AV-8B Status

[Prowler111]

Dear customers:

There has been quite a controversy about the DCS: AV-8B Harrier II Night Attack module being moved from Early Access (EA) to Released and pretty much all of it is based on the false presumption that it means the module as being “a done deal” hence no more work or bug support/fixes will continue.

 

As stated before, it is a false idea. Being out of EA means that the module reached a production milestone and it’s that it is feature complete as what has been promised in the product description page, it’s a process that comes in 2 ways, us as a 3rd party content developer company and ED as the main owner of where such content will be used. It’s a studied decision from both parties that also involves a high degree of confidence from ED towards (in this particular case) us that we will continue support, bug fixing and adding features even those not mentioned in the description page. One clear example is the M-2000C module which has been out of EA for quite some time and it still gets bug fixes, enhancements and a complete rework of systems in a regular basis, even the 3d work was overhauled and a new 3d pilot for VR users was included in due time, and there is a big reason behind all this besides loyalty to our customers, and it’s DCS constant evolution.

 

When the AV-8B was released on its EA format, many features and functionalities were not seen yet in DCS, no corners were cut, but a lot of clever coding was made in order to replicate the systems that we were allowed to do so without stepping into very sensitive toes, a lot of new ideas of code implementation was created and many were enhancements. As time passed by, DCS evolved again into a more systems implementation friendly platform( as you can see in the complex system of the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-16 Viper) and new way of adding code appeared, but we kept dragging our “old school” code until it was time to move forward into the new way of do things. For instance, when the AV-8B was released, Track IR was still the mandatory peripheral of choice for immersion, and VR setups was something new and not so popular (and affordable) as it is currently, not to mention lens resolution. But today, everything is different, and VR is here to stay as new setups are being offered, and the lens resolution keeps getting better and better. So, a decision was made, it’s time to rewrite the entire AV-8B code so it can perdure (in this regard, the M-2000C current code is newer than the AV-8B current code) and at the same time, go hand in hand with the new peripheral technologies available to the users, using the new tech that ED developed for their own (and very complex)new modules. So the 1st place to start, being the AV-8B a glass cockpit aircraft, is the MPCD’s and HUD, it was decided to move from old school texture map (DDS/TGA) screens into SVG.

 

What is SVG and how it relates to DCS?

SVG stands for Scalable Vector Graphics. It is an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) based vector graphic format for the Web. In practice SVG files are nothing more than text files that describe lines, curves, shapes, colors and text. Traditionally 2D displays in DCS, like the HUD or the MFDs, are created using image formats like dds or tga, which are used as texture files. What a developer does is tell DCS to place a region of the texture file in the display.

Everything in a DCS display is drawn using these texture files, from the fonts to the lines and symbols.

 

There are two drawbacks to this method:

1. Resolution: The larger the file the better the resolution, but at the expense of system (computer) memory. Resolution is also affected by the level of graphics details selected.

2. Performance: The higher the number of displays in the cockpit more memory is required. Specially if the displays are crowded like a moving map with interactive zones.

 

ED created a new way to draw displays using the SVG format, which is used in both the F-18 and F-16. The main advantage is that SVG graphics do not require as much memory as a corresponding texture file. Second, it is infinitely scalable. This means that unlike a texture file that when you zoom into it, sooner or later you will notice individual pixels, the SVG graphic will remain the same at all levels of zoom. For DCS this means that the HUD and MFDs are readable in different conditions, especially when using VR.

 

The only downside is that SVG graphics require some preprocessing before it is drawn, but nevertheless the use of memory is much lower than the one used by a texture file. The use of SVG technology in drawing a DCS display requires an entire rewrite of the Display code, because now we must take care of certain properties like scale, stroke width, etc. and of course the required preprocessing step. But once the job is finished the end result is crystal clear displays no matter the screen or VR resolution. It also meant that all what he have done up to the date, will have to be redone from the ground up to go hand by hand with the new code being written for this change. We were aware of some bugs being reported and perhaps the lack of information with the community led to the false idea that all this was neglected, but it was also supposed to be a surprise.

