniffer dogs so you can test it again in 2.02??






I will leave my 'Unofficial testing' regarding the EFM released hawk textures with a final post.....mind you, the 'hawk' was meant to be a 6-12 month project. I'm saving that quote for my EFM review, we are getting there gents.....this review is mudspike worthy, yet I am happy to release it for free.....Seriously how many of you would rather pay for this review as DLC than buy the new P-51 campaign?

Look in the Typhoon thread, 'i love trees' states, "The Typhoon will be a 2-3 year project, unlike the hawk which will be a 6 - 12 month project....2-3 years yet here we are 5+ years into it and the typhoon hasn't even began development....This confirms my initial thoughts regarding the tax haven.



**Disclaimer**

those still trying to find the edited photo I mentioned earlier from 1.5.....good luck because It's a direct copy from the author...

come one come all....



My direct quotes do the talking for me.....



Any more hawk lovers out there care to join in and make it personal against me for my view on just how bad this aircraft actually is???

please....

Stay tuned folks.....next will be my 'Unofficial Tester's review of the Avionics. 5+ years in the making. enough for anyone to ask after this long in development

^^^ Comedy Gold

I started the Hawk module up earlier. 5 minutes later after a lot of progress bar inactivity it crashed as expected.

Best $40 I ever spent said absolutely no-one ever. Bets on how long it's going to be before we get to experience the EFM that's been in development for such a long time?

2365 views in this thread alone and counting.....2000 of those views has to be veao's future contract agreement bosses canning the project

The rest are no doubt their lawyers bashing the F5 key looking for a way to sue me

You seem to have WAY too much time on your hands. It's a shame you're not interested in doing something productive with it...

Helping other members make an informed decision on purchasing certain modules, or purchasing from certain 3rd party developers, could be considered productive or useful to some.

Ah, I have been waiting for your constructive contribution to the hawk....you disappoint me

I spent $10 on the Hawk, buying it second hand from a guy. So that's all I've got invested in it. It doesn't break my bank to delete it and shrug it off as a bad investment.

Give yourself a pat on the back.

Round of applause for this man, someone open the bar and buy this man a round

I offered mine up for free, no one wanted it.....so since i'm stuck with it I have decided to save anyone else the disappointment and review it.

In fact I do remember your post in the campaign after campaign thread. It seems you have had a memory lapse and forgot my reply to it, so let me refresh your memory.



So keep shrugging and move right along, nothing for you to see here.

To the rest of you with the same view as ST0RM, I refute your claim that you are powerless to change it. If this thread and what is written in it sways just 1 persons opinion to not buy the hawk. I have achieved the goal,

So Can you tell me where in the world is Carmen San Diego too?

I am powerless to change anything on the Hawk. It's out of my hands. But I've now spoken and removed the module.

Probably buried in the bugs hidden within the hawk code....you claim you have some knowledge in programming, i'd suggest you start looking there

Why would he have access to source code?

Ah Sobek buddy. It's been a while since you posted anything related to the 'topic' at hand in a thread both here or anywhere for that matter. Skate above you did make an effort earlier in his posts to stay on topic before the moderator instinct took over with his attempt to derail the thread when it can't be locked or merged it so it can be lost in the thousands of bogus threads hosted in forums he moderates.

I had high hopes (as I did the hawk EFM) that your next comment would have been constructive....How wrong was I. Instead the comparison here is like a Priest with a bible in hand, standing at the podium ready to voice his sermon to the sinners and non sinners in the forum, or in this case Hawk lovers and haters", I was waiting for the shining lights to rain down on the thread, just as I had hoped the sun reflection would light up my 'worn' hawk cockpit 3 days ago but that never happened, instead the only lights flickering was blue screen, black screen, blue screen each time the hawk failed to load.

If the topic is agreeing entirely with your point of view, i may be somewhat OT. If the title has any bearing on the topic of this thread however, i certainly find my question more focused on the topic than you throwing straw man arguments at me and skate...

Righto gents, it has been a hectic 3 days with WIP's etc and finding time in between to test and report on the hawk EFM (always time to post on the hawk, nando's, WIP's and WTF??!!). Let me add fuel to the fire regarding the damage model which is entirely realistic. VEAO commented on my EFM Damage model video. Mind you, instead of typing up a fix to the CTD as stated in an earlier post of mine. Instead the dev's are kicking back watching youtube video's rather than working on bug fixes.

With out further Ado, here is the quote



Proof it was never tested both on the ground or in the air, yet 'the tree hugger' swears by how ultra realistic this module actually is. I have invited the 'tree squirrel' to read this thread and explain the situation, as you can see that has not yet happened. The 'hawk' needs to be scrapped, it is still listed for sale but this is further evidence proving it needs to be pulled from the shelves and undergo a major product recall. One can only imagine what would happen if this 'business' began making and selling passenger vehicle airbags.






Stay tuned gents, who can predict what happens next? My guess is, a post saying "it's very much a WIP"

Source: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2755285#post2755285

People say stuff like that all the time.
Take my wife..please lol
If you are serious about giving it away, feel free to bind it to
my ED store acct:
fracture493

When he doesn't like your response to his question......you get

vBulletin Message
You have been banned for the following reason:
Ban increased to 1 year, for repeated 1.13 violations.

Date the ban will be lifted: 04-24-2017, 05:00 AM

Someone wanna explain to me exactly what's false here in Winfield's analysis? He's got photo proof of posts and videos to back up his claims.

This #%&*$# right here is why people have such a low opinion of those of us who come from the ED forums. For what it's worth, on behalf of the more reasonable people from the ED forums, sorry to hear about the ban Winfield.

Read it closer. It doesn't have to be false. As long as it's damaging, it's grounds for perma-ban. This basically means they take the liberty to ban anyone who dares to post anything but a positive review, regardless of how crappy the module is. It certainly tells, just look at all the bigger reviewers on their forums; Never, ever, ever a bad word to say about anything, not even a #%&*$# trainer that after 3 years is still in a pathetic state.

Not trying to derail this "informative" thread, I'm just genuinely curious; what is the significance of referring to the quoted poster as "the treeehugger"? In the good ole US of A this was a popular cutdown used by Vietnam vets but doesn't seem to be as widely used by many anymore. Just wondering if it has a particular meaning in this case other then the commen "hippie" referral, or is it just a way to grant a level of anonymity to the poster while expressing your displeasure at the same time? Thanks.

[u]

...spread damaging and false "information". Interesting use of the ban hammer for a guy that has basically been giving a truthful review of their products. They really don't do themselves any favors over there. The reality outside the HTTP is a frightening place for those that live under such censorship.
They're saying give a good review no matter how FALSE that may be or you're going to get banned.

Even if that were true, so what if you get banned? For a band of people who claim to harbour such distaste for EDs boards, you sure spend a lot of time harping on about not being able to post there...

Seems unhealthy.

Not everyone is as enthusiastic to abandon things with potential as you are.

It's probably not just potential. At this moment, if someone purchased every module at the ED store...that's an $850 investment.

You can almost compare it to someone that has no interest whatsoever about being part of a community (SimHQ)...yet continues to post and share his dis-taste for that community on their website.

Y'know...just as a hypothetical example.

I find it more damaging (from PR point of view) to ban someone because he said something "bad" about your product on other forums than let it slide. I understand that partly they may fear that person would post bad things there too but other than that is just a "reaction". Doesn't actually do anything than show that they are upset. Now if the damaging information is also false (because there is only an AND not an AND/OR) might be understandable but if the damaging information is true or honest opinion after good research/testing...

If I would be ED I would ban VEAO (that would be a warning to other teams also)... but I'm not... so...

That's quite the change of mind there, Frederf.



Having no interest in being part of a community? Because i don't participate in flinging verbal diarrhea EDs way? Where on SimHQs statutes does it say that that's what it takes to be part of the community?

Is that the retribution for the 2 posts i reported that contained insults against actual persons (not companies)? I'm sorry i'm creating such an enormous workload for you. Not like you did anything about it, though. But yeah, keep telling yourself that i'm just here to stir your flock.

At least i'll always have the time that CyBerkut moderated here <3 It cannot be overstated what a surpreme job he did.

Ok Winfield, or would you rather been known as mudslinger seeing as you've branded me "tree hugger"?....let's kick this off.

Firstly, what have I done to offend you for you to personally insult me and my company?
Yes we're all open to opinions around here but seriously, you seem to have a personal vendetta against me and I'd like to know where that came from. Did I sleep with your girlfriend, wife, mother, father, dog, cat or goldfish for you to have this much hate against me??

Anyone can post things out of context and wow you are seriously good at doing that; only posting quotes from me to strengthen your case to the unsuspecting community.
Sometimes three times in a row the same quote just in case anyone missed you trying to get your point across. Tell me, do you feel this inadequate all of the time with other personal issues?

Lets also set something straight whilst we're here. I have no authority to ban anyone on the ED forums or can influence anyone getting banned and I certainly do not hide behind ED's moderators.

Have I not been truthful answering people's questions and concerns on the forums?
Have I not invited people to contact me personally to discuss any issues they have with the module?
Have I not offered refunds to people that post concerns?

Yes I certainly have and out of those public refund requests do you know how many I've actually refunded when they contacted me, none, because when I talk to them they voice their concerns, I listen and we discuss what they want and what some of the issues are and all of them have asked to be helpful and become a tester so we can make better products, rather than flinging mud around, like you.

If you hate the module so much why haven't you un-installed it, contacted me and asked for a refund.
I'll tell you why, it's because you want some limelight with this community for being the all seeing eye, the voice of reason, the public opinion of our "low quality" module as you call it, flinging mud around.
Actually I quite like the name mudflinger for you, it suits you very well.

It seems to me you're hiding behind this community because you don't have the balls to contact me to discuss things in person. So, man the #%&*$# up and let's have at it.

Oh I see it was your video about the damage model, why am I not surprised. Nice subjective view there, thanks.
Oh wait, let's drive an airplane into a truck and a few other airplanes and see if I can set it on fire.
Did you have Tonka toys when you were a kid and do the same thing?

Everyone keeps saying realism realism realism so is it realistic that the slightest touch of an airplane in DCS makes it catch on fire or it's wing fall off? No doubt your opinion will be yes because whatever I say you'll argue against, well in the real world it just doesn't happen that way.

After reading 8 pages of your "subjective" drivel lets get down to the brass tacks and let me ask you some questions so we can start to discuss things here.

Are you a pilot, have you actually flown an aircraft in real life?
Are you a programmer?
Have you ever in the past, or are currently, building a module for DCS?
Are you a project manager and have any qualifications in such?
Do you actually know what military work we are doing?

I'm dying to know the answers because you spout off to this community that you know so much about all of these things and that I have no idea about them.
So, indulge me and answer truthfully.

Then, we can discuss the issues of Hawk one by one in a mudslinger vs tree hugger death match style.

By the way, how's your goldfish, I feel so bad.....

Right gents,

After requesting in a support ticket to have my ban extended to 2 years in the hope that by the time the ban is lifted there may be a slight change and 1 or 2 bug fixes with the hawk.

You have been banned for the following reason:
Ban increased to 2 years at users request. Ticket # 52133

Date the ban will be lifted: 04-25-2018, 10:00 AM


In Sobek's defence hence the posts above (don't thank me just yet matey) I put in a 'support ticket' putting forward a request for 'Sobek' to become a community manager. I wrote in the qualities I see from his posts here and yet I have not received a response on that. Stay tuned folks, once the answer comes through, it will be shared here for those vying to be community managers or moderators.

However straight down to business. Today I have reviewed the avionics as well as the damage model combined with a couple of video's. These low budget, 1 take video's are unedited and 'subject to change (description only) You can bluntly see that the model is far from ready to be called a Beta. I will be showing you the wing loading of the EFM that I have tested. Watch the video and then read the comments I have found whilst testing the systems and avionics of this module. Have a go at "i plant trees' comment on my 1st video in my OP, this video contradicts his version of how the EFM damage model reacts under certain conditions. I am quite sure as my role of the 'unofficial tester' I have basically tested every type of the damage model in just the 1st video all bar running it nose first into the ground at 800MPH.

The avionics and wing loading seriously needs an overhaul, this video will be followed up with some quotes and posts by none over than our dear 'cactus tree climber' and some angry and annoyed hawk customers such as myself. I have a long way to go on the review of this aircraft, so bare with me. Development of this aircraft has been 5+ years in the making, I think I can review 5+ years of work into about 4+ weeks of 'unofficial testing' and reporting



EDIT: to be continued (as I have just seen VEAO have made a statement whilst searching for a post in this thread.....Finally the developer has spoken, I'll read the response then sit back as I make comment on it supporting my claims with posts, video and screenshot evidence for those interested in this dodgy dev. You can draw your own conclusions and make your own opinion on the module for those who have yet to purchase it .....Brace yourself gents, grab a slab, turn the aircon on if your at home, charge the phone if your about to head out because this is surely the moment we have all been waiting for.

"Cactus tree climber".... I'm certainly not going to be hugging any cactus trees, that's for sure!!

Read the questions I asked and answer them. You don't need to back it up with screenshots, posts and quotes or are you too afraid to show your true self knowledge and experience?

I really do hope your goldfish is ok....

Wow, 40 minutes have passed and mudslinger here can't even answer 5 simple questions, well 6 with the personal attack thing.

Just about shows me what knowledge you actually have if you can't answer those simple questions.

So, why should I bother talking to you in the first place?

@Ells
Very passive aggressive and down right rude post considering you represent VEAO and in such the product you are trying to sell.

I get it that Winfield isn't innocent and all his posts are passive aggressive or sarcastically written but he (and many others) are and have been voicing there concern and issue regarding the HAWK from some time now and all we the customers hear are "excuses" and passive aggressive newsletters and posts.

I'm not going to go to much into the issues with the HAWK because it's not going anywhere and I am just disappointed with the product and the company.

I don't get why Winfield or any other person would have to contact you personally to talk about the issues he and many others are having with the HAWK, that is what the forums are for and that way other people can see the progress of the discussion and possible fixes. I understand contacting people directly through email or PM if you want to call them out for being an #%&*$# but you as a representative of VEAO should handle this better when writing into a public forum.

I'm a programmer, a "small" project manager and work a lot with all sorts of customers from private customer all the way to product manufacturers and can understand that it's hard sometimes to hear criticisms and people call you and you and your product #%&*$#. Sometimes you can call them out for being dicks but you need to stay polite because at the end of the day they are the customer buying and promoting your product and thus keeping the company and product alive.



Hahaha, this is pure comedy!

Ells: May I please have a refund? I payed $31.99US for your product when it was released years ago, and I can undoubtedly say that no other DCS module has been a bigger source of disappointment.

may I offer you a cold glass of water?? it may help you to cool down, seriously your complaining about 40+ minutes for a response? I've waited 5+ years for a decent EFM, has that happened yet? no and I am still waiting.....

I'll post when I'm finished, mind you I did say grab a slab.....that's 24 375ml 4.9% alcohol beer bottles, 40 minutes is about 3 of those. I'm getting there....

To answer some other users posts in here, I will first give some background to how modules work in DCS and how they are split and why bugs are showing.

An aircraft module is essentially split into 5 components:
ASM - Advanced System Model
EFM - 3rd party External Flight Model (designation given by ED) or SFM - Standard Flight Model
DM - Damage Model
DFM - Damage Flight Model (what we call it internally)
DRM - Digital Rights Management (Starforce in DCS)

You obviously then have the 3D model, textures, sounds, Etc. but for now let's focus on the coding.

The ASM is tied into the SFM or EFM via DCS. So anything systems wise in the aircraft like switches, dials, functions, controller inputs will affect the flight model. The ASM is continuously talking to DCS which in turn talks to the flight model and vice versa to show your attitude, heading, altitude, speed, engine rpm, etc.

With the Hawk being released on SFM all of those functions were built years ago and pretty much worked without issue (Tango did this coding).
ED then did some updates to the core sim from 1.2.16 to 1.5 and release of 2.0
This fundamentally broke the way our ASM talked to DCS and we worked on getting those fixes patched.
We could not forsee this and had to react to the update in time for the patch.

