Jump to content

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


lee1hy

Recommended Posts

Now I have buyers remorse. I really do. But then I am pretty firm now in what I have purchased and have overcome the impulse to buy another module at this point (most noteably from RAZBAM). The few I have are serving my interests well. Another module won`t change what I already know about EA culture.


Edited by Emra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sarcasm off-. Interesting video choices. Isn't that the gentleman that lied and lead everyone on about being a pilot ?

Don't know, and actually I wasn't aware it is required to be a pilot to play DCS?

Anyway, even if he were Baron von Münchhausen or Micky Mouse, you can actually watch them step by step in the videos, to see what you "can't" do in the Harrier.


Edited by shagrat

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarcasm? What you wrote it the simple truth. Hint: there is a difference between works, and works as expected.
That's the problem, the difference between works as advertised and works as "expected", especially when different people expect different things...

so it boils down to "it does not fulfil your expectations". That's why I think watching videos showcasing how people with more satisfied expectations, get along with the module and decide for yourself if it meets your personal expectation.

I also love the notion that other modules are 100% representing the real world counterparts, or are bug free... just as an example, the A-10C module still misses some fixes, doesn't have Pre Planned mode for JDAM, uses made up workarounds to manage fuzing, etc. The necessary workarounds in most modules with the MFDs to re-program fuzes mid flight, instead of setting them at least on the ground via kneeboard are by no means "realistic", you program the systems to let them know what fuse is set on the actual bomb by the ordnance team... and no, I personally have no problem with the "realism" here. It was necessary and at the time there was no kneeboard or better way to do it.

Yet it's ridiculous to believe all the "other" DCS modules are a 100% representation of the real thing. They are close and ED and the 3rd parties try hard to get even closer.

Anyway, I think we all made our point. There is enough info in this thread for newcomers to digest and see for themselves, if they like or dislike what they get and make an informed decision.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right.

Regarding realism, (correct) working systems, fixed bugs, communication between Devs and customers and also immersion other modules also aren't perfect.

 

But while we talk about a "perfectness-rate" around 95-99% on modules like the F-14, the A10, JF-17 or F-18, we are talking around not even 70% on Razbam products.

 

So you are right, its an "works as expected" problem. I really would expect from Razbam a module that has the same quality as most other modules. Because DCS stands for a realistic, hardcore high-fidelity sim.

Steam user - Youtube

I am for quality over quantity in DCS modules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im amazed how many people know in depth how foreign military equipment works. So much even that they can create sophisticated perfectness-rate scales, that determine just how realistically hardcore high-fidelity a module is.

- Jack of many DCS modules, master of none.

- Personal wishlist: F-15A, F-4S Phantom II, JAS 39A Gripen, SAAB 35 Draken, F-104 Starfighter, Panavia Tornado IDS.

 

| Windows 11 | i5-12400 | 64Gb DDR4 | RTX 3080 | 2x M.2 | 27" 1440p | Rift CV1 | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind pedals |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about "Works" and "Works as expected" I expect at least all the mouse clickable switches to have keyboard equivalents. I'm not trying to be a rivet counter, and I don't think I'm in the minority. There are systems that have been in a some state of progress since release and have not yet had they're keyboard switches accessible through keyboard mapping.


Edited by SGT Coyle

Night Ops in the Harrier

IYAOYAS


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem, the difference between works as advertised and works as "expected", especially when different people expect different things...

so it boils down to "it does not fulfil your expectations". That's why I think watching videos showcasing how people with more satisfied expectations, get along with the module and decide for yourself if it meets your personal expectation.

I also love the notion that other modules are 100% representing the real world counterparts, or are bug free... just as an example, the A-10C module still misses some fixes, doesn't have Pre Planned mode for JDAM, uses made up workarounds to manage fuzing, etc. The necessary workarounds in most modules with the MFDs to re-program fuzes mid flight, instead of setting them at least on the ground via kneeboard are by no means "realistic", you program the systems to let them know what fuse is set on the actual bomb by the ordnance team... and no, I personally have no problem with the "realism" here. It was necessary and at the time there was no kneeboard or better way to do it.

Yet it's ridiculous to believe all the "other" DCS modules are a 100% representation of the real thing. They are close and ED and the 3rd parties try hard to get even closer.

Anyway, I think we all made our point. There is enough info in this thread for newcomers to digest and see for themselves, if they like or dislike what they get and make an informed decision.

 

Yeah, fundamentally I agree with you, and that's why in my previous post I said this is not a module that satisfies an audience that wants realism and autenticity to a "DCS Level".

 

We all know this is a computer game and shortcuts have to be made, however the issue arises when you have a brand / label that, as DCS does, comes to stand for a certain level of fidelity.

If you wear that label but then present a different, less realistic or less accurate modeling, then you have two options:

 

1. It shouldn't be called a DCS module

 

or

 

2. It should live up to the DCS standard.

 

The Harrier doesn't live up to DCS standard we've come to expect, but it was sold as such.

See where the problem is?

 

In this case "works as expected" means that major systems, avionics, weapons etc. work to the same degree of fidelity expected from a DCS module, and we have plenty of examples of what that means. So this is not a subjective measure.

I can open up the F-18 Natops and follow the startup procedure for example. I mean, the flight path marker in the Harrier's HUD still doesn't work properly! I can hardly imagine somethign more basic than that.


Edited by bkthunder

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im amazed how many people know in depth how foreign military equipment works. So much even that they can create sophisticated perfectness-rate scales, that determine just how realistically hardcore high-fidelity a module is.

 

A very simple example. The radio channel selector does not change them in the correct order.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=231537

 

Let that sink in. Razbam is a company, that can't even properly code a simple +1 / -1 logic for a knob without botching something up. And even when they get a bug report, they can't be bothered to fix it in more than a year. That's still broken in the latest DCS, even though the original bug report is in "resolved". The forums are full of bugs like that.

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about "Works" and "Works as expected" I expect at least all the mouse clickable switches to have keyboard equivalents. I'm not trying to be a rivet counter, and I don't think I'm in the minority. There are systems that have been in a some state of progress since release and have not yet had they're keyboard switches accessible through keyboard mapping.
Yep, agreed. That is something I would like as well, still it is all clickable in the cockpit. So it is definitely inconvenient, but not a game breaker... and yes, O hope they get this done, soonish, as it IS very inconvenient. :D

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on the Topic on "Works" or "Works as expected" I am not as upset for items that do not function yet as they are not implimented, however the items that are implimented and after years are still unfinished or not working the correct way as intended really bother me. Razbam has all of the documents and according to them "Subject matter experts and pilots" on the harrier that they are in contact with. I purchased this module with the clear advertisement over 2 years ago November of 2017 and the product page has not change stating

 

"""The subject of this study level simulation is the AV-8B N/A Bu No's 163853 and up which are the latest variant of this very capable AV-8B version."""

 

study level to me means very very close to the manuals as demonstraded by other peer modules.

 

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

 

those advertisements right there to me say everything should be very close to "Working as Intended"

 

just as with any other "study level Simulation" We didnt get this on the premise of someone else interpretation of how they think something should function or operate. Proof is in the pudding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im amazed how many people know in depth how foreign military equipment works. So much even that they can create sophisticated perfectness-rate scales, that determine just how realistically hardcore high-fidelity a module is.

 

Its pretty straightforward when you have access to said real world documentation as many people do here. You can goto the real world "book" and then try to do procedure xyz, and whoopsie daisy turns out it doesn't work in the Raz harrier. And that's for really basic things, radios standard flight procedures etc. Which then informs us about the likelihood of more complex systems being done to a "high level" of fidelity.

 

You can go look at heatblur and take a look at the pains they went to get the RWR on the F14 working "Right" they simulated receiving radio signals and how that RWR interprets them along with various problems that RWR has. Its done to a higher level of fidelity than even ED's stuff IMO. They made their own ground mapping radar for the Viggen long before that was even on ED's radar so to speak. Meanwhile in Razbam land you have the ARBS which works magically when it shouldnt, and is perfectly accurate, when it shouldn't be. I give raz credit for the nice looking stuff they do, their modelers are top notch. The actual nuts and bolts code and systems modeling, not so much. And that's why people bitch. A lot.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once I looked at RAZBAM outside of DCS it seems they're mostly a MSFS developer so expect their implementation to be similar to that system. I believe the Harrier is a port from their FSX module or at least the model is. I stopped flying it because things just don't work that well or at all once you get into the details. If you air start and drops some iron bombs in CCIP its a fine model with a clickable cockpit but don't expect to recreate the aircrafts operation in any sort of significant detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once I looked at RAZBAM outside of DCS it seems they're mostly a MSFS developer so expect their implementation to be similar to that system. I believe the Harrier is a port from their FSX module or at least the model is. I stopped flying it because things just don't work that well or at all once you get into the details. If you air start and drops some iron bombs in CCIP its a fine model with a clickable cockpit but don't expect to recreate the aircrafts operation in any sort of significant detail.

 

This 100%. Anyone who says 'harrier is fine, its complete' is the probably only hopping into an airstart and dropping bombs as you said. As soon as you try to do anything beyond that, it is so glaring how far harrier has to go before it can even be useable. Its so sad because harrier could be such a nice little plane. As is, it's nothing more than a fun little doodad.

476th Discord   |    476th Website    |    Swift Youtube
Ryzen 5800x, RTX 4070ti, 64GB, Quest 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 100%. Anyone who says 'harrier is fine, its complete' is the probably only hopping into an airstart and dropping bombs as you said. As soon as you try to do anything beyond that, it is so glaring how far harrier has to go before it can even be useable. Its so sad because harrier could be such a nice little plane. As is, it's nothing more than a fun little doodad.
That's why I linked the videos (and there are lots more on YT) of people actually flying the thing. Starting it up. Taking off, employing weapons, etc. so it is easier to understand, what is working and what not.

Also, nobody claims it is "finished", still Early Access (for a very long time, though) and getting more stuff (JDAMs, some ATHS stuff, as latest addition)... but that won't stop the haters hating Razbam, for the fun of it, won't it?

So again, there is so much visual information, guides (Chuck's Guide) and videos out there it should be easy for newcomers to see what they get, currently.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I linked the videos (and there are lots more on YT) of people actually flying the thing. Starting it up. Taking off, employing weapons, etc. so it is easier to understand, what is working and what not.

Also, nobody claims it is "finished", still Early Access (for a very long time, though) and getting more stuff (JDAMs, some ATHS stuff, as latest addition)... but that won't stop the haters hating Razbam, for the fun of it, won't it?

So again, there is so much visual information, guides (Chuck's Guide) and videos out there it should be easy for newcomers to see what they get, currently.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about "Works" and "Works as expected" I expect at least all the mouse clickable switches to have keyboard equivalents. I'm not trying to be a rivet counter, and I don't think I'm in the minority. There are systems that have been in a some state of progress since release and have not yet had they're keyboard switches accessible through keyboard mapping.

 

To be fair, there's a whole thread on the HB F-14 requiring various keyboard mappings or different handling to be added (including many switches which have no programmable key option yet in the control settings) and AFAIK there has been pretty much little to no progress over this in a year since its release, yet you don't see that being thrown against the HB or the F-14.

 

I remember I started modifying my Target profile to add RIO mappings and gave up when some things simply weren't there or missed some things (like e.g. an option to turn some rotary encoder left or right, only specific positions could be mapped, similar issues with 2 or 3 position switches, etc.).


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... yet you don't see that being thrown against the HB or the F-14.

 

Well, HB is actually fixing a lot of bugs, which is why people are rightfully cutting them some slack for stuff like more keybinds.

 

Razbam is adding a few new features piecemeal, but glaring bugs and missing functonality stick around for months and months, which is why their paying customers are getting rightfully annoyed.

i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV

 

AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of that, the F-14 was released pretty much feature complete. The only major features missing from the module are:

1) TWS-Auto, which is close to release

 

2) Jester using Lantirn

3) The F-14A and the TF-30 engines

4) Phoenix guidance updates

 

Two of those four are close to being done per HB"s recent post, and one was done but had to be pushed back due to issues on the ED/DCS side. You then have minor things like engine instruments on the -B, TARPS pod, and AI assets.

 

I dare say, there's more work that needs to be done on the Harrier (and arguably the Mirage) than there is on the Tomcat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Razbam land you have the ARBS which works magically when it shouldnt, and is perfectly accurate, when it shouldn't be. I give raz credit for the nice looking stuff they do, their modelers are top notch. The actual nuts and bolts code and systems modeling, not so much. And that's why people bitch. A lot.

