Pikey

This thread is more personal than it should be. Whilst it was a reasonable request to begin with it should be like any other wishlist for a product enhancement. It's not a personal mission, no one is representing anyone here. When you ask for something, dont feel offended that not everyone feels the same. I wish people could be more passionate in my IFF threads. :(

Actually, whilst I don't care I've tried to get my wife into a number of games over the years and she will NOT play anything with a male avatar. Yet I see blokes playing female avatars and being OK with that. There is something wired differently between us in that way. If we make a comparison quickly, without dwelling on it, to the infantry sim, it also lagged behind in this respect. It's not that its not wanted, in fact aviation is a really good place to make a stand for equality here, its just with ED having so many millions of bugs to deal with, I'd hate that they spent their precious resources trying to please everyone, because I know this wouldnt please any minority, it would just highlight inadequacy and stir up resentment. Just concentrate on the core game, leave pilots and skins to the skinners. Just because the F-16 doesn't have a Norweigan skin doesn't make ED hate Vikings, it just means they had some other stuff to do first. Now make the market audience for DCS 50% female and you would likely have female pilot skins already. Minorities cannot forcibly over represent themselves, it's just numbers. If things werent different, it would be a boring world.

There's something excessive at the ground level for stationary aircraft. They shouldn't be affected but in multiplayer you can get a bit of latency and be flipped over, which isn't right, its a disturbed air pattern you have to fly through, so there are relative speeds to consider. The efffect seems to blow back at you as if it is travelling, which makes little sense. I think it's modelled incorrectly personally because it doesnt account for how you hit the vortex, only that the vortex exists. Also having to hold 15 degrees of bank next to a tanker is clearly wrong also. It might not be wrong in every circumstance, but in some circumstances it is very wrong and I beleive this is more to do with how they model airflow. Last thing - performance. There was a time in early development, where it would cause multiplayer servers to lag. I dont know anyone that has switched it back on yet, so all I can say is that it absolutely used to cause issues with servers. But for clients hosting themself, it's unnoticeable. I hope it reviewed and finshed and done properly, it was a great idea.

There's no distance data so the computer cannot prepare a lofting plan for the missile, so what you see makes sense. I think vairous issues beforehand with Hornet have been all sorts of incorrect lofting, shooting passed the target behaviours. In my mind i'm anticipating the non distance formats to all be no loft profiles.

theres nothing in it because there wouldnt be anything in the dcs logs about an event that happens at kernel level. It would just "stop" like your logs do. You want you windows event logs.

Although there's elements of the OP I didnt agree with, (like the sim not allowing depth perception) the overwhelming message is ... can we have a Fast Forward AND a REWIND please? I use the training missions, mostly once, sometimes twice and thereafter maybe again if Ive not flown regularly and forgot soemthing, but I am technical and I retain sequences and learn them fast so being able to skip parts I already saw or rewind a step I missed because of the dog going mental at the postman or something woudl be super useful.

There is no procedural generation in DCS terrain making, they place models right now. Also, Placing main models and monuments in... Italy... You really dont understand the level of work involved. That's fine, but it will mean you are very disappointed in the future. Side note, terrain generation needs some automation tools, its too slow right now, too hard work.

I think the report by the Serbian SA3 commander near Belgrade was the most enlightening for HARM accuracy. If you read he tells you how far the harms were off. And they had over two dozen fired at his installation. Something like 30 misses. But closer than the above suggests. But... it reduced his ability to take time for better shots and thus suppression was actually happening, F-117 shoot down or not, it was happening.

Steep... centralising sideslip as your speed rapidly changes is something very hard for sim pilots, since we have no feeling of force on us, but, sideslip is a massive reason for missing. use common, easily repeatable references in the canopy repeat and repeat. You have the luxury of having a sim that can be started in the air, over a target that doesnt shoot back, make use of it with the mission editor.

The P-47 would love a configurable bomb sight with a table and wants to remind you that no, the F-5 is not the hardest. Still, i actually find kentucky windage and a decent steep angle is easier than referncing tables, but that's me!

1.5 is many years old. The updater has tried its best to get you from that up to date, but really removing such and old installation was your best course from the outset. DCS has since 1.5 massively grown and improved.

The Su-30 has more variants than export countries customers. And they all complain that one has more than the other... e.g. https://investforesight.com/china-comments-on-su-30sm-fighter-deliveries-to-kazakhstan/ but no one really knoiws the real differences. if maybe someone in ALgeria or Venuzuala or even India can unleash some docs and be an SME... we could have an awesome plane in 3 years.

