AV-8B Status

Unfortunately, after reading pages four to eight of this thread, I don't think many of us trust that Ron will make good on his obligations to the player base or to ED.

I've looked at Razbam's discord and Facebook page, after Ron's post, only to see the same attitudes toward the ED player base they've demonstrated these past years. Maybe to a lessor extent, but it's still there.

BigNewy, NineLine, and tea_cipher (that guy is doing yeoman's work) are rapidly getting the bug section of the forum under control. Thank you.

Is that going to be the plan going forward? Will ED be managing the bug section of their forums from now on? Because if the answer is "No", or "We'll see", I don't have the faith required in Ron to continue with a steady rate of progress or to not disappear off the forums again without ED's ever present over site.

Come on guys; at the pace that you keep it coming no one can actually manage this properly. Ron has put out his initial post and now it takes some time for him and his team and ED's mods to work through that list of "feature grievances" we have been bugging about. It is good that many have insisted on this, so that Bignewy and 9line grasp that this particular issue must be sufficiently addressed. But it surely takes time for them to get a hold of all those feature issues, and then sometime to comeup with a battle plan that works for Razbam and satisfies the communities needs.

One more thing; if i could choose between the Harrier returning to EA and ED retreating to a handsoff approach OR Harrier out of EA i.e. released lable on it but ED taking on a bigger role in ensuring product completion and polishing and community comms, i surely take the latter. Because the way it was before is definetly worse i.e. practically no comms here, no up-to-date roadmap, uncertain timeframe when this module will become study sim. Chances that we get on here have never been better as far as i can recall.

Early access is exactly what it says it is, early development access. Coming out of early access does not mean development stops. That is why we have said product sustaiment continues.

 

It is the same for any module in DCS that uses early access.

 

 

 

 

I have answered in a previous comment, probably lost in the other thread.

 

The AV-8B is out of early access and product sustainment will continue.

I know some do not like this concept, I can not change how you may or may not feel about it.

 

 

What you have is still the best AV-8B simulation on the civilian market ( maybe even military I don't know), RAZBAM will continue to improve and fix bugs. We will continue to help here in the forum section reporting issues to the team.

 

RAZBAM have been doing a lot of work fixing issues, some will be in the next patch, others in patches after.

 

Thank you

You can say the Harrier is "out of early access" 50 million more times until your face turns blue, but it won't change the fact its missing features on its product page, as CoBlue already pointed out.

Also, if it's "out of early access", why did Prowler state that "a decision was made, it’s time to rewrite the entire AV-8B code"? Products out of early access don't get their entire code rewritten. That's a direct quote from him.

Would EA release their Hornet from EA today, with features missing, and then say it's "feature complete" and that "product sustainment" will continue? I don't think so. Otherwise, you would have done it already.

Obviously you're waiting until all features listed on its product page are complete before declaring it "feature complete"

Here's a feature that isn't done yet:

You will feel like part of the aircraft with our Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM).

A few MFD pages still have PLACEHOLDER on them. Would you say the Hornet is feature complete with those non-functional pages? I'm guessing the answer is no, so then why would the Harrier be called feature complete when its own product page says this:

Highly realistic modelling of the aircraft systems including electrical, fuel, hydraulics, lighting, engine and navigation

Some of those systems aren't accurately or fully modeled. Both ED and Razbam calling this module feature complete is a total farce. Either admit that it's not really feature complete, or modify the product page to match the current state of the aircraft.

What I struggle to understand is why's there a rush to pull a product out of EA? How developer benefit from that? Obviously there is a benefit, otherwise they would not insist on that and, seeing angry customers, they would change the decision.

What I struggle to understand is why's there a rush to pull a product out of EA?

Razbam promised that the F-15E will not be released into EA until their actual modules are "Complete and out of Early Access".

So make an educated guess.

We have no other option as Razbam completely refuses to answer the questions the community raised.

But thats an easy one. Just wait and see what happens in the next few weeks / months.

No modern aircraft in DCS can be modelled 100% to the real thing. I am not saying this is why these pages are missing, but it could very well be lack of information. Just because you can find it online doesn't make it legal to simulate, etc. SO if you have a question about a specific page or system, ask, but when you start throwing around words like farce, etc it makes it hard to take you seriously, sorry.

Ok. Basic question then. Why is the F-18 still in EA and the Harrier isn't? They're both missing functionality described on their advertised store pages, and they're both under ED's umbrella.

And I think farce is completely acceptable. If I'm a brand new Harrier customer buying the Harrier today, I will see everything listed on that product page and think that's what I'm getting. It's not until I start actually flying the module that I realize it's not complete, and yet if I come here to the forums or to Reddit, I'll see the terms "feature complete" and "out of EA" being used by both the developer and EA.

You don't see that as a total disconnect from what a customer is actually getting?

There are some who disagree with what level of system / avionics implementation is considered complete and we are asking RAZBAM to clear up on those points. If a system can only be modelled so far, for whatever reason you will have to accept that.

That is the uncertainty that people are afraid.

