Its not broken, you are just playing it wrong

Lol


I play wrong , so dcs has no bugs . That was easy fix ... :P

Orginal : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=203813&page=3

Jesus H T F Christ, the mind boggles

Forums (dcs) are full of white knights or least they have got lots of rose tintend glasses ??

As a programmer reading "and those that break it from lack of knowledge" I honestly hope he really isn't a programmer.
It's up to me (us?) to verify I have all variables in range before I continue exceuting code, otherwise I need to throw an error telling user what's missing.

Really?
Source


That thread was an interesting read

The perpetually moving goalposts of ED.
Were going to release 2.5 at the End of January, thats a promise
No we didnt say it was a release release, its a beta release. The release release will be one to two weeks later
Erm, that was if no problems were found....
If you don't like betas go back to 1.5. Oh and dont buy any of our #%&*$# because they're all frikkin betas, perpetual betas actually because were such a dynamic company, its even in our name, that nothing is ever really finished. So take our moderators advice and save your money.

My post on that thread:

For once (first?) I have to disagree HomeFries, after such long time there is no excuse for shipping something like 2.5 OB.

Testing new features is one thing but regression tests are time consuming since they test the whole product despite new features or updated old ones, in my books - we might have different definitions of regression tests but I can't see ED is doing anything close to such tests.

I honestly don't think they have any betatesters and all is just initial developer tests and from there they throw it out with an OB label looking at what will happen.

Not finding major bugs is not understandable at all.

Is that sling bug fixed, or is it campaign(i dont have Argo) ,or cargo related? I tested in editor and all works well. I would be bad betatester because i cant reproduce most of bugs what i have read from forums.

Guess I will be waiting even longer than I had thought! I had a strong feeling it would go into March but I would have thought it would be out by now. Oh well...

sling loading is a bit f**ked, loads can swing and keep swinging further and further until they fly off

Yes, we understand programming software can be difficult...but most of us know better than to charge folks for work that we don't fully know how to complete and fix in a business like timeframe. Many software/gaming devs manage to put out good software and fix bugs within a reasonable time.

Just getting tired of the "But programming software is hard" excuse. Perhaps if it's outside of your skill level, you should have chosen a different line of work.

I came to post exactly this, except I was going to use H. I'm done with it for six months or so, if not longer.

This!



Which is something I don't understand at all. I'm sure ED has a good selection of rabid fans that will beta test for free? Get like 500-1000 people, get them to sign an NDA, test!! Is that not possible? Genuine question.

Another factor to consider is: What does ED do with the data collected from the beta testers?

Just an example of a imaginary game developer

Beta Tester #001: You have a huge memory leak in beta version x.x.x.xxxxx.
Company Tech: Thank you. This will take some time to sort out
Company Marketing/Producer Teams: We do not have time for this, send it out as Open Beta, deal with it later

Why would they hire beta testers, when they have lots of them and the ones even pay for ED to do that. That's why DCS versions always have bugs on release, they haven't been tested properly yet. Only after some time - bugs start to appear because now the 'beta testers' have the first change to try the version and find them. Heh - talking about free labour... - And that's not even all - the beta testers also praise ED for that!

Look who did beta testing for Falcon 4.0

Falcon 4.0 Beta Tester

I'll say on the major game crashing bug front:

I worked as the studio QA night shift lead for Acclaim entertainment (NBA Jam and Turok to name the most recognizable SKU's I worked on), and had 15 guys working for me. That at the time (early 2000's) was the largest studio QA team in the WORLD (sounds hella good on your resume), corporate had anywhere from 100 to 300 testers depending on how many projects we had going and that were getting close to publishing. Additionally on a console title it's standardized hardware, a non-issue basically compared to all the myriad of different PC options out there.

Any product before it would be green light for publication has to go to the console manufactures for testing as well, where they try to break it, and verify it meets all their technical certification requirements (TCRs). So easily 500+ full time QA employees on fixed hardware have hammered away at a product for weeks (TCR's take about 2 weeks alone). Test plans are run, things are smoke tested, etc. To be honest what most people think of as "beta testing" something like DCS isn't even close to real testing. I'm guessing no one's here verified the expand ASCII character set for all localized languages works for pilot record naming etc (damaged media testing was at least fun to setup). So every possible thing that all the QA professionals can come up with has been tested.