This debate is moot because the change benefits everyone. For the people that wanted 2, you can still take two. For the people that wanted 4, you can take four. 100% of people can fly the Viper exactly how they think it should be flown. The actual debate is irrelevant to the outcome. Logic has to be applied gentlemen. If you take issue with what the other side of the fence has in your life, you are very much going to lead unsatisfactory existences. Besides, the type of game that is played where four HARM's and no wingtanks is a type of game you can simply avoid, do not allow the metagame to dictate what YOU like about DCS.

mi8 is the best chopper module and close to the best module DCS ever had. Whilst I'd support paid updates with something on a feature list, it does raise the question very well, how do you stop people expecting updates when modules have well outlasted their playing timeline? So how many people in 2020 are asking for updates to Far Cry 4? This is a clear disadvantage to the free core, paid DLC model.

I like how people think the autostart is faster. It's not. Manual starts is how you cut down the time you waste, its not authentic, you can skip so much stuff. Knowing the start processes for all the modules isn't something to be proud of, its knowing them and forgetting useful work related stuff and remembering trivial game related nonsense that really is annoying. I can still remmember the timing of the jumps in Manic Miner back in 1984 on my Commodore 64. It's not impressive. It's weird and useless.

omg I wish I could explain to you all how lucky we are to see this stuff in our life time. In VR it is... beyond words. The effort that this stuff took to make and for two pints of beer... ED are such good people to us.

I can only try. Although measuring Razbam's reaction time in days is a little generous. I am asking very seriously for - Accurate product descriptions in order to avoid customer disappointment - Realistic approaches to what "Feature Complete" actually means - given that the feature list is useless (I've explained why with data in the OP) - The remaining features on the AV-8B that Razbam have not said they would add, and, more importantly have impliend they will not by stating feature complete. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable and sometimes folks are so tired and frustrated, they end up distracting moderators from helping us find bugs. Why should we not ask for this? Maybe it's OK for you (and others) to accept shortfalls. The more we are satisfied with large parts missing of a module, the less others are encouraged to make good on their EA ventures. I dont want to encourage missing things or being vague or disappointing others. And since it affects many people who are interested in this, it's worth saying here as it was on Reddit.https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/itxnon/feature_incomplete_razbam/ I'm OK with EA! I'm OK with long waits. But the goals are set in stone for me. As long as I get an aircraft that is not missing features. I want to trust, I want all the nice things, but I cannot. And whilst we have people that say then we have developers rubbing their hands with glee and the status quo remains and we are all doomed.

