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

[=4c=Nikola]

The problem is, there is no time limit for a module to be EA.

 

Harrier have been unfinish for years and now they are working on other aircraft.

 

Can't ED impose a 2 year or so limit for a module to be out of the EA (with all the features working) ?

 

Maybe it's a better idea to limit developer to 2 EA aircraft: Developer is working on 2 aircraft. When one of them reach all goals they've established, the aircraft is released from EA and they unlock that slot for a new one. Of course, internally, they could develop whatever they want, but no contract, no announcement, no advertisement, no forum section, no pre-purchase, no launch unless aircraft is in one of two allowed slots.

 

This would prevent a developer to start new project until current one is finished.

Edited September 10, 2020 by =4c=Nikola

[Fri13]

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.

 

I am sorry, but nothing is on you (unless you are the decision maker when Harrier is out of Early Access).

 

As far I know, You are a sub-contractor for the manual part. You are a key element for campaigns, trainings and manual, but your work is not here under magnification glass or shouldn't be under a spotlight. Why? Because this is not (IMHO) about your schedule to complete your side, but Razbam side to release Harrier before you have completed yours. As if Razbam looks at the Early Access feature list, one of them is the manual. And if Razbam has no manual, then they shouldn't push Harrier out of EA. So if something, they should just wait you to complete your work.

 

But, your work is not here the problem, or it's delayed situation etc. So do not take anything on that. The problem is the coding part of missing other features and bugs that makes Harrier incapable to be flown properly.

 

If everything in Harrier would be ready, completed and bug free etc, and only thing that would be missing is your manual, I wouldn't see a such a problem at all here. Yes, it is a major part that you are producing, but as said it is not limiting factor that player can't get Harrier to fly as you said, there are the tutorials as quick replacement for worst need.

 

I would gladly wait couple months more for a quality manual if it would be about that, but it ain't.

In my eyes you are just a witness to bad situation and not a collateral damage.

[Waxer]

What's the issue with stepping the Harrier back to EA?

 

I imagine that it is to do with money and stage payments. I expect that only a proportion of the money from a module sale immediately gets paid to third party developers. Coming out of "early access" is probably a hurdle for the final stage payment from module sales.

 

So maybe RAZBAM need the AV-8B module to come out of early access to keep the lights on?

 

And besides, if they are already out of early access then they might also have gotten their full payment / full share from module sales. Therefore they are off the hook. Their further incentive to complete development and swash bugs is therefore based on the impact on reputation and the willingness of customers to purchase modules developed by them in the future.

[MBot]

But tell me personally why the Harrier is useless to you, what makes it unplayable. I am not being a smart ass, or joking, I am totally serious. And anyone else is welcome to do this. What makes the Harrier unplayable or broken to you. Those are the things I want to see addressed first.

 

I am away on vacation right now so will keep it short. My biggest issue with the Harrier is the improper implementation of the ARBS, which should be the very core of the AV-8B's attack system. This should be a system that uses a TV camera to make a contrast lock (like a Maverick) to measure angle rates to calculate slant range for ballistic calculations. RAZBAM's ARBS seems to use TGP-code, can be slewed on any point on the ground with target elevation and slant range being provided instantly by game-magic. ARBS as a system is basically not simulated, instead it is faked with shortcuts.

 

I bought the Mirage 2000 and the AV-8B but skipped the MiG-19, even though I was very interested in the Farmer, because it was a RAZBAM module. I will certainly not buy RAZBAM's Strike Eagle because I have no confidence that they are able to model such a complex aircraft. I think it is a pity that such a high-profile aircraft is subcontracted to such a low-profile developer.

[SGT Coyle]

I imagine that it is to do with money and stage payments.

 

 

Well only ED and Razbam know the answer. If they want to let the community ponder and voice speculative theory, that's their choice. I'd rather hear from the horses mouth.

[=36=Witcher]

Ccà nisciuno è fesso.

 

I doubt anyone beside me and other fellow Italian simmers will ever get this quote

[=36=Witcher]

Maybe it's a better idea to limit developer to 2 EA aircraft: Developer is working on 2 aircraft. When one of them reach all goals they've established, the aircraft is released from EA and they unlock that slot for a new one. Of course, internally, they could develop whatever they want, but no contract, no announcement, no advertisement, no forum section, no pre-purchase, no launch unless aircraft is in one of two allowed slots.

 

This would prevent a developer to start new project until current one is finished.

TBH, I would lower that limit to 1 module, unless you have multiple teams (at least one 3D modeler, 1 coder and 1 QA engineer that must be 100% committed to that and only that module).

[SGT Coyle]

I doubt anyone beside me and other fellow Italian simmers will ever get this quote

 

 

Ha

 

So right my frie:thumbup:nd.