Turok 5 for the Nintendo Game Cube. We send it to Nintendo, they send back about 25 items that have to be fixed for a green light, no problem nothing major. We send it back, and they run the entire protocol again (you have to pay for each submission so might as well get your monies worth I guess), and it's green lit. I send my troops home after 42 straight 16 hour days. Hell we slept in the office for the last 2 weeks. We come back 2 days later, and have a nice picture in our email waiting for us, of the gold master disc for the pressing of Game Cube version, pretty cool. About three hours later I hear a particular buzz, that freezes my blood. It's the buzz a hard locked Game Cube makes. I slowly walk over to the cube it's coming from, praying it's someone messing around with an old version. My guys face is white as a sheet, and the rest of my crew gather round, 16 of us gathered in one cube, starting in mute horror at a frozen Game Cube with the approved release candidate of Turok 5. Time to do some boss stuff, can we replicate it? Might be a one off, bad hardware, bad burn, could be plenty of things besides a bug. Yeah no. Replicateable, on every machine we've got, on 15 different discs. !$&*#&$(@&#(&((!@#!!!!!!! In case you're wondering it shipped like that, no way in hell corporate was going to sink the money it had already spent to press copies. No patching for the GC either, not a capability. No "second version" release either, why risk having another bug sneak in fixing this one?

So, tt happens, it's rare, but it certainly happens that a game breaker makes it in the wild even with very thorough, expensive, and resources intensive QA process.

-Jenrick

So, with that story you're telling us we should, with a smile, accept the failures of modules and world every.frigging.time.they.ship.some.new.update?
Cockpit textures missing replaced with a green/green splinter (see Panavia Tornado) or complete skins and weapon layout pictures? but wait - that's DCS Viggen so let's blame Heatblur, isn't it awesome to arrange this 3rd party setup so we can blame someone and they can blame ED into never.frigging.ending circles?

Except.......game breaking bugs from ED are not one-offs.

Not the case, though. They maintain a pool of volunteer closed beta testers.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showgroups.php

Thats very awesome to list a bunch of names but my opinion still stand, ED does not have any beta testers. Basta.
Just because you sport a title doesn't mean you carry the weight.

There, fixed it for you



Yeah but to get 500-1000 people on a closed beta would mean they'd have a better product once they go on open beta.... and would likely be able to hit a 1-2 week target between open beta and release. Get 500-1000 people on closed beta and they'd get a better idea of the state of their program and thus be able to decide not to make release promises at such an absurd point in the program's development. TL;DR -- they'd look like they know what they're actually doing



In that case, WTF have these guys been doing?? Might need to refresh the pool.



Totally willing to accept the "it happens, it's rare" bit and nobody's calling for a 100% bug-free product, but with the case of ED, it happens, it happens a lot, and they don't even seem fazed that their rep is taking a hit. I wonder what you'd say if you knew what the ED testing team was doing or how they're doing it



Like moderators who are more like the company PR than a proper forum moderator?

I can't get same effect, maybe campaign, mod(i don't have any or has never been) or something else is different.

https://youtu.be/ceyhw68fy58

The business around Dcs ww2 and Kickstarter.

One of the shonkiest things I’ve seen in computer games.

Never forget!

I put it out there as I recognize that almost all PC titles that aren't backed by a major producer (Ubisoft, EA, Activision, etc) are WAY too small to have a true QA department. The folks in their beta testing program are highly unlikely to be professional QA folks either. To be completely honest for the scope of an almost sandbox title of like DCS in the fidelity it is in, you'd need a major house like Ubi or EA to have a chance in heck of doing a solid QA job. The only saving grace to all of this is that DCS has been around in one form or another for over a decade at this point, as such there has been enough time iron some things out with the project. I look at DCS and see just exactly how bad it could be, compared to what it is. It's surprisingly stable, optimized, and featured compared to what it honestly should be for the size of the dev team and the resources they can call on.

I get that a lot of people feel that way they paid for is not what they got, but I'm not gonna go down that rabbit trail as I'm looking at it from a QA perspective and how bad it could be.

-Jenrick

I couldn't disagree more. It's very clear that ED are totally inept in planning and managing DCS World. This flows through to to the integration and testing because such obvious issues get through their testing every single time yet ED and their community are more than happy to make excuses about it being an evolving product that is almost impossible to baseline.

