Personal Opinions : The Hawk Controversy!
 |
| Isn't she gorgeous now...? |
Hi there fellow simmers, particularly DCS fliers.
As you may remember, DCS : Hawk T1A by VEAO Simulations have been available since about October of last year. Inaugural module of VEAO, it was awaited eagerly by a sizable chunk of the community.
However, release took a while, and delays ensued, compounded by legal issues, as well as having to switch copy protection system at the last minute.
Long story short, it was eventually released in Beta form, and has been so since. Being one of the British planes I've always found nice looking, and due it's agility, also interesting, I was interested in it, and eventually got it myself.
What set VEAO apart in first glance, is their connection to RAF, and direct access to aircraft they model, as well their (well formerly) very open communication and relationship with community at large. They are the only DCS developer, be it 3rd party or not, to have published a full long term product roadmap to community, and shared fairlu frequent WIP renders / content from even early in development stuff. The mantra VEAO has always communicated has been that they would only do DCS level products, and to highest level of realism practically possible in a consumer entertainment product. This is what makes them respectable in my opinion. We are yet to see it become a reality however. But I am still positive, and will give them a wider beth, at least a couple more modules released, until I pass a final judgement on that. Software development is not easy, simulation development, especially to said levels of realism, is not, not at all easy... A few of even my favorite modules, seem to some liberties in this (i.e. some really old missiles showing no smoke at all) and this is casting a shadow on their developers in my mind. VEAO states they will not do that, and I hope they will hold true to that. Unfortunately, Hawk does not seem to be there just yet.
However, DCS community, especially over the ED forums, have been very vocal, sometimes even on the impolite side, against these material. Forums are on the uproar, and VEAO decided to communicate less about product updates and WIP shots would not appear unless a product is in the brink of immediate release.
Every coin has two sides, and in this article, I will look at the issue from both sides. In the end, as per the title / category "Personal Opinions", this will be just that. But, I will remain just and objective to best of my ability.
There are a few points where people throw criticism on VEAO. A few, I find some merit in myself, others I don't. To list what these seem to be :
- Texture issues, mainly cockpits : Hawk external model is GORGEOUS, both the mesh AND the textures. Quite honestly, it is one of the best, most awesome looking models in DCS. However, cockpit, since before the release, have been panned by community as being "sub standart", or at extreme cases even horrible.
 |
| The infamous DCS Hawk cockpit, looks rather good to me... but I'm sure I'll be blamed as having low standarts and such... |
We need to ask ourselves, "is good really not good enough?", "is perfect really necessary?". I am all for weeding out inadequate work out of DCS, and I applaud the perfection on some of the modules. However, I can heartily say, Hawk's cockpit did not qualify for being considered inadequate. Now, the first cockpit "update" did introduce some weird looking parts, may have been in ab event of haste or perhaps even sort of panic. But I believe even if they decide against updating it again, these areas would still get fixed. I want to ask the community, as far as crucial issues such as systems / flight realism is solid, is "good enough" not enough in eye candy department? Is it not better to have more DCS developers even if some of them are visually good but not perfect? Is looks really that importannt? I also think, we should give VEAO more chance, as this is their first module ever... If it doesn't come to pass, and new modules keep lacking in realism or completion, than community can and will vote with their wallets. Currently, though, it seems we are trying to vote with sharp words and a sense of entitlement.
Same criticism have been made for P-40F, which is expected to be released (hopefuly) next month. Again, the cockpit, and this time also the external textures, have been criticised by community. I think the same, as I do on Hawk. Yes, they may not be as cool looking as some other modules, but, I still believe they look good enough, and they are still WIP.
As long as flight model, systems and weapons modeling is really good, and in place, "good enough", is a level I'd be happy with as far as eye candy is concerned.
One thing to remember, it is a choice whether to model absolute best looks at the cost of performance, or model "good enough" with better performance. Awesome as they are, cockpits such as MiG-21Bis and C-101 are hurting framerates on many systems, and not everyone is rolling with best hardware. Therefore, I believe there is merit to VEAO's approach for cockpits too.
However, I will still wait and see how P-40 is received in system/flight/weapon modeling before getting it myself. I have finally adoped a "once bitten twice shy" stance on getting beta modules, but not due to VEAO, not primarily anyway. The reason I've adopted this stance actually has more to do with Belsimtek and ED in case of Bf-109K (especially thinking it is my favorite WW II bird, it's current state is a bit less than enticing for me). Also worth mentioning Aviodev's C-101, which sure is taking it's sweet time with CC version and flight model.
While cockpit texture criticism may had some merit originally, and I'm sure started more in good intentions, it is also a bit overblown in my view. If only a few funky looking areas are fixed, I'm honestly fine with it. Having stated my own opinion, and general outline of the issue, I am leaving community for their own, personal, final judgements.
- Finishing of module in general : Well, here there are some issues indeed. Funnily, a few I find most important, seem to be never mentioned by community, while they scream about texture issue.
