Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AV-8BNA is feature complete according to Razbam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
    Perfectly usable for me, yes. I can fly it, navigate it, do the mission it was designed for (i.e. CAS), I can land it and that DESPITE the issues it does have.

    I've never claimed that it doesn't have issues. We can also discuss just what a feature is until we both turn green without getting anywhere. What I AM claiming is that it's not as horrendously broken and unusable as so many others do in here to the ridiculously idiotic levels that has been done previously and still is being done.

    Your mileage may differ, and reading through this thread it's a pretty safe bet to say that it does.

    It's not because you can fly and navigate it that everything's all good.


    Mods like the A-4E and MB-339 can be flown and still they're not "up to 3rd party level". Don't get me wrong, they're awesome mods. But they are that, mods. Not 70 USD modules, but free mods.


    The issues with the Harrier makes it Early Access worthy, definitely not "release" worthy, which has been the arguing point.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
      It's not because you can fly and navigate it that everything's all good.
      Again, read what I wrote, and have written multiple times.

      I have NEVER said that the Harrier is all good. It's got issues aplenty that needs to be looked at, but it is NOT, in my opinion and experience, the absolute trash so many people make it out to be.


      Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
      Mods like the A-4E and MB-339 can be flown and still they're not "up to 3rd party level". Don't get me wrong, they're awesome mods. But they are that, mods. Not 70 USD modules, but free mods.
      And nobody forced you to buy the Harrier, even when it WAS defined as an EA-product. You knew full well that there would be issues, and you did so knowing full well that it would take time, maybe years, before it got to the point it is in now. That's the choice we make and the risk we take when we buy anything in EA.

      Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
      The issues with the Harrier makes it Early Access worthy, definitely not "release" worthy, which has been the arguing point.
      The fun thing is that you're arguing definitions in a day and age where people can barely agree on what day it is. It doesn't matter what we say: The product is out of EA and in sustainment and further tuning/bugfixing. You make it sound like this is the end of the road of the Harriers development phase, while the only thing that's really changed is the pricetag on it.

      Because that's what EA in DCS is: A chance to buy a product with usually massive lack of functionality to a reduced price in order to further fund development. The dosh we paid for it goes towards the goal of seeing it as finished as a living sofware-product can get.

      If that bill is too much to foot, well, then maybe flightsims isn't for you.
      Regards
      Fjordmonkey
      Clustermunitions is just another way of saying that you don't like someone.

      I used to like people, then people ruined that for me.

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
        If that bill is too much to foot, well, then maybe flightsims isn't for you.
        Ha, the good ol' "you're too poor to play". You know you can have an discussion with someone without trying to go for personal attacks?

        And anybody with a head on their shoulders will want to use their money wisely to buy an honest product. Not just say "meh it's just 70 USD".

        And btw, early access is NOT a gamble. It's just exactly what is says: it's an early access to a product that is not finished yet. It doesn't include the "you might never actually get the finished product at the end" tag.

        And since you're saying the definition of what is EA is not clear, the discussion about what it is and what it shouldn't be is definitely a pertinent one.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by zhukov032186 View Post
          But it doesn't have the right number of rivets! Obscure systems don't perform in a 1 to 1 manner! Think of the children! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!

          I like the knowledge and passion of the community, but they're also unbelievably anal retentive.

          Oh, yeah. The DMT, INS and ARBS are really obscure "rivet" systems... Totally forgot about that.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
            And nobody forced you to buy the Harrier, even when it WAS defined as an EA-product. You knew full well that there would be issues, and you did so knowing full well that it would take time, maybe years, before it got to the point it is in now. That's the choice we make and the risk we take when we buy anything in EA.
            And there lies the problem....

            Early Access is expected to be buggy, to be missing features, to have features not functioning properly, to have patches that breaks things etc.,..

            If someone doesn't want that experience, they an either wait further in EA period until their wanted features gets implemented or are working, OR they will wait patiently those years that the module gets completed so it is out of Early Access and they can buy it as it has gone through developers testing, community testing and ED has tested and accepted it is fulfilling the quality a full module is expected to have when sold.

            Is it so? No....