 

For us being out of EA and into release meant out with the old and on with the new, but since in many cases the customer have the reason, I decided to push back everything and include all the fixes in old code lines and then we’ll move with the new stuff, this also means the new code and SVG will take longer to arrive to your simulator, since we have to do double work. In the coming weeks you’ll see a flow of bug fixes in each changelog, I can’t put an estimate on when we’ll get the new code lines and SVG ready, but is our hope to get things moving in this regard shortly.

 

Here is a list of current bug fix/enhancements that will be available in the coming DCS updates (some are already available):

 

AV-8B Ready for Release This Week (Expected Patch 9/16):

- Added vertical tail damage parts and fragments

- Added INS course set keybinds

- Added DMT now slaved to AIM-9 seeker

- Fixed erratic control functionality with altimeter adjustments

- Fixed erratic control functionality with CRS knob adjustments

- Fixed Comm channel selector not sequencing correctly

- Fixed TPOD still in power-up mode when starting initial conditions to in-air or engines on

- Fixed HUD reject logic behavior inverted

- Fixed AGM-122 Sidearm seeker not aligning with RWR source signal

- Fixed AIM-9 Sidewinder incorrectly firing when cycling from AG to AA then back to AG

- Fixed damage model issue where parts would not fragment off

- Fixed damage model issue where weapons would sometimes remain on destroyed wings

 

AV-8B Pending Updates:

- Added ADI cage toggle keybind

- Added ADI pitch adjust keybinds

- Added GBU-32 JDAM

- Added GBU-54 Laser JDAM

- Fixed removed incorrect HUD limitations for AGM-122 Sidearm ready-for-release

- Fixed rudder trim in-cockpit switch not operating

- Fixed rudder trim indication in cockpit and in controls indicator

- Fixed SSS Left should now sequentially cycle between EHSD centered, EHSD decentered, and ECM pages

- Fixed ECM page not returning to the original MPCD format

- Fixed missing seat height adjustment control. Seat model animation work-in-progress

- Fixed EHSD course over ground incorrect in Mag heading mode

- Fixed EHSD decenter display overlay getting mis-placed

- Fixed default rocket range profile values inverted

- Fixed EHSD moving map on MPCD too bright

- Fixed Left MPCD brightness control not operating correctly

- Fixed Right MPCD brightness control not operating correctly

- Fixed EHSD resulting in symbology misplaced when zoom set to AUTO

- Fixed RWR still partially functioning when turned off

- Fixed RWR minimum volume too loud

- Fixed missing RWR power/volume knob adjustment increments

- Fixed pull-up cue not occurring when selected

- Fixed dual rack bombs not releasing in the correct order

- Fixed top-right rocker switch on left MPCD bleeding into bezel

- Fixed scaling of HUD repeater on MPCD to be correct size

- Fixed font for EHSD to be correct size

- Fixed engine efficiency table error at extremely high altitudes that was resulting in higher than expected thrust loss

- Fixed SAAHS paddle disable incorrectly resetting stick trim position and not resetting rudder trim and will now correctly restore rudder trim when released

- Fixed Speedbrake logic based on SME information to extend as long as OUT is pressed and will fully retract when IN is pressed (Allows for partial extension but will always fully retract)

- Fixed aircraft diverting in some cases prior to maneuvering tone envelope

- Fixed infinite coefficient values in some conditions of large body angular rates (out of control)

- Modified structural load damage to no longer be instantaneous, now require sustained over-tolerance for structural (wing) failure

- Modified TPOD axis dead-zone to be slightly reduced

 

I also included some pics of the new VR pilot body, which is a very much work in progress.

Hope that this covers most of your questions regarding the current and future state of our AV-8B module.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by CptSmiley

[Looney]

Thank you for this information. Good luck with the rewrite of the code and looking forward to future updates!

[Beirut]

Well I for one love my Harrier.

[Mr_sukebe]

Well I for one love my Harrier.