First off, the flight model. I am with community in this one. It has been really long, and it has been revealed that flight model will not be updated before the P-40 is released. SFM really just won't cut it for me, and for many others. It feels very unconvincing with sharpness and ease of turns without losing almost any speed, no sense of feedback, and a lack of effect from angle of attack changes, infact angle of attack hardly seems changing at all, you pull the stick, aircraft changes flight direction, not only nose direction. This is the case with almost all SFM aircraft. And EFM is in development anyway, I, and many others are really looking forward to it. Especially, thinking other aircraft it can be used with / against almost universally have better flight models besides the C-101, which shares the same FM limbo. I do hope VEAO will bring a good EFM to Hawk, sooner rather than later. This is an issue, an important one, and there is no way around it.
Second, misalignment of gunsight reticle, I kept this seperate from cockpit because this is more a systems programming related issue in my opinion (or, rather in my guesstimation). This is important too. And sorely asking for an update. In VEAO's defense, there has been no updates to DCS to introduce fixes either from 3rd parties or ED themselves for a long time, partly due to effort and wait on DCS 2.0 (which is expected next month in form of DCS 1.5, everything from 2.0, sans new maps). However, I do hope this will get adressed as soon as possible in upcoming patches to DCS World.
Third, this one is mentioned by almost no one, and is fairly major an issue as far as I'm concerned. It is weapons. Hawk, is stated to operate AIM-9L, rather than M. It may be possible it can also use M, but I haven't come across any info on that. Even if it can, it is important to provide L too, for that is what existed during the period RAF intented to use Hawk as a secondary fighter. While performance wise AIM-9L and M are somewhat similar, there are some apparently small but very important differences. Lima's seeker is more susceptable to be spoofed, that is first. And the second is, unlike AIM-9M, the older model has a very smokey, visible rocket motor. This matters a lot in up close dogfights or silent ambushes that Hawk can be involved in.
Story does not end with A-A missiles though. Bombs and rockets we can curretly equip Hawk are, stock DCS weapons of USA origin, instead of UK.
Finally, there is the centreline gun pod. We can currently equip UPK-23, the Russian 23mm gunpod. Essentially the same gun as on MiG-21 (however, Hawk uses ED's 23mm, which performs considerably different from seemingly much lower velocity one on Leatherneck's implementation, which one is realistic? oh well another discussion for another day). Instead Hawk should be using 30mm ADEN, which is likely much harder hitting but also probably harder recoiling too.
Here's hoping that Hawk will get it's proper weapon set, as well it's proper flight model sooner rather than later.
- "Biting more than they can chew" : That's how a sizable chunk of community have put it anyway. I'm with VEAO on this one. While people can have concerns, and can also voice them, in the end, a company's business plan, is theirs to decide and operate. They have stated their staff is pretty big and they believe they are able to handle the roadmap. I also think they may be a tad overstretching, but, that's just my opinion, and I am in no way in a position to tell them how to run their own business. Let us see them release a few more, and then yeah, people can decide for themselves regarding VEAO's products for good or bad. It was possible, and they did say as much from day one, that a few of the roadmap may, and eventually will, fall by the wayside. That is how it tends to be with roadmaps.
There are people who go so far as to suggest they should drop everything and work on X module (X tends, most often, to be Typhoon :)), despite it has been clarified multiple times that there are many teams comprising a staff of about 30 people who are working on seperate projects, and throwing more people at a single project, does not really speed it up.
Being a software developer myself, I can relate. In a DCS product I can see distinct main areas of : flight model coding, systems coding, cockpit modeling / interaction programing, cockpit texturing, external modeling, external texturing. All require different expertise, and a team working on a single aircraft, can hold only so many engineers/artists. You can sometimes afford the luxury of pair programming, essentially, two people staring at the same screen, one is coding, other is helping / reviewing. While usually meritious, it is also difficult to afford when the second programmer can be working on another aircraft or another programming related portion of same aircraft (i.e. one programmer on flight and another on systems). However, throwing more programmers to concurrently code on the same feature, just doesn't work. Even two can be difficult / awkward, and more is just, an enterprise into absurdity. Enter problems of understanding other's work, trying to come up and stay with a common pattern, versioning and integration nightmares etc. So yeah, if 30 people were working on Typhoon, no, it just wouldn't progress faster, it would only cost astronomically more, and likely even proceed slower.
In the end, how much can they bite, is for them to decide, and not us.
- Communication practices : Community was / is split on this one (hell, on what we aren't? :D),
There are the ones who go so far as to buy their products purely because they love how much VEAO communicate. Then, there are ones that believed VEAO is a bit too open.
A few days ago, VEAO has taken the decision to be much more mute with product updates unless they are about to be released. I was expecting this to happen, and frankly I believe this is the better way to go.
