No worries, apologies on my part as well, I probably could have phrased that response a bit better.

Reading their thread on FB and at the ED forum, VEAO states they are continuing with the updates for the Hawk. But why such a long delay in any news or progress? Incremental patches and updates show your customers that you are serious about your name and product. Frankly, VEAO hasnt been very good with that.

-Jeff

New patch out http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2681227&postcount=14

............... lots of fixes from Razbam and Leatherneck


Not seeing much from these Guys

Yup, was just thinking that.

Whether VEAO likes it or not, that's the competition.

They're winning.

So first, Happy Birthday Skate

Second, one quote in there is interesting:

"I understand some of you are not happy with the aircraft, it's systems, textures, etc. and I can only assure you that we have learnt a lot of lessons from our first DCS developed aircraft and a lot of the problems we encountered will not be present with future modules.
We do not want another "texturegate" on our hands!!"

Sorry, but again, the competition is winning here.

LN and Razbam seem to have been much quicker studies here. Neither of them had released a DCS aircraft before, yet have seen nowhere near the problems the Hawk has been plagued with. Yes the M2K3 is still a beta in progress, but the cadence of updates is refreshingly aggressive. Both products are also simulating far more complex aircraft than the Hawk.

As of this writing, VEAO has delivered more promises and apologies than product. We'll see what happens come March...

why even take a 2 seat T1.A Hawk, and not even make it multi-seat??

to me its like getting a pizza with the cheese.
the cheese is expected!

if u take a tandem seat plane to be modeled in DCS, would expected to be multi-seat.

if not, dont model a tandem seat!

Sadly, these are just words. Yep, the above it correct. The competition is winning. And with 1.5.3, the Hawk isnt even working now. Brilliant.

It's getting harder for me to keep the optimistic view of this whole deal. Seems 1 step forward, drops many of us back 2.

Reading that I see they still insist on running a large number of modules in development simultaneously...

The guys behind RAZBAM have already released a good amount of modules for FSX already (A-7, F-15E, Mirage, Harrier, etc.)... they're veterans in the field.

I'd say that helps as far as organisation goes, stuff like research, basic modelling and structuring a project.

DCS seems to require completely different skills and those are bought in time, experience and not a little money.

Other FSX developers bowed out. Too much risk and effort compared to FSX for an even smaller market that is notoriously fickle.

But I love the irony of the two modules with the most problems and taking the longest to produce are the much less complex, subsonic trainers. The MiG-21 was a struggle to produce in spite of years of work back on the original LOMAC/FC mod, but look at the results. The Mirage 2000C is even more impressive as it has much more modern systems.

Of course, over the same time frame, Belsimtek has pushed out the UH-1, F-15 PFM, Su-27 PFM, F-86F, MiG-15bis... Familiarity with DCS flight and systems modeling is absolutely a necessity, and Belsimtek is less third party and more subcontractor, very well supported by ED.

Yeah, the devs who made the Super Hornet for FSX or whatever it was had considered DCS, but apparently ED are such utter control freaks about the whole process before a developer can even get to look at the SDK. That, and they're apparently greedy as trolls. Shame really, they'd probably had made a lot more from the large number of "hot" modules getting released by experienced devs searching for a newer engine that can handle combat, than they do now with very few 3rd party devs releasing quite few modules.

http://forums.vrsimulations.com/forums/p...lit=Dcs#p109556

Maybe ED refused to allow VRS to charge an annual "subscription" for their modules.

VRS is banking on making money via TacPack supported aircraft... DCS only needs aircraft not a combat addon. TacPack is very limited right now. I expect at some point that new features will come from separate pay-for modules rather than via a free update to the existing TacPack. AI capable of flying missions and interacting with real pilots that is already built into the core of DCS World (for free) doesn't exist yet and will certainly not be given away for free. VRS and DCS are competitors, so it wouldn't make sense for them to submit themselves as a lower tier third party limited to the whims of ED (much like A2A sims).

That guy talks a lot of BS that he wrongly deduced. Example: ED stopped their own development of the L-39 because the VPJT wanted to do one.

Yeah, I'm sure he's just lying about it because why not? Also, recall what happened when ED said they could devote the time and effort to making an L-39 again?

And yet the reason anyone is even discussing this?........because so many people (including customers) have lost trust and confidence in ED.

It wouldn't be the first time that VRS talked trash about ED. In any case, they are being really unprofessional about it. You musn't forget that ED fish in VRS' pond, and from where i'm standing it looks like they've got the better bait right now.

ED have stated repeatedly that they do not interfere with the choice of airframes of 3rd parties and they've got at least one case to show for it. It is unfortunate that that party decided to quit, but at least their project lead knew what he was getting into. The guy from VRS has nothing to show to underline his accusations.



What exactly happened, scrim?

...and, it seems that some people (especially on these forums) are hell-bent on making sure that the trust can never, ever, be resurrected regardless of ED's actual ability to earn it.