            ED says they have nothing to say about when product gets out of Early Access....

            Meaning, your argument point becomes invalid as customer now coming to ED store, buying only feature completed products, can not get what is expected from a product that is out of Early Access.

            Even the studio agrees with that Harrier is not completed, it is broken and it needs lots of fixing, rewrite even.....

            So no one is forcing players to buy a product that is marked as feature completed as it is out of Early Access (and it would have been already in 2018, two years ago if not couple people here would have stopped that happening!) but they are given to understand that it is, and they are waiting a nasty surprise after all the years spent waiting it to be completed.

            When is Harrier going to be completed? 2025? Who knows?
            No one, and why? Because there is _NOTHING_ that is stopping Razbam right now announcing that Harrier is not getting any updates _because it is feature completed_!

            They literally can just throw Harrier to "Completed" basket without anything that ED or us can do!

            And if someone looks more closely their actions in here, and their actions in their controlled channels, it is scary what signals they are giving....

            People bought Harrier in Early Access to support Razbam, helped them more or less to find out what even real harrier is capable because Razbam had no idea, only expecting that after Early Access is completed, then Harrier is what was promised since day one.

            Years went by and here we are, major main features not at such a level that can be said to be excellent in "study level simulator" and it is out of Early Access.
            i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.
            i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
              Ha, the good ol' "you're too poor to play". You know you can have an discussion with someone without trying to go for personal attacks?
              I know it's possible to have a discussion without personal attacks. That wasn't one. That was merely an observation that everyone should ask themselves before buying anything hobby-related.

              Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
              And anybody with a head on their shoulders will want to use their money wisely to buy an honest product. Not just say "meh it's just 70 USD".
              I bought an honest product, and I bought it at EA due to not just the price (I'm a cheap tosspot, after all, with a limited amount of free money to throw at my hobbies), but also with to the promise that it would be as finished as it could be at some point in the future. Whether that comes to pass is yet unknown, but that was the risk I took with my $49,99.

              If it DOESN'T come to pass, I'll just ask myself this: Did the fun I have had in the module meet the expectations I had when I paid for the module? AKA have I gotten $49,99 worth of fun? Yes or no? So far that answer is yes.

              Your mileage may and will vary, of course, but that's how I see things.

              Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
              And btw, early access is NOT a gamble. It's just exactly what is says: it's an early access to a product that is not finished yet. It doesn't include the "you might never actually get the finished product at the end" tag.

              And since you're saying the definition of what is EA is not clear, the discussion about what it is and what it shouldn't be is definitely a pertinent one.
              Buying a product in Early Access, or Beta, or kickstart or whatever you want to call it, is ALWAYS a risk It's [B]ALWAYS[B] a gamble. You ALWAYS risk the company producing it go tits-up or just not deliver at all. Or deliver a product that's flawed at best and outright nonfunctional at worst.

              We don't set what constitutes an EA-product. That's on the producer and/or supplier. In this case: Razbam and/or ED. What we can do is to actually start critically thinking about whether or not to fork out for a product in EA, whether the risk inherent thereof outweighs the reduction of cost for said product or not.

              Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
              Oh, yeah. The DMT, INS and ARBS are really obscure "rivet" systems... Totally forgot about that.
              Have you ever contemplated whether or not Razbam are allowed to actually model those systems accurately by either the US DoD or Boeing? Or the USMC, for that matter? Because those are a HUGE factor in terms of contracts, since they hold various licenses and trademarks, and without those RB couldn't field the module in the first place.

              And then there's the whole issue of whether or not the framework for said systems are actually present in DCS in the first place. Plus, of course, whether RB has the skills and can translate the documentation for the systems into DCS.
              Regards
              Fjordmonkey
              Clustermunitions is just another way of saying that you don't like someone.

              I used to like people, then people ruined that for me.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
                Oh, yeah. The DMT, INS and ARBS are really obscure "rivet" systems... Totally forgot about that.
                Some people likely might think so. Some want to think that DCS is high quality simulator and it shouldn't have such a errors as Harrier does, but some are ready to look through fingers as long it just "makes thing go boom" in some manner, regardless is it realistic or not.

