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

[BIGNEWY]

A quick reminder everyone,

 

we do have rules here on the forum,

 

We have been very leniant with moderation while everyone has been giving feedback.

 

I will ask you all now to please have some manners when posting. Treat everyone with respect.

 

thank you

Edited September 11, 2020 by BIGNEWY

[Hawkeye_UK]

Hi Razbam,

 

Quick clarification on 2 points.

 

1) What is the agreed and official date that the Harrier AV-8B Night Attack V/STOL sold under the Eagle Dynamics Digital Combat Simulator E Shop was converted from Early Access to a release version.

 

2) Are you intending to release a statement on the concerns raised or clarification within the next 14 days? Just trying to seek clarification on the position as i note nothing in the weekly newsletter to highlight the move.

 

Many thanks.

[kotor633]

Too much salt, if we outer every single 3rd party studio without dialogue in civil manner, why developers will bother develop new planes to DCS?

I believe all our concerns is clear and Razbam now know what is need to do about Harrier. Lets give some time folks.

 

The only problem is Razbam had enough time. And nothing happened. Bugs have been pointed out to Razbam so often, some of them have taken the time to list bugs and informed Razbam. And nothing happened. Users here have pointed out the grievances, albeit penetratingly. And were dismissed as bad guys, trolls, etc. And were even blocked (example viper 2097). And what does the Razbam craft shop do? Withdraws here completely, and makes fun of what is happening here in other channels. That the whole topic is now picking up such speed again, I am surprised, I have now completely written off both modules to be honest. Sorry if I don't quite share your confidence. ED has to act here and I really hope that BigNewy / Nineline can still make a difference.

Edited September 11, 2020 by kotor633

[hughesj2]

Been watching this with interest as I too am disappointed with the quality and progress with the Harrier particularly the sound set which I consider truly unique for the Harrier in real life.

 

I thought I'd read someone had been subcontracted to do a complete overhaul of the sounds but that seems to have fallen by the wayside..

 

Also a little surprised and disappointed to hear that with all the positive effort Kate and Nick (and the team in general) have put in recently into restoring their customers faith in the platform and the QA being applied after the recent stability issues, that ED allow a 3rd party supplier who's priority it is to sell new modules (as per the early access business model), announce when they think the quality bar has been met?

 

Surely ED should be running the rule over all of the releases and applying their own high standards to 3rd parties too?

 

As we saw with VEAO it is ultimately ED staff that have to pick up the pieces, publicly, on their own branded forums.

 

Maybe those who are quietly disappointed with the product and don't fly it anywhere near as much as a "corner stone product" (to agree with and quote nineline) should be doing, along with not pre purchasing any more products should opt into EDs DCS client usage statistics gathering, so ED can see just how unpopular poor quality products are?

 

Maybe it's still the 2nd or third most popular model in terms of sales and in game usage and therefore as a pure product still a shining star for ED/Razbam?

 

Or maybe it's time to do some surveys on the perceived value for money/quality or even priority list as was done for the Hornet/F-16 road maps, for all modules - not just the F-18/16, after all they are all representing the ED brand as well as their own..

 

Hoping we all get the Harrier we know, love and want (and paid) for but based on past experience as a Hawk customer not holding my breath.

 

Please prove me wrong ED and particularly Razbam, you've still got a chance to pull this one back if you care enough.

 

Cheers

James

[Terrorban]

We don't really have a choice but to wait. Razbam asked us many time to wait patiently for years and we will be rewarded. Now ED is saying the same. I have more trust in ED's words than Razbam at this point.

 

I just hope Razbam is not using ED to wait out the storm so they can do quick little bug fixes for few weeks and move on to other projects again.

[toilet2000]

I have often seen the 'it's fun in multiplayer' excuse used (or versions of it) and in general my response is: 'it depends what you look for'.

 

For some, it's simply enough to have a basic start up and then takeoff fling some jdams and land. All the power to you for that, it is a sandbox afterall.

 

But for others, you just run into problem after problem:

Start the jet up; immediately you fail the JPTL test before the engines are even on, and until weeks ago, you fail the DC pump checks, etc etc

Jets started up; have to enter radio channels twice because the . Doesn't take the first time. Unable to enter MGRS waypoints, so you try to enter a latlong waypoint, but half of the systems are in decimal and half in seconds.

Start taxi; Needing to add a load of power to 'unstick' the jet, whereas irl it taxis at idle.

Takeoff; Vrest page values don't show the actual required nozzle angle, rotate with the manual specified trim set and find the aircraft nose diving even when matching RL takeoff figures.

You roll away from the runway and the horizon line starts rising and falling because of the crosswind being miscalculated by the jet. You enter a tacan to navigate from but the course line disappears after 30NM or so, making it impossible. You set your TRAK on the EHSD to fly to a point, but the TRAK is wrong because the EHSD is in TRUE not MAG.