ED have had more than long enough to establish a core engine baseline and a method of properly integrating and creating modular components to add to a baseline build, they have however failed in every respect which only makes life difficult for themselves when trying to control the functionality and release management of each patch/update.

It's not rocket science yet they repeat the mistakes over and over again. That makes them incompetent in their core business.

And from a QA perspective, could they not have hosted a closed beta with 500-1000 unpaid community testers? You see how bad it could be (could have been?), but what if it was actually BETTER?

What would have a small closed beta do better that a large open beta wouldn't do? It's a beta, it's not supposed to be finished.

Call me a glass half full guy I guess. I've certainly gotten my monies worth out of DCS World (it's free after all). I've also gotten my monies worth out of the couple hundred dollars I've spent on products since LOMAC, including some current early access projects.

-Jenrick

Thing is, some of us haven't. Hence the great longtime hope for improvements and to some, heated/toxic/uncalled-for/childish disappointment when new updates keep on failing.
Many great white knight defenders and apologistas have short time with DCS or very few hours put into it contrary to some big complainers that've spent hours and hours trying to get AI do as told or find workarounds to all kind of bugs be it World or a module.

So, there will always be some who are settled and some who aren't depending on what they want to do in the simgame at this less than average quality - I've noticed online airquakers are the most easily appleased since their needs do not extend outside the cockpit.

Yeah, but do you want the public testing an EARLY beta build or a nearly-finished beta build? Do you want the public to see 90% of the bugs or do you want them to see just the last 15%? Which scenario do you think would make their company look better to the public?


If that's the logic, then everybody has got their money's worth out of DCS World, even those who have never played it.


Now think about what you could actually be getting if ED did a good beta run first before releasing anything!! If you're a glass half full guy, imagine if the glass was 3/4ths full to begin with!

Using that one word, "optimized" in relation to the current version 2.5... is just wrong. They have been working on 2.5 for how long? When it finally releases it definitely has some type of major memory issue, and you want to say it is surprisingly optimized compared to what it should be according to the relative team size and budget.



C'mon Man!!!

Please realize that my next statement isn't a personal attack on you , but merely a natural reaction to what you stated. That is maybe the most ignorant comparison analysis statement I have ever read relating to DCS World. I am starting to wonder if you maybe are Nineline, formerly Sithspawn under an assumed name here? I won't debate the rest of what you said, but DCS is DEFINITELY NOT optimized right now.

S!Blade<><

While a beta can certainly serve as a PR tool, the fact of the matter is that a beta is commonly considered to mean a non-feature complete, or not fully functional software build. Expecting anything else and being upset about it seems like a case of self delusion. If I am releasing a beta for testing purpose (rather than PR purposes), what advantage does a small closed beta have over a large open one? There are none from a pure software testing perspective. Considering certain segments of the DCS user base has been howling how long it's all taking, if you're responding to them why would you run a small closed beta that will be far less efficient in terms of bugs reported per time released, requiring a far longer time period to achieve the same results as a large open beta?




I wouldn't be getting anything right now as it'd still be sitting in a closed beta for 3-6 months.



So DCS apparently can't code it's way out a simple counting loop, but apparently they have the foresight to register a set of assumed alias on various sim sites 15 years ago,? Obviously I'm joking, but it's a realistic answer to you over dramatic pronouncement. Secondly if you're going to call someone or their statements ignorant, you should provide some evidence to articulate that fact, as you can almost guarantee they will provide a counter.

I can run DCS 2.5 on my 6-8 year old desktop (various part all land in that range) with most settings turned up pretty decently, I can run it on my general purpose non-gaming laptop, and I can run it on my purpose built gaming rig fairly maxed. How well did FSX run when it first came out on even top of the line hardware? If you don't remember it didn't do real well, and very few people ran it at anything approaching maxed. I can sit here and list a bunch of other titles with the same issues that didn't run any better at release on high end hardware at their launch as DCS does right now. Those were for released published titles, not beta releases. Does DCS have issues, absolutely. Could it be better, absolutely. Is it anywhere near as bad as it could be, no.

I'd highly recommend if you don't want to deal with the sausage making that is software development, don't buy anything that isn't a full finished released product. So with DCS stick to 1.5.8 and a few of the modules that are done and you'll be fine (or have justifiable complaints).

-Jenrick

Yes, but there's still a difference between 90% non-feature complete and 15% non-feature complete I'm not disputing the definition of a "beta release," but you will have to admit that this software is a good ways away from actual release status.