                High quality study level simulator means that features comes as well with their flaws and challenges. Not as a perfection as someone would just write a specification on paper that what should be expected.

                If that is "rivet counting", then we are here all night counting them if it would be up to me...
                i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.
                i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
                  Have you ever contemplated whether or not Razbam are allowed to actually model those systems accurately by either the US DoD or Boeing? Or the USMC, for that matter? Because those are a HUGE factor in terms of contracts, since they hold various licenses and trademarks, and without those RB couldn't field the module in the first place.
                  They are. Simulating a system is not a matter of licensing. On top of that, from SMEs the ARBS isn't even used anymore. How can we get GPS weapons that are definitely classified, yet Razbam wouldn't actually simulate systems that aren't? The documentation about the ARBS/DMT is at most restricted, but most of it is public domain. Just look it up.

                  Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
                  And then there's the whole issue of whether or not the framework for said systems are actually present in DCS in the first place. Plus, of course, whether RB has the skills and can translate the documentation for the systems into DCS.
                  That goes with my final point on that. Razbam's excuse on that if you go on their Discord is because "the facilities are not in place" and "it would slow your computer to a crawl", for which I personally refuted both by showing that HB can definitely track scenery objects for example with their LANTIRN pods, and given my field of research (computer vision and robotics), I can say that a basic contrast lock would never slow a computer to a crawl.

                  If you actually go on their discord and see my post, I basically said that it is understandable that they don't wont to go through the hassle of simulating the DMT contrast lock though, but it's definitely not because of the reasons they gave us.

                  As for the INS designation, this is something very important and is actually part of several tutorials (eg the Maverick INS designation, which basically only says "it's unimplemented yet"). This, mixed with the limits of the DMT and ARBS (requires time to compute an accurate slant range due to the way it uses angular rates of the track, tendency for the contrast lock to move a bit due to the nature of image processing), were very important in how the AV-8B N/A was used.

                  According to SMEs, the ARBS in good condition was even more precise than radar ranging (AGR) when given a good lock and time to process slant range, but at other times they had to manually switch to CCIP because at the last moment the lock would start moving.

                  Currently, the INS and DMT modes are basically fused together in a perfect "can track everything instantly" and under the DMT mode, whereas the INS mode is basically unimplemented (can't slew at all in it).

                  Those things are absolutely part of any mission, be it CAS or a strike. The Viggen and the A-10C both give you a very good understanding of what goes into getting a good slant range/designation and the intricacies of that.


                  EDIT: oh and one last thing on that gamble thing. Promised features are not a gamble. They're either delivered, or the customer can go through legal action. A list of features when buying something is a binding contract.
                  Last edited 10-02-2020, 03:56 PM.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
                    Some people likely might think so. Some want to think that DCS is high quality simulator and it shouldn't have such a errors as Harrier does, but some are ready to look through fingers as long it just "makes thing go boom" in some manner, regardless is it realistic or not.

                    High quality study level simulator means that features comes as well with their flaws and challenges. Not as a perfection as someone would just write a specification on paper that what should be expected.

                    If that is "rivet counting", then we are here all night counting them if it would be up to me...

                    Absolutely agree. We're not looking into emulating the planes. A simulation does not follow the exact implementation of the systems so as to have a "as true to life as possible" experience, but rather an abstraction of those systems that cover 95% of the cases and limitations of the aircraft. That is the difference between simulation and emulation.


                    Unfortunately, this is not something the AV-8B currently does. It's not because the Nav system has waypoints, that I can drop bombs and things go boom that it's up to the level I expect from a 70 USD DCS module. Sure, I can "wait for things to improve", but I think the community's worries about it never happening and the resulting backlash are justified. Chicken (one of their SMEs who had a "misunderstanding" with Razbam lately) gave a testimony on how the Harrier was actually heading toward not having any depth to these systems. I'll link his post in an edit.


