Any news on DCSW 1.5 ?

will they release it in "September 2015" or is that no longer the case and it has been postponed ?

Meeting today to determine

Matt's comment on the subject.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2484682&postcount=131

Curious as to what statement was premature.

to quote as Yoda would :

" premature statements are by their very nature , premature "

It was referring to a statement on ED's russian flavour of their boards in which I believe one of the developers had posted that 1.5 wasn't ready and was slipping sometime into October.

The post was subsequently removed.

OK, thanks. It's probably true though.

Of course it is, because we can automatically believe anything negative we read but experience severe skepticism of anything positive.

Why is this?

Couldn't begin to even hypothesize. If we first take out the entire history of announcements and actual release dates, then we have NOTHING to go on...



The Jedi Master

I said it the first time, Sept. 52nd.

Honestly I don't even understand this post. Can you elaborate please

boing!

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2487386#post2487386

One of the sad things about the whole VEAO situation is they are trashing their ex-developer in their safe space with out the ability of him to respond there.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am quite surprised by the comments I have seen. I certainly hope their reports to their military customers don't include the same 'airing of dirty laundry'.

It isn't the airing of dirty laundry, it is airing it in a place where the dev can't respond because of a ban

I think they said that the military contract didn't come to fruition. So...

Well seeing as I'm being slated here, time to put the record straight.

I am Chris Ellis, Director of VEAO Simulations Ltd for clarity. You don't get any further up the tree in VEAO than me.

So the situation with Tango; Despite repeated requests over many months for bug fixes, namely radio and missile lock tone, to name but a few, were never met. Repeated requests for the latest DLL for 1.2.16 and dev version of DCS so you guys could carry on flying it and ED testers could test it, were never met.
Repeatedly Tango's remarks on ED forums and to their devs directly were met with me being "bollocked" by ED for his comments.
This is the situation that became untenable to work with.

There was also an incident at Duxford last year regarding the C-101, of which Tango and I discussed at length, to which he still holds me responsible even though the mis-understanding was on his part.
Following that incident the relationship was strained to say the least.

Then then was a very sensitive issue with a number of our developers I won't go into for contractual reasons.

Tango does not own up to his own actions, nor does he accept that he is in the wrong, ever.
We have had many "discussions" on this point in person and via emails.
Yes every one has their faults as do all of us but we are in contract and develop with ED, so guess what, abide by their rules or get out of developing for DCS.

As to the code, yes we are in possession of the code after fulfilling the agreement with Tango.
The structure of his code simply does not fit with the structure of dual seat integration. Yes we could fix that but as I stated it would be easier to re-write it from scratch.
We are "sifting" through the code to fix radios and other issues because quite frankly, despite numerous requests, I had no response from Tango and we had to allocate another developer to Hawk.

So, cut all the #%&*$# speculation guys and quit slagging me off and I welcome the challenge for "open defence" on a non-censored discussion forum.

Take your best shot!!
Chris

Well, this looks awfully professional...

And that's directed at both ends, despite me being considered to be in the "hater camp" last time someone informed me of my status.

hate ... is such a strong word ... we are ... "troublemakers"

Hello Ells228 (Chris),

First off...welcome to SimHQ!

I'm sure your appearance here isn't because of optimal circumstances...but we appreciate any insight into the situation. Most of us here at SimHQ are just consumers and not really looped in to the in's and out's of being a software developer. I understand your frustrations about speculation...but the cloak and dagger nature of flight sim development leaves the average customer without much to go on.

One thing seems pretty clear...being a 3rd party developer for ED seems to be a difficult endeavor given that there are many aspects that are out of your control using someone else's engine.

I would like to remind everyone to keep the discussion civil and try to avoid personal insults.

Bravo Chris, Bravo.