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

Just because you don't use either Facebook or Discord doesn't invalidate the use of those two channels of communication for and to others that do. I use all three. Posting the info on all three won't be any skin off your back.

 

By the same "logic", NVidia should only post the news about their 30x0-series of graphics-cards on their site and nowhere else.

 

Sorry, but that line of thinking is frankly silly in this day and age.

That's your personal opinion. Keep on defending RAZBAM an have a nice day.

Can we all relax now a little bit?

It is a CAS plane in DCS and there is no proper way to use the DCS JTAC as you can't use the Datalink or enter MGRS coordinates. So no. As long at it is not possible to use the main purpose for the jet, i unfortunately can't relax.

In addition to this, a huge point for me is the sticky TGP axis. And i doubt that the adjustment of the dead zone will fix this.

I personally can relax if the Harrier can be used for CAS without workarounds, regardless of systems accuracy (we have to live with the fact that RAZBAM isn't on the same quality level as ED or HB).

Ït doesn't matter if it's posted to Discord, Facebook and their webpage.

 

As long as it also gets posted, by them, on the boards.

That simply isn't true! They have banned a wide swath of PAID IN FULL customers for simply seeking info on the state of repairs for bugs and plans to finish the module across multiple platforms.

Yes, some were asking for it with sarcastic name calling and trolling but FAR TOO MANY were not. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely! Razbam has abused their authority across those platforms where there is no oversight by ED.

If RAZBAM has the time to post on Discord or Facebook they have the time to post here. Part of the ongoing complaint is that they aren't required to use these forums as the primary form of communication with DCS customers for DCS modules.

RAZBAM is going to have to deal with the salt, until their performance improves significantly over time. Much like the other 3rd party that lost confidence here. No one knew that 3rd party was working on a another module and they, at first responded poorly, but were able to have the professionalism to look inward and determine they made a mistake by not keeping an eye on sustainment for their existing module. They took it on the chin and we as customers were quite able to evaluate their response, accept their answers and timeline and put our grievances to the side to give them what they said they needed to catch up.

One patch isn't likely going to make up for the loss of confidence. It is no coincidence a large patch is being prepared collaterally and outside of this thread.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I love the Harrier. Have done since day 1. Sure, it's not up to scratch compared to other modules, but it's still a blast. And there's nothing like trying to land on the Tarawa, at night, in bad weather (current lighting issues notwithstanding).

It’s out of early access. Good.

The product DOES NOT meet the official product description, that is what I based my buying decision on.

 

So ED and Razbam are officially stating that they HAVE NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRODUCT they sold.

I want my money back. I could care less about product sustainment or whatever they decide to name it.

The product is not complete and doesn’t match the description.

Is it a scam?

If not, refund.

 

I am serious.

 

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, digital content should be of a satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described.

Actually, if you based your buying decision on the published product specifications, that turned out to be untrue, then this is likely not Consumer Rights Act territory. You are in fact asserting that you entered into a contract (of sale) with a third party (ED) and that you were misled into doing so (product specs untrue). That's covered by the Misrepresentation Act (1967). I'm guessing you're in the UK so if you're dead set on going legal, then in the first instance you should speak to your local council's Trading Standards Office. I suspect though that you would need to seek redress directly from ED via your own legal representation. Enjoy!

In reality you probably won't get anywhere, and will spend more than your initial outlay on the product.

I bought the tickets to see Top Gun, but I was given hot shots with Charlie sheen. Lol.

Who put that crab there?

Can we all relax now a little bit?[...]

Many here have evolved long time ago past the stage of acting like a dog that wags its tail when a bone is presented to him

Many here have evolved long time ago past the stage of acting like a dog that wags its tail when a bone is presented to him

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

How did they do all this so fast? Even added the missing bombs...

The models have been in the game files for nearly a year (albeit not functional), both were more than likely slated for this OB release anyway, especially the GBU-54 ofc since that comes out with the A-10C II.... common sense really..

I'm sorry but I need to bring something to attention...

I am an avid DCS player...as well as a avid War Thunder player from the game company Gaijin Entertainment...not necessarily by choice anymore...but rather probably more Stockholm syndrome...tho the game does have its high points.

I've seen similar issues from RAZBAM before and this is what I would describe as tipping point and I'll be interested in following this issue further...

But theres one thing I can't stand for...and its because I've seen it with WT and Gaijin...quite often due to the game suffering from inherent problems what they will do is keep pushing the bar and bring in what us players like to call "new shinys" to detract the player base from the issues at hand...

