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

[Fri13]

I think that community needs to make a thread without discussions and only list a features that are missing or broken.

As module can't be considered "complete" and "ready" when major critical features are lacking.

 

There are some features that are depending ED own technology. Like example the Harrier FLIR that can be used to mark on HUD all heat spots it see, as carrots pointing its position. At this moment DCS engine doesn't support heat signature on the terrain, buildings or such, so the system would be capable only to mark with 100% guarantee all ground vehicles it sees. So it would be a cheat. Suggestions were made that as the real system is not so trustworthy and reliable (but still used as it is useful) that why not add a random false-positivies in it. But of course a better way would be to wait ED complete their FLIR engine update and that hopefully bring hot spots on buildings and especially terrain (Mavericks locking to bushes, trees and rocks instead actual target when launched at over 1.5-3 km ranges), so it could be done properly. But again a such a "placeholder" with false-positive would have been better than nothing. Is it Razbam fault to need wait it? I don't think so. But to communicate or not about it, is their problem.

And if someone now says that Harrier is feature completed.... *Stun*

 

- Signed by "I have not managed to fly Harrier to drop Mk.82's properly for two years".... Have faith and all, but communication needs to be upgraded several levels...

Edited September 8, 2020 by Fri13

[some1]

Hey, I found my old thread when they did exactly the same thing with M-2000. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186951

Then it was a matter of "priorities change" and the Mirage was improved eventually.... 2-3 years later. Wonder how long it will take in case of the Harrier and if DCS will still exist by then....

 

I'm sure preorders for the F-15E will start soon enough.

[Sajarov]

They have delivered, and product sustainment will continue.

 

If you are not sure of the refund policy please read the EULA

 

Thanks

Clearly not. Sorry as you are dealing with this scandal but it is crystal clear that the only option is to return the Harrier to Early Access and active development.

 

The EULA is clear but the consumer rights Act is Law.

 

Sent from my MiG-29S (9-13S) using Tapatalk

[Marsvinet]

I really hate to join in on a thread like this, but I feel the need to voice my concerns too.

 

Yes, most of the systems are there. But they are full of long standing bugs that have never been acknowledged or has even been completely ignored. Many are minor, like designating a waypoint as target and the undesignating via HOTAS forces you to cycle the waypoint designate. Easy to work around, but should not be there. But then there are bigger problems. Mavericks refusing to align properly unless staying on the STRS page and not touching any weapons religously? That bug has been there for as long as I can remember.

Then there are major systems that are so simplified that the NATOPS is not even useful. The ARBS is pure magic right now. I can understand if it is partly because of limitations in DCS engine, but nothing has been communicated, even when there are at least 4 threads discussing different aspects that are weird or even missing with the ARBS.

 

Back up modes are missing everywhere, INS drift in case of GPS not being available is not modeled. Nothing has been said.

 

It would be nice to get some clarity on all these things by now.

[BIGNEWY]

I will raise the concerns with RAZBAM, as mentioned I will wait until they are awake and have a chat.

 

thanks

[stormrider]

DECOY stepped down from community management, but is still helping RAZBAM in other areas. Community management is a difficult thing to do and does not suit everyone, so I totally understand.

Nineline and I are looking for ways to help here so a dialogue between the community and the RAZBAM team can improve.

 

thanks

 

 

This thread is making me think twice about ever buying their F-15E, which by itself, is already filled with controversy. I remember back in 2009 I first saw them announcing it. There was even a forum section for it under Razbam. Initially, they showed some screenshots of progress, obviously bogus as we found out not too long after. Months passed, even years, where we started asking them for progress reports, but they had simply vanished from the forums, refusing to answer what we already knew, that the F-15E project had been abandoned! Few years later, the forum section was silently closed, as silent as the Harrier was put out of EA. I was excited to discover that they had picked up the F-15E again, sometime during this past 2 years, because I naively believed that because of the Harrier stated progress, they had finally fixed their ways. I guess I was wrong.