I have to write my own seperate complaint to Razbam and Eagle Dynamics about Early Access because of a minority of people who used the forum to practice their spelling of 'grown up words'. I wanted to express customer opinion, but I don't neccessarily want to be part of posts that go nasty and begin swearing. There's no need for it, there are enough issues with the cold facts. What I take issue with is the usage or terms and wording in the product sales lifespan, specifically "Release", "Early Access", "Feature Complete". These phrases have become an absolute NONSENSE, to the point they are utterly meaningless and I find I cannot trust any wording, which impacts my trust of the "Early Access model" of selling things - or to be precise, paying for something singificantly (years) before it arrives. If all a 3rd party is required to do, is make something that flies in DCS and limit the promised features to a WHITE LIST, then Early Access is dead. What sane person wants to enter into a trust agreement where no one can rightly say what the deal is on the table? I'm going to make a thing. It has things in it, it might have more or less things than I originally say. It might adhgere to a list, it might not. Give me money and you can have some things and I'll work it out later what they are. White listing features is unworkable. Refer to the product description page: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/ Perform a search for "Dual Mode Tracker" or DMT. What did you find? Does this mean it is not a 'key' feature? Or just not a 'listed' feature? Or is it not a feature at all? What about FLIR? Not listed as a feature, its only in the blurb at the top of what the aircraft has, not the product feature list. So... two of the biggest features of a Night Attack Harrier are not features you could expect to find in the product. Really? Are all the features of the AV-8B module listed on the product page? No. Additionally that would be silly, so here we go, we are about to enter a blind agreement... Do we expect, as customers, that the entire plane is modelled within in a fairly close approximation, and every feature does not have to be listed specifically? Yes, yes I do expect everything from a plane to appear in the simulated version. If it's not possible, it has to be called out. Now case in point, these features that werent modelled like hotspot tracker WERE ALREADY discussed, and credit due - if its not up in the air, its at least acknowledged. But MGRS, Loft bombing, TAMMAC overlays, IFF, keybinds, UFC non functioning buttons, CAS communication, off the top of my head are pretty core to a CAS night attack aircraft in a sim, so why the exclusion in the features planned or otherwise? Do we need to specify it has wings? No, of course not, that is why the wording on the feature page uses the following weasel word format: "Key Features of DCS: AV-8B N/A VTOL by RAZBAM include:" (and are not limited to) <-- this is implied and missing. Now, as a comparison, the fact that ECS is mentioned but not LOFT bombing or MGRS input, brings this entire trust relationship into question. Especially when mentioning the ECS, a cockpit heater, and its part in a simulation, is irrelevant and I would argue, not a feature, compared to a listed feature: Head-Up Display (HUD) or an unmentioned feature: ARBS. Yes, the feature list is rubbish, it's irrelevant, it's nothing relating to promises or commitment. It's pointless and now, it's even misleading! We are being asked to look at the feature list as an argument in support of feature complete, by the developers! Hold on to that thought a while... What can we then expect, as customers, with this product? The short answer is: Parity to the existing modules. A-10C and Blackshark set the yardstick by which others are measured. Typically ED build upon that and are adding deeper features where possible, all the time. We can and should compare one module to the first, where features are listed. But A-10C doesnt list any features? That's why we end up with the assumption on detail where AV-8B is concerned! But JF-17 lists features but TWS mode is not on them and that's almost vital to A-A modern combat? That's why we end up with the assumption on detail where AV-8B is concerned! The A-10C has loft bombing so why do .... ugh. You get the picture. Why is the customer at fault for reading a feature of the real plane and finding out TWO YEARS LATER that said "feature" was NOT going to be modelled at all, when other modules like A-10C have them? Did we make a mistake? According to Razbam, we did. Razbam said we made a false assumption. Based on the words "Feature Complete" and the product feature list. Do you feel like you made a mistake? I don't. I thought we'd have all of the features available, and where they are unknown, an artistic rendition of the capability put in its place. Like RWR, radar performances, etc. How does Early Access actually exist at all if we are going to have this problem of innacurate promises, feature lists and such? I cannot, hand on heart, engage in this Early Access business until there is clarity about what should be delivered years down the line. I cannot listen to a busines owner who contradicts himself in his first two lines of a reply. What kind of madness is this? is it feature complete or is it not? How can you be any more unclear?! Am I the only sane person here that can read? - That that the business owner states in adjacent sentences that the product is feature complete and they will still add features to it. Madness. - That the product description page is a pointless waste of time because its not accurate or even useful? (but used retrospectively to argue they are compliant with their promises) - That referencing such lists and choosing arbitrarily what is in or out is no way to commit years of work and promises to? Well I think so, you may not agree. I either surrender the missing Features in my hopes, give them up, or I cannot in all sensibility enter into another EA trust arrangement with Razbam, it is that simple. At no stage have Razbam implicitly stated a specific feature will not be done when asked. By the same token, they never said they will be, either....you see where this is going (apart from the circles). Finally, to Razbam, contrition does not imply guilt. It's clear you dont see yourself as any part of the reason of these peoples malcontent. You can use the word "Sorry" without thinking you are to blame and it often helps. Let me demonstrate... "I am very sorry you had to listen to my disatisfaction, I do hope you can take some time to listen and understand my complaint, it's made genuinely and would not need much effort to clear up any future misunderstandings, just a little clarity on product details and wording accuracy. My question is, will you add any more features to the Harrier and if so, how do you understand the meaning of 'feature complete' in that context? Will you at least formally respond to the actual question asked; will you look at these missing features from the product, https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285495 and give a clear yes or no. Thank you." You see? I apologised there and sounded sincere. Give it a try. Not now, obviously, but the next time you begin a sentence with "our customers are wrong again". I can only make a literal understanding of feature complete, in that its an industry standard terminology for not developing any more new things on a peice of software. Features are quite obviously including new things like loft bombing. Our deduction is that the Harrier, according to Razbam will be left feature INCOMPLETE. P.S. to the person on Facebook who said to scrap this work for your F-15E, and to everyone hoping Razbam can finish future modules faster... some of you aren't smart enough to work out that our Harrier today is your F-15E tomorrow.

