So what is the point of patching 1.5, a dead end, when 2.5 is the goal? Were told by many third parties and ED that some modules were not to be patched until EDGE was out the door because it was a waste of resources. isnt this exactly the same situation?

The point is that Georgia doesn't run in 2.0. If they were to ditch 1.5 now, we would "lose" Georgia until they are done with porting it to comply with how terrains work from 2.0 onwards. Essentially, people still flying in Georgia would have been stuck with whatever version number it was when 2.0 came out for potentially well over a year. No new modules with Georgia, no updates/bug fixes for existing modules. It would have been a drastic move.

Porting/terrains/new engine....it's all functionality Sobek that gets incorporated into 2.5. I'm starting to think you're hung up with the word 'merge'. A word that ED actually used to describe 2.5 if I recall.

Excuse me, who's spin doctoring now?

So now you have moved from 'They have to merge the two branches, so they are idiots' to 'They should have made Georgia from the getgo so it works with EDGE, they didn't ergo they are idiots'. Well first, let me tell you how glad i am that you have finally dropped the merge nonsense. Secondly, DX11 wasn't even on the drawing board when Georgia was first created. Saying ED didn't plan ahead just because they have to adapt a terrain asset that is now 8 years old to new technology (they don't make DX, they have to work with what they get dealt) is absolutely bananas.



Yes, when someone claiming to be an industry professional isn't using the correct terminology and then keeps moving goalposts to cover it up, that does get me a little worked up.



Wags isn't a software developer and he does make mistakes with regards to terminology. The difference is, he doesn't call other people idiots based on his errors and he doesn't claim to know everything.

Drop in for a beer next time you're in Graz, Sobek. You deserve one.

Let's make this happen.

Sobek, you're on a completely different planet.....nowhere have I mentioned DX11 and making Georgia compatible with Edge but I assume you're obviously referring to the old engine and the work that needs going to incorporate this into 2.5.

It seems that you're making some sort of assumption that the way ED have gone about this with the dead-end 1.5, the isolated 2.x and the subsequent all-dancing 2.5 is the only possible way to do it. If that is the case, then it really isn't discussing any further because you're obviously seeing things the way ED do which tells its own story.

The very reason we're even having to discuss this is because of the arse over tit way ED have arrived at this junction and we all know the reason we are here today is because ED couldn't deliver NTTR on time with the features they originally stated. The build got cut down and functionality farmed out to the isolated 2.x build just so they could release 'something' which undoubtedly has given ED massive resourcing headaches that they never ever wanted. Bad planning put them in this position and that's not even up for discussion. Well, either bad planning or no planning because it's almost incomprehensible that such a small team has this amount of ongoing work....it really is no surprise that ED can't finish anything - they've had to work on 3 separate builds that ultimately end up at the same juncture come 2.5.



If you care to venture into the ED forums you'll see all sorts of statements and updates from various representatives of ED and not just Wags using the same merge/merger terminology. Perhaps you can go and educate their entire team about the appropriate terminology if you think it's sending out the wrong message.

Yeah that might be a while. Beautiful country, but ridiculously expensive for us southeners.

Sorry, it's not easy to keep track of what it is you're actually ranting about, given that it changes with every odd post.



That is absolutely not what i'm saying.

I do wonder however what you would have done. For all the namecalling you do, you offer no alternatives AT ALL. It's all so easy pointing fingers. The situation is not ideal, no questions asked. But what would YOU have done?



Is it not?

You're telling me you've never had a project run over projected time or budget? What business are you in? Making teaching software for first graders?

It doesn't really matter, because unless you work for Microsoft or Google, chances are high that your project is nowhere near the complexity level of DCS.



Point taken, they should be more precise with their terminology.

It's irrelevant what I would have done because desktop simulation is not my day-job unlike ED. What is the point in me offering options because ED aren't going to listen and nor would I expect them to. Given that they haven't learned from their own mistakes why would they listen to anyone else? One thing is for sure, their planning should have been much better and definitely taken into account obsolescence and the potential for a Direct X engine upgrade at some point down the line. Granted, there are many unknowns but that's what your risk budget is for....I'm not even sure that ED definitely had the budget or ideas to create the required budget to see this project through given the way they go about the alphas/betas/early access and now campaigns to generate funds to see projects through....and even then don't actually see projects through anyway.




I don't normally talk about my day job because again, within SimHQ it's irrelevant, however I work for one of the world's largest defence companies and am an technical lead/integration manager for weapons and systems interfaces on naval platforms. I don't really need to add anything to that about complexity levels but I can assure you if my projects were delayed like EDs I'd have been out of a job years ago.

