Removing Features in latest service release for pro edition ?

[DrRansom]

Yeah, I don't like this at all. Actually, I was tossing around the idea about buying some "Live Scenarios" as a show of support, but no more.

I can understand CMANO Dev. abandoning the record feature on the regular model. That makes sense from a cost/benefit perspective. What I cannot accept is that the development team removed the feature at the request of a Pro client. (see the thread on Grogheads for the dev quote, around page 138.)

Removing functionality from the commercial game for a Pro client is the fist step in down a very bad path. The problem isn't this particular item, it is the item in the future that is on the chopping block. If the DoD demands simplifying the radar model for the commercial game and waves a big contract in the devs face, we should expect the radar model to be simplified. The dev team has established a precedent by which game functionality may be removed, in an underhanded fashion, at any time.

In light of that, why put any more money into the game? If functionality is at risk for removal, then there is no incentive to buy more from the company as anything purchased may be removed at any date.

You can point to all the free updates and they are amazing. But free updates was a decision you made. You could have justifiably rolled some of that into paid DLC. I tend to think that a Strike Planner is worth a paid DLC of itself. (I assume that's the next update, based on your 'look to the future' comments.) But, removing functions already sold is barely justifiable, and you're not bothering to defend it on the only worthwhile grounds.



PS: If you do remove the functionality, remember to delete that line from all promotional material. At least be honest with future private customers about the present state of the game. Maybe toss in this disclaimer too "Any functionality in the game may be removed at a future date, if our pro clients demand it." Then you'd get real points for honesty.

PPS. The THAAD Energy Management Maneuver, IIRC, was only implemented to keep the missile within the White Sands testing range. See this story: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/f ... rsary.html

[HalfLifeExpert]

There isn't any evidence of pressure from the pros to remove recording from the commercial game, so really don't think that is a concern.

Plus, if you look on the Warfaresims site's professional edition page, it lists the avalible extensions for the pros, all of whuch gives them enough power to not need to demand any changes to the commercial game. Here they are:

Currently available extensions:

Full database editing
Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – MS Bing Maps
Monte-Carlo analysis
Import external data in XML format
Export event notifications to files/databases or external data consumers
Ability to override Command’s internal mechanics (use your own custom models)
Ability to export to Tacview for 3D visualization
Source code licensing

Planned extensions:
Integrated WEGO multiplayer mode with optional Umpire mode
Extended costing
DIS/HLA integration
Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – Other providers such as Google

[cdcool]

ORIGINAL: Demetrious

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert
And the fact that the record files took up so much HDD space put me off from using it as well.

This is the key point. Translation: the feature isn't complete, and requires more development. More development means more man-hours means more money. And commercial customers didn't much use it, while professional customers quite liked/needed it.

There's also a slew of reasons not to leave in the implementation as-is; ongoing changes to the code elsewhere would quickly "break" the feature, since it's not being actively maintained/updated for the commercial branch, it's bad form to leave a half-complete and officially abandoned feature in your program, etc. As Dimitris mentioned on that other forum that was linked, "several features were lined up for this fate," i.e. not enough developmentbux to keep truckin' on all features, so they had to pick one for "pro-only," i.e. where compensation would at least match the effort invested. Naturally they picked a feature that only the pros seem to want, which is definitely the right call.

What I'm driving at is, the devteam's not stealing away already-finished features to incentivize the pro version - they're moving a half-finished feature to the branch it should've been in from the start, basically. From everything I've seen it's consistent with Warfare Sims behavior as a company, too. They are in it to make a living, (as they must,) but I don't know if it's fair to say they're in it for the money. If you're in it for the money you go make Battlefield 7 - Revengence, not SON OF HARPOON - THE WARSIMS STRIKE BACK. Wargaming sims, well, uh... there's just not that much disposable income to chase, there. More than a few milsim games started life as a government targeted program that was later repackaged as a commercial game; CMANO is rather rare for making the leap in the opposite direction, and for good reason - only the government or major defense contractors reliably shell out for this kind of thing. This devteam really has a personal investment in making a good sim. On three separate occasions I found bugs that I suspected might be quirks related to abstractions - where rigorous simulation of this or that was papered over a bit. These are perfectly acceptable; tabletop wargames use them freely to keep the workload down, and yet they still accurately simulate real-world results enough that some pen-and-paper wargames are still used by the military for quick think-tanking. Computer game devs utilize them when it will similarly not impact actual results, and the man-hours to code "proper" simulation of it are unjustified by the meager enhancements they might bring.