You select the tpod and struggle to slew to a target, because the slew bug still exists. The pod will randomly recage itself meaning you have to manhandle the slew once again. You find a target and go to use the jdam but find yourself having to mash the WINC button more than once to get the jdam to accept the target.

You manage to find your way to a boat to land, again the course line missing and the horizon line moving stare into your face. You hover alongside the boat, but there is no HPI so you have to visually land like some ww2 ace.

 

I think you get my point, there are little bugs and niggles at every turn. Saying something like 'I find it fun' or 'There aren't as many problems as people say' is a little misleading.

 

 

That is very well put Swift.

 

 

Totally agree. Sure you can "do" most of the things, but it's not at the same "true to life" level as what we expect from a DCS module. This isn't a "lite" sim. You should be able to mostly follow procedures, which is not the case in the Harrier.

 

 

That's on top of simply breaking issues like the slew.

[Eldur]

Well, 33,500 is a lot of money in development countries.

 

Cries in ~5k in a development country that produces the Eurofighter

Well that happens if you're literally a bad luck magnet and when trying to "make them tell you no", you end up being like...

 

 

So yes, 70 bucks is a ton here. Like 3 times that, and I'm Winchester for a whole month. So when I do shell that out, I do it with utter passion and I'm glad to do so. I guess I dropped like 20% less though as I got the module early on, and even despite it lacking in in-depth systems features, I had a great time with it and I still do fly the thing and make other things go up and enjoy it. But it could be better.

 

Moving from EA to release is decided by 3rd Parties, this is not an ED management decision. We have asked RAZBAM to address it.

 

It definately should be the case that ED has to do a QA on this and decide if it's really ready for that step. That would guarantee the quality standards set by ED themselves across the board, which kinda is what the customers trusted in anyway. I mean, just remember the release of the MiG-19 which was pushed back by ED for another month. The same checks should happen when a 3rd party decides to leave early access. And to be fair - wha't the difference in essence? I could have understood it remotely if there was like a 20% off on the EA module, which wasn't the case though. It purely was based on the prior statement that RAZBAM wouldn't release another module into EA until the others were out. And I totally get they do need a new source of income - this is hard business after all and they've got to pay for their food and bog rolls as we all do. Personally I wouldn't have had issues with them releasing another EA module, even knowing how long it takes to complete the development of those. Others would have decided not to get another module which is perfectly fine.

 

Another thing to add from my point of view at the harrier and mig19 is the lack of ffb. I know we ffb users are a minority, but why is it possible that the mb339 and the community a4 have it implemented without a sdk and razbam is not able to do it, while every other module i purchased has it implemented?

 

+1 on the FFB here. Even though the lack of devices on the market, I simply can't call any module without FFB support complete. We few need to push the FFB thing and if the hardware market is lacking, at least the software side shouldn't be.

 

We should be careful though, if they didn't list it as a feature then you also cant hold them to it, I am all for getting things where they need to be, but we also cant pile on. FFB is something we can talk to them about.

 

Thanks for taking that step. On that behalf, ED should also consider setting more strict guidelines for the product description - after all the typical DCS customer expects a module to be full fledged, what we'd call "DCS grade", with all the systems depth, features, quirks and issues the real thing comes with, literally as "what's in the real thing's manual works here as expected". And regardless of the features list, that's what most of us expect from any module. Ambiguous feature lists don't help with that exactly, that just leads to the discussions you guys now have to deal with.

 

Manual is being address by RAZBAM,

 

RAZBAM will be waiting for us to finish the GBU-54 for the A-10C II I imagine, which will be in the near future.

 

TBH I'm perfectly fine with them waiting for ED's implementation, I mean, why invent the wheel again? They also do that for the planned AV-8B+ rendition, based on the Hornet's radar, which is OK in my book. I also wish they'd add the APKWS eventually as they said in the beginning they'd like to do just that and now with the A-10C II coming with that system, it should be doable and I'd be very grateful to get that system on the AV-8B one day.

 

Missing Key binds for switches, Rotaries, and Encoders

 

[...]

 

Can't understand how you have a study level sim with missing keybinds. Especially when there a thread dedicated to the subject. A thread dedicated to workarounds for something that should already be in game. And that's not just the Harrier, but it seems like all the modules have at least a few.

 

The real pain here is that the community is often able to create those keybinds and posts on how to add these exist for literally every module, including ED's. Some devs do check those out and add them to their modules after verification which is awesome and exactly that should be done by every team which would solve the issue in very little time with the help of the community.

 

But now, they seem to be pushing F-15E out ASAP. And to do that, they need to at least fullfill their promise of getting those three modules out of the EA. So what is the easiest way?

You just push them out and you call them "feature complete - but not bug free".

 

So personally I should be happy that MiG-23MLA release is closer, but then again why to even care when there is possibility it will just go through the same road as AV-8B, and end up to same situation?

I can think that Razbam is burning money and they need to start generating income from the F-15E. So they need to get ASAP it out.