 

Razbam has done many things with correct coding. So if manual says something is function, they do it exactly like that. But what manual is not saying is small tidbits that no manual is saying, something that pilots learn by training. The small things like how targeting systems drifts as none of them is truly a contrast based tracking on ground.

 

And ED is faulty for that same problem. Like look at the ED targeting pods, perfect tracking on anything. The FLIR is under rework, and I seriously hope we get the very blurry picture for many cases, lots of false readings and difficulties to find and track targets etc. Requirement to maintain manually the guidance laser spot on target etc etc.

 

We have plenty of such perfection systems, and that is something that heatblur changed a lot, by starting to code systems with the errors and inaccuracies there should be.

Like the Viggen navigation system, requirement for INS calibration, using the radar to correct the INS drifting etc etc.

 

It makes a lot for the immersion, and when Heatblur does it like it was by leatherneck with MiG-21Bis, that you feel and hear the aircraft almost breaking off in landings and take-offs and you get the feeling in high G turns that you are stressing the airframe etc, it really makes high value for the module.

 

Belsimtek did similar for the Mi-8MTv2 when in transition when the cockpit starts to shake and you can almost feel the vibrations etc.

 

But then you have Hornet, Viper etc that are perfection, no such feeling whatsoever.

And some people confuse it go FBW systems etc.

 

If Razham would start to add systems with such details, they would be in great track IMHO.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good start would be if the systems work as described in NATOPS manual. That is the bible when creating a study sim. Then you add pilot and SME feedback, further documentation, videos etc. to verify that what you are doing is correct. You cannot really do this type of advanced and highly detailed modules with guesswork.

 

I can understand systems that are not implemented yet, development can be a long and difficult process. But Im not cutting Razbam any slack for systems that has not been correctly modeled.

(simplified for sensitive stuff like RWR/ECM is understandable)

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of that, the F-14 was released pretty much feature complete. The only major features missing from the module are:

1) TWS-Auto, which is close to release

 

2) Jester using Lantirn

3) The F-14A and the TF-30 engines

4) Phoenix guidance updates

 

Two of those four are close to being done per HB"s recent post, and one was done but had to be pushed back due to issues on the ED/DCS side. You then have minor things like engine instruments on the -B, TARPS pod, and AI assets.

 

I dare say, there's more work that needs to be done on the Harrier (and arguably the Mirage) than there is on the Tomcat.

 

Don’t forget:

The missing Aim-9 rail textures, OBC checks, half the bits on the master test panel, all the radio bits, All the circuit breakers, the missing oxygen panel and the forestal.

 

Many of those things I mentioned are part of the cold start procedure. A very basic and standard DCS benchmark of a module. It’s pretty far from finished IMO especially considering the rate at which they are releasing new features.

 

When you look close at any module you’ll find cracks and missing bits and a slew of bugs. HB did the exact same thing that people were complaining about above, they focused on the gameplay elements and left the in depth systems for later. Same story on the hornet, same story everywhere the tomcat wasn’t an exception. People just get mesmerized by it, and all of a sudden those guys are perfect and we can overlook things.


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Razbam has done many things with correct coding. So if manual says something is function, they do it exactly like that. But what manual is not saying is small tidbits that no manual is saying, something that pilots learn by training. The small things like how targeting systems drifts as none of them is truly a contrast based tracking on ground.

 

And ED is faulty for that same problem. Like look at the ED targeting pods, perfect tracking on anything. The FLIR is under rework, and I seriously hope we get the very blurry picture for many cases, lots of false readings and difficulties to find and track targets etc. Requirement to maintain manually the guidance laser spot on target etc etc.

 

We have plenty of such perfection systems, and that is something that heatblur changed a lot, by starting to code systems with the errors and inaccuracies there should be.

Like the Viggen navigation system, requirement for INS calibration, using the radar to correct the INS drifting etc etc.

 

It makes a lot for the immersion, and when Heatblur does it like it was by leatherneck with MiG-21Bis, that you feel and hear the aircraft almost breaking off in landings and take-offs and you get the feeling in high G turns that you are stressing the airframe etc, it really makes high value for the module.

 

Belsimtek did similar for the Mi-8MTv2 when in transition when the cockpit starts to shake and you can almost feel the vibrations etc.

 

But then you have Hornet, Viper etc that are perfection, no such feeling whatsoever.

And some people confuse it go FBW systems etc.

 

If Razham would