So, bringing us onto the EFM switch.
Let me start with the DRM and the crash people had when the first 2.0.2 patch came out (which was reverted by ED).
We provided unprotected files to ED and they do the Starforce protection. This was the deal set with ED for Hawk.
The protection they ran on the EFM caused 1fps slowdown, coupled with the CPU issue this meant Hawk was unflayable.
This issue did not show up to us on the test system and therefore it was as much a surprise to us as you.

Then onto the re-patch of 2.0.2 and some people experiencing CTD's.
None of our testers or team have had this crash and probably the reason is that we always delete our saved control profiles before a patch, something standard we do for a control input update, which in this case was the addition of toe brakes with the EFM.
Only some people have experienced the CTD issue and deleting the saved input profiles has fixed it for most.
In consultation with ED we have also made changes in the code and are currently waiting for ED to provide protected files for people to test.
Again, we simply did not know this would happen and was not picked up by us prior to release.

Yes, some things don't work in the EFM Hawk and I am the first to admit that.
There are various reasons for this which I will try to explain.

Weapons selector - ED changed something in the base sim to do with weapon types which broke in 1.5. This has broken the weapons selector and we are currently re-coding it based on ED's suggestion. So far we are still experiencing problems which is why it has not been patched yet.

With the introduction of the EFM we had to re-code the way the ASM talks to DCS and in turn the EFM and vice versa.
This has also broken a few things along the way.
As I said, Tango coded all of the original ASM. He elected not to work on Hawk anymore so we brought in new coders. They have had to learn all of the 8000 lines of Tango's code and re-write a lot of processes to work with EFM.
Some things are higher priority than others, like actually being able to fly the aircraft, start the engines and all of the systems allowing you to fly.

ED also changed the atmospheric system in DCS which has had an effect on multiple systems; like the canopy being able to be opened during flight and oxygen hypoxia.
These were low on the fix list compared to actually having oxygen flowing through the engine so you could fly, a problem which presented itself more with the prop aircraft but did affect Hawk.

These issues have culminated in a few things still being broken and some new things cropping up and some left to fix later as they are not critical to you enjoying flying the aircraft.

We are working through a bug list that our testers, ED testers and the public have highlighted and have already fixed a lot of things ready for the upcoming patch.

Engine sounds were something we introduced with the EFM. This is the first iteration of sound integration within the cockpit and is still being worked on by our sound engineer and coding team.
I uploaded files to ED's server before the patch that fixed engine sounds but they did not make it in time for the release build.
They will be better in the upcoming patch BUT are still being worked on.

Damage model; something I see mudslinger here is very fond of showing rather than actually flying the plane.
Again with the EFM we had to see how the existing DM worked with the DFM. Shoot a wing off and does the aircraft roll violently or slowly. All questions posed to our 6 real life Hawk pilots which of course is theoretical as they haven't actually been shot down or lost a wing.
We set the level of damage within the lua code; 25%, 50% and 100% damage level.
We provide a collision model.
The sim then works out the rest itself.
These values can be tweaked up or down giving damage level earlier or later if a cell of the collision model is hit.
My own opinion in this matter is that other aircraft in DCS, AI or modules damage way to easily. The slightest touch and they burst into flames.
That is not realistic and as many of you keep telling me you want realism.
That being said, yes there are issues like mudslinger has kindly pointed out on his video that the wing should snap when ploughing into the ground after take off.
But, stating that the avionics is off only shows his lack of understanding on how DCS damage models work.

In summary, we decided to release the product in Beta state officially in April last year. Prior to that was a pre-release version so people could experience the aircraft as we developed it.
These versions were very clear on our website and ED's so if you have bought it so far, you should expect to see bugs with each update until it is in final release.
This is the nature of most games these days and this will not change for DCS, get used to it or don't buy a module until it's in release state.

After explaining how some core elements of DCS ACTUALLY work, rather than a non-educated view, please go ahead and ask questions which I will happily answer.

Thanks,
Chris,

@Battlerabbit - I have blatantly been called names and have been criticised and I'm not allowed to defend myself in my own manner, how I chose, language and sarcasm as well? Hmmm I can see how this is going to go, very one sided I see.
I thought these forums were open from what I've read and this is me typing, not hiding behind some moderator who controls what I type. You wanted it straight, you got it.
If customers have genuine gripes rather than a load of hype fuelled by shiz being thrown about in a rude manner feel free to talk about it.
I'm here now and will answers questions.

@Scrim -thanks for that constructive criticism which I've taken on board. Please email support and we will process a refund and disable your product key.

@mudslinger - still no answers to 6 simple questions. Yep just as I thought. You go and enjoy those beers buddy and be careful not to spill any water on your keyboard whilst you're trying to come up with an answer.

The short version.

Are you a pilot, have you actually flown an aircraft in real life? Yes, not fixed wing
Are you a programmer? No degree in this, however I have made a few scripts in the past.
Have you ever in the past, or are currently, building a module for DCS? No
Are you a project manager and have any qualifications in such? Yes, this I have a great wealth of knowledge and experience in. I will elaborate further on this once the long drawn out post is complete. I will even give you pointers in where you are failing at leading your team.....You may actually learn a thing or two.
Do you actually know what military work we are doing? No, only what you and I have spoken about in PM's when I attempted to get a straight answer from you regarding the EFM early last year. Due to the ban currently in place for the next few hawk patches I am not able to refer to them. Hence you should still have these because I mentioned you delaying the public release of the EFM for as long as possible whilst you chased the military training contracts. Your response was as expected, subtle to say the least.

As for the mudslinger title, I like it. Happy to wear it as if you call being blunt and honest with no watered down moderator intervention mudslinging, I'll take that as a compliment.

There is a post on here at SimHQ, which you can look for

"there are 2 types of people over at ED, those with nothing worth saying and those who have been banned. I see your still there posting up whilst i'm banned

I'm a customer\mudslinger and therefore I do care for the inner workings of what goes on behind the scenes. When a developer comes out who is as highly egotistic as yourself and openly rant just how good you are and how good your module will be and then years later someone like myself takes it on board and compares back then to what we have now. Don't take offence to it, look at why someone has done a comparison and then look at why the problems exist in the 1st place. When I lead my team, I don't joke especially not in public, at the bar or anywhere. I am the representative and I represent that team. I am strict stern and precise with everything that I set out for my team. I don't joke about 'nando's, I don't make reference to what I do in my social life to my team, I am their boss and that is how I am to be treated. I am not their social friend, I lay down the ground rules and those rules are followed, failed deadlines are not rewarded. This is how I "product manage" When dealing with customers, be honest and be blunt. Don't throw a rainbow over the truth of the matter. When I am dealing with customer's I am blunt honest and forthright. My business is mining, not flight sims, you stopped being an 'enthusiast' the moment you announced that 'your' company was registered as VEAO and you were releasing the hawk.

The post you made here http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4252732/Re:_DCS:_VEAO_Hawk_EFM_&am#Post4252732

is probably the most honest and forthright post you have written, that is how a product manager should treat their customer, a blunt honest incite as to why the product is currently not as expected.

My reference to 'tree hugger' etc is in reference to your 1st post on these very forums the last time someone 'slated' you and your company as you have put it.

Finally,

there is it Chris.

Short answer: No. Long answer: Yes, but you will lose customers.

It's simply that simple. Winfield as a simple forumist can do whatever this forum allows but you as a representative of your business you only hurt yourself by such responses. And that is a trait of good leadership you failed to show.

You asked for credentials with your 6 little fallacious questions but you should ask those questions to you. If you are so manager and so programmer how come you have a project that instead of 12 months development is 5 years old and still unfinished? Isn't it a trait of good managers to have a good feel of timeframes and timeschedules?

Your team/project failed every time ED made some changes and you always excused yourself blaming ED or the stars but didn't failed to pat yourself on the back because you helped RAZBAM with some minor stuff. Is this the sign of a great man? To always find excuses outside and not let a good deed slide without a pathetic selfie? I don't think so.

I would had fired you in ED's place not only for your failure but also for breaking that rule 1.3 Winfield got banned. You have an NDA with ED and you should be careful when dodging the blame by putting it on the back of the one that feeds your business after all.



It's like Angry Joe is banned on all official game forums...

Sure you can defend yourself but get it off your chest with one or two posts and don't constantly ride around on it.
As clich� as it sounds in a situation like this you need the be the bigger person and just shrug it of as stupid customers. I'm not defending either side here but how VEAO has handled the situation in the past and present has not helped its situation / chemistry with the community.

You would be better of admitting that you #%&*$# up or made bad decisions in the past then making excuses, the community won't lynch you for it and your standing might improve because of your honesty.

I am not here to defend anyone - but this thread has outlived its purpose.

Winfield has very valid points.

Ells has every reason not to be enjoying this thread, he also made some valid points.

will they ever come to an agreement ?

maybe in another thread , maybe some other time, maybe never.

meanwhile :

Can this thread be closed ?

Winfield isn't done with his analysis, so no.

Thanks for the kind words. However, I'm still involved here, so if there are any moderation shortcomings, they do not fall upon Force10 alone.

I let a lot of references to "up the tree at..." and variations of that pass by, as until recently I did not really know who that referred to (I'm not particularly knowledgeable on who all the key people are at the various developers). When it became apparent to me it referred to Ells, as far as I knew Ells was not a member here. Today, Ells posted here for the first time since late September 2015... so now, I know.

So... let's ditch the name calling and slights directed at other members here. No more "up the tree" and similar variations, no more "mudslinger", etc. Address the subject, not the author's characteristics.

That being said, products and their development, marketing and schedules are fair game for discussion.

Reading this thread and... wow. I thought I was displeased with DCS as a whole and just stepped away. Someone decided to stay in and go at it with a fine-toothed comb. Bravo.

Well, Winfield (old account XIII, I don't know what happened and that account got deleted) wasn't really a DCS fan from the beginning. He just decided to find the easiest targets to hit instead of mindlessly bashing the game.

ah dear Remon, back for another dose are we?

Of what? Irrelevant remarks about my place of origin? You've done it twice now, as XIII and with this account. It's your go to move.

oh please your ps2 mic broken is it? don't you have a game of COD to play like the rest of the hurt and abused children in this world? that's the mentality of your situation and your posts here. Is ranting on about an account the best you can put forth to this community to convince me or those readers you have any valid point on offer or 'evidence' to support your bogus claim?

The difference here is you are not showing any evidence to support any claims on offer. Calling me out because someone hurt your feelings years ago in these forums has nothing to do with me.....if your still hurt and upset, seek help because I have nothing further to offer you.


check....

Eh?

Also, you're kidding yourself if you think those unfunny posts about my country hurt me in any way.

Here's an idea folks... get back to discussing the topic. (Hint: It's listed up above)

After entering into discussions privately with Chris regarding my review and opinion of this module,

I sent Chris 30 questions relating to VEAO and the Hawk, Chris and I have agreed to post it, unedited with out my intervention or 'modification' to the questions and Chris's answers.

It would be highly biased to edit Chris's answers to my questions to give a 1 sided view of the Hawk, knowing that the developer has come into this thread and voiced his concerns and informed me personally that his view of the module contradicts my testing of the module.

1. Chris, what has been the development time from planning of the Hawk, including gathering of the original team members and drafting the plan to what what released on the 21'st of this month.

For the DCS product from concept to now is just over 4 years.
We were awarded the contract with TFC on 18th Feb 2014 which is when development started in earnest with the original team members. The prior time was negotiating with BAE to build it, gathering information, setting up deals with pilots, getting team members on board, Etc. A module was also being made for the Virtual Red Arrows during that time which was learning how to build aircraft for DCS.
So, development time of the DCS product is just over 2 years.


2. How long until the hawk is in a state that you are satisfied with and committed to stand behind as the Project Manager'?

I stand fully committed behind the product in Beta development as Company Director since it was released officially in April last year and I stand behind the pre-release version when it was released in November 2014.
I will never be satisfied because I have OCD and want everything working perfectly in a stable sim platform. As DCS core product is still being developed we will no doubt encounter more issues. Satisfaction is not guaranteed.


3. in recent light of the release of the EFM, how many butts have you kicked in relation to the testing of the hawk in the lead up to the EFM release over the last 4 months?

We have an internal core team of testers volunteers that contribute significantly. ED also has a team of testers which post bug reports to us.
I have no control over what ED testers test on or report.
I am not a liberty to say �how many butts have been kicked� on either side due to NDA�s in place.

4. what are some of the criticism's the paid testers put forward that you have taken on board and wanted to sort out the most?

What we call �critical bugs� that I explained in the stream. We have a bug list that is being worked through during Beta that my team and the testers have picked up. These are classed as Blocking, High, Medium or Low. Blocking and High bugs were fixed prior to EFM release.
ED are responsible for Starforce protection on Hawk which both their and our testers check prior to release but you see what happens sometimes, even the sim has CPU and starforce issues.


5. Are the red arrows the only 'real life' hawk pilots who are testing the hawk and giving you the feedback?

The Red Arrows pilots do not test DCS: Hawk. There are 6 independent pilots either serving in the RAF, Royal Navy, Reserves or have left the service that provide feedback on the module.


6. Are there any posts you have written before the release of the Alpha in the official ED forums that you regret? if so name one.

I never regret anything I do or say. It is done or said at that time for the right reasons at that time. People should never regret decisions they make. Just strive to learn from bad decisions, and yes I�ve made plenty in my life and learnt from them.


7. Was the fallout with Tango in any way related to the work he did with Aviodev? Probably an NDA here so i'll rephrase, were you personally annoyed Tango was working for Aviodev?

I cannot comment on Tango�s relationship with Aviodev, only on ours.
The fallout between Tango and VEAO was not related to Aviodev.


8. How many people have at VEAO have you sacked or 'let go' because their work was not up to scratch?

There is only 1 direct employee with VEAO and that is me. All other developers are sub-contractors under a very strict contract.

We have cancelled numerous contracts because the work was not up to scratch or not developed to target deadlines. The A-4 Skyhawk is an example of this.


9. The hawk is still in Beta, you stated there were 'a couple of things' you said left to do before you declared the aircraft out of Beta, what were those 'couple of things' before the release of the EFM

I�ll rephrase your question as the �couple of things� did not take priority over the EFM. EFM has always been the priority since concept.

The main thing for the �big patch� as I called it was EFM and updated cockpit textures.

The remaining big items are Radios (which fully work in 1.5.3 and partially in 2.0.2 (this tells you how different the sim versions are)), further updates to the cockpit textures; switches, dials, gauges, Etc., custom weapons and remaining bugs reported by ED testers and our testers.


10. Have your testers loaded up 1 wing and tried to fly the aircraft, meaning taking off or starting in the air and tried attempted to trim it out?

We have tried various lodaouts from the default DCS stock weapons. Depending on the weight it is either possible to take off/fly or not.

In real life you would never a-symmetrically load an aircraft for exactly this reason. We cannot prohibit this being done in DCS (core part of the sim).

When we have the Hawk proper custom weapons loaded, the EFM and trim is built to take those weight loads. What you have as the DCS weapons right now is not realistic to Hawk as we�ve said many times.


11. Trim tabs, why are they not featured, trim guages in the cockpit don't function, Is trimming the aircraft actually coded yet? fire up the hawk, F2 view, I can't see anything moving both with the aileron or rudder when I attempt to trim either. If it is coded, why is it not animated? When will they be animated

The trim system in 2.0.2 EFM is fully working.
ED changed something in the trim system for SFM flight model in 1.5. That is beyond our control.

Do you know much about the SFM system and how it works in DCS? Basically there is a table of data and we input certain values based on the aircraft like wing span, weight, max fuel. DCS then calculates the entire flight model internally. All we can do is provide certain information in the table.
This is why we can�t �fix� the 1.5.3 trim problem.
Trim gauges, switches and animations are on the Medium list and will be worked on after the patch this week. The animations in the model have been set, the code has been written but the ASM interface written by Tango does not work and needs to be re-coded.