 

+1

Bought day one, and one of my most flown aircraft.

Very much looking forward to the additional planned improvements

[viper2097]

Being out of EA means that the module reached a production milestone and it’s that it is feature complete as what has been promised in the product description page

 

I'm happy to see that there is now an offical statement from Razbam, although I must note that you know that this quoted part is not the truth.

According to the store page and also this thread, there are many features still missing. Especially in the core system and their way they work, like the ARBS, Markpoints, delivery modes, HOTAS functionality, UFC functions etc...

 

How is it planned to go on with that systems?

Edited September 14, 2020 by viper2097

[FoxOne007]

Thanks for the statement Ron! Looking forward to future fixed and improvements to systems

[FoxOne007]

I'm happy to see that there is now an offical statement from Razbam, although I must note that you know that this quoted part is not the truth.

According to the store page and also this thread, there are many features still missing. Especially in the core system and their way they work, like the ARBS, Markpoints, delivery modes, HOTAS functionality, UFC functions etc...

 

How is it planned to go on with that systems?

 

You’re wrong though, these things are in the module albeit bare bones and in need of improvements. Don’t act like you know everything better than a dev....

Edited September 14, 2020 by FoxOne007

[shagrat]

You’re wrong though, these things are in the module albeit bare bones and in need of improvements. Don’t act like you know everything better than a dev....

Though I would use other words to address this, there are some features that are not implemented, yet. We may argue if they are "rudimentary" or "non existent", but for me the AUTO-Loft computation mode is missing, not "rudimentary implemented", same for MGRS coordinates, which I would not see as a part of L/L coordinates... anyway I am aware Razbam already did a lot of updates and fixes in the past. I just have to wonder, why nobody ever thought about telling us, they are shooting for a complete code rewrite and try to get a big overhaul done? That's great news. I mean this did not hurt anyone, just be open about these obstacles and pushbacks. The silence only gives room for wild speculation, suspicion and negativity.

You can't please everyone, but we can try to understand the reasons behind the delays...

[shagrat]

...and thanks for the info Ron, so much more helpful to understand what's happening and why.

[Marsvinet]

Well, thank you for some insight, it has been sorely needed. Just took a little bit too long, and that's not counting from last week.

 

A complete rewrite of the Harriers internals? As long as it includes bringing the major systems up to a realistic standard, I'm game for waiting for it.

[StevanJ]

Will this module be fully controllable with the Touch controllers like the F/A-18?

Will i be able to grab the throttle and stick with my 'VR hands'?

[ThorBrasil]

Thank you! I'm happy with your note. I ask that you do not forget to release the new sound for Mirage 2000. Thank you!

[ChickenSim]

Prowler,

 

This is a good step in the right direction as far as transparency goes, but it's not addressing the core causes for concern here, which I personally view as honest communication and managing buyer/owner expectations.

 

Being out of EA means that the module reached a production milestone and it’s that it is feature complete as what has been promised in the product description page' date='[/u']

 

You have yet to address what it is you mean by "feature complete." As one example, your product description page includes "highly realistic modeling of the aircraft systems including [...] - Environmental Control System (ECS)", a system that it's my understanding isn't modeled at all. My point is not that a detailed simulation of the ECS is a necessary feature of a DCS product. My point is that your statement that all your features are "complete" either isn't true or we have different definitions for (which ought to be made clear).

 

When the AV-8B was released on its EA format' date=' many features and functionalities were not seen yet in DCS, no corners were cut, but a lot of clever coding was made in order to [u']replicate the systems that we were allowed to do so without stepping into very sensitive toes

 

This is another area that needs to be clear to customers. I'll reiterate, a fully functional ARBS/DMT, fully functional CCIP/AUTO modes, a fully functional HUD, and fully functional coordinate input system (MGRS/GRID) do not stick out to me as falling under this umbrella of systems that you aren't "allowed to" model. This is, again, being used as an unverifiable excuse to be unclear about the level of systems fidelity we should expect and from which systems.

