Just a normal workday in the Harrier...

[Nealius]

Notice that Harrier pilot also said:

 

Asymmetric loads only get weird for landings. Up and away, I hardly ever noticed.

 

Landings = slow. Up and away = fast. In DCS asymmetric loads are only issues when you're slow.

[Coxy_99]

While on the way home, my buddy and me went too close to an SA8. As he was not able to deploy chaffs (Bug 9) he got downed by it.

I was wondering why I got no alarm about that and opend the EW page on the right MFD. Oh, nice, I forget to turn on the RWR, but the SA8 is still shown there on the MFD. Bug 10

 

Why would you want to fly that close to it? I have no problem employing chaff or flare, Also near SAM sites why would you have RWR turned off?

[viper2097]

It is awesome how you guys find the responsibility for every bug on my side.

Im surprised that so many of you seem to be fine with the Harrier and how Razbam is working and treating their paying customers, if so, I would like to point to that posting.

 

This must be the most spot-on post I’ve read about the DCS Harrier experience. Anyone denying that are just blindingly defending the devs in face of facts. They are not doing themselves, the devs, the players or the Harrier any favours by doing so. Period.

[deadpool]

Yes, the ASL is broken, but that's never prevented me from putting four GBU-12s down the TC hatches of four tanks.

 

 

 

I have no problems lasing four GBUs. If you're carrying any more than four you should go back to Ace Combat.

 

 

How do you want this to be received by readers? To me it sounds like boasting and belitteling the original poster. An attack on the person.

This is not helpful.

 

Viper is talking to his car dealer that the car he bought a while ago and that had a working cruise control now doesn't have that anymore.

And then there are customers like you that chime in and flex their muscles going:

cruise control? I drive the same car as you do mate, I can hold it at 90mph real good without cruise control! what's wrong with you!?

 

And if in fact you don't mind the plane not having all the features it was advertised with and that the real thing has, because you don't use them.

Then maybe it's you that doesn't mind a more arcade'ish playstil and would like to give AceCombat a try.

 

And I mean this in the kindest way possible as a reaction to a very personally condescending post of yours.

[Nealius]

There are bugs. Work on fixing those bugs and implementing features is slow. However, there are clear instances of user error that people shrug off because they're either too hard-headed or too narcissistic to admit fault. Then they lash out in anger calling anyone with rational thoughts as being "dev defenders" or "condescending." We're not "blindly" defending the devs, we're being rational and looking at the facts.

 

Viper is talking to his car dealer that the car he bought a while ago and that had a working cruise control now doesn't have that anymore.

 

For your analogy to hold any water the ASL function would have had to be functioning properly at some time prior. It wasn't, therefore your analogy is flawed. As to your original question, how the reader perceives my comments is entirely their responsibility in this day and age where people love to get offended over the tiniest things.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Nealius

[deadpool]

As for the OP. You take your buddy out for a ride because you are "quite good" but you deliberately concentrate on things that:

- are (known to be) Work in Progress (ASL Line, Betty)

 

 

to be fair, the ASL Line did work before. If you want to consider it WiP to make that ok, then the whole plane is to be considered WiP and you have just won the argument and all future ones to come.

 

There are bugs. Work on fixing those bugs and implementing features is slow. However, there are clear instances of user error that people shrug off because they're either too hard-headed or too narcissistic to admit fault. Then they lash out in anger calling anyone with rational thoughts as being "dev defenders" or "condescending." We're not "blindly" defending the devs, we're being rational and looking at the facts.

 

I understand where you are coming from and see your opinion as a valid part of "the truth" (that is in the middle of all opinions most likely).

 

But in your post you did not rationally defend the devs or anything, you portraied yourself with a bit of a smug attitude and explained away shortcomings that once worked by saying: who needs them anyways, because I certainly don't. That is not a valid argument, especially when you clearly raise some good points that do stand.

Edited March 9, 2019 by deadpool
summed posts up

[Nealius]

Where was I smug?

 

Just because I don't have problems using the ASL line doesn't mean that hundreds of other Harrier pilots don't as well. Plenty of other people are able to work around it. I'm simply the only one posting about it here. There's going to be more negative/critical posts than positive/accurate posts because the people who aren't complaining are too busy adapting.

 

My comment about Ace Combat is perfectly fine considering the DCS genre. This is a simulator. Even ED is working to keep payloads realistic in the Hornet, so if I'm "smug" by saying people shouldn't be flying with more than 4 GBUs on the Harrier then ED is also being "smug" by not allowing GBU-16s on the Hornet's center pylon.

 

The rest of my points were cold, hard facts.

[BlackLightning]

All this questioning of the Harrier has given me a problem.

When I downloaded it I was aware of the fact that I am quite ignorant about navigation, systems, communications and weapons. You know, when I read you people stating that the 1993 model of a certain aircraft had the XYZ type of a certain gizmo I always envy your knowledge and I wanted to learn, possibly living that stuff. Since I am not the kind of guy who should be a soldier in real life, I thought that using this simulation of a modern aircraft would have been a good way to learn something while having fun.

