How finished is Harrier? The reason was that there were many features that were not a

[Heavydriver]

This is wrong, Zeus67 had to take over M-2000C code since Elwood who was hired to do that isn't available for a while.

So they are finishing code on released module, not coding new ones.

 

The 3D/ textures guys are doing and showing what they do.

They are not coders. It's the same for every body.

 

Yes. It's not going as fast as we would like, but complaining because 3D or graphics are being upgraded faster than the code is irrelevant, it isn't the same pipeline.

Firstly try beginning a sentence without “this is wrong”

I understand that, but Bugs and issues are being ignored and over looked, some bugs have been identified for well over a year now, So this isn’t an issue just about time what I would like is for the Bugs to be acknowledged, as long as they are working on them or plan to then fine. But at the moment some are not even being acknowledged.

 

Happy Flying,

[Ramsay]

Im considering buying the Harrier will it be getting more weapons?

IMHO it's unlikely (as Razbam are working to improve the existing systems) but I suppose there's a slim chance it *might* get APKWS rockets (IIRC the dev's expressed an interest in them but have since been silent).

 

... are their any major bugs at the moment?

Several but how seriously they effect enjoying the module is hotly debated (it's one of my most flown modules).

 

I also enjoy doing SEAD in the SU-25T how does the Sidearms compare?

IRL they are use for self defence vs AAA, etc., are based on the AIM-9 Sidewinder with a similar size warhead and a Narrow-band passive radar seeker.

 

In DCS they can be used for SEAD vs SA-6, search radars, etc. so are a little overpowered.

 

Compared to the Su-25T's Kh-25MP (90kg/25km), Sidearms (16kg/11km) have a shorter range and usually require a low level/masked approach before popping up to fire at threats.

[SGT Coyle]

Im considering buying the Harrier will it be getting more weapons?

 

 

It's study sim. It shoots what it shoots.

[ak22]

IMHO it's unlikely (as Razbam are working to improve the existing systems) but I suppose there's a slim chance it *might* get APKWS rockets (IIRC the dev's expressed an interest in them but have since been silent).

 

 

Several but how seriously they effect enjoying the module is hotly debated (it's one of my most flown modules).

 

 

IRL they are use for self defence vs AAA, etc., are based on the AIM-9 Sidewinder with a similar size warhead and a Narrow-band passive radar seeker.

 

In DCS they can be used for SEAD vs SA-6, search radars, etc. so are a little overpowered.

 

Compared to the Su-25T's Kh-25MP (90kg/25km), Sidearms (16kg/11km) have a shorter range and usually require a low level/masked approach before popping up to fire at threats.

 

Thanks for the reply I did enjoy the 2 day trial was fun plane to fly just need to decided between this of the Jf-17 ...

[Harlikwin]

Thanks for the reply I did enjoy the 2 day trial was fun plane to fly just need to decided between this of the Jf-17 ...

 

The jeff is far more polished, and complete. Visually it isn't as nice, but it has most of its major systems modeled. Its also much more multirole having an AA radar and SD10's. It has more modern munitions as well. It can't however takeoff and land vertically. There really is no comparison between the two, get the Jeff if you want a mostly finished product.

[ak22]

The jeff is far more polished, and complete. Visually it isn't as nice, but it has most of its major systems modeled. Its also much more multirole having an AA radar and SD10's. It has more modern munitions as well. It can't however takeoff and land vertically. There really is no comparison between the two, get the Jeff if you want a mostly finished product.

 

I tried them both on the trial and enjoyed them both, I have a F-16C but I would like a more finished product or something different that's why I'm considering the JF-17 & AV-8B. Once the F-16C is complete it will have similar capability to the JF-17 so I might get the Harrier instead I did consider the A-10C but I found it to slow.

Edited April 14, 2020 by ak22

[TLTeo]

If you're looking for a dedicated ground attack jet that's pretty polished, take a look at the Viggen. It's not as fancy or modern as the US 4th gen jets, but it's an excellent module.

[Beltza]

I fly the Harrier everyday since 2 years ago and it is amazing every time. I play with others modules but Harrier is number one for me.

[D4n]

their any major bugs at the moment?

My signature contains two of the IMO "major" bugs currently. (the YouTube-link in my signature, Betty+TDC, NSFW video I'd say, maybe you won't like it. Or just take a look at

instead)

I also enjoy doing SEAD in the SU-25T how does the Sidearms compare?

