How finished is Harrier? The reason was that there were many features that were not a

This isn't exactly true. I read the flight manual cover to cover last night, and I was surprised at just how much is wrong or not modeled. Not the Tacmanual or NATOPS, the actual manual supplied by RAZBAM. The manual is full of "this doesn't work yet but will later", including critical things that are more basic like HOTAS commands, TDC action/no-action, ACNIP switchology, etc.

 

 

 

Also, AUTO mode should lead moving targets and correct for wind. Chuck's guide doesn't address any of this, and many times the manual says something isn't implemented when it is, or says something works that doesn't.

 

 

 

Redkite is often praised for his tutorials, and they are great, but he usually releases them right at the time a new feature is released, and so it's not a great representation of how that feature has evolved or what bugs it might have months on.

 

 

 

There's a whole world of navigation procedures that should be modeled by now, too.

 

 

 

It's not Chuck's guide's fault, that's only supposed to show you the Cliff's notes of how to get things done in the sim, not tell you how it should work but doesn't. It's a great resource on how the sim does work, not how it should work.

 

 

 

I enjoy the Harrier quite a lot, but it is aggravating that HOTAS commands and bombing modes aren't done yet. Seems like they should be among the first things that get done. It's strange to get things like overlays before properly functioning HOTAS. This is far from "hating" RAZBAM. I don't "hate" them at all. But, if you're being honest, you have to admit the order in which they do things is unpredictable and probably not in line with expectations, and the length of time it takes to get things done is significantly longer than other developers.

 

 

 

Potential buyers need to see not only what's available, and what's planned for the future, but how long they could potentially expect to wait and to what level of detail the final product is planned for. There are hardly any resources for this and we can only use past performance to leverage a guess. That is why every time someone asks what the state of a module is, users dredge this stuff up. It matters.

Still it is one of the most accurate simulations of the AV-8B Harrier outside professional military grade training simulators?

So I don't understand people here often trying to make business decisions on behalf of Razbam, badmouthing them when their exaggereted expectations are not met two weeks after they voiced them here, rather than enjoying what we have until now and wait patiently for the actual release.

Just my two cents, though. Others may have different opinions.

I personally realized it is more productive to communicate to developers/business partners/vendors in a polite manner, requesting changes in a civil way and help resolving issues rather than demanding and ranting, about my needs and wants. :dunno:

Still it is one of the most accurate simulations of the AV-8B Harrier outside professional military grade training simulators?

That's a great marketing slogan, but not very helpful. It doesn't at all represent what the customer is getting. Yes, it's an Alpha, but I think it was debated and demonstrated on Hoggit, how the industry practice of releasing Alpha/Beta state product is a double edged sword. Project financing requires it, but it can be some what, if not absurdly abused by developers. I am not making any accusations here. It's marketed as a study level sim and that's what customer expects. I don't presume to tell them their business, but where I sit they aren't delivering the goods. At least not in a timely manner. I believe it's a management issue.

So I don't understand people here often trying to make business decisions on behalf of Razbam, badmouthing them when their exaggerated expectations are not met two weeks after they voiced them here, rather than enjoying what we have until now and wait patiently for the actual release.

That statement is ludicrous, and is a slap in the face to people who have tried to helpful and nice. Maybe this is what you mean by an exaggerated expectation?

Hey =Decoy=,

Liked the latest update video. Always look forward to those.

 

Haven't seen any Bug Tracker entries for the folllowing gripes:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220713 CW and CCW key commands for Course knob. Bugs 09-21-18

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=221779 CW and CCW key commands for Course knob. General 10-07-18

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196690 Switch logic and of course CW and CCW key commands Bugs 11-30-17

 

I've taken the liberty to list of all the Rotary switches, Encoders, and Miscellaneous things items that need keyboard commands or some adjustment to their Lableing

 

 

EHSD Course Knob CW(Clockwise)&CCW(CounterClockWise)_____________EHSD knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Backup ADI Cage/Pitch Knob CW & CCW______________________________Backup ADI Cage/Pitch Knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Barometric Pressure Calibration knob CW & CCW____________________Barometric Pressure Calibration knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

HUD Video Brightness Control knob CW & CCW_______________________HUD Video Brightness Control knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

HUD Video Contrast Control knob CW & CCW HUD_____________________Video Contrast Control knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