                    EDIT: here it is https://imgur.com/mQvzCn8
                    Last edited 10-02-2020, 03:52 PM.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
                      ...but some are ready to look through fingers as long it just "makes thing go boom" in some manner, regardless is it realistic or not...
                      Yeah some people have swapped DCS with a boom sim, it's no longer a flight simulator but a missile launch simulator.
                      My two cents about the turn this community is taking
                      https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=284141

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
                        They are. Simulating a system is not a matter of licensing. On top of that, from SMEs the ARBS isn't even used anymore. How can we get GPS weapons that are definitely classified, yet Razbam wouldn't actually simulate systems that aren't? The documentation about the ARBS/DMT is at most restricted, but most of it is public domain. Just look it up.
                        Simulating a system IS a matter of licensing when you are also selling said simulation for profit. If you don't think so, make a simulation of something and see just how many company lawyers and/or cease and desist-orders you get.

                        And besides, it doesn't matter if a system isn't used anymore or not doesn't mean that the info on it is exempt from classified etc. If you want proof: Find official documentation from official sources about the actual top speed on the SR-71. Key word here is official sources, aka USAF/US DOD. I'll wait.

                        When it comes to GPS-guided weapons in DCS (or others, like the AIM-120 and AIM-9X), most of them are approximations. For example, JDAMs are in essence a MK-82 with with a GPS guidance kit. The JDAM as a weapon isn't classifed. The techincal data, however, is. I.e. certain aspects of it will be, such as for example true range, accuracy/CEP etc. Same goes with the GBU-54. The DSU-38 laser-sensor that turns a GBU-32 into a GBU-54 isn't classified, the technical data and other documentation, however, is.

                        Looking at the AIM-120: Everything I've found say that the actual true range of the missile is classified, as is much of the technical data behind it. Approximating it based on publicly available data isn't really hard, nor is modeling it in a sim.

                        Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
                        That goes with my final point on that. Razbam's excuse on that if you go on their Discord is because "the facilities are not in place" and "it would slow your computer to a crawl", for which I personally refuted both by showing that HB can definitely track scenery objects for example with their LANTIRN pods, and given my field of research (computer vision and robotics), I can say that a basic contrast lock would never slow a computer to a crawl.

                        If you actually go on their discord and see my post, I basically said that it is understandable that they don't wont to go through the hassle of simulating the DMT contrast lock though, but it's definitely not because of the reasons they gave us.
                        That's a valid point. I'd love to see contrast lock like that, and it would help quite a bit.

                        Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
                        As for the INS designation, this is something very important and is actually part of several tutorials (eg the Maverick INS designation, which basically only says "it's unimplemented yet"). This, mixed with the limits of the DMT and ARBS (requires time to compute an accurate slant range due to the way it uses angular rates of the track, tendency for the contrast lock to move a bit due to the nature of image processing), were very important in how the AV-8B N/A was used.

                        According to SMEs, the ARBS in good condition was even more precise than radar ranging (AGR) when given a good lock and time to process slant range, but at other times they had to manually switch to CCIP because at the last moment the lock would start moving.

                        Currently, the INS and DMT modes are basically fused together in a perfect "can track everything instantly" and under the DMT mode, whereas the INS mode is basically unimplemented (can't slew at all in it).

                        Those things are absolutely part of any mission, be it CAS or a strike. The Viggen and the A-10C both give you a very good understanding of what goes into getting a good slant range/designation and the intricacies of that.
                        Also a valid point.


                        Originally posted by toilet2000 View Post
                        EDIT: oh and one last thing on that gamble thing. Promised features are not a gamble. They're either delivered, or the customer can go through legal action. A list of features when buying something is a binding contract.
                        That would depend greatly on the EULA that you agreed to when you purchased said thing. And I'm pretty sure that ED has secured themselves against just such occurences.
                        Regards
                        Fjordmonkey
                        Clustermunitions is just another way of saying that you don't like someone.

                        I used to like people, then people ruined that for me.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by Fri13 View Post
                          And there lies the problem....

                          Early Access is expected to be buggy, to be missing features, to have features not functioning properly, to have patches that breaks things etc.,..

                          If someone doesn't want that experience, they an either wait further in EA period until their wanted features gets implemented or are working, OR they will wait patiently those years that the module gets completed so it is out of Early Access and they can buy it as it has gone through developers testing, community testing and ED has tested and accepted it is fulfilling the quality a full module is expected to have when sold.

