key_stroked

What about this thread? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285495

Ok, I'll comment to what I know. I know that the Harrier isn't feature-complete, but BigNewy keeps calling it that. I know that both you NineLine and BigNewy consider talk like "scam" or "fraud" to be exaggerated, and yet I bought a product under ED's DCS license that doesn't match what's advertised on the product page. I know that Harrier owners have been actively posting bugs reports in these very forums, even going so far as to create a community tracker because Razbam's lack of communication or acknowledgement of the reported bugs got to a point where customers felt the need to do something themselves, just to help the developer fix the product. I know that Razbam employees are alive and well, actively posting on their own Discord channel daily, and yet they refuse to post in their own official forums in a BASIC attempt to try and control the damage to the trust issues they've created with their own customers. I know that Razbam has made very inflammatory comments in their Discord channel concerning how they view this situation and what they think of the concern customers have for their product and its current state. That's what I know. Here's what I suspect. I suspect that ED isn't publicly holding them accountable for their business practice because ED wants to see sales from the F-15E Mudhen module, and by releasing the Harrier from EA without so much as a newsletter announcement or in-game news flash on that little news widget, ED was aware of the state of the Harrier, knew it would generate pushback, and that's why you and BigNewy are now in here doing damage control for Razbam. I suspect that Razbam will continue to develop the Mudhen the same way they developed the Harrier, by ignoring bug reports, incorrectly modelling systems, and then calling it "feature-complete" somewhere down the line. I HOPE that potential customers who might want to purchase the Mudhen will see all this discussion, the same discussion you say is "muddying up" the forum, and make an informed decision whether or not to invest money in a company that doesn't do what it says it will do, and in a company that allows that behavior to continue. As BigNewy said, this discussion is necessary as long as it's constructive, civil, and organized. I think what I've written fits that bill.

Clearly if Razbam can't take 2 minutes out of a 24 hour day to come here to their official forums and make a statement to their customers over the last 72 hours, they have no intention of doing so and don't care about their PR image at this stage. Just stop with the "we're communicating, please be patient" excuse for Razbam's PR absence. Stop it. We live in an age where you can send a text message or post a forum message in less time then it takes to write an actual letter. Razbam still has forum access here, do they not? Is there some ED ban preventing them from logging in here and talking to us? I don't think there is. They just continually sit in their Discord and hide there where they can control the narrative and remove any criticism they don't like. Bignewy & Nineline, I know you both are helping to bridge this gap between us and Razbam, but I would bet money that both of you have admitted to yourselves that the way Razbam is handling this situation is completely fubar and unprofessional. The Harrier is not a finished product. That is undeniable, and frankly not worth arguing against. Saying it's feature-complete is simply false. A product out of early access is supposed to be feature-complete, with minimal bugs and the majority of its systems modeled and functionally working, along with full documentation (a complete manual). It's not. So please....STOP calling it feature-complete. Stop telling us it's out of early access. Continuing to do so will just erode your own relationship you have with me as a DCS customer. As ED hosts Razbam's product in your own store and as a part of your platform, they reflect on you. Going along with what they're telling you, that this is a feature-complete product, and regurgitating that in THEIR forums is insulting.

Isn't this what the community tracker thread was for? Seems like we're just creating a duplicate.

Your opinion, and one I don't agree with. Calling the Harrier "feature-complete" to me means two things: 1. The features it was advertised with are complete. This isn't the case. 2. The manual fully documents its features completely. This isn't the case. It doesn't have a manual. It has a 125 page "Pocket Guide" that is missing entire chunks of documentation, like the TPOD. https://imgur.com/fTI02ER I appreciate you working to help customers that bought the Harrier and are unhappy with Razbam, but please don't tell us how we should be feeling or what limits we should place on how we choose to categorize this. I paid for a product that advertised certain things, and what I have now isn't what was advertised. PERIOD. I vehemently oppose calling this product feature-complete, and it needs to go back into Early Access, likely for another three years while Razbam ignores bugs that have been reported since it's launch into EA.

Thanks, I didn't see that link.

Can you share any time frame on that?

A fire control radar hard locking a target focuses its energy to track that target. It shouldn't be locking me 50 miles away and triggering my RWR's missile warning. How you described it isn't how it's supposed to work.

Also, if I'm 50 miles away and a SAM locks onto a friendly aircraft in multiplayer, somehow my jet is also painted and I get a missile warning. These are long standing bugs that need to be addressed. RWR is such an annoyance now I just mute it.

.....SparrowHawk upgrade? :cry:

Thanks!

Is the MLC issue described by Naquaii (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4429082&postcount=7) fixed from today's hotfix? Or by patch did he mean the regular monthly patch?

They don't exist yet. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4401794&postcount=3

It is. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4429082&postcount=7

Put the nozzle angle all the way forward and give it some thrust. You have to break out of the "dead friction zone", for lack of a better way to refer to it. It taxis very tight with HI mode on.

Right. This isn't what Super Grover had said. I was responding to him with that question, and you confirmed what I was asking.

