Did any of you notice some conspicuous sub-forums missing from the VEAO section of the ED forums? (Those of us who aren't BANNED from them, that is..)



..No?

Neither did I. But I did see something on one of the DCS Facebook groups about some official statements they've released in the wake of the decision which was apparently reached this last Friday.

Posted this morning:
And posted two hours after that:
So it is plainly obvious to me, as their statements say, the cancellation of their contract after one shitheap, chronically-neglected module and one constantly delayed module whose delays have been plainly blamed on ED breaking things faster than they care to fix them clearly has no influence on the way these events have panned out.

You know what? I'll bet it was one of those drunk-ass Russians, screwed something up again like they screwed up the P-40!

[/sarcasm]

Obviously ED screws everything up at one point or another (or repeatedly) over the course of a year. We know full well by now, it's just a part of their development cycle. Other 3rd party devs deal with just as much if not more of the headache of working under ED's stewardship (because they've released 2 or 3 modules in the time it's taken VEAO to kick one out the door), they've had their moments of partial or total module kneecappings but they've worked through them and seemingly tamed ED's coding dysfunction with some success. I find I have very little sympathy for VEAO, it seems clear that their failures are very much attributable to their lack of dedication to their DCS efforts. I'm probably one of a handful here that actually bought the Hawk, I've never been particularly happy with the module itself, but what's been truly inexcusable is how hands-off they've been about supporting it. There have been more and longer periods of time that that module has been broken than anything else in DCS, and the development plan for it has been a study in amateurishness. At one point they were abandoning the promised multi-crew functionality, I can't even recall at this moment if they did end up putting it in or if it works. I've certainly never actually been able to try multi-crew owing to the combination of module-breakdown-time, the population of smarter-than-I-am DCS community members who never bought the damn thing, and my own disdain for the module which has kept me from hopping in it in any capacity for well over a year now.

But this is ripe for a little DCS: Drama-tainment, so I guess VEAO is good for something after all.

I too bought the hawk and have to say i never had any hope for the typhoon. VEAO couldn't seem handle simple trainer aircraft with minimal systems so i never expected a working typhoon to even be in the realm of possibility for them. I actually have to say I'm glad to see that there are consequences for a third party developer being as poorly run as VEAO. Hopefully it will encourage others to not follow suit and be a reminder for future developers to have their shit together before asking us dumbasses to shell out money (which we always do, we're our own worst enemies lol).

Oh yeah.

I take the slightly more cynical view that they probably ended up dumping VEAO more for their public shit-talking rather than their wholesale lack of commitment to even do enough work to get the Hawk out of "early access." Can you believe that shit? What's it been, like two years or more? And they still call it an "early access" module.

Yeah well version 2 of DCS is still beta too so they're not one to talk.

A lot of devs these days stopped using alpha and beta as their traditional meanings, but instead use it as an excuse. Any time something isn't rights it's just like "yeah well it's the beta version". Like seriously we get it, that's why we're posting about these bugs so you can fix them instead of just brushing everything off for years on end. Meanwhile the so-called beta version is being pumped full of content, something normal done after the core game is up to snuff.

The whole beta/alpha tags are complete BS, just a sad excuse.