Razbam/ED please clarify - Is the Harrier out of EA and consequently complete?

[NineLine]

Im not in the team thinking the Harrier is "unplayable" or being mad and so but... 3 days? They are sleeping where? Mars?

 

I have myself pushed for them to take time, look, this relationship is strained, you guys are mad, they are mad back, the communications has gotten to a poor place. If they don't consider their words and action going forward, and don't review concerns you all have, then this will just end up a bigger mess.

 

Believe it or not, these guys love doing this stuff, and want to put our stuff they can be proud of, this is not easy for them to swallow either. You guys can choose to ignore me, but giving them time to really be thoughtful about this is better than a kneejerk response. Trust me, for a while I was CEO of kneejerk responses.

[FoxOne007]

We don't choose what aircraft are done by what developers. And I personally still am confident they can get it to where it needs to be.

 

At this point you are more hopeful than any if us, maybe in 10 years when it finally leaves EA it will be somewhat oke. I agree with BKthunder, such a shame to see such an iconic aircraft get ruined due to incompetence. Afaik ED still decided if a 3rd Party gets the license to an aircraft, shame they allowed to wrong team to do it and didn’t choose to do it themselves [ED].

[Waxer]

I have myself pushed for them to take time, look, this relationship is strained, you guys are mad, they are mad back, the communications has gotten to a poor place. If they don't consider their words and action going forward, and don't review concerns you all have, then this will just end up a bigger mess.

 

Believe it or not, these guys love doing this stuff, and want to put our stuff they can be proud of, this is not easy for them to swallow either. You guys can choose to ignore me, but giving them time to really be thoughtful about this is better than a kneejerk response. Trust me, for a while I was CEO of kneejerk responses.

 

This is the right way forward. Constructive and it gives the folks at RAZBAM opportunity to meet expectations. Thank you for getting involved.

[jasonbirder]

you guys are mad, they are mad back

 

 

Why are they mad? We're literally the very definition of "perfect clients"

 

We've all brought one or more of their products AND are engaged with them (or in this case their 3rd party Partner ED) about their software...to the point that people are even assisting them gratis on bug ID & tracking most of us are happily looking for an excuse to buy future products from them if current issues can be resolved...

If that makes them MAD...what kind of customers would make them happy?

[SGT Coyle]

Believe it or not, these guys love doing this stuff, and want to put our stuff they can be proud of, this is not easy for them to swallow either.

 

 

I believe they are all outstanding artists, in their own fields, but their organizational and communication skills are lacking. I spent time in their discord, and I noticed that it's a different culture. It lacks a degree of professionalism.

[hellrequiem]

:mad:

For me, thats the final nail in the coffin.

 

....no more Razbam from now on

 

no MiG-19

no F-15E

no MiG-23

no A-29 Super Tucano

no South Atlantic Map

no OV-10 Bronco

no Sea Harrier FRS.1

no Mirage-III

or any other wet dream from Razbam. They lost a customer. In DCS and FS2020 or any other Game.

 

+1, When I buy the m2k it was a joke. Today is still a joke but no more money for Razbam.So pity this "developers" engage in this so amazing modules. They have shown they do not care about sim develop.

[NineLine]

Why are they mad? We're literally the very definition of "perfect clients"

 

We've all brought one or more of their products AND are engaged with them (or in this case their 3rd party Partner ED) about their software...to the point that people are even assisting them gratis on bug ID & tracking most of us are happily looking for an excuse to buy future products from them if current issues can be resolved...

If that makes them MAD...what kind of customers would make them happy?

 

My statement was over-generalized, as is yours. The bottom line is communications have broken down, and neither side is in a good place. Believe it or not, when you work on something like this and are passionate, harsh criticism hurts and can put people on the defensive. You can argue if it's justified, but it doesn't matter at this point, we have a breakdown, and we (ED) are trying to make it better.

