bkthunder

Too busy posting screenshots of 3D models of another Harrier variant ;) Give up guys, that’s what Razbam did!

The instant blackout happens with any airplane in DCS as far as I have seen. It’s been a long standing bug for years now. Sometimes you pull and the black tunnel vision becomes gradually worse, you think you have it under control because you see the speed at which it develops, and then it from let’s say 50% dark to full blackout all of a sudden. One of the most annoying bugs in DCS in my opinion and also unrealistic.

@Nineline any idea what kind of priority this is given and when can we expect a fix? I know this is kind of taboo to ask, but this is really a fundamental flaw. Thanks

I’m sure your dream will come true! The dream of having a DCS-level F-15E on the other hand...:cry: EDIT: by DCS-level I mean on the same level of accuracy as the F-18, F-14, A-10 etc

The logic by which we should “wait and see” is completely off. Razbam has sold 3 modules already. I have both the Mirage and Harrier, been using them, reporting bugs and reading RL manuals about them for the past 2 or more years. What should I wait for? I know exactly what state these modules are in. As many said, Razbam modules are “fun” or “a blast” as long as you don’t try to use them by the book. Then it goes downhill. And no, they have not showed great progress on the Harrier. As it stands, the F-18 is now more feature-complete and those features are more accurate and less buggy than in the Harrier, which was launched a few months earlier. In the beginning people were praising how many features the Harrier had in comparison with the F-18, but since then, the F-18 has caught up and surpassed it in every way, with a rather solid development schedule. The Mirage is in a better state, but inaccuracies are the real issue with Razbam. There aren’t only bugs, but things that are simply implemented in the wrong way because Razbam either doesn’t understand how they should work or doesn’t know how to code them properly (which I doubt, because some things are really simple). You can call me and others out as being toxic, but you’re overlooking the facts. Start to differentiate “fun” and “realistic”. They are separate things. The Harrier can be fun or whatever, but it is definitely not accurate or realistic in a variety of aspects. If I have to judge by that quality, I expect an F-15 that is not on the same level of accuracy as most other DCS modules, and I am sorry about it.

Great, thank you! (For this and the F-5 one)

Tested, it seems ok along wiht F-15, Mirage, Harrier, F-86 and A-10C

Little heads-up: wind affects the FM. https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=638

As discovered for the F-5, the F-16 is also plauged by a very serious bug by which its performance (acceleration, speed, fuel flow, engine params) are affected by wind. Let's clarify one simple fact first: Wind has no effect on a flying aicraft, except for ground track and ground speed. Please read up on it, but this is basic knowledge (a nice and easy article here http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/instruments/q0210.shtml). Therefore wind shouldn't have any effects when it comes to: - IAS - Acceleration - Fuel flow - Engine parameters - Mach number However, ufortunately, in DCS:F-16 (as well as F-5 and maybe others at thsi point...), wind affects all of those parmeters. Please see the track attached. This is noticeable at any speed / altitude, but for the purpose of the track, the following parameters were used for testing: Alt: 11.500ft (inside the wind layer) Wind speed: 97kts (max allowable by dcs) in the layer starting at 6600ft Test 1: Engine RPM = 80% Flying with headwind = Can't sustain flight, speed drops below 140 kts CAS (AoA limiter kicks in at 25 degrees resutling in loss of altitude) Flying with tailwind: 184 Kts CAS Test2: Engine RPM= 90% Flying with headwind = 408 Kts CAS Tailwind = 445 Kts CAS IMO this is extremely high priority. F-16 wind-engine-bug.trk

I don't see the RPM changes, however, I did a further test (track attached) and the difference is absolutely enormous! Set up was: wind 97 kts Engine RPM: I maintained 80% Altitude: 11.500 (inside the wind layer I set up) head-wind: the airplane cannot sustain flight with engines at 80%, the speed drops below 150 and keeps dropping. Tail-wind: I can reach 400kts with engines at 80%. Man, ED really needs to take a look at this! :doh: EDIT: just tested, the F-16 has the same issue. will post in the relevant section. F-5 wind-engine-bug2.trk

Guys, PLEASE, the wind doesn't affect an aircraft in flight. IF IT DOES SO IN DCS THIS IS A MASSIVE ERROR! Please report it if it is so!!

