bkthunder

From the AGARD AG322 OPEN ACCESS AND UNCLASSIFIED document https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/AGARD/Forms/AllItems.aspx?FolderCTID=0x0120D5200078F9E87043356C409A0D30823AFA16F60B00B8BCE98BB37EB24A8258823D6B11F157&View=%7B7e9c814c-056a-4d31-8392-7c6752b2af2b%7D&RootFolder=%2Fpublications%2FAGARD%2FAGARD%2DAG%2D322&TreeField=Folders&TreeValue=AGARD%2DAG%2D322&ProcessQStringToCAML=1&SortField=DocIcon&SortDir=Asc

I think it just doesn't give any indication when the Nose gear WoW switch is activated.

AC: does nothing, all lights are on including the strobe on the tail FORM: all lights are off except the strobe ALL: all lights are off except the strobe

Yeah, for me it works exactly like this, no more purchases until the following are finished: - F-5 - F-18 - F-16 - Yak - Harrier - Viggen - F-14 it'll be a while, lol.

There are people here that have literally spent hours upon hours posting bug reports. Don't waste all of that.

I thought we all paid for it no? At least I did, I double-checked and that money is definitely not on my account since a couple of years... :huh:

@Elmo, something your predecessor never understood and immediately acted extremely acidic about was that I made the community bug tracker to help him/razbam (though you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped!). If your intentions are sincere, as I hope, I have no problem giving you access to the bug tracker. You can use it as you need as that's its real purpose: to help razbam solve bugs. P.S. I voted "Keep it the way it is, sort through the posts and update very single one." We had enough malicious thread moving/deletion in the past. The community bug tracker has a link to the forum posts and I encourage you to read the "readme" page where it clearly states what is added and how. The forums should stay the official place to report bugs, and posts marked [reported] [fixed] etc. as it happens for all other modules. I don't see a reason why Razbam would need to deviate from that rule. Thanks, welcome and I hope you will do well here. As you can tell you're jumping right into a storm.

Or he's seriously having a laugh while you take him seriously ;)

Those were just examples, not meaning to divert the conversation to other modules. Since you mention it, however, nobody pushed ED to release an EA product much earlier in the development cycle than it had ever previously done, except ED themselves. That alone gave EA a new meaning, and we now know what to expect from EA going forward. What we didn't know was what to expect from "feature complete", or at least we thought we did, until the Harrier was deemed as such. It all shows that you don't have a set of standards and this makes any nomenclature pretty irrelevant. It also means we, as customers, can only base our decision on reading dozens of forum posts, sift through rumors, speculation, over-excitement and negativity, and try to guess what it is that we are buying into. :dunno: P.S. by the way, what sense does it make that the Harrier is "feautre complete", while the F-18 or F-14, which are much more polished and feature complete, are EA? Should we expect that they soon get moved out of EA as well? What about the F-16, will it be out of EA soon? You see what I mean...

I've had a few run-ins with Nineline through the years but I have to say you and Bignewy are really doing a great job of managing an objectively really difficult situation. I really don't expect you guys to speak your minds freely and agree with some of the most blunt posts here. However I think it's plain and evident to all involved that there is a disconnect between what is on the official description and what we have installed on our hard drives. If that's truly what ED considers "feature complete", I'm sure people will take future buying decisions based on the knowledge that EA, feature complete and product sustainment hold no particular standard or guarantee as to what a product actually includes, to the point that a newcomer could happily buy the fully released and "complete" Harrier from the store and find himself with a large number of missing features. I honestly don't know how that is conceivable for a serious business, and even from a legal point of view, but it is what it is. Sales, any sales, are based on trust. A company can build or lose the trust of its customers, and ED has lost much of my trust unfortunately. Not much point now going around in circles. I have skipped the past few releases from ED and 3rd parties and I will continue to seat back and watch as new products are launched, hoping that one day some of them reach a factual and objective "feature complete" state, then, maybe, I will buy. A quick look at my DCS hangar reveals that only about 25% of the modules I own are truly feature-complete and relatively bug-free. The rest ranges from F-14 (a very good EA) to F-16 (a very bad EA), all the way to the Harrier and some others, which are in a rotting state. I'd say, given what this experience is teaching me about ED's quality standards, that I have quite a lot invested in high-risk assets, and it's time to draw the line and wait for that 75% to mature, if it ever will.