[BIGNEWY]

I am happy to pass on the feedback, Please keep the feedback mature and courteous,

 

thanks

[BIGNEWY]

This thread is making me think twice about ever buying their F-15E, which by itself, is already filled with controversy. I remember back in 2009 I first saw them announcing it. There was even a forum section for it under Razbam. Initially, they showed some screenshots of progress, obviously bogus as we found out not too long after. Months passed, even years, where we started asking them for progress reports, but they had simply vanished from the forums, refusing to answer what we already knew, that the F-15E project had been abandoned! Few years later, the forum section was silently closed, as silent as the Harrier was put out of EA. I was excited to discover that they had picked up the F-15E again, sometime during this past 2 years, because I naively believed that because of the Harrier stated progress, they had finally fixed their ways. I guess I was wrong.

 

You make that choice as a consumer of course, it is your decision.

 

Early access does not suit everyone and those in doubt for any project should wait for full release.

 

I don't want to make this a discussion about other products, keep the chat here for the AV-8B

 

thanks

[Vakarian]

I think that community needs to make a thread without discussions and only list a features that are missing or broken.

As module can't be considered "complete" and "ready" when major critical features are lacking.

 

There are some features that are depending ED own technology. Like example the Harrier FLIR that can be used to mark on HUD all heat spots it see, as carrots pointing its position. At this moment DCS engine doesn't support heat signature on the terrain, buildings or such, so the system would be capable only to mark with 100% guarantee all ground vehicles it sees. So it would be a cheat. Suggestions were made that as the real system is not so trustworthy and reliable (but still used as it is useful) that why not add a random false-positivies in it. But of course a better way would be to wait ED complete their FLIR engine update and that hopefully bring hot spots on buildings and especially terrain (Mavericks locking to bushes, trees and rocks instead actual target when launched at over 1.5-3 km ranges), so it could be done properly. But again a such a "placeholder" with false-positive would have been better than nothing. Is it Razbam fault to need wait it? I don't think so. But to communicate or not about it, is their problem.

And if someone now says that Harrier is feature completed.... *Stun*

 

- Signed by "I have not managed to fly Harrier to drop Mk.82's properly for two years".... Have faith and all, but communication needs to be upgraded several levels...

 

 

You mean something like this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269108

 

 

To be honest, couple of bug from there are fixed, but only a couple. A LOT are still not, so it's kinda disturbing.

[statrekmike]

You make that choice as a consumer of course, it is your decision.

 

Early access does not suit everyone and those in doubt for any project should wait for full release.

 

I don't want to make this a discussion about other products, keep the chat here for the AV-8B

 

thanks

 

 

In pretty much every other case of early access in DCS, I would absolutely agree with you. Even ED's own projects are fine in that regard since there is obvious forward motion with every update. Sadly, we can't really say the same about the Harrier. It has seen some minor updates but considering the sheer amount of time that has passed since a major update, I think we are past the point where patiently waiting for early access to run its course is going to mean much.

 

If there is a issue that is preventing them from making any more significant progress, we are at a stage where we kinda need to know. We have been waiting for years and while I am indeed patient, I am only so patient before I start to feel like I am getting taken advantage of.

 

Perhaps my big concern isn't so much about the Harrier at this point. It is that the F-15E is a much more complex module and I think it is not unfair to ask if it might be a good time for ED to really have a straight talk with RAZBAM about their definition of a complete module and how that compares to the expectations/standards that ED and other third parties are setting as the norm.

 

I think the big frustration here is that the Harrier module is a pretty decent foundation. It could be a great module but it needs serious commitment to get there. RAZBAM needs to demonstrate that commitment and thus far has not really done so.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be a downer here. I don't like being this negative on the forums if I can help it. Still. We have been waiting years for the Harrier to see significant progress but all we seem to get is either ignored outright or excuses that don't quite add up. If they want to sell more modules to those that already own the Harrier, they are going to need to put more effort into the process so we can have faith in them again.

[BIGNEWY]

Hopefully we can address some of the concerns, it will take time, I need to have a chat with the team and discuss it.