EDP Brightness Control CW & CCW__________________________________EDP Brightness Control knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

V/UHF RCS Voume knob CW & CCW____________________________________V/UHF RCS Voume knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

V/UHF RCS Chan/Freq knob CW & CCW________________________________V/UHF RCS Chan/Freq knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

V/UHF RCS Operation Mode switch CW & CCW_________________________V/UHF RCS Operation Mode switch is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

V/UHF RCS Freq Mode switch CW & CCW______________________________V/UHF RCS Freq Mode switch is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

COMM 1 knob CW & CCW_____________________________________________COMM 1 knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

COMM 1 knob Push_________________________________________________COMM 1 knob Push is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

COMM 2 knob CW & CCW_____________________________________________COMM 2 knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

COMM 2 knob Push_________________________________________________COMM 2 knob Push is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

ICS AUX Volume knob CW & CCW_____________________________________ICS AUX Volume knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

ICS Ground Volume knob CW & CCW__________________________________ICS Ground Volume knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Instruments Lighting knob CW & CCW_______________________________Instruments Lighting knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Console Lighting knob CW & CCW___________________________________Console Lighting knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Flood Lights CW & CCW____________________________________________Flood Lights knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Warning Annunciator Lights knob CW & CCW_________________________Warning Annunciator Lights knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Temperature Control knob CW & CCW________________________________Temperature Control knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Formation Lights_________________________________________________Currently labled "Formation Lights Brightness Increase". Please addhear to a standard for Rotary Encoders.

Formation Lights CCW & CCW_______________________________________Formation Lights knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Seat Adjust Up & Down____________________________________________Seat Adjust switch is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Left Upper Flood Lamp CW & CCW___________________________________Left Upper Flood Lamp is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Right Upper Flood Lamp CW & CCW__________________________________Right Upper Flood Lamp is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

UFC Display Brightness CW & CCW__________________________________Currently labled "HUD On-Brightness Increase". Please addhear to a standard for Rotary Encoders.

UFC Display Brightness CW & CCW__________________________________UFC Display Brightness knob is currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor to turn CCW & CCW.

 

Weapon Fuse Control CW & CCW_____________________________________Currently labled "Weapon Fuse Control UP". Not an UP/DOWN switch. Confusing. Please addhear to a standard for Rotary Switches.

 

Oxygen Switch ON__________________________________________________At present only "Oxygen Switch OFF" command possible WTF? Lol!

 

 

Added on 6-29-19:

 

Fuel Totalizer Selector CW & CCW____________________________Currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Fuel Bingo Select Knob CW & CCW____________________________Currently only operable using Clickable Cockpit cursor.

 

Please feel free to contact me if I can do anything to help, or if there is anything that isn't clear.

Is it too much to expect to have Keyboard mapping for system switches and knobs. All of those systems are modeled and in some state of WIP. After two years I think a little inpatients is understandable.

Just my two cents, though. Others may have different opinions.

I personally realized it is more productive to communicate to developers/business partners/vendors in a polite manner, requesting changes in a civil way and help resolving issues rather than demanding and ranting, about my needs and wants. :dunno:

Tried that.:ranting:

77 posts detailing missing features, long standing bugs, promised keybinds poor documentation and Decoy, the Razbam community manager, has yet to bring any current light to the issues raised. These failures pretty much sum up my interpretation of Razbams commitment to fixing and finishing the module.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Turns out that many systems and hotas functionality was more or less guesswork for years. Now Im faced with re-learn a lot of the systems.

No, HOTAS was only missing the TWS/ STT toggle button. It was known since it was described in the manual even before AdA contract.

Magic 2 is getting new modes (search patterns and MAV mode), but this is a good news, and it was impossible to know without AdA involvement.

There is nothing as detailed as NATOPS available about Mirage 2000C.

It's not perfect, still needs work, but they are working on it.

It's not moving as fast as we want, but the modules aren't left over.

About this thread: the same questions always get the same answers by the same people (including me off course, I'm no better :D)

People who yesterday were complaining about lack of accuracy of ARBS (I did agree) are now complaining it's too accurate (I have yet to test) :doh:

The order of things is different from what we expect/would like. The whole development takes exceedingly long, definitely. There are still things missing or wrong. The manual from Razbam is unfortunately so outdated, and inconsistent with the actual state of the module, it is not very useful.