All three times, the devs took one look at it, said "oh dear, that should be fully-functioning simulation, it's a bug, lemme get on that." They don't really embrace "abstractions." (I still can't believe someone took the time to code in the THAAD missile's Energy Management Steering Maneuver.) The most abstract-y thing is ground vehicles, which mainly exist as targets because they're the furthest away from the program's focus - and even that seems to be slated for a future re-work. Someone was asking about counter-battery radar a few days ago and the answer was "that's not modeled yet, but if you need it now there's always bespoke development." That sums up their approach to development; won't takes a distant backseat to can't, and their pro services are almost by definition as much service as packaged product. That's the nature of that kind of thing; when a big company (like BAE) wants to use the software as an analysis tool, they're going to have a laundry list of specific features needed to test their specific concepts, and they'll also have a slew of classified/proprietary data to be used in refining the model. That latter point is a problem unto itself; things like comms jamming are currently absent because all the data needed to simulate it is classified as all hell. With data in hand from a "pro" customer that's no problem, but implementing it in the commercial branch isn't easy if you care about accuracy (and they do.) Then, and only then, do the devs turn to acceptable abstractions. The implementation of the "generational" system for adjusting effectiveness of jammers versus radars based on comparative tech age is a perfect example; it's the kind of thing most wargames use all over the place, but the devs only used because 90% of the details needed to properly simulate it are simply classified and unavailable. So features designed for the "pro" branch are only unavailable to us because someone has to make a design decision about how best to abstract it so it's simple, robust, yet produces broadly accurate results, and that kind of thing is very hard. Hell, Mr. Bridge even says as much at the end of this interview, relating to the comms thing. Or just look at the effort spent on runway repair - they could've slapped together a simple equation centered on "average runway repair time as offered in repair kit brochures," weighed it by the damage amount, added a penalty if the munition was specifically anti-runway and then randomized it a bit. Would've taken ten minutes. And as an abstraction, it would've been fine. But instead they told us "this is rather complicated, we're working on it" and went digging for a while. The final result probably took the same amount of time to code, but it was the background research and design decisions that ensured the results were accurate.

So tl;dr, I really, really wouldn't sweat things like this, because the evidence overwhelmingly points to the dev team being on our side. They are wargame nerds - they are us, and they care about this thing they're putting their names on, and it really does show. The "pro" version is going to make these guys bank, and that bank will keep the commercial branch in development bux (again, as Mr. Bridge points out in that interview.) The only thing holding them back seems to be the lack of a twenty-fifth hour in the day and cash to pay for it.

So yeah, don't you worry. I once had my (public) doubts about them - and apologized to Sunburn personally when the next update fixed literally everything I'd bitched about and then some. And I never played it before WRA and Lua were a thing. So if anyone has doubts, just sit tight - they're not gonna outlive the next big update. [:)]

Hi there,
I'm curious, you state that you had your doubts once before, so I assume you are like the rest of us and not a developer or something related to that, how do you know all this stuff?

Thanks

[cdcool]

This is useful

[cdcool]

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

There isn't any evidence of pressure from the pros to remove recording from the commercial game, so really don't think that is a concern.

Plus, if you look on the Warfaresims site's professional edition page, it lists the avalible extensions for the pros, all of whuch gives them enough power to not need to demand any changes to the commercial game. Here they are:

Currently available extensions:

Full database editing
Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – MS Bing Maps
Monte-Carlo analysis
Import external data in XML format
Export event notifications to files/databases or external data consumers
Ability to override Command’s internal mechanics (use your own custom models)
Ability to export to Tacview for 3D visualization
Source code licensing

Planned extensions:
Integrated WEGO multiplayer mode with optional Umpire mode
Extended costing
DIS/HLA integration
Ability to use on-demand commercial imagery – Other providers such as Google

This is useful

[Raptorx7_slith]

Wow, tac-view integration. That must look pretty darn cool.

