AV-8B Status

[The_Dan]

[...] let's be positive about the statement and look into a bright future anyway

You should have used Pinky Pie here as it fits with the positive statement. But you didn't use it in this whole long post so i have to assume you don't like my favourite pony? :mad:

 

But yes, we should now be a bit more positive. Maybe RAZBAM can come back to post at least stuff related to their Modules that are in DCS more rgularly.

Edited September 14, 2020 by The_Dan

[Mizzy]

I was on the team was not mad at all with Harrier, but Decoy approach is getting me furious. He think we all need to thanks every single bit of attention of Razbam. And criticism and complain is just toxic and wrong.

 

I really don't care anymore with Harrier, Mirage and so on...

 

So you were not mad at all with the Harrier, but now you really don't care anymore with the Harrier ? It's statements like this that must infuriate people that develop software. Let me make it simple for you, are you not mad or are you mad with the Harrier ? Please try to leave out individuals when deciding, we are talking about software not human beings and their character !

 

Mizzy

[NineLine]

I am asking right now, I will try and get you an answer, I see you asked it on their Discord as well. so I will reply when I hear anything.

 

I talked to Ron about it, and he has a lot to say on it, but I asked him to post something we can sticky and discuss and figure out if there is a disconnect, or misunderstandings, or what needs to be addressed still. He is a busy boy so I hope to see it sooner than later, but a more complete write up on this is better than a quick one, I hope we can all agree. Thanks!

[marcoscosta]

So you were not mad at all with the Harrier, but now you really don't care anymore with the Harrier ? It's statements like this that must infuriate people that develop software. Let me make it simple for you, are you not mad or are you mad with the Harrier ? Please try to leave out individuals when deciding, we are talking about software not human beings and their character !

 

Mizzy

 

Im not mad at all with Harrier, tried calm things in the another thread more than once just because I think was not good for anyone throw RB under the bus, sure I was caring about a module what I pay 40% of minimum wage in my country, but now I don't care, If Razbam fix the problems, good, if not, so be it... The way of how Decoy talks with comunity, and the fact of Prowler made just a initial post and gone show how Razbam thinks about the customers

[Fri13]

I am asking right now, I will try and get you an answer, I see you asked it on their Discord as well. so I will reply when I hear anything.

 

I will be waiting that reply with interest as well.

[=4c=Nikola]

Well, that's a very nice insight, but please, in future just use @Fri13 post as a template. It contains everything you need, and he gave you that for free.

 

Imo, you need more insight posts like that to get people in loop and exited. So, no teasing 3d models that will be released in 5 years, but exciting features you're working on that will be available in next six months.

 

I'm waiting for ARBS clarification as well.

Edited September 14, 2020 by =4c=Nikola

[Fri13]

Maybe @nineline can get an answer on the whole ARBS/DMT thing that people have been asking about ad nauseum, that Razbam has been very specifically ignoring.

 

I am interested to know more about ED work for the FLIR updates, as I wish to see a proper contrast detection system for core DCS, as it would mean we get all modules with all kind optical targeting systems to behave more realistic way.

 

DMT would require a good contrast to lock-on, otherwise slide slightly around with the altitude data from TAMMAC. Same kind thing with all targeting pods. Shkval would be receiving a major changes to its logic. SAM systems would get as well TV/FLIR channel guidance with proper manner. A-G missiles would become far less effective at ranges. A-A missiles, especially IR ones, would get proper tracking and CM functions etc. Camouflage nets and all camouflage methods for ground units to render FLIR/TV guidances less effective, similar for laser designation.

All kind interesting things would change at once if the DCS API gets such nice features, that are ED dependent. But lets see what Razbam has for us.

[Mizzy]

Im not mad at all with Harrier, tried calm things in the another thread more than once just because I think was not good for anyone throw RB under the bus, sure I was caring about a module what I pay 40% of minimum wage in my country, but now I don't care, If Razbam fix the problems, good, if not, so be it... The way of how Decoy talks with comunity, and the fact of Prowler made just a initial post and gone show how Razbam thinks about the customers

 

Ok, let's just move along. This is an entertainment product for me and I don't really play much anymore, other things to do in my old age. It does seem that there is a little bit of a clique on here all licking up to chickensoup or whatever. More important things in life than some graphics and digits depicting an imaginary aircraft but each to his own.

 

Mizzy

[NineLine]

I am interested to know more about ED work for the FLIR updates, as I wish to see a proper contrast detection system for core DCS, as it would mean we get all modules with all kind optical targeting systems to behave more realistic way.

 

DMT would require a good contrast to lock-on, otherwise slide slightly around with the altitude data from TAMMAC. Same kind thing with all targeting pods. Shkval would be receiving a major changes to its logic. SAM systems would get as well TV/FLIR channel guidance with proper manner. A-G missiles would become far less effective at ranges. A-A missiles, especially IR ones, would get proper tracking and CM functions etc. Camouflage nets and all camouflage methods for ground units to render FLIR/TV guidances less effective, similar for laser designation.

All kind interesting things would change at once if the DCS API gets such nice features, that are ED dependent. But lets see what Razbam has for us.

 

I'll have to ask Kate how close we are to showing that stuff off, I know work is on going with it right now. FLIR that is.

[CoBlue]

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

Not true. See below.

 

Product description page states:

"The subject of this study level simulation is the AV-8B N/A Bu No's 163853 and up which are the latest variant of this very capable AV-8B version."

Not study-level simulation compered to the referred NATOPS. And the missing features.

"Highly realistic modelling of the aircraft systems including electrical, fuel, hydraulics, lighting, engine and navigation that includes:"

Standard not achieved.

"Realistic weapons, sensor, and defensive systems include:"

Standard not achieved.

 

What about this list of wrongly implemented or missing features?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285495

"ARBS: The ARBS/DMT right now seems magic. It automatically know altitude of the target and therefore knows slant range etc. It can snap onto anything, not just contrast, which also ties in to "It knows everything". It functions nothing like it is described in the NATOPS. Right now it appears to be nothing more than a budget TPOD. It is also missing its crosswind compensation and by extension, ability to handle moving targets, which again ties into how it locks onto things. It currently has none of the limitations of the real thing, except the slew limits of the camera. Basically, the ARBS itself is what is missing.

CCIP/AUTO targeting modes: This is in the same vein as the ARBS. The plane magically chooses the targeting mode (CCIP, RCIP, BCIP, GCIP etc.) for you, but what it chooses does not matter because all of them seem to be the same right now, aka the ARBS/plane already knows the exact data of the target. This is probably the same thing as with the ARBS. The modes are there, visually, but they are one and the same right now.

Back up modes: There are back up modes missing for targeting (DSL, DSL(1) and DIR). Simple as that.

Toss bombing mode: There is a sub mode to AUTO which is a toss mode. It is not implemented.

INS drift: This is not as important as the ones above, but since the limitation of GPS has been included into the sim, modelling a scenario without GPS would require drift of the INS to exist. This might not be modelable since data for INS drift probably is classified, but I'm bringing it up anyway.

Summarised list of this thread:

Realistic ARBS

CCIP/AUTO Targeting modes

Back up targeting modes

Toss bombing AUTO mode

(Realistic INS)

(MAVF instead of MAVG. Pet peeve of mine)

Missing keybinds

Correct AWLS

MGRS Coordinate input

NWS button toggles MAV FOV

Many functions missing from EW page

HUD/INS Slew

[Weapons Release Data Page]

Separate brightness/contrast settings for different types of MFD pages

CCIP pipper should occlude velocity vector, designation diamond

Gunpod should not be able to function unless sufficient air pressure is supplied (I can't remember wether it was vstolmech or a pilot who pointed out this out and now I can't find the post)

DMT slave to sidewinder

Full VREST page features

Ground Power panel

EMCON mode

Expendables programming

Expendables auto release

Target point and Mark point data entry

Magnetic variation and its effects

Tarawa promised features

(AGM-65 force correlation and ship mode, this is on ED side if I remember correctly)

[TPOD data such as coordinate display, north arrow etc]

AFC features during jet borne flight

[TOT and connected features]

Fuel dump animation

FLIR Hotspot tracking

Various BITs

Configurable IFF to let SRS/LotATC/etc. interface

Various FM deficiencies: 1 and 2

"The EW Menu page that provides the capability to control map, waypoint, RWR and Radar footprint (radar aircraft only) symbology displayed on the EW page"

LAR button on EHSD to show JDAM LAR.