 

Exactly. They shouldn't have made that promise in the first place because that's the reason the whole "razdram" here now exists. They always could have been honest with saying they'd need another boost of income to go on and therefor they'd have to release another module into early access without having the old ones out yet. That certainly would also have put people off, but it would never have lead to what is happening right now.

 

@nineline

 

So maybe you can also get some clarification for us what "year" the raz harrier is supposed to be. I mean seriously its "sekrit"?

 

 

The fun thing is they say "it's a sekrit", yet the store page clearly states, and it already did that back in 2017, that the AV-8B NA is based on BUNO 163853. Sources:

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/

https://web.archive.org/web/20171108014830/https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/

 

So we should clearly be able to have information on what the thing should be capable of and what not and therefor could determine if it's complete or not.

[Fjordmonkey]

The fun thing is they say "it's a sekrit", yet the store page clearly states, and it already did that back in 2017, that the AV-8B NA is based on BUNO 163853. Sources:

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/

https://web.archive.org/web/20171108014830/https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/

 

So we should clearly be able to have information on what the thing should be capable of and what not and therefor could determine if it's complete or not.

 

BUNO 163853 and above. Which means there can be quite a few BUNO's above it with varying blocks, just like how one F16C block 50 isn't immediately the same as the F16C block 50.

[Flagrum]

The people complaining about manuals have far too much time on their hands.

It might sound alien to you, but there are people out there who love to read, especially if it is about something they like and love. "Studysim" is actually a thing. How can you tell the operating limitations of your aircraft? Without a manual, this academical nerd question will become quite interesting quite quickly if you try to land on a carrier with dry tanks and yet some ordnance under the wings? Good luck finding a YT video for that.

 

 

Also please consider, while it might be ok for you if product features are not delivered, others might have a different view on this.

 

 

 

(semi-OT, @mods: can we have the rep system back ... please?)

[Fusedspine33]

 

 

 

The real pain here is that the community is often able to create those keybinds and posts on how to add these exist for literally every module, including ED's. Some devs do check those out and add them to their modules after verification which is awesome and exactly that should be done by every team which would solve the issue in very little time with the help of the community.

 

 

 

.

 

I have used a few of these mods for the F-18 and it seems as long as there is a key bind it can be manipulated, but mouse clickable only isn't. It is definitely a high priority request from the guys building pits based on this module.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NineLine]

 

The fun thing is they say "it's a sekrit", yet the store page clearly states, and it already did that back in 2017, that the AV-8B NA is based on BUNO 163853. Sources:

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/

https://web.archive.org/web/20171108014830/https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/av8bna/

 

So we should clearly be able to have information on what the thing should be capable of and what not and therefor could determine if it's complete or not.

 

 

Please be careful how you define 'sekrit' as well, while RAZBAM may or may not have certain access to information, it doesn't mean it all public info, as well, just because a document is available on the internet, doesn't mean its legally allowed to be shared, used or referenced.

 

While I get you want the most realistic module possible, as with anything, it has to be based on publicly available documentation and if there is more than that, it's between the development team and the group they are dealing with, it doesn't mean they can just share it willy nilly.

 

SO please, let's not overgeneralize classified documentation... again, being on the internet doesn't mean it got there legally.

[Fusedspine33]

Please be careful how you define 'sekrit' as well, while RAZBAM may or may not have certain access to information, it doesn't mean it all public info, as well, just because a document is available on the internet, doesn't mean its legally allowed to be shared, used or referenced.

 

While I get you want the most realistic module possible, as with anything, it has to be based on publicly available documentation and if there is more than that, it's between the development team and the group they are dealing with, it doesn't mean they can just share it willy nilly.

 

SO please, let's not overgeneralize classified documentation... again, being on the internet doesn't mean it got there legally.

 

 

I am sure it's clear as mud, and this request is not intended to be anything other than a genuine request for information on the subject of useable documentation and as it could serve to deconflict expectations.

 

Razbam has stated they use a computer based training tool as their reference and not the NATOPS

 

If the info has to be publicly available can we have a link to this CBT source?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Eldur]

Please be careful how you define 'sekrit' as well, while RAZBAM may or may not have certain access to information, it doesn't mean it all public info, as well, just because a document is available on the internet, doesn't mean its legally allowed to be shared, used or referenced.

 

While I get you want the most realistic module possible, as with anything, it has to be based on publicly available documentation and if there is more than that, it's between the development team and the group they are dealing with, it doesn't mean they can just share it willy nilly.

 

SO please, let's not overgeneralize classified documentation... again, being on the internet doesn't mean it got there legally.

 

To be fair, my statement was made with the fact in mind that RAZBAM stated on their discord they couldn't even tell which BUNO they provide for because of classification, which on the contrary indeed is given on the store page. Not about any systems that might be off limits to the public as there'S always some that are, as in EW.

 

Hey guys, I took the time to read the whole thread. Wow.