[BradOrbital]

ORIGINAL: raptorx7

Wow, tac-view integration. That must look pretty darn cool.

Missed that, was hoping that feature would've made it to commercial...

[jun5896]

It's time to release Deluxe Version(semi-pro version for consumer). Maybe..

[Dysta]

Why not some monthly-subscription plans for some extensions instead? Pay to use, unpay when no longer needed.

I know this will complicate things, but at least the game can list all the features as long as players can pay for them. That also comes with consistent funding by subscription, and to disable instead of delete the non-paid functions.

[poaw]

I'm indifferent to the removal and understand that the devs have to, you know, eat while delivering regular updates to Command. Although I might feel differently if I hadn't found out about this feature while reading this thread.

I also don't think Dimitrius meant that a Pro customer told them to remove record and playback. It sounded like the pro-customer was telling them to remove something much more important to increase the appeal of the Professional Edition and they decided instead to remove something that Pro important to Pro customers and trivial to commercial users.

In a perfect world, the devs would make enough money upfront on CMANO or have a big enough trickle of sales to continue development comfortably forever and no one would need to pay a dime beyond the sticker price. In reality, they need to find customers to give them the money needed to develop features we are asking for, which they generally provide for free to us. We got things like refined sensor models, the impact of aircraft stores on kinematic performance, and a more in-depth model of anti-ballistic missile effects (not to mention free database updates and a more or less open-door policy for requests for additions/modifications). Record/Playback functionality is probably the least used feature among the commercial community. It's value is almost entirely symbolic, whereas things like WEGO MP the advanced strike planner, and scenario editor would certainly make a more attractive Professional Edition if they exclusive to that product.

I think it's a bad hill to die on, especially if holding it means we lose something else down the line.

[BradOrbital]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Why not some monthly-subscription plans for some extensions instead? Pay to use, unpay when no longer needed.

I know this will complicate things, but at least the game can list all the features as long as players can pay for them. That also comes with consistent funding by subscription, and to disable instead of delete the non-paid functions.

Yeah, the only thing with this is compliance with various country laws regarding consumer rights. There are legal challenges that could appear. I'd think its less of a legal minefield to focus on carefully picking future features to put in than to take out. There are some seriously strict consumer laws out there that can cost companies millions and even close them down.

EDITED TO JUST ADD: I think I did read that the removal of the recent feature/s are under discussion though since people starting objecting so maybe something will change. Lets hope its all stays positive for the players. Thanks guys.

[ColonelMolerat]

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Why not some monthly-subscription plans for some extensions instead? Pay to use, unpay when no longer needed.

I know this will complicate things, but at least the game can list all the features as long as players can pay for them. That also comes with consistent funding by subscription, and to disable instead of delete the non-paid functions.

I really don't like this idea, sorry - one of the things that I like about single-player strategy games is, once you've made the outlay, you've got the game. You don't need the internet, you don't need to keep paying, you bought a game and it will remain playable whatever else happens. I'd hate to find a feature I like, then have to keep paying for it or see it go.

DLCs are different. I don't like how some games out there pump out DLCs so frequently it feels like you need a subscription, but within reason I don't have a problem. I don't mind occasional, big 'expansion-pack' DLCs, and I don't mind CMANO's current approach of cheap, additional, high-quality missions. With both of those approaches, once you've bought them, you own them and you don't have to keep running on the subscription treadmill.

As for the original point of this thread...

I liked the recorder in theory, but actually used it very rarely. That said, I'm still a little unhappy at the concept of removing existing features from the retail edition - but I'll hang back and watch how it all develops. I'm not passionate enough about it to want to get embroiled in this storm, and hopefully it'll all blow over one way or another soon enough.