Still it is one of the most accurate simulations of the AV-8B Harrier outside professional military grade training simulators?

So I don't understand people here often trying to make business decisions on behalf of Razbam, badmouthing them when their exaggereted expectations are not met two weeks after they voiced them here, rather than enjoying what we have until now and wait patiently for the actual release.

Just my two cents, though. Others may have different opinions.

I personally realized it is more productive to communicate to developers/business partners/vendors in a polite manner, requesting changes in a civil way and help resolving issues rather than demanding and ranting, about my needs and wants. :dunno:

I agree but I'm not sure I've seen anything like that in this thread. Complaining/criticizing != badmouthing or ranting. Sure those threads come up from time to time, but most of the time the criticism is about the same things and it's usually pretty specific, specific enough to be productive.

Coupled with a bug tracker that is rarely up to date, a bug section that does not delineate what is a bug, what is intended, what is being worked on and what what got fixed, and changes straight up missing from patch notes, I find threads such as this one essential. When they are not at the top of the forum list, there is no other cohesive area to know what is working and what isn't, particularly for new users.

I don't disagree that people should be polite, but I don't think it's enough to send new users off to youtube or to the documentation, because those things are not an exhaustive representation of the what the product is actually like currently.

Hope my position makes sense.

No, HOTAS was only missing the TWS/ STT toggle button. It was known since it was described in the manual even before AdA contract.

Magic 2 is getting new modes (search patterns and MAV mode), but this is a good news, and it was impossible to know without AdA involvement.

There is nothing as detailed as NATOPS available about Mirage 2000C.

It's not perfect, still needs work, but they are working on it.

 

It's not moving as fast as we want, but the modules aren't left over.

 

About this thread: the same questions always get the same answers by the same people (including me off course, I'm no better :D)

 

People who yesterday were complaining about lack of accuracy of ARBS (I did agree) are now complaining it's too accurate (I have yet to test) :doh:

It's not that it's too accurate, it's that the next step after fixing the bombing algorithm should be to try to recreate the sensor. The DMT wasn't inaccurate before, the bombing solution was.

The sensor requires angle rate information, which means it needs to follow a specific point on the ground over time to get its slant range. The more data, the more accurate the solution can be. I find the current level of accuracy acceptable, it's just that to achieve it should require a contrast lock and several seconds of tracking.

This is also why the Harrier has the very cool feature of being able to pickle to designate in CCIP but stay in CCIP. This is so you can get that tracking info to get great slant range, and still pickle yourself using CCIP. VERY accurate using it in this manner. However, you could have nothing at all designated, use CCIP and hit something on a mountaintop dead center. This shouldn't be possible. It is half simulated, so if you designate a high point, and CCIP on a lower point, the solution is off like it should be.

As of right now, the DMT cannot contrast lock nor does it need to, this isn't accurate to how this sensor actually behaves.

The frustrating thing is, like many DCS things in pre-release, we don't know the end game. Is this as simulated as the DMT is going to get? We really don't know, no one's addressed it. Same with things like navigation, INS drift, etc. The developer's end state is not known.

Hope that clarifies what people are talking about with regards to the DMT.

A good start would be if the systems work as described in NATOPS manual. That is the bible when creating a study sim.

The same situation is now seen on the M-2000C. With AdA help, it is getting a MAJOR overhaul. Turns out that many systems and hotas functionality was more or less guesswork for years. Now Im faced with re-learn a lot of the systems.

Because NATOPS (and similar) are not 100% accurate etc.

You can't trust to NATOPS manuals, only use them as starting point.

You would need all other documentation to get the truth. And that is engineering and designers memos and documentation. Something that developers don't get access.

Second best thing is pilots direct feedback based their report in real cockpit, not based to their experience or memories, but them sitting in and reporting the smaller details like how a switch operates or how a needle shakes etc etc. But again the engineering manual is the primary.

You can't trust any material that pilots, ground crews or any personnel can have access or carry with them to home etc. As that is national security that you can't trust any important information to individuals access, be it them becoming spies, compromised by some reasons or simply get stolen etc.

That is why counter-intelligence has placed lots of false information to public and restricted manuals.