Yeah that's understandable, I hope you get to it at some point ;)

Nice :thumbup: Also a bit of that bounciness seen here at 8:50 would be great

I'm sure you are aware of this. The F-14 requires plenty of power to taxi while its RL counterpart could taxi at idle and even had to shutdown one engine at times in order not to overspeed (when lightly loaded). The issue is well understood in DCS, as a workaroudn to avoid sliping on the carrier deck, however this has since been mostly resolved on the other carrier capable fighter, the F-18, which can now taxi with very little power. Wondering when this will be addressed for the F-14 as well. Thanks.

Hey IronMike, I saw your PM but didn't have time to answer that. Appreciate your response though ;) I'll say here that while I understand internal vs external details priority, I'd argue that the terminal part of the engine nozzles is not really an internal detail, as it is in plain view when lookign at the back of the plane. I fully agree that turbine and spray-bars can be a texture. But the nozzle is very visible. So let me clarify further, in hope that you will re-consider this: we just need the inside turkey feathers (the ones that are visible) to stay horizontal when the nozzle is closed. the other inside geometry is not so necessary. See the pictures for a better explanation

Yeah that's correct, and I'm not going to paraphrase everything. However, have a look at the NATOPS and search for the titles in the post (e.g. intake drag) and you will definitely find the full paragraph ;)

Are there any news about these important bug fixes? It's been a long, long time with the module in this state.

Any news?

Ability to taxi at IDLE power and adjust speed just by moving the nozzles

As I said, I have not called anyone a troll, so check your facts.

I think this whole thread proves the community point about why such a thread exists in the first place. The fact it spins out of control is because neither Razbam nor ED have given an official statement.

I'm not the one who just called a customer a troll, so that advice should be directed to someone else here :music_whistling:

P.S.

I have done a community bug tracker to help YOU, dear sir, keep track of all the bugs that I and other have reported and that you buried under the carpet. As for expecting something, I AM THE ONE THAT PAID. I don't owe you anything, it's the other way aroud and once you start to understand that, maybe, just maybe, it may dawn on you and your team that this is a business and not a charity, and we are paying customers. I expect what I paid for. That's it. Honestly you better keep these kind of posts to yourself because that's a clear demonstartion of why things with the Harrier have gone the way they have.

Well, Razbam are what they are and at this point I don't see any reason to expect anything from them, be it an official statement or else. Honestly, whatever they say has no weight, actions speak louder than words (or silence in this case) and 3+ years have clearly shown what Razbam can and cannot do. You can't possibly extract something from them if they just don't have the necessary skills to do it. So let's start to talk about ED's role here: Has ED evaluated Razbam's ability to deliver to a DCS-level standard when enrolling them? Consequently (and provided this evaluation was done), why was a this developer given the go-ahead to develop and extremely complex aircraft such as the VTOL Harrier? Why, again, is ED trusting Razbam to deliver an even more complex aircraft, such as the F-15E (again, given their track record)? What is ED's position on selling a product on their official store page, which literally doesn't match the description? What is ED's plan to deliver what we paid for? (Yes, it's out of early access, so I am expecting exactly what I paid for at this point - a study level sim - and any EA excuse is invalid). For example, Razbam is incapable of coding a working FPM (flight path marker / velocity vector) on their HUD, despite releasing a "bug fix" that didn't correct anything. Is ED going to help razbam with the coding, in order to fix this basic bug on a fully released product sold on the official store, with the DCS logo on it, for $70? These are the questions we should be asking at this point, and I hope ED will give an official statement.

:thumbup: