Razbam/ED please clarify - Is the Harrier out of EA and consequently complete?

Please comment to what you know

 

...coming here calling RAZBAM or ED scammers, or making stuff up isn't doing anything but to muddy this thread and make things more difficult to work through.

Ok, I'll comment to what I know.

I know that the Harrier isn't feature-complete, but BigNewy keeps calling it that.

I know that both you NineLine and BigNewy consider talk like "scam" or "fraud" to be exaggerated, and yet I bought a product under ED's DCS license that doesn't match what's advertised on the product page.

I know that Harrier owners have been actively posting bugs reports in these very forums, even going so far as to create a community tracker because Razbam's lack of communication or acknowledgement of the reported bugs got to a point where customers felt the need to do something themselves, just to help the developer fix the product.

I know that Razbam employees are alive and well, actively posting on their own Discord channel daily, and yet they refuse to post in their own official forums in a BASIC attempt to try and control the damage to the trust issues they've created with their own customers.

I know that Razbam has made very inflammatory comments in their Discord channel concerning how they view this situation and what they think of the concern customers have for their product and its current state.

That's what I know. Here's what I suspect.

I suspect that ED isn't publicly holding them accountable for their business practice because ED wants to see sales from the F-15E Mudhen module, and by releasing the Harrier from EA without so much as a newsletter announcement or in-game news flash on that little news widget, ED was aware of the state of the Harrier, knew it would generate pushback, and that's why you and BigNewy are now in here doing damage control for Razbam.

I suspect that Razbam will continue to develop the Mudhen the same way they developed the Harrier, by ignoring bug reports, incorrectly modelling systems, and then calling it "feature-complete" somewhere down the line.

I HOPE that potential customers who might want to purchase the Mudhen will see all this discussion, the same discussion you say is "muddying up" the forum, and make an informed decision whether or not to invest money in a company that doesn't do what it says it will do, and in a company that allows that behavior to continue.

As BigNewy said, this discussion is necessary as long as it's constructive, civil, and organized. I think what I've written fits that bill.

Apparently there are people who just don't want to understand the difference between those who buy and those who produce. They think they are part of the producers by buying EAs to support them and are happy to find bugs and report so they feel part of the process. I'm not telling you what to think about it because the cause of what we are experiencing with razbam depends on how these people have spent their money.

Apparently there are people who just don't want to understand the difference between those who buy and those who produce. They think they are part of the producers by buying EAs to support them and are happy to find bugs and report so they feel part of the process. I'm not telling you what to think about it because the cause of what we are experiencing with razbam depends on how these people have spent their money.

In this case I feel the the people who buy are suckers.

Nineline,

What you posted is pretty concisely the crux of the issue. As these missing functions get categorized as merely Feature Improvements or Requests, they ought to be held against the Store page's claims that the product features qualify as

- "realistic performance and flight characteristics of a Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) aircraft" that is missing aerodynamic properties described in the flight manuals like jetblast impingement; or

- "Highly realistic modelling of the aircraft systems [...] that includes" things like the Environment Control System (not modeled at all to my knowledge), VREST Computer (minimally functional with placeholder values), Electrical Power System (minimally functional with entire panels non-functional), and Flight Control System (with an AFC that does not function as it should); or

- "Realistic weapons, sensor, and defensive systems" which omit entire weapons like the advertised GBU-32 and GBU-54, or strictly do not model some employment modes or simulate some systems with any fidelity at all.

It is really difficult for someone reporting a potential problem to make the determination themselves what isn't working as a result of improper (or lack of) modeling and what isn't working because of an error or bug.

This is going to be a recurring thorn in the side of both RAZBAM and customers without transparency about what and how systems are modeled, what is or isn't functional (and isn't planned to be), and what customers should expect going forward.

What are the thoughts around the notion that Razbam potentially might not have the required skillset in their team of developers to bring the expected/desired ASM level/depth to the table?

Just curious if that's a factor at all...

What's are the thoughts around the notion that Razbam potentially might not have the required skillset in their team of developers to bring the expected/desired ASM level/depth to the table?

Just curious if that's a factor at all...

That's an hot question, and also very sad if true.

Please comment to what you know, I have spent the last day and a half trying to get caught up, and work on these issues. We are hardly riding it out. Remember that me and BN also have our own stuff to deal with as well, so we are balancing all that with this as well.

Dear NineLine. I know that you act as a buffer between us, your bosses and many others, which is especially in this case certainly very grueling. My goal is not to bring this to a head. I think what we are all aiming at here is that a decision maker should move out of the comfort zone in this regard and make some real decisions!

I don’t see the issue here, particularly bearing in mind the current situation.

Quite clearly the Harrier has been out for a long time and doesn’t really have excuses for not having those bugs resolved.

 

Razbam do however have a LOT of money invested in the slew of new products lined up.

Very easy to put them under the thumb by simply NOT buying the incoming modules until they’ve resolved a reasonable amount of Harrier bugs.

 

Remember how that was threatened by many to Ugra that Syria wouldn’t be bought until Normandy got some love. Sure enough, Ugra significantly improved Normandy.

No different here.