 

Many of the issues right now are really poor communications, and that needs to improve, if you suggest everyone's approach on the customer side has been 100% reasonable, then we might still need to do some work. We have laid out to RAZBAM that comms need to improve on their side greatly as well.

[jasonbirder]

Believe it or not, when you work on something like this and are passionate, harsh criticism hurts and can put people on the defensive. You can argue if it's justified, but it doesn't matter at this point

 

 

I've been an Enterprise Account Manager for a Software Co in the past...and believe me...I'd rather have a Customer that came back and told me what was wrong...than one that smiled and walked away...

[NineLine]

I believe they are all outstanding artists, in their own fields, but their organizational and communication skills are lacking. I spent time in their discord, and I noticed that it's a different culture. It lacks a degree of professionalism.

 

From what I have seen, I would tend to agree, and we have been discussing that as well. I felt some of it yesterday myself. I have also seen a few individuals be over the top as well. You may suggest a paying customer can act however they want, I would disagree. But I think, for the most part, most everyone here has been open and willing to work forward, I hope that continues on both sides.

[NineLine]

I've been an Enterprise Account Manager for a Software Co in the past...and believe me...I'd rather have a Customer that came back and told me what was wrong...than one that smiled and walked away...

 

Look, no one has ever said that telling someone here something is wrong is bad. But if you do it in a mean, immature manner, then it is bad. You still treat people how you want to be treated, even on the internet.

[SGT Coyle]

From what I have seen, I would tend to agree, and we have been discussing that as well. I felt some of it yesterday myself. I have also seen a few individuals be over the top as well. You may suggest a paying customer can act however they want, I would disagree. But I think, for the most part, most everyone here has been open and willing to work forward, I hope that continues on both sides.

Agreed

Thanks for taking care of that list of mine.:thumbup:

[The_Dan]

You still treat people how you want to be treated, even on the internet.

If this is true, we have to be a way less polite with RAZBAM, if they want to be treated like they do with customers and ED staff on their Discord.

[NineLine]

If this is true, we have to be a way less polite with RAZBAM, if they want to be treated like they do with customers and ED staff on their Discord.

 

As I said, it's a two-way street, and you can only control your own voice. I have pointed out a number of issues with comms on their side. I hope the rest of us can self manage.

 

Rising above is much more satisfying at the end of the day.

[JunMcKill]

Surely, but surely a proper Manual is an absolute bare minimum requirement before leaving EA...even if there are future systems to be implemented/polished

Crazy they could even consider calling it out of EA (even if not feature complete) without a manual...its meant to be a study sim...what are you supposed to study?

I truly hope this isn't something being run up the flagpole to see if they can get the F/A18C out of EA without a manual...

 

I wonder how many people have ever read an ED manual, I mean, compared to the people who fly a DCS module. In my years flying simulators, the average of those I know come to ask first how to do this or that, or to watch videos on YouTube, than to read a manual. Many here have given extreme importance to this, in a digital world in which documentation can be done in a thousand ways, and not necessarily written. :book:

[statrekmike]

My big concern right now is that the communication issue goes much, much deeper than not getting on the forums (which really should be a requirement in the contract if it is not already) or even the elevated emotions and rather rude statements. I think the big issue is that they really need to be more forthright about what they think a finished, realistic, full fidelity module looks like when it leaves early access.

 

When ED or even other third parties announce a module, there is usually a understanding that there is a certain standard of fidelity/realism that should be met. Sometimes things need to get fudged for secrecy's sake but generally we know that when we buy a full fidelity module from ED, Heatblur, and Deka, we are going to get a simulation of a specific aircraft that has been heavily researched, sourced, and recreated to at least mostly match the standards set by ED.

 

With RAZBAM, I get the impression that they are not willing to do that to the same level that other DCS developers are. It seems like they didn't really expect the expectations for detail to be so high. I mean, it kinda makes sense since they were coming from FSX where the standards are very different and they didn't really have to work on a still developing/evolving product (like DCS World as a whole).