Criticism is valuable, yet also cheap to come up with. I don't think "too much democracy" in flight sim development is necessarily a good thing. People will have opinions, and almost always they will have conflicting opinions. They have different orders for importance of different features between them. And going ballistic with criticism / rants on a WIP material is way easier than research, design and development efforts involved in making it.
In my opinion, what module to build, what takes precedence between features / eye candy leves etc when building it, are all things that development studio, and development studio ALONE should have any say in. At least until the development is complete. Once initial release happens, sure then people can criticize, and studio can decide what to listen / implement and what not to.
Argument of "easier to fix things early in development" sounds true at first glance. However, I don't believe it really is. Rather, it has some merit, but the issue goes deeper. People will argue back and forth whether a thing is important or not, whether x or y block should be made, if that corner of the mesh is half a degree off or not. They will have different priorities, and different opinions. A development studio allowing open discussion on these will have two options : ignore them and get some drama and bad rep, or try to cater to most of those, changing things back and forth, and causing all sorts of havoc in development process, risking introducing unforseen bugs and shifting timelines. In either case, reading, replying, discussing (rather arguing) all those takes time, and, at times, also motivation away from developers. Criticism is important and fine, but I believe it is better served after initial release, and "early in development" criticsm can be better achieved by a closed test circle of qualified testers, rather than community at large.
I am glad VEAO is turning a bit more inwards about development process, and I hope this will help them along the way.
Then, with an open roadmap, there is risk of alienating people when early-on announced projects can not happen for one reason or another. I, for one, was/am fairly disappointed when A-4 had to go. I understood there are valid reasons, and the choice is developer's if it makes sense or not, however, it was one of the aircraft I was most interested to have in DCS. Other people in community felt sad that helicopters needed to go. Months before mass helicopter exodus for roadmap, Apache was also on the list, and was the first to silently leave the list, to people's disappointment.
These will happen, and I understand there are very valid reasons, which can be unavoidable. But they always run the risk of disillusioning community, therefore, I think it will be nicer to show progress / pitch a product when it's already progressed considerably.
What I like with Belsimtek for example, they don't run long teasery campaigns. They silently work on their product, and then go "hello, we have made this, will hopefully release in [x] months". I really admire that. Although, I can not say that I admire products remaining betas with missing many important features for a year and beyond, but... again Belsimtek isn't our topic here and "another discussion for another time" applies as well :).
- Choice of aircraft : Again, this is up to VEAO and no one else. You can vote by not getting it, but every module cater to some people, and in the end it is developer's decision to choose what they want to develop. There may be a risk involved with "this won't sell", but, it is developer's to take. I am looking forward to their prop warbirds and cold war / modern jets, also the Tucano if it will be an armed one (hell may be even if unarmed). Especially the Tornado is something I am looking forward to a lot. On the other hand, I personally am not too interested in early jets VEAO have in their list. Still I can see on the forum there are others who are interested in them, who am I to say "meh, don't do those old jets"? Not everyone has to like every era / type of aircraft, but this doesn't mean only their favorits should be developed, to detriment of the rest.
That said, I am dubious about 4.5 generation and beyond modules from anyone. DCS and guesstimation does not go together in my mind. Regarding Typhoon, I am ok, since VEAO is working with RAF on that one, obtained necessary permissions, and have access to real material. They will be cutting some stuff but that is what's allowed and frankly the most we can get in a public entertainment product when it comes to modern / current military equipment. I think Typhoon will be nice. However, while I love Rafale a lot, Dassault isn't known for being cooperative with such endevaours. Anyways, VEAO stated time and again they won't do a thing if they can't get it as realistic as is practically possible and I will keep believing that until I believe it is disproven.
Now... a favoirte question of community is along the lines of "what do you do with Hawk". An answer I have seen on ED forum was more or less "sitting in hangar or being used for target practice". Weeelll... unfortunately same for me, mostly :). I have used it in multiplayer missions as an AI aerial threat, I have used it in mission editor to fight against while piloting various aircraft myself, including prop warbirds :). Until gunsight is fixed, flight model is released, and also hopefuly authentic weapons are added, this will not likely change. Sorry VEAO, I'm sure you understand my concerns :).
However, there is nothing wrong with aircraft itself once these are fixed. It will be a very fun to fly, agile little aircraft that has some sting too. It can be used in a poor man's light attack / fighter role.
 |
| I call this one "DCS : Haters Gonna Hate" |
So, TL;DR :
Yes, there are things with Hawk that can use some serious (and a bit overdue) attention,
No, cockpit isn't necessarily among them, at least not according to me,
Yes, Hawk is still a fun aircraft to have,
Yes I will be more careful at early adopting modules from all the vendors,
Also Yes, I still think VEAO will hopefuly do some great things soon,
and Yes, VEAO is doing good by this new communication policy,
and NO already alleging incompetency from their first module is not OK.
At least in my personal, and if I may, cool-headed, "as objective as possible" opinion.
I am looking forward to more of their products and wishing them well.
Comments
Post a Comment