 

As the manual and my (nick)name has been mentioned several times, please let me comment on that. The lack of full manual to date is on me: I agreed to write one and am doing so. However, when covid struck and I was stuck at home for several months, I was simply unable to work on it with three small kids, normal daily job and other DCS commitments. Nevertheless, if anyone is to be blamed for lack of full manual, it is me.

 

Honestly, you're literally the last to blame, if at all. You've been doing an outstanding job there and I really enjoyed the tutorials of the Mirage and wasn't even aware of the Harrier's being in there already. Also, I never heard any bad word on any of your campaigns, those are literally setting the bar.

If things need more time in the oven, because of whatever, which you did tell us right there, they shall have it. Things get delayed, especially these days. The thing is that while this delay is happening, the module still got taken the EA label off of it while clearly not meeting the requirements therefor. I am aware that the things are still being worked on, but the removal of the EA tag simply wasn't the right step to take.

[hellrequiem]

Every single word, I totally agree.

It's an utter farce.

 

They are often on their discord. A logical conclusion given the facts would be that they use that because they can control all content and user access. However as soon as you raise an issue they have no interest in resolving you get deleted from the group. First off i'm not aware of any age restrictions for their discord group and many of ED's customers are minor's so swearing is utterly uncalled for, this is not professional not that they should need reminding.

 

I hope this post does not get deleted given other recent ones have.

 

Thankfully its now got to stage, where they cannot pull the wool over ED's eyes anymore by hiding, marking as resolved and deleting threads. Having a bug tracker on their site that mirrors no resemblance to the actual module. I actually think that once ED complete an internal investigation and review the module it will return back to EA.

 

First, we need to get to a position that no matter how critical in nature a customer's feedback is, this should not be deleted. We have over the years fought for our freedom, some at the sharp end and other's reading this will still be keeping us safe. To silence free speech or oppress opinions is not healthy, history is proof of that and thus we cannot tolerate any attempt to silence an opinion no matter in what form of life it happens, even if its something we don't personally agree with, we have to respect that person's right to express themselves with tolerance and respect. Any attempt to silence genuine issues is insulting to sacrifices made and unless the post itself is prejudice against a direct person which would cause insult aka racism, sexist, supporting terrorism,bullying etc, or totally disregards the forums rules they should be engaged not dismissed.

 

Genuinely highlighting an issue is surely what the Open Beta process is all about and should be welcomed. Dev's that cannot handle criticism of a product when it is based on trying to improve it need to look inwards and reflect, it is not a personnel attack on them but born out of wanting the product to be right. It is not just them that are passionate. I often see comment's to other users that have raised genuine issues being dismissed with EA is not for them, 80% of the time i agree its not for them but with the Harrier i actually think if constructive feedback can't be given, is censored and/or that feedback is totally ignored then EA is not for Razbam. It is that simple.

 

The harrier situation is a concern. Superficially the module flies, but that's where it ends. It is not feature complete, especially for what is sold as a level d simulation by any measure. It is not even complete on the list that it is sold by let alone the total disregard to how the systems work IRL, its MFD pages etc (would take pages on here but happy to spec out if the desire is there). It is clear that as the year has gone on resentment in the serious harrier players has grown, caused by a lack of forward progress on features with equally a total disregard to the official forum's and people raising issues there only to be frankly ignored. Whilst all the while we are showcased new screenshots of F15, Mig23, Lighting even by various other channels. Serious issues preventing the correct operation of the Harrier are still present, some from day 1 of release. If you have Natop's knowledge of the jet then the flaws just become even more apparent, but even for the casual player there are problems with such basic things as vital keybinds not working or present. I have said before Razbam have a very talented group of artists but lack code resource base.

 

To move this module out of EA is a mistake. But what cannot be tolerated is Razbam's continued ignorance to the official ED forum's and their customers who have purchased expecting in good faith a company to engage with them. I believe in the EA process, i'm committed to supporting ED (over $1000 so far) and i'm very patient and pragmatic. However simple common courtesy to reply to an issue costs nothing. I could in fairness work my way down the Harrier forum list each issue and reply to each post within a day. They have had 3 years nearly, there is not a valid excuse to not acknowledge now, only an apology and admission they got things wrong. It has got to the state where quite frankly over the last 12 months players who have signed up to support the EA process in assisting are not getting that assistance back from Razbam, its a two way partnership and one side of that partnership is not working, and hasn't been for some time. It either arrogance or head in the sand, either way its not good and needs resolution.

 

Apart from the utter failure in consumer confidence in Razbam to move it away from EA its a mistake for them also. Inadvertently what they have done is actually the worst thing for them if they are struggling as they have no justification anymore of it being an Early Access module. Bugs will be expecting to be resolved, actual non EA customers not ignored, aka the less tolerant ones. They have just hugely increased the pressure on themselves without realising it and for this reason alone its another mistake to move the module away from EA, its just not ready, mark my words, resentment will grow. and this will become a bigger and bigger problem.