Then why do the real drivers from the Tomcat Tales documentary (and also the magazine article linked in the OP) say that even though F-15E and F-16 aircraft had the same pod, the F-14's resolution was better because they had a bigger screen with more pixels to display the picture? Your unnecessary sarcasm aside, if the functionality of the MCAP PTID can't be properly simulated, at least the improved resolution can which many F-14s with the LANTIRN pod had during combat. Similarly, (afaik) the F-14 never carried the ZUNI rocket into combat, but Heatblur still gave it to us because the real jet could carry it.

Np!

Would you consider increasing the resolution?

I don't own either of those. When I said I couldn't find anything, I was referring to free information sources. *edit* I bought both. I'll read the digital magazine today. The book comes in about 10 days.

I haven't seen any references that F-14A+/B aircraft were combat operational using the LANTIRN with the old TID display. I get that Heatblur doesn't want to make up stuff for a display they can't find documentation on, but maybe a happy medium is to increase the resolution of the LANTIRN display using the current TID. While that's not accurate to history, neither is putting LANTIRNs on a plane without also coupling it with an upgraded display to support the functions of the pod. Also, NAPTOPS for the F-14D shows PTID operation and sub page content. Is this not enough to properly simulate it in DCS?

I've been watching Tomcat Tales which was just recently released by Speed & Angels Productions, and a section of the documentary has Capt. Dale "Snort" Snodgrass talking about the development of the LANTIRN pod and it's transition from a concept design to a pod used in an active combat theater. He says that with the LANTIRN came a display upgrade that replaced the RIO's round TID. The new display was a 12x12 square display with more pixels that, according to Snort, matched the resolution of the LANTIRN pod and thus they had better clarity than the F-15E crews who were using the exact same LANTIRN pod (or F-18 crews who had the AN/AAS-38 "Nite Hawk" pod at the time). I did some digging and came up with documented proof that they were putting these upgraded "MCAP" displays into F-14Bs as part of the LANTIRN pod. Is the MCAP display something Heatblur has considered, or will consider, adding to the F-14B in DCS? The resolution while looking at the pod through the TID is poor, and if it's supposed to surpass the capability of F-15E and F-18 hornet aircraft pods at the time the real F-14B received the LANTIRN pod upgrade, I think it would be awesome if we got the display to match it in game. Sources: "Tomcat Tales" - https://www.speedandangelsproductions.com/tomcat-tales-ppv/ Navy FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2000/2001 BIENNIAL BUDGET ESTIMATES (page 67) -- https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/00pres/proc/apn_ba_5_BOOK.pdf Naval Aviation News Magazine (September-October 1996, "New Claws for the Tomcat") -- https://books.google.com/books?id=Hou28VrUeA0C&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=F-14+%22MCAP%22&source=bl&ots=I0MV39mhss&sig=ACfU3U0AIPYe58HTq9yNlbZfdWXbtvSNRg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjptMPf88rqAhVgHTQIHagcBt8Q6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=F-14%20%22MCAP%22&f=false Unverified forum post from a (then) RIO with the VF-102 Diamondbacks talking about F-14Bs with MCAP upgrades -- http://www.topedge.com/var/tomcat/001gbk.html

No. And Heatblur would never do it anyway even if we all gave a resounding "yes".

This is from my own file: -- Ground Adjustment (Kneeboard) {combos = {{key = '1', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlaneCircuitBreaker_21, value_down = 1, name = _('Change Top Front Left ECM Dispenser Load (Chaff/Flares)'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}}, {combos = {{key = '2', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlaneCircuitBreaker_22, value_down = 1, name = _('Change Top Front Right ECM Dispenser Load (Chaff/Flares)'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}}, {combos = {{key = '3', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlaneCircuitBreaker_23, value_down = 1, name = _('Change Top Rear Left ECM Dispenser Load (Chaff/Flares)'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}}, {combos = {{key = '4', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlaneCircuitBreaker_24, value_down = 1, name = _('Change Top Rear Right ECM Dispenser Load (Chaff/Flares)'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}}, {combos = {{key = '5', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlaneCircuitBreaker_25, value_down = 1, name = _('Change Bottom Left ECM Dispenser Load (Chaff/Flares)'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}}, {combos = {{key = '6', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlaneCircuitBreaker_26, value_down = 1, name = _('Change Bottom Right ECM Dispenser Load (Chaff/Flares)'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}}, {combos = {{key = '9', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlaneCircuitBreaker_29, value_down = 1, name = _('AN/AVS-9 NVG Case (Load/Unload)'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}}, {combos = {{key = '0', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlaneCircuitBreaker_30, value_down = 1, name = _('Change FF Rocket Fire Mode (Single/Ripple)'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}}, {combos = {{key = '8', reformers = {'RShift','RAlt'}}}, down = iCommandPlane_HARS_SyncButton, value_down = 1, name = _('Check MAP for Target Locations'), category = {_('Ground Adjustments')}},

I keep getting this flying in multiplayer missions, specifically on the PGAW server. I get locked up parked on the ground as soon as I turn the RWR on, under an aircraft shelter. It's really ridiculous this is still happening two years later.