Fjordmonkey

Key words are trim and small stick-movements. I've found that I also have to adjust the nozzle-angle slightly once I enter a hover. Oh, and practice. A LOT of practice.

Understandable :) I'll continue my search :D

Thanks, derammo :) I'll take any hints on things that can do the same as IRIS and that works with Helios eagerly :D

One question I've been trying to get info on: Can I use Helios to export viewports/MPCD's to a networked unit with a touchscreen, such as the Surface Pro 4 I have sitting collecting dust? I know there was a system called IRIS that was used earlier, but that seems to be discontinued.

Because the intent makes absolutely no sense to me at all. The ARBS is a major system. It's also present in the jet. Sure, not a very GOOD representation of it (or very functional one), but it's there. And as said before: Feature Complete doesn't mean that development has stopped, and there will be changes going forward. If not...well, then Razbam has gone off to use a pogostick in a minefield, with much of the expected reactions. There isn't one, but it was a good place to use that quote :P

I used ETA as an example to show that people misunderstand things willingly. Estimated Time of Arrival damn near always turns into Time of Arrival and a tremendous amount of screaming, just as we now see with Feature Complete. People chucked the word Feature, went with Complete, and then started screaming. The screaming could have been mitigated with communication, which we've touched upon a number of times. People would still scream (because that's what we as a community are EXTREMELY good at), but probably not as much. Not the worst example, but also not the best. We're not talking about a house, we're talking about a piece of software. The comparison isn't valid. Isn't everything? People say that the devil is in the details. I like to say that he's equally present in definitions.

Your post is factually wrong: the Harrier is NOT complete. Feature Complete doesn't mean complete, which is a fact that has been stated NUMEROUS times by both ED and Razbam themselves. Development on it continues, and yes, I know we can sit here arguing about just what feature complete actually entails. We've been down that road before, two threads have already been closed because of it. This is why so many software-devs have stopped giving out ETA's. People chuck the first word and then scream bloody murder when the remaining ones is pushed back. Same sort of lazy, silly thinking, and it really does have to stop.

And now we're firmly into the discussion about just what Early Access entails, and what feature complete actually entails. That's something we can discuss until we're all dead, buried and turned into tiny droplets of oil. Maybe the whole EA-program needs to change. Maybe if they called it Alpha, Beta and Release-products, we wouldn't end up in this gigantic discussions that frankly we all perpetuate. Couple that with milestones defined by ED that constituted the various stages so that all developers were playing on the same sheet of music as well. That would at least give us as customers firm(er) reference-points to when we wanted to buy into the product. While we have no guarantee that Razbam suddenly won't go "NOPE! FINISHED AND DONE!" on the Harrier, I SEVERELY doubt they would survive as a company in doing so. Given how many modules they have in the pipeline, it's pretty safe to say that they'd never sell anything to anyone ever again, across multiple sims and regardless of what their company was called as soon as people learned who were behind said company. And sure, humans are idiotic creatures on the best of days, but doing so would effectively be committing suicide as a developer. Just look at what happened to VEAO, and then think about whether or not you'd buy anything from anyone involved with the company ever again. It's no secret that Razbam SEVERELY mishandled comms. Damn near ALL of this mess could have been avoided if there were proper communication.

Simulating a system IS a matter of licensing when you are also selling said simulation for profit. If you don't think so, make a simulation of something and see just how many company lawyers and/or cease and desist-orders you get. And besides, it doesn't matter if a system isn't used anymore or not doesn't mean that the info on it is exempt from classified etc. If you want proof: Find official documentation from official sources about the actual top speed on the SR-71. Key word here is official sources, aka USAF/US DOD. I'll wait. When it comes to GPS-guided weapons in DCS (or others, like the AIM-120 and AIM-9X), most of them are approximations. For example, JDAMs are in essence a MK-82 with with a GPS guidance kit. The JDAM as a weapon isn't classifed. The techincal data, however, is. I.e. certain aspects of it will be, such as for example true range, accuracy/CEP etc. Same goes with the GBU-54. The DSU-38 laser-sensor that turns a GBU-32 into a GBU-54 isn't classified, the technical data and other documentation, however, is. Looking at the AIM-120: Everything I've found say that the actual true range of the missile is classified, as is much of the technical data behind it. Approximating it based on publicly available data isn't really hard, nor is modeling it in a sim. Also a valid point. That would depend greatly on the EULA that you agreed to when you purchased said thing. And I'm pretty sure that ED has secured themselves against just such occurences.