 

This is literally the point I was making in the message I sent on your discord, in which I was banned without a word as to why (sorry, "parted ways") for trying to bring to light this very issue in a constructive manner (sorry, "for disagreements"). We're now full circle.

 

These are the "bare facts about bugs and missing features" that a lot of us have tried, and apparently still failed, to get through to you. There isn't a narrative here to push about you "saying this and acting that way" beyond what I decided to come clean about after you thought dragging my name through the mud was a good idea (and I hope people note that he's not denying it, simply calling it out of context).

 

We aren't really asking for a page of deflections about the details of DDS and SVG or of reiterated bug reports. We're asking for a statement on the issues I just described if you're trying to repair the bad blood it's easy to dismiss as "toxicity."

 

Nineline/BIGNEWY, I know you both are sensitive to these issues too, and were receptive to clearing these things up in the previous thread that got closed. I don't think we've had that level of resolution yet, and it would be useful to know if we're going to get it.

Edited September 14, 2020 by ChickenSim

[SGT Coyle]

That's great news. I mean this did not hurt anyone, just be open about these obstacles and pushbacks. The silence only gives room for wild speculation, suspicion and negativity.

You can't please everyone, but we can try to understand the reasons behind the delays...

 

 

I would add "Resentment," but otherwise agree wholeheartedly.

 

 

I accept your explanation of events and reasons for what has been done/needs to be done, but that acceptance comes at a price. I expected, and do expect to see a more detailed road map and better communication of circumstances/events/set backs (good and bad).

 

Had you stayed present on these forums with sort of material instead of teasers for future projects, I think we would be in a better place.

 

 

I look forward to seeing you and Larry on these forums on a regular basis. If you have any questions for me about my concerns or past posts, feel free to PM on these forums.

 

 

 

Good Hunting

[Fri13]

Being out of EA means that the module reached a production milestone and it’s that it is feature complete as what has been promised in the product description page

 

And that right there is again the core of the problem.

Not like to repeat things that were already explained by many others in the long thread, but calling "We are in the goal" when you are half-way there, is not respectful toward anyone.

 

It is nice that we are now receiving a official list of next coming changes and fixes in the upcoming patch, but we could as well drop the blaming the community.

 

Again, if wanted to improve things, it is very easy.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4483669&postcount=437

 

1) Place Harrier back to EA until all of its listed features are implemented.

2) Start posting everything first in this forum, all the intentions of the updates, all the progress made (for each of the modules to their corresponding forums) and what is the status.

3) Keep updating the status thread (closed, just for you to announce and update things) periodically.

4) Tone down the rate of teasing of new modules, 3D models and all that are not related to the three modules you promised to get completed in 2020 (you are given more time if you so need with good understandable reasons).

 

It really is very easy and simple thing. If there are setbacks then so be it, tell about it and the customers will understand. If there are breakthroughs, successful advancements etc, even better as you get just positive information to the customers.

 

Customers love when their purchased product gets fixes, when they get features that were missing and all, but they love even more than that when the communication is honest and fair and all the drawbacks are as well reported. And primarily here. No one will get bad feelings if you are using other channels for communications as well, but that customers do not appreciate that they do not find the information in this forum.

 

How to do a good progress report?

 

1) Open a notepad

2) Type with a dash for each point you want to inform.

3) Create a new thread / post in this forum and paste that content there.

4) Do it at least weekly or add when possible.

 

More often you do it, less you need to write down. Keeping notepad open and spend every day a minute or two to write down the few lines is a lot and major part of the customer will value it when they see progress is being made.

Everyone who has gone to military should have already learn the basics about how to do reports. It is not really difficult. It is just making a to-do list of what was done on the day/week and what are the goals for next day/week.

No need to make tiny detail ones like what bugs exactly fixed than in Open Beta patch notes, otherwise just keep the general progress updated. It is good enough to have "Still working with solution to this major feature".