So I bought it and used the Pocket Guide, Chuck’s manual and, more frequently, tutorials. The problem is that when I do things a little complicated like using laser guided weapons or CCRP I often miss the target and take too much time to release the weapon or don’t manage to do things properly in general. At first I thought that after all this is a study sim and probably it was my fault. However, I’ve read so many times comments about bugs in the systems and features still WIP and therefore i wonder whether the fault was totally mine or, at least in part, of the simulator. Since learning like that is frustrating, I’ll wait until it’s completed and fixed and in the meanwhile I just do things like some ground strafing with the gun, CCIP bombing, aerial refuelling trials and operations with the nozzles like short takeoffs.

Edited March 9, 2019 by BlackLightning
Mistyped a word

[FoxDelta]

VIPER, i agree, its a shame, nothing more to say, i already surrendered regarding bug reporting and the lack of minimalistic tests before rolling out features or bugbugbugfixes.

 

 

 

btw, just recognized your profile s location

[Eldur]

I've never needed more than 1/3 stick to balance out a Maverick. Quick burst of aileron trim and I'm good. The only time I need 1/2 - 2/3 stick with one Mav is when I'm slow and/or trying to whip the plane around like it's clean.

 

Well with a 25 curve that is. With less it's almost impossible to hover since RAZBAM doesn't want to model the AFC properly as they once said it's in there completely while it's not.

 

And BTW, I don't have that much of a problem with the roll inputs needed per se, they're just like 400% or more compared to any other plane I've flown in all of the simulations I've had so far... it stands out so much that it just can't be right.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Eldur
OT

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Well with a 25 curve that is. With less it's almost impossible to hover since RAZBAM doesn't want to model the AFC properly as they once said it's in there completely while it's not.

 

And BTW, I don't have that much of a problem with the roll inputs needed per se, they're just like 400% or more compared to any other plane I've flown in all of the simulations I've had so far... it stands out so much that it just can't be right.

 

Nevertheless I'm still confident they'll get their things done eventually. More so actually than smug ED bringing back the feature of being able to click things in the cockpit, which is quite a challenge with the utter lack of a cursor to do that with. If they don't have that addressed by Wednesday, which I'm pretty sure of, I really will have a reason to be mad at them...

My issue is people here spread lies and call them bugs. That or just don't know what they are talking about.

 

Example, a sole GBU 16 on either station 2 or 6 requires about a full diamond of deflection on the control indicator at 350 knots indicated, well less than 1/3 deflection and loaded rolls produce uncommanded rolls in the harrier (it's written right in the NATOPS).

 

And AFC has nothing to do with the landing pattern as it's prohibited in that flight regime. I'd suggest looking into a better way of scaling your joystick than curves, curves are a terrible solution as they aren't linear with their output (and your brain works better with linear stuff)

 

Try something like this instead:

 

http://i.imgur.com/lx6qUiZ.jpg

 

I have t used a curve for years in favor of this, and after I got my virpil gear I don't even use this, but I think you'll find it easier to use this than any curve setting

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[wowbagger]

All this questioning of the Harrier has given me a problem ...

 

i wonder whether the fault was totally mine or, at least in part, of the simulator. Since learning like that is frustrating, I’ll wait until it’s completed and fixed...

 

 

I'm in exactly the same position. DCS is fun but learning a new module takes long enough and comes with enough frustrations that, for me, it doesn't seem worth spending an hour, 2 hours, 3 hours trying to do something only to eventually learn that it isn't modeled correctly yet. Perhaps if there is a precise, regularly updated list of what works, and what doesn't I would be more inclined to dive into learning the Harrier. But in the current situation there are better ways to spend my limited DCS time.

 

I'm looking forwards to the time when this one is polished and working well - the little time I have spent messing about with it was very fun.

[Harlikwin]

However, I’ve read so many times comments about bugs in the systems and features still WIP and therefore i wonder whether the fault was totally mine or, at least in part, of the simulator.

 

Yeah, learning a new plane in DCS is hard enough when you know the plane works, its much harder in the Harrier when you don't know if its you doing something wrong or the feature is not working, or bugged. Maybe ED should put a disclaimer for new folks to DCS not to buy EA on the product pages.

[Vfa-81 Fix]

... and I wanted to learn, possibly living that stuff. Since I am not the kind of guy who should be a soldier in real life, I thought that using this simulation of a modern aircraft would have been a good way to learn something while having fun.

... I’ve read so many times comments about bugs in the systems and features still WIP and therefore i wonder whether the fault was totally mine or, at least in part, of the simulator. Since learning like that is frustrating, I’ll wait until it’s completed and fixed and in the meanwhile I just do things like some ground strafing with the gun, CCIP bombing, aerial refuelling trials and operations with the nozzles like short takeoffs.

 

If you are indeed want to learn flying the Harrier in a very realistic manner shoot me a PM.

I´m happy to share (and am looking for someone to fly the Harrier with) and to tell what´s Wip, a bug and what´s working alright.

[S-GERAT]

I really believed the words of Razbam stating that the Mig-19 was in development by another team, but the credits in the manual and the replys in this forum proved that was done for the same people that was supossed to be working in the unfinished modules.