I know it's possible to have a discussion without personal attacks. That wasn't one. That was merely an observation that everyone should ask themselves before buying anything hobby-related. I bought an honest product, and I bought it at EA due to not just the price (I'm a cheap tosspot, after all, with a limited amount of free money to throw at my hobbies), but also with to the promise that it would be as finished as it could be at some point in the future. Whether that comes to pass is yet unknown, but that was the risk I took with my $49,99. If it DOESN'T come to pass, I'll just ask myself this: Did the fun I have had in the module meet the expectations I had when I paid for the module? AKA have I gotten $49,99 worth of fun? Yes or no? So far that answer is yes. Your mileage may and will vary, of course, but that's how I see things. Buying a product in Early Access, or Beta, or kickstart or whatever you want to call it, is ALWAYS a risk It's ALWAYS a gamble. You ALWAYS risk the company producing it go tits-up or just not deliver at all. Or deliver a product that's flawed at best and outright nonfunctional at worst. We don't set what constitutes an EA-product. That's on the producer and/or supplier. In this case: Razbam and/or ED. What we can do is to actually start critically thinking about whether or not to fork out for a product in EA, whether the risk inherent thereof outweighs the reduction of cost for said product or not. Have you ever contemplated whether or not Razbam are allowed to actually model those systems accurately by either the US DoD or Boeing? Or the USMC, for that matter? Because those are a HUGE factor in terms of contracts, since they hold various licenses and trademarks, and without those RB couldn't field the module in the first place. And then there's the whole issue of whether or not the framework for said systems are actually present in DCS in the first place. Plus, of course, whether RB has the skills and can translate the documentation for the systems into DCS.

Again, read what I wrote, and have written multiple times. I have NEVER said that the Harrier is all good. It's got issues aplenty that needs to be looked at, but it is NOT, in my opinion and experience, the absolute trash so many people make it out to be. And nobody forced you to buy the Harrier, even when it WAS defined as an EA-product. You knew full well that there would be issues, and you did so knowing full well that it would take time, maybe years, before it got to the point it is in now. That's the choice we make and the risk we take when we buy anything in EA. The fun thing is that you're arguing definitions in a day and age where people can barely agree on what day it is. It doesn't matter what we say: The product is out of EA and in sustainment and further tuning/bugfixing. You make it sound like this is the end of the road of the Harriers development phase, while the only thing that's really changed is the pricetag on it. Because that's what EA in DCS is: A chance to buy a product with usually massive lack of functionality to a reduced price in order to further fund development. The dosh we paid for it goes towards the goal of seeing it as finished as a living sofware-product can get. If that bill is too much to foot, well, then maybe flightsims isn't for you.

Because that isn't carried for the AV-8B NA, only the AV-8B+. Lets wait for the NA to be in a better place before we start going all gaga for the Plus, shall we?

Eh, I have no problems with people being as passionate as they are, even if we're also an extremely analretentative bunch of people. I think that's what drives us all: Passion. Sadly, patience is not something the DCS-community is known for. Passion always clashes with patience, as people always want something to be perfect as well as wanting it right now. Which simply doesn't happen. Also, the community as a whole also has a tendency to be extremely binary in their views. Stuff is either absolutely perfect or it is completely and utterly unplayable. Those of us that are able to look past the flaws, bugs and issues (and in some cases missing features) are usually a silent minority to the two groups, and whenever we DO speak up, the result is much of the same as has happened here. And when people are more interested in being pedantic than see reason, it always becomes a gigantic mess. ALWAYS. Is the Harrier perfect, even with the latest changes? No. Is it completely unplayable and unusable? No. Can it become better? Yes. Do I hope that it will become better as time passes on? Yes. Is Two Weeks™ in hilariously fully effect? Eh, yes. Do people want to accept that? Well, would we be here if that was the case? Yeah, didn't think so.