 

Some of us have over 1500 hours in the DCS harrier, some 2000+ hours i dare say some probably have more time than the dev's flying it themselves. These are not, with no disrespect to our younger audience 12 year old's on their first flight simulator (who equally deserve a better level of customer service nor sworn at). The point is alot of us have 30 + years of experience , a lot of us fly IRL. I have seen some people state well the CM has left, however this is something that has only occurred in the last 2 1/2 weeks. I would invite you to look at the amount of issues/bugs raised and notice how many don't even get acknowledgement over the last 12 months, this is what has caused the issue. That and Razbam's expression of preferring their Facebook as they can control the content. They engage on their own platforms just not so much with ED forums, which is the reverse of what it should be. Have you noticed that they even dismissed the community bug tracker stating they only work to the Razbam one, which what a surprise they control and contains a fraction of the real issues.

 

I would highlight that this is not directly ED's issue so let's not be critical of them yet, they need time to take on board our comments and work with Razbam to performance manage them into delivering and equally long term review the op's structure on third parties re business continuity / redundancy if key personnel leave etc. Yes the book stops with ED however we need to give them the opportunity to resolve and hopefully the Senior Management will at some point be briefed and get this on their own radar. Also i would like to highlight that this is not Bignewy's or Nineline's issue - they have worked really hard this last year to massively improve on the communication to the community and in that sense have a tough role, even keeping across the ED discord too at all times of day and night, i feel sorry for them that they are now having to pick up further work because Razbam are failing to deliver on their end of the deal.

 

One last point, is it right that third party developers have oversight and moderator rights of official ED forums, i would suggest not until trust is regained. It provides an opportunity for things to be deleted, moved to resolved when not. Only ED should have this level of access.

 

I'm confident that ED, now involved will come back with us with a clear roadmap on how we make progress together, hopefully providing an oversight on Razbam's customer service, which clearly needs an urgent and honest review along with their output.

[Fri13]

The reality is that Razbam are reviewing constructive criticism as a personal insult which is why they seek refuge on their own discord, they are clearly feeling insecure and its the classic head in the sand tactic.....

 

Excellent post... (The whole pay, not just the quoted part). Thought about same things.

[hellrequiem]

This list is an honest one. Razbam should take care of this points to face the real issue here, and start improvements in the right direction. I'm Highlight the ones that for Me, are more important.

1) Apologise - Sincerely, not with excuses and be specific, not just sorry. Own it. State you need our help and why, re-enage. Hell even ask for forgiveness whatever it takes. Remind us why you started this, what drives you? Be humble we all make mistakes people get that. People cannot see your passion, neither are they telepathic. Yes pitchfolks are out, but they can be lowered.

 

2) Move the module back into EA to reduce the immediate pressure on you so that customer's cannot argue that this is now a release build and all that entails (I wont go into detail here as will not encourage discontent, happy to PM you if you request it but there are some dangers with your current strategy - some people have the right day job and are pretty annoyed as a point in principle). It's also what customers appear to want by reading this forum it would seem. Now is clearly not the time for the move given the discontent and non minor bugs. If it was my business and employees jobs i was trying to safeguarding and own livelihood, i would be looking for a low risk mechanism to defuse the situation. This is a zero cost, immediate,easy, high impact guaranteed win by putting it back to EA.

 

3) Buy yourself some time for a proper review (point 2 greatly helps you with this). State over the next 2 weeks we are working with ED, internally and the community to agree to what level things will be modelled. Build a final specification architecture.

 

4) Announce the plan - with schedule. Provide absolute clarity. Sometimes bad news is better than inconclusive news. If you can't do one aspect or have no intention, be it cashflow, resource, skill set then state what cannot be done (please do not use incorrect classification issues as there are people within the community that have relevant clearances and you will be caught out and made to look foolish - not everyone is 13 on their first flight sim so think on).

 

5) Consider further feedback post plan. Publish your summary finding's of consultation with the community.

 

6) Action, do not be diverted, focus on the plan - provide 2 weekly updates on what has been worked on, what hasn't. Be honest, discuss problems as you face them, do not hide them. Manage expectations.

 

7) Be active on these forums. Do not hide on your own Social media, head in the sand isn't going to work, or being mad.

 

8) If mad at any point do not post on social media!! Honestly delete your discord and do not attempt to silence constructive criticism. One post can ruin your entire business and everyone remembers them, never the good. Always remember prior to hitting send in today's world of integrated Social Media any business is never more than a few hours away from being strangled leading to an utter catastrophic collapse!

 

9) Do not release further modules or be posting new artwork on anything other than the Harrier, Mig 19 or Mirage during this Intensive Care time. It does more damage than good.

10) Complete internal review / resource allocation, consider senior management roles, what makes them happy, what are they not good at, how can they be supported better. Know your limitations.

 

...take a reality check, 45,000 views in 4 days is not a s**tstorm in a glass of water as you called it..

Please, listen, do not get mad.

[Wrcknbckr]

Hi Razbam,

 

Quick clarification on 2 points.

