Harrier worth half off?

I am not sure how the "we finish our products before doing other things" was worded exactly, but Razbam is apparently working on their new projects besides finishing hte Mirage and Harrier. I guess they will just hold off from starting to sell those before letting the other ones go out of beta. And this will be a pivotal point for me and my inclination of spending further money on DCS.

There is a host of bugs on the Harrier that are not even on the bug tracker, that have been reported years back and that Decoy has promised to move back from the "resolved" section in the Harrier sub forum.

But if the Harrier leaves EA without all of them being addressed beforehand and ED letting this slide, that'll be my personal tipping point.

 

 

Anyway, lets hope for the best for the Harrier in 2020!

After reading peoples option on the harrier Razbam must carry there ball's around in a wheelbarrow to talk about releasing another module

 

 

I doubt anybody at Razbam has sleepless nights because of this. Outside of this forum people are generally talking very favorably about the DCS Harrier. I would be surprised if any noteworthy fraction of Harrier customers has read anything in the real tacman. Despite its flaws this is still the most in depth simulation of the AV-8B ever released for the consumer market and people appreciate this.

Pls devs give some love to harrier

Harrier wouldnt cause quite so much passionate debate if it was so promising, at surface level awesome, and so delightful generally. When you have a module that looks so good but has a few nasty issues that linger, they become more than just an ink blot, they fester like sores and it abnormally slants the entire module as a result. A lot of the complaints are not quite about the actual bug and effect but the length of time it takes or is taking, (i need to use the present tense to be accurate) to resolve. As far as I can see, Razbam iterate in bursts and move on to other things without ever reaching deep on the systems front or communicating that much. This has upset some people who, lets face it, are PASSIONATE about the module. You have to understand, if people didnt want it fixed, they simply wouldnt post.

 

Razbam's art and modelling are unquestionably excellent. Their FM's are also very good. Their systems are good, but, their support methodolgies, communication and speed are a bit ropey and you buy into all that when you buy a module. I still think Harrier is a steal at half price, but once you spend dozens of hours of study on it and really use it in DCS, you begin to see what folks have been clamouring on about. I honestly dont think they fly it and test it enough in all the ways that DCS can offer to fully understand the deep view themselves and I have a genuine fear that the Harrier was left at the point where they had 75% in place, called it good and moved on hoping no one would notice. You dont get that choice in DCS, the audience is a tough gig to play.

^^ this.

 

I think it's worth it, for the flying experience alone. This is the best VTOL experience by far I've ever managed to have in PC flight sims, the only other good one being modelled by a company named after a CATOBAR arresting contraption that you'd preferrably hit when getting back on the boat.

 

Having incomplete systems is one issue, and yes, it takes a lot of time in early access to get those going, remember the ASL issue for instance? But the module is far from being useless IMHO. By the way, RAZBAM has 3 teams AFAIK - one for the Mirage, one for the Harrier and one for the MiGs, the latter of which is now going over to do the 23 work. Oh, and the graphics guys who did a great job and now are working on both the 23 and 15 already. So nothing wrong here.

What's the difference between M2K and Mirage? :huh:

 

Stupid me, of course M2K, Harrier and Mig-19.

 

By the way, RAZBAM has 3 teams AFAIK - one for the Mirage, one for the Harrier and one for the MiGs, the latter of which is now going over to do the 23 work.

 

It has been asked multiple times who are the members of this "three" teams.

Razbam, unfortunately, never answered that question altough often asked.

If you take a deeper look, you will see that the same names always come up for the same things, so I really would like to have this question answered.

 

 

Btw: Very good post Pikey, nailed it 100%.

Edited January 5, 2020 by viper2097

Of course the Harrier is worth half off.

 

 

This applies to all EA modules. They're worth half off.

 

 

When they become complete, they're worth full price.

 

 

..

It has been asked multiple times who are the members of this "three" teams.

Razbam, unfortunately, never answered that question altough often asked.

If you take a deeper look, you will see that the same names always come up for the same things, so I really would like to have this question answered.

 

As frustrating as it is, if those members of staff don't want there names released to strangers on the internet to argue about, Razbam can't tell is even if they wanted too.

Of course the Harrier is worth half off.

This applies to all EA modules. They're worth half off.

When they become complete, they're worth full price.

..

 

Difficult. Modules normaly start to get a discount after they have been buyable around a year.