As for responding to DCS users, well, the project is delayed anyway, so why not just ride that wave until you're closer to a more feature-complete build? Why add a beta period that's got many issues to the list of things that DCS users can complain over? Why give them ANOTHER thing to complain about? Remember, ED initially estimated Release to follow 1-2 weeks after Beta! Naturally, people were expecting a more closer-to-complete build because of this statement. Heck, the original promise was to RELEASE 2.5, not release a BETA 2.5!


Source


I find it confusing how you can say a small closed beta has no advantage over a large one.... is a group of 50 testers (I'm guessing it's that many on that page linked) small? How about my suggestion of 500-1000? Surely they do not have to test their beta on the ENTIRE population of DCS users. They could send out a survey asking people about hardware specs and use that to make sure they're testing amongst a wide variety of hardware and not just the most rabid fans with 1080Tis and 32GB RAM and 1TB SSDs.



And being an unpaid beta tester, after being fed false info (1-2 weeks between beta and release) is better?


Bottom line, 2.5 release could've been when ED stepped up their game, blew everyone away, and prove the naysayers wrong. As with everything else, looks like they botched this one too. Maybe see a proper Release build in 2019 after Wags makes another promise?

No Drama here Sir, just the facts jack. First I wouldn't run FSX if you payed me, non combat, Blah, Blah, Blah, its BS. Please list more. Other than CLOD, which I never bought until TF patched it, I have never had a CFS that had a memory leak like this upon release. What did it take, 1 or 2 years for ED to release 2.5? For Ed to have worked on the Caucus map conversion to complete version 2.5 to bring DCS World under one roof and release it with a memory problem that requires 16Gb Ram to run a mission with 14 or 16 WWII planes only, nothing else going on, is not optimized. Explain how that is optimized, please, or maybe you would rather explain how going on MP requires 32 Gbs of Ram Memory to join a server?

Your statement that DCS 2.5 is optimized is made from pure

ignorance!(now that is DRAMA pal).



I have run 2.5 with and without Process Lasso and it uses right at 16 GBs of memory. I am attaching a picture, which I posted 2 days after the 2.5 release, in the Screenshot thread on SHQ, which is pictorial proof, evidence, exhibt A or what ever the F#%& you want to call it. I am also posting a picture of the required and suggested Ram to use DCS 2.5. So again when DCS won't even run on the minimum, 8Gbs of Ram, how is that optimized? I am not sure what world you live in, maybe the Social Media World, where if you say it Loud enough and over and over and over then people will eventually believe it is true, but I don't accept that BS, so please prove me wrong? How about you present some evidence that 2.5 is Optimized?

DCS 2.5 Screenshot Thread

S!Blade<><

Ps: I want ED to fix 2.5 because I Love the WWII Combat, but people like you going around writing that 2.5 is well Optimized is not helping to let ED know there is a problem.

Pss: I am posting thes pictures nice & big so you won't miss them, like you missed the poor optimization of 2.5. You can thank me later.

Have a go at this...Amen Skate is not the 'official' PR rep for ED\TFC\Belsimtek....who knows what law suits would follow



Source

@Winfield: sadly perceptions typically change, once you become an employee.

What The Feck is Going On With Capitalizing every few Words Anyway?

Because FSX/P3D, Win7/8/10 have bugs, that justifies them for having bugs? Yeah, but we don't wait 4 years for Win10. Then we don't wait 4 more years for bugs to be squished and features to be complete. I love how they now try to hide behind OTHER software to justify their own. Some people may not care about bugs in FSX or P3D simply because they're not interested in those things. Don't make it a requirement for us to complain about THOSE before we complain about DCS. It isn't.

Besides, I think for people who do own FSX and P3D, I think it's none of ED's business whether they complain about FSX/P3D anyway.

Blade_Meister :

Falcon 4.0 at its initial release was almost unplayable, and the first combat flight simulator to come to mind that was a TRAIN WRECK upon release. Also the fact that you don't like non-combat sims isn't my problem, I gave a perfectly reasonable example with FSX. If the whole point of you being in this thread is to engage in histrionics and general poor behavior then I don't really see a point in continuing to have a "discussion with you.