 

1) What is the agreed and official date that the Harrier AV-8B Night Attack V/STOL sold under the Eagle Dynamics Digital Combat Simulator E Shop was converted from Early Access to a release version.

 

2) Are you intending to release a statement on the concerns raised or clarification within the next 14 days? Just trying to seek clarification on the position as i note nothing in the weekly newsletter to highlight the move.

 

Many thanks.

 

Hawkeye, not as a personal grudge, but I needed a hook, i hope you don't mind.

 

Some thoughts

I find it rather strange that as first party you want a clarification of a third party. A third party is only accountable to, in this case, ED. The strange thing is, viewing all the posts, that everybody is blaming Razbam while it should be ED right? They should have the ultimate say on EA status and handle communications, on behalf of their subcontractor, otherwise third party looses its meaning. The fact that the customer communicates with the 3rd party is strange, but apparently it's custom in DCS.

 

Moreover i wonder why Razbam does not communicate, not even with ED (seems like only when hell breaks lose). Did you ever wonder why Razbam did not respond, only through own channels.There are two parties involved here. How could this have gone wrong? I've been thinking. Please 'seniors' enlighten me. Could it have been evolved by following;

 

The Harrier is not just any aircraft. It has VTOL capabilities. Vertical flight and its modelling is complex and requires additional efforts. In fact a hovering fixed wing has nothing to do with a conventional aircraft. I can imagine that after the development of the FM and then commencing the weapon systems they just ran out of financial resources.

Blame it on a failed estimation of required efforts (by both parties), but apparently RB and ED had a different opinion in how to proceed. Did financial matters cause RB to ignore ED (forums) altogether and not even address futile, easy to solve issues (remnants of the visor appearing on side-screens comes to mind). RB creating forward load by promoting Mig23/F15E in order to generate financial resources to complete the promised features also fit in this picture, and so is the waiting on ED to come up with additional weapon systems/functionality.

 

I have always been surprised that the present model is available for a price less then F-16/Hornet/F-14 (~70 vs 80$) -but with the additionally modeled VTOL capabilities. Conventional/STOL/VTOL landing modes. Good training sessions. All these features alone are worth the price tag. I have not even touched the weapon systems. I'd be willing to pay additional fee to get it complete. How is the pricing of a module determined? Did that lead to a disturbed relation between the two?

 

Am I far off with these thoughts?

[NineLine]

I find it rather strange that as first party you want a clarification of a third party. A third party is only accountable to, in this case, ED. The strange thing is, viewing all the posts, that everybody is blaming Razbam while it should be ED right? They should have the ultimate say on EA status and handle communications, on behalf of their subcontractor, otherwise third party looses its meaning. The fact that the customer communicates with the 3rd party is strange, but apparently it's custom in DCS.

 

3rd Parties are expected to manage and handle their own communications, they are also to manage and handle the status of the module as they are the ones actively dealing with it, and are going to be much more up on where it is and where it needs to be. I am not sure what you are comparing to, but this is and how we will continue to expect 3rd parties to work. They only reason we have offered to help out right now is to get them back on track however they need help doing so. Thanks.

[statrekmike]

Hawkeye, not as a personal grudge, but I needed a hook, i hope you don't mind.

 

Some thoughts

I find it rather strange that as first party you want a clarification of a third party. A third party is only accountable to, in this case, ED. The strange thing is, viewing all the posts, that everybody is blaming Razbam while it should be ED right? They should have the ultimate say on EA status and handle communications, on behalf of their subcontractor, otherwise third party looses its meaning. The fact that the customer communicates with the 3rd party is strange, but apparently it's custom in DCS.

 

Moreover i wonder why Razbam does not communicate, not even with ED (seems like only when hell breaks lose). Did you ever wonder why Razbam did not respond, only through own channels.There are two parties involved here. How could this have gone wrong? I've been thinking. Please 'seniors' enlighten me. Could it have been evolved by following;

 

The Harrier is not just any aircraft. It has VTOL capabilities. Vertical flight and its modelling is complex and requires additional efforts. In fact a hovering fixed wing has nothing to do with a conventional aircraft. I can imagine that after the development of the FM and then commencing the weapon systems they just ran out of financial resources.

Blame it on a failed estimation of required efforts (by both parties), but apparently RB and ED had a different opinion in how to proceed. Did financial matters cause RB to ignore ED (forums) altogether and not even address futile, easy to solve issues (remnants of the visor appearing on side-screens comes to mind). RB creating forward load by promoting Mig23/F15E in order to generate financial resources to complete the promised features also fit in this picture, and so is the waiting on ED to come up with additional weapon systems/functionality.

 

I have always been surprised that the present model is available for a price less then F-16/Hornet/F-14 (~70 vs 80$) -but with the additionally modeled VTOL capabilities. Conventional/STOL/VTOL landing modes. Good training sessions. All these features alone are worth the price tag. I have not even touched the weapon systems. I'd be willing to pay additional fee to get it complete. How is the pricing of a module determined? Did that lead to a disturbed relation between the two?