So I don't understand people here often trying to make business decisions on behalf of Razbam, badmouthing them when their exaggereted expectations are not met two weeks after they voiced them here, rather than enjoying what we have until now and wait patiently for the actual release.

Exaggerated expectations? Two weeks? Dude, some of the bugs are months and YEARS old. Since when is the expectation of bugs getting actually fixed "exaggerated"?

Because NATOPS (and similar) are not 100% accurate etc.

 

You can't trust to NATOPS manuals, only use them as starting point.

You would need all other documentation to get the truth. And that is engineering and designers memos and documentation. Something that developers don't get access.

 

Second best thing is pilots direct feedback based their report in real cockpit, not based to their experience or memories, but them sitting in and reporting the smaller details like how a switch operates or how a needle shakes etc etc. But again the engineering manual is the primary.

 

You can't trust any material that pilots, ground crews or any personnel can have access or carry with them to home etc. As that is national security that you can't trust any important information to individuals access, be it them becoming spies, compromised by some reasons or simply get stolen etc.

That is why counter-intelligence has placed lots of false information to public and restricted manuals.

NATOPS accuracy is not the only thing that counts. My point is that it is a very important foundation. Documentation is key and then you add SME feedback to do the fine-tuning. Your statements are exaggerated. Sure, there can be false info in the NATOPS. But that is the documentation Razbam has to work with.

If NATOPS is not accurate enough, where do they get their data from? :huh:

The issue is not really the documentation, but how it is interpreted and implemented. Razbam did cut many corners with this bird. The bug section is not wrong. Issues like the AGM-122, the sight has been misaligned now for how long? And the bugged looping sound. And that does not even count the various modes and symbology that has not yet been implemented for it... and that is just one of the many systems that has issues.

In hindsight. Harrier was released too early. Modules like Viggen, JF-17 or Tomcat had years of development before Early Access. Harrier was stressed out quite fast after the M2000C

As much as I like both Razbam and the Harrier, sweeping long standing issues under the rug does not help anyone. There are a lot of issues. Question is if it will receive same kind of overhaul as the M2000C. Im still hopeful and will continue to support Razbam. Looking forward to the Falklands and MiG-23. But I will not have my head up the clouds and pretend that all is good with this module :)

My opinion on the module (flying it for over 1 year).

The pros:

- Flight model is really cool.

- VTOL is awesome, take off and land on the LHD or FARP's are super rewarding.

- It can carry a good amount of weapons, and you have almost everything from dumb bombs and rockets, to Mavericks, LGB's and JDAM.

- As a strike/CAS platform, IMHO it's more flexible and enjoyable than the A-10C.

- By far it has the best training missions set of any module. They are great, and it should be the standard.

The cons:

- Some systems are simplified, like ARBS, TPOD and bombing solutions (no wind correction, no altimeter source, etc).

- Some bugs are anoying like cockpit ilumination at night since 2.5.6 release...

- The development of features and bug fixing is slow and looks like they don't have a clear goal right now... seems they don't know if they want to finish current modules, or delivering new ones.

It's my favorite module, I almost fly nothing else because I find the Harrier more rewarding than anything alse currently. Also, I don't follow NATOPS... I follow the provided manual, and instructions given by the training missions. So, maybe my frustration is way lower than the hardcore natops-nazi guys....

Заметил, что в DCS beta 2.5.6 версии у Харриера, визуально, не поворачивается носовое колесо при взлете с авианосцев, хотя сам самолет поворачивает. На филдах такого нет. В рядовой версии тоже, все норм.

Заметил, что в DCS beta 2.5.6 версии у Харриера, визуально, не поворачивается носовое колесо при взлете с авианосцев, хотя сам самолет поворачивает. На филдах такого нет. В рядовой версии тоже, все норм.

Yeah! What he said.

Заметил, что в DCS beta 2.5.6 версии у Харриера, визуально, не поворачивается носовое колесо при взлете с авианосцев, хотя сам самолет поворачивает. На филдах такого нет. В рядовой версии тоже, все норм.

