Razbam, if you're going to remove the IR maverick, I want my money returned please.

[Aries144]

Your company never advertised that this would be a 2010 configuration Harrier, limited to only the exact weapons carried at that time. Your company advertised it as a Night Attack Harrier with every indication that it supported the IR Maverick and that's what I paid for.

I have zero interest in the 2001-2021 Afghan and Iraqi conflicts. I would never have bought a module meant solely to feature equipment from those conflicts.

You have announced that you intend to take away features that I paid to have. Continue to support the functionality I paid for or please return my money.

[QuiGon]

For me it's quite the opposite: The attempt to model a true to real life Harrier with the exact capabilities that existed in a single Harrier makes this module much more interesting to me than it was, when RAZBAM didn't really care about this and put all sorts of capabilities in it, that it didn't have like that IRL. So I'm quite happy with this new approach of RAZBAM.

[Raidhen]

3 hours ago, Aries144 said:

Your company never advertised that this would be a 2010 configuration Harrier, limited to only the exact weapons carried at that time. Your company advertised it as a Night Attack Harrier with every indication that it supported the IR Maverick and that's what I paid for.

I have zero interest in the 2001-2021 Afghan and Iraqi conflicts. I would never have bought a module meant solely to feature equipment from those conflicts.

You have announced that you intend to take away features that I paid to have. Continue to support the functionality I paid for or please return my money.

Next time you should read what you paid for. If they want to stick to a certain version it's their chose, clearly better than a Frankenstein Harrier.

[Vakarian]

When a company announces they are going to stick to a certain version AFTER it gets release from EA, where were we supposed to read that info?

[Beirut]

RAZBAM will never give the money back.

 

On the other hand, we don't have to buy their stuff ever again. And if they start removing features after the fact, they will get no more money from me, because they will have lost my trust.

[WinterH]

The way I see it, what Razbam did wrong was later starting to add more modern features like APKWS and LJDAMs, and then arbitrarily deciding it's now a "2010s+ plane" and only include stuff from that period.

 

You either define the exact variant in the beginning and communicate it in the beginning, or don't.

 

For example, Kh-66 on MiG-21Bis is not supposed to be there, but it is too late for it now, people paid for the module thinking it is, and has been in for years. I don't see that being removed without people going ape over it. And that is something that can legitimately argued to be not possible on depicted variant, unlike the IR Mavericks on AV-8B/NA.

 

Besides, why do we have to get the most modern variants of everything even if it means guesstimating or later finding out stuff in dev?

 

At first I was like QuiGon "ah, nice Razbam is finally sticking to realism on variants" but then realized it doesn't quite seem that way with AV-8's case.

[QuiGon]

4 hours ago, Raidhen said:

clearly better than a Frankenstein Harrier.

 

This!

 

  

41 minutes ago, WinterH said:

At first I was like QuiGon "ah, nice Razbam is finally sticking to realism on variants" but then realized it doesn't quite seem that way with AV-8's case.

 

It's not? Well then it's something different of course. I'm not a Harrier expert and thought if RAZBAM and their SMEs say it's how it is IRL, then it's probably how it is.

Edited July 5, 2021 by QuiGon

[tintifaxl]

I'm not a fan of removing loadouts from a module. If someone doesn't want to fly a Frankenharrier, it's very easy to not use the IR Mavs in the loadout. On the other hand gone is gone.

[Cunctator]

26 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

It's not? Well then it's something different of course. I'm not a Harrier expert and thought if RAZBAM and their SMEs say it's how it is IRL, then it's probably how it is.

 

 

The USMC only removed the IR mav capability in the last decade because they don't have the requirement anymore. Harriers trained and deployed with the F before. With the same argument Razbam could stop supporting the module entirely when the AV-8B is phased out by the Marine corps in a few years. When I bought the Harrier they were targeting for a mid 2000s plane and I am more interested in a 90s Harrier. 

[Sideburns]

As per the other thread I personally paid for the AV8b(NA) as advertised and with the fuller range of weapons it carried over its operational lifespan, not a specific model. Why not leave it to the users and mission makers to decide which year they are simulating / flying?

 

 

[shagrat]

12 hours ago, QuiGon said:

For me it's quite the opposite: The attempt to model a true to real life Harrier with the exact capabilities that existed in a single Harrier makes this module much more interesting to me than it was, when RAZBAM didn't really care about this and put all sorts of capabilities in it, that it didn't have like that IRL. So I'm quite happy with this new approach of RAZBAM.

That's the problem! They remove a capability the original aircraft still has, based on the usage of that weapon according to an SME... Capability is not what they try to simulate here, more stock of weapons and budget decisions for the USMC.

I can absolutely understand the OP.

