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

[Wing]

4 minutes ago, Raidhen said:

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.

 

 

Let me reiterate that, the consumer base that is actually reading about this - and are aware of such changes taking place... are not this dumb. Thanks!

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, Raidhen said:

Really ? On this consumer base how many are reading ED forums ?

 

You, me, and a few others at least. 

 

2 hours ago, Raidhen said:

 

 

 

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

 

 

To a degree, yes. If RAZBAM acts like a developer that cannot be trusted, then some people will not purchase their products. I won't. Do they care? You'd have to ask them. But RAZBAM does not exist in some vacuum of corporate invincibility. Several flightsim developers have had to chew on it after making mistakes and feeling the wrath of the unwashed hordes.

[Raidhen]

4 minutes ago, Beirut said:

To a degree, yes. If RAZBAM acts like a developer that cannot be trusted, then some people will not purchase their products. I won't. Do they care? You'd have to ask them. But RAZBAM does not exist in some vacuum of corporate invincibility. Several flightsim developers have had to chew on it after making mistakes and feeling the wrath of the unwashed hordes.

Your point is a valid one in a open market but in this case the impact is very limited. If you want to fly a certain plane you have to stick with a certain team no other chose.

The real problem lies in the affectation of modules to the respective teams, for example RB have to many projects in their hands to provide the quality expect by the community.

[FoxOne007]

On 7/5/2021 at 7:06 AM, 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.

You should have read the product page better, this has been up there since day 1

[Beirut]

Edited because resolved.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Beirut
Because!

[Krez]

Buy their modules or don't.

Hyperbole doesn't help.
 

[Beirut]

6 minutes ago, Krez said:

Buy their modules or don't.

Hyperbole doesn't help.
 

 

Sure it does. It's part of our linguistic toolbox.

 

If I told you, you just wrote the best post I ever read, I don't think you would cite me for being hyperbolic. I think you would simply accept as an colloquially expressed thought. No?  

[Krez]

No, I would think it's ridiculous.

State your beef.
Be succinct.
Anything more is bad form.

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Krez said:

No, I would think it's ridiculous.

 

Oh my. Such rigidity.  

 

1 hour ago, Krez said:

State your beef.
Be succinct.
Anything more is bad form.

 

 

Fact based Haiku and nothing else?

 

English is too dynamic for those limitations. This is discussion, not math.

 

[Recluse]

Wow... did that whole other thread, 11 + pages just get summarily DELETED?

 

Never mind. I saw the latest RAZBAM post.  Nothing to see here.. move along 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Recluse

[Fusedspine33]

Wow... did that whole other thread, 11 + pages just get summarily DELETED?

Yup, replaced by a long winded narrative that takes no real responsibility for poor decision making at Razbam. If you delete the evidence of customer dissatisfaction then it doesn't exist......right!?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Beirut]

9 minutes ago, Fusedspine33 said:

Yup, replaced by a long winded narrative that takes no real responsibility for poor decision making at Razbam. If you delete the evidence of customer dissatisfaction then it doesn't exist......right!?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Yeah, but they took notice, and I'll bet other devs did too. 

 

The conversation(s) remain, waiting, like a pending fart in a crowded elevator. 

[Aries144]

Razbam,

Allowing mission and server designers the ability to set the era for a given airframe via ordnance allowance or limitation is the right decision. In this case it allows for full simulation of the many near peer conflicts the Harrier Night Attack participated in, rather than limiting it to the ordnance commonly carried during one very restrictive COIN operation.

Thank you for your commitment to simulation over ease of maintenance. We'll do our part to support your efforts with our money.

[JTF-191 Scooter]

Ugh...

Edited July 7, 2021 by JTF-191 Scooter

[Ramsay]

23 hours ago, FoxOne007 said:

You should have read the product page better, this has been up there since day 1

 

I wonder if you understand what you are quoting, it's pretty meaning less in the context of this discussion.

 

Quote

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 variant.

 

Bu No 163853 is a 1989 AV-8B (NA)-13-MC, so paraphrasing the sales blurb, it simply says they are modelling a 1989 (or newer) AV-8B (NA) variant.

 

When I bought the module shortly after release (April 2018), there was a reasonable assumption Razbam were modelling a circa 2003-2008 AV-8B due to it's weapons selection and system modelling, this is consistent with the store's (paraphrased) description of a "newer than 1989, latest variant".

 

Razbam's relatively permissive selection of weapons allowed the AV-8B to used on both Cold War and Modern servers without being particularly under/over powered or feeling out of place.

 

It's only very recently that GBU-54's have been added (Oct 2020) , the TPOD updated to Gen 4 (Nov 2020), APKWS added / LAU-61 removed (Jan 2021) and a AV-8B circa date of 2010~2015 been used by Razbam (June 2021).

 

To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Ramsay

[Fri13]

On 7/7/2021 at 11:32 PM, Ramsay said:

It's only very recently that GBU-54's have been added (Oct 2020) , the TPOD updated to Gen 4 (Nov 2020), APKWS added / LAU-61 removed (Jan 2021) and a AV-8B circa date of 2010~2015 been used by Razbam (June 2021).

 

To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

 

APKWS II doesn't belong to that argument, as it is taken in use without software and hardware modifications. 

 

To use APKWS II rockets you don't update aircraft, you simply convert the existing Hydra-70 rockets with APKWS II guidance module. 

 

Weapons can be upgraded without any requirements for airframe changes. Some changes are done at the same time when airframe is taken aside, but it doesn't mean they are dependent to each others.

 

Razbam should have kept old TPOD etc, and ED make APKWS II a universal upgrade conversion to missions dated 2013 or newer for all modules.

 

Including as well old TPOD would have made possible simulate earlier period of wars or such limitations.

[BIGNEWY]

All refund requests should be made at point of sale.

 

Thanks