bkthunder

Added them to the bug tracker https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gYpmYD4VVaTn1YkHd_K7CJxOysoOqdN-K5oZs_anX7c/edit?usp=sharing

I noticed the exact same thing with L/G down. Almost crashed because I lowered the gear during the base to final turn once, and the landign gains kicked in removing most of the pitch authority. I can only say in that other sim whcih can't be named, it doesn't do this.

Can you post the link to the original report, so I add it to the community bug tracker. Thanks

Lol, actually I've been populating it myself mostly, so far. Would be great to get some help though, as I said PM me your email and I'll give access to edit :thumbup:

you mean this bugtracker? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269108 Or the official one?

Dear all, I would like to propose a "Community Bug Tracker" for the Harrier, that should help us and Razbam have a better view of what and when a bug has been reported, and if it is solved or not. Let me be clear, I want this to be a positive initiative and not a way to flame Razbam. The bug section is a mess, and Razbams own bug tracker doesn't include many of the bugs the community has reported. Hopefully this can bring in a clear overview. So let me stress this: this is not a way to create yet a new place to voice your frustrations, but it's a way to generate a useful (hopefully) overview of what is reported on the official channel. Nothing more. The OFFICIAL Razbam bug tracker is available on their website. Have a look here, this is how it looks for now. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gYpmYD4VVaTn1YkHd_K7CJxOysoOqdN-K5oZs_anX7c/edit?usp=sharing If you want to contribue, please PM me your email address and I'll give you access to edit. This bug tracker doesn't substitute the forum reports, in fact you have to paste the link to the report. So the idea is, we list in the tracker all the reports, while the discussion, track submission etc. still happen on the official forum channel. Note: the file is based ONLY on the forum posts (i.e. the official communication channel). If a forum bug report is not acknowledged, not tagged as [REPORTED], not tagged as [FIXED] or else there is no post from the devs inside the thread that says it is, it will appear as an open bug in the bug tracker. Looking forward to your participation and suggestions. EDIT: several reports added to the table UPDATE 4/15/2020 - Added several bug report from the bugs section (121 so far). - I had made a post in the first 30 bug reports on the list to "tag" them with [ADDED TO COMMUNITY BUG TRACKER], however according to Decoy and Bignewy, this creates confusion and I see that some of those posst have already been deleted. Decoy is hopefully adding those bugs to their official bug tracker, in fact at least two have already been acknowledged. This is good! UPDATE 4/17/2020 - Added 11 new reports to the list (total 132) - Added column to input date a bug is solved (no solved bugs so far according to the forum posts, but this could be due to bad forum-keeping and lack of feedback / tagging. I can't test them one by one, sorry). - Added stats to the bottom of this post. Dynamically updated stats can be found on the "Dashboard" page of the bug tracker UPDATE 4/19/2020 - Added 39 new reports (total 170) - Updated stats, see attached image in the OP / or "dashboard" sheet on the bugtracker UPDATE 6/8/2020 -Added 4 bug reports -Set several reports to solved according to latest patch notes - total bugs solved (of those in the list): 14

Can you explain in more detail which forces you think change and in what direction during a split S? I really don't understand what you mean here. Do you really think an 8g pull in a centrifuge or in a split S or in a loop are different? I'm trying to understand, because I have the suspect you think that the vector of the force always points towards the center of the earth or something similar, which is of course wrong. Have you ever pulled some g in real life? It's not "even" the body positioning, it's JUST the body positioning relative to the axis of the g-force that changes how g forces affect the blood. Hence why the F-16 has a reclined seat. If the pilot was lying flat, he would suffer no grey-out/black-out at all.

Yeah, fundamentally I agree with you, and that's why in my previous post I said this is not a module that satisfies an audience that wants realism and autenticity to a "DCS Level". We all know this is a computer game and shortcuts have to be made, however the issue arises when you have a brand / label that, as DCS does, comes to stand for a certain level of fidelity. If you wear that label but then present a different, less realistic or less accurate modeling, then you have two options: 1. It shouldn't be called a DCS module or 2. It should live up to the DCS standard. The Harrier doesn't live up to DCS standard we've come to expect, but it was sold as such. See where the problem is? In this case "works as expected" means that major systems, avionics, weapons etc. work to the same degree of fidelity expected from a DCS module, and we have plenty of examples of what that means. So this is not a subjective measure. I can open up the F-18 Natops and follow the startup procedure for example. I mean, the flight path marker in the Harrier's HUD still doesn't work properly! I can hardly imagine somethign more basic than that.

:doh: It felt like talking to flat-earthers, lol!

Speaking from personal experience, you are absolutely right ;)

The governor switch, should be spring loaded up-center-down, doesn't work propelry anymore with keybinds or joystick. As of now, Right CTRL+PG DOWN pushes the switch down incrementally and the switch stays there. Right CTRL+PG UP does nothing. The result is, you can't control rotor RPM and if you press down, your RPM continue to decrease as if the switch was held down. By mouse click it works normally.

+1

I am honestly baffled by some of the comments here, the length to which you go to justify the sim's shortcoming is amazing. I'll try to make sense of it: 1. The F-16 has a reclined seat which means the pilots handles g better than in a MiG-29. Fact. 2. Yes, at micro-level there would be minutely different g-forces in the feet, head etc. Again, the F-16 provides better g-resistance. 3. Do you seriously think DCS simulates local g-forces on the pilot's body? That's delusional. Also, it would make no big difference, if it did, there would be a separate g-meter for every part of the seat. 4. Air forces use centrifuges to train g-resistance and check pilots out. Why would they do that if g-forces were so different in every maneuver? Asnwer: G-force is an acceleration, it doesn't matter how you acheive that acceleration, what matters is the amount. You could be sitting in a very fast elevator, or in F-16 doing a loop, or in a centrifuge. 8g is 8g. Period. The ONLY difference is your seating position relative to the vertical g axis, hence, the F-16 has the edge here. 5. Formula 1 drivers get up to 6 lateral g, 5 negative g when breaking and 2 when accelerating, read up on it. No g-suits and no breathing technique necessary since these g are all but on the vertical axis. Sorry, this is physics, and you are wrong if you think anythign other than vertical g can make you black out. PLEASE do yourself a favor and read. This is starting to look like the airspeed vs grounspeed thread.