 

Thank you

[viper2097]

It took already too much time, we need to see some action. How long do you think we should wait until it is complete and on par with other modules? Another three years?

Its already a slap in the face that it left EA. The second slap is Razbam posting on Facebook pictures of how the F-15 and its weapon system is going forward.

 

Case is clear: Shifted an incomplete and bugged all over Harrier silently from EA to complete to be able to work now "officially" on the F-15.

 

Bignewy, you stated now multiple times that the Harrier is feature complete and thats why it is no more in EA. Please read the feature list of the module in the shop. It is absolutely clearly that the module is not fullfilling what there is standing. This is per definition scam. Are you aware of this?

[jasonbirder]

Good monring all,

 

I have checked with RAZBAM about the manual, it is complete but will be enhanced in the future.

 

 

Thank you

 

 

As I should always - I'll preface my comment with the caveat..."I know its not you...you're just communicating what you've been told" and as its so, so easy to dismiss me as someone always critisising DCS - I'll point out that far from being a "hater" I have purchased 6 fully detailed planes, 11 DLC Campaigns, 3 Terrains & 1 supporting module - and by definition go so far beyond the definition of "supporter of DCS" as to be ridiculous

 

 

 

But seriously...AV8B Pocket Guide (even Razbam don't dare call it a manual) 125 pages are you seriously suggesting the A10C (Manual 671 pages) is an Aircraft more than 4 times as complex as the Harrier?

Even the simple daylight fighter the F5 Tiger 2 (IR Missiles/Unguided Weapons only/Ranging Radar only...no TPOD/LST etc) Manual weighs in at 289 pages...is it really TWICE as complex as the Harrier

 

 

Razbam calling the manual complete is nothing more than sleight of hand so Razbam can take the Harrier out of Early Access status.

 

Out of interest when I purchased the AV8B module a Campaign was listed in the Products.

"Instant action, single, and training missions as well as a campaign"

This line doesn't currently exist in the Harrier Product Page - what happened to that?

[sirrah]

Guys I get the frustration (I also feel a fooled as a customer), but maybe let's give BN a chance to contact Razbam

 

 

Although my trust in Razbam took another hit, I do have confidence in Bignewy and Nineline to try and bring this to a good end.

 

Pretty sure BN and NL understand our concerns. Now let's give them some time to contact Razbam.

[BIGNEWY]

It took already too much time, we need to see some action. How long do you think we should wait until it is complete and on par with other modules? Another three years?

Its already a slap in the face that it left EA. The second slap is Razbam posting on Facebook pictures of how the F-15 and its weapon system is going forward.

 

Case is clear: Shifted an incomplete and bugged all over Harrier silently from EA to complete to be able to work now "officially" on the F-15.

 

Bignewy, you stated now multiple times that the Harrier is feature complete and thats why it is no more in EA. Please read the feature list of the module in the shop. It is absolutely clearly that the module is not fullfilling what there is standing. This is per definition scam. Are you aware of this?

 

I can pass info on here both ways, clearly you are upset, calling it a scam is to far.

 

Keep it civil and courteous, if you are not prepared to wait for me to communicate with the team there isnt a lot I can do for you.

 

thanks

[bkthunder]

I would like to evaluate what are the actual possibilities of a refund (either money or an equivalent amount to be spent in the ED store page).

 

Literally, barely a single item form the "feautres page" is complete AND working as intended.

NOT A SINGLE ONE.

 

 

@Bignewy, you do a good job of managing a difficult situation here, and kudos for that. I don't want this to be intended as an insult, but this whole deal fills a lot of the checkboxes to be defined a scam. Yes, as scam.

Same as if you bought a box of lego and 30-40% of the pieces are either missing or the wrong shape. Would you not go back to the shop and ask for a refund?

 

 

We need some intellectual honesty here. ED will not thrive and maintain good PR by hiding behind the fine print on the EULA. Arguing about the definition of EA and what si complete or not is a slippery slope.