So when an EA module goes on sale, it means that its already a long time in EA.

 

As frustrating as it is, if those members of staff don't want there names released to strangers on the internet to argue about, Razbam can't tell is even if they wanted too.

 

I could fully understand that. But at least, nicknames would be possible.

As far as I see, the only flight model coder is Cpt. Smiley, and the only System Coder is Zeus (and now also Elwood since a short time).

Also if you follow the timeline and when which work was done to which module, it would perfectly fit that there is only one team.

Also I often heard a "Cuban Team". Who are those?

 

If everything would run smooth, and they would deliver expected quality in expected time (like, more or less, other 3rd parties are doing), no one would ask.

Or did all those questions come up in such a frequency to ED or HB?

But as the Harrier is in EA since two years, and beside the Jdams, more or less nothing happend in the last 6 months, and even those are buggy as hell.

Edited January 5, 2020 by viper2097

If everything would run smooth, and they would deliver expected quality in expected time (like, more or less, other 3rd parties are doing), no one would ask.

Or did all those questions come up in such a frequency to ED or HB?

No. Polychop was controversial, with the Gazelle, but even for AvioDev the audience was much less aggressive, though the C-101 is in EA since nearly 5 years. Huey Multicrew nearing completion after 7 years...

Then we have half baked TGPs in the F/A-18C and F-16C. The F-14B can drop dumb bombs, as Jester currently lacks the ability to mess with LANTIRN and other issues that take their time to get implemented.

Don't get me wrong, I am not expecting this to be fixed in a couple weeks, or even months. This is how these complex beasts are developed. It takes more time and effort/resources than all the major game development studios are willing to invest... if we want the handpicked companies that actually go through the hassle of developing this level of depth in a simulation, we need to accept that it takes an awful long time to do and there are a lot of delays, problems to be solved and bugs to be squished, especially when you develop in an ever changing and updating environment like DCS. :)

.. if we want the handpicked companies that actually go through the hassle of developing this level of depth in a simulation, we need to accept that it takes an awful long time to do and there are a lot of delays, problems to be solved and bugs to be squished, especially when you develop in an ever changing and updating environment like DCS. :)

Does this involve the AV8B's only weapons & system coder, abandoning the development for +1 year, in favor of a new Mig-19 module??

If they would stick to their contract of continues development of the AV8B, people wouldn't be so upset.

Short loiter time.

 

That is false. And reason is that many fly harrier wrong way.

Harrier operates 15-20km from the front line, but people fly it like carrier aircraft that should take-off 200-400km from the shore and every aircraft returns to carrier after each sortie, while harrier only returns to ship after last sortie. So while hornet or tomcat flies back to carrier, harrier lands to nearby FOB for rearming and refueling and flies back. In 30 minutes harrier is back in action, while hornet etc are still on way back.

 

Same thing is with A-10, operate from long distance airfield instead just nearby. And all carry the similar payload, as none takes whole army alone.

 

Harrier is reason why F-35 was required to have a own unique VTOL capable variant, because nothing can replace harrier in capability to operate in front line like it does, not even A-10.

I doubt anybody at Razbam has sleepless nights because of this. Outside of this forum people are generally talking very favorably about the DCS Harrier. I would be surprised if any noteworthy fraction of Harrier customers has read anything in the real tacman. Despite its flaws this is still the most in depth simulation of the AV-8B ever released for the consumer market and people appreciate this.

 

+1

 

Regardless the missing features and flaws it has, it is excellent. And it is an amazing that we get to fly a such iconic aircraft at such immersive manner, thanks to Razbam efforts and VR.

 

I would have expected to see harrier finalized 6 months ago, but I am giving Razbam some slack that they deserve now after they updated Mirage and Farmer. But it doesn't mean I accept anything they do.

 

So waiting to see more from ED now, than from anyone else really.

 

T

That is false. And reason is that many fly harrier wrong way.

Harrier operates 15-20km from the front line, but people fly it like carrier aircraft that should take-off 200-400km from the shore and every aircraft returns to carrier after each sortie, while harrier only returns to ship after last sortie. So while hornet or tomcat flies back to carrier, harrier lands to nearby FOB for rearming and refueling and flies back. In 30 minutes harrier is back in action, while hornet etc are still on way back.