 

Am I far off with these thoughts?

 

I would be more willing to get on board with this line of thinking if RAZBAM had made statements about flight modeling difficulties that supported it. So far, RAZBAM seems to maintain that the issue is more about secrecy and what they are and are not allowed to put into the module (or even complete if it is already there). If they could not afford to complete the rest of the systems after doing the flight model, that is on them and it is simply not appropriate at this juncture to give them more money on top of the original selling price to get the module that we were promised as part of that original selling price.

 

Don't get me wrong. I get that making a DCS module is a tough, expensive, time intensive job. I think many of us in this thread are more than happy to acknowledge that it isn't easy. That being said, the harrier being VTOL/STOVL doesn't justify the state it is in now.

 

From my point of view, this isn't so much a Harrier specific problem as it is a RAZBAM issue in general. After seeing how the Mirage development went, I am not surprised to see a very similar set of issues crop up with the Harrier. To be honest, I don't think RAZBAM was prepared for the level of detail that the DCS community (rightfully) expects. Nor does it look like they were prepared to meet the general standards set by ED and other third parties (both in terms of quality of work done and desired level of overall simulation/fidelity).

 

Perhaps this is a case where RAZBAM has their own internal standard and that would honestly make sense considering they got their start as a third party developer for Microsoft Flight Simulator stuff. That title has many, many developers who all operate largely independently from Microsoft and can all set their own standards. In DCS, there is one general standard that everyone strives for and audiences expect, I don't think RAZBAM was prepared for this. I don't say this to be mean to them, I say this because it seems to be how they have operated thus far.

 

My fear right now is that if we don't get this all clarified with the Harrier, it will become a even bigger, even nastier problem when they release the F-15E and it has a lot of the same issues. If they want to make modules that sit in their own realism/complexity/fidelity level separate from all other full fidelity modules, they really need to make that clear right now so we can all adjust our expectations for their future work.

[Fri13]

 

If the info has to be publicly available can we have a link to this CBT source?

 

As off-topic, but relative to this thread.....

 

That is questionable problem here.

 

1) Module is suppose to be made using only a publicly available official material.

 

2) forum member is not allowed to share any (un)official information that is not officially public.

 

Now.... How it can be that secret documents etc are used at all by producers, or some people here to make a claims how things works?

 

I have access to secret information by personal itself with first hand information, or documentation, but I can not use them for arguments, no matter how much they would counter many functions and features in current DCS modules. So all I can do is ask sources or question things as I wouldn't know. But some people here goes behind the "sekrit" curtain and claim that what they say is correct. Or they go simply "because studio X has done so, and it is secret so we only have their word and it is good to me". No, it is not good at all if all should be based to officially public information!

 

Every studio should be required to release information that they use for something that is available for is in DCS. If it is not available, then that feature needs to be removed if it can not be revealed.

 

Like example, to produce a almost completely working IFF or ECM systems, one doesn't need to be using any classified materials as their main effects and functionalities are public information even in Wikipedia or manufacturers own websites etc.

 

So one can implement such systems fairly well (better than now) and use only a general public information for that, and it can be revealed and explained that what is used.

 

We can not have perfection. Limited by information, hardware resources and software complexity as well simply that at some point something is "good enough" to simulate something. Question is what is "good enough". Example, we do not need 15000 data points for calculations how a wing behaves in a wind. Likely 500 is enough, and it possibly can be even extrapolated down to 15 or 50 data points. If a tree falls in a forest, it doesn't require to be modeled or run physics simulations of no one is seeing it. It is enough that there is just a mark point in time that tree #nyz.000x has fallen at direction of 330 degrees.

Someone might be nitpicking that it needs to be simulated accurately.... No, it doesn't if there is no one seeing it.

This is similar thing with upcoming dynamic campaign where thousands of units will be on the map. This is same thing when one airplane can have thousands of parts and an missile explodes near it or shells are shot at it.

At some point heavy processing demanding simulation is required to be done, but most times not at all.

 

When talking about flight modeling and systems accurate simulation, compromises are better to be done when it is wise and gives similar results. It is about statistics that when to do so and when not to do so.

 

How much informations is really required to make example a properly flying and operating MiG-31 as AI unit? How about a IR missile seeker? Or ARH seeker? How about a specific panel or system page?

 

Lots of things can be done using educated guesses. But that take stress word "educated" and not "just guessed".

A "educated guess" is better than "it is a sekrit". Because you can always explain the reasoning and logic behind educated guess, but nothing required to explain when it is "sekrit".

[viper2097]

So there passed now already nearly a week.

Can we expect any official statement from Razbam, or will they stay silent forever?

[NineLine]

So there passed now already nearly a week.

Can we expect any official statement from Razbam, or will they stay silent forever?

 

They will, we just keep throwing stuff at them to check. Sorry it's taken so long.

