

bkthunder
Members-
Posts
1786 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by bkthunder
-
It's the NATOPS, I guess it's a valid source :smilewink:
-
Nineline, I think it's worth pushing for a reason: a switch is easier to use than a knob for us simmers. We can bind that to two buttons on the stick for example. I have the Hornet set up in that way and it makes it a breeze to set the course and make small corrections without having to use the mouse. That said there are certianly much higher-priority bugs and missing features.
-
Exactly my thoughts and well describing the experience. And again, fun doens't mean accurate, or complete, or bug free. It can be fun for you, which is great, but it still doesn't meet the product specifications that it is sold against. @marcoscosta if you bought a pair of white running shoes and you received a pair of brown sandals, would you think "well, i can still use them and they are fresh" or would you go back and expect to get what you paid for?
-
Hawkeye I mostly agree with your thinking. However, we have not bought a Razbam module in a vacuum. There is ED behind it. I bought a module sold on the official DCS store, that runs on a sim that I know and love and that was a quality guarantee for me. And that's why this whole thing stings even more. Had it been a Razbam-made sim with no endorsement, I would not have spent that money just as much as I didn't buy some obscure flight sims from unknown developers. I have spent $70 based on: - product descrpition (i.e. "study level simulation") - DCS lablel and reputation - wanting to gain early access and support the developer Now, what did I get from this? - a product that is out of EA and is not by any account a study level simulation of the Harrier - something that runs on DCS but is on a whole different level of quality compared to the other DCS modules - wasted time reporting bugs only to see razbam walk away with the money and stick their heads in the sand (while insulting their paying customers at the same time). ED put their logo on this thing but did nothing to ensure it meets the quality requirements of their own platform.
-
See the "drawing' attached for explanation. Basically, the nozzles are missing internal geometry when closed. You can easily compare this with the F-16 (basically the same engine), or see the diagram on the NATOPS.
-
No disrespect meant, but you should also have read the "read me" or the forum post where I clearly lay out the principles of the bug tracker. In particular I cannot possibly go and test each week, each and everyone of those reports and change the status myself, can I? I believe I have dedicated, sorry, wasted enough time reporting bugs that went unanswered for years, and then making the community tracker (and updating it as much as possible). @Nineline, my complaints and missing features are in the bug tracker. You can filter for "bkthunder" and see what I have reported and is still open. I frankly have very little time to AGAIN make another list, maybe I will but it's difficult. The main point you should take away is this product is not a highly accurate/realistic simulation of the Harrier. It's not accurate, the FM is missing key VTOL dynamics, the systems are half baked, weapons are missing. What makes it useless for me? Simple. I bought this: I did not get what is in there. It is not a study level simulation. I am using DCS because it is. If I buy a knife and you give me scissors, the scissors for me are uselss because I needed a knife. Get it? Edit: here’s a fitting analogy to sum up. I bought the tickets to see Top Gun, but I was given hot shots with Charlie sheen. Lol.
-
Nine line, I guess you haven’t really had a deeper look at the Harrier otherwise you’d know the issue is not just poor communication. Of the module is garbage or not is very subjective. At this point for me it is garbage. It is useless. Let’s stick to objective facts: 1. The harrier is a finished product (out of EA) 2. There is a product description 3. The product that is sold DOES NOT MATCH that product description Imagine someone buying the Harrier today. They would do so based on the description on the store. They would quickly proceed to realize that, indeed, what they have paid for doesn’t include the features listed in the description, and that the features it does include are bugged or not working. They would then have all the reasons in the world to ask for a refund. Now, for me and many other here the situation is only slightly different, as we have bought it during the EA period. However we still bought it based on the official description and expecting the product to reach release in a reasonable amount of time, in a state that matches the official description. So, the fact the Harrier is now released means a simple thing: ED and Razbam are selling one thing, and delivering another. - Scam - Misleading advertising - Fraud are some of the words that are commonly associated with companies that engage in this type of behavior. I don’t really think ED went into this on purpose, but now unless you clearly steer away and correct the situation, ED does actively engage in an unlawful behavior. Can we please have an official statement from ED about how they intend to rectify the situation? P.S. the Hawk was never released out of EA IIRC, Veao went out of business and never delivered the final product, in a way that means they didn’t really have to stick to the product description as they went bust before completion. The situation here is much different: Razbam is not bankrupt and the product is officially fully released.
-
It’s out of early access. Good. The product DOES NOT meet the official product description, that is what I based my buying decision on. So ED and Razbam are officially stating that they HAVE NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRODUCT they sold. I want my money back. I could care less about product sustainment or whatever they decide to name it. The product is not complete and doesn’t match the description. Is it a scam? If not, refund. I am serious. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, digital content should be of a satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described.