12. If I put together a short list who I recommend could 'do a better job' than the team currently working on the hawk, would you consider reading the thesis and personally contact each individual and ask them their thoughts?
(the clause would be that the list contains members of the official ED forums and here at SimHQ who are currently working on and releasing mods for free publicly at ED, LOF and SimHQ)

We have advertised many times looking for people to join our team. Some have applied and have been tasked with projects.
It�s not as easy as getting rid of someone and replacing them like in a normal job.
As an example Tango wrote 8000 lines of code for Hawk. When he left, someone had to spend a lot of time understanding his logic, his coding style and of course how to integrate with ED�s SDK.
There would be no benefit at this time in development to �replace� them for Hawk project.
However; I am more than happy for a short list of people that would be happy to work for us under strict contract conditions which we have with each developer and I would be more than happy to contact them.


13. How many coders are currently working on the hawk. How many hours a week have you delegated each individual to work on the Hawk?

4

Each contractor spends whatever free time they have during evenings and weekends to code. We do not stipulate a set amount of time as most people cannot commit with jobs and kids.
When we did write that into the contracts, people could also not deliver to timescales due to the nature of developing for DCS. It�s not as clear cut as a normal software project I have project managed in the past. Due to NDA with ED I cannot go into more specifics on this.
I am full time VEAO since September last year and do some coding but also run the business, set up events, promotions and military work.
Each contractor works a full time day job and develops in his/her spare time.

14 "We have day jobs" what is your take on developers working with\for ED and it's 3rd parties having "day jobs" and using that as an excuse when they can't make dead lines or fall short with updates bug fixes and the like?

Most 3rd party developers for DCS that I know, and are in contact with, have day jobs. Only if a module is successful and sells lots of copies I assume they can afford to give up their job and work on modules full time.

The only �employees� I know of working on DCS full time are ED and BST.

Also most 3rd party devs do not have the up-front cash sums to pay people a regular monthly salary.

It�s not an excuse, it�s reality.


15. When was the last time you mowed your own lawn with a push mower? Mowing is actually therapeutic you actually see the benefit after your finished. Do you look at the hawk like you do your front yard every month you look over the work your team has produced and see drastic changes?

Actually I took time out yesterday and mowed the lawn with a petrol driven push mower.

Yes, with the production of the EFM over the past several months and the changes that have been made to the module, coupled with textures there have been drastic changes which I am proud of.

The intention was always to have EFM from the outset. That was a huge milestone in the development and I know the struggle the team had in producing it for DCS due to no fault of their own.

Having 6 independent pilots sign off on it was also a huge milestone.

Going forward there will be no more �drastic changes� to Hawk, just refinements. But I will still look proudly at the work the team have done, including Tango.


16. Are you happy with the cockpit textures in the hawk or do you at it and in the back of your mind think "they could be better"

I am happy with the new base textures that have been made. We took on a contractor renowned with developing textures for games.

He had a big shock when his excellent work shown in renders did not match in DCS and we have learnt a lot of �tricks� to get them looking realistic with the sim lighting and environment.
There is still work to do. As an example a recent update to DCS 2 made all the textures super reflective orange (desert colour). ED are obviously still tweaking the EDGE so I do see things like that and think what the frack happened there, what got changed there.
We have to work to the graphics engine we are given.
As I said earlier there are still more tweaks to the cockpit textures coming that were not on the High list.


17. Who's idea was it to work into the module 3 levels of high level cockpit textures and what was the reasoning behind it?

We discussed it as a team with the texture artist. With the advent of high end graphics cards coming on the market, plus the new capabilities of DCS 2 the decision was made to make 3 sets.
As far as I know we are the first 3rd party to do that. More will follow suit.


18. How long did it take the texture artist\s to develop the 3 levels of texture for the cockpit and after the release of the EFM do you think their time could have been spent better elsewhere?

About 3 months.
No, that was and is their contacted job. Each developer has a specific task they are given to work on, in their specific field. That may be modelling, texturing, sounds, coding, animations, etc.
Think of a module like a production line, model first, then textures and animation, then switch dial and gauge integration with ASM and EFM whilst sounds are being made, Etc.
We have contractors in their specialist field work on their specialty. No point moving them to something they are not so good at, that�s bad leadership!!


19. Was the FC2 model the same model used for the hawk or was it a complete redesign?

Complete re-design. DCS affords much higher poly count than FC2.


20. What happened to the GPS in the hawk, will I see it or has that now been scrapped?

The GPS model was intended for the aerobatic version during concept. We are not allowed to produce that version.



21. What is the size of the team actually working on the hawk?

Right now today, 6


22. Do you have any external programs that you have used to model the EFM? such as those upwards of $10,000 Australian dollars available to the public used to model the aerodynamics of aircraft? How did you model the EFM simulation?

Our EFM programmer made our own model which has the same purpose. This is his expert field.


23. How many copies of the hawk have actually been sold roughly, I have you quoted as saying "10's of thousands' is it really? how many more have been sold roughly since the release of the EFM?

I will not divulge actual sales figures. Let me put it another way, which you can check online, VEAO made �4000 profit in 2014/15.

As I said on the stream, each aircraft costs around �100,000 to produce, so that will give you a rough figure.


24. Have ED been pressuring VEAO to push out patches with out testing them?....I'll rephrase that, have you let patches go to ED with out testing them for yourself?

Absolutely not . We have no pressure from ED to put patches out, that is up to us to deliver them using their patch system.

All patches are tested prior to going onto ED�s server.


25 What drives\motivates you?

Starbucks coffee. Oh sorry yeah we�re not allowed to joke about that are we�.

The sense of satisfaction when you see other people enjoying what you do.

If I was doing this for the money then I would have stayed in Health & Safety on a regular salary.


26 What is a fault that you see in yourself? (my reasons behind this? I have been asked this and you should be asking this to your next job applicant as I do mine. If they can't fault themselves they don't deserve the job, before you all jump the gun. You know my fault, too blunt and too honest hey Remon)

We all have faults. We all make mistakes. My biggest one in terms of DCS development is trusting people and then they screw me over.

That�s why I now have a lawyer charging �400 an hour�.


27. What time frame do you expect the Typhoon to take compared to the development of the hawk? It is not a 2-3 year project as you previously stated with the Typhoon and 12 months for the hawk

Typhoon is a 2-3 year project from start of development to end, roughly.

We decided with Hawk and P-40 to have a base EFM and base ASM that can be used for future modules. This will reduce some development time.
The biggest issue with Typhoon is permission for the actual systems, that�s what takes time, negotiating.


28. Would you consider the Australian dollar when your next aircraft goes on sale? A $50 module is currently a $65AUD

The prices for DCS modules market place is set by ED.

If you look on our website and ED�s the actual price for the Hawk is $39.99 We have made very few sales at full price and have even dropped the price as low as $12 during sales.
We also don�t get the full sale price into our bank.


29. have you ever thought during the development of the hawk that you "have bitten off more than you can chew" or are you always looking at the end result with out looking at the results so far?

That�s a contradictory question right there.

No I have not bitten off more than I can chew. I am fully capable of making DCS modules.

You should always look forward in life, without ignoring the past or present and deal with the issues in front of you as they crop up.

That bit of lifestyle advice I�ll give for free



30. Would you still consider a more current version of the hawk such as the 127?

As I said on the stream, it all depends on licensing from the manufacturer. Also we do not want to �flood� the DCS market with trainers so we are looking at other areas of DCS interest as I mentioned on the stream.

Regards,

a very informative and a nice interview, thanks.

Now THAT was actually a productive post: Bravo!

About 100x better than the previous ones, agreed.



The Jedi Master

Guess you didn't buy the C-101 then? I doubt that there'll ever be an EFM...

Thanks for the detailed and elaborate information given here, Ells! Definitely shows your passion for the product and compassion for us users! Communication is key, and you definiteely don't shy away from it here, even though you (and VEAO) haven't been received well here in this thread. Kudos to you!

Is the offer still there to refund payments from this farce?....if so, I'd also like to take your offer up.

Hi all!
Does anyone have this book
http://www.flight-manuals.com/bae-hawk-tmk11a-aircrew-manual-r11.html ?

Everything is commented in the videos description.

A. Your Poll was Redundant

They know how wide spread the issue is, and it's being fixed.

The only reason you started one was as a retort to the comment that it's a small %.

The Bug does not affect everyone, and you dont know sales figures, so you have no way to argue/disprove the % of users affected.

You Cannot Base a Total Affected % off 3 Votes. that's prolly 1/10000th of the total sales.

B. You should know the rules, you should know purposely re-creating threads after they were deleted is against them, as is public discussion of moderation.

You cannot tell me in the back of your mind, you didnt think that it wasn't going to be deleted, again, it was redundant, we already have a 28 page thread on the subject, we dont need a "poll".

The Poll was not Needed at all, it was a redundant stab at VEAO for something that's already well - known to be a problem and being fixed,

You're arguing that developers are not aware of it? the THREAD for the issue spans 28 Pages w/ no less than 3 developers, dozens of users and actual ED Testers working to find a solution.


End run, you were given plenty of warnings for violating rules, and the warning % got to the level that required a temp. 1 month vacation, also stated clearly.

What happens from this point on is completely up to you, if you wish to continue to participate in discussion on ED's forums you'll have a go at possibly following the rules,

If you do not wish to proceed w/ participating in any discussions on ED's forums, by all means continue to spam facebook and simhq with how much VEAO isnt paying attention to a bug that's going on 28 pages and 265 replies, w/ developers and ED Testers as well as other users actively participating in a constructive manner.

I'm Really sorry that SimHQ has to constantly deal with this,, Sorry Moderators,

The Decision is Yours, Have a Wonderful Day.

Im aware of your entire history, i can see all you infractions and all your deleted posts.


the poll as an underminding function.

Someone says it affects x%, and you figured lets see, and created a poll which was redundant, they are aware of the severity of the issue and working with a solution.

It was redundant, as there was already a developed thread about the issue, there was no need for a 2nd one. you want to get a percent, go through the thread count the people that saod they had the issue and then count the people that said they didnt.

So you say you didnt post here and then paste the link in every DCS group and page on facebook?

You were not given any infractions for the poll itself, but for reposting it after it was deleted and questionimg moderation about it.

VEAO didnt ban you, The moderators did.

Im not going to debate this with you.

You're not sorry SimHQ has to deal with this at all.....its your choice that you decide to deal with ED forum moderation on this site for one reason only. You simply cannot communicate with anyone on the ED forums because you and the other mods ban anyone who questions anything.

If you see/speak with 'top of the tree' at VEAO, please direct him to this thread. He offered refunds to people who aren't happy with their module
....I replied months ago that I'll take him up on the offer due to the complete shambles and waste of time and money that is the hawk.

Do you really think that 'eekz' is basing a poll on 3 people responding? Does it not occur to you that more people would have responded had the poll remained open. Also to counter your point there is no possible way that VEAO know how many people are affected with this issue given that they say not everyone is affected.......unless of course EVERYONE is affected and they're starting to realise themselves that they're a match made in heaven with ED and are as equally incompetent.

Ummm, too late, you already are.

If they say that only small % of users affected then they are definitely not, and thus my poll wasn't redundant.

If you don't want to clutter up SimHQ with your ED moderation
posts why dont you PM 'eekz' on your own forums......or is there an issue trying to communicate with a banned user when trying to offer an explanation. (That's rhetoric - I don't require an answer and nor do I care).

Hey, I didnt come here and post with screencaps complaining about the moderation.

So dont try to tell me off, The convo was initiated by the other party.

thank you

You're trying to 'apologise' for cluttering up SimHQ with your ED forum crap.......yet you're the one cluttering up SimHQ with your ED forum crap.

Like I mentioned......if you have something to say to a user you or other mods have banned on ED forums, perhaps you need to re-think that stupid ED strategy. Perhaps speaking to people before you select the ban-hammer would be a good starting point!

Can you not even see the irony in the whole situation?

You can post. But once again it's not about moderation itself nor about me personally. I write about that you don't give any opportunity to discuss in Veao section. User asks, then he get an unsatisfying reply from devs, and further question and statements by user are considered not needed by moderators. You delete what shouldn't be deleted and ban when you shouldn't ban guided by your subjective attitude to user and the devs in this case Veao. Can I talk about spin behavior on Veao forum? No? Why? According to what rule? You protect Veao against users interest. Why did they say that only small % affected by fall bug in topic where a user asked other users if hawk was worth buying? Why devs should ever post in that topic advertising their module like it was ok? Werent their posts redundant their? To be honest having the blocker issue like falling out the sky bug they should freeze sales till it will be fixed and not telling about small % which is big in real. Once again. Your moderation allows Veao to tell any tales on their hawk and do not allow users to respond critically. May be users concerns are redundant for them and sales is only thing they care? Eh?

eekz,

I have to agree with Skate here.

On May 3rd, the dev Ells228 created this thread asking:



Maybe not as easy to see results as a normal poll format ...but they did a poll of sorts already.

Threads like the one Ells228 asked are a mixed bag though...it probably only represents a small percentage of Hawk owners. There's a silent majority of people that fly sims that have never heard of...or don't use ED's forums (or any forum for that matter).

A good example of this: ED's forums show about 55,000 members...while Steam spy shows over a million owners of DCS World.

Just my opinion of course.

Keep it clean gents!

What I don't understand is why delete a thread due to being "duplicates" or "unnecessary"? If it is indeed not needed, then won't the forum members just ignore it and that post will get buried after a few days? If it is needed, the you'll see the response on the threads as well. Why does it become a moderator's job to determine which threads "pass" and which ones get deleted?

I am sure that if someone posts multiple threads about how wonderful a module is, he is sent on a 30 day vacation and if he insists,






in all seriousness, I always marvel at the amount of energy put on controlling the message and the angry tone with which it is done.

Supposedly this is a game we are costumers, not serfs.

whatever.

as Skate would say:

have a wonderful day !!!

Guess the thing here is that the developer has already clearly stated that they are indeed aware of the issue and trying to fix it.
They even reached out to the community on this..

Now, what justifies such a thread? Why would you create it, would you think it creates any kind of friendly atmosphere?
While I mostly disapprove of the ED forum's moderation, this is an action I find to be absolutely reasonable. This thread would've served no use except for mocking them along the lines of "look! so many people have this issue! such a bad developer haha".

This would inadvertedly generate a hostile environment.. which the forum already is to a large extent, anyways. No need to add more fuel to the fire.

Skate - lighten up

I am sure that there are people who care deeply about what you guys do, you all should thread more lightly

and don't worry about me - I arrived safely here




and ... have a wonderful day !!!

I'm having a fantastic day, Painting F-86's and Flying Super Hornets...

that is great - and I am working on a few A2A P-51D and T-8 skins and have to finish that M2M MK2 skin.

Next year it is going to be 10 years I started on FSX, thanks to it I got into skin making and I continue it now with P3D, probably I would not be in skin making if it were not for FSX, for once, thank you Microsoft.

Read comments to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jUyo2Vu8y4 then call people Google Keyboar Warriors or something.



That's not true. Not that different from t1 as the VEAO Hawk is.


They were accurate enough to show the problem. Constant -0.2G and 70AoA and 1 turn / 1 second (both in x and y surfaces) in simulation is quite reasonable data to make the statement. By the way have you ever heard a word from actual T1 pilots personally?

Anyway, you are right and I acknowledge the ban you have issued.
I'm sorry for been rude with VEAO and all, best of luck in making DCS-level modules. I hope you all are happy.
I quit it, and I delete all my statements related to VEAO in here. I've just made my own judgment.

If you really want to discuss it and see the data I have you are welcome to PM me here. I've changed my mind and I'm not going to post anything publicly related to this anymore.

This is the Issue:

Right now, You are still pushing info about the spin/stall behavior w/ me, that wasnt the problem, none of the above was while you were banned, so it's irrelevant.