[Blackdavis12]

Something is moving: https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/

 

 

 

AV-8B list of stuff already done and pushed, Ready for release should be up by next Wednesday, Maybe is self explanatory (but granted in next) and the rest in next update:

In release queue

- Corrected Rocker Switch bleeding into MPD bezel

- BUGFIX: Corrected aircraft diverting prior to maneuvering tone envelope

- BUGFIX: Structural load damage no longer instantaneous, now requires sustained over-tolerance for structural failure

- BUGFIX: Corrected where large body angular rates (out of control) was resulting in infinite values

- BUGFIX: HUD Repeater too large.

- IMPROVEMENT: Reduced Font Size for EHSD data

- BUGFIX: Dual rack bombs release order

- IMPROVEMENT: Backup ADI cage/pitch adjust Keybinds

- BUGFIX: Pull up cue not appearing when selected.

- BUGIFX: RWR knob increments

- IMPROVEMENT: RWR Minimum Volume value reduced

- BUGFIX: EHSD auto zoom leads to symbology misplaced.

- BUGFIX: MPCD, brightness control buttons behavior

- BUGFIX: MPCD, Moving Map too bright

- Included GUB32 and GUB54

- BUGIFX: Harrier default rocket ranges inverted

- BUGIFX: EHSD decenter display overlay misplaced

- BUGFIX: Seat Height adjustment non-functional (Partial, requires seat animation)

- BUGFIX: RWR partially functional when ON

- BUGFIX: MPCD ECM page retruns to calling page.

- BUGFIX: SS Left now cycles Map Center, Decenter and EW page

Maybe released

- BUGFIX: Harrier, In cockpit rudder trim switch does not function

- BUGIFX: EHSD, Course over ground incorrect in Mag mode

- AGM-122: Removed HUD limitations

Ready for release

- TPOD axis dead zone has been reduced.

- BUGFIX: DMT slaved to AIM9 Seeker.

- BUGFIX: Sidewinder being fired when cycling from AG to AA to AG

- BUGFIX: Comm channel selector not sequencing correctly

- BUGFIX: HUD reject logic inverted

- BUGFIX: AGM-122 Sidearn seeker head does not align with RWR source

- BUGFIX: TPOD in powerup mode when starting HOT

- BUGFIX: Altimeter adjustment knob erratic functionality

- BUGFIX: CRS knob erratic functionality

[Terrorban]

Something is moving: https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/

 

 

 

AV-8B list of stuff already done and pushed, Ready for release should be up by next Wednesday, Maybe is self explanatory (but granted in next) and the rest in next update:

In release queue

- Corrected Rocker Switch bleeding into MPD bezel

- BUGFIX: Corrected aircraft diverting prior to maneuvering tone envelope

- BUGFIX: Structural load damage no longer instantaneous, now requires sustained over-tolerance for structural failure

- BUGFIX: Corrected where large body angular rates (out of control) was resulting in infinite values

- BUGFIX: HUD Repeater too large.

- IMPROVEMENT: Reduced Font Size for EHSD data

- BUGFIX: Dual rack bombs release order

- IMPROVEMENT: Backup ADI cage/pitch adjust Keybinds

- BUGFIX: Pull up cue not appearing when selected.

- BUGIFX: RWR knob increments

- IMPROVEMENT: RWR Minimum Volume value reduced

- BUGFIX: EHSD auto zoom leads to symbology misplaced.

- BUGFIX: MPCD, brightness control buttons behavior

- BUGFIX: MPCD, Moving Map too bright

- Included GUB32 and GUB54

- BUGIFX: Harrier default rocket ranges inverted

- BUGIFX: EHSD decenter display overlay misplaced

- BUGFIX: Seat Height adjustment non-functional (Partial, requires seat animation)

- BUGFIX: RWR partially functional when ON

- BUGFIX: MPCD ECM page retruns to calling page.

- BUGFIX: SS Left now cycles Map Center, Decenter and EW page

Maybe released

- BUGFIX: Harrier, In cockpit rudder trim switch does not function

- BUGIFX: EHSD, Course over ground incorrect in Mag mode

- AGM-122: Removed HUD limitations

Ready for release

- TPOD axis dead zone has been reduced.

- BUGFIX: DMT slaved to AIM9 Seeker.

- BUGFIX: Sidewinder being fired when cycling from AG to AA to AG

- BUGFIX: Comm channel selector not sequencing correctly

- BUGFIX: HUD reject logic inverted

- BUGFIX: AGM-122 Sidearn seeker head does not align with RWR source

- BUGFIX: TPOD in powerup mode when starting HOT

- BUGFIX: Altimeter adjustment knob erratic functionality

- BUGFIX: CRS knob erratic functionality

How did they do all this so fast? Even added the missing bombs...

[blower]

How did they do all this so fast? Even added the missing bombs...

 

From what they've said they were already working on it and they've also shown some pictures of the reworked new MPCDs and HUD