Translated for English forum

I noticed that in Harrier’s DCS beta 2.5.6, the nose wheel does not visually turn when taking off from aircraft carriers, although the plane itself does. There is no such thing on the fields. In the ordinary version, too, all the rules.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

To people considering buying this module: Just so that you are aware, for multiplayer, Betty is in somewhat broken state since over a year already, after 1 sortie and vertical (or even normal) landing+takeoff, there will be a constant beep-sound, only workaround is turning AUX-volume know down to 0% and thus also not have any other warning-sounds anymore... (been reported end of september already https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=250079)

Oh and don't forget to check out the cluttered (with un-acknowledged-bugs!) community bug-tracker spreadsheet in this first post here... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=269108

yes its a good module and always been very patient with Razbam, albeit i have to admit it is now wearing thin.

Why prioritise eye candy ( virtual pilot body ) over essential key binds is beyond me -

Cockpit binds - Essential.

Worst of all is the x and y axis slew for the targeting pod - cannot be used doesn't work - 2 years later.

Community manager and team that are slow to even reply to forum posts and acknowledge them. Nothing personal in nature my post, purely observational.

Again they need to sort out the priorities which if they would listen to the community is not eye candy but sorting out the mission critical systems.

Good example is when 2.5.6 came out, reported night lighting issues in the cockpit making the EHSD map unusable at night, flir cannot be used in HUD anymore. With the JF17 there was issues also as per every other module, Deka sorted their's out the following patch - nothing from Razbam yet 6 weeks later.

Why prioritise eye candy ( virtual pilot body ) over essential key binds is beyond me -

The 3D modeller works only on 3D models and their textures. He has nothing to do with code. Your statement is simply not true, since they are working in parallell on both code and 3D models. You can verify this by reading the post made by Decoy on how their teams look.

The 3D modeller works only on 3D models and their textures. He has nothing to do with code. Your statement is simply not true, since they are working in parallell on both code and 3D models. You can verify this by reading the post made by Decoy on how their teams look.

It’s about how it’s perceived, not how it is done. Priorities that many want first is functionality over eye-candy. The key binds were committed to being implemented by Razbam long ago. While still waiting for those a new cockpit and pilot body has been implemented.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The 3D modeller works only on 3D models and their textures. He has nothing to do with code. Your statement is simply not true, since they are working in parallell on both code and 3D models. You can verify this by reading the post made by Decoy on how their teams look.

It’s sadly true. But at a guess there are good reasons they can’t actually expand their coder “talent”.

It doesn't take a coder genius to complete the key mapping. most of them have user made fixes, but I don't expect a study level sim to have player made fixes.

It's really a job for an intern.

I don't mean to be insulting to team. It's frustrating to see these bugs go so long.

I hope everyone is having a safe Easter.

It doesn't take a coder genius to complete the key mapping. most of them have user made fixes, but I don't expect a study level sim to have player made fixes.

 

It's really a job for an intern.

 

I don't mean to be insulting to team. It's frustrating to see these bugs go so long.

I hope everyone is having a safe Easter.

+1

If you notice Razbam ignore this entire thread but they’ll keep pitching the Falkland Map and F-15. This is the problem of early access, this Module isn’t making them as much money anymore and they aren’t seemingly interested in the customers that already paid for it. The new products will generate more cash through early access and it will be the same circle for those, they’re is no incentive to finish a product on dcs sadly.

If you notice Razbam ignore this entire thread but they’ll keep pitching the Falkland Map and F-15. This is the problem of early access, this Module isn’t making them as much money anymore and they aren’t seemingly interested in the customers that already paid for it. The new products will generate more cash through early access and it will be the same circle for those, they’re is no incentive to finish a product on dcs sadly.

This is wrong, Zeus67 had to take over M-2000C code since Elwood who was hired to do that isn't available for a while.

So they are finishing code on released module, not coding new ones.

The 3D/ textures guys are doing and showing what they do.

They are not coders. It's the same for every body.

Yes. It's not going as fast as we would like, but complaining because 3D or graphics are being upgraded faster than the code is irrelevant, it isn't the same pipeline.

This is wrong, Zeus67 had to take over M-2000C code since Elwood who was hired to do that isn't available for a while.

 

So they are finishing code on released module, not coding new ones.

 

 

 

The 3D/ textures guys are doing and showing what they do.

 

They are not coders. It's the same for every body.

 

 

 

Yes. It's not going as fast as we would like, but complaining because 3D or graphics are being upgraded faster than the code is irrelevant, it isn't the same pipeline.

Im considering buying the Harrier will it be getting more weapons? are their any major bugs at the moment? I also enjoy doing SEAD in the SU-25T how does the Sidearms compare?