Something I thought I wouldn't see in the DCS community but here we are...we have this Harrier mess and even with what RAZBAM has on their plate module wise and they have the hide to go and reveal this...

As a warning don't fall for this kind of derailment and I am quite disappointed that it seems they've stooped to this level given the current situation we all face...

What a cluster ...RAZBAM me has always been one of those Developers that over promises and under delivers on timelines, but honestly the only people to blame are yourselves, people keep asking for this and that.. I Demand the F-15E, are we there yet lol ... you guys are unbelievable, I say reap what you sow since you keep supporting them and throwing $$$$ until 3-5 year projects that never get completed.

 

Personally I think they did a good job in the Mirage 2000, the FM is done very well but this community at some point has to look in the mirror and stop asking and paying for garbage let them finish one module and then move on to the next, every week another silly thread what about this, WHEN WHEN !!!, I need!!! I want !! ... just never stops, no wonder =DECOY= stepped down lol

 

 

49 pages of cry's and its glorious lol You think RAZZy care, let me let you into a little secret THEY have YOUR $$$$$ why would they care, your along for the ride and they will take their sweet time since you the community keep demanding and asking for new mods to be released.

 

 

At some point you the DCS community needs to take a look at your self's and be accountable for your actions and wonder how they got themselves into this mess in the 1st place .... by keep asking for more and then paying for an unfinished module

An absolute truth bomb!!! Though RB should care for their customers unlike how they are doing now.

I'm just sad that it'll now be up to RB to bring us our first true Century fighter...unless (depending on your point of view) you consider the F-110/F-4 a century fighter and that ED can deliver before RAZBAM...but you get my point...

To me, anyway (however, I'm not a business professonal), this actually sounds like a reasonable ideal.

This vendor limitation may go some way in preventing vendor/customer disagreements, such as this.

 

Maybe this ideal should be added to the wish list?

Yes, even when me and BN started talking to them about stuff, they had things already in the works.

Now think what would have happened if they would have come here weeks ago, at the time they were fixing bugs, adding features etc, instead staying quiet or using Facebook or discord.

Simply open up their mouths about plans, process, ideas etc....

I'm sorry but I need to bring something to attention...

 

I am an avid DCS player...as well as a avid War Thunder player from the game company Gaijin Entertainment...not necessarily by choice anymore...but rather probably more Stockholm syndrome...tho the game does have its high points.

 

I've seen similar issues from RAZBAM before and this is what I would describe as tipping point and I'll be interested in following this issue further...

 

But theres one thing I can't stand for...and its because I've seen it with WT and Gaijin...quite often due to the game suffering from inherent problems what they will do is keep pushing the bar and bring in what us players like to call "new shinys" to detract the player base from the issues at hand...

 

Something I thought I wouldn't see in the DCS community but here we are...we have this Harrier mess and even with what RAZBAM has on their plate module wise and they have the hide to go and reveal this...

 

 

As a warning don't fall for this kind of derailment and I am quite disappointed that it seems they've stooped to this level given the current situation we all face...

For the millionth time: CODERS ≠ MODELERS. GET THIS IN YOUR HEAD!!

For the millionth time: CODERS ≠ MODELERS. GET THIS IN YOUR HEAD!!

This is all well and good, but one can turn the argument around - why to they hire so many modellers when they need coders? They only have limited resources, and it's safe to say they don't seem to be allocated very efficiently. They have shown a dozen or so of these 3d models, and none are remotely close to being added to DCS.

This is all well and good, but one can turn the argument around - why to they hire so many modellers when they need coders? They only have limited resources, and it's safe to say they don't seem to be allocated very efficiently. They have shown a dozen or so of these 3d models, and none are remotely close to being added to DCS.

This

[...]

 

they just do not get it

There are many more self taught modelers eager to get their favorite planes into the sim than competent coders with the required skill level to code systems and FMs to a level people are demanding. I doubt the modelers see any money from Razbam until their module is actually released, which in most cases will probably never be the case.

What happened to the Mirage III, OV-10 or Super Tucano, that Razbam was teasing years ago?

There are many more self taught modelers eager to get their favorite planes into the sim than competent coders with the required skill level to code systems and FMs to a level people are demanding. I doubt the modelers see any money from Razbam until their module is actually released, which in most cases will probably never be the case.