[Apocal]

I didn't even realize this was a feature.

[Dysta]

Well, all I can say is... this simulator has potentials, I play what it gives me, and that is.

Expecting more comes with price, literally and effortfully. We can suggest, but we can't beg. Just... Bradinggs is right, stay positive and play on.

[Demetrious]

I'm curious, you state that you had your doubts once before, so I assume you are like the rest of us and not a developer or something related to that, how do you know all this stuff?

I just read their devblogs, actually. And the forum natter (search "runway damage" and you'll see what I mean vis a vis the care put into runway modeling.) But mostly their own wordpress blog over on their site, wafaresims.com. The "generational" abstraction for fixing ECM is here. Note the following quote:

We investigated these reports, and concluded that the fundamental problem was that our radar/ECM formulas, while technically quite accurate, failed to take into account the various counter-countermeasures (and counters to them, and counters to the counters, ad naseum…) that are applied by both radars and the jammers that target them. Discretely incorporating these techniques in a public-domain simulation is tricky, not least because non-classified information is scarce, both on the details of these techniques and also as to which system supports which tricks.

You can multiply that issue by ten for anything involving communication jamming, because in the modern context this is a lot more than just jamming voice communications on a VHF radio - you're talking about jamming digital datalinks and all sorts of ~classified~ stuff. Radar, however, has been around a lot longer, and the physics of it are pretty well known - even AESA is just a new wrinkle on an old equation (which is why PESA arrays are still around, as they can do most of what AESA can do; it's nowhere near worth the expense to replace the AN/SPY-1s on existing Burkes, for example.) And yet, even with that, the generational tweaking is needed to account for things such as older Soviet radars being long "compromised," i.e. everyone knows the very intricate details of how they work, so jammers can be programmed with specific "attacks" that are very useful at overwhelming them. That's just one example of how age degrades a radar when up against a modern jammer, for instance. Modern datalinks and commo? Hooo.

Read all their devblogs - it's a fantastic window into the development process, and the challenges and considerations they have to tackle.

You are correct. Many amateurs in China are actually very fond on CMANO, and they made one of a scenario in attempt to sink Liaoning Carrier by US recently. Sparked hundreds of redirects and thousand replies all over military fan communities.

This would explain much... I post over on the "weapons" board of 4chan, "/k/," where the phrase "my scenario stands" has become a board in-joke because of the frequency with which one particular Chinese poster would use it after presenting a CMANO scenario result proving the great and terrible might of the PLAN. Of course this sometimes backfires, but I can attest to CMANO being popular as an analysis tool on that side of the Pacific.

EDIT: I just read that grogheads.com thread and good heavens that was a lot of bellyaching. I suppose none of them have lived through a few years of following Kerbal Space Program's development [:D]

[kevinkins]

Record/Playback functionality is probably the least used feature among the commercial community. It's value is almost entirely symbolic, whereas things like WEGO MP the advanced strike planner, and scenario editor would certainly make a more attractive Professional Edition if they exclusive to that product.

Agree. Will LIVE sales suffer w/o replay?

Additionally, trying to predict the evolving business model of a niche software company based on limited info is a waste of time. What is predictable is that web forums love conspiracy theories.

Kevin

[BradOrbital]

Out of interest, how do you rollback a version update with steam edition?

[ColonelMolerat]

In other games, you right-click the game in your library, then click properties. Then you choose the 'betas' tab and choose the previous version you want as though it is a beta.

This doesn't seem possible with CMANO though.

[Peter66]

I originally wasn't going to comment on this topic but decided I should.

My views are that if something doesn't make it to our (commercial?) version and is instead listed as a PE only feature, I'm fine with that. Taking away an existing feature and then saying we can't have it back because it's PE only... That I don't agree with. If a feature is in it should stay in.

I will continue to support CMANO and it's devs because I believe they are some of the most helpful I've ever come across. I just hope this is a one off and things will be more clear from now on.

[HaughtKarl]

Would cream my shorts for the ability to export to Tacview. What a seriously cool feature to watch your scenarios play out in a 3D environment.