It's in the face of everyone here that thsi product is not finished, bugged and most definitely not very realsitic in many regards.

 

I mean, it's literally so damn bugged and incoplete I had to make a community bug tracker to list the bugs, and they're not even all of them!!

[BIGNEWY]

I have said all I can say for now, I will speak with RAZBAM when they are active.

 

To be clear again if you want to give feedback keep it mature and courteous.

 

thanks

[viper2097]

Bignewy, once again, we higly appreciate you jumping in here and doing Razbams work.

Please, take all the enormous frustration that Razbam generated not personal - its not against you.

 

Maybe you should not only talk to Razbam, but also to ED.

At least, ED endorse what Razbam is doing.

And the community deserves now a sustainable solution - and not again any more broken promises, announcements and frustrations.

[TLTeo]

Guess I'll join in on giving feedback.

 

The fact is, EA is a necessary evil. The various interviews with ED folks in the past few months have made it abundantly clear that it's here to stay, so the way to do it imo is to make it as pain-free for the customer as possible. To me, the question comes down to a) is RB doing this for their products? and b) if the answer is no, what is going wrong?

 

To me, to do EA correctly means to deliver a workable product that can accomplish its basic mission(s) in DCS. Fancier features can then be added later. The exact definition of what that entails varies, but obviously a night attack jet should have its navigation suite working correctly, an interceptor should have a working radar, a 4th gen fighter should have a working radar gunsight (yes, I went there :P), etc. On top of that, you need to have the basic systems/features in an aircraft be functioning - radios, ADF/TACAN, a good flight model, damage models, etc.

 

A big issue that so many people are bringing up is that Razbam has consistently failed at delivering that functionality. The Mirage 2000 had a broken radar for a year or so (despite being out of beta) and at release it had a dodgy FM (although I wasn't around at the time, so I may be wrong), the Mig-19 released with an absurd flight model that could supercruise but couldn't stall (and its ADF is still not working as intended), and the issues with the Harrier have been brought up repeatedly on this forum.

 

On top of failing to meet those fairly basic goals, you have the damage that RB are inflicting on their own image by showing a new module "in the oven" (whatever that means) every couple of weeks, sharing progress on the F15E when there is a massive demand for Harrier/Mirage/Farmer fixes, mishandling bug reports etc. In my opinion, the F15E stuff is particularly damning because they are clearly working on its systems, when those same systems in their supposedly out of EA modules are not working. If you want to show 3d models made by an artists to show your ideas that's fine, but clearly telling your customers that your priority has shifted to a new product is outright wrong. Honestly, who thought it would be a good idea to say you will not release new modules until your current modules are out of EA, then just declare those same modules out of EA a few months down the line when they have received almost no changes or features? Can you honestly say you expected anything but the anger in this thread to happen?

 

To sum up, what RB need to do is look at their internal process and make serious changes to avoid PR screwups like this. They need to keep their focus on their current products, and show in a believable way that they are willing to work with the community on bug reports to complete their modules. If they keep their current direction they will very simply lose money in both the short and long term because people will look at other products instead - as I said at the start of the post, they are not making an effort to turn EA into a relatively pain-free experience for their customers, and that's a massive problem that needs to be addressed. Frankly, I enjoy the Mirage and Farmer and was on the fence on buying the Harrier eventually, and this thread has convinced me not only to hold off on that purchase, but to also not buy any RB modules in the future for a very long time. I'm sure my opinion is shared by many, so once again - by choosing this way of developing modules and handling customers, they are choosing to lose revenue.

 

Please understand that none of us want RB to fail and go the VEAO way, quite the opposite. I believe that if they can deliver on their promises, a few years from now the Falklands theater with all the assets it brings to DCS will be an excellent product (and an excellent money maker for RB). But to be brutally honest, the current direction is going to miss that target by a long shot.

Edited September 8, 2020 by TLTeo

[Al-Azraq]

Correct out of early access as the feature list is considered complete.