Like I Said, the 2 major issues were posting of the copyright material, and re-posting after thread was deleted.

The entire Stall Behavior debate has ZERO to do with anything, other than heated debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving past that I can debate the Stall/Spin Behavior with you, and make it constructive.

Regarding the The EFM Loading Failure/Fall outta the sky/Battlefield 3 Stuck in the Sky, and whatever else it's Called:
Yes, the EFM has some issues, Yes it Affects a % of People,
That actual % Even with polls you will never know, as you dont know actual HAWK Sales Figures, so you'd have no basis to debate the actual %of user with the developer, who has both sales figures and support requests, so their figures are likely more accurate.

However this particular issue isnt with the EFM paysey, but is believed to be part of the StarForce protection system when mixed with specific windows variables.


Now onto the Spin Behavior, I believe they said part of it was left in as a Gameplay Element, whether that changes I dont know.

The T45C is no where near the same flight model as the Hawk T.1A, Neither is the Hawk T.2

They have different STALL/SPIN Characteristics, Stemming from different internal Structure, Re-Enforced Structure, Modified Framing, Added SLATS, Modified Gear Systems, Shifted CoG and Different Engines

If you want to discuss stall / spin behavior and post videos, post relevant videos, of the HAWK T.1A, not the T-45, Not the Hawk T.2

Skates, doesn't ED's rule 1.3 preclude discussing this here as well. This forum is public.

Hasn't stopped anyone else from coming here to complain or discuss etc,

Only one A user would have to worry about is 1.13,

And he's fine, as debating Stall/Spin Behavior and sources is not spreading damaging/false info,

And I'd rather debate Stall/Spin behavior than the other stuff,

So Cheers to that.

OK, so the rule should read 'not subject to discussion on ED's forum' since public discussion is actually OK.

i literally cannot stop you from getting off ED Forums walking over to your wife and saying "son of a .... I got banned".. or going to the pub and being like "hey guys I got banned from ED... Buy me a Drank!"

Agreed. Which is why the wording of the rule makes it unenforceable as written.

It is odd that some of my all time favorites the Gazelle, Hawk and Mirage 2000 are in DCS, thanfully the M2K is also in P3D.

1.3 Administrative actions against forum members are not subject to public discussion. If you feel an action against you was unjust or otherwise inappropriate, please use the Private Messaging (PM) system to appeal the action to other forum staff members or the forum administrator.

Does anyone else think that this rule was written by someone who is retarded?


If you get a ban , you cannot login and pm anyone ?

You can still login.

You are banned so you cannot access anything to pm a moderator , hence the retarded statement

Then what? You aren't going to PM anyone.

All forum software has that "feature"--banned users cannot communicate with mods unless they have an email address, which the mods rarely provided.
It's lovely not being able to appeal a sentence until after it's served, at which point it's moot.





The Jedi Master

I am sure you could start a medium sized forum with all the people they have banned over the years, including among them some of the best skin and mod makers

Probably those that run that forum never looked into the how much revenue they lose for every ban, because most people after being banned leave the community and never again buy any of their products.

If you do say so yourself..?


How much revenue do you think they might lose if they allowed potential new customers to come upon a forum where a small number of people constantly post that the product is no good and the developer is "incompetent"?

Whether there is truth or not, the extremely vocal minority seem to try to skew the narrative in favour of their "opinion" instead of actually trying to participate in constructive discussion. A potential new customer would probably just quit and not bother instead of wading through all that chaff...

How much revenue do you think they'd gain if they weren't so incompetent?
Whether you like it or not, some folk are unhappy with the products they've purchased. They're unhappy with the rate of development of those products. For those folk they have not received value for money. The debacles of the hawk and c101 have been allowed to continue for too long. A potential new customer is going to be very disappointed if they purchase those 2 aircraft. We all know theyre "beta" products but seriously! Anyone reading those forums is going to think the products have small teething problems. Do you think that is fair to existing customers and potential customers?
The P40 was pulled and sits gathering dust on a hard drive somewhere while the "early access money" paid for it does what? How about refunding those customers? They've paid for a product that to all intents and purposes is at this moment no longer in development.

I'd say since they are the only standing modern combat sim developers out there they are the least incompetent of the bunch. Or their practices are the only way to make money in this market.

I do.



you support then censorship



extremely vocal minority = regular SimHQ members.

Personally - I have no opinion on any modules made my DCS since FC3, as I don't own any 3rd party modules.

I have Belsimtek modules but don't fly any of them for lack of time.

Therefore, I cannot offer any criticism constructive or otherwise.

If you want to have some in-depth opinions on P3D, then I might be the right person to ask, otherwise, all I do is comment on what is going on.

Hahahaha!! Are you serious? So, "let's ban the vocal minority pointing out defects in our products so that we can trick new customers into buying broken crap"?? Instead of having a go at the people who are displeased with a product, why not have a go at the people who are capable of fixing said product but either cannot or worse, DO NOT do so.



I'd say they're the only PAID modern combat sim devs. The other set of modern combat sim devs are doing fine, and are making ZERO money despite making the paid devs look like n00bs.

How does ED look like noobs compared to other combat sim devs? Which ones are you talking about?

You can't compare DCS with sims like Falcon BMS or the FSX Tacpack. Both of them work on existing platforms and "only" extend them. Eagle Dynamics, on the other hand, wrote the simulator including the engine on their own and have extensive sim development knowlegdge since over a decade.

They're doing an impressive job on DCS but all the community gets to do is complaining - man, just take a look at the other flight sims.. DCS is far ahead for most parts! Yes, DCS may be a little instable here and there and it also got plenty of bugs to sort out but tell me about one bug-free flight sim and I'll sell my soul!

Did you actually interpret this thread as people asking for a bug free sim?

No, I did not. I was just asking why ED are "noobs" compared to other combat flight sim devs?

Exactly my point. Other people are "extending" or reverse-engineering a platform and improving it and are doing a better job at it than someone who has made their "engine" from the ground up. "Extensive sim development knowledge"? I wonder how you quantify that.



Far ahead where exactly? "A little instable" is an understatement!

I've been down that road. The responses were just more of the same heavy handed disrespectful comments. Or as in my case, a producer calling me a liar then making sure I couldn't respond. Not to mention said producer getting involved in other flight sim community goings on up to and including trying to get me removed as a moderator on another forum. It's the same crap as it ever was and it goes all the way to the top. Children making flight sims that can't handle criticism or any kind of real life dissent so they do what they do best. Ban people. Head over to LOF and look at all the modding I did. You'll notice a complete halt in doing anything else because it's hard to spend alot of time, for free modding a sim that the producer got involved in my personal life and was successful in damaging certain aspects of same. I was going to file a lawsuit because it got so invasive. All over software. Seriously. Some of the mods and the producer have some serious mental health issues.

Hmm 5 days and no reply , could it have realised its mistake ?

I believe the greatest mistake many of us did - me included, was to become too attached to this flight sim.

Perhaps because we invested so much effort and time on it, we started to feel too attached and emotional.

Clearly that was a mistake - and we were taught a harsh lesson for it.

The good news is that, thanks to that lesson, we (or at least me) discovered that there is a whole world of flight sims out there, waiting to be discovered and in consequence, we put this flight sim (DCS etc. ) in its proper place.

It is just another flight sim.

+1

I would not call it a mistake. My hours spent on DCS A10C were very well spent and I do not regret any of it. I have taught a few people, some of them complete n00bs that didn't even know what an "OSB 1" was. I vaguely remember telling another about what the "FPM" was and what it signified. Learning how to ripple-fire all my Mavs in one pass was fun and my buddies and I flew "In The Weeds" so often we got better and better as pilots and as a team. I loved DCS back then, and I showed it by buying DCS BS2 despite having little intention of flying the Shark.

The mistakes IMHO were how the company carried on afterwards.

It's just a flight sim? Yes, and no. Notice how geeks and nerds rage and froth at the mouth when a movie tramples over their beloved book/series/genre? Similar. Yes, it's just a hobby. No, it's not "just" a hobby. Choosing to spend our free time this way means we are investing ourselves in it and becoming attached only comes with the territory.

Excellent post with good perspective!

Unless you are one of its shareholders, no corporation owes you anything more than what you've contracted with them -- that's the law. While they may decide to "go above and beyond" your contract expectations, they predominantly do that to ensure continued sales. To say "I'm going to work voluntarily for them so that they do what I want" is a delusion. If they fail to meet our expectations we can decide to move on and take it as a lesson learned.

Complaining to the "choir" may feed our ego, but results in little else..

That's not an excuse for lack of personal discipline.

How dare someone enjoy the game!

How about those who argue about buying a product that seems to be perpetually in beta? Those that have had bugs for ages that have not been fixed? Doesn't the "company" owe them a product that is at least supported with bug-fixes?

While you can be technically correct about your point, you will find that it is those companies that "go above and beyond" that attracts repeat customers and gets MORE customers by word-of-mouth. Is "continued sales" a bad thing? Is the market big enough for them to NOT go above and beyond? While a few of those that complain are modders, most are not.

Personally, I have moved on and I have learned a lesson. Still, that doesn't mean I don't get sad/angry/upset seeing how it has "evolved" now. I can only hope they get their act together and my face is sore from all the facepalms I've been doing


In what way was that "a lack of personal discipline"??


I know, right?!!? Gasp! Horror!

There are two types of people in this hobby--those whose enjoyment of a product is irrespective of who it comes from, and those whose enjoyment is almost completely subservient to their feelings about the creator.

Some of us will call a piece of junk by our a favorite developer a piece of junk and move on, awaiting their next (hopefully better) one. Some of us can buy and enjoy one made by a developer whose business practices disgust us.

Others will like whatever comes from our favorite developer, no matter its quality, because we like them. Or hate whatever comes from the Bad Dev, no matter its quality, because we hate them.


I'm firmly in the first camp, but I understand there are people in the second one. I don't care about Madonna's personal life, I will like or a not a song she does on its own merits. I don't care about an actor's political views, I will like or not their performance in a film, or pay to see it or not, based on its quality, not whether or not they vote like I do. My in-laws are like that. Won't see a film with "X" in it because they were mouthing off about supporting something or other they don't agree with.

Oh, while I understand there are people like that, I don't agree with them. I don't care if they like what I like or not, I disagree with their reasons for liking or not. That's how I can agree with someone I disagree with, and disagree with someone I agree with, all the time.
I respect contradictory opinions based on good reasoning. I reject opinions based on shaky, erroneous, or nonexistent reasoning, regardless of how I feel.
Tell me you love Star Wars too because you like Vulcans...I'm going to shake my head and say "no."




The Jedi Master

12 months has past since I created this thread, time to dust it off and give an update on where this aircraft is at after putting my review of this aircraft on hold to allow Chris, the director at VEAO and his team a further 12 months to deliver a DCS fidelity level aircraft before continuing with my in depth report on a 3rd party developer who promised the world to the consumers and failed to deliver.

I take it that since ED have now officially dropped VEAO from their Friday updates, it can only be a matter of time now before the entire module is shelved

I see Chris has not accepted our requests here at SimHQ to attend these forums from time to time. 12 months of water under the bridge so to speak, however from my viewpoint it seems even ED have forgotten about VEAO.

How much 'progress' has actually taken place over the last 12 months?

Check the dates.


21 Apr 2016



25 Apr 2016



Nov 27, 2016



03-18-2017, 05:03 PM

Jsick7x: How am I still flying?



and here we see the shift of blame yet again towards ED to 'fix' the damage model and every thing else that has gone wrong over the last 5 years with this module
About the only person left at ED who still sees a future for VEAO is the only one left posting on the threads regarding this dodgy dev.
How can someone who blames ED for the short comings of a 3rd party developer actually be a community manager of the ED forums?



and confirmed by Chris himself




Don't take my word for it.....there are even times when ED get the blame for VEAO's short comings before they actually have proof that ED are to blame.

Here is a fine example.....








Mind you, 12 months pass by and low and behold.....



and Chris reacts this way to the consumer who paid for a module and 12 months later is still waiting for the smoke to be fixed





Read back through to the 1st few pages in this thread, right back to where I posted screen shots from 2012 from VEAO informing the sim world that the Virtual Red Arrows would be performing
an online airshow with this beast (AKA bad investment)......pointless with out smoke and yet I am still waiting for the airshow.....perhaps with out smoke eh Chris?

Is it worth buying even after 12 more months of further development??





And here we see the community manager, endorsed by ED themselves trying in vain to promote VEAO's waste of bandwidth from being moved to the mods section

Now I admit that 12 months ago, many of the fine gents in these very forums did not agree with me when I began the scathing review of this investment, so I gave Chris the benefit of doubt that a further 12 months of development would deliver what was promised, a DCS level fidelity aircraft.

That hasn't happened.....

Sobek?....surely you have an opinion on the topic at hand, or perhaps SkateZilla?

12 months on and here I am, a modest consumer waiting for a DCS level fidelity aircraft. the smoke feature, 12 months on.....not high on the agenda\bugs list for VEAO to fix considering this aircraft was based entirely on the VRA which Chris himself was a part of.

Over the next couple of day's I will update this review, no doubt word will get back to VEAO and Chris will jump on the thread promising me (and everyone else) a DCS fidelity aircraft within 12 months......stay tuned for 2018 gents.

I gave VEAO 12 months grace, so until 2018 I will keep this thread alive with updates and weekly reviews on this wasted bandwidth until the consumers get what was promised......a DCS fidelity aircraft.

Come one come all....take note those devs who are looking to 'promise the world in regards to DCS and fail to deliver'

How's that typhoon going Chris? seriously?

I hope Chris comes back to the thread......he might have a reply regarding why he's not answering my requests for a refund of this module........this was after he offered the refunds to unhappy customers.

Can't even 'gift' the key away anymore, obviously the ED servers were crashing right at Nevada release from VEAO's consumers 'gifting' away their hawk keys.
No wonder it took 3 days to download Nevada to the point where the 'gift' option was taken away from consumers

I LOL at how smoke is not a priority on an aircraft that's very well used in airshows.... someone needs to review how issues are prioritized.

Winfield, seriously bro... have you not learned anything yet? 12 real-time months for us is NOTHING to these guys. This is where all the misunderstanding stems from. When ED says they're going to release something in 2016, that means anytime in 2016 or anytime AFTER 2016. When they say something is going to be fixed soon, it means anytime soon or on the near future, definitely before your grandkids have grandkids. When you are operating on a timescale that spans decades and generations, 12 months is just a drop in the bucket!

After all, you guys have paid your money already, so what's the rush?

Ice, since I like you and every post you write in these forums.....I won't even respond with a long drawn out lengthy response. Except if SimHQ had 'green rep squares' (give reputation) you have enough respect (reputation) from me to be 'community manager' within SimHQ

You do know that was sarcastic, right?
Might as well beat the pro-ED bunch to the rhetoric.

Also, I can't be community manager... have you seen the flak they're giving Force10 for his "bias"? Hahahaha!!

See why I back you 110% with every post you write in these forums

you and Paradaz alike, both need to be put forward as moderators and community managers at ED's forums.....absolutely no sugar coated outside influence in what you both post, which I draw my influence from

If ED took a leaf from SimHq's books, the ED HR department would be in a much better state than it is now

The last time I put someone's name forth to Wags himself it earnt me a lifetime ban.....,Wags himself needs to sign up to these forums and see how life is outside North Korea

Wags has had an account on these forums for a very long time.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/users/144/wags

His last post was back in 2012 but it seems like he's visited recently....





Awww... shucks!

"CSI SimHQ"

LOL

Nate

It sounds like a similar 'investigation' by one of the resident SimHQ detectives in the example below.....where someone was discussing the amount of inactivity in the DCS forum




http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.p...-discussion-from-live-stream#Post4345372

Yes Watson, it is the height of detective work to read to read the bottom of a web-page LOL.

Nate

Ah Nate, Perhaps with all your wisdom, you can find the 'cause' to the ejection issue that crashes entire hosted servers in the Hawk, now that would be some real DCS 'detective' work.

