Harrier has return?

[QuiGon]

I'm not hostile at all. Just stating facts. To be honest, I really don't care about any new module hype here, because I know, how it goes. I just wait, what ED announce. So no emotions on this one. I was just surprised, people are getting over-hyped by this.

 

True, but most, if not all of these facts also apply to other 3rd party developers like VEAO, but from the way you talk it sounds like RAZBAM is the only one with these shortcomings.

[VincentLaw]

Guys, put down the pitch forks. I think people don't realize how aggressive they sound even when they don't feel hostile. RAZBAM set out a list of modules they are interested in adding to DCS in the future. Yes it was premature to create forum subsections for those, but that mistake was resolved. RAZBAM has actually provided a lot of WIP material on their T-2 and Mirage projects which have been the focus of their DCS development (T-2 was put on hold in favor of the Mirage which delayed their first release).

 

This is the kind of behavior that made other devs like VEAO and Belsimtek reluctant to show anything to the community. Please don't add another third party developer to that list.

[QuiGon]

You're right. Can't wait to fly this bird :)

[Rabbit_]

We are just talking, right? No hard feelings. I can't wait for new modules already on 1.5 or 2.0.

[DAZnBLAST]

It is VERY frustrating. Look how fast the L39, Mig21, Dora, P51, Mi8, Huey, Hawk etc all arrived. Yet the aircraft which will IMO have the biggest impact on this game in terms of what missions it can be deployed in, is .... HARRIER. It brings land and sea operations and multiple mission uses e.g. CAS, IA and recon.

[Jumbik]

Harrier is halfway useless until we have working naval ops. So its no surprise that its not yet out... We will have to wait for the F-18 bundle to bring such things to DCS. That may easily take another two years.

[DAZnBLAST]

Even without Naval ops, it brings more than conventional aircraft do, in that it can be deployed close to front lines using roads or man made airstrips (VSTOL). Imagine the mission possibilities.

 

Harrier is halfway useless until we have working naval ops. So its no surprise that its not yet out... We will have to wait for the F-18 bundle to bring such things to DCS. That may easily take another two years.

[QuiGon]

Harrier is halfway useless until we have working naval ops. So its no surprise that its not yet out... We will have to wait for the F-18 bundle to bring such things to DCS. That may easily take another two years.

 

It's true, that we won't be able to use its full potential until we get the carrier upgrade, but we can still use it from land bases and maybe even FARPs (with small loadout).

[Silver_Dragon]

Harrier is halfway useless until we have working naval ops. So its no surprise that its not yet out... We will have to wait for the F-18 bundle to bring such things to DCS. That may easily take another two years.

 

Any Harriers and F-18 can get into DCS: W without any carrier or LHA naval operations ops will be implemented. Thats no a require feature (only recomended) but, the naval environment and de carriers operations has very big and heavy actually to see some type of improvement on that at short time.

 

The harriers can be useful make operations under actual airports and airstrips (expected to see iimprovised airstrips and landing pads), meanwhile better time come in the future.

[didilman]

The issue with razbam ad M2M is that they devlop first for FSX/P3D than after for DCS. So we have to wait 2years for them to finish FSX version and another 1 year for DCS porting. M2000 is in beta since 2013 in FSX if im right and get in 1.00 in 2015.

Razbam and M2M were clear on the fact they devlop first for FSX. That is very frustrating for us DCS pilots but its how it is.

Last thing is I believe they arent a lot like VEAO or Belsimtek.

Edited September 16, 2015 by didilman

[Rabbit_]

I wonder, why Outlawal2 is banned. :-o Anyway...for me, it would be great to see some official announcement, agreement with ED with some estimated release date and then I will start to look forward this module. Last Harrier I played was in U.S: Navy Fighters in Marine Fighters Expansion Pack. :-D

Edited September 16, 2015 by Rabbit_

[QuiGon]

The issue with razbam ad M2M is that they devlop first for FSX/P3D than after for DCS. So we have to wait 2years for them to finish FSX version and another 1 year for DCS porting. M2000 is in beta since 2013 in FSX if im right and get in 1.00 in 2015.

Razbam and M2M were clear on the fact they devlop first for FSX. That is very frustrating for us DCS pilots but its how it is.

Last thing is I believe they arent a lot like VEAO or Belsimtek.

