How is the Harrier now?

[imacken]

Well guys, it would seem that we are getting a similar, polarised response to this question as I got about a year ago, which seems a little disappointing.

Don't know why this module - more than any other I have seen - seems to polarise opinions so much, both in relation to the bug state as well as the developers themselves.

FWIW, my initial dipping into the training missions was quite a good experience.  I enjoyed it, and was largely able to work around some of the aspects which seemed out of date.  However, I do appreciate that my experience was very superficial compared to you guys' in-depth knowledge. 

The other thing that seems like a concern is the almost total lack of content for the Harrier.  Very few supplied missions and a built-in campaign which I have no idea whether it's any good or not.  Is that an issue as well?

[TLTeo]

The built-in campaign is by Baltic Dragon so it's going to be good (same guy that did Raven One, the training missions, and the Mig19 and Mirage campaigns). Other than that, there are no 3rd party campaigns but that's common to many DCS modules really.

[unlikely_spider]

5 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

The built-in campaign is by Baltic Dragon so it's going to be good (same guy that did Raven One, the training missions, and the Mig19 and Mirage campaigns). Other than that, there are no 3rd party campaigns but that's common to many DCS modules really.

I just finished the built-in campaign (Ottoman Courier) last night. It's high quality, just like any other of Baltic Dragon's work. It's short, but he's making more that follow the same storyline I believe.

[imacken]

I wonder if today's huge list of fixes/improvements will change anything!

[Marsvinet]

Part of why the views of the Harrier is so polarized, is due to how deep you look. If you just want to fly around, drop bombs and look at the extremely good looking airframe, it is a very good module. But when you look deeper, it has generally been quite disappointing. Many of the voices you hear being negative against the Harrier, are the people who many would consider "Rivet counters", myself included. So you end up with two very different opinions, even though we are technically looking at the same thing. The historically VERY spotty communication and sometimes borderline abandonement from Razbams side has not helped it one bit. Most of this appears to be changing. Slowly, but changing.

[Fri13]

10 hours ago, Marsvinet said:

Part of why the views of the Harrier is so polarized, is due to how deep you look. If you just want to fly around, drop bombs and look at the extremely good looking airframe, it is a very good module. But when you look deeper, it has generally been quite disappointing.

 

That is well said.

 

10 hours ago, Marsvinet said:

Many of the voices you hear being negative against the Harrier, are the people who many would consider "Rivet counters", myself included. So you end up with two very different opinions, even though we are technically looking at the same thing. The historically VERY spotty communication and sometimes borderline abandonement from Razbams side has not helped it one bit. Most of this appears to be changing. Slowly, but changing.

 

Slowly, and in very small steps. But it is at least improvement for the years lasting situation that Razbam created by themselves with their chosen method of communication. That has not changed really. Only now when the ED really came to ask more questions about the status as the infamous thread about "Out Of Early Access" revealed even more problems in communications and attitude.

 Should we forget the last 4 years that Harrier has gone through just because now last two patches? No, but we should be ready to give a Razbam a change to start fixing Harrier and put a lot more effort to it than they did in the phase when it was in the Early Access.

 

The Harrier as an aircraft is amazing addition to the DCS World. Very unique where example Hornet or Viper are very obvious to exist and are about same as A-10C but just in different form. Where the Harrier truly separates from those by the flight features and so on operational capabilities (even when you have same TPOD, same weapons and same moving map etc).

 

And this really splits the community, as some people are ready to accept simpler quality, while others are expecting higher quality.

Like I have planned today to test the yesterday patch that did it fix the targeting system bug that teleports the Target Designation all over the places randomly. That to me is such a show stopper really to use weapons when your designated target can suddenly jump even up in the air above you or miles away from the original target.

Like how one can expect to even to "fly around, drop bombs" when anything else than CCIP is broken (and even it is broken as weapon release in CCIP mode designates the point as target)? Yes the bomb will get released, yes it will fall on the ground, and yes it will likely hit to the point the pipper was on the moment (unless bug in it). But how about the second attack run? How about the whole targeting system and navigation system that should assist you to turn around and perform that other attack on that same position but now designated miles away from the attack spot? Yes I can find visually to the same spot eventually, but not by using the aircraft systems.

 

So yes some people can be "It is fine", but for some people it simply is unacceptable as it is - broken.

 

If that is fixed, I am happy.

 

 

[SGT Coyle]

11 hours ago, Marsvinet said:

And this really splits the community, as some people are ready to accept simpler quality, while others are expecting higher quality.

I agree with alot of what you say here, but this where I disagree.  I won't except lower quality than the A10C Warthog for any study level sim.  I'm not asking for more, just the same level I've come to expect from DCS. This thing is still an Alpha an it costs $70.00 + tax. with no refunds.
It's supposed to be Feature Complete, but that isn't really the case.  Where did Lazer Rockets come from.  That was never on the list.  And what happened to non-lazer rockets? 

Ahhh....

 

[Vakarian]

15 minutes ago, SGT Coyle said:

I agree with alot of what you say here, but this where I disagree.  I won't except lower quality than the A10C Warthog for any study level sim.  I'm not asking for more, just the same level I've come to expect from DCS. This thing is still an Alpha an it costs $70.00 + tax. with no refunds.
It's supposed to be Feature Complete, but that isn't really the case.  Where did Lazer Rockets come from.  That was never on the list.  And what happened to non-lazer rockets? 

Ahhh....