In the interest of civility, I'll try one more time:

My exact words:

I never said it was perfectly optimized, didn't have a memory leak, etc. Please reread my words above. For the size of the dev team and the resources they have, it runs surprisingly well, particularly for something that is a BETA (ie not feature complete, not fully functional, and not finished with development). If you want to take my words and misread them and believe that I am saying something that I'm not, then by all means continue, but I'll be done with this discussion. If you'd like to express your opinion that the giant memory leak is less then optimal, I'll be happy to agree with you

Ice: The short version is in software testing the more people testing, the faster you get results. Massive open beta beats closed beta in this regard every time. The other issues and concerns you bring up might be valid in the PR context, I for one don't really care that they said it was going to be 1-2 weeks till 2.5 was out of beta and it wasn't. DCS has always been a "when it gets there" release schedule, I don't expect it to change just because someone says it will. There are plenty of titles that have gone the opposite direction and been released on a hard date, and turned out to be just as unfinished.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. DCS is part of a hobby spanning almost 40 years at this point for me, I've seen some really great ideas crater, and some really bad ones become commercial success. I don't sweat the little stuff, which is what DCS undoubtedly is. I'm not saying that I think you or anyone else aren't justifiably annoyed, depending on exactly what was promised or what money you paid; I however am content with how I've spent my money over the years even if I didn't get exactly what I was promised on occasion.

-Jenrick

I agree, but DCS has a massive PR problem already. Why add fuel to the fire? Therefore, why not get a bigger group of people to beta test, but do so under NDA? That way, they push a much more polished product out the door rather than let everyone try out whatever state the Beta is in. Bigger test population does not have to = entire DCS population FFS.

As for caring about their schedule, I don't either, but ED keeps insisting on making these statements. Heck, Wags can't even set a release date anymore, he has to make PROMISES! Then they go and say 1-2 weeks from beta to release just goes to show how little they know about their own product. You don't expect ED's release schedule to change? Well, apparently they just did so recently so that Wags doesn't look stupid.

I really don't understand why people keep citing other games or software being broken on release. So what if they are/were? That excuses DCS? It doesn't! So what if ArmA is broken? That's ArmA's issue! So what if FSX was broken? That's FSX's issue!



Good for you and good for everyone who is happy with getting 40-60% of what they've paid 100% for. Some of us aren't

Are you for real? DCS, 10 years after initial release is absolutely unplayable.

For the size of their dev team, he resources they have and the dependencies on 3rd parties, ED have being nothing but an incompetent joke from start to finish. I can verify that personally from the release of the Russian version of the Shark in late 2008 before buying the English version of the Shark the following year (only to buy BS2 a couple of years later which triggered the idea of a module within a ‘World’ ......which has still never been realised).

The more people that ‘test’ then the better the results is utter rubbish. ED rely on people ‘playing the game’ rather than specific areas of functionality and testing. There is no structure, there is no roadmap, there is no strategy and there is no objective. Whether their software is alpha, beta or release candidate......it is done on trust to the community knowing the same people will defend the lack of quality on offer...exactly as you are doing in your post above. Quality is not judged on the amount of people testing a product.....quality is judged on the strategy of testing, and in a nutshell , the problems found and the problems fixed to ensure that the subsequent release is as free from issues as absolutely possible. It’s pointless releasing an alpha or beta if the objective is solely based on exposure when any issues reported are simply ignored. It doesn’t matter if 250,000 are part of an open beta if 249,999 report a problem which is subsequently ignored by the devs........and this is what DCS has become. An absolute joke. The only reason 2.5 is being actively worked on is because there are show stopping bugs to 90% of the community.......if it were closer to 50% then all the effort would be back on the Hornet and ED would be looking at modules beyond that. Hhhmmmmm. Yak 52 anyone!

DCS in its current guise is only ‘sweating the little stuff’ if you are clueless of planning, integration, test and release of software. The entire project has been a perfect demonstration of incompetence by the hierarchy because the developers are clearly capable. What makes it worse, and is exposed by the community within SimHQ is that the potential is huge yet the disappointment in ED to realise and deliver this is even larger.

I suspect jenrick is a member of DCS's brainwashing team

Folks, stick to discussing DCS / Eagle Dynamics... not each other.

Admittedly I wasn't thinking back that far, my bad, and yes Falcon 4.0 was a mess. I started in Flight sims right when IL2 was released and pick up F4 shortly after and I remember the confusing poorly operating mess that it was. As stated, never tried FSX.