AGM-122 Primary & Hot mode

Missing Cage/Uncage functionality.

Missing HUD symbology for caged seeker.

Missing symbology when uncaged seeker symbology is HUD limited. Sensitivity should increase when uncaged. "

 

Razbam has not addressed the community's main concerns as per this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=285364

 

Soon 4 years in development & counting.

[NineLine]

Not true. See below.

 

Product description page states:

"The subject of this study level simulation is the AV-8B N/A Bu No's 163853 and up which are the latest variant of this very capable AV-8B version."

Not study-level simulation compered to the referred NATOPS. And the missing features.

"Highly realistic modelling of the aircraft systems including electrical, fuel, hydraulics, lighting, engine and navigation that includes:"

Standard not achieved.

"Realistic weapons, sensor, and defensive systems include:"

Standard not achieved.

 

I'm sorry, but let me step in here for a moment. I do not want this to de-evolve into another thread like the one we already closed. RAZBAM has very much aimed for the items you have bolded. And while they still have some issues to work through, I don't think your post is made in the interest of getting to the point we all want to get to. I have been trying out their training missions over the last few days because it feels odd to be discussing the Harrier without recently flying, and honestly their Training missions for it are incredible detailed.

 

I can also tell you for every module that has graced the storied code of ED, there is always someone that doesn't feel its enough of a sim, or good enough at this aspect or that. But don't mistake RAZBAMs rough around the edges type of comms for lack of passion or desire to make these modules the best they can be.

 

So please don't take shots at them for the sake of doing so, with real questions, real concerns, and real issues, for sure. But this doesn't feel like that. Just taking pot shots makes Scott and my lives a lot hard getting the RAZBAM team to full engage back here. This communication thing is a two way street. Lets make sure we try our best to talk how we expect to be talked to. Thanks.

[MustangSally]

Well said NL!

[viper2097]

RAZBAM has very much aimed for the items you have bolded.

 

Unfortunately not, sorry. Prowler spoke a lot in his post, but said literary nothing. Especially not on the topics that are brought up by the community already on the old threat.

Also there is no kind of communication - its a "you have to swallow what I give to you, be thankfully" situation.

Thats not gonna work - don't wonder when this thread de-rails again...

 

I have been trying out their training missions over the last few days because it feels odd to be discussing the Harrier without recently flying, and honestly their Training missions for it are incredible detailed.

As far as I know those has been done with Chicken and Baltic Dragon. I never did them, but because of that I'm sure they are very good.

Maybe you would like to go on a ride with anyone who is a more experienced Harrier driver for getting a better picture of the current state? I'm sure there are plenty people who would love to.

 

I can also tell you for every module that has graced the storied code of ED, there is always someone that doesn't feel its enough of a sim, or good enough at this aspect or that. But don't mistake RAZBAMs rough around the edges type of comms for lack of passion or desire to make these modules the best they can be.

Yes, this is true. Also as all modules have bugs.

But on other modules, there are one or two things that don't feel good or are bugged.

Multiply this with 100 and you are with the Harrier.

Its not completely unuseable because of two big bugs. Its getting more and more and more furstrating because of the sheer amount of bugs. Everything you touch is bugged, incomplete or working wrong in any kind.

Thats the problem.

And sorry, at least for me it feels that Razbam either don't want to deliver better, or they simply can't.

For everything that is not working, they either say its secret or its because DCS can't do.

So how have Heatblur or Deka been able to do all those things that DCS can't?

 

So please don't take shots at them for the sake of doing so, with real questions, real concerns, and real issues, for sure. But this doesn't feel like that. Just taking pot shots makes Scott and my lives a lot hard getting the RAZBAM team to full engage back here. This communication thing is a two way street. Lets make sure we try our best to talk how we expect to be talked to. Thanks.

Its not your responsibility what they are doing. They can't do nothing, talk about things nobody is intrested and then think everything is fine.

And YES, communication is a two way street. Unfortunately, Razbam denied that until yet - probably the main reason why we are, where we are.

Don't blame the customers when its the responsibility of the Devs.

Edited September 15, 2020 by viper2097

[Cornelius]

Well said Viper!

[Eldur]

You should have used Pinky Pie here as it fits with the positive statement. But you didn't use it in this whole long post so i have to assume you don't like my favourite pony?