Hey Deano, I would but I saw this effect on the AO server, a track of that would be pretty useless. Maybe I can re-create it in a single mission. EDIT: couldn't re-create the RPM fluctuations in SP, however I tested with headwind/tailwind and there is indeed a difference in both top speed and fuel flow. at 11.000 ft with a 97kts tailwind: top speed 518 kts, fuel flow 3300lbs per engine at 11.000 ft with a 97kts headwind: top speed 510 kts, fuel flow 2800lbs per engine. F-5 wind-engine-bug.trk

As you said in your OP, the ladder is "attached' to the TVV, so if you have e.g. a very strong cross-wind or if you fly uncoordinated (basically whenevr you "crab") the ladder and TVV will be on either side of the HUD, which is perfectly normal and accurate behavior. Some airplanes (but no the A-10) have an option to center the ladder no matter what. E.g. on the F-18 you can cage the hud, and you will then have a ghost velocity vector (GVV) in place of where the TVV and ladder would be, while the TVV and ladder stay centered. On the F-16 you can hit the C/O drift switch which does the same thing but without the TVV.

Exactly my point :music_whistling:

Already did, I did it early on to support you, hence my saltiness when I see the harrier is lacking in accuracy, has bugs that have been there since release, and all the reports are just ignored (or deleted!). All the while you have launched another product and you start to talk about the F-15E which is even more complex than the Harrier (which you already have trouble developing). Sure, I won't buy your products, but I would love an F-15E. The fact Razbam makes it, to me, means that most probably it will have a similar quality as the Harrier, and this is a real pity.

Yeah but this is not just any bug, it's a massive simulation error. Now I understand why I get huge RPM fluctuations when crossing the altitude at which wind speed changes (you know, when in ME you can set 3 wind-speed and directions at 3 different levels). I mean, this is nuts!

Acceleration is off by a huge amount, as reported here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=252003 I ran this test several times, generally at each update, and there have been no changes yet. The engine also behaves weirdly at the moment. Whether it is a matter of drag, or thrust, or both, only ED knows. I hope they give this stuff some attention and priority, because ti would literally suck to have a botched FLCS and FM modeling, it becomes especially noticeable when there's another sim that is pretty spot on...

Isn’t this a MASSIVE flaw that should be promptly addressed by ED? How is it possible that they didn’t do anything about, didn’t even see this thread probably!

ED also said that razbam did an excellent job on the Harrier, which is a laughable statement.

Ever worked in sales? ;)

Seriously?? :shocking:

Yeah, WIP, let's hope it really is WIP and not one of those things that get stuck in the infamous ED loop of "provide evidence" and whatever you provide isn't good enough. There are a bunch of issues with the engine simulation as well, been like that since day 1 of EA. Generally I'd love to see progress on the FM parts before focus on the avionics.

You guys are talking about what programmers or engineers are needed and the lack of them. Well, it might seem stupid but how about this: if you don't have what you need to produce something, don't produce it and above all, don't sell it! If they got into the business of making the Harrier, they sold the "project" and promise to complete it, one woudl assume they have evaluated what skills and resources they need and have them available or within reach.

Currently it seems impossible to go past -1.5 or - 1.8 g, at any speed. The F-16 should be able to push up to -3.5g I believe.

Do yourself a favor, re-read my post and take a deep breath before resorting to passive-aggressive personal attacks for no reason. By your logic, I should be an aeronautical engineer because I know wind doesn't affect an aircraft in flight. However this is basic pilot knowledge, available to anyone (as I already said in my previous post, had you cared to apply reading-comprehension skills while reading it). Did I come off as being harsh? Maybe. It was not my intention and I aplogize if I did. No hard feelings towards Bignewy and I believe if he feels offended he is fully able to speak for himself. We all know that writing doesn't convey tone and emotions as much as speaking. Anyhow let me clarify my point. We are in a flight-sim forum discussing a possible bug. When Bignewy (or anyone from ED) responds by saying it's not a bug and that wind affects trimming, that is not helpful because: 1. It spreads negative knowledge in a community that is keen on learning about flying 2. It dismisses a possible bug for the wrong reason What an ED official writes has a different weight and value compared to what Joe Pilot forum user writes.