Any concern over Harrier development?

[Coxy_99]

Because there clearly doing nothing or no one can be bothered to check change logs thread can be closed now :thumbup:

 

04/10/19

 

 

DCS AV-8B by RAZBAM

Cockpit textures updated

MPCD Knobs Fixed

MPCD Brightness Control Updated

MPCD BIT Page enabled

LCD Display Updated

 

 

04/24/19

 

DCS AV-8B by RAZBAM

Damage Model is now enabled (WiP):

INS System

RWR Receiver

Weapons Stations

Chaff + Flares

SMS Damage enabled

DMT Damage enabled

FLIR Damage enabled

CMDS Damage enabled

CONF Page enabled

Training Missions updated

[Harlikwin]

Fair enough. Just a reminder when building your opinion on a module: If you search through 2 or 3 subthreads and see almost the same 10 people bitching around I won't give a cent on their opinion. You will also find those groups in the Tomcat and Hornet forums so you will likely get an idea what I mean...

 

Well the issue tends to be that those 10 guys usually have whatever sets of legitimate criticism, be it FM modeling or systems or graphical glitches. Basically as I see it there are always 2 camps:

 

The first is the guys who are happy with the state of the plane as is and have faith it will get fixed. Included in this camp are the guys that are happy reading a chucks guide and watching a few youtube videos on how to do whatever they want with the plane. They generally want to know just enough to put the thing on the thing and drop some bombs or shoot missiles or whatever, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

The second camp are the guys that pore over the NATOPS or tac manuals, and have a better idea of what the plane should be able to do and have a better understanding of why its doing it and why. Those are the guys that tend to be less happy because they know the plane a bit better than group one. So those are the guys that tend to point out the problems, or complain or whatever you want to call it.

 

The other issues are is how Razbam handles their modules and PR in general, which in a way is separate topic, but you can't really claim they have great customer relations. I mean sure some folks are buddy-buddy with em, and thats great for those guys, but its also somewhat unprofessional for razbam to ignore their detractors. Its business 101, you listen to and engage with the folks that are complaining and "fix" the product.

 

To this day the Mirage is "feature incomplete" IMO, and still has some fairly bad bugs and its been like 4 years... True, they do claim its gonna get its mid life update and depending how that goes you will see. The harrier is currently being worked on, but it was more or less abandoned for months as well, so is it fair to criticize them? We also heard how the mig19 was going to be released complete and fully done. And to be fair it mostly works, but the FM issue is a pretty bad one IMO, and from a PR point of view how do you trust a company that says thing A and delivers thing B?

 

Anyhow, just my thoughts.

[Mizzy]

RazBam are a very good developer and more than capable of making modules for DCS. There are a few (minority) silly arses on the internet who turn into keyboard warriors after dark when the wives have tucked them in bed out of harms way, but no, they must take their phones to bed and moan at the world.

 

I have both the Harrier and the Mirage and had no issues with them at all. A few things missing for combat thingy stuff but since I don't fight in DCS it's never been a problem. Razbam are a good dedicated team that have take a lot of 'sh*&' for nothing and the only people that complain about them tend to complain period

 

If this has upset someone...tough !!

 

Mizzy

[viper2097]

@Harlikwin: +1

 

My personal oppinion: Especially Razbam has a very bad state of their modules and promises everything when holding nearly nothing.

Always saying that everything is fine and that they are doing so a perfect job and all others are just flaming or trolling is only bad for the whole DCS enviorment and envelopment.

 

Everyone who is saying that the Mirage and especially the Harrier is done so perfect and is 99% complete just don't know what they are talking about. They call you trolling, and if you show them facts or point on the missing / bugged things, they just turn silent.

Edited April 30, 2019 by viper2097

[johnv2pt0]

RazBam are a very good developer and more than capable of making modules for DCS. There are a few (minority) silly arses on the internet who turn into keyboard warriors after dark when the wives have tucked them in bed out of harms way, but no, they must take their phones to bed and moan at the world.

 

I have both the Harrier and the Mirage and had no issues with them at all. A few things missing for combat thingy stuff but since I don't fight in DCS it's never been a problem. Razbam are a good dedicated team that have take a lot of 'sh*&' for nothing and the only people that complain about them tend to complain period

 

If this has upset someone...tough !!

 

Mizzy

 

 

Was going to put in a quote from Billy Madison, but decided the light hearted humor wouldn't land well in written format... Let me just say that "the combat thingy stuff," is kind of important to most people that want to fly a high fidelity combat jet in a combat sim.

Edited April 30, 2019 by johnv2pt0

[Dun_Aenghus]

I was frustrated when they started releasing more modules and seemingly worked extremely slow to finish the existing ones. Still, I think the Mirage in particular has turned out to be one of the best aircraft in DCS (especially for single players with the campaigns) and they're generally doing an excellent job.

[FSKRipper]

The second camp are the guys that pore over the NATOPS or tac manuals, and have a better idea of what the plane should be able to do and have a better understanding of why....

 

This is a major problem in my opinion. I think the statement should say: they think they have a better idea of how the plane should work.