Just keep in mind, in multiplayer, depending on server setting, Ai SAMs can be set to disable their radar when they detect an incoming SEAD missile/weapon (that's a real-life tactic), and the weapon will then (most likely) miss :) I prefer 4x AGM-65G + 2xAIM-9 for self-defense, as I fly on BlueFlag PvP server (link in signature aswell) most of the time. (there are FARPS, which is an amazing feeling to VTOL-land at, rearm, refuel a little and STOL takeoff again:pilotfly:) JF-17 has the fun

, which I also enjoyed a lot in the free trial.

[nessuno0505]

I did consider the A-10C but I found it to slow.

 

The a-10c is still the best dcs module overall imho, you cannot say you know dcs environment if you never tried the a-10c. It's slow because so It Is irl (and because people want to have a study simulator but then loads the plane like a mule with tons of bombs and fuel as never irl).

 

Dealing with razbam, the av-8b itself would be my favourite plane among the ones available for dcs, but I haven't bought It yet and probably I'll never do (I'll check its state when out of early access). I think the main issue with razbam Is they have very talented 3d artists and modelers but way too few coders (and maybe not as well talented). They focus on 3d models and graphics but you can't do a study simulator without coders. JF-17 Is maybe the opposite, but you can always beautify a plane that works, while it's harder to get a beautiful brick to function as a plane.

[Heavydriver]

The jeff is far more polished, and complete. Visually it isn't as nice, but it has most of its major systems modeled. Its also much more multirole having an AA radar and SD10's. It has more modern munitions as well. It can't however takeoff and land vertically. There really is no comparison between the two, get the Jeff if you want a mostly finished product.

 

Am I wrong in saying that the textures are being redone at some point? Didn’t the chap doing textures fall ill just before release?

[TLTeo]

Am I wrong in saying that the textures are being redone at some point? Didn’t the chap doing textures fall ill just before release?

 

 

Correct on both. Some texture work has already been done, but I'm not sure whether it's final or not.

[Harlikwin]

I tried them both on the trial and enjoyed them both, I have a F-16C but I would like a more finished product or something different that's why I'm considering the JF-17 & AV-8B. Once the F-16C is complete it will have similar capability to the JF-17 so I might get the Harrier instead I did consider the A-10C but I found it to slow.

 

The F16 once done will in some ways be better than the Jeff, but it won't have MITL AKG missiles or anti-ship missiles or the LS-6 glide SFW weapons, so for A/G the Jeff will be more capable in some ways. But the Viper is better in the A/A role.

 

The A10C is better at CAS than the harrier, and of course much more complete. But as you say the harrier is significantly faster to cruise around in and carries a decent sortiment of ordnance. It would just be nice to have its bombing functionality finally finished (toss modes, non arcade arbs, wind/mover compensation etc)

[Wizard_03]

The jeff is far more polished, and complete. Visually it isn't as nice, but it has most of its major systems modeled. Its also much more multirole having an AA radar and SD10's. It has more modern munitions as well. It can't however takeoff and land vertically. There really is no comparison between the two, get the Jeff if you want a mostly finished product.

 

Here’s the thing about the Jeff though no one I’ve talked to has documentation on it. Whereas he harrier’s are all over the Internet.

 

So while lots of systems are in and “working” we cannot nitpick the way we can with the harrier. In it we just have Derka’s word it’s correct. IMO that’s very convenient for them. No way to know if what we have in game has any semblance to RL JF-17 unlike the harrier, where we have loads of documents and pilot testimonies.

[SGT Coyle]

Here’s the thing about the Jeff though no one I’ve talked to has documentation on it. Whereas he harrier’s are all over the Internet.

 

So while lots of systems are in and “working” we cannot nitpick the way we can with the harrier. In it we just have Derka’s word it’s correct. IMO that’s very convenient for them. No way to know if what we have in game has any semblance to RL JF-17 unlike the harrier, where we have loads of documents and pilot testimonies.

 

 

And with this crowd, it makes them the smartest people in the room.:megalol:

[Wizard_03]

And with this crowd, it makes them the smartest people in the room.:megalol:

 

I tend to agree lol we just have fun with the Jeff, no one has clipboards out ;)

[Harlikwin]

Here’s the thing about the Jeff though no one I’ve talked to has documentation on it. Whereas he harrier’s are all over the Internet.

 

So while lots of systems are in and “working” we cannot nitpick the way we can with the harrier. In it we just have Derka’s word it’s correct. IMO that’s very convenient for them. No way to know if what we have in game has any semblance to RL JF-17 unlike the harrier, where we have loads of documents and pilot testimonies.