Huh?

Nate

Now that is how VEAO's next coder would no doubt have responded when opening the hawk code for the 1st time after sacking Tango

Ok

Nate

From a PR point of view....it doesn't look good when every review on the steam page is a Thumbs down with endless complaints.

Steam reviews

Here is 3 randomly selected reviews over the last few years....

Exaggerating makes your point less valid.

hardly an exaggeration, using the plural steam page's would be exaggerating however, the link to the steam page all show thumbs down, that page being the main page. and the page most viewed regarding purchases and\or reviews

20 positive reviews

26 negative

Thats p1ss poor for any game on steam

The posistive ones are from 2015 .... and most a saying hope they get this or that fixed and it will be good module

2 years later it is still a turd

Still doesn't make the point INvalid. Might be best to know the difference, otherwise you just look stupid.

I never said it did, did I. Might be best to read the actual post instead of what you want it to say.

The model, on the outside does look superb though,
The cockpit glass recently underwent an overhaul which looks quite fitting with the external model.

The skin is also a mint, possibly the skin artist has drawn inspiration from Tom Weiss. could use a bit of weathering around the intake cowlings, nosecone, wings etc etc. Yet rest of the team obviously lacks the experience and has bitten off more than they can chew.
Pman must have come to his senses early in the development of the hawk with his endless stream of WW2 birds that would be developed. When I say WW2, I mean, far less coding of systems and no ejection seat which causes CTD or server crashes.

I never said you said anything.... might be best to read the reply before making yourself look stupid again.

Personally, I like the "clean" look for screenshots but want the "worn out" look for something that does actual work, like the A10


3D modelling obviously isn't the be-all and end-all when making modules


Maybe the CTD is the game's way of telling you your pilot died in the ejection sequence? Like Goose in Top Gun....

I think the thing I find the funniest about VEAO , is that they have 9 .............. 9 projects listed ,

but the first one is an unfinished disaster

I hope those 9 aren't signed by ED or VEAO would be a huge blocker for those modules ever to come true.
In all I am getting less impressed by this 3rd party arrangement for each quarter that passes by.
Creating initial hype and showing high-poly models with very well done skins (most) seems the easy part but closing the deal not so much.

So, maybe it doesn't matter if VEAO blocks modules after all, no module will ever be done anyhow.

As a Viggen fanatic I am already putting the thing aside with a big yawn.


But this pre-release alphabeta process is brilliant, no you can't get refund since it is not released yet, when released you've had the module too long so you can't get a refund.

Ok....I am going to put this out there and let you draw your own opinions and basis.

several years back, before I began this thread, I asked Ells on the ED forums if there were 2 copies of the hawk, 1 for the consumers and one for the military contracts which VEAO mentioned they were aiming to sell Hawk for.
I said "it would make sense to delay the consumer version so that the finished military version could be shopped around before the consumers had their hands on basically what the military version had.

At the time I had the SFM, PFM was still being shopped around but not decided on before it became EFM

Ells informed me that there was only 1 version and he wanted it completed just as much as I did. There was no completed military version which I had mentioned after the initial 12 months of delay's and bugs.

Is there really only 1 version? after all these years and the bugs that are still outstanding, wouldn't it make sense if you were trying to sell a product to military contractors that you had a completed model? Any company would be a laughing stock trying to sell off a solution which was far from complete.

In the current state hawk is in, like the ejection issue for instance, would you still take it to a military expo like sounds that don't work such as the aden gun pod and really stand proud at stand C182 at the International Forum for Military Simulation (ITEC)?

Delaying the consumer version whilst shopping around a fully functioning bug free version at an "exaggerated" price vying for military contracts would make far more sense than fixing bugs in the consumer version,

Like ICE said only a few posts back along the lines of "They have your money, they don't care" which is basically the truth of the matter.

Before someone jumps the gun on me, let me add this.

Chris is not only the director of VEAO simulations but all so the Director of Porrima Simulations, Check the company Logo, look familiar?

VEAO changed their logo on the ED forums in their signatures recently, obviously they want to look like separate entities to their military simulation company Porrima.

As you can see from the post just above, 6:13, 17\5\17 on the day that Porrima are attending ITEC as listed on the Porrima website.

Now to me as a consumer, it seems I won't see a finished Hawk as the military contracts take precedence but it was the consumers who coughed up so the director could quit his day job.

It's in the Our Story tab:


Porimma is a joint venture between Eventuality UK and VEAO Simulations. Our aim is to provide the future of military simulations and we derived our name from the Roman Goddess of the future.

Eventuality UK is an events management company with over 30 years of experience delivering events for the MOD and a variety of other companies, including high profile names such as Breitling Watches. It was on a Breitling job where Eventuality first expanded into the simulator market, providing a combat flight simulator. As the simulator business has grown, it has expanded into providing military spec dome screens and driving simulators with motion platforms for companies such as Jaguar, Porsche, Aviator Watches and Motorsport Magazine.

VEAO Simulations develops realistic, high quality consumer aircraft products for use in the DCS World flight simulator.
These include true-to-life clickable cockpit, flight model, damage model, weapons panels including deployment, full systems models for multi-function displays, fuel, hydraulics, engine, electrical and realistic terrain models.
Its vision is to simulate air combat operations around the world in hypothetical war theatres for use by real world or virtual pilots using the latest synthetic flight simulation software and hardware. Aircraft development to date include the BAE Hawk T.1A, Eurofighter Typhoon, classic single engine jet aircraft and classic WWII War Birds.

The two companies first came together as part of the design process for the Breitling flight simulator, with VEAO developing the Breitling Jet to use whilst they held their South East Asia tour.
As VEAO Simulations developed their portfolio further it became clear that its high quality products could be particularly beneficial to military partners around the globe.
Through the joint venture, Porimma Simulations is now actively using Eventuality’s and VEAO’s network, simulator resources and solutions to provide the high level of detail and systems compliance afforded to the market leading synthetic training solutions.

Porimma will be attending ITEC in Excel, London on 17th May on stand C182 and we hope to see many of you there.[b][/b]

Wow, already? I'd have thought you'd stick with it for longer, but I can understand why...



OMG!! So many lies, so many half-truths!

What does an "event management" company want to do with simulations? Just expanding their portfolio?

I strongly doubt that there are two different versions. And if you look at the current progress of the Hawk and all the existing problems, it's very likely that no one would want it. Tango's code must have been a real mess to deal with. I have to give Chris and VEAO at least some credit for trying to keep it going. But on the other hand, they've had over almost two years to try and figure it out and fix it. So the "it's ED's fault" statements are getting a little old. I hope that they will finally get it resolved because it is a nice looking module. And it would be nice to have a Western dual seat fully functional trainer.

I could not have said it better myself.

How many more scathing reviews of this module will be needed in order to get the Hawk up to a standard that is somewhat acceptable?
Far too many excuses have been tossed out, instead of progress. "ED did this, ED did that..." How about we got in way over our heads and cant figure out where to go.

Sorry for the slight OT, but can you elaborate on this? Is the Viggen not good?

I think it's more "there's nothing to do" once you've got a grasp on the systems and weapons and stuff.

Some people are into combat flight simulators to fly combat aircraft into combat. I know. Crazy, right?
Not to build missions, not to train over and over, and not to fly the same thing hoping for different triggers.

That would be the honest answer - but doubt we'll see that.

I have no doubt that working with ED as a 3rd party developer across multiple streams (versions) is probably a nightmare with integration & regression testing being highly manual. Some of the ways in which the 3rd parties have implemented code probably isn't helping and in some cases highly susceptible to breaking with core code changes (and try and do that now across multiple streams). BUT - I still feel that in this case they really have dropped the ball in terms of providing a quality product and I will never buy another of their products unless there are many positive reviews.

All I can say is it's a real shame - I always want to support those that love our hobby...

And then there was....



I think I have worn the "are you a real hawk pilot" from an earlier post here in these forums from VEAO.



Unfortunately Robert has fallen into the trap that "a few more builds and all will be well"

Well.....12 months ago after discussions with Chris when I let this thread die, I was promised "a few more updates and all will be ok"

12 months later and here we are.....

Ah, word must have got back to ED\VEAO regarding VEAO's blaming of ED's patches causing numerous bugs

Have a go at this from not so long ago.



now it's....."Tango's code is the cause of the bugs and now we need to rewrite every 8000 original lines of code that Tango provided before his essential sacking after asking for a pay rise"

The plot thickens.....the conspiracy theory balloons as it spreads....almost like an invasive weed or parasite.

This review must seriously be quite damaging from ED's point of view (the thread being monitored by ED's staff) if VEAO's tune and shift of blame has gone from ED (whilst supported by the community manager) to "Tango's code is the actual cause"

very interesting indeed. Still no comment Skate? Sobek?

Another 5 years of development confirmed having to rewrite the entire code base just to get the smoke to function......

one would of thought that the re-coding would have taken place 12 months ago......obviously the re-coding is a bug that ED need to fix?

I see stuff like this and i think of this guy ...............

My guess is that because of all of the problems, VEAO wishes they had never released it.

I'm sorry, but does the ED team re-code the A-10C and the Shark's flight model or weapons systems for every patch? Does it have to re-work the F-15 and the Su-27's FM?

So why is VEAO claiming that all it's problems is due to the ever-changing nature of DCS? Sure, I appreciate that things get broken after a patch, but is smoke REALLY that much of a challenge to code? If they're having problems with smoke, then how does it look like for things like the FM?

Also, did none of the 3rd party devs know about this three-build plan when they decided to join and make modules for DCS?

Ice defending ED for once...

Every single update that has been released since 1.0 either in 1.5 or 2.0 has caused bugs with both of these modules and quite a few others. I know this for a fact because I've experienced them first hand. Switches that don't work properly or lights that don't work or ground crew repair that's broken and causes the jet to flip around 180 degrees. There have also been other problems like TGP showing transparent vehicles in thermal and weird flight model behaviors, radios not functioning properly. There have been bushel barrels full of problems. But the Hawk has been exceptionally broken. It wasn't available in 1.0 though so who knows how it would have been if released back in that version of DCS World. Unless VEAO was originally coding it in 1.0, I guess they would know. The Hawk has never really been officially finished though.

Of course they didn't.....because it wasn't in ED's integration plans either. It only manifested when they couldn't finish 2.0 in time and had to break apart the functionality into separate streams just so they could get something 2.0 related with a 3 year delay instead of an 5 year delay which is about where we are now.
Whilst I have some sympathy for 3rd parties having to work with a company that has no road-map, no idea which way they are headed at any moment of time and react to their commercial/military contracts, I've no sympathy for the third parties that follow the same early access/beta path that ED defined which has no finish date and often no intent to actually complete the modules they are taking money for.

You need to wash your mouth!!


Ouch! Although I'm not surprised, the norm has been to fix 1 thing and break 2 others things with each patch. I guess if the patches break good modules, I can only assume what it does to bad modules.


So if they didn't know at the start, what did they do when they realized that this was the path ED was going to take? Why go along with a plan that is clearly inept and would involve so much more work than necessary? Why not stand back, tell ED to finish their work, then start their own work once the core systems of DCS have been set down?

I guess I'm giving ED and 3rd party way too much credit here in terms of common sense, but the questions need to be asked.

They've actually done a pretty good job of squashing most of the bugs. You know how I am about this and I'm not going to defend ED's practices. That's their job, to fix the bugs and make it a viable sim environment. I'm just as sick and tired of the excuses as a lot of people are. But at least most of the real nefarious ones have been addressed. The other serious and mostly invisible problems to most users are all of the triggering and scripting bugs. It makes it close to impossible for mission builders because it's a constant moving target right now. They have stated that a lot of those bugs should be mostly fixed by the time 2.5 is released, in 2020 probably.

And that is exactly the same reason why ED shouldn't be putting effort into supporting/pushing payware campaigns until the core game is merged and stable.

Apart from having to patch the game just to support a campaign, it means that EDs involvement in pushing these also gives them responsibility in the fixing/integration and re-testing each and every one once 2.5 is released.....in 2050 probably.

^^

A waste of time for ED having to release updates to make campaigns stable on a monthly basis, as was signing on another 3rd party developer who promised good things with WW2 only to pull the pin and leave ED to pick up the kick starter promises.

VEAO is basically the 1st and longest running 3rd party developer....now ED has to divert time yet again to fix VEAO's endless bug list. From a business stand point, VEAO's failed Hawk has to be damaging ED's reputation especially with quotes from VEAO informing consumers that ED have to fix the bugs,

basically all I am seeing here is a marvelous model and the coding for it into the 'world' being entirely up to ED.

ED need to burn off the dead wood.

I agree completely but part of the problem is that some people in the community planned on and started building campaigns back some time ago. ED also had a contest for that as well so it's been a domino effect. I started building a lot of missions back a few years ago but stopped because the triggering system is badly broken for a lot of different functions.

Bumped....brace yourself gents......

I am about to have a field day with this thread......after I wipe the dust from the pages here in.

A fondness for trainers outside of the DCS platform perhaps? Will your next Mudspike review on the 'finished hawk' be blowing sunshine up Chris's behind since it has taken 5+ years so far....and it looks like another 5+ years to deliver a project that was meant to take 12 months?

True? where? what platform?

surely won't be happening in the next 5 years either mate......

in another 5 years perhaps? P3D? X plane 14? won't be DCS now that we have official statements the VEAO have gone down the tube......



If that's the case.....ED should have pulled VEAO's circuit breaker years ago



Still enjoying the heck out of the Hawk?? surely it has been shelved after all these years.......Publish my review at Mudspike, at least it's honest.





Let me guess.....You and me are on the same page and you are still waiting?




What about the sounds of the Aden cannon......they have been bawked to this very day.....



and seek a refund if you haven't already??



Yep, Approx date is 15 years from today's date, as it will be in P3D, then 5 years later, Dovetail Flightsim World, then X plane 14.



Ah.....bugs have been the root cause for many issues with this module eh?




Nope, quite sure the legal trouble has switched from BAE to ED.....has a nice ring to it if I don't say so myself.....



ah....that bug seems to be recurring.....even as far back as 2014. Recurring to the point VEAO released a statement saying they will be holding off on releases now in 2017.




Proof that the landing bug is not fixed even in 2017. Where was that in the mudspike review all those years ago?

(in regards to BAE back in the day)

It was never promising,,,,,, Let's be realistic on the situation, it was a flop from the get go.



Still waiting for something decent hey Nate



ah.....is this why you gave up tester status at ED Snoopy? bug reporting on this module became too much?

LOl, I haven't touched the hawk or done any testing for VEAO for close to two years if not longer.

As to why I left the ED tester team it had nothing to do with the Hawk, I left because I was asked to be a tester specifically for the A-10C and ED stopped fixing bugs or things that were just wrong with true module. No reason to give ED free labor if they don't listen. Anything more than that and I'd be violation of the NdA.

There you go, folks!

Good to see more satisfied customers of VEAO coming out in support of their favorite 3rd party developer.....or not




Source

Being the Unofficial Tester that I self proclaim.....Let me answer some of those questions.

VEAO's problems began the moment Director Chris Ells head swelled on 'a night out on the piss' (Aussie slang for having a few drinks too many) over dinner with his right hand man Pete AKA P-Man and decided to propose to ED a release of an aircraft that did the rounds on online Airshows. (Feel free to jump on anytime to correct me Chris as you have done in the past in this very thread) The downhill spiral happened when ED's very own moderators came out in support of the 1st 3rd party developer to be signed to the fray, followed closely by Belsimtek, CTD, Old mate WW2 and Kinney Interactive (Perhaps not in the order but those long term members may correct me at any stage) Back in the day, the dollar signs flashed before ED's very eyes that taking a small percentage of sales for other peoples work on the 'free' dcs platform would help fund holidays to Russia. Speculation here only but the slush fund needs funds in order for a company slush fund does it not?. As the Hawk already had an external flight model and cockpit (as far back as 2010, all it needed was the files to be released to ED, and a paypal account set up to get the aircraft out the door to consumers......sounds easy enough in theory but the reality of it was infighting with Tango the lead code-master on the project....Basically Tango made the scapegoat in the mess that began long before Tango involvement.....It began like I said over a night out on the piss, at Nando's.