 

We have the Harrier in DCSW for quite some time now,but i was not satisfied with the exterior mesh, which meant a complete rework, hence the M2000C going forward, same goes for the A-7, we had an exterior model but a marginal cockpit, now the A-7 is moving ahead as we are about to finish a complete rework.

Regarding the T-2, it´s paused, until further notice.

Keep in mind that we produce for 3 different platforms, while 2 of them are extremely similar (fsx/P3d), DCSW is not, and while we do have DSC as a priority, FSX/P3D is what´s oiling the RAZBAM gears,mainly due to the fact we do have 12 yrs developing for the MSFS series, we expect that to change in a near future..

Best regards

Prowler

 

:thumbup:

[Silver_Dragon]

The issue with razbam ad M2M is that they devlop first for FSX/P3D than after for DCS. So we have to wait 2years for them to finish FSX version and another 1 year for DCS porting. M2000 is in beta since 2013 in FSX if im right and get in 1.00 in 2015.

Razbam and M2M were clear on the fact they devlop first for FSX. That is very frustrating for us DCS pilots but its how it is.

Last thing is I believe they arent a lot like VEAO or Belsimtek.

 

The Develop on DCS: W has nothing to do with FSX or other simulator. The 3D modelling and programming work has different "worlds".

 

The Mirage 2000C on FSX has nothing to portail to DCS (Different scale and detail 3D modeling, diferent texture quality and format, diferent animation configuration, diferent engine and diferent programing develop structure and systems funtionality).

[Rabbit_]

:thumbup:

 

Finally some info. Thank You. Didn't see Prowler's post.

[Chlebakus]

Takes time implementing functions and systems remember dcs is not fsx, They cant just take fsx 3d modeling and put it into dcs i dont think it works like that :)

 

Systems and flight modelling should be very different.

But speaking of 3D model, the level of detail is the only thing that prevents you to port a model into DCS - if it is not in sufficient quality. Texture unwrap works the same, animation changes are done quite fast. As long as you have source data, it is quite easy to export model into whatever you want.

Maybe there is some additional work with damage model or so. I really don't know how this works in FS.

[Coxy_99]

Systems and flight modelling should be very different.

But speaking of 3D model, the level of detail is the only thing that prevents you to port a model into DCS - if it is not in sufficient quality. Texture unwrap works the same, animation changes are done quite fast. As long as you have source data, it is quite easy to export model into whatever you want.

Maybe there is some additional work with damage model or so. I really don't know how this works in FS.

 

 

Ah see thanks for the reply :)

[DimitryNZ]

On the RAZBAM Facebook:

 

https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims?fref=nf

 

 

 

If I am not mistaken, are those the 3 hardpoints on each individual wing? If so, doesn't this mean that the variant of the Harrier jet is restricted to that of the AV8B or Gr. 5+ family of aircraft (as they have larger wings to accommodate the extra hardpoints)? I would personally like to see the AV8B+ over the GR5/7/9 as the armament and multi-mission capability is astounding (as the AV8B+ IIRC can take weapons that the Gr5/7/9 can't such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM, AGM-88 HARM and AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, mainly due to the APG-65 radar on-board of which the British Harriers did not have). TBH I don't see a reason why a Harrier Gr.7 or 9 would be more preferable/wanted than an AV8B+. Still, a Harrier of any sorts would be an instant purchase for me as I would love to do some hard hitting close air support/ground attack while parking my Harrier outside of a hotel in the NTTR map for a quick rest :D

[outlawal2]

I wonder, why Outlawal2 is banned. :-o :-D

 

For the record I was banned due to some nasty comments I made earlier in this very thread bashing Razbam. I have had plenty of time to think about it and came to the conclusion that I should have been banned for my comments. I have been one of the folks pretty passionate about the poor treatment of Mr Kinney a long time ago and yet when I go back and read my comments about RAZBAM I just shake my head. I was doing EXACTLY the same thing by bashing Razbam as I have.

 

Karma being what it is, Razbam announced the upcoming module release something like 1 WEEK after I had run my mouth, putting an exclamation point on my stupid comments.

 

At this point in time I would like to apologize to Razbam and ED as they do not need folks treating their business partners poorly. And though I didn't like being banned, I will say I am impressed that ED supports their devs like they do.