 

But, but, new shiny weapons... That'll make most of the community busy for a while. Who cares about fixing long standing bugs, it's better to implement new stuff rather than fixing broken ones

Edit: I am being very sarcastic if it's not clear

Edited January 28, 2021 by Vakarian

[Fri13]

20 minutes ago, SGT Coyle said:

I agree with alot of what you say here, but this where I disagree.  I won't except lower quality than the A10C Warthog for any study level sim.  I'm not asking for more, just the same level I've come to expect from DCS. This thing is still an Alpha an it costs $70.00 + tax. with no refunds.
It's supposed to be Feature Complete, but that isn't really the case. 

 

So you are more of a "rivet counter" than just those who are happy if they think things work properly when they don't know better. And no, it is not a insult to be a "rivet counter" as it is about the passion for the details and accurateness.

 

Like it is cool and all to read a NATOPS or some squadron procedure manual and find from there is a procedure how a button X works, what it does or how a system like INS works and what it is related to etc.

But then you step in the game and you go to use those things in real manual and they do not work like it is told, that turns it personal question for everyone: Should they be like "That is weird, it doesn't work properly so I need to report it" or should they be "Okay, it doesn't go exactly like the real thing, but this is just a game and I am having fun..."?

 

Then there are those who will find when stuff they know gets broken, and they should come to report it if it is in Open Beta. But in Stable, that shouldn't happen. The average gamer shouldn't be required to read NATOPS, or even be interested so deeply that they read aircraft aerodynamic performance charts etc. They are required to read the manual and decide do you they want to play in SIM mode or in GAME mode. And then enjoy from the game without it being broken.

 

Why Open Beta people are suppose to be those who are willing to see things get broken, get bugs, have newly implemented features that doesn't really work right away properly etc.

As they should be reporting and discussing about small details, so that Stable branch users get a quality product to enjoy.

We are free beta testers, we are to help the developers to produce the game. Many will take Open Beta and such as a "I get new stuff now before others!" and it is little wrong reason.

 

I just made a quick 20 min test flight while I had time. And I found some new bugs AFAIK and some old ones still exist that are the major ones like the INS bug, that affects all systems related to it (target designation).

 

20 minutes ago, SGT Coyle said:

Where did Lazer Rockets come from.  That was never on the list.  And what happened to non-lazer rockets?
Ahhh....

 

They were not, but neither was they first in the ED lists. Public didn't know much about those rockets until 2018 when Hornet got them officially in the use, the A-10C, Viper, Harrier, AH-64, AH-1, UH-1 etc has all since the 2012-2016 been updated to have those weapons in military. And common people don't still know much but lot of things happens when media covers such cases like Syrian invasion or ISIL weekly, and they are reasons why some weapons are developed and put more in the PR use than others etc. Like who did know about these programs in 2002 or 2003? That is when we had a Lock-On!

 

And Razbam has simply seen a possibility to add those after ED added them to game because A-10C II was wanted to have more to sell. And Razbam should, as DCS Modules shouldn't be limited by the politics but be a sandbox where only technical accurateness, capabilities and limitations are modeled. The politics can be added to the game by adding that metadata to weapons, aircraft, liveries and all. Like official weapons loadout for given country, the liveries for the given country and for the years. The weapons that country has access to and on what year. Those are metadata for the filters that mission designer should be responsible to decide what to use and not. Razbam did the right thing here, something that every module developer should be doing by implementing APKWS II support to their aircraft weapons loadouts if they can use Hydra 70 rockets. This includes ED own Hornet and Viper, UH-1H and even legacy A-10C! But that is still not the point that you are trying to make, that was the APKWS II so important to Harrier development that they needed to be added NOW?

 

Last messages the Razbam developers said about APKWS II in the Discord was that it didn't get to yesterday (27/01/2021) patch as it was week ago locked, but was only to come out in the DCS 2.7 at the March. But.... What did happen? They were slipped in somehow. Again conflicting information from the developers themselves, the community manager and everyone gets surprised.  And those unguided rockets are still there. They do not replace them, they are conversion units. Now you just have in the Air to Ground missiles category a possibility load 7 rocket APKWS pods.

 

Personally I would have loved to see the INS/DMT/TPOD problems fixed before APKWS II. As I don't have such a need for them (same as with basically any guided weapon) as they are same way dependent from the Harrier capability find targets, designate them, and re-engage the targets. Basically operate in the modern battlefield where the navigation suite is responsible to share targets with other troops, to help pilot manage targets and work in that environment.

 

Like I didn't know from where did the new sound effects come from? Now the start-up sound is much better, engine doesn't just ramp up from 0% to 80% but actually sounds starting. The same old loop audio is gone (and likely new similar one in its place) and new effects for firing rockets etc. Great things sure, and important in "thousand cuts" kind fixing.

But this all leads to same problem, we do not have contact and understanding developers priorities. They do not explain to us that what they want to do and what they can do.

Example Razbam can not do anything related to FLIR until ED gets their FLIR system developed and added to SDK. And why should Razbam do that when there is someone else doing the whole major work? (this related to similar case with Air-toGround radar that Heatblur did for Viggen when ED was still developing it to Hornet - took years to come up with).

 

Personally I understand very well developers possible own personal frustrations to the project, as those can start to feel like dragging a stone shed behind. So it is nice to sometimes jump to do something else in the project that is more interesting and still needs to be done at some point, and this way get more positive feeling that project moves forward in some manner, and then return to more challenging or problematic/annoying task.

But for this kind things it would be needed that developers would express themselves and their goals to the customers that are waiting things to happen.

 

So now we do have a AGR-20 rockets for Harrier. Nice thing. Hopefully developers are happy for that as well that they got it out. But that doesn't mean that because we get "more toys" that we should forgive the specific kind behaviors and forget the history.