                          Is it so? No....

                          ED says they have nothing to say about when product gets out of Early Access....

                          Meaning, your argument point becomes invalid as customer now coming to ED store, buying only feature completed products, can not get what is expected from a product that is out of Early Access.

                          Even the studio agrees with that Harrier is not completed, it is broken and it needs lots of fixing, rewrite even.....

                          So no one is forcing players to buy a product that is marked as feature completed as it is out of Early Access (and it would have been already in 2018, two years ago if not couple people here would have stopped that happening!) but they are given to understand that it is, and they are waiting a nasty surprise after all the years spent waiting it to be completed.

                          When is Harrier going to be completed? 2025? Who knows?
                          No one, and why? Because there is _NOTHING_ that is stopping Razbam right now announcing that Harrier is not getting any updates _because it is feature completed_!

                          They literally can just throw Harrier to "Completed" basket without anything that ED or us can do!

                          And if someone looks more closely their actions in here, and their actions in their controlled channels, it is scary what signals they are giving....

                          People bought Harrier in Early Access to support Razbam, helped them more or less to find out what even real harrier is capable because Razbam had no idea, only expecting that after Early Access is completed, then Harrier is what was promised since day one.

                          Years went by and here we are, major main features not at such a level that can be said to be excellent in "study level simulator" and it is out of Early Access.
                          And now we're firmly into the discussion about just what Early Access entails, and what feature complete actually entails. That's something we can discuss until we're all dead, buried and turned into tiny droplets of oil.

                          Maybe the whole EA-program needs to change. Maybe if they called it Alpha, Beta and Release-products, we wouldn't end up in this gigantic discussions that frankly we all perpetuate. Couple that with milestones defined by ED that constituted the various stages so that all developers were playing on the same sheet of music as well. That would at least give us as customers firm(er) reference-points to when we wanted to buy into the product.

                          While we have no guarantee that Razbam suddenly won't go "NOPE! FINISHED AND DONE!" on the Harrier, I SEVERELY doubt they would survive as a company in doing so. Given how many modules they have in the pipeline, it's pretty safe to say that they'd never sell anything to anyone ever again, across multiple sims and regardless of what their company was called as soon as people learned who were behind said company. And sure, humans are idiotic creatures on the best of days, but doing so would effectively be committing suicide as a developer. Just look at what happened to VEAO, and then think about whether or not you'd buy anything from anyone involved with the company ever again.

                          It's no secret that Razbam SEVERELY mishandled comms. Damn near ALL of this mess could have been avoided if there were proper communication.
                          Regards
                          Fjordmonkey
                          Clustermunitions is just another way of saying that you don't like someone.

                          I used to like people, then people ruined that for me.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
                            Simulating a system IS a matter of licensing when you are also selling said simulation for profit. If you don't think so, make a simulation of something and see just how many company lawyers and/or cease and desist-orders you get.
                            The name and trademark of it is. The actual simulation of how a system works isn't. If they can name it "ARBS", they definitely can implement how it works. You'll see plenty of examples of that throughout the video game industry for example. You can't use a specific gun name in a game without license, but its simulation (without the name) isn't subject to this kind of copyright licensing, AFAIK.

                            Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
                            And besides, it doesn't matter if a system isn't used anymore or not doesn't mean that the info on it is exempt from classified etc. If you want proof: Find official documentation from official sources about the actual top speed on the SR-71. Key word here is official sources, aka USAF/US DOD. I'll wait.
                            It's not a absolute indicator, but it's generally related. Something that is not in active duty anymore, especially in the US military, is generally easier to find information on. But in any case, the documentation about the ARBS and DMT is definitely available, so your original point doesn't stand.

                            Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
                            When it comes to GPS-guided weapons in DCS (or others, like the AIM-120 and AIM-9X), most of them are approximations. For example, JDAMs are in essence a MK-82 with with a GPS guidance kit.
                            Again, not talking about performance. I'm talking about usage. Yes, the Harrier JDAM implementation is definitely not exactly as IRL, Razbam have said it, but the HUD for example is accurate. The reason here is because documentation is simply unavailable/classified. Not the case for the ARBS/DMT.