The difference is that if a military project is important enough, the state will just through a bunch of money at it to see it happen, and even then high risk projects still often enough are delayed. Look at the F22/F35/A400 etc. I'm sure people could come up with a bunch of other high profile projects that neither met budget nor time restrictions. Are all those PMs idiots?

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands for "#%&*$#-posting": doesn't seem like your job's that hard..
...As long as we're all allowed to post our "opinions" around here...

Absolutely, I've never had a go at anyone for posting their opinion...that's exactly what a forum is for.

As for my 3070 ish posts over 13 and a half years I just about get time to average 1.5 posts per day so no need to worry about that or whether my day-job is hard or otherwise especially as I don't visit or post on SimHQ during my working day. I don't spend that time attempting to insult other forum users though unlike yourself.

Sobek, do you care to find any of my quotes where I call a PM or anyone else an 'idiot'? Not once have I gone down that route. I have said the ED have been inept and incompetent in certain areas though, and if you want validation of that then look at the announcements, delays and failures - I think that's a perfectly valid description.

No company regardless of size, workload or funding should ever start a project if it's not financially feasible. That's day 1, week 1 so not sure why you're suddenly focusing on budget. ED may not have government level funding, but to that end then they wouldn't want to announce something will be ready in 3 years when 5 is a realistic estimate. That should be taken into account so the level of backing at project start shouldn't be any caveat in failing to meet deadlines later in the timeline.

I once worked on a DOD project that ended up being extremely late and massively over the original budget estimate. We were also doing something that nobody had done before. It, however, was a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract so it wasn't like my company was soaking the customer. In the end, the project was a complete success all the way through deployment, and a very satisfactory five or six years for all involved.

I must admit, that I am sure the customer knew from day one that there was no way we could do the job for the money, and time, originally estimated. However, they did know that we could do the job.

As for high profile, it would depend on where you worked. This project was not and, most likely, will never be in the 'public eye' but then that is true of many DOD and military projects.

Wow, this thread sure has gained a bit of momentum....

Sobek, here's a serious question for you and I hope you answer truthfully:
As a person who does not do programming, how would you explain to me that ED working on 1.5xxx and 2.0 and an eventual 2.5, how is working on all two/three "projects" a good way of moving forward considering the limited resources ED has? In other words, why not simply stop something as it will be "dead" soon and focus on getting the "new thing" out the door quicker?

Fair enough, my bad. I mixed you up with somebody else. As you say you called them incompetent and unable to learn from their mistakes.

I already somewhat answered that somewhere else.

The choice is between stretching yourself thinner but still giving customers of all modules the opportunity to utilize the Georgia map or leaving Georgia be and patching the new modules just into 2.0+.

What you need to consider is the following: The reason for the multiple versions we have right now is the interface to the terrain, that is, how the graphics engine gets the data it needs for rendering terrain features (textures, elevation mesh, etc.).

If you're developing something that works with both the old and new terrain interfaces or just doesn't depend on the terrain interface at all, you can basically just throw it into the 1.5 branch and it should work, so it's not too bad. The stuff where this doesn't work, they are probably going to hold back until they can ditch 1.5. The way i see it, what they are doing right now mostly creates overhead in testing, not so much in development, but i don't know the source code, so take that with a grain of salt.

What i can say with absolute certainty ED is not doing is developing three completely different versions. They develop one version (2.5) and invest some additional work into backporting some of that development work into 1.5.

Do you mean this?


I'm not quite sure you're answering my question here. You're telling me WHY you think ED is doing 1.5xxx/2.0/2.5, but I'm asking why their current approach (doing 1.5xxx/2.0/2.5) is a good idea? Why are they doing three things? Sure, not completely different versions, but still, three things. Why is focusing on ONE thing, in this case 2.5, not a good idea? Is there something that a developer or programmer sees in this framework that is not obvious to an outsider?

IMHO, ED's decision to maintain multiple version was likely based on the assumption that users would get too frustrated with the delay in both new content and progress in general. I doubt it was the most cost effective solution in terms of pure man hours, however, by doing it this way, they may well have been able to release paid content that otherwise would not have provided financial return until some time in the future.

The utility bills and the payroll are due now and IOU's don't cut it with some people.

Am I happy about it? Not really, but it is what it is and that is only a game that I try to enjoy.

A KSP update once ruined a year of exploration and left many kerbals stranded in outer space. That ticked me off more than many things about DCS's progress.

On the flipside, I'm sure if DCSW had a dynamic campaign that could run for weeks or months people WOULD be upset if an update invalidated the save and made you start over again.

I do remember that happening in F4, Il-2, and several other sims with DC's.

Heh, I just realized they could call it DCS: DCS. Digital Combat Sim Dynamic Campaign System. Wouldn't that be nice and confusing?



The Jedi Master