 

So maybe now is the time for ED to have a serious talk with them about the expectations they should prepare to work under and what kind of methods they should work on adopting to meet those expectations.

 

Given their track record, I fear that the F-15E release will be a very controversial affair for the larger DCS community so it might be a good time for ED to nip some current behaviors and approaches in the bud before they become a much, much larger, much more visible problem.

[NineLine]

I wonder how many people have ever read an ED manual, I mean, compared to the people who fly a DCS module. In my years flying simulators, the average of those I know come to ask first how to do this or that, or to watch videos on YouTube, than to read a manual. Many here have given extreme importance to this, in a digital world in which documentation can be done in a thousand ways, and not necessarily written. :book:

 

I absolutely love manuals, when I worked in the printing industry I would have them printed, I always have Acrobat Reader open to a DCS or real-life manual. Now sometimes you can't beat a Redkite video or one of Wags, etc, but I still love to read about the systems as well. A flight sim without a manual isn't a sim, so I am all for getting my hands on Baltic Dragon's work.

[NineLine]

I can totally see that based on how they have been communicating with you all, and the difference in how they communicate with us right now (ED) is how they should be doing that, its a big issue and getting a big push from us.

 

It is a skill to deal with people though, and not everyone has the skills for it, and some can't learn it. Even on the customer side, so it needs work, and again, I can't stress how much we are stressing that to them.

 

The fact that HB released a nice update today is good as well, we need more of that from all 3rd Parties, communication when done right is invaluable.

 

 

My big concern right now is that the communication issue goes much, much deeper than not getting on the forums (which really should be a requirement in the contract if it is not already) or even the elevated emotions and rather rude statements. I think the big issue is that they really need to be more forthright about what they think a finished, realistic, full fidelity module looks like when it leaves early access.

 

When ED or even other third parties announce a module, there is usually a understanding that there is a certain standard of fidelity/realism that should be met. Sometimes things need to get fudged for secrecy's sake but generally we know that when we buy a full fidelity module from ED, Heatblur, and Deka, we are going to get a simulation of a specific aircraft that has been heavily researched, sourced, and recreated to at least mostly match the standards set by ED.

 

With RAZBAM, I get the impression that they are not willing to do that to the same level that other DCS developers are. It seems like they didn't really expect the expectations for detail to be so high. I mean, it kinda makes sense since they were coming from FSX where the standards are very different and they didn't really have to work on a still developing/evolving product (like DCS World as a whole).

 

So maybe now is the time for ED to have a serious talk with them about the expectations they should prepare to work under and what kind of methods they should work on adopting to meet those expectations.

 

Given their track record, I fear that the F-15E release will be a very controversial affair for the larger DCS community so it might be a good time for ED to nip some current behaviors and approaches in the bud before they become a much, much larger, much more visible problem.

[SGT Coyle]

Best manual original A10C, just saying.

[NineLine]

Best manual original A10C, just saying.

 

Yup, one of the things that first attracted me to DCS, all those pages :)

[Pikey]

It's simply nowhere near ED's own module standards. ED set the standard and has always set the bar on their sim.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285495 shows some of the missing features but I believe this excludes so many items mentioned in the A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 as to render the aircraft superficially simulated to such a stark degree as to render this as not a true in depth simulation according to ED's work hitherto.

 

The things that really seem to grab me are statements like a weapon being unavailable or an item being classified. Many things are classified, you dont need accesss to the iamgery, chips, electronics, even a vague understanding of the functionality is enough to render a depiction. And Razbam skip this and make no attempt. ECM, TAMMAC on the EHSD, ignored, we should see similar items to the HSD, threat rings, units. Razbams state objection to doing this and GBU-54 and hotspot detector is that there is no ED weapon/API/interface/code. Did this stop Heatblur? No, the excuse is useless. We had this for the Mirage.... no radar api, waiting for ED, they said. WHilst HB went ahead and made their own? Sorry, this is not acceptable, they dont want to do it and are makign poor excuses.