 

As very good demonstrated in the F-14 thread they often stand corrected by SME's showing that the open available Natops isn't state of the art or simply wrong in several points. This gets more serious if you have no SME's willing to discuss with the "experts". You find it everywhere, see new Harrier pit texture thread. What does a crew chief know...Everyone who had his ass in a demo plane some minutes knows better...

 

There are several points were we agree (ASL...) but not at FM issues. Even ED's new baby is nearly a year on the market with some issues known and left for nearly the same time. If you read some M2000 FM threads very carefully you will see that most of the complains are based on old Information or a lack of system knowledge (see stall behaviour).

 

For my part I believe that we will see improvement but not withouth mistakes (see the Hawk). Maybe you guys should do a short investigation how long Nevada took to get public. The first Beta for the Cat was announced for 2017 I think. Razbam is doing this work simply in open Beta than closed development. Some may find it offensive some others good. I still wait to see some Viggen issues getting fixed which are known since 12 months but who cares (now).I can only encourage you guys to a lot more patience when it comes to module development. We still wait for a multicrew huey (Since 4 years?). See the good thing: Since the modules don't get finished fast you wont have to pay for Updates (Black Shark 3 f.e.) :lol:

Edited April 30, 2019 by FSKRipper

[imacken]

For my part I believe that we will see improvement but not withouth mistakes (see the Hawk). Maybe you guys should do a short investigation how long Nevada took to get public. The first Beta for the Cat was announced for 2017 I think. Razbam is doing this work simply in open Beta than closed development. Some may find it offensive some others good. I still wait to see some Viggen issues getting fixed which are known since 12 months but who cares (now).I can only encourage you guys to a lot more patience when it comes to module development. We still wait for a multicrew huey (Since 4 years?). See the good thing: Since the modules don't get finished fast you wont have to pay for Updates (Black Shark 3 f.e.) :lol:

 

For my part, I am not concerned about modules being worked on in open beta rather than closed development. In fact, I think it's a good thing, and have always gone along with this approach. My (and others) concerns are regarding future development once the EA cash has rolled in. Now, I don't know about RAZBAM and the Harrier, which is why I asked the original question here, so that I could get others - more knowledgeable - views on the subject.

Unsurprisingly, we seem to have a full gamut of opinions on the subject, so I feel no further forward. However, I am still persevering with the Harrier, and I just hope that RAZBAM will continue the development of this potentially great module to completion sometime in the not too distant future.

[viper2097]

FSKripper, you are right with that what you are saying, but if you compare those two things, then you must also admit that the Viggen issues are really minor and not really affecting anything serious. (At least those who I know, and I already have around 30h in that plane)

Compared to the Mirage, which is already released since years, there are really gamechanging and gamebreaking bugs.

And if you compare all DCS aircrafts, you will very fast find out, that the Achilles tendon of all Razbam planes is the Avionics. They just are not able to be on par with all other devs. In the Mirage, and the Harrier, those things are really gameish and don't feel or act real.

 

However, its not a big problem if there are somewhere bugs. It only gets a problem if bugs are not fixed, it will be worked on other constructions zones and nothing happens.

Take the switches from the radio in the Mirage as example. The messed that up in (I think January) don't loose a single word about it and have not fixed it up today. Thats not the way things should happen.

[Harlikwin]

This is a major problem in my opinion. I think the statement should say: they think they have a better idea of how the plane should work.

 

As very good demonstrated in the F-14 thread they often stand corrected by SME's showing that the open available Natops isn't state of the art or simply wrong in several points. This gets more serious if you have no SME's willing to discuss with the "experts". You find it everywhere, see new Harrier pit texture thread. What does a crew chief know...Everyone who had his ass in a demo plane some minutes knows better...

 

There are several points were we agree (ASL...) but not at FM issues. Even ED's new baby is nearly a year on the market with some issues known and left for nearly the same time. If you read some M2000 FM threads very carefully you will see that most of the complains are based on old Information or a lack of system knowledge (see stall behaviour).

 

 

Well, you do have a point, but at least the NATOPS is a a good starting point. And Razbams SME doesn't post here like the F14 guys to set people straight. Though with Avionics I think they mostly work as described in manuals. Personally I try to stay out of FM threads since I think that's probably the hardest and in some ways most subjective thing to get right in a sim, but the various Razbam modules seem a bit sterile or seem to have really odd behavior, my only real issues with the Harrier FM is that it seems really smooth compared to all the cockpit videos Ive seen. And the other thing being its nearly impossible to land if you take minor damage (like not visible on the model), the control inputs get super wonky and want to roll it on its back at lower speeds, which could be bug or something not being right.

 

Most of my gripes are on the avionics side, either in terms of missing features, i.e. ASL wind/lead compensation or missing modes like loft, and other bombing system wonkiness (wrong modes/symbology, being perfectly accurate when it shouldn't be) But hopefully it all gets fixed. But to be fair, if you use the TPOD most guided weps work as they should as far as I can tell from the manual which is what most people use.

[Mizzy]

Was going to put in a quote from Billy Madison, but decided the light hearted humor wouldn't land well in written format... Let me just say that "the combat thingy stuff," is kind of important to most people that want to fly a high fidelity combat jet in a combat sim.