 

Well, I didn't "use" Marshmallow and The Background Pony either...

 

I guess, Pinkie would be appropriate when we can celebrate some major additions to the Harrier

 

And since her party cannon, you know, that thing the A-10 is built around, is in maintenance at the moment...

 

I talked to Ron about it, and he has a lot to say on it, but I asked him to post something we can sticky and discuss and figure out if there is a disconnect, or misunderstandings, or what needs to be addressed still. He is a busy boy so I hope to see it sooner than later, but a more complete write up on this is better than a quick one, I hope we can all agree. Thanks!

 

That's what I'm looking forward to.

 

[NineLine]

 

 

As far as I know those has been done with Chicken and Baltic Dragon. I never did them, but because of that I'm sure they are very good.

Maybe you would like to go on a ride with anyone who is a more experienced Harrier driver for getting a better picture of the current state? I'm sure there are plenty people who would love to.

 

 

You should try them its quite the waste if you have not. And I am sorry, the missions don't work without the module. I have talked to Chicken and BD for a long time, long before this drama, both are great knowledgable guys. RAZBAM would be wise to keep these boys happy, they make DCS World a better place.

 

 

Its not your responsibility what they are doing. They can't do nothing, talk about things nobody is intrested and then think everything is fine.

And YES, communication is a two way street. Unfortunately, Razbam denied that until yet - probably the main reason why we are, where we are.

Don't blame the customers when its the responsibility of the Devs.

 

I work for Eagle Dynamics, RAZBAM is under our umbrella. While I would love if all our 3rd Parties were fluent in customer service, a few of them are not, that is why I am here and that is why me and BIGNEWY are putting in the effort, because we not only believe in RAZBAM, but we believe it is a good module and will continue to only get better, and DCS World would not be as nice a place without RAZBAM and their modules.

 

Viper, you talk about blame way too much, you need to be able to look objectively at yourself before you talk about anyone else. If you think community communication has been perfect, then I regret to inform you, you are mistaken. That is not blaming, that is not to say some of it is unwarranted, but to repair this relationship requires both sides bending some, if you are not willing to bend, then we won't get anywhere, no matter how perfect RAZBAM tries to become.

 

If RAZBAM requires BIGNEWY and me to continue to be their voice, then we will, because it is required. But what I require of all of you is to be mature, constructive and focus on the half-full part of the glass. We gave you many pages in the other thread to vent your frustration, now is the time to move forward and get done what we need to get done.

 

Like the ARBS, if you need answers, we will get them. Give me things to work on, not snarky comments that do nothing but hurt feelings and spread that divide further. If you are not ready to do that, then take a break from RAZBAM and let us do our thing.

 

As I have said a number of times, we ALL want the same thing, so let's work towards that, not undermine it further, you can't control anyone but yourself, so please try to help us work towards it.

 

Please forgive any typos in this, its late here and my daughter is back on here school schedule, so I am a little punchy.

 

So thanks to all those that are working to get this back on track. And I look forward to helping get the Harrier back into your hearts, and damn it to Ckicken and BD for making it hard to put down now that I started the training.

[wowbagger]

... I have talked to Chicken and BD for a long time, long before this drama, both are great knowledgable guys. RAZBAM would be wise to keep these boys happy, they make DCS World a better place...

 

Strongly agree!

 

I bought two RAZBAM modules solely because they have Baltic Dragon campaigns.

 

However, even that will no longer be enough for me with regard to future modules, if the Harrier's development and bug squashing, communication with us, and outward attitude towards the customers doesn't improve sufficiently. Not trying to be petty, I'm simply saying these are the areas where RAZBAM hasn't met my expectations as a paying customer.

[sc_neo]

@Prowler Thanks for coming back to the forums and updating us on the current development process for the Harrier from the last couple of months! Highly appreciated!

And i am exited like the next guy to read about the improvements with VGS maps etc. and your post was detailing well what difficulties your team faces in regards to DCS legacy code (as does ED too of course) that you kinda need to "refurbish" multiple systems during development.

Now i can see that some of the main issues about important features like the ARBS etc. that members here have been very vocal about have yet not been addressed in your initial post. I have read on your discord that the "magical" ARBS for instance is not as realistic as can be due to DCS engine limitations in processing the required ARBS calculations. This is the kind of info we need here on the forums with a bit more explanation and prospect of what needed to change from ED's for this to be implemented in a satisfactory manner.

