I was checking the product site and I saw something worrying:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/



To me it looks like "We are releasing 15 days into January and only for pre-orders because its a half broken beta like Hawk/cc101"


Anyone else worried? Also they seem to avoid clear answers on wether there is a complete flight model on release.

This isn't a troll. This is a very valid concern. They have been very cagey about the FM and what will be avail on release, unless you have other info. The 'by Dec' is also vague as my area it means it will be avail before Dec 1st, but I doubt that is what they mean.

How did you get January from the word December?

What would be so bad about it coming out 30 days later?

The product will have whatever flight model it has when they ship it. If it does not meet the expectations they laid out for it, they will fix/adjust it going forward. If they fail to fix it or meet your expectations you can choose to not ever purchase a product from them again, the same way people deal with dissatisfaction with a product in the global marketplace the world over.

Why would I worry now about problems that don't exist yet?

Actually, no that is not how I shop. I want to know what it is I bought in detail and if I don't get that, I want a refund. I won't sit there and go.... "ohh ok they got me, maybe next time I will be weary"

If that's the way you shop and the rest of the world shops then I am going to give up my job and open a shop selling left handed screwdrivers, chequered paint and skyhooks. I am going to be a rich man!

Erm, why?

There are a couple of things that I am concerned about. Computer games are not on that list, though.

Top tip: don't pre-order something if you are not 100% certain about the quality. Don't buy something that does not live up to the standard you are expecting. Don't get excited about unreleased products too soon.

So don't worry, just wait for release, and then decide whether you'd like to buy that module, or not.

Quoted for truth.

Nate

I did not pre-purchase it, so I am not going to receive it in December 2015, but later on I will - is that right ?

It has been answered a number of times, the eventual result will be an EFM (term for all 3rd party flight models) close to PFM standards. The differences between AFM, AFM+ & PFM are not too big. My understanding is it will release with something along the lines of an AFM/PFM. Their EFM programmer has been posting a little bit on the forums.

I agree with you on this. My comment was based on pre-ordering. I should have been clearer about it. If you are going to pre-order like the OP was alluding to, you are going to have decide if it was worth it after the fact. There is no point in worrying about it now. Of course the OP can wait till it is out and then read all the reviews and decide then if it is right for him.

I could really use a left handed screwdriver though. They make those?

Good word choice. Eventually, the sun will go out, too!

Hi,

I can't speak for the M2000 developers, but generally, developers "release early" (i.e. Beta) for only a few reasons to varying degrees:

* they are happy that the product is feature-complete and mostly release-ready
* they have a nearly-finished product and want to test stability in the real-world
* they want to let their customers get earlier access to the product
* they need cashflow

If people can't handle the idea of an incomplete, unfinished, and/or buggy product, then do NOT buy an alpha/beta/pre-release/preview copy.

May I also suggest that people do not complain that things are taking "too long". It's not easy to do, and if it could be done in 5 minutes, be assured it would be.

Best regards,
Tango.

Tango: you are correct of course, but it is a good thing that everyone doesn't follow your advice. After all most 3rd party/ED products are still in beta 'year(s)' after release.

The way I read it was he is not suggesting that no one should buy a beta product, only people who can't handle the fact they are buying an incomplete product shouldn't. By now it's no secret that some products in DCS may be considered in beta for a long time. As others have pointed out its best just to wait it out if you think there is a possibility it will not live up to your expectation.

I like to think of betas as lending money to help a good friend, if I think That not ever seeing that money again will get me worked up and jeopardize the friendship then I won't do it. If a product looks like it has potential and I could spare the money on hopes and dreams then i will commit.

No, just NO. ED are not our good friends and please don't make that analogy, they are a company out to make money, luckily they are making a product we enjoy but in the end they will do what is best for them, not for us. If it is good for us, that is just a coincidence, nothing more nothing less.

Ok great. That's just My personal take on it. But I think you missed the point. it just comes down to getting upset about spending money on broken promises. My point is I think it's the buyers responsibility to understand what they are spending money on and manage expectations.

BTW I'm not buying the big greedy corporation thing. If it just about money im sure there are some talented people in this industry that can make a lot more doing something else . i think most sim devs are just doing what they enjoy while trying to make a living at it. But hey, mayb I'm living in a world of sunshine and rainbows.

It's a combination. They're doing this instead of making CAD software or something because it interests them, unless this literally was the only job they could get.
Of course, they're not doing it for free. They need to make money, but no one goes into software development to become rich. That means there are diminishing returns. If it takes you (for example) 2000 hrs of work to make a beta release that's 85% complete, but that last 15% is going to take another 2000 hrs of testing and polishing, you think that will really happen? Hopefully they'll spend another 1000 to get it over 90% before they're forced by economic necessity to devote their attention to another product to generate more revenue.
Now ideally they should be able to get to 100% in 3000 hrs, let's say, but if the codebase is ever-changing thanks to ED's continuing work, at some point it becomes a drain to keep it up. Why put in 1000 hrs to fix something when ED will change the base before you're done and likely invalidate half that work? Makes more sense to work it slowly, on the things that are likely to not change or are the biggest problems, and wait till later to make the rest of the fixes/enhancements.

Simple fact: if it takes as much work to get a beta release to final "100%" as it did to get from scratch to that initial beta, you're not going to be able to sustain it.

Have any of the members of these teams turned down better paying jobs elsewhere to work on DCS? No idea, although my guess is very few would. But I guarantee none of them had the thought "make a flight sim? I'll be rich!"




The Jedi Master

You completely missed the point there, but you did not neglect to add a little more drama into a DCS thread.

The way I see it, we don't exactly have an abundance of flight sims at the moment so I'm happy to support them whatever the flight model is like in its early state.

What fast jet alternatives are there apart from the strike fighters series, and falcon 4 variants?

I agree with everything you said Tango...except this possibly. I don't think people should complain things are taking to long either when they are awaiting a release of something.

But...when money has changed hands then I think it's a contract more or less between developer and customer...and there is an expectation that things should move along in a "business like timeframe". Part of the problem is flight sim developers get to enjoy a zero refunds policy...so they can literally go years past their own expected timeframes and customers have no recourse...except to complain at that point.