 

 

 

What happened to the Mirage III, OV-10 or Super Tucano, that Razbam was teasing years ago?

I mean I'll give them slight credit, they did actually recently show progress on the Super tucano and OV-10

This is all well and good, but one can turn the argument around - why to they hire so many modellers when they need coders? They only have limited resources, and it's safe to say they don't seem to be allocated very efficiently. They have shown a dozen or so of these 3d models, and none are remotely close to being added to DCS.

A. Modelers are easier to find than competent coders.

B. RB has 3 modelers (one is which is Ron himself) and they have 2/3 coders

C. It is a lot easier to bang out a new early WIP model and show that... what else should they show? 60 lines or code that make sense to nobody....

If you don’t understand how game design works then don’t comment on it!

A. Modelers are easier to find than competent coders.

B. RB has 3 modelers (one is which is Ron himself) and they have 2/3 coders

C. It is a lot easier to bang out a new early WIP model and show that... what else should they show? 60 lines or code that make sense to nobody....

 

If you don’t understand how game design works then don’t comment on it!

If this is only about how game design works for everyone, how come RB are the only ones in DCS teasing module after module after module? Do they seriously expect to complete the AV/8B+, Mig-19S, Mirage 2000-5, AMX, Bronco, Lightining, Canberra, F-100, Mirage 3, Super Etendard, Strike Eagle, Mig-23, Bo-105, Ia-58, Sea Harrier, and A-29 (and probably more I'm forgetting) any time soon? If not, why even tease them?

I love the Harrier. Have done since day 1. Sure, it's not up to scratch compared to other modules, but it's still a blast. And there's nothing like trying to land on the Tarawa, at night, in bad weather (current lighting issues notwithstanding).

 

 

Actually, if you based your buying decision on the published product specifications, that turned out to be untrue, then this is likely not Consumer Rights Act territory. You are in fact asserting that you entered into a contract (of sale) with a third party (ED) and that you were misled into doing so (product specs untrue). That's covered by the Misrepresentation Act (1967). I'm guessing you're in the UK so if you're dead set on going legal, then in the first instance you should speak to your local council's Trading Standards Office. I suspect though that you would need to seek redress directly from ED via your own legal representation. Enjoy!

 

In reality you probably won't get anywhere, and will spend more than your initial outlay on the product.

 

 

Who put that crab there?

Both of these legislation's have great and far reaching power's within the UK legal system, even down to software damaging consumers hardware. However the EULA agree's that you will find resolution through the Swiss courts (which is interesting). That in itself is not a dead end however as they have in the last decade brought in greater protection for consumers. Equally i was under the impression of swiss law that if there is a dispute between parties that they can seek resolution either by the sellers place of residence, or the buyers however the choice of that is the customers, an oddity but it exists. An international business in swiss law cannot insist on jurisdiction as part of the contract process i believe.

The issue is whether they have breached their own EULA that you made the sale's transaction through and specifically 3.3. Whether the product now that it's in its released state can be demonstrated that these are not minor issues and therefore a breach of contract leading to a dismissing of section 5. That is realistically what this boil's down to plus combined with if specification is missing which would be based on the following list;

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

Digital Engine Control System (DECS)

Automatic Fuel System

Air Refueling System

Electrical Power System

External Lighting

Internal Lighting

Hydraulic Power Supply System

Flight Control System (FCS)

Head-Up Display (HUD)

Up-front Control (UFC)

Option Display Unit (ODU)

Multipurpose Color Displays (MPCD)

VREST Computer (for jet-borne flight)

Air Data Computer (ADC)

Environmental Control System (ECS)

On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS)

Detailed Operational Manual and Pocket guide

Also Razbam have protection, which they will be all to well aware of in the fact that it would be ED that would be taken to court not Razbam of which it's not something that serious players would wish to see. Draining their limited resources with legal fee's isn't exactly going to help anyone in this community. This is something i would recommend to ED in that the liability is on the third party they sub contract if they fail to deliver, not them and this be reflected in future sales contracts.

Anyway, more importantly and that aside how do customers that Razbam have barred from their own discord through raising legitimate questions now keep abreast of Razbam information releases if they refuse to use the official forums. Instead releasing information on a media that is not an acceptable location that everyone has access to its pathetic. It is released on there as they can control and remove any discussion they don't agree with. It can be demonstrated that the forum whilst not covered in the EULA is where support is received. Indeed on the sales page that we all purchased this module the link for Razbam support comes straight to these forums!