 

Absolutely agree on that point. And yes that makes their job much easier, and I think at the end of the day it will be regarded worse in the long run. Several folks have complained already that it seems "arcady" in various aspects. I personally like the plane since its "done-ish". And nothing seems too egregiously mis-modeled. Given that its a current in-service fighter I doubt we will see any real documentation on it any time soon. But at the same time its using a lot of COTS systems and weapons, so you can find some documentation on those for both things like engines and avionics.

[Wizard_03]

Absolutely agree on that point. And yes that makes their job much easier, and I think at the end of the day it will be regarded worse in the long run. Several folks have complained already that it seems "arcady" in various aspects. I personally like the plane since its "done-ish". And nothing seems too egregiously mis-modeled. Given that its a current in-service fighter I doubt we will see any real documentation on it any time soon. But at the same time its using a lot of COTS systems and weapons, so you can find some documentation on those for both things like engines and avionics.

 

I think your right, time will only tell. It certainly feels more complete and has less noticeable bugs. Don’t get me wrong I’m not happy about the state of the harrier or mirage either but I just wanted to give Razbam a tiny bit of slack on account of the fact that standards here are pretty high considering it’s age and availability of information on it.

[amalahama]

Absolutely agree on that point. And yes that makes their job much easier, and I think at the end of the day it will be regarded worse in the long run. Several folks have complained already that it seems "arcady" in various aspects. I personally like the plane since its "done-ish". And nothing seems too egregiously mis-modeled. Given that its a current in-service fighter I doubt we will see any real documentation on it any time soon. But at the same time its using a lot of COTS systems and weapons, so you can find some documentation on those for both things like engines and avionics.

 

 

Exactly that's the point. Even if there is literally no sources we can use for comparison, the Jeff *feels* more realistic, with little details like INS drift, wind drift correction on dumb weapons deliver, etc. properly modelled. Also the FM feels more fluid and natural than the Harrier. I think Harrier is such an iconic aircraft that really deserves the best implementation possible in DCS, not the half-cooked mess we have today

[Harlikwin]

I think your right, time will only tell. It certainly feels more complete and has less noticeable bugs. Don’t get me wrong I’m not happy about the state of the harrier or mirage either but I just wanted to give Razbam a tiny bit of slack on account of the fact that standards here are pretty high considering it’s age and availability of information on it.

 

I'd say the standards for most modules are pretty high in terms of available documentation. Look at the Viper, F18, Viggen, F14, mig21. Lots of nuts and bolt counters in all those forums. I think the Jeff is the exception to the rule is all, so I don't feel too bad for Razbam.

[Fri13]

IMHO it's unlikely (as Razbam are working to improve the existing systems) but I suppose there's a slim chance it *might* get APKWS rockets (IIRC the dev's expressed an interest in them but have since been silent).

 

IMHO it is ED who should start to implement these weapons, instead any third party studio.

If a studio comes with something very unique weapons that is not shared with other systems, like in this case a standard 2.75" FFAR, it should fall to ED responsibility.

 

And even in unique times, 3rd party studio should come out with the specs and do the work for the ED to maintain it, like SD-10 and BRM-1 from JF-17 or AIM-54 from F-14B.

 

As IMHO the weapons should be own class/module in the DCS, and those would be:

 

1) Terrains/Maps (Caucasus, Normandy, Nevada etc)

2) Aircrafts (F/A-18C, Yak-52, AV-8B N/A etc)

3) Weapons (missiles, rockets, bombs etc)

4) Era Assets (WW2 Germany, WW2 Great Britain, 2015 US Navy, 1985 GRAU PVO etc)

5) Missions/Campaigns (Red Flag, Historical Events, Specific map areas etc)

 

The modules would so on be possible to be made from various different purposes.

Like there are lots of small studios that could be interested to start producing ground unit assets for various countries and pack them in various eras like "80-90 East Germany" that includes various main battle tanks, troop transport vehicles, fortification objects from tents to bunkers to trenches, trailers for radios, radars, visual spotting, airbase assets etc.

 

And when the weapons would be separated from the aircraft/ground units modules itself, one could get updated weapons from year X that is future of the aircraft service year or so.

There wouldn't be much on the aircrafts, but APKWS II is one of them as it is backward compatible with zero modifications to launcher or aircraft carrying it.

There are lots of such things for the ground units, like MBT's own ammunition, artillery, mortars etc changes.