[Baco]

I dont think EA has anything to do with payments, otherwise no 3rd party would commit.

 

I believe whatever money comes in is given to parts in the acorded percentage.

 

Byt the way they can´t manage a single seat somewhat advanced attack fighter with no radar and the pretend to do an F-15E? I have been saying it since day 1. Non of Razbams teams can pull off an F-15E specially NOT in a one year or two time frame...

 

That is why I onlly trust Over Stratos and His team, I really have no mayor issues with the mig 19 even thow the programer seems to have other priorities.... I hope The head of Razbam recognizes his effort and perseverance and grants more resources to the Mig 23...

 

In my eyes the 15 is a compelat waste of time...

Edited September 10, 2020 by Baco

[Harlikwin]

I am away on vacation right now so will keep it short. My biggest issue with the Harrier is the improper implementation of the ARBS, which should be the very core of the AV-8B's attack system. This should be a system that uses a TV camera to make a contrast lock (like a Maverick) to measure angle rates to calculate slant range for ballistic calculations. RAZBAM's ARBS seems to use TGP-code, can be slewed on any point on the ground with target elevation and slant range being provided instantly by game-magic. ARBS as a system is basically not simulated, instead it is faked with shortcuts.

 

@nineline

 

I think there have been multiple people in this thread all pointing out the issues with the lack of ARBS/MC modeling in the harrier. Given that this "THE" core part of the weapon system I think this is one of the key things for Raz to fix and we all look for some reply on this point.

[Harlikwin]

I dont think EA has anything to do with payments, otherwise no 3rd party would commit.

 

I believe whatever money comes in is given to parts in the acorded percentage.

 

Byt the way they can´t manage a single seat somewhat advanced attack fighter with no radar and the pretend to do an F-15E? I have been saying it since day 1. Non of Razbams teams can pull off an F-15E specially NOT in a one year or two time frame...

 

That is why I onlly trust Over Stratos and His team, I really have no mayor issues with the mig 19 even thow the programer seems to have other priorities.... I hope The head of Razbam recognizes his effort and perseverance and grants more resources to the Mig 23...

 

In my eyes the 15 is a compelat waste of time...

 

I totally agree with this. I really hope they dump whatever resources they have into the 23 code, and even then the FM for a variable geometry fighter will likely be challenging as will the wacky russian radar and datalink systems. But I do think its within their capabilities to do it as those systems are present in various ways on the mirage.

[dorianR666]

Their further incentive to complete development and swash bugs is therefore based on the impact on reputation and the willingness of customers to purchase modules developed by them in the future.

...so its a pyramid scheme then.

great.

[Waxer]

...so its a pyramid scheme then.

great.

 

Such a description has been levelled previously. Did you listen to the recent Growling Sidewinder, Nick Grey interview?

 

Let's put it this way... The Mig-19, M-2000C and AV-8B are all fundamentally decent modules. I have them all and enjoy them all. And they are usable. But the Harrier - in particular - is quite complex and has numerous bugs and quirks. In addition it is flat out missing core features. And I agree with the earlier comment that the ARBS is so fundamental to the AV-8B that fixing the remaining issues with this should be a high priority. I don't intend to buy another RAZBAM product until that is sorted.

 

Heatblur (Leatherneck), by contrast. Anything they put out is a day one purchase for me at full price. I don't even have to think about it.

[bkthunder]

And here we are, fellow Mirage pilots with a 5 years old module and still waiting for its completion. Be reassured, once the fourth year mark behind you, you won't react anymore and just wait for the module being feature complete.

 

Keep faith and vote with your wallets my friends !

 

You didn't get the point: it is out of early access. Yay! :megalol:

[Fri13]

But tell me personally why the Harrier is useless to you, what makes it unplayable. I am not being a smart ass, or joking, I am totally serious. And anyone else is welcome to do this. What makes the Harrier unplayable or broken to you. Those are the things I want to see addressed first.

 

ARBS...

 

I can take-off, fly and land in all forms, but I can't really do conventional combat like drop Mk.82 bombs on target, fire rockets accurately, use TPOD for observations or searching.... Then are problems with 14-bit mini-stick sensor slew "stickiness" that doesn't exist with a 8-bit hat (likely a DCS problem) as CH Throttle hat is not problematic but MCG hat is.

 

Those are my main problems. There are long lists reported in this thread as well all over places, but the Harrier stays down as long as its sensor suite - THE sensor system, is broken. It is not nice that after overfly a DMT points suddenly miles away to some other location. DMT and TPOD designates itself randomly on some locations when undesignating target or slewing around. That system thinks there is over 500 seconds time to target when it is 2 miles or you even fly over the target, so you can't get launch authorization. The rocket popper points somewhere completely else than impact points, with or without DMT lock, and perfectly flat terrain.

 

I don't anymore even try to do Night Attacks because systems do not work even in daytime.