 

Same thing is with A-10, operate from long distance airfield instead just nearby. And all carry the similar payload, as none takes whole army alone.

 

Harrier is reason why F-35 was required to have a own unique VTOL capable variant, because nothing can replace harrier in capability to operate in front line like it does, not even A-10.

 

Yeah but the problem is the FOB(s) in DCS suck, at least for online use with fixed wing. IMO they need to have a function in the ME where you can drag/select an area to define as a "road base/FARP" and it populates some tents, fuel truck and ordnance plus a road to take on/off from with a few parking spots to rearm/refuel. Maybe with some "checks" on the terrain to make sure its flat enough.

 

Currently we have that horrible square pad heli-farp monstrosity where you can, if you are being honest, only VTOL work, which severely limits your loadout. And yes I know you can do rolling take off, sorta from one end to the other, but its yet another BS hack that kills immersion. And yes I know its there so its "level", but they really need to add some better road base functionality. I mean, there are like 4-5 modules that would benefit from it, A10, Su-25, Harrier, Viggen immediately come to mind, and even the mig29 was designed for rough field use. To prevent unrealistic use by other fighters, just model FOD at some level for all fighters. You might be able to land your viper there, but bang bang whoosh foom, you're not taking off again.

 

The other thing is that mission design online, kinda limits FARP's anyway. Good servers have some placed logically/well. But many don't. It would be cool to be able to dynamically spawn one where its needed.

 

 

I'd honestly pay for a decent FARP/Road base DLC like the carrier module.

Yeah but the problem is the FOB(s) in DCS suck, at least for online use with fixed wing. IMO they need to have a function in the ME where you can drag/select an area to define as a "road base/FARP" and it populates some tents, fuel truck and ordnance plus a road to take on/off from with a few parking spots to rearm/refuel. Maybe with some "checks" on the terrain to make sure its flat enough.

 

 

 

Currently we have that horrible square pad heli-farp monstrosity where you can, if you are being honest, only VTOL work, which severely limits your loadout. And yes I know you can do rolling take off, sorta from one end to the other, but its yet another BS hack that kills immersion. And yes I know its there so its "level", but they really need to add some better road base functionality. I mean, there are like 4-5 modules that would benefit from it, A10, Su-25, Harrier, Viggen immediately come to mind, and even the mig29 was designed for rough field use. To prevent unrealistic use by other fighters, just model FOD at some level for all fighters. You might be able to land your viper there, but bang bang whoosh foom, you're not taking off again.

 

 

 

The other thing is that mission design online, kinda limits FARP's anyway. Good servers have some placed logically/well. But many don't. It would be cool to be able to dynamically spawn one where its needed.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd honestly pay for a decent FARP/Road base DLC like the carrier module.

...and don't forget the helicopters. A realistic FARP (e.g. a "rearm/refuel zone) would be awesome.

...and don't forget the helicopters. A realistic FARP (e.g. a "rearm/refuel zone) would be awesome.

 

Yeah, it would be cool to have:

 

Road base for Fixed only (basically how the viggen was planned to be used)

 

Bigger road base with fixed and helo's

 

Helo only FARP (also usable by Harrier only in VTOL mode) that looks better than the current horrible FARP pad...

 

I love the various ones SUNSTANG has made for offline use, but until they are somehow "official" in DCS no MP servers will use them and that is damn shame.

 

Again, though this isn't Raz problem, rather a more general DCS one. Though I would add that the Tarawa being bugged and fairly useless IS a raz problem (or at least should be to some degree).

 

And its yet another one of those frustrating things. The harrier should be able to operate from farps and ships. And it "sort of can" in a hacky and unrealistic manner, which leads to frustration since these issues haven't been solved for at least a year if not more.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Harlikwin

Yeah, it would be cool to have:

 

Road base for Fixed only (basically how the viggen was planned to be used)

 

Bigger road base with fixed and helo's

 

Helo only FARP (also usable by Harrier only in VTOL mode) that looks better than the current horrible FARP pad...

 

I love the various ones SUNSTANG has made for offline use, but until they are somehow "official" in DCS no MP servers will use them and that is damn shame.

 

Again, though this isn't Raz problem, rather a more general DCS one. Though I would add that the Tarawa being bugged and fairly useless IS a raz problem (or at least should be to some degree).