                            JDAM usage in AFAIK all airframes in the US military is classified. The manual for the Hornet about JDAM usage is actually available online at your "controversial favorite leaked document" website, and considering it says "secret" on every page, I assume it is classified, although someone better versed than me in the controlled documents jargon can correct me.

                            Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
                            That would depend greatly on the EULA that you agreed to when you purchased said thing. And I'm pretty sure that ED has secured themselves against just such occurences.
                            EULAs are known to be second place when put against consumer laws. Consumer laws in a lot of places prohibit this kind of things.

                            But even without going into laws, promising features and not delivering those would be dishonest and just a bad thing to do in general. (EDIT: not saying that's what Razbam is doing currently btw, hence the precise choice of "would") Thus, the community can definitely (and IMO should absolutely) ask for these features to be properly implemented.

                            IMO, I think all in all these backlashes have a positive outcome in the end and should not be silenced or dismissed. Some people definitely go overboard in that manner, there will always be extremists, some people lack respect (and those can be on both sides btw) and this is definitely where I cut the line. But all in all, I think the vast majority of vocal users did so in a respectful and constructive manner, even though this might not have been a "nice" thing from RB's PoV. Criticism is never nice when taken at its first level, but the intentions behind it can be very nice and its consequences, even better.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by Expert View Post
                              Yeah some people have swapped DCS with a boom sim, it's no longer a flight simulator but a missile launch simulator.
                              I can accept that some people want a fancy BVR combat and experience.
                              I am more to a IR missile group, where it is nicer to actually be required get to rear of an enemy to get valid firing solution.
                              why I don't like so much about R-73 or AIM-9X.

                              But, as we don't even have a proper Sidewinder flight modeling (the famous sidewinder snake swirly missile flight behavior) for even older missiles, even it becomes boring.

                              One reason why I don't care so much about modern fighters is their super easy, performance against ground targets. Mavericks has unrealistic long lock ranges, laser designators has unrealistic accuracies and long designation capabilities, FLIR systems are totally unrealistic to detect ground units and so on. It becomes very quickly a fishing fishes in barrel by using a hand grenade.

                              I have started to enjoy more of flying L-39, Yak-52 and MiG-15Bis from fixed wings as the flight modeling is so good. But even many of them lacks the flight modeling for gun shooting. Just like Harrier does. Pilots has written that firing a GAU-12 has a recoil that requires to quickly give some forward stick to keep it steady. That it is accurate otherwise nut recoil needs to be compensated. That doesn't exist in DCS at all. The same thing is with many modules like Su-25 or L-39.

                              Basically now right away comes in my mind only two modules that has weapon recoil modeled. A-10C and KA-50. Other has automatic PAC to deal with it, and it is great feeling how it locks pitch while doing so and without you shoot all over places. But then again in KA-50 such thing is lacking what should be there.

                              Example for a decade people were wishing ED to fix GAU-8 spread to proper 5 mil accuracy, and years ED said "developers are happy with it", until a serious thread was made that became long and very through what it should be, regardless that before it ex-pilots said it was too wide spread.

                              In a KA-50 it is written by designers as:
                              "The Cannon mount also justified the hopes of the KAMOV. Although the Mi-28 gun could deviate in azimuth by 110 °, and in the V-80 - only 2 ° to the left and 9 ° to the right, this was more than offset by the high maneuverability of the V-80 helicopter itself. The cannon's hydraulic drive ensured the countering of machine vibrations in the track channel according to the signals from the Shkval complex automatic machine. As a result, the B-80's firing accuracy turned out to be 2.5-4 times higher than that of the Mi-28 (2 mrad versus 5-8 mrad). In addition, the Kamov machine was twice as great as the Mi-28 cannon in terms of ammunition (500 and 250 rounds, respectively)."

                              There is as well saying that firing KA-50 Cannon didn't require apply pedal to compensate recoil as it was automatic, like a PAC in A-10. But in DCS you need. But there is at least effect that feels better than nothing, even if wrong.