The difference between VEAO's module\s and other 3rd parties is professionalism. Other 3rd parties now that have come on board with ED. These days, ED\TFC have far stricter conditions 3rd part developers are required meet before ED even looks at them as a developer. Back when VEAO signed up, ED took anyone based on face value. Now the developer (speculation only) is required to have a complete understanding on lua, c++ and other programming languages, all of which Chris had no idea about as stated by him in these forums. Other 3rd parties keep their mouth shut, don't make friends with consumer's from the get go let alone make Nando's jokes about how good their module is going to be than fail to deliver in every aspect. I won't go into detail of other 3rd party developers, many have had struggles of their own but not to the extent VEAO have with what was publicly announced as a 12 month project.

It is quite obvious how the hawk is coded differently to the Mig-21, M2000c. Razbam have been involved in flight sim development for many years. The Mig-21 guys have a full understanding of coding in several different languages by several members of the team (yes before the LNS\Heat Blur split, yet the coding was not just placed on 1 person as it was with Tango when he was at VEAO.

I will speculate again here, My educated guess is that ED have no doubt placed all of VEAO's e-mails in the spam folder so VEAO do not get the updates that other 3rd party devs get. To me it looks like ED has been trying to rid themselves of the VEAO cancer for quite some time now. No doubt ED have regrets signing them on as 3rd Party Devs and have pushed them out the door by not passing on information.....Not that the updated information would be any use to VEAO as they have no one with any professionalism let alone coding knowledge to decipher it.

I can not fathom why VEAO's entire thread has not been moved to the mods section yet. Unlike Coretex's thread when they failed to deliver and the 'team' left and started Polychop

Coretex Designs Flop

Or perhaps been shelved way back in a galaxy far far away like this clown who had an idea.....built hype up in the forums.....than left with out a word.

Another flop

Here we have the 2016 year in review and VEAO's aims for 2017......surely this post was to boost P40 pre-sales was it not?



Surely every consumer [mainly Hawk owners] of VEAO would not have bought into that truck load of crap that spewed from this dodgy dev, then absolutely no one would have believed a word that flowed from the right hand man, or did they?



Notice how Sithspawn and the regular moderators seemed to have dropped off the planet in that thread and 70% of all other threads within the VEAO sub forums from about the time I started this thread here at SimHQ. Just BIGNEWY, not that his comments hold an ounce of merit other than full blown support for VEAO in every subforum and thread that bares VEAO's association.

Lot's of congratulatory posts....nothing from consumer's such as myself on that forum due to the bans dished out to those former member's who raised their concerns over the years regarding the failure to produce anything worth paying for.

Source

How about this Gem from 2012....



Source

From that to this....



Source

And what happens when you build the hype in the forums.....people pay money.....hmm sounds like VEAO could have taken a card out of Kinney Interactive's fold 'em hands

Hindsight is always 20/20 and I bet the picture was very, very different in 2012. Heck, I just moved from DCS to BMS mid-2012 and there were still very high hopes for DCS. I thought my buddies and I would just have a quick stint at BMS, then return to DCS... or at least be flying both sims.

I guess the lesson here is: don't bite off more than you can chew.... and certainly don't be bragging about it beforehand.

.....and don't work with a 'prime' that don't have a roadmap and just react to changes as they see fit......because it will also affect the impossible schedule you have set yourselves.

The thing is, I don't doubt that other 3rd party developers have the same issues that VEAO have with goalposts moving all the time due to ED making unplanned changes that affect everyone elses dev streams. VEAO publicly denounced this whereas others will just suck it up at great expense.
ED certainly didn't plan the 3 tier development streams for example because that was born out of not being able to release DCS2.0 in a timely fashion, and then some of the functionality got splintered out into the 1.5.x and the 2.x alpha/betas.....that has affected most of the companies involved with this complete shambles.

I've been labelling ED as 'incompetent' for years. Nothing has changed, and ED hasn't either because they refuse to acknowledge they are constantly making mistakes and therefore refuse to learn from them too.

At least be a man, Paradaz, and admit to YOUR shortcomings in this situation. You have obviously not framed any of your points in a constructive manner. It's easy to criticize, to find faults, it's much harder to help the other party improve. If only ED had more constructive input, maybe a forum where such feedback could be given......






Pffftt.... hahahahahahahaha!!! Sorry, Daz, just couldn't resisit.

Again, going back to 2012, I wonder what spiel ED had to attract these 3rd-party devs to the table? If VEAO could be brazen enough to make those plans and claims, I wonder what ED told them regarding the Core DCS code? The schedule may be impossible with the core code constantly changing; maybe such wouldn't have been the case if the core code was stable and remained mostly constant throughout.

I was asking myself the same thing when I read the statement....


Look at how professional Pete "P-man" Pan's response is.

Ali's comment is quite justified considering VEAO have been in the official forums at ED since 2012. Due the the heavy censorship over the last 6 years regarding the module from complaints and bans handed out, the public do not see open discussions with this developer on just how crap the module and company as a whole really are
other than what takes place in PM's on the official VEAO website when consumers are asking for refunds.

Fear not gents.....over the cause of the week\s. I will gather posts from upset and irate consumers and post them here.

before anyone comments on the exaggeratedly enlarged photo, it is well deserved and on par with the attitudes of the entire VEAO team and their views being larger than the consumers.

What amazes me is the company placing blame squarely on ED in terms of updates breaking their systems.

Who is actually the one to blame here? the company who can't fix\release a very 'basic' module in terms of coding and systems or the company who awarded contract to the 3rd party flopveloper to complete the module they were contracted to complete before the expiry date.

Would you not think that meeting the contractual deadline on the modules the business has signed up to release by a set time frame, have the module\s released or in fact seek an extension of the contract like it does in the real world?

Or perhaps VEAO publicly blaming ED for having a 'bawked' release of the engine for the shortcomings of VEAO had something to do with ED laying down the contract card.....one can only 'speculate' but I can say with some confidence that this was the beginning of the split between VEAO and ED's 'friendship'

flopveloper




But then again......how is this for an excuse.

The steady flow of happy consumers that Pete 'P-man' mentioned earlier.....

Mind you, this one comes in response to VEAO's business statement that they are moving on from ED\TFC



Or how about this regarding ED ending the typhoon contract, this bloke is very satisfied Pete, one of the 'thousands' of happy consumers you mentioned earlier.

surely the only 'satisfied customers' VEAO speak of come directly from the ED forums as the frustrated posts by consumers are swiftly removed.



Seriously....a community manager would certainly have inside knowledge with ED\TFC dealings with VEAO.....yet we see this



Must have been hard to keep a lid on the matter eh?

So not only is the module bugged for 6+ years.....the happy consumers of VEAO mentioned earlier by Pete are experiencing.....'happy bugs' whilst trying to seek a refund.

Mind you.....outside of DCS and directly on the VEAO webpage. Proof that the hawk coder can't even figure out how to work wordpress.
No wonder the Hawk module and every other module these clowns proposed failed.....can't even get the website working. Yes the date is old but the point is still very valid




How many times in this thread have I quoted VEAO directly that "We are working on it" in terms of bug fixes....

VEAO you seriously are the absolute laughing stock of the flight sim world.....Anyone else feel the need to become a 3rd party developer for DCS and come into the ring carrying a massive head swell??? if so, let this thread be a learning experience......hence why I will continuously update it from from to time. ED\TFC should use this thread as an example on why stricter quality control should have been placed on this cancer from the beginning..

The response to this amazed me.....to the point that the comment wasn't deleted or the user banned



Deserves to be shared, probably one of the very few posts that are allowed to 'go against the grain'



yet here we see another comment from the 'happy customer's' of VEAO mentioned earlier by P-man



which pretty much sums up the feelings of the 'thousands' who are happy with the hawk.

Like P-man said, there literally are 'thousands upon thousands of satisfied customers'

Proof there are thousands upon thousands of happy customer's......happy in the fact the facebook page passes 4000 'likes' and no one cares let alone follows anything of relevance that is posted to the page.

1 'Happy Customer" even forget's what they purchased let alone this is proof that same 'happy customer' spends more time flying the competitors module to the point they need to be corrected.on what this flopveloper actually released. (Thousands hey Pete?)

If you buy something then ask for a refund, and get your refund, are you still considered a customer??

My point exactly Ice.

Ah I found a couple of other 'happy customers' of VEAO



or did I?

Proof the 'thousands upon thousands' of satisfied customer's is a load of crap....inline with the module. Absolutely no censorship or deleted posts of those 'happy customer's' over at VEAO's official forums hey Pete? Especially from those voicing their opinion on this flopveloper

I hope these guys figure out that the end consumer does not know and/or does not care about how complex or simple a fix is. Whether it is a band-aid fix or a total re-code from the ground up, what the end consumer sees is whether the module is working as expected or not. If you were a racing car driver, would you appreciate a very complex car for it's complexity if it did not win races? Or would you go with a simpler car that can give you a fighting chance for a spot on the podium? All this dev whining does is massage their own egos..... the consumer does not care for that. The "massage" for such egos should be the money that comes in due to the consumer being happy with a good product...... and if the product is good enough, word-of-mouth can be an amazing thing.... and then more money comes in to massage the ego.

Like I said, never count your chickens before your eggs hatch. Why can't people keep their mouth shut and let their actions (or product) do the talking for them?

It is that time again gents. 12 more development months is upon us, time to dust off the VEAFAIL thread and give the anual update.



Over the next couple of days, I will add to this thread some 'quality points' for the next 3rd party developer who comes along, promises everything, delivers nothing

**Reserved**

These guys are a match made in heaven combined with the incompetence of ED. They should turn their focus to cyber-security, they could inadvertently bring down North Korea by total mistake when trying to fix something else that's completely unrelated!

that has to be one of the most truthful posts in this thread.

They operate along very similar lines....like VEAFAIL's 'hydraulic jitter'



So the hydraulic jitter is now a confirmed issue?

Before it was "turn off force feedback, it's a joystick issue" almost like ED's 'Memory leak' which NineLies basically put it down to "upgrade the ram, no problem with the software"

What is funny about VEAO and ED to me is that they will ban you for a short time for criticism or for life if your criticism is , in their eyes, harsh enough, yet they both allow almost criminal practices. IMHO it is criminal, but I am not accusing anyone of anything. Ed allows 3rd parties to advertise and pre-sell (7/02/2015) modules that are never released (VEAO P40) for years. Then VEAO offers a limited time refund, which they do not send an E-mail to their pre purchase customers to advise them of this opportunity even though they require the customers E-mail upon pre purchase and could do so and give each customer a chance to get the refund. They offer this refund in writing on their FB page and in the ED Forums only. I am guessing, maybe someone can share the facts here, but I am guessing this offer lasted less that a month. I was told it was one week, but I can't confirm that. I don't use FB and I go to the ED Forums maybe once a month, so I missed this refund possibility. Once I found out about the refund I PMed and asked on the Forum but was denied and told that the VEAO Lawyers had advised VEAO to make this a limited time offer. So here I am still owning a pre sale module from 7/02/2015 that I most likely will never see as VEAO works on projects on other sims as their priority and works on the P40 slowly as a second priority. Pitiful in my eyes and criminal IMHO. Couple this with the 2.5 memory requirement shell game from ED and you have a true picture of how things are run in EDs world. This is not to mention all of the BETA Modules that never are finished while they make new shiny trains for DCS. Maybe Ed should revamp the the acronym to DCS, Digital Circus Simulator.

S!Blade<><

I tried to get a refund on the Hawk and was told they don't honour refunds on their pre-release content.

Given that the Hawk is so crap I can't really see how it will ever leave beta anyway......unless of course ED in their infinite wisdom decide to copy what they did with 2.5 and just transpose the version number onto their alpha content.

Why should they clean up their act? The main software devs (ED) does not and allows this sort of product to continue so where is the pressure coming from? The costumers who have already paid? What are they gonna do, pay more? Who wants to bet that this will soon follow a Black Shark 2 approach wherein "we did so much work for version 2 that we want to get paid for it!" and VEAO will release it as a separately new module?

Another issue I cannot understand is why develop a module when the core code itself is constantly changing? While VEAO is partly at fault here, it's not totally their fault, unless you go down the logic of "well, they could've chosen NOT to do anything until the core code is more solid."

I got a refund on the Hawk. I tried to give it a chance, I really did. But the quality just wasn't up to par with the FC3 level planes. Yes it had a mostly (at the time) clickable cockpit and I didn't pay much, I think $16. But the artwork to the sounds and whatnot were just not comparable to the other modules I owned. I got a refund via Steam. However, that was years ago. Probably three (3) years ago. I felt somewhat bad at the time because I do like to give niche game developers a chance. But now I am very glad I did. I'd rather put the money into a better module or another game.

Further to the hydraulic jitter that has plagued this aircraft since 2015....

Read some of the threads at the source: The responses are quite amusing from this bunch of failures. Heck even some of the 'consumer's who invested their money into this fail look for excuses to justify the money spent and comments made prior to release on how they look forward this 'awsome POS'
Just punch in hydraulic jitter in the search engine at DCS and there are several threads on the issue.....all but 2 are referring to this POS



It is very similar to the Aden gun sound issues from 'only' 2 years ago....



Aden pod sound

This was a review back in Feb 2017 from some unknown who was given a 'free' copy of the hawk to review.....



so we know from this review that the POS is 'a mostly finished aircraft' that to the reviewer is in 'a far more advanced state than the C-101'
yet the following 2 points stated have been around since 2013 pre alpha and 2014 Alpha

As for the Damage model, mind you this review was 10 months after I began this blunt honest review of this POS



Read the full review

10 months after I tested the damage model nothing had changed.

Brace yourselves gents, I am downloading DCS again as my hard drive crashed a couple of weeks ago. Possibly from the software related to the 'world'

I will upload a video of my findings with this POS and see what happens.


In the meantime, I thought I was the only person who didn't find the remarks from this dodgy dev un-funny.

I see where you are coming from, however the main point that I have raised numerous times in this thread and many more times in other threads is that this vendetta I have with VEAFAIL is not only to showcase how piss poor this POS module is but
to prevent this issue from happening with other 3rd parties licensed by ED\TFC\Belsimtek from happening again.

Now it is known fact that not only the 3rd party developers read the forums here at SimHQ as well as those employed by ED\TFC\Belsimtek. I can name 2 further 3rd party developers who have ranted in this very thread as backing vocalists for the VEAFAIL band in which I have responded with one comment to each 'licensed developer' and they left tail between their legs (looks at cobra)

However VEAFAIL were one of the 1st to gain a 3rd party license. Only a couple of threads below this one I made one that "Another 3rd party dev bites the dust" Yes I could have just moved on, shelved this POS and left this thread to die but I see it as the 'community duty' to give updates on an annual basis for the next 3rd party license that is just 'handed out'

Keeping this thread alive whilst knowing word is getting back from prying eyes of ED\TFC\Belsimtek and the 'follower's and backer's' of VEAFAIL. This thread alone is giving the community of DCS an honest review how not to present a module that would make the A-10C look like the HAWK did when I began this review. I'm still waiting for the airshow from the actual Red Arrows that was promised but never happened. Just one of the many points VEAFAIL made clear to the community before the release whilst chowing down nacho's

If you want me to review any other aircraft with the same honest and blunt opinions....I am open to suggestions.

My original goal of this thread was that if I can put forth uncensored honest opinions that would persuade any 3rd party developer to lift their game, AND they actually did from this review....the community would see more smiles and less gripes.

Now I could join in on in the 2.5 open beta thread chorus and hit a few 'high notes' myself, but Ice, Paradaz and many others have that one under control already. They have shared more views with submitted evidence even with out my mind focusing on that subject matter.