[shagrat]

7 hours ago, tintifaxl said:

I'm not a fan of removing loadouts from a module. If someone doesn't want to fly a Frankenharrier, it's very easy to not use the IR Mavs in the loadout. On the other hand gone is gone.

It has nothing to do with "Frankenharrier". The AV-8B is perfectly capable of employing AGM-65F if for example there would be a tactical need for it in 2022 and they would employ them will Razbam bring them back?

[Northstar98]

Yeah, the decision to do a 2010s Harrier, completely ad hoc (so it seems), seems only to justify removing the F. Meanwhile the Harrier still has AGM-122, which there are no stocks of (pretty sure they ran out after the first Gulf War), and has been out of production since 1990.

 

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

Besides, why do we have to get the most modern variants of everything [...]

 

+99999999 this.

 

Wouldn't it be better to do older variants first, then offer newer variants? In exactly the same fashion as the A-10C II? Wouldn't that also make more sense from a financial perspective too?

[Beirut]

There are certain fundamental rules in business, one of them is  "You can do more than was offered in exchange for the client's money, but you can never do less." 

 

If RAZBAM wants to add functionalities to the Harrier, great. If they want to take away, that's bad business. If they cannot understand this, then someone at RB HQ needs to go back to school.

[Raidhen]

42 minutes ago, Beirut said:

There are certain fundamental rules in business, one of them is  "You can do more than was offered in exchange for the client's money, but you can never do less." 

 

If RAZBAM wants to add functionalities to the Harrier, great. If they want to take away, that's bad business. If they cannot understand this, then someone at RB HQ needs to go back to school.

Nothing wrong with taking away some weapons if they can concentrate on key features instead.

You are arguing for hours about something that represents 1/100 of 35€, if you have time to lose at least fight for a greater goal like having an older version of the Harrier.

At the end of the day you'll still playing with this module you spend so much time to criticize with or without the AGM-65F.  

[Fusedspine33]

Nothing wrong with taking away some weapons if they can concentrate on key features instead.
You are arguing for hours about something that represents 1/100 of 35€, if you have time to lose at least fight for a greater goal like having an older version of the Harrier.
At the end of the day you'll still playing with this module you spend so much time to criticize with or without the AGM-65F.  

It is much less toxic to debate a topic and not the value of another persons opinion.

Seems like across two threads there is like 3 folks that agree with this move.

The gun rounds they removed were more effective against the targets and damage model in DCS,

This move takes away another form of enjoyment for no reason, the weapon has been shown be on the aircraft, it just comes off as too lazy to code for a new ED implementation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Beirut]

32 minutes ago, Raidhen said:

Nothing wrong with taking away some weapons if they can concentrate on key features instead.

 

Why not just concentrate on key features and not waste time taking weapons away?

 

Seems like that would be more productive and not peez off the paying customers, no?

 

32 minutes ago, Raidhen said:

You are arguing for hours about something that represents 1/100 of 35€, if you have time to lose at least fight for a greater goal like having an older version of the Harrier.

 

Apparently I/we have selflessly given you hours of reading material which you have eagerly digested.

 

I think entertaining you is a worthwhile goal. 

 

32 minutes ago, Raidhen said:

At the end of the day you'll still playing with this module you spend so much time to criticize with or without the AGM-65F.  

 

I do not criticize the module. I love the Harrier. If you read through my posts, on this site and others, I have always spoken well of the Harrier. Even when others were blasting the job RAZBAM has done with it, unfinished this and faulty that, I always said that the plane was great fun to fly even if imperfect. I think it's a fantastic module. Probably my favorite DCS plane.

 

But that does not mean I support the removal of existing features. I think it's a terrible idea, badly managed, and serves only to upset the customers.

 

This is a public conversation on the RAZBAM thread with thousands of views and many, many posts hostile to RAZBAM's behaviour. It's bad business on their part.

[Northstar98]

11 hours ago, Beirut said:

There are certain fundamental rules in business, one of them is  "You can do more than was offered in exchange for the client's money, but you can never do less." 

 

If RAZBAM wants to add functionalities to the Harrier, great. If they want to take away, that's bad business. If they cannot understand this, then someone at RB HQ needs to go back to school.

 

What they should've done right off of the bat, before the Harrier was released into EA, is pick something specific (if they wanted to do something specific), and just stick to it. They should've made a planned features and weapons post, and they should be clear about what variant we're and what timeframe it's supposed to represent.

 

Then they should have it up for discussion, purely to discuss research about what this Harrier should and shouldn't have.

 

I'm fine removing stuff that aren't realistic, but I do have a problem with suddenly making it specific and then using that to justify removing weapons.

 

Like making a 2016 F-16CM with M6 software, and then a few years down the line deciding that actually, I want a 2008 F-16CM with M5, and removing weapons and functionality that came with M6.