 

Each to their own :) Just because I have no interest in combat and never have) doesn't mean I don't switch everything on that there is to fiddle on with. That's why I like the idea that DCS is expanding it's 'C' word to 'commercial' aircraft. Anyway, the point being that there is a small minority that bash Razbam ferociously and go on and on about subjects they have no experience of. It's kind of important to people that want to develop high fidelity aircraft in a commercial/combat flight sim. You should have quoted Billy Madison, it's got be more humorous than the flight sim jockies pretending they know how a fighter jet works and how they should fly !! Now that's funny stuff to read.

 

Greetings

Mizzy

[Schmidtfire]

The whole point spending tons of cash on these modules are accuracy compared to the real thing.

For the price of a AAA title, Im expecting top fidelity in the line of the A-10C, Ka-50, Mi8 etc. If Im looking for simplified or guesswork avionics I might aswell fly FC3 aircraft instead :)

[Tricky11]

I dont see what the problem is? They seemed to be fixing stuff and adding stuff all the time so i dont know why there is so much bitching going on? We fly the AV8 exclusively and yeah there are bugs but as already said , ints not finished. Can you imagine what it must be like spending all this time working on a module and ironing out bugs only to drop into the forum and see the same old people moaning and groaning? Its not finished so be patient and dont go chasing off another developer.

[Ramstein]

I didn't6 have the Harrier. I had the chance to pick up another aircraft, I don't have al of them... probably never will, but anyways... I know others who bought it and flew it for a while, until the next new toy came out. I had come to expect it to work pretty good. MY friends were buzzing around in it, and seem to enjoy it. I serviced the British harriers that went to the Falklands, when I was in the USAF. So, I bought it on sale. I spent a week coding my commands, Hotas, etc... and went to use some weapons, and for the life of me I couldn't get some stuff to work. It turned out there was a mistake in the commands, and (two commands for sperate functions had the same command, so that weapon command would not work...) So, A zillion hours of frustration, and asking in forums why doesn't this work. of course everyone asked the basic questions, 'did you plug it in? like questions...' it was coded wrong out the gate, easy fix but a fews days of frustration. I never flew one in real life, so I can't know how close it is to real. I know Beta means, not yet ready for prime time. Ok, Fine. The products from this developer are good, so I am not worried. I have other aircraft. But, if someone comes on saying that something is not working right... there is a 50% chance the product is bugged, and needs work. If it is around the Beta stage, fine, and if it is a really hard thing to code, fine. But, if it is something stupid like a weapon won't slew or release, then, it gets very annoying. I enjoy the products, aircraft, made by RAZBAM. I hope they thrive for all of us.

[Harlikwin]

The whole point spending tons of cash on these modules are accuracy compared to the real thing.

For the price of a AAA title, Im expecting top fidelity in the line of the A-10C, Ka-50, Mi8 etc. If Im looking for simplified or guesswork avionics I might aswell fly FC3 aircraft instead :)

 

Exactly this. And there is a bunch of data out there on how stuff works in the harrier.

[Cunning_Fox]

The whole point spending tons of cash on these modules are accuracy compared to the real thing.

For the price of a AAA title, Im expecting top fidelity in the line of the A-10C, Ka-50, Mi8 etc. If Im looking for simplified or guesswork avionics I might aswell fly FC3 aircraft instead :)

 

 

This comment should be pinned in ED forums general and be viewed by the 3rd party devs every time they log in to the page, instead of seeing the login loading screen.

 

 

:thumbup:

[viper2097]

So, its patching Wednesday, what do you think does Razbam has for us?

 

Some fixes for the countless bugs on the Harrier?

Some newly added, former missing features?

Finally, some bugfixes for the Mirage?

Something about the god like FM of the Mig19?

Nothing at all, maybe only some bling bling?

 

I can't wait to see :)

[BIGNEWY]

So, its patching Wednesday, what do you think does Razbam has for us?

 

Whatever happens someone will find something to moan about ;)

[some1]

And somebody will moan about other people moaning.

[imacken]

a lot of comment here about the poor flight model of the Harrier. I have no real life experience of this (!), so can someone who does please chip in here? It's impossible to know what is real in these forums at times as there seems to be a hard core of moaners.

Is the FM unrealistic compared to other modules?

[viper2097]

Gotcha!

So, its patching Wednesday, what do you think does Razbam has for us?

 

Some fixes for the countless bugs on the Harrier?

Some newly added, former missing features?

Finally, some bugfixes for the Mirage?

Something about the god like FM of the Mig19?

Nothing at all, maybe only some bling bling?

 

I can't wait to see :)

[Rhinozherous]

Not that much in the update for harrier...

[imacken]

Not that much in the update...

 

True, but more than the rather sad Hornet update!

[=37.Sqn= Mjugen]

True, but more than the rather sad MiG-19 update !

[=37.Sqn= Mjugen]

Whatever happens someone will find something to moan about ;)

 

 

Sometimes I just wish they go VAEO route, so here I draw the line, and just forget that I ever owned m2,mig,harier. I am really pissed.