I mean that is my plan and has been for some time now. I'm certainly not going to pre-order a single raz module, or probably even when it comes out in the first month or three pending some stellar reviews. Because we know we won't see features added quickly, or bugs fixed in anything resembling a timely fashion. So unless by some miracle the modules come 90% done and bug free, its simply not worth it.

Razbam are cool :thumbup:

What's are the thoughts around the notion that Razbam potentially might not have the required skillset in their team of developers to bring the expected/desired ASM level/depth to the table?

 

Just curious if that's a factor at all...

Oddly enough i did start to wonder on this scenario earlier in the summer when nearly 3 years later certain basic issues such as keybinds had not been resolved and had actually put this forward as a hypothesis on these forums and it they need help to ask for it. I'd starting coming to the same logical conclusion that it was actually they can't resolve them re skill set otherwise no excuse in that timeframe, esp given the amount of reminders for it not to be completed.

Makes you wonder how they will get on with more advanced systems such as in the F15, not that any serious player has trust in their ability anymore or equally knowing they will not conform to an EA process with the customer base, plus any bugs raised just fall on deaf ears.

I mean there is this also from the main developer which to be fair was a worrying sign re not being able to sort out the TDC slew axis.....first month of release, constant chasing etc. see attached it does make you wonder re expertise when other 1/3 party have released modules without issue, not to mention ED pod's themselves.

PS sorry had to delete last post for wrong attachment.

Totally and 100% agree, I am asking them to address these concerns for sure. As many stated, it does no good coming from me or BN, you all need it from them. And it is coming.

I don't need to hear it from them. I have no reason to believe anything they post.

I need to hear it from ED management. ED is releasing this thing without a manual. I'm still waiting to hear an explanation as to how ED determined it was ready for release.

Having seen their lighter models from FSX etc. I do believe they've bitten off more than they can chew. Their artworks are really good but the sytems are beyond them and they are now hiding behind bluster and disinformation.

This does not bode well for the F-15 in my opinion. I don't think they set out to scam anyone intentionally.

I'd like to see the F-15 taken off them if that were a thing and wait till someone who knows what they are doing shows up.

I've written off the Harrier.

Maybe the "responsible persons" should think about what a new buyer, who has been waiting all the time for the module to finally be released from early access, should think about after the release?

"That is your choice to make as a consumer, if you have doubts about early access it is always best to wait" to quote BN. This is exactly the buyer who has saved himself the whole Early Access stuff and now rightly expects a feature complete module.

Whether the new buyer understands that a module declared as finished by the manufacturer may have so many errors and shortcomings? Is it possible to justify that the module is finished but the manufacturer is still working on it? On which contractual basis should he rely, if the module is already sold as feature complete?

For customers who tried to support the manufacturer by purchasing the Early Access module and reporting bugs, it is of course not easy if their reports simply fade away "unheard" and the module is then delivered with the bugs known to the manufacturer as complete, finished and/or feature complete. But this has already been sufficiently discussed.

Moving from EA to release is decided by 3rd Parties, this is not an ED management decision. We have asked RAZBAM to address it.

Thanks for the info.

It does not seem wise to have a platform where vendors can run a muk and put out any trash they choose. Of course I'm over exaggerating, but really. ED has no say in the matter. This was brought up two years ago and the mantra was "ED has the highest standards of quality".

But they don't need to be met.:thumbup:

Good on ya!

Moving from EA to release is decided by 3rd Parties, this is not an ED management decision. We have asked RAZBAM to address it.

Can you please clarify?

It seems pretty simple to see what people want you to clarify. RB say it's up to ED to release something from EA, you say it's up to 3rd parties. Clearly one of the two is a lie. Which one is it?

That person spoke out of line, and is wrong. I already addressed this with Ron. Thanks. The most we control is removing the EA text from our website, but that is done with RAZBAMs request.

Thank you for that ultrafast clarification.

I guess we here can't imagine what seems to be wrong behind the curtains :-/.

Yes, okay, it is logical to say somewhere: The developer company that developed the respective module (actually) knows best about its development status. And can best decide when it's ready (at least it should, right?). But DCS World is your, ED, platform where you offer these products. And you have certain standards that you emphasize again and again (e.g. offer a FluSim that comes as close as possible to reality, etc.)? And you certainly have certain requirements that a module must meet? And I assume that you, ED, will take a close look at such modules before they are brought to the customer? It must be noticeable in what state their, Razbams, software is ... Add to this the discussion about the M2k and the Harrier that has been going on for years. And it is no accident! It's your, ED, reputation that suffers sooner or later. It should be in your interest that it finally comes to a satisfactory end. Take a look at the other 3rd parties: Leatherneck. Only 2 modules so far, the Mig is still being worked on to ensure that it is on a qualitative, good current level. Heatblur's work is the same. Deka has also made a good impression so far, at least that's my opinion. Yes, they all have bugs more or less, that's okay. But you're working on it. And these 3rd party development studios accept criticism from us consumers, can deal with it and look for solutions. Where do you see that in Razbam? On the contrary, they steal from their responsibility and make fun of our so-called 'shit storm in a waterglass' in other channels.

They’re even more arrogant than I thought, they really have no intention of cooperating