And so the charade goes on......when will Razbam acknowledge the sales agreement they entered into and provide support on these forums, when will ED force them to before it becomes to late, some of us have had enough of their continued behaviour.

We do as a community need confirmation of when the release date was? I cannot get an answer on this and don't understand why it can't be confirmed.

If they want to mend things, drop a patch with major upgrades and improvements on it. Get their heads above the water, and THEN write a post outlining in full honesty what they've done wrong, what could have been done better, how they plan to change it, AND have a presence on the forums as much as possible.

 

That's what I think, anyway. Others will most likely disagree vehemently.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4480444&postcount=47

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4480462&postcount=52

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4480937&postcount=120

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4481980&postcount=230

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4483783&postcount=441

Anyway, more importantly and that aside how do customers that Razbam have barred from their own discord through raising legitimate questions now keep abreast of Razbam information releases if they refuse to use the official forums. Instead releasing information on a media that is not an acceptable location that everyone has access to its pathetic. It is released on there as they can control and remove any discussion they don't agree with. It can be demonstrated that the forum whilst not covered in the EULA is where support is received. Indeed on the sales page that we all purchased this module the link for Razbam support comes straight to these forums!

 

And so the charade goes on......when will Razbam acknowledge the sales agreement they entered into and provide support on these forums, when will ED force them to before it becomes to late, some of us have had enough of their continued behaviour.

 

We do as a community need confirmation of when the release date was? I cannot get an answer on this and don't understand why it can't be confirmed.

Not 100% sure I understand you. However, bear in mind that you have no business relationship at all with Razbam. You are not a customer of Razbam. You have no contract with Razbam, and they owe you no obligations at all. Your relationship is with Eagle Dynamics, from whom you purchased the module (or Steam, if relevant).

Regarding support, the ED forums cannot be considered an "official" customer support portal. If they were, the moderators would not be able to ban anyone because that would be denying customers the ability to receive support. That's why the ticketing system is the official support portal, and the forums are just for us to write walls of text in vain attempts to prove each other wrong! :lol:

For the millionth time: CODERS ≠ MODELERS. GET THIS IN YOUR HEAD!!

You are right there to remind about that.....

But you are ignoring the lesson and his point....

Do not market and hype a new products, when your previous ones are broken, incomplete and you do not talk anything about them....

If 99% of your communication is "Hey, look at this new 3D model! Look at these new modules we are working for!" and 1% is about "We fixed the flat texture in the incomplete module we sold to you...."

Wat you think happens?

How about 60-80% communications about progress of the sold modules and fixing their problems, and only 20-40% of communications about the future?

Like how about once a week a developer makes summary of the week work, progress and counters and all, just spending a 5-15 minutes before going to weekend?....

Once a week... Too much to ask?

Nothing bad would happen compared basically to be silent for 6-12 months.... Only telling something in OTHER PLACES THAN ED FORUM!

ED forum should be #1 place where things are told in first moment.

After it has been announced etc here, then they can use any place they want from discord to facebook to even their laundry room "Announcements" board.

But hearing about new shiny things to come without any updates to serious problems in existing bugs is not good PR at all!

You do not go to sell broken product to customer and then when they ask fixing, you start to sell a another product that is coming!

Razbam can go and model and texture all they want new modules, but they should be fixing first what is broken in current ones in all ways they can that is not up to ED (new weapons, new radar, new texture engine etc etc).

Not 100% sure I understand you. However, bear in mind that you have no business relationship at all with Razbam. You are not a customer of Razbam. You have no contract with Razbam, and they owe you no obligations at all. Your relationship is with Eagle Dynamics, from whom you purchased the module (or Steam, if relevant).

 

Regarding support, the ED forums cannot be considered an "official" customer support portal. If they were, the moderators would not be able to ban anyone because that would be denying customers the ability to receive support. That's why the ticketing system is the official support portal, and the forums are just for us to write walls of text in vain attempts to prove each other wrong! :lol:

I'm well aware i have no relationship with Razbam. My post wasn't about me, I was purely clarifying this very fact to another user who that i quoted in my original post. I even referenced directly this to state the dispute is legally with ED which serious players would not want so i don't quite understand the context of your post, all good though.

The fact that on the sales link and product specification sheet to buy the module it links direct to this forum for support then we will agree to disagree on what is implied to the consumer as part of the sales process :-)