Who remembers when VEAFAIL announced their list of aircraft they had planned and the map was going to be a release of that actual Mach Loop and surrounding area??? shelved gents, can't even finish their 1st module after 6 years.

Roughly out of the 40,000 views this thread has had, maybe half of that are the same people....then there would be a possibility that 1000 of those people would love to see this thread locked and put to rest.

Now Chris at VEAFAIL comes from a stated OH&S background, I am more than sure he understands the term 'duty of care' well folks, I have a 'duty of care' to continue keeping this thread alive and updated until the consumer's get what they paid for.

Those future TFC\DCS\Belsimtek licensed 3rd party developers should take note from this very thread and sell something worth paying for (considering ED\TFC\Belsimtek have upped the price on modules across the store page)

NOTE:: I have not updated to the latest version since I installed DCS 2 nights ago. The following was recorded with the hawk from when it was last updated before this latest patch release.



Now there are a few subtle changes to the damage model of this POS. I made several recordings to give this developer the benefit of the doubt. Most note worthy is after crashing into a few vehicles, the POS was still able to fly as though it had both wings. Note the nav light on the wing is still lit up, flaps operate on both wings whilst one is completely missing.

The nose wheel missing several times is all so noteworthy as the POS sits as though it still has one. Still able to turn the aircraft left and right even though the nose wheel is completely ripped off.

This can be seen at 5:40

The damage model has been slightly improved but still has ways to go. Something that really stands out is that I can no longer overload either outer wing pylon which was possible 2 years ago. The aircraft will now fly with a single loaded wing with what weapons are available so yes I did need to give full left stick to get the plane upside down.

Perhaps VEAFAIL learnt from my video from 2 years ago and made the pylons only able to carry 3 bombs on the inner pylon, not the outer pylon. No longer able to overload the outside pylon which kind of defeats the 'unofficial testing' purpose.

The below is from 2 years ago.




Change is happening gents from this thread. The pylons have been moved, there is now 'damage' from coming into contact with vehicles (after several attempts). I am taking bets that VEAFAIL take the cheap alternative with the damage model in the not so distant future (2 years from now) and have the POS explode on impact if it comes into contact with anything else within the so called 'world' The damage model still has many more years to go before it is anywhere near a 'release' version. As for the EFM, it flies with a missing wing. Perhaps 4 more years of development time before this is worth reviewing.

I am just going to have to test this crap over the next few days and review this (unpaid of course, unlike NineLies)

I remember when someone tried to make a claim that ED calculates flight behavior based on flight surfaces deflection/input. DUH!

"Flight behavior due to control input" would describe every flight simulator ever made.

Not control input but rather by flight surfaces, like how XPlane calculates aerodynamics/flight characteristics.... at least that was the claim. Winfield's video showing the Hawk flying with half the other wing torn off shows this isn't the case.

I assume the least effort to technically comply with the statement, e.g. aileron deflection from 0-100% gives a force from 0-100%. Now you want functional dependency that aileron only works if wing is still attached? Wasn't part of the spec.

The problem described here is mostly due to the visual damage model not coinciding with the the flight model. I am not trying to defend ED/VEAO but I do see how the details of damage would be difficult to model with regards to the flight model. There is not an easy way to model how the aircraft will fly with x amount of damage to the aircraft.

I was quite suspicious of this myself when the Hawk was able to take off, fly a dodgy circuit with both internal and external views showing the the flaps at full extension have absolutely no influence on the 'EFM' let alone cause the left wing to rise and enter a spiral spin as it would IRL.

Back to the drawing board for VEAFAIL

I am curious about how this one has been implemented



This should be quite interesting considering the Hawk has absolutely zero 'flight logic' It flies on 1 wing just fine and taxis just fine even when it has no wing or nose wheel. I am calling BS on this one.

Yet if it had any logic, it would be able to do something like this in my test video above with the wing ripped off



Never fear gents, once I have completed the 'unofficial tester flight program' on the Hawk in it's current state, I will update to the 'latest and greatest' version for a side by side comparison

Another upsetting factor that has changed is the stores this crap wagon can carry.





Aden gun pod is only available on centre pylon, Hawk Story states otherwise, MK82's able to be carried on inner and outer pylon, VEAFAIL's only allow inner pylon, taking shortcuts on the module and I have only just scratched the surface over the last 2 years.

"HOW GOOD IS THE HAWK IN THE NEW UPDATE" said no one ever

Source

I cannot stop laughing at this one. It's not part of the spec in a COMBAT FLIGHT SIMULATOR??
Someon please remind me what "DCS" stands for?

Well, it seems like it's not been modelled at all if you watch Winfield's video!

Ice, it looks like cichlidfan carefully worded it as to avoid 1.13 which is clearly active even after removal from the 'official' forums. (NOTE TO OTHER'S: look in the 2.5 thread release.....it's still active)

Gents, I found this upload posted 2 days after I began this thread 2 years ago (VEAFAIL was in damage control at the time).

I am posting it here for reference as some opinions within this thread differ greatly on this module.....check out the cockpit in the video which I will refer to in a couple of days time as I carry on with this review.
Amazing to think that the comments around the same time as this video was made, the fanboi's over at ED were thanking VEAFAIL for such an authentic looking cockpit.

2 years on....these dodgy devs have learnt nothing



VEAFAIL still do not test their aircraft before releases.....let's see if this unfolds in the same was as the Aden sound post from 2 years ago.

Watch this space







Before someone chimes in "what about when it leaves the ground" .....already tested that, no Aden gun pod visible..

Can't be fkd even seeing if the sound works as IMO if the pod is not visible, than it is non existent.

However....let's see how long it takes for VEAFAIL to actually test and report on this issue. it was 9 hours with the aden sounds before Chris actually opened DCS and saw this for himself at the very start of this thread.....has the PR manager learnt anything from 2 years ago???? time will tell.

E in EFM means external. All this means is the calculations are done not by the A- or S-FM ED-made architectures. The range of fidelity is the widest with EFM from superior to tragic. While FM is an important part of a flight sim, systems modeling is the lion's share of the product. Most of the aspects of the sim you name: radios, displays, animations, engine, hydraulics, radars, weapons, sounds are all systems and not part of the FM.

Amazing avionics is great but I wonder how you feel if you've just lost a wing and are still flying roughly straight-and-level? Avionics is one aspect of a simulation, FM is another aspect, eye candy is yet another aspect. Superior avionics have no bearing or effect on shoddy FM and damage modelling.

Hawk competence (in descending order): Visuals, FM, SM. Hawk's SM makes their FM seem world-class.

SM? Sensor modelling?

Systems

Read before it gets deleted:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3469485#post3469485

Saved a few screen grabs for future reference for this thread

As it's been deleted now....Here is what was said



And the as expected 'pathetic' response



Old mate probably copped a ban however if he sticks his head here in these forums, make him feel welcome Gents.

No surprise here
I enjoyed post #7 in response to pman regarding multicrew and old feature list, will attach here later when I get back home (I too did printscreen the whole thread since I know how ED runs).

Love this when clicking on the link, Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

Notify an admin.



Yup, Posting Rights Suspended

Nice to see things still haven't changed over there on the "respectable" forum!

"Despite your tone...."
Tell me of one other business that responds to customer complaints like this?

Here is the second last post that probably made them decide to remove the thread.
In my opinion, once they decide to answer the post, bad tone or not , they should keep the thread.
As always, weak.

I read that post in the usual way and thought "hmm, tough but fair. Good that no one went ape since this is what everyone is thinking anyway." Then they went ape. Typical Soviets.

Forum? The definition of a forum is "a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged"

I don't know what to call it these days, but forum is most certainly not one one of the words I'd use. I used to call it a message board, but the censorship doesn't even qualify that. What a bunch of administrative......

Utter BS. The state of the English forum is not the doing of the russian speaking parts of ED, you can take my word on that.

I tend to agree. It is 9lies and his boss.

But I just took a trip to the dumpster. I don't want to go again.

It's still a forum of sorts, it's just that the forum encourages a certain idea or view and any other idea/view that deviates from that is actively purged from the forum Snowflake protection --- but if this exists only for the English forum, then the devs aren't the snowflakes, or at least not the non-English devs.



This has been echoed a few times. Interesting. How much of the powers-that-be and/or devs of ED are Russian? Surely the Russian side is not completely unaware of the shenanigans going on in the English side?

Another post from these failures to add to the thread....



More so the "I haven't seen it and neither have the dev team.

Good thing I haven't updated to the latest patch.....BAWK (no that is not a spelling mistake) won't even Install and the last thing I want ED doing is shutting me down with an update so I can not roll back and then no longer able to continue on this thread.
Could be a conspiracy theory here gents. ED release an update, old mate Winfield here updates and ED pull the roll backs and at the same VEAFAIL pull out of development of the BAWK.





The Great Circus of VEAFAIL use this statement almost as often as every other 3rd party developer when bugs pop up "it's not our day job we do this in our spare time" yet the countless time Chris has stated "It was working last time I checked"

Pathetic

If this was posted over at ED it would be deemed 'off topic" I dispute that claim, as this has everything to do with the 'damage model' that VEAFAIL have put forward to the consumer. How much more damage can VEAO do to their reputation as 'developer's? When it comes to the 'damage model' it is far better than anything ED\TFC\Belsimtek could produce.

Look at the "hype" these bunch of clowns generated.....Look at their previous coder.....the new one they have can't even pick up from where the last one left. (Now it's a complete re-code of the BAWK and it is still a farce)

It get's better and better for the "damage model"



We now have less than what we had when Tango left.

Does the competition still stand?? I can name a few things that have not been modeled even after 6+ years of development.....let me start with the Gun pod.

** Note, rather than create numerous posts tonight, I will just update as the night progresses***

And then there is this post from one our own respected members, pity it was not posted in this very thread for other 3rd party developers to see but I am comfortable that word has got around over the last few years that the ' other 3rd party developers ' are learning from VEAFAIL's mistakes.



The source for further inspirational posts



Let me see what is still broken to this day.....

"Flaps and gear down now effect flight model" - load of crap, I have proven this with a missing wing with flaps and gear down. Nose wheel missing has no bearing on the flight model

"Smoke pods"....non existent

"Aden gun pod will hopefully have it's texture by patch day." - the pod is completely missing.

"Aden sounds we are waiting on feedback for" - I have not tested as previously stated.....if it is missing, it is non existent

"Rudder sensitivity has been tweaked and is currently being tested" - Don't notice any difference from when I cranked up this POS 2 years ago so no change here

"DFM (Damage flight model) is being worked on following feedback from ED" - still is a sad state of affairs, it is a hit and miss as to what will be damaged when running into vehicles numerous times

"NTTR map ILS for airfields is being tested" - No idea....probably still BAWKed

"Controls indicator (RCtrl+Enter) is being tested." No idea, is this even a thing in any real aircraft?? do real aircraft show this feature on the HUD, Don't reply...it is a sarcastic response

**

Here have a go at this happy consumer of VEAFAIL that Pman mentioned in an earlier quote. The response from 9Lies is.....well expected.





Yes Pete.....of those 10's of thousands...that were are happy "back in the day" those 10's of thousands want their money back.

Another "satisfied" customer from 12 months prior

Unaware, no but the English forum is governed by the English speaking members. The Russian forum is much more laid back.

Until 9Lies learns Russian.....

And are they laughing at the English forums just as we are? Are they not worried about the name-tarnishing that is happening on the English forums?


Winfield, can you please tell ST0RM and Ramstein to stop complaining about bugs because "it's a beta"? I'm quite sure they'll fully understand and will be happy with that response

Hahaha, got the message Ice. I'll remain mum...

Yep, I wanted to see what might have changed with the Hawk. But it wouldn't install, nor would either PMan or Ells offer a proper solution. So I'm done with it and VEAO. If the RAF are using their work, God help them.

Sadly, they along with a few other of the 3rd party devs have not lived up to any hype and produced a respectable module. They throw around the word "patience" when people inquire as to the status of their long overdue releases. Like its our fault they wont put in the time.

6+ years of development and not even the developers have a clue on what is going on with the install......wait for it......."last time I checked it was working".......and then the whole. "it was working in the dev branch" and last year it was "development is on hold because ED's 2.0 branch changes we are not able to compete with in terms of development so we have shut up shop, moved onto a more stable branch which is Dovetails Flight Sim World"

Meanwhile in the news feature of FSW it was publicly stated from Dovetail themselves that "we are working on the release of our 1st jet trainer aircraft" put 2 and 2 together and you have VEAFAIL DCS version and VEAFAIL Dovetail version. Out of respect, the consumers who invested in this POS should get a free upgrade to BluSky's Dovetail release of this bugged POS since the refund policy states that refunds will only be considered by the developer if it was purchased on the now defunct VEAFAIL store page.

Dovetail.....stick to trains, cut ties with these bunch of stem bashers

No offense intended, buddy! I hope you got the humor/irony!



Moot point.
Read This!

*raises hand*

Has the Eurofigther been completed yet? These guys were working on that, right?

Thank you Ice for shedding some light on the matter.



It could be said that "player numbers dropped severely once word got around that VEAFAIL were developing the Bawk for FSW....Given VEAFAIL's track record with their POS and the large drop in player numbers after the statement, development for FSW became unsustainable.

Who knew that VEAFAIL could possibly be the cause for the closure of FSW?

Oh yes. No offense taken at all.

This +1000. Anyone who takes VEAO as a serious producer anymore should consider a frontal lobotomy. Even IF I do ever receive the P40 I pre purchased from them on 07/02/2015, I have a sneaky feeling it may


just Suck! On a postive note, by the time they get around to releasing it I may have a new rig with 64Gbs of Ram so I can actually see if it sucks or not. I am trying to keep an open mind at this point.
I am wondering if VEAO can Smell, Taste, See and Feel the Sarcasm here??? Probably the smartest thing for them to do is just lock the VEAO thread altogether and just post their updates now and again and allow no feedback.

S!Blade<><

According to Froogle, Dovetail wanted 30% from 3rd parties developing for FSW. If that is true, then adding the 30% cut from Steam would have left 3rd party devs with 40% of their products retail price. It would seem that Dovetail priced FSW out of the market for support by 3rd parties.

So, while VEAO may not have the most stellar reputation, putting the blame for the cancellation of FSW on them is really a bit much.

Have you got a source reference? It was my understanding Froogle died out 10 years ago. Why is it relevant to use data from defunct source of information?

Froogle, not Frugal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ujKNoCVvVM

That's what's wrong with epople nowadays! They want to thave the things they buy immediately! Now! Now! Me! Me! Don't you guys know these things take time? Come back in 10 years! For the beta version.

Well, while I am at it, ME, Me, Me, Now, Now, Now, I am wondering whether I will be alive to see the likes of the P47 and Me262 from the Normandy 1944 Kick Starter debacle. Then again, I do need some time to save the $ to build that new Rig to be able to actually use DCS with a decent frame rate. And to think, I am a "Baby Boomer", how have I succumbed to these instant gratification desires? I digress, 10 years is reasonable?

S!Blade<><

We might still be alive at that point.... barely.

So now we know that these bunch of failures next venture recently collapsed like the Hawk code and every other excuse VEAFAIL throw out

Anyone of the few here left that are not banned able to ask what their next venture with a "primary platform" is is? best to not mention Dovetail or FSW directly......we wouldn't want to break the rules now.

Ask them in this thread here if you could. I am keen to see the reply.

Don't you just love the way Pete makes the company out be like they are on par with shareholders in the likes of Microsoft\Sansung\Apple etc etc. Only 1 person in this collapsed company works full time. The rest all "have day jobs" and it's a "hobby"

what invester would pour money into a company that only has 1 full time employee??



How to fail in business

How the Hawk would be in 2025 if these guys got their act into gear and put 110% effort into their release and not focused time and energy into other platforms or aircraft.



Be nice if that was recorded in DCS World.

My question is, are all run-ups performed up on the runway? Mine are performed in the parking lot with GA aircraft, or in a free space off the taxiway. R22\44's are performed as is where before the hover check.