 

I buyed the 19 amd I'm enjoying it even with the bugs, but feel cheated by Razbam because the Harrier. Sadly I have no hope left for it.

[Vfa-81 Fix]

to be fair, the ASL Line did work before. If you want to consider it WiP to make that ok, then the whole plane is to be considered WiP and you have just won the argument and all future ones to come.

 

Isn´t that great?!

Tho not at all surprising; I´m just that good.

 

The ASL line was never working correctly. Still, anyone should be able to fly a straight line at a given heading, that´s just basic airmanship.

 

People ask the Devs to deliver the most accurate and realistic Simulation ever - only to use it in the most inaccurate and unrealistic way possible.

[Eldur]

My issue is people here spread lies and call them bugs. That or just don't know what they are talking about.

 

Example, a sole GBU 16 on either station 2 or 6 requires about a full diamond of deflection on the control indicator at 350 knots indicated, well less than 1/3 deflection and loaded rolls produce uncommanded rolls in the harrier (it's written right in the NATOPS).

 

And AFC has nothing to do with the landing pattern as it's prohibited in that flight regime. I'd suggest looking into a better way of scaling your joystick than curves, curves are a terrible solution as they aren't linear with their output (and your brain works better with linear stuff)

 

Try something like this instead:

 

http://i.imgur.com/lx6qUiZ.jpg

 

I have t used a curve for years in favor of this, and after I got my virpil gear I don't even use this, but I think you'll find it easier to use this than any curve setting

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

Well, the 2/3 was related to my physical stick movement, that's due to the curvature. It's probably more around 1/2, but quite significant. I might try your "2 zone" linear approach though. Funny thing is that I always had linear axes until the Harrier which was too sensitive with it. Oh, and the Hornet... should try to go back there anyway. But I'd rather like to have an extension, but that's hard to come by with an FFB2.

 

Didn't know about the AFC being prohibited in the pattern, but I'd guess it may be used on finals to stabilize the hover. Regardless of that, the stick should have authority with AFC on allowing for fine control as described here.

[Harlikwin]

On the note of sticks and deflection. If you fly in VR you can try to match the deflection of your stick to what you see in the plane. I guess you could do it outside of VR too, it maybe harder.

[jeffyd123]

Thanks, your reaction explains a lot of things happening all over the forum. Expected, but sad.

 

Thats why so many veteran users are avoiding the forums more and more. And why im posting less and less after so many years here since Flanker 2.5 times. (15 years around this forums)

 

Some will be happy, im not but certainly i will keep my activity with my Squad mates. I just have enough of this.

 

Thanks again.

 

 

then your 15 years here are wasted... good job. let me know if you need any water while you're up on that cross.

 

DCS needs to finish its planes... its not easy but it needs to be done for their survival

[Harlikwin]

Isn´t that great?!

Tho not at all surprising; I´m just that good.

 

The ASL line was never working correctly. Still, anyone should be able to fly a straight line at a given heading, that´s just basic airmanship.

 

People ask the Devs to deliver the most accurate and realistic Simulation ever - only to use it in the most inaccurate and unrealistic way possible.

 

Maybe your squadron should post some "how its actually done" vids. Or how to's.

[Tricky11]

Sounds like the OP has a classic case of having a problem between his stick and his seat.

We fly the harrier exclusively in the UK Navalops Group and it seems most of the so called bugs you mention do not actually exist.

Yes there are a few bugs but it's still WIP so you got to expect that.

[viper2097]

Sounds like the OP has a classic case of having a problem between his stick and his seat.

Thanks, everything fine with my table.

 

We fly the harrier exclusively in the UK Navalops Group and it seems most of the so called bugs you mention do not actually exist.

Yes there are a few bugs but it's still WIP so you got to expect that.

 

You can find my named bugs in the first post. If you would be so kind, could you please point out which of them does not exist? Otherwise this just sounds like fanboy bla bla...

It is sold as work in progress, but there is no progress. Thats the problem.

[Nealius]

 

 

 

You can find my named bugs in the first post. If you would be so kind, could you please point out which of them does not exist?

 

I already pointed out many of your user errors that are not bugs, but apparently you are infallible, and because you can't use them correctly they are "bugs."

[viper2097]

Oh, I see, you point at those parts where it is my fault to not deal the correct way with broken or bugged things.

Yeah, you can also see it from that point of view if you like...

[Jester986]

The people saying "yea asl is bugged but its fine anyway" No. Thas not an acceptable answer. It should work correctly. I'm not here for a hodge podge of systems that kinda work but you cant tell whats user error wip or bug.

 

I know I know early access. Well I expected more out of early access. More progress, more roadmap, more systems that get implemented stay working. I've learned my lesson. I'm parking the Harrier and I'll check back in on it in a few months.

 

Razbam, I know you're frustrated with customer complaints. Some are completely uncalled for. But I'm normally defensive of you guys and getting to the "oh well I guess I write it off" point.

 

I regret buying the mig now not because of it's issues, but coding IS happening on the mig that could be going into the Harrier.