 

And even importantly in the Public Relations, do not blame at all the customers. Do not talk about "that place is toxic" or anything like that. Just breath in, concentrate for the topic and leave out all the blaming and shifting and everything. RAZBAM is a company, not a person. And if a person doing job with the community gets heated, he has possibility to first calmly remind everyone about the rules, and if that doesn't help then report the posts to the forum moderator that's job is to deal with that.

Everyone who has been in military knows that blame rolls downwards, and if someone does a mistake at high, it will come down rolling and it is not a place to start pointing fingers whos fault was what and where it happened, it is sucked up, admitted by everyone, learned and continued so it doesn't happen again.

That is job of the leadership, to show the way how to work, not to behave badly.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Fri13

[Mizzy]

Prowler,

 

This is a good step in the right direction as far as transparency goes, but it's not addressing the core causes for concern here, which I personally view as honest communication and managing buyer/owner expectations.

 

 

 

You have yet to address what it is you mean by "feature complete." As one example, your product description page includes "highly realistic modeling of the aircraft systems including [...] - Environmental Control System (ECS)", a system that it's my understanding isn't modeled at all. My point is not that a detailed simulation of the ECS is a necessary feature of a DCS product. My point is that your statement that all your features are "complete" either isn't true or we have different definitions for (which ought to be made clear).

 

 

 

This is another area that needs to be clear to customers. I'll reiterate, a fully functional ARBS/DMT, fully functional CCIP/AUTO modes, a fully functional HUD, and fully functional coordinate input system (MGRS/GRID) do not stick out to me as falling under this umbrella of systems that you aren't "allowed to" model. This is, again, being used as an unverifiable excuse to be unclear about the level of systems fidelity we should expect and from which systems.

 

This is literally the point I was making in the message I sent on your discord, in which I was banned without a word as to why (sorry, "parted ways") for trying to bring to light this very issue in a constructive manner (sorry, "for disagreements"). We're now full circle.

 

These are the "bare facts about bugs and missing features" that a lot of us have tried, and apparently still failed, to get through to you. There isn't a narrative here to push about you "saying this and acting that way" beyond what I decided to come clean about after you thought dragging my name through the mud was a good idea (and I hope people note that he's not denying it, simply calling it out of context).

 

We aren't really asking for a page of deflections about the details of DDS and SVG or of reiterated bug reports. We're asking for a statement on the issues I just described if you're trying to repair the bad blood it's easy to dismiss as "toxicity."

 

Nineline/BIGNEWY, I know you both are sensitive to these issues too, and were receptive to clearing these things up in the previous thread that got closed. I don't think we've had that level of resolution yet, and it would be useful to know if we're going to get it.

 

Any other demands while you are there :rolleyes:

[bell_rj]

pretty much all of it is based on the false presumption that it means the module as being “a done deal” hence no more work or bug support/fixes will continue

This is absolutely and demonstrably untrue. If you really think this I suggest that you go back and read the posts here. I'll state the obvious for completeness, but the overriding concern was actually at the module coming out of EA and the definition of 'feature complete' - not that work wouldn't continue.
Edited September 14, 2020 by bell_rj

[SGT Coyle]

I forgot to say thank you for the status report.

[CallsignFrosty]

Originally Posted by ChickenSim View Post

Prowler,

 

This is a good step in the right direction as far as transparency goes, but it's not addressing the core causes for concern here, which I personally view as honest communication and managing buyer/owner expectations.

 

 

 

You have yet to address what it is you mean by "feature complete." As one example, your product description page includes "highly realistic modeling of the aircraft systems including [...] - Environmental Control System (ECS)", a system that it's my understanding isn't modeled at all. My point is not that a detailed simulation of the ECS is a necessary feature of a DCS product. My point is that your statement that all your features are "complete" either isn't true or we have different definitions for (which ought to be made clear).

 

 

 

This is another area that needs to be clear to customers. I'll reiterate, a fully functional ARBS/DMT, fully functional CCIP/AUTO modes, a fully functional HUD, and fully functional coordinate input system (MGRS/GRID) do not stick out to me as falling under this umbrella of systems that you aren't "allowed to" model. This is, again, being used as an unverifiable excuse to be unclear about the level of systems fidelity we should expect and from which systems.

