I think this is a great example of the disconnect on what a campaign is and what it shoudl be. Whilst an ED campaign does not require dark magic....something looking like what BMS does as a campaign would require mods like DAWS, tools like Witchcraft, scripts that are custom built and scripts that wholly change DCS content that are public. So you might not be wrong. But I can not find you right either. I hope you understand that sentiment is not about saying you are wrong, but about why people cannot find agreement and why campaign releases seem so dull for some.
Originally Posted By: Sobek
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Ah yes... because just anyone can make a campaign, test it, and put it up for sale by themselves. Are you serious?
Anyone can make a campaign, yes. Not anyone can make a campaign that doesn't suck (i probably couldn't), but that is a different matter. I don't get what the big deal is? You think the step from making missions to making campaigns suddenly requires dark magic?
Originally Posted By: - Ice
"Sometimes" is different from "almost guaranteed."
Hence why i think your statement is an exaggeration. We'll probably have to agree to disagree. I'm not inclined to spend hours to make a statistic of how often campaigns get broken and i assume you feel the same.
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Where exactly are you looking at for "credits"?
There's two frames at the end of the promo video, one states that the campaign was created by Ranger79, the other states who made the video.
Originally Posted By: - Ice
And here I am thinking "it shouldn't have happened in the first place, it should've been caught pre-release of the patch." I guess it's just me, huh?
People shouldn't have to die of starvation every day either and yet they do.
I've spent enough of my time testing software vital to the security of car passengers to know that it's not financially viable to test to the same standards in lines of business where human lives are not at stake. The amount of work necessary to ensure that software is virtually bug-free (which even the software i tested wasn't, btw., but at least we made sure that the risk of catastrophic failure was miniscule) is enormous.
Knowing the realities of software development, i don't find it hard to accept that even important aspects of the software get broken from time to time, as long as they get fixed afterwards in a timely manner.
Originally Posted By: - Ice
It is indeed an interesting question, one that I think should not be investigated. But I fear ED will test this limit in the near future.
Why not? I would very much like to know if there is some sort of contingency plan if, perish the thought, something should happen to a campaign dev and he can't maintain it shortly after release, for example.
Originally Posted By: - Ice
1.5 is stable now, yes, but things will be different going forward. Would you write a program for an "OS" now knowing you'll have to do more work each time the "OS" is patched?
There is always some big milestone on the horizon. When you develop for DCS, you need to accept this reality (it's not like it's all bad, i'm sure devs are quite happy that they get new features as opposed to MSFS, e.g.) and deal with it best you can. There is no 'just sit this development step out and then everything will work out itself'. The only way this can ever 'work out itself' is if there was such a steep increase in revenue that ED could increase its QA department tenfold and 3rd parties could establish their own QA departments with testers on a payroll, but i don't see that happening.