"won the defensive sets" Actually that's pretty hard to do, shouldnt be possible if closely matched and performing, so "something" was better on that day ;)

OP: the links for the FM issues are broken. There's a need for the problems with the FM to be outlined more clearly lest they get lost in subjective and non quantative posts saying "it's broken blah blah", which must be at all cost be avoided if this will be taken seriously. Has anyone got any reasonable FM data to share for this? Plenty of searchable pilot commentary: "any roll or yaw in the hover or at low speed should become rapidly uncontrollable" -- the FM is extremely tolerant of low speed, has amazing roll and yaw stability and can recover, with a little bit of leeway, from 90 degrees over.

By the logic above, the S-3 would have been updated with the Super Carrier.

Don't think you can do it. Let me explain. DCS has no concept of the unit in physical shape. None. It reads it from the lua description of the unit. I've explained this before, but the proof of this is by creating your own 3D model, for example, I created a periscope, and then providing the lua description for an aircraft carrier. You understand what happens on your radar screen, right? :) I also reported late activated units appearing on radar once, it's as clear as day, nothing comes out of the nose, its an illusion, but that doesn tmean its bad, its just limited. So establishing that the model is not used for any calculations, you cannot do exactly what you see above, but what you can do is provide a longer list of RCS values (which ARE in the lua decriptions) provide a lot of different aspects, provide some for weapons loadouts (missing currently and is important) and extend the current model with some tables and simple calcs rather than flat values. Make sense? To some people. There are still many flat earthers who believe there is magic raytracing for air to air radar coming out of their radars nose, but we can leave them behind because I dont want to ruin the magic for everyone. They wont read this anyway. So the counter proposal is a better RCS table and to include loadouts in the RCS, which is the most desperately needed.

2020, still flies like nothing you can experience in Physics. Where on earth is the torque when adding power? Not getting anywhere near Kiowa until I see video evidence its normal.

It's simply nowhere near ED's own module standards. ED set the standard and has always set the bar on their sim. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285495 shows some of the missing features but I believe this excludes so many items mentioned in the A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 as to render the aircraft superficially simulated to such a stark degree as to render this as not a true in depth simulation according to ED's work hitherto. The things that really seem to grab me are statements like a weapon being unavailable or an item being classified. Many things are classified, you dont need accesss to the iamgery, chips, electronics, even a vague understanding of the functionality is enough to render a depiction. And Razbam skip this and make no attempt. ECM, TAMMAC on the EHSD, ignored, we should see similar items to the HSD, threat rings, units. Razbams state objection to doing this and GBU-54 and hotspot detector is that there is no ED weapon/API/interface/code. Did this stop Heatblur? No, the excuse is useless. We had this for the Mirage.... no radar api, waiting for ED, they said. WHilst HB went ahead and made their own? Sorry, this is not acceptable, they dont want to do it and are makign poor excuses.

The only thing that has changed in the last 18 months is that I've given up on Razbam completely. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3933228&postcount=173 was the way I feel now, minus any care any more. Withheld purchase of the Mig19, because they have refused to talk to the forums, substantially, for over a year inorder to explain themselves. I'm sad that the Mig23 will never be something I can fly, ever. Same with the SHAR. I dont even care if they finish the features now, makes no difference. Harrier isnt as bad as is made out, yes its missing plenty of buttons (most of the them on the UFC), and pages have more dead ends than their bug threads. A few clangers like bombing modes, and of course entire systems like hotspot detector, which i can forgive, as its rubbbish, and DCS doesnt support it, and TAMMAC, which is good and they should have, because the A-10 had SADL implemented... but overall, its not like you cannot have fun in it. But that's irrelevant. It's shallow. I mean really shallow. I dont think there is an SME touching it. "TOP SECRET" cannot say. Art work was great, FM was ... OK, although too easy, but systems and avioncs, rushed, and shallow. Two dead buttons isntead of IFF controls. That HUD overlay on the MFCD, who were they trying to fool? Looked horrid. Can't even tell you what version it is. It's hybrid of course, like their Mirage 2000C.... cough -5 mixups. They dont want to say, dont want to own up, not courageous enough to announce they arent attempting any of the missing features. Stealth EA pull, just their sneaky style. Can't tell you, it's secret. You can't get a refund, you can try, its a fineprint thing. Act with your wallets, the damage is done long ago, this is not news. F-15E? You have got to be joking. Also, the way people acted here was too far and this was semi provoked. Sure, they should have a backbone and deal with it, but its too late now. The bug reports were terribly low quality. I read the community bug tracker. I stopped when I read a triplicate - but I dont want to insult someone that tried to handle it the best way they knew how. Still, gathering posts wasnt a great, some of those very out of date. The entire affair is sad because the potential was all there, but they started with too complex. I feel sorry for the people like Tim who did such a great job.