-
Lol, seriously. Ok let me clarify something here: 1. I have spent countless hours LISTING IN AN ORDERLY MANNER most of the bugs reported on the forum. I did it in the hope that it could help visualize the sheer amount of work still to be done, and help Razbam notice the bugs they had left in a total mess on their own forum section. I'll add that I didn't hear a single "thank you" from anyone at Razbam, including the now defunct Decoy who actually did everything he could to have the post deleted within, literally, 3 minutes of me posting it. Go ahead and call me toxic. 2. I have done so because those reports were not ackowledged or mislabelled, and being moved to the resolved bugs section even though they are not even remotely resolved. 3. Nineline, I believe in your good faith, seriously, did you even have a look at that sheet? How can you say it has become a hard to follow "catch all"? Yes, it is a cattch all, it has most of the bugs in it, with links descriptions, dates and categories. Honestly, I am appalled. In any case, of course the community bug tracker will stay FULLY OPEN and available for anyone to see, including Razbam. LINK: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gYpmYD4VVaTn1YkHd_K7CJxOysoOqdN-K5oZs_anX7c/edit#gid=24479841 If you are really serious about fixing the Harrier, that bug tracker will be a tremendous help.
-
I would like to evaluate what are the actual possibilities of a refund (either money or an equivalent amount to be spent in the ED store page). Literally, barely a single item form the "feautres page" is complete AND working as intended. NOT A SINGLE ONE. @Bignewy, you do a good job of managing a difficult situation here, and kudos for that. I don't want this to be intended as an insult, but this whole deal fills a lot of the checkboxes to be defined a scam. Yes, as scam. Same as if you bought a box of lego and 30-40% of the pieces are either missing or the wrong shape. Would you not go back to the shop and ask for a refund? We need some intellectual honesty here. ED will not thrive and maintain good PR by hiding behind the fine print on the EULA. Arguing about the definition of EA and what si complete or not is a slippery slope. It's in the face of everyone here that thsi product is not finished, bugged and most definitely not very realsitic in many regards. I mean, it's literally so damn bugged and incoplete I had to make a community bug tracker to list the bugs, and they're not even all of them!!
-
The thing is, I already decided not to ever buy any Razbam product on ANY platform long ago, given the Harrier. However I will not give up on the fact i paid 70 bucks to support them, 3 years ago, and I feel honestly cheated. Yes, cheated, that's the right word. The prodct DOES NOT MATCH the description. The product DOES NOT MATCH the DCS level of fidelity After 3 years. ED has a nice EULA but let's be intellectually honest here: this screams for a refund.
-
Just to be clear... In case the Harrier is really considered by ED and/or Razbm to be finished, or feautre complete, or in any way close to its description of being highly realistic and accurate, let me just take the official description and mark what is really included in the product we paid for, according to the many unresolved bug reports so far: Check the community bug tracker for open/unresolved/unacknowledged bugs
-
Would be great if you were able to have 2-3 different samples of those specific sound effects that play randomly, to add variety (e.g. short, long etc)
-
I honestly can't understand all the hype given the near-VEAO state of their Harrier... If anything this will be yet another forum section filled with bug reports falling on deaf ears :(
-
Again...the myth about "g-warmup"... DCS is very unrealistic here, and there's no such thing as a g-warmup as it happens in DCS. The so called g-warmup doesn't increase g-tolerance. It's performed to check the g-suit is connected and working properly AND to check your general status and tolerance for the day. If you slept well and are in great shape, you can pull and sustain a lot of g immediately, it's not like if you did the warm-up you'd sustain more g. Conversley on a shitty day, your g-tolerance will be lower and no warm-up can make it better. To conclude, the warm-up is done to get a feeling for how many g you can safely pull but it doesn't magically boost your tolerance.
-
Will this ever be fixed? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=246587 Over one year since reported. :mad:
-
[CHECKING] Propeller is unrealistic and bent prop discussion
bkthunder replied to SmirkingGerbil's topic in Bugs and Problems
Tell me (and be honest please): are you one of them? Did you fly in a prop-driven aircraft, sitting behind the prop, and did you see it with your own eyes, as you do in DCS? If yes, you are part of a minority. Do you think a sim meant for the general public should visually represent propellers in a way that is realistic for most people, or for a minority? Here's a fun fact: they color the tips of the blades so people can see the prop, ergo, unless they did so, the prop would be nearly invisible (as it is). -
[CHECKING] Propeller is unrealistic and bent prop discussion
bkthunder replied to SmirkingGerbil's topic in Bugs and Problems
May I kindly suggest to all those in this thread that have never seen a prop from the cockpit to go out to your local flying club, spend 60 bucks and take a short flight with an instructor? Not only will you notice that the prop disc is indeed almost completely invisible (unless sun is shining from behind), but you'll also have a very nice experience and who knows...maybe you'll decide to get a license :) P.S. it would be nice to have an option in the settings to have a "cinematic" or "naked eye" prop option. -
Not sure I get this right, but from your chart (blue line vs green line) I read the following: RL F-16 hits 9g in about 6.8 s DCS F-16 hits 9g in about 7.8s 1 second difference = 13% difference RL F-16 hits 9.3g in 7.8 seconds DCS F-16 hits 9.3 g in 9.6 seconds 1.8 seconds difference = 19% difference
-
Depends on your and mine definition of totally broken I guess. Let's just say that it flies, and it does so based on the wrong set of data which in turn make the FM more and more inaccurate proportionally to the wind speed. Oh, don't forget the engine simulation part, that's pretty bugged as well with RPM and thrust changing based on, again, wind, as well as the strange Idle-mil RPM and fuel flow bug.
-
So this seems to be just a sound effect, while the actual RPM still drops too slowly. Exactly what I warned about in other threads, when I was told not to worry, they will also rework the RPM behavior... sure. Nice "cosmetic" addition anyway, adds to the immersion.