All these has been reported to Razbam, without replies and just ignored.

 

I like Harrier more than Hornet or Falcon, and it is just frustrating when it is so badly broken that it can not do combat.....

I can reinstall DCS as many times I want, on any number of computers and same problems existed.

 

All I want is that Razbam fixes the problems. If it requires rewriting everything in the ARBS/DMT/TPOD then so be it.

[amalahama]

I have the feeling it's just too much for them to chew. Harrier is too complex, and they lack the knowledge and the willingness to learn. That's the thing, there is no passion on the Harrier, just a money-maker machine because it's such an iconic aircraft that they knew it was going to be an instabuy for many.

 

And story repeats with the mudhen...

[bkthunder]

I've said it multiple times: shame on ED for wasting the F-15E on such a low quality 3rd party as Razbam. These iconic aircraft (including the Harrier) should be done by someone who has a track record of being able to make them. i.e. ED themselves or Heatblur.

[NineLine]

OK,

 

I'm tired too.

What's the issue with stepping the Harrier back to EA? I know it was posted, that that was not going to happen (paraphrasing), but I'm just curious to know what the barrier is?

 

I think the best thing to do at this time is to wait for RAZBAMs statement on this and go from there.

[NineLine]

I've said it multiple times: shame on ED for wasting the F-15E on such a low quality 3rd party as Razbam. These iconic aircraft (including the Harrier) should be done by someone who has a track record of being able to make them. i.e. ED themselves or Heatblur.

 

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.

[NineLine]

Thanks, this is the type of feedback that helps get the answers you guys are looking for, I am redirecting these all to RAZBAM.

 

ARBS...

 

I can take-off, fly and land in all forms, but I can't really do conventional combat like drop Mk.82 bombs on target, fire rockets accurately, use TPOD for observations or searching.... Then are problems with 14-bit mini-stick sensor slew "stickiness" that doesn't exist with a 8-bit hat (likely a DCS problem) as CH Throttle hat is not problematic but MCG hat is.

 

Those are my main problems. There are long lists reported in this thread as well all over places, but the Harrier stays down as long as its sensor suite - THE sensor system, is broken. It is not nice that after overfly a DMT points suddenly miles away to some other location. DMT and TPOD designates itself randomly on some locations when undesignating target or slewing around. That system thinks there is over 500 seconds time to target when it is 2 miles or you even fly over the target, so you can't get launch authorization. The rocket popper points somewhere completely else than impact points, with or without DMT lock, and perfectly flat terrain.

 

I don't anymore even try to do Night Attacks because systems do not work even in daytime.

All these has been reported to Razbam, without replies and just ignored.

 

I like Harrier more than Hornet or Falcon, and it is just frustrating when it is so badly broken that it can not do combat.....

I can reinstall DCS as many times I want, on any number of computers and same problems existed.

 

All I want is that Razbam fixes the problems. If it requires rewriting everything in the ARBS/DMT/TPOD then so be it.

[mobua]

Just had to chime in.

 

To me this is clear as day that history is repeating itself. Much of the the complaints I see in regards to the Harrier and the (mal)practices of Razbam was brought to light by the M-2000C community prior to this (IIRC already 2 years ago).

 

To be honest I believe that at some point ED should really begin to consider their partnerships beyond the short term monetary gains, moving from a tactical to strategic perspective. Is this really a partner will contribute to the long term success of the ED/Fighter Collection brand? When ED is having to direct man hours to manage 3rd party PR issues (that have a negative spill-over effect staining the core product) I believe its time to part way.

 

I made the decision two years ago to not invest any more funds towards Razbams offerings hoping I was not of a niche opinion and that the problem would "self regulate"; i.e. Razbam not being a factor moving forward.

 

I stand by that choice and I'm content with not being personally invested in this latest debacle with the Harrier. I am however viewing this from the viewpoint of a ED supporter hoping that the time has come for this to be sorted out. Any decision made in this matter should ideally produce clearer guidlines for future partnerships towards 3rd parties.

 

I believ thats about my two cents worth of thoughts and ramblings..

 

Sincerely...

mobua

[mr_mojo97]

I doubt any party would want to walk away. After what happened to VEAO and the Hawk, EDs policy now is if a 3rd party dissolves/ leaves DCS then the aircraft/ code would have to be bought or given to ED. At least that’s the way I understood it

[marcoscosta]

I think the best thing to do at this time is to wait for RAZBAMs statement on this and go from there.

 

 

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

[Raven434th]

If I'm not mistaken, the hawk situation made things pretty simple in that it's the responsibility of ED as well as third-party as partners ,that ensure quality control. If that is not the case anymore then it's pretty obvious to me what the solution is....don't buy anymore modules...period.

[arturojgt]

Two words, ECM OFFSET?