 

This is literally the point I was making in the message I sent on your discord, in which I was banned without a word as to why (sorry, "parted ways") for trying to bring to light this very issue in a constructive manner (sorry, "for disagreements"). We're now full circle.

 

These are the "bare facts about bugs and missing features" that a lot of us have tried, and apparently still failed, to get through to you. There isn't a narrative here to push about you "saying this and acting that way" beyond what I decided to come clean about after you thought dragging my name through the mud was a good idea (and I hope people note that he's not denying it, simply calling it out of context).

 

We aren't really asking for a page of deflections about the details of DDS and SVG or of reiterated bug reports. We're asking for a statement on the issues I just described if you're trying to repair the bad blood it's easy to dismiss as "toxicity."

 

Nineline/BIGNEWY, I know you both are sensitive to these issues too, and were receptive to clearing these things up in the previous thread that got closed. I don't think we've had that level of resolution yet, and it would be useful to know if we're going to get it.

 

Very good post there ChickenSim, I agree wholeheartedly.

This should be my favourite module as it is one of my favourite aircraft - but until there is an actual simulation of the DMT and ARBS system, it will be considered unfinished in my mind.

Promises on the actual store page are not completed - the ARBS simulation is non-existant and instead relies on Flaming Cliffs style magical ground lock.

[Cornelius]

A wall of text, which is missing the point and not adressing the main points of criticism. Period.

[NineLine]

You’re wrong though, these things are in the module albeit bare bones and in need of improvements. Don’t act like you know everything better than a dev....

 

Let's try and be better in this thread guys, on both sides, let's be nice to each other, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing. Thanks.

[Terrorban]

Thank you for some clarity and presenting us with insight on what you are working on.

 

I will wait and see how much Harrier progresses until the approaching F-15E EA release. Any purchase on your future modules will depend on how you handle this plane towards completion.

 

I understand your reasons and I hope you understand my restraints. I look forward to flying this jet again once more work has been done on it.

[NineLine]

A wall of text, which is missing the point and not adressing the main points of criticism. Period.

 

He is making an effort to reach out to you now, be it late, or whatever, the point is, try to be nice and respectful, if you have concerns, ask them in a constructive manner, if you are not going to try and open a decent dialogue, then there is no use commenting here.

[key_stroked]

Does Razbam not consider it important to actually say the word "sorry" for their mishandling of the situation? And by the way, the majority of us didn't think the module wouldn't be worked on anymore. If Razbam had even read the other giant thread, they would see the main theme is "it's missing features".

 

Razbam, you guys are really bad at communication, which I think is the root of all the problems. Failing to even address that means this will all probably happen again, maybe with the Harrier or most likely with your next major module, the Mudhen.

[Harlikwin]

Let's try and be better in this thread guys, on both sides, let's be nice to each other, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing. Thanks.

 

I agree everyone should be better, but the post is rather political in the sense it talks about alot of things that no one asked about but nothing about the key things that people have been asking about. I.e. no one ever asked about SVG. Its cool, but literally no one asked about that.

 

Respectfully I want an answer on this, and I am far from the only one asking about this.

 

What is razbams plan to build: a fully functional ARBS/DMT, fully functional CCIP/AUTO modes, to include the toss bombing functionality as well as moving target and wind compensation?

 

None of this should fall under some "secret" system, the ARBS was literally patented in 1970. It is not "secret" technology. And should be modeled with all its limitations/problems to a high level.

 

1970 1.16 compliant.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3699310A/en

 

Of note:

The angle 8 will be positive since one needs to fly above the target (and tracked point) to measure an an

gular rate, which is required for correct release lead angle. The value of 6 to the target will be fairly small

since the pilot must be able to see the target over the aircraft nose. The value of 0 to the tracked point must

be within the tracker gimbal limits at all times, and thus will probably be limited to somewhere between 45° and

60', depending on the design of the trackers.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Harlikwin