First there has been constantly the talks in Early Access development phases across all the modules that "This is under development" or "This is still Early Access", that has been the reasoning behind that module is not feature completed until it gets out of Early Access.

As now "for whatever reason you will have to accept it" is just an open option for the studio to just cross their hands and say "Deal with it" for whatever reason. They can just say "It is a secret" or "It is completed" or "not possible" or what ever and be done with it, no matter how much were the store product description state otherwise.

There are things that people will understand that can't be modeled for military secrecy, be it a IFF system codes or simply a resource limitations, be it a radar beam simulation on the fly. But it comes back to bite the feeding hand when something is just pushed a side "Deal with it" attitude.

That is dangerous situation, why Microsoft business strategy was for decades the FUD.

The challenge is not that someone would be just telling something, but when the business shows a such a behavior, it is shaking many other trees as well than just the one in the whole industry.

And as was pointed out in previous thread multiple times, many studios and developers were trying to use the "Deal with it" card, and everything would have been stopped right there, unless few individuals and some other authorities would have not stepped in and explain why things are wrong and needs fixing.

The ED needs to be very careful with the Early Access policy now. So don't answer to this right away but let some time pass if you will. As if there even is the idea/believe in the community that Early Access is a process that's there to get a feature completed product out (that doesn't mean one without small bugs or glitches that are easy to repair).

One of the problems is that Razbam has a history that is not so encouraging. Promises has been given, and promises has been broken. Questions has been left unanswered and minor as well major bugs without fixing.

Now ED is expecting that everyone should just take the Razbam word about the future, when the module is marked "completed" as it would somewhat now suddenly start to see major fixes, changes and improvements.

When a new module appears in Early Access, it is everyones own decision to take the risk and buy the product in the state that it is at that moment. It is based to various reasons but I believe that majority is expecting that once the product comes out of Early Access that it is completed and all the features that were listed are there. This so that those who are not willing to go through the development phase and all bugs and missing features makes decision to wait until product comes out of Early Access before buying it. Those who are ready to invest time with missing features and severe bugs etc of course buys to it in Early Access phase, and that is my understanding why there is typically the discount that is compensating for a lack of features for the early purchase. The Early Access phase is all OK that is not the problem here.

The problem is that what is expected after the Early Access.

Now customers can find that Early Access is not really meaning anything, because the product can sit there for years as is and then just be pushed out "feature completed" status.

So nothing really is then stopping any studio to start with Early Access, adding long list of features and functions, and then simply spend long time not really doing much, push eventually product out of Early Access and just give a promise that "We fill fix what we can, just accept the end result".

It is very dangerous situation for not just one studio doing that, but for the ED and all studios partnered with ED. Because with customers, ED needs to be looking their side as it is their business source. There still is the confusion among customers that who is really responsible for the quality assurance and all. Like in one hand ED has informed that they have asked a studio to hold from product release and give feedback to improve the product before release. But why to do such a thing if "it can be fixed later on if promised"? Then suddenly ED doesn't have anything to do with the releases as it is just up to the studio itself to do what they want to do.

And when customers receives these conflicting happenings, it is creating uncertainty to their minds as they can't make decisions based a trust that what would happen.

Personally I don't lose my night because what Harrier is, based anything what Razbam promises or does because their track history is what it is. They had one great moment to come and issue assurance for things, pull Harrier back to Early Access and do something that is expected by the customers. But this gave me a lesson about their future products considering MiG-23MLA, that became like my favorite aircraft for various reasons and I was really expecting to see it. And happenings like these are just lowering the "trust" for the future. That is the effect of the FUD, that Razbam has itself made but not just considering their products, but it shadows the ED business model as well.

The ED solved well the previous major situation with the Hawk. The end result was not so wanted but it is the legal thing that ED couldn't fix. Back then ED stated that they have taken precautions by changing the licensing agreements with the everyone. And such a action I think brought assurance to ED customers about the future and it was nice thing what ED did.

And in this situation customers can be caught to middle of the problem that where two businesses can not agree who is responsible for end results and it is then usually that the customer is the one that loses.

It is volatile situation and its results can caught up much later in the future and cause problems.

It is always easy to give promises, but when there are no legal reasons to hold up to them, it is easy to shake away from all such things without consequences. A common tactic in many business when it comes to customer services from bad products or services, that business can always wear down the consumer that just doesn't eventually want to be doing anything with anything relative to that.

It doesn't help much to demand information about individual bugs and fixes etc, when the business practice is under attack by the business partners actions.

And it doesn't help either that customers should bury their head in sand and pretend nothing has happened and all is going to be just fine "because they promised".

A few things come to mind on the statement.

Out of touch with frustrated customers and the community.

Arguably arrogant and defiant in context of the status of a thread with 67,000 views and 632 replies prior to being closed. No acknowledgement of the faults and mistakes made by Razbam, which generally starts with an admission and an apology - effectively a basis for any human interaction on this planet whether it be in a highly developed tertiary economy or the most basic, indigenous tribes.

Doesn't actually address many of the core issues raised in the closed discussion thread which is the focus of what people are concerned about. One can only surmise that this didn't even get read by Razbam in its entirety which is a missed opportunity.