Concerning what I highlighted in red.
This is from my first post I made in regard to your first post, the first sentences I wrote. Maybe you would like to go back and reread my reply to your initial post?

"Using that one word, "optimized" in relation to the current version 2.5... is just wrong. They have been working on 2.5 for how long? When it finally releases it definitely has some type of major memory issue, and you want to say it is surprisingly optimized compared to what it should be according to the relative team size and budget."

Agreed, we disagree as to whether DCS 2.5 was released as a pretty well optimized Beta.

S!Blade<><

Well when IL2 was released F4 was already performing quite well, 3 years after release . is a pretty well optimized beta.

However when the same mission takes 3 more times to load in 2.5, with several freezes when playing this mission for the first time (less when playing a second time, go figure), when you can’t play multi, when game crashes if you want to reassign commands while not in a mission, and so on, well we’re between alpha and early beta for quite a few players, I can’t foresee a two weeks full release. 3 months to playable beta would be already a nice surprise, and I stopped hoping for anything stable after playing flanker sims for 17 years (yup I was a bit late at the party )

I agree with rollnloop, we're not talking weeks to full release.
I had hopes for 2.5 end of February despite the optimistic 2 weeks signal but now in mid March with the mandatory "patience" posts from all apologists at ED I will simply drop any expectations at all.
I will put my Viggen in a bin until further and enjoy the massive 3.001 update of 1CGS BoX series that had graphics and huge gameplay features added on one big go with almost no issues at all, just miles ahead of those DCS developers running in circles.

Congrats ED, atleast you got my dollars.
Now please shove them up where the sun never shines.

Well, we're way past the "1-2 weeks" they've quoted and almost at the 1-2 months mark so the next step is 1-2 years.

They keep citing how FSX was broken or ARMA was broken or F4 was broken on release. What you guys don't see is that ED's solution is to NOT release the game, keep it in beta, and that way, they can keep using that excuse whether it's 1 month or 1 year or more. DCS is never released, so you can't really complain about it being broken, and if you do, well, look at FXS/ARMA/F4! They were broken on release too! Did you complain about those games then? No? Well, you aren't entitled to complain about DCS being broken if you didn't complain about those games being broken.

ED logic at it's finest!

I have to add that arma3 alpha was , on my PC , far less broken than DCS2.5 beta, and that 5 years after the release of flanker 2.51 it was still not playable at full detail, ED would better try to match bohemia.

I washed down the Piper Warrior today, pumped in 152L and took it up for a long overdue flight. Upon returning to the hanger, I came to the conclusion that it is still way more enjoyable than anything ED\TFC\Belsmimtek have put forth on release.
I pondered the fact over in my mind that the empty red bull can I threw out of the window vent actually had a better 'glide slope' than the GBU-12s from the A-10C and was honestly more 'on target' than if with the laser was on in DCS.

I can still remember my first mission in Operation Flashpoint, I was a bit intimidated at first

they have been around since 2006 ... they are such an amazing outfit, I always regretted not having had more time to spend on it.

Its not uncommon in the software industry for the marketers (non-programmers) to make dead-line/demands on software development. If the dead-lines are kept they come out smelling like a rose, if not they tell the developers to get on it!! These developers are often well paid, but have no life other than development, 16 hr days are not unusual. The ire customers have for the product is the same ire and (expletives deleted) the developers have for their own company marketers.

According to wikipedia, Eagle Dynamics has 55 employees, and according to the below Kickstarter project description on WWII, Eagle Dynamics expertise is flight dynamics not landscape engine, and even state the uncertainty.

I wouldn't call myself a fanboy of DCS but these projects are big and they involve more than one team. I would wager that Wags is hated by the Eagle Dynamics developers, and I tend to agree with Jenric.


Below from Kickstarter for DCS WWII

Risks and challenges

it was actually out in 2001, bought every iteration of OFP and arma , such a great game, such an amazing software house

they indeed are - after they lost the copyright rights for "Operation Flashpoint" they showed to everyone that they indeed were the best in their field.

It's not nice for devs and customers alike, but it happens ...

Jens

Not as often or as blatant as ED's though.

It happens when testing and QA is poor. In the space of a month ED have released some absolute clangers that should have been noticed and the software never released, and this isn't the first time. They just refuse to learn from their mistakes......over and over and over again. And that is what makes them incompetent.