 

I thus politely ask and ecourage you to update us one by one on the major features states (like the aforementioned ARBS), what is right and/or wrong about it, missing and delineate if this is due to stuff not yet implemented in DCS's engine or something else.

 

 

Again, thanks for responding to some of the concerns and i hope you guys will make a somewhat regular appearance here so we can get the issues worked out and have a as feature complete, bugfree and premier Harrier as can be. Cheers!

[Fri13]

The main problem is still the Early Access, that what it really means.

The community has taken up the word that EA means a development phase where all the major features are implemented and the product becomes feature completed. This has been used as a reason by many developers "Good as is" or "It is completed" meaning that no new features are to be expected / guaranteed anymore since the product is "out of Early Access".

We are all aware that it doesn't mean that bug fixes or some changes are not to be seen if evidence of such is found out, but it doesn't mean that major / new features are to be added.

 

That "Out of EA" has been used as a shield by many studios/developers against customers, if not directly, then at least as arguments that why to purchase to EA process, what to expect from it and what for wait that product gets out of EA so that is point when it is suppose to be ready for purchase for average user.

 

This was so in the Open Beta arguments that many used attack EA from "bug filled update" and such (and IMHO ED did bend the knee way too easy on that case), arguments that when someone should buy a module when they want a feature completed module.

 

So the main question that no one answered here is: Is the Harrier pulled back to Early Access or not?

And explain the reasons, as it as well must include explanation that what the developers and ED today think about what Early Access phase really means, as it is now used argue that product can be put incomplete status out and in hands of those customers who want a feature completed product and doesn't purchase EA products for that reason.

 

Then comes the other sub-problems and questions about Razbam communication methods and ways with customers in the official DCS World forum, the behavior toward customers that are invested time for Open Beta and Early Access to find bugs and report them. As well their time to do research (for passion etc) about features and functionalities and report them as well for the developers when mistakes and errors are found in the product.

 

It does not help that community (I talk now about whole community, not some individuals who can be talking about legal actions etc) that has been very helpful and understandable through the development of 3 years, does raise many completely valid questions about the current status, future actions and what has been expectations - only to be answered with a reply that is avoiding the questions, not answering to almost any concerns about the philosophy of the Early Access, missing features and all, but was well designed accusation toward whole community that they have no idea what they are talking about or what to expect.

 

Nineline here says: "but to repair this relationship requires both sides bending some, if you are not willing to bend, then we won't get anywhere, no matter how perfect RAZBAM tries to become."

 

And that is wrong. In the business world, the business <-> customer relationship is that "customer is right". It is not absolute, but it means that the business is better to be willing take the knee first, and beg for the hearts and souls of the customer, and be ready first to issue apology when even hints of the wrong doings is happening.

 

This is a cultural difference and it as well comes straight from the small businesses people own backgrounds and behavior in real world, that reflects to how they behave socially with other people.

 

In reality all people are not good socializing with others, and even fewer are good in customer service, and very few are good in public relations. That is why all kind important people hire other highly talented and skilled people to handle those, they take lessons and training about these things just like anyone who would go to music or language lessons. People train in front of the mirror how to speak, how to behave, how to act etc. And most importantly, how not to react spontaneously for something, but only after quick careful thinking what to say and do.

 

And when someone is asked to do a written statement, that comes over week later, it should be very good and punctuate directly to the issues that were raised, go to the heart of the problem and really clarify it with humble attitude.

 

There are differences in this world that do you spend a night in a $15 motel or in a $450 hotel.

And that is the customer service.

But it is not the money, it is the attitude and will of people. One can step inside a hostel that is $7.50 a night, and you can get service that you wouldn't get almost anywhere in the $250 hotels.

 

The point is, when someone is making a statement for the whole customer base, or some specific community, that person is better be good in communication. If not, that person should be smart enough to run it through a person who is good at it. It doesn't really take so much effort or time to do it well, but crucial part of that is to leave own ego out of it.

 

A business has no ego, it shouldn't have reasons to go defensive anywhere else than in a court room. If someone makes accusations, it is the business that should turn their another cheek and make statement that is positive, thankful and so on. Shortly put, smile and be grateful for bringing issues up so they can be dealt with.