Whilst many users will be appreciative of the new texture code, many will also see this as just a deflection tactic. Point is no one knew including ED by all accounts. Does this justify basic keybinds missing 3 years later (because even basic users would like to see some clever coding on these). Quintessentially and of higher importance is that Razbam still appears not have comprehension of the anger within the community caused by the dismissive and insulting tone of that communique (aka swearing and glass of water comment) combined with being ignored for so long. This is what most serious players, who are not trolls, some with real world and/or 30+ years of sim experience have taken personal offence at. For that one comment alone i think consumers of all ages and experience are deservedly right to wish for a sincere apology with reassurance of how the mistakes made over the last 2 years in communication are going to be rectified. Also given that ED employees where insulted publicly, that should have also been addressed publicly. You could actually take this whole episode as a casebook and teach on how not to interact, its been embarrassingly that poor.

I'm sure consumers want to know what structural changes is the company going to make. If players are to make any future investment in products from this third party then trust needs to be restored that their investment will not be met with the same ignorance when issues are raised or there objections censored. Let's be brutally honest, this is not the first flare up, this is not the first PR disaster, this is not the only situation or module that the exact same issues are evidenced. Customer service and communication is a common issue. Not listing but facts are facts.

I made a post in the last thread in an attempt to help, and someone referenced it as a link earlier in this thread, i am of that same opinion. The problem here is a culture that needs to be changed and resource allocation. Razbam need to hire someone that has the right skill set and can understand customer relationships who is removed from the actual development architecture as otherwise the situation will get worse for their business, on that i am confident, which is a shame as it's unsustainable long term which is what none of us want.

I think the fundamental issue is that Early Access does not really capture the development of a DCS module well. Early Access is a yes/no tag, while the iteration and constant change of a DCS module is definitely not a yes/no question. As a result, you end up with relatively complete modules with only a few (inevitable, because DCS) bugs left like the Viggen, Mig-19 or C-101 being marked as early access, while the Harrier, Fw-190A8 and (soon, going by the schedule that was posted a while ago) Hornet can get out of EA with both minor and major features missing.

I think ultimately, it's up to the developer to adapt to the EA label (which we know is not going away) in a customer friendly way. To me, that means erring on the side of caution and removing the EA label later rather than sooner.

PS - Do we even know what date our purchase moved from EA to Release status? I cannot seem to get an answer for some reason? Be good to know every other module you can list when this happen's?

Funny to compare to the F/A-18C when some features are planned to be delivered after EA in product sustainment as well.

Why is it funny to compare the Harrier against? It's also an unfinished product, missing features, and yet it's still labeled as Early Access. You didn't answer my question.

And if new users see the things missing on the Harrier Store page, 1 the manual 2 the GBU, we would hope they would come to the forums and find out that they are coming. And the Harrier is still in active development and bug fixing even now.

Why can't ED just modify the store page to reflect the current state of the Harrier? Why does a potential customer have to go forum digging to find out what features listed on the store page aren't actually modeled, especially after it's been released from EA?

Funny to compare to the F/A-18C when some features are planned to be delivered after EA in product sustainment as well.

To be fair, people didn't like that any better.

I've had a few run-ins with Nineline through the years but I have to say you and Bignewy are really doing a great job of managing an objectively really difficult situation.

I really don't expect you guys to speak your minds freely and agree with some of the most blunt posts here. However I think it's plain and evident to all involved that there is a disconnect between what is on the official description and what we have installed on our hard drives.

If that's truly what ED considers "feature complete", I'm sure people will take future buying decisions based on the knowledge that EA, feature complete and product sustainment hold no particular standard or guarantee as to what a product actually includes, to the point that a newcomer could happily buy the fully released and "complete" Harrier from the store and find himself with a large number of missing features.

I honestly don't know how that is conceivable for a serious business, and even from a legal point of view, but it is what it is.

Sales, any sales, are based on trust. A company can build or lose the trust of its customers, and ED has lost much of my trust unfortunately.

Not much point now going around in circles. I have skipped the past few releases from ED and 3rd parties and I will continue to seat back and watch as new products are launched, hoping that one day some of them reach a factual and objective "feature complete" state, then, maybe, I will buy.

A quick look at my DCS hangar reveals that only about 25% of the modules I own are truly feature-complete and relatively bug-free. The rest ranges from F-14 (a very good EA) to F-16 (a very bad EA), all the way to the Harrier and some others, which are in a rotting state.

I'd say, given what this experience is teaching me about ED's quality standards, that I have quite a lot invested in high-risk assets, and it's time to draw the line and wait for that 75% to mature, if it ever will.

Thanks Nineline, if you can check on the above with Razbam would be good to know.

Lucky you and big newy lol having to pick up, you will however will be treat with sympathy and hopefully the respect you deserve for being the untenable "person in the middle". Basically what it says however is that Razbam have no interest in dealing with customer feedback, only interacting with the parent company ED.

Personally i have no issue with that and the whole episode has been educational, it allow's me to make an informed decision on future releases.

Thanks for both of your hard efforts in trying to resolve.