 

Outstanding bugs can be reviewed, we will take a look at issues and assist RAZBAM with this.

 

Thanks

 

Bignewy, I hugely respect the work of ED and third parties but man, there are things in the list that are just not there and it is not due to bugs, it is due to not being implemented. There's no defence possible here.

 

A full release should be a milestone, something to celebrate meaning that almost no bugs are remaining and the product is feature complete ready to be enjoyed but nope. Razbam removed the EA label from the Store silently, and this means a lot. Also the statement "EA is not for everyone and you should wait for full release" is not true anymore, as full release is arbitrary and doesn't assure the customer a finished and polished experience. I don't have the Harrier but I suffered the A-8 "release" so I know the pain.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Al-Azraq

[sc_neo]

So the last proper update to the Harrier was on 15th July 2020. I would actually assume that moving a product from EA to release would be a milestone, i.e. a boatload of features and fixes that makes the concerning module pretty bug free and complete. Which features belong in the EA and "maintainance" phase is debatable of course.

 

 

So my question is: what has changed since the 15th of July so that the Harrier is now ready to go from EA to release? Why the change now and not 2 months ago?

 

 

With all the information that is accesbile right now, this looks really like moving the goalposts here. Even more so then when ED moved features up and down for the F/A-18 and introduced that new concept of EA AND then maintainace phase earlier this year.

 

 

I feel for how difficult it must be to balance multiple projects over extended periods of time. But this here seems to me to be in stark contrast to what Razbam's intention was with "no more releases before we finish our existing three modules".

 

 

 

Likely in a couple of weeks the release promo for the F-15 will ramp up and questions about the Mirage and Harrier will be answered with...."they are out of EA, please move on".

[SGT Coyle]

Not to mention the missing, broken key binds that have been reported, reported, and reported, since it's release!!!

 

And please don't feed us that line about complexities of software development. It is tired, old, and just an excuse for not getting the work done. For christs sake, there's an entire thread devoted to work arounds for missing key binds. They work. I would think a manager worth his salt would put an intern on it, and get it done. A "Study Level" sim, costing $70.00 US, should not be released with missing key binds. That's just lazy.

The EHSD Course knob still doesn't have Clockwise and Counter Clockwise key commands despite being reported December 2018 along with a whole host of other encoders. Were talking about rotating a knob that in turn rotates a line on the EHSD. Not ground breaking. It some what works with with mouse, so the delay is perplexing to say the least.

You and others may not like my tone. I don't care! My tone is the result of several years of "I'll talk to the Devs", "We're working on it", and "You don't understand the software business". After years of being shined on by "Community Managers", I'm severely pissed.

[Cornelius]

Again many great suggestions what could go better. People who want take razbam under their wing. Been there, done that. But the outcome of this collective disappointment, will only be calming pills. Remember my words! They have proven several times that this is their way of working and the don't want to change.

 

We’ve had this kind of thing here a few times. One time the bug-“tracker” came out of it, another time the community-“manager”. Big BLAH, BLAH & nothing changed! As soon as things had calmed down again, it went for raZzzzzzbam back into standby-mode. Slowly but steady.

 

Refund is really the only viable solution here. Although. I would prefer to have the Harrier taken away from them and finished by someone else. Both fantasy, but also not more than razbam will ever change.

 

And since R. Zambrano has already told us that DCS is only a by-product for his company, I doubt even that voting with the wallet makes any difference.

 

@Eldur

The exact thing, seriously?

Edited September 8, 2020 by Cornelius

[StandingCow]

Wow... how can the harrier be considered complete with so many features missing? Not to mention the bugs.

 

I am not touching another Razbam module until I hear/see some action from Razbam.

[Sideburns]

I think entering "product sustainment" with at least an acknowledgement of bugs and missing features and a commitment to resolve, perhaps not all but most issues, would have worked better. As it stands "product sustainment" by itself is a kick in the teeth to those of us who have been patient with Razbam and submitted bug reports in good faith. Sets a really bad precedent for the DCS ecosystem as a whole.