 

And its yet another one of those frustrating things. The harrier should be able to operate from farps and ships. And it "sort of can" in a hacky and unrealistic manner, which leads to frustration since these issues haven't been solved for at least a year if not more.

We don't need streets.or landing pad hills at all. A 900 ft Zone to rearm and refuel when the necessary supply units and the aircraft are inside the zone. Jets can't land easily on anything but road, dirt tracks. Helos could even rearm / refuel on buildings etc. add a landing T texture and some lights to place... voila, everything to build a perfect FARP, roadstrip airport or whatever. :)

 

EDIT Tarawa is reported to ED. Will take a bit, as in Russia is now Christmas holidays. But at least it is addressed.

Edited January 6, 2020 by shagrat

We don't need streets.or landing pad hills at all. A 900 ft Zone to rearm and refuel when the necessary supply units and the aircraft are inside the zone. Jets can't land easily on anything but road, dirt tracks. Helos could even rearm / refuel on buildings etc. add a landing T texture and some lights to place... voila, everything to build a perfect FARP, roadstrip airport or whatever. :)

 

EDIT Tarawa is reported to ED. Will take a bit, as in Russia is now Christmas holidays. But at least it is addressed.

 

Yeah, thats what I was trying to describe more or less.

 

I mean jets should require a road to land on though. And maybe some graphical way of knowing you are in the FARP area.

 

Helos can land wherever, but a harrier would need some sort of leveled "pad" or hard surface road for VTOL landing.

 

As for the Tarawa thing, its been a bug since I've owned the harrier so like nearly 1.5 years or perhaps more. And its not something I would put in the minor category, much like the old ASL line bug.

 

PS what does ED translator mean? You translate docs for them?

Yeah, thats what I was trying to describe more or less.

 

I mean jets should require a road to land on though. And maybe some graphical way of knowing you are in the FARP area.

 

Helos can land wherever, but a harrier would need some sort of leveled "pad" or hard surface road for VTOL landing.

 

As for the Tarawa thing, its been a bug since I've owned the harrier so like nearly 1.5 years or perhaps more. And its not something I would put in the minor category, much like the old ASL line bug.

 

PS what does ED translator mean? You translate docs for them?

That wish has been around for quite a while. The cool thing about the zone concept is, mission designers could easily adapt roads, or even grass strips as expeditionary airstrips by putting some tires, or if we could get them lights, or cones on the side of the road or field to mark the "runway". Light jets can land on grass and fields, roads etc. Helos, anyway. If we get Marsden matting, we could do real expeditionary airfields, like with SUNTSAGS mods, but that is just icing on the cake. I would be totally happy with a zone, that maybe requires a couple of ground units nearby to provide fuel, ammo, repair.

ED Translator means regular forum member passionate enough to volunteer helping translate the content in your free time, as a help to the community members that aren't fluent in english. I mostly help with missions, for the modules and campaigns. Military background helps with the lingo... ;)

Yeah but the problem is the FOB(s) in DCS suck, at least for online use with fixed wing. IMO they need to have a function in the ME where you can drag/select an area to define as a "road base/FARP" and it populates some tents, fuel truck and ordnance plus a road to take on/off from with a few parking spots to rearm/refuel. Maybe with some "checks" on the terrain to make sure its flat enough.

 

That is completely true. The thread where one suggested that drawing the FARP etc area, or placing a trigger zone for it was like "duh, why haven't ED done that already!".

 

We need in future a RTS feature to designate a FOB/FARP etc on map, and AI takes care that everything required will be there at the time of operation. Be it like a 30 minutes after receiving command, minus transportation and securing the location.

 

It would be easier that way to command units anyways, issue commands instead directly controlling units. And you would see issued commands and plans on map instead units. So information delays etc would happen.

 

It would completely change the DCS dynamics when ground commanders can designate areas on map for those operations, issue information over radio to all fighters work specific frequency and then have there dynamic ground troops signaling base of operation for helicopters, harrier and like.

 

And it would make far more worth to fly helicopters, harrier, Viggen etc.

 

 

 

Enemy would need to intercept the traffic, visually etc, and then they could either engage position itself or then even track supply colonnas and attack at them.

 

It would make far more sense to command in strategic map that location, it's time of operation and capability to serve what kind and how many of units. And then have a AI automatically keep supplying that location unless intervened for manual planning.