What is interesting is the flaps are down on the aircraft at the very end. My instructor drilled into me that the the flaps are raised before entering the taxiway after flight in GA. Why is it that the flaps are down in the Hawk yet when placing static Hawk aircraft in DCS the flaps are up?

Perhaps VEAFAIL need to investigate and ask the same 'real pilots" the questions.

Why put more time and resources in a module that probably has made 80-90% of the sales it will ever make? Even if the Hawk was fixed to your satisfaction tomorrow, I doubt that there would be significantly more sales of the module given the ED environment and VEAO history.

Good point, however I get more satisfaction from running this module down in this thread than I do flying the POS.

True. I was just pointing out one flaw of this ED pre-order 5 years in advance system.

Therapy. Good. I worry about some members here, it's like they've lost a loved one and just can't let them go

We've all said DCS has great potential. 8 years after DCS A10C and it's a shadow if it's former self; a joke that can't even get its story right and can't even deal with customers in an adult manner yet still pretending to be adults themselves.

It's not losing a loved one and can't let go, it's watching a loved one flush their future down the drain.

Nah, it's a loved one who stole your money and you're hoping they get their sh1t together and be able to pay you back.

How does this have anything to do with the module? If you are worried about your mental stability, this forum is probably not the best place to air them. Unfortunately I am not qualified to offer the help you seek

I wouldn't even mind not getting my money back so long as they got their sh!t back together.... but then again, I've done my best to spend my money wisely on DCS, so I guess I'm less in the hole compared to others here.

I consider the sarcastic winky emoticon used in this way an insult in violation of the rules of conduct for this forum and have reported it as such.

We really should have a [sarcasm] tag, shouldn't we?

Actually...that's almost exactly what's happened. We watched as ED killed what could have been the best combat flight simulation ever created with a stable platform, well matched adversaries in a feature complete era, dynamic campaign, medals, promotions, squadron kill board, competent AI...etc. Unfortunately, we have...and always have...this never ending unfinished steaming pile of sterile, lifeless, branching poo.

It's like we loaned a friend some money...and then watched them commit suicide.

It's still good just... so many mistakes. You could have a really good time playing DCS except for that thing, oh and that thing, and yeah that's broken but I'm sure they'll fix it soon. The good parts of DCS are quite well done but like an Apollo space mission 80% good and 20% goofs is a lethal experience.

Absolutely.
But I'm not sure we share the definition of soon.

What's interesting with ED though is not when/what they will fix stuff but what will they break (like "world.searchobjects" currently in 2.5) of currently non-broken features.
And what 3rd party module features will they break (see atmospheric pressure and DCS Viggen)?

Why do I, as end-customer, have to beta-test och re-verify my missions every-friggin-time-they-frigging-update-soddery-dcs-world?

I could sell my own children just to get a hand on DCS source code and have the laugh of my life at the level of spaghetti-code there must be.

I was thinking more like the Challenger, 20% good, 80% failure with the 'o-rings' being the graphics engine.

looks good for the 1st 20 seconds.....after that, it is on a path to disaster

Locked at the request of the OP

Unlocked at OP's request

And here we are......




Where did it all go wrong??

One has to stop and ask themselves "how did this happen to this bunch of dodgy developers"

Fear not gents. let me take you on a ride through time, a ride from start to finish for this shelved dcs mod project. I will give you an incite as to how it went so wrong for VEAO
who hide under a banner of.....



Obviously blame rather than self reflect.....

Pull up a stump as I take you back to the nacho's eatery in a small town far far away where it all began for VEAO\Blue Sky, You will see just how quickly those blue skies turned to black.

2.5.4 Todays new DCS Patch = No more Hawk, it is unavailable to be flown anymore .... the door has closed

Hey, at least we were able to fly the POS HAwk for a couple of years. Not so with the P40. That was just a complete VEAO RIP off. No, lube, no protection, just here is one in the rear for you. Thank you very much. That is ok, what goes around comes around. Those guys will get their just deserts in the future and they won't even see it coming. A bunch of crooks.

S!Blade<><

As this journey progresses, we must 1st look back where it all began. The beginnings held some hope inspiration into the unknown and what lies beneath to where it ended up. This was a catastrophic disaster on all fronts.
Watch as the blame shifts back and forth between everyone who was associated with this failed venture yet absolutely no apologies for the damage done, not only to ED as a business, but broken promises to it's member's, consumers and shareholders.
Let's look at this thread as a 'study thread' DCS was palmed off as a study sim so let me use this thread as an in depth study in the failings of what has taken place over the last decade of development for a single module.



From that, we can gather that VEAO set in motion a plan, at that stage very early on, this plan was not a thwarted by the infighting or the inexperience of these mod makers who had absolutely no working knowledge of the DCS code structure.
It began with a statement of what VEAO had pipe dreams of. Previous skill sets included a cut of the hawk drawn in microsoft paint and pasted over an su25 in Lock-On.

The OP began to build hype and momentum within the DCS forums with the fanbois squealing like pigs "take my money" before anyone stopped to think "are they actually capable of releasing anything on par with the A-10C" (cue Winfield)
To add another diesel engine to the hype train, Chris mentioned the work he had done with the typhoon and the RL pilots who used it for a recruitment tool. it's safe to say that the "beers flowed that night" as Chris presented his sales pitch
on what the consumer could expect in terms of a quality DCS product.

However, to quote Chris

This to me stood out as though it was an uber driver on Linkden networking with other Uber driver's on the ride share app more than it stood out as a company who knew what they were doing from the getup.

During the early stages of this study thread, I believe it will be beneficial to put forth and draw comparisons between a ponzi scheme and VEAO, it will add merit as to what took place on that fateful day at Nando's all those years ago.

***on a side note, could someone please explain to me why Ells and his minions still have "3rd party developer" under their avatar at the official ED forums??*** I would ask myself but as you all know....I was removed from the forums for this very thread.

Best modules ever released for DCS: A-10C, Ka-50 and Su-25T...

agreed, I began with the A-10C, moved on to the KA-50 and ran a few multiplayer missions with the SU-25. absolutely the pick of the bunch thus far. mind you,

Let's just hope these thieving incompetent criminals never return under yet another new name. It wouldn't have been so bad if they had genuinely struggled and ultimately collapsed under the weight......what they did (and Ells specifically) was lie to the customers throughout the entire abortion of the project and take people's money under the 'early access' banner without any remorse knowing full well they could never get anywhere near their claims.

They registered Blue Sky Simulations when the whole 2.0\5 saga took place. The hawk was on hold for years while the wheels churned behind the scene while they copied and pasted the flop into Dovetail's Flight Sim World.....quite fitting for VEAO\Blue Sky as FSW folded. Luckily I purchased Dovetails Flight School for $5 on sale and received the free update to FSW. even now they are asking $30 AUD for a venture that pulled the pin, that venture being FSW. Like VEAO, showed a lot of promise in the beginning......

Hope again ..............

http://porrimasimulations.co.uk/about/

I'm aware of that one.....I hope they update their information because one of the claims in the 'about' section is;



It wouldn't surprise me if they create yet another business name just to try and hide away from this utter calamity, I would trust Chris Ellis half as far as I could throw him

Ponzi scheme....that's exactly what this bunch of jokers are. With every new registered business.....the more I will draw inspiration to this very thread

That link has been doing the rounds for a while......
You beat me to posting it. I was actually planning on mentioning it when I begin the comparison of a ponzi scheme.and this unmitigated disaster that later became known as VEAO

From the spoiler post a couple of post above this, VEAO have put forth an opening argument to the sim community that they have some knowledge of how to create a "free module" with vast experience driving uber's.....

Yet have a crack at this only a week or so on from the opening statement voicing the creation of the newly formed VEAO company to the sim community....

.

in a matter of 8 days, Chris went from a professional blue collar to a hi-vis council worker in less than a fortnight.....and to be honest, it stayed there.

VEAO had 'IT Issues' for well over 7 years.

There is a TV show in the UK called 'Rogue Traders' usually featuring cowboy builders etc. I'll keep a look out as I half-expect VEAO to feature on there some time in the near future.

The MiG-15 is excellent as well

And to voice something different:

The VEAO bashing is going a bit too far. You can call them out whatever you like for not delivering the goods, but in no way can you call them criminals. They had good intentions all around, but just failed to deliver the goods because they didn’t have the skillset necessary for making a module

. Don’t forget: You lost a bottle of scotch, they lost their livelyhoods.

And now the pitchfork internet crowd does everything in their power from ensuring they never have a job in the industry again? Come on now. How would you feel if your company just went bankrupt and you have a wife and children to support? And this all because they bought exactly this risk when buying Early Access: you pay 100% of the money, with 0% insurance of completion. (The same with all that Kickstarter folk, why in hell would you invest in something if you get no money in return? That is about the stupidest thing you can do)

As for the P-40: I have no idea what on earth people possess to pre-order stuff, since you’re risking exactly this kind of thing. I can understand buying the Hawk in Early Access, since in DCS everything is always “just about finished” right up until it gets abandoned for whatever grabs Rollin’ Matt and Packager Norm’s attention span. But with the P-40? You knew what you signed up for.

Don’t forget

They outright lied from start to finish....simple as. It's not just a case of not having the necessary skillset.

As for the P40, it's hardly a case of people knowing what they signed up for at all.

No they did not. VEAO did not have any full time employees. They were, at best, hobbyists. Chris might have lost his ass due to his investments in the company but the rest lost nothing more than a bit of extra income.

Exactly, At the start of Development VEAO did not have any full time employees for the 1st 2-3 years. Chris then mentioned that VEAO had "one full time employee" (himself) He stated that in this very thread as well.
You can carp on and stand in the picket line protesting against the treatment of these protected species, crying out in forums how their union leader was unfairly treated outside the ED office.....it won't do you or VEAO's supporter's any good.
This thread and information put forth in my view, will prevent another 3rd party like VEAO from signing an agreement with ED in the future. Sloppyflop & Aviojet who have only released one module are the quiet achievers, this clown came out
and said the project was virtually done. Then announced VEAO were moving on to the Typhoon and the 30 odd other aircraft in their pipe dreams 12 months after announcing the Hawk.

During their peak development, VEAO probably had 5 "part time" staff working behind the scenes but to Joe Public, the assumption and VEAO's own portrayal was 30 odd, especially when I was voicing my views if these "hypothetical"
ponzi scheme artists actually had the knowledge to release something their consumer's would be proud of. How many times did Pman and Chris both sing in harmony "we all have day jobs" Tango himself carped on "this is in my spare time"

Save it, hardly lost their lively hoods....maybe a slight dent in their ego but don't expect them to admit that any time soon.

So is DCS: Huey and apparently DCS Mi-8 as well (I only own Huey).
And what all these (also good) DCS modules (Mig-15, Huey and Mi-8) have in common??
- All are or were developed by Belsimtek
And who's Belsimtek?
- Nothing more than a front company of ED or more precisely ED with a different brand/name all with the purpose of trying to convince (actually and IMO, to deceive) costumers and 3rd parties alike that DCS World is truly modular like some other well known flight sims such as FSX/Prepar3d or the older SF series. Or at best, some sort of a "proof of concept" that 3rd parties can/could (effectively) develop content for DCS World.

So:
anything developed by Belsimtek = anything developed by ED
And there's nothing that I've read so far that can convince me otherwise.

Aren’t those modules still awaiting multicrew? I only have the Huey, but that one is still missing IFF and chaff as well last time I checked.

Oh well, it has been only 6 years

Silver_Dragon asked earlier on in the concept what weapons would be available. on the POS
and the response was quite clear on Chris's part. The hype was slowly building and publicly, actually looked like this guy knew a little bit (copy and pasted) from the hawk wikipedia.



I am not sure if it is Clive Elliot or Chris Ells these days.....

You get the picture....

VEAO set out to create hysteria on the forums and began greasing the cogs of what would later be the largest and most publicised scam in the history ED,

Being the 1st endorsed 3rd party developer and headed by a con job with intelligence exceeding far beyond the small number of money grabbers. Those who saw the 3rd party endorsements
opportunity as a get rich quick scheme like David Kinney's dead kick starter, the IL-2 con job.etc. This plan was thought out perhaps years prior to the public announcement of the formation of VEAO.

VEAO most likely envisioned the hawk as the bitcoin of DCS long before the coretex design flop, and L-39 tango fail and many many more than have come, seen and fallen from grace.
Even the kickstarter from some clown for a C-130 was a disaster and a quick money grab.




Source

most noteworthy, " will have to based on available data and our engineers best guess in wind tunnels etc."

This statement portraying VEAO having the knowledge to build the typhoon based on a guess by their "engineers" the whole business was based on guess work.

the suspense building....more fanbois squealing "take my money" "I'm throwing money at the screen"

I mean....they had engineers for f**s sake. How can a company that boasted good intentions, had all the gear "engineers, tech, artists etc etc etc" but not one of them had any idea what they were doing.



As for former Tango, I'd hardly class him as an engineer. a hobby coder at best. we will get to that.

Yes indeed.
But and nevertheless the modules that I mentioned above (including Huey) which were developed by ED..., err cough, cough... Belsimtek, despite having their faults are still much, much better than any other (true) 3rd party module for DCS. But again, this doesn't surprise me at all since (and again) Belsimtek is ED.

The enormity of the EF2000 development time VEAO was honest about from the beginning of this venture, The team knew it would take longer than the expected 6-12 months projected time frame to complete the Hawk.
Systems in the Typhoon obviously far more intensive than the engineer Tango was capable of. Yet VEAO never swayed from their "we have the clearance, we have the knowledge\man power stance"






Consumer were reassured that VEAO would not be guessing their way through he development. Perhaps at this stage so early on, P-man could have called an emergency meeting at Nando's with Chris and had a skype chat with
Tango on what he could actually achieve. Had any of Tango's resume actually been looked over, references contacted etc? did anyone contact the L-39 team to see if the work was actually up to scratch?
Did VEAO look over the dosier of crap presented by Tango and ask themselves "well we need to start somewhere" They were putting job advertisements up on the ED forums for Pete's sake (see what I did there)
It looked like a farce to me, but not to ED Team who endorsed them through the lies and zero background checks.

If VEAO decided to release a book, my guess is it would be called "Lord of the Lies" Than again, it would only have a 4 or 5 pages, the contents would be released as the Alpha, Beta would be "this book is dedicated...." and the tester's
team would spend the next 6 years spell checking chapter 1.


Consumer's were assured VEAO has the skill set to be one of the best 3rd party developer's early on, backer's\investors were reassured time and again.
Yet compare this from 2014, a couple of years on and after Alpha release of the Hawk. Did anyone else get the vibe that the head swelled to a point where VEAO forgot about the consumer and went for the military contracts?

Pretty much the bread and butter of any business is the consumer, or Joe Public. On the back of the public you build the business but in a matter of 2 years, the public was forgotten the military contracts took priority.

The story thus far is a briefing of the very beginnings and formation of VEAO

Long before VEAO's WW2 announcements etc, only 2 aircraft were in the pipeling, the Hawk and Typhoon.
The plan was, release the Hawk, gain knowledge, release the typhoon. In many of the updates that came over the years, Chris refers many times to Pete and the WW2 aircraft.
Perhaps Pete knew then VEAO had no idea how to code anything technical especially basic functions like implementing the aden gun pod sounds.

2013 CLOSED ALPHA TESTING



a couple of posts under that very announcement.....



Yet more hysteria followed this announcement, VEAO were well and truly on their way to self destruction.

Source

I as a consumer believed the "set up deals" the project manage part of the quote left much to be desired. Yet I, like other's before and after me, had faith that VEAO could deliver.
Had VEAO stuck with the original plan, Hawk - Typhoon, perhaps this mess may never have occurred.
Could this be the turning point of what lead to the downfall?

Fast forward to the present, Britain's politicians are infighting as to how to pull out of the EU....much like VEAO are fighting to leave ED.

Perhaps a leadership spill could have saved this company.






.