[NineLine]

It's simply nowhere near ED's own module standards. ED set the standard and has always set the bar on their sim.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285495 shows some of the missing features but I believe this excludes so many items mentioned in the A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 as to render the aircraft superficially simulated to such a stark degree as to render this as not a true in depth simulation according to ED's work hitherto.

 

The things that really seem to grab me are statements like a weapon being unavailable or an item being classified. Many things are classified, you dont need accesss to the iamgery, chips, electronics, even a vague understanding of the functionality is enough to render a depiction. And Razbam skip this and make no attempt. ECM, TAMMAC on the EHSD, ignored, we should see similar items to the HSD, threat rings, units. Razbams state objection to doing this and GBU-54 and hotspot detector is that there is no ED weapon/API/interface/code. Did this stop Heatblur? No, the excuse is useless. We had this for the Mirage.... no radar api, waiting for ED, they said. WHilst HB went ahead and made their own? Sorry, this is not acceptable, they dont want to do it and are makign poor excuses.

 

I know on the GBU-54 and hotspot detector they felt it was better to wait for our implementations to help them. I am not sure its a bad thing, I mean why have two teams do it, if they feel more comfortable with ED then I don't see it as a bad thing. I mean even Deka took a swing at A2G radar, and ended up going for ED's. So it just depends on the team.

[toilet2000]

I agree with Pikey on this one. The Harrier is just not at the same level of quality that I personally expect from a DCS module (and it seems to be the case for several other customers). The HUD repeater on the MPCD is a good example of the "low quality" on top of the tons of missing features and functionalities. Same goes for the more than 2 years old bug of Sensor Select Switch Left making the EHSD appear on the right MPCD.

 

 

 

While we can expect an EA product to get better quality implementations of systems and improve much further over time, the same cannot be said for a "product sustainment" phase. IMO, a product leaving EA should be close to if not entirely feature complete (with a clear roadmap of the missing features if it happens to be so) and at the best quality it can.

 

 

I understand that bug fixes (from older bugs or from new ones) can be part of the product sustainment phase and I agree with that, but quality and polishing of the systems that are in place should be done before leaving Early Access, and a clear roadmap of the small amount of potentially missing features should be laid out, at least in my humble opinion.

[Cornelius]

From what I have seen, I would tend to agree, and we have been discussing that as well. I felt some of it yesterday myself. I have also seen a few individuals be over the top as well. You may suggest a paying customer can act however they want, I would disagree. But I think, for the most part, most everyone here has been open and willing to work forward, I hope that continues on both sides.

 

It's really sad, that people always had to loose their temper, before someone felt obligated to answer and their concerns where addressed. There have always been quiet voices saying that something is wrong here, but they were labeled toxic or hater, remember?

 

Now that the full extent of the situation has come to light, got extra inflamed on discord instead of taking a stand here, and the ED management just didn't say anything about it, are you surprised that people got mad?

[The M]

Why isn't there a process for going out of EA?

When a developer wants to release a module into EA there is a lot of testing going on and ED gives the OK or not.

 

Razbam just moves the module out of EA and doesn't tell the customers.

[CoBlue]

Lets face it.

 

Razbam's AV8B is never going to be an in depth, full-fidelity simulation, they don't have the knowhow or willpower, since it's already paid for. The AV8B is in such a mess, that they have to redo it almost from scratch & develop so much new systems. How long will that take? Another +3 years?

 

I'm done with their empty promises & I'm sure ain't waiting another 3 years or even 1. My AV8B has been unused for +2 years. It doesn't matter what they have to say, that ship has sailed.

 

Meanwhile Razbam's representatives are mocking us on discord.

 

Do people really think they will do an in depth, full-fidelity F-15E or Mig-23? There's no chance in hell! How can ED even let them?

 

Refound or a free module for the same price everybody paid & uninstalling the AV8B. For those who want. They have to pay the price of intentionally neglecting their customers. ED needs to make it happen, it's the only right thing to do!