My God, the corroborations some in this community go through when thinking about some stuff... g force is pretty simple actually: there's a g-meter that measures g-force on the vertical axis, whcih is by and large the only one that counts when it comes to affecting a pilot during a maneuver. Lateral and longitudinal accelerations don't displace the blood in your body in a way that can make you unconscious (otherwise Formula 1 drivers would be wearing g-suits...). Split S, loop, turn, whatever. As long as the g-meter reads 8, it means 8. There are no differences between 8 g in a split-s or 8g in a loop or whatever other maneuver. In a split S you experience positive g as soon as you pull, which is what happens in the video.

There's A LOT wrong with g-tolerance in the game, I think this is widely understood and is acknowledged by ED. The "instant gloc" bug has been around for a long time and besides that, the average F-16 pilot doesn't black out after 2 literal seconds at 9 g. EDIT: I see 8.5 g in both F-16 and Mig-29 in the video, where's the negative g you're talking about? Plus, speed ha NOTHING to do with blacking out, g is the only measurement of y-axis acceleration whether you are doing 300 kts or Mach 5.

Sarcasm? What you wrote it the simple truth. Hint: there is a difference between works, and works as expected.

Just wanted to say, even though it's wonky and you can fly at 35 degrees AoA since last patch, at least that's a sign of life from M3! I am a critic of the Mig-21 in general, and especially the FM. It's been stuck for years, with bugs and subpar sounds etc. Please, don't stop now, continue to develop the FM, this module really deserves it! You have possibly the best 3d model and cockpit together with the F-14, close the circle :thumbup:

Are you looking for a study-sim level aircraft? Do you enjoy reading the manual and follow real life checklists and procedures? Then the Harrier is not for you, avoid the frustration and stick to the A-10C, F-14 or Ka-50. If on the other hand, you are ok with an FC3 experience with a clickable cockpit, you start from the runway or mid-air and just want to blow some shit up, then you will find the harrier is a blast, as so many eagerly point out at every occasion. It's not bad per se, it's bad when you consider that it should be a DCS standard module. If it was priced at 30 bucks and labeled as FC3+ or something, I wouldn't complain (but I wouldn't have bought it either 'cause I like the "study / high-fidelity" part of the sim).

- Engine modeling / parameters such as correct RPM, FTIT and Nozzle position - Correct open/close timing for speedbrakes - Level acceleration at altitude - correct negative g-limit - Realistic G-tolerance so we don't black out after one second (yes, with g-warmup you blackout after 4 seconds :music_whistling:) This is just a request to get a small update, not expecting to see all of this corrected, but we haven't seen fixes in this direction for a while now. Thanks!

So much for the "I" in DCS's AI, lol. Given the lag in MP, I decided to make myself a nice little SP mission with the Mi-8. To cut it short, as I taxied to the runway and was sitting there to check lights and last items, a couple of MiG-29s landed and crashed into me. I thought "they will go around" but nope :music_whistling:

I land pretty well to be honest, without fwd speed and hold breaks when touching down, but if I rotate the nozzles soon after pulling the throttle back (as seen in the RL videos) the airplane tends to move fwd and/or duck the nose as if significant thrust was still being produced.

:thumbup:

@Decoy, please read the posts in this thread. The whole argument here is you keep saying you are adding the SOUND, while all we are saying is the sound is just the tip of the iceberg, because the spool-down time is too long. Can you please confirm or deny that you are correcting the engine behavior as well as the sound? Thanks

vstolmech513 thanks for your great insights in this thread! So as others have said the spool-down time is wrong. As it is now, when I touch down I have to wait a few good seconds before pushing the nozzles fwd, otherwise the jet starts to roll. In RL videos you see that upon touchdown the pilot can go to idle very quickly and rotate the nozzles. P.S. the video you posted is not working

Thanks, I appreciate you putting things in a better tone, and even though I disagree on some parts, I see your point. At the end of the day we reach the same conclusion, and I saw that you have been active reporting bugs. Let me tell you, I have bene active reporting bugs too, especially in the beginning. I did (and still do) with a good heart, but seeing reported bugs being constantly ignored, to the point where they are moved to the resolved bugs section, and even having whole threads deleted, well, it kinda leaves a dent. I bought the Harrier full price not by chance, but becasue I really wanted to support Razbam and had faith in their willingess to create a truthful representation of the Harrier. Then it became apparent that despite all the reports, there are all kinds of things that are missing, bugged or simply operate in the wrong way, well, it's disheartening. You speak about trusting them, but really, what they have shown so far is they actually don't really even know how to fix some things (e.g. the velocity vector). There is a tangible lack of attention to detail and lack of understanding of some systems, it's pretty much all plainly written in the Natops and the Harrier has probably the widest availability of sources where you can find such details, and yet they got basic startup items wrong and these things have never been fixed or even ackowledged. Coming back to my post in this particular thread: I think it's important, since there are another 3 threads about the same thing, that people don't think this is "just" a soundfile issue. Likewise, Razbam shouldn't think a simple sound addition equals a porper simulation of an engine component that is specifc to a VTOL aircraft. As you said very well: "But whatever we try and write here means jack shit, because the only ones who actually can say anything is Razbam themselves. But they could definitely be more active with their bug reports. It is very confusing around there."