 

That way harrier would start to operate very close to action

PS: in-between the Tarawa worked pretty well in the OpenBeta, for nearly a year, it looks like the old version has been compiled into the current build.

I could cold start and hot start Harrier from the Tarawa, even spawn Hueys and fly SpecOps insertion from the boat. Though the helos spawn from the same position 7 near the Island's rear as the Harriers, opposed to the correct spots forward and starboard of the Island. Now, the helicopters spawn beside the deck and drop into the ocean again. As far as I understood, this is something ED needs to integrate into the carrier mechanics/behaviour, as part of the changes coming with the new carrier module.

Let's hope it is easy to fix. In theory it's just adjusting the spawn position(s) and allow the type of aircraft (VTOL) to spawn on deck, but that would be too easy I guess. We don't know how the effects of deck pitching, friction in surfaces, weight, drag calculations etc. create dependencies to other parts of the code, for a "simple" spawn... and that was just an educated guess. ;)

That is completely true. The thread where one suggested that drawing the FARP etc area, or placing a trigger zone for it was like "duh, why haven't ED done that already!".

 

 

I think I remember the "problem" is the code checks the unit to be rearmed/refueled as "in contact" (touching) the FARP object. Not sure why this prevents to create a zone, as basically the airport zone, around the airports already provides the functionality.

I get it, that the creation of a couple dozen "expeditionary airfields" may have negative impact on performance or you may not allow an adjustable zone as it needs to check for objects inside. Still we could replace the named FARP hills with the same number of zones and give them a fixed size of the area of the FARP hill and allow for spawning Harriers, Viggen and Su-25T on the ground like helicopters... I hope this is something ED can implement one way or the other in the near future. It was one of the most popular request in the Mission Editor feature query thread.

Does this involve the AV8B's only weapons & system coder, abandoning the development for +1 year, in favor of a new Mig-19 module??

If they would stick to their contract of continues development of the AV8B, people wouldn't be so upset.

Yep, that's one of the reasons they hired another coder, I guess. Great move, if you ask me.

And keep in mind that you don't have dozens of competent programmers with aviation background and system knowledge waiting for an opportunity...

This is a niche product, that uses a proprietary environment (DCS SDK) that you don't learn in the university or on any other job. So while programming skills may help, the intricacies of the DCS API and environment you need to learn on the job.

From what I've read Razbam is very aware of the problems in the past and has taken measures to better the situation. I tend to wait and give them a chance to improve. :dunno:

That is false. And reason is that many fly harrier wrong way.

Harrier operates 15-20km from the front line, but people fly it like carrier aircraft that should take-off 200-400km from the shore and every aircraft returns to carrier after each sortie, while harrier only returns to ship after last sortie. So while hornet or tomcat flies back to carrier, harrier lands to nearby FOB for rearming and refueling and flies back. In 30 minutes harrier is back in action, while hornet etc are still on way back.

 

In DCS, people don't fly the Harrier wrong, but all the other planes. Just that the FARP is being replaced by the closest airfield or CVN or LHA...

 

I'd honestly pay for a decent FARP/Road base DLC like the carrier module.

 

Me too...

Yeah but the problem is the FOB(s) in DCS suck, ...

snip

...

 

I'd honestly pay for a decent FARP/Road base DLC like the carrier module.

That.

Is

THE

biggest

issue

for any mission that runs consecutively after another aka 'campaign'. You can't dynamically create them, have to Physically Touch the model to get services and it stems from the same single sortie issue as the entire bedrock of DCS that draws from a single table of content that can't be manipulated in so many ways after the mission is loaded to memory. And it's ugly, although you could theoretically do something about that.

 

It's a bit unfair that the usage of the module is tarnished with DCS's limitaitons on it and is a bit OT, but Harriers role is quite exciting in real world, the concept that a minature airforce of 6-8 supports Marine landings, and yet we don't have:

 

1) Farps that can be useful, spawned or look real

2) Embarking, disembarking troops/vehicles (from ship/vehicle)

3) A properly working Muliplayer Tarawa

4) Ships that can get anywhere close to shore

5) AAV7's that can path properly if they are spawned from a ship if you go down the scripted route

 

Which means the Harriers usage in DCS is pretty restricted, it should have the coolest role of them all, in my opinion at least, but the surrounding DCS environment is a little contributory to it's passionate complaints.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Pikey
formatting and tpyo's