 

Customers shouldn't be bending their knee and be humble that they get to be a customers of a company or use their products and anything like that. Respectful yes. Polite yes. And somewhat patient with appropriate amount of time given to respond depending problem.

Last thread went through over a week, I knew what would eventually happen why I suggested at start to close the thread and open it for the statement, but it got closed eventually because at the end there were few who were burning candle from both ends.

 

But what did we get? Nothing really about the raised questions, nothing at all about the main problem. Just a same old same old.

A short list of minor bug fixes reports and telling about non-related feature is not a solution that the customers deserve or even requested.

 

The problems can be tried to be waved off by showing something bling bling in other hand, and some people will fall for it. But as long the big questions are not answered openly, honestly and directly, they will keep ghosting at the background and they will infect all communications through everything.

 

I hope that Razbam would go through the long thread. And take a good notes about everything there. And then invest one day to make the statement with the ED (as this main problem touches everyone in the DCS World) that would really give the answers that are explanatory.

This whole mess is about Early Access model, not about who said what and where. But all gets tied back to ways of communications between a business and their customers and mentality how it is done.

[wowbagger]

I'll add that the community has already 'bent' a great deal by being patient for so long. We've paid for the module, waited years for it to develop, and put up with being practically ignored by the developer of late. The ball is firmly in the other court.

 

This will set an important precedent for EA status of modules - not really a trivial thing.

[BIGNEWY]

The main problem is still the Early Access, that what it really means.

 

Early access is exactly what it says it is, early development access. Coming out of early access does not mean development stops. That is why we have said product sustaiment continues.

 

It is the same for any module in DCS that uses early access.

 

 

So the main question that no one answered here is: Is the Harrier pulled back to Early Access or not?

 

I have answered in a previous comment, probably lost in the other thread.

 

The AV-8B is out of early access and product sustainment will continue.

I know some do not like this concept, I can not change how you may or may not feel about it.

 

 

What you have is still the best AV-8B simulation on the civilian market ( maybe even military I don't know), RAZBAM will continue to improve and fix bugs. We will continue to help here in the forum section reporting issues to the team.

 

RAZBAM have been doing a lot of work fixing issues, some will be in the next patch, others in patches after.

 

Thank you

[Dunx]

Are you sure the word "Sustainment" is correct in this context?

 

To most, especially in software development, this means that the product will continue to receive support and updates such that the product will continue to function.

 

It does not mean that the product will continue to receive enhancements (new features).

[viper2097]

What you have is still the best AV-8B simulation on the civilian market ( maybe even military I don't know)...

 

That should never be an argument and has nothing to do with the promises we bought, but not yet received.

 

I think most people here will see it the same way:

EA means that it is actively worked on. A road.

Release means, that it is done. No more road, its the finish.

Product susatinment (the worst phrase in 2020 regarding DCS) should be changes to the product, because there changed something in DCS. It should not mean that any kind of systems are done quick, dirty and incomplete, but then get better.

 

Every time you say the Harrier is Feature Complete you simply know that this is not truth. And as long as RB and ED won't stand in for that, the rumors won't stop.

 

Customers feels like played a trick on us.

[BIGNEWY]

That should never be an argument and has nothing to do with the promises we bought, but not yet received.

 

I think most people here will see it the same way:

EA means that it is actively worked on. A road.

Release means, that it is done. No more road, its the finish.

Product susatinment (the worst phrase in 2020 regarding DCS) should be changes to the product, because there changed something in DCS. It should not mean that any kind of systems are done quick, dirty and incomplete, but then get better.

 

Every time you say the Harrier is Feature Complete you simply know that this is not truth. And as long as RB and ED won't stand in for that, the rumors won't stop.

 

Customers feels like played a trick on us.

 

Like I said I can not change how you feel, sorry.

 

You can clearly see RAZBAM is continuing to develop and bug fix for the AV-8B, we have reported many bugs into our system.

 

There are some who disagree with what level of system / avionics implementation is considered complete and we are asking RAZBAM to clear up on those points. If a system can only be modelled so far, for whatever reason you will have to accept that.

Edited September 15, 2020 by BIGNEWY

[FoxTwo]

Is the rework/refactoring of the cockpit inputs still in process? I don't see it on the list but there's a lot of switch/button bindings that either don't work properly or are missing entirely.