Perfectly usable for me, yes. I can fly it, navigate it, do the mission it was designed for (i.e. CAS), I can land it and that DESPITE the issues it does have. I've never claimed that it doesn't have issues. We can also discuss just what a feature is until we both turn green without getting anywhere. What I AM claiming is that it's not as horrendously broken and unusable as so many others do in here to the ridiculously idiotic levels that has been done previously and still is being done. Your mileage may differ, and reading through this thread it's a pretty safe bet to say that it does.

Then you and I have EXTREMELY different views on the state of the Harrier, because for me it's perfectly usable and also enjoyable to fly. Despite the issues it DOES have.

Or employ the shocking concept of having a bit of patience. Yes yes, I know. You've been patient up to this point etc etc etc. Demanding things right away AND expecting them to be perfect is a surefire sign of the times, I guess.

Good thing I have a rule about following arbitrary rules that makes no sense to me ;)

Until I see the end result, I'll reserve my judgement. The images I HAVE seen of the Harrier-HUD in SVG seems to have little to no loss of quality compared to the DDS-method. And if I get a performace-gain without a quality-gain, I'm happy.

The SVG-change only applies to symbology on the HUD and MPCD's. Which are all simple graphics (the moving map is NOT affected by this, as that's delivered by ED's systems). The reasoning for using SVG is simple: Far less memory intensive than .DDS-textures, far easier to render for the system and both clearer and faster, especially for the VR-users. We all know that DCS is a bit of a CPU- and memory-hog, so this change should help a bit with that.

And this is EXACTLY why the last two threads were closed. People can't help themselves from turning them into a crapshoot. Welcome to the insanity, Elmo. Will be interesting to see how this goes.

Yet you continue to perpetuate the whole "he started it"-schpiel. It doesn't matter if ED or Razbam made a statement at this point. Anything and everything either of them said would only continue to fuel this thread, because people cannot or will not accept what's being said. We're in a self-sustaining loop where people have long stopped thinking logically, basically, and until that dies down there basically cannot be progress.

Ah yes, the old "He started it!"-arguement. Ever heard about taking the high road and not resorting to childishness? Fair enough and I agree with you, but I'm pretty sure that most of this thread proves Razbams point about why they don't come to the boards.

That we're paying customers doesn't immediately mean that we can be as muppety as we want, which is something this thread excels at. Yes, people are angry, and angry people lash out. Well enough, but when said lashing out morphs into lashing out for the sake of lashing out, we get absolutely nowhere. Again something this thread is an excellent demonstration of. How about we all sit back, wait for ED and Razbam to sort this mess out and for RB to actually make a damn statement about it? Or are we just going to sit in our respective mudpool and fling mud at eachother like children? And yes, I know I've done my part in flinging said mud.

I can full well be serious about the money part, and I am. And I haven't stated that 35€/$ doesn't have value, I stated that to me spending that on a module that interests me, even if it doesn't turn out to be anything else than a giant pile of poo, is a risk I'm willing to take. If 35€/$ is too much for other people, that's their business and not mine. Maybe then should reevaluate their spending-habits if it's that much of a burden financially. I know I've had to in the past, heh.

Nope, I've long since stopped such nonsense. If I wanted to spend money to see someone try to score for 90 minutes, I'd just turn on the TV and watch soccer. And yes, I'm a Scrooge when it comes to spending money on things that aren't neccesary. Why should I pay more than I'm willing to? Besides...your attempt to insult me needs work. You've got to try harder than that, my friend ;)