                              Next in aircrafts like a MiG-29 it is said by pilots that firing a gun was a horrifying experience because everything shaked and it felt all came to part, why you naturally wanted to take hand off from a trigger. What it is in DCS? Nice, totally recoilless firing. What now you hear smooth "Brrrrrrt". So no effect to flight modeling, cockpit shaking or anything.

                              Then in infamous Gazelle.... And its flight modeling. Listening the interview of the Kiowa Warrior pilot in Fighter Pilot Podcast revealed that the 20mm cannon required heavy pedal compensation, and as new pilots didn't know about it, the experienced pilots liked to see new pilots firing those first time and get awful experience from the recoil. Does Gazelle have this effect at all. No... Again smooth and steady experience.

                              The Harrier has this nice feeling when you release a bomb, and asymmetric load makes its effect. Do we have that in Hornet? A-10 etc? Not really. I have not had a change to fly New A-10C II but I am not holding hopes to see similarity effects.

                              For years I have talked about how next level up is not in aircrafts, but it is the Combined Arms and ground units. We need challenge, we need more realistic ground units commanding with all fog of war, incorrect information of units positions and status and all that. As it becomes very boring and lonely in a cockpit when there are just target practice drones on ground. Why the combat part is missing in DCS as simulation level.

                              Razbam cant do anything for that, but as it is an dedicated Attack aircraft, it should get all as right as possible when it comes to that challenging scenarios. As when ED improves adding realism to ground units, all others needs to be ready.

                              And as Harrier is a USMC aircraft, it should be well linked to ground units on ground as in reality, digital datalinks, digital CAS capability, two way TPOD video sharing and all...
                              It is annoying that Harrier is just "getting there" but it lacks the final effort to push it up.

                              So much would be corrected simply by pulling Harrier back to Early Access for a year, really focus all efforts on it and get it done. No promises, but action and results for every single open beta update as much as possible. Strengthen the communication with customers and show the progress. Once harrier is feature completed, then get it out. Focus to Mirage and MiG-19P. And only then start to think about others.

                              Sure if ED can't provide a contrast lock functionality etc, everyone is in waiting line and then can other things be done meanwhile.
                              i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.
                              i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

                              Comment


                                #75
                                This isn't about impatience, it's about honesty. Calling the Harrier complete means Razbam, and by extension ED, are under no obligation to bring it from what we could charitably call a product preview state, to something that resembles a complete module. This is a textbook example of a bait and switch.

                                We were promised, and paid for, detailed system modeling on a full price module, not a pretty 3d model with Flaming Cliffs level systems accuracy for a discount price. We've paid the full price, now we're seeing Razbam and ED calling the module "complete" and hand waving away concerns by stating 'we'll get around to it later, if we have time and if we feel like it.' That's not how business contracts work.

                                When you get paid up front and take too long to deliver, the customer starts getting nervous. When you tell the nervous customer that you're just going to call the unfinished work "complete," but that you'll totally come back later and finish it... exactly how should the customer react?

                                Major defining features of the Harrier, which are to be expected from a full price module, aren't simply incomplete, they are modeled in a grossly oversimplified or totally incorrect manner. Calling that complete is totally unacceptable.

                                Further, something is wrong at Razbam. Whoever is making their 3d models is excellent, but whoever is doing systems modeling has shown a shocking lack of ability to understand and model systems, even when similar systems are clearly show implemented in existing ED modules and explained in detail in source documentation. The bomb fall line in AUTO mode is an excellent example. It took Razbam years to finally figure out and address this. Why was it wrong in the first place? Did Razbam defend its behavior as being accurate, only to later correct it? Clearly, the systems man couldn't understand the concept or else wasn't skilled enough to program its behavior properly, and clearly either the boss didn't care that it was incorrect, or also didn't know better. Somehow, something went wrong there and is still going wrong with the systems model man and whoever his oversight is.

                                This must be addressed or it will continue, with ED's reputation in an already niche-within-niche market suffering further damage as a result.