 

And personally, it would be much better if developers initially did an early variant of the aircraft (likely easier to complete, and would better fit the rest of DCS outside BLUFOR and a handful of assets), then do later, more modern variants, recycling as much as possible. Offering variants, to me at least, just seems like the best solution. 

[shagrat]

13 hours ago, Raidhen said:

Nothing wrong with taking away some weapons if they can concentrate on key features instead.

You are arguing for hours about something that represents 1/100 of 35€, if you have time to lose at least fight for a greater goal like having an older version of the Harrier.

At the end of the day you'll still playing with this module you spend so much time to criticize with or without the AGM-65F.  

We argue about accurately(!) simulating the aircraft's capabilities true to life, as is common for DCS.

The decision is based on the feedback that an SME said "it was never used" ...and that has to do with doctrine changes and budget decisions, not capabilities. There is a very good reason the NATOPS manuals have detailed Infos on the implementation of the AGM-65F with the AV-8B NA. Until now there hasn't been presented anything that points to the loss if this capability.

The hypocritical side of this decision is, that we still have the AGM-122 Sidearm, which is out of production since 1990ies. Did the USMC actually use the Sidearm after Desert Storm???

[Beirut]

9 minutes ago, shagrat said:

 

The hypocritical side of this decision is, that we still have the AGM-122 Sidearm, which is out of production since 1990ies. Did the USMC actually use the Sidearm after Desert Storm???

 

Not to worry, I'm sure RAZBAM will remove that as well. 

[shagrat]

On 7/5/2021 at 2:55 PM, QuiGon said:

It's not? Well then it's something different of course. I'm not a Harrier expert and thought if RAZBAM and their SMEs say it's how it is IRL, then it's probably how it is

No it is not. The SME said "they never used the AGM-65F" ( on a 2010 AV-8B NA), NOT that the AV-8B NA is no longer capable to employ it.

The change only represents the tactical need for COIN and the budget restrictions, NOT a change in the aircraft's capabilities.

IRL it can happen that next year, they take some dozen AGM-65F from the NAVY, strap them on the AV-8B NA and hunt fishing boats in the Pacific or whatever makes sense.

At least there has been nothing to even remotely indicate that this has changed.

The change that would make sense is to limit the use of IRMAV and TPOD in parallel, because if another info is correct, the TPOD emulates an IRMAV video feed to be displayed on the MPCD. That would be a change I appreciate, as it more realistically represents the limitations of "our" Harrier.

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by shagrat

[Wing]

23 hours ago, Sideburns said:

As per the other thread I personally paid for the AV8b(NA) as advertised and with the fuller range of weapons it carried over its operational lifespan, not a specific model. Why not leave it to the users and mission makers to decide which year they are simulating / flying?

 

 

 

The only legitimate reason we can come up with at this point, is "feature creep". RB wants to get this module over and done with sooner rather than later, so lets take the easy way out.

 

On 7/3/2021 at 7:29 PM, ChickenSim said:

The Maverick tutorial was written in June 2018 back when they were substituting the G for the F, and the SME was reviewing them. The procedures for these tutorials were written using input from the SME and from the TACMANs. The Osprey books detailing various loadouts (including the use of Fs during OSW/OIF) were in the library of known resources. There wasn't anything "to catch" and there wasn't anything "missed" because it wasn't a problem - the Harrier they set out to create was able to use Fs.

 

It's only a problem now because they've scope creeped themselves into a "mid 2010s" Harrier, which hasn't employed them for various reasons unrelated to whether the aircraft can.

 

 

QFT.

 

Truly sad... take this as a lesson, and let your money do the talking for now on, as we move forward...

[TLTeo]

If we go by the same metric RB is using to remove the IR Mav, they should also:

1) have the Mig-19P a2g ordnance removed since it was only flown by interceptor units,

2) cluster bombs, the (newly added!!!!!!) BAP-100, unguided rockets and the Super-530 should all be removed from the Mirage. Only Magics, Mk 82s and LGBs allowed, because they are doing a current jet and that's what EC 2/5 deploys with. 

 

Seriously, the reasoning behind this change is beyond silly. It shouldn't even be up for the debate.

Edited July 6, 2021 by TLTeo

[Wing]

The reasoning doesn't make any actual sense, which is why now the only logical explanation - is they are trying to find ways to eliminate the "scope creep" they got their selves into... The DCS consumer base isn't this dumb RB. 

[Raidhen]

2 hours ago, Wing said:

The DCS consumer base isn't this dumb RB. 

Really ? On this consumer base how many are reading ED forums ? Most of the people don't care about this kind of change. You want a AGM-65 take a E or take another plane.

Do you really think that this turn of event will impact the sales of the next modules Mig-23 and F-15E ?

With all the comments that you can find on RB modules management, you know what you can expect it's not a surprise at all.