 

 

If Eagle Dynamics wants to proceed toward "Combat World" with a "Sandbox" attitude, they need to start to open up for various other modules to be made and sold even than just aircrafts. As the DCS requires as much from the ground as it does from all the aircrafts combined. It is not fun in long run to pretend to be a fighter pilot when all you do is bomb a defenseless trucks and such with perfect laser designators, FLIR, radars etc etc.

 

The other side of the COMBAT truly is missing, and that makes each aircraft module weaker.

And to fix that, ED needs to make more options for other studios to do those things, as well take more responsible for the weapons so that studios doesn't need to make each of them all alone. Like now Razbam wants to make APKWS II, and Polychop has already done APKWS II for their Kiowa Warrior.

So there is one waiting, one has done it, and ED should have stepped in and say "We do it, you can implement it". And then we all get to use that weapon in all the modules that can launch standard 2.75" FFAR if we want to design a such a mission.

 

I could see lots of business for ED if they would offer the SDK for ground units studios that would make unique ground units for various factions and countries etc.

Same for weapons, as for the other assets.

[Wizard_03]

I'd say the standards for most modules are pretty high in terms of available documentation. Look at the Viper, F18, Viggen, F14, mig21. Lots of nuts and bolt counters in all those forums. I think the Jeff is the exception to the rule is all, so I don't feel too bad for Razbam.

 

 

Fair enough. I think another part of the problem is Razbam doesn't seem to innovate as much as some of the other third parties. I believe it's their policy to wait for full implementation of developmental resources from ED before putting any feature in their products. What I mean is, we saw RSBN in the Mig-21 long before it came to the game officially in the L-39 and right now we sorta have A2G radar in the Jeff and viggen but the hornet hasn't received it yet. There's half a dozen other examples I could mention. Those Devs jumped ahead of ED and went ahead tried to complete their products quickly, and what that boils to down to is a two edge sword for everyone.

 

On the one hand its cool to have features like that sooner rather then later, which is a strike against Razbam's stuff. But at the same time that can often blow up in the third party's face. I.E. when they have to start re-writing code because ED "official" implementation broke theirs. So to avoid problems like that Razbam doesn't even bother until the code base for whatever feature is fully realized in the game already, which makes sense from a developmental standpoint, but what that means for us is: their stuff sits incomplete for years on end.

 

So while I'm not happy with Razbam or the situation, I put a lot of the blame on ED as well. 1st for taking forever on the implementation of things, 2nd for allowing third parties to develop products that are going to be fundamentally limited in the sim in the first place. Which Subjects them to massive overhauls down the road opening up the entire process for bugs and further spaghettification of the code.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Wizard_03

[bkthunder]

There can be different policies for implementing new weapons and sensors or wait for the official ED solutions, but there is NO EXCUSE for having bugged and erroneous BASIC systems such as navigation displays and functions, switchology, hydro-mechanical and electric systems etc.

these are basic. They don’t get that stuff right. I think taking about new weapons is futile when the dev can’t even code a properly working navigation display or the break pressure gauge.

Yes, maybe I am pedantic, but how can you trust the implementation of a complex weapons system when basic avionics are sloppy?

[Schmidtfire]

Another thing. Why all the issues with HUD symbology? This goes for both the Harrier and M2000C. On the Harrier we have issues such as the AGM-122 sight. In M2000C there are annoying things like the CCRP ”diamond” designator cursor, put it over the target and the designation is above the cursor. Different modes has also text blocking other text in the HUD etc.

Not gamebreaking, but bugs like these give a sloppy impression.

[Wizard_03]

There can be different policies for implementing new weapons and sensors or wait for the official ED solutions, but there is NO EXCUSE for having bugged and erroneous BASIC systems such as navigation displays and functions, switchology, hydro-mechanical and electric systems etc.

these are basic. They don’t get that stuff right. I think taking about new weapons is futile when the dev can’t even code a properly working navigation display or the break pressure gauge.

Yes, maybe I am pedantic, but how can you trust the implementation of a complex weapons system when basic avionics are sloppy?

 

I understand what your saying. But there’s nothing simple about any of those those systems. Lol just the electrical aspect of a jet like the harrier requires miles of wiring and thousands of circuits. They hydro system is a lot more then a gauge in the cockpit. Multiple overlapping redundant systems that back each other up, using different pressures, various degrees of degradation that all must be accounted for. etc.

 

Now I agree those kind of things should be well flushed out and pretty much finished even before EA but they most definitely are not “simple or basic” that’s a pretty gross understatement.