                                Comment


                                  #76
                                  Originally posted by Aries144 View Post
                                  This isn't about impatience, it's about honesty. Calling the Harrier complete means Razbam, and by extension ED, are under no obligation to bring it from what we could charitably call a product preview state, to something that resembles a complete module. This is a textbook example of a bait and switch.
                                  .
                                  Your post is factually wrong: the Harrier is NOT complete. Feature Complete doesn't mean complete, which is a fact that has been stated NUMEROUS times by both ED and Razbam themselves. Development on it continues, and yes, I know we can sit here arguing about just what feature complete actually entails. We've been down that road before, two threads have already been closed because of it.

                                  This is why so many software-devs have stopped giving out ETA's. People chuck the first word and then scream bloody murder when the remaining ones is pushed back. Same sort of lazy, silly thinking, and it really does have to stop.
                                  Regards
                                  Fjordmonkey
                                  Clustermunitions is just another way of saying that you don't like someone.

                                  I used to like people, then people ruined that for me.

                                  Comment


                                    #77
                                    That's utterly preposterous. If development continues, then why the need to declare it feature complete? Why the backpedaling attempt to draw silly semantic distinctions between complete and feature complete? ETAs have nothing to do with this discussion.

                                    "Your house is feature complete!" "But the hot water heater isn't hooked up." "Yeah, but technically, the house is feature complete because the top half of the water heater is in the house."

                                    LOL Ok man. This is a semantic shell game.

                                    Comment


                                      #78
                                      Originally posted by Aries144 View Post
                                      That's utterly preposterous. If development continues, then why the need to declare it feature complete? Why the backpedaling attempt to draw silly semantic distinctions between complete and feature complete? ETAs have nothing to do with this discussion.
                                      I used ETA as an example to show that people misunderstand things willingly. Estimated Time of Arrival damn near always turns into Time of Arrival and a tremendous amount of screaming, just as we now see with Feature Complete. People chucked the word Feature, went with Complete, and then started screaming.

                                      The screaming could have been mitigated with communication, which we've touched upon a number of times. People would still scream (because that's what we as a community are EXTREMELY good at), but probably not as much.

                                      Originally posted by Aries144 View Post
                                      "Your house is feature complete!" "But the hot water heater isn't hooked up." "Yeah, but technically, the house is feature complete because the top half of the water heater is in the house."
                                      Not the worst example, but also not the best. We're not talking about a house, we're talking about a piece of software. The comparison isn't valid.

                                      Originally posted by Aries144 View Post
                                      LOL Ok man. This is a semantic shell game.
                                      Isn't everything? People say that the devil is in the details. I like to say that he's equally present in definitions.
                                      Regards
                                      Fjordmonkey
                                      Clustermunitions is just another way of saying that you don't like someone.

                                      I used to like people, then people ruined that for me.

                                      Comment


                                        #79
                                        Originally posted by ShadowXP View Post
                                        Not the worst example, but also not the best. We're not talking about a house, we're talking about a piece of software. The comparison isn't valid.
                                        Actually it's quite a poor example. Feature complete usually implies that at all "critical" or "high" importance features are in place. In other words all "must-have" and "should-have" feature are compleated while "could-have" features are still to be done.

                                        Using house as an example this would mean that feature complete house is the one ready to move-in, while still some elements are not finished or done at all. In example a fence has to be still build, walkways to be done, even such important thing as an external facade and thermal insulation could be not ready if you're moving in during summer not mentioning that having a nice grass or garden in place at this stage might have not be expected at all.

                                        To get to more practical terms however. I have been playing DCS with a brakes through past couple of years. During that time giving a try to Harrier and seeing little to no progress, obvious bugs could lead only to a disappointment. In the past I would not recommend it to anyone, even discounted.
                                        The version that we have currently however is another story. For the first time I could recommend it even at a full price. Something that people overlook is a great set of training missions that Harrier has.

                                        Yes, the module still has a quirks but I would rather see a glass full and so to say enjoy the house even without a perfect grass outside. There is only one type of software in nothing can't be improved and there are no bugs to be fixed - the one none is using anymore.
                                        F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all

                                        Comment


                                          #80
                                          Glad to see that the conversation is staying civil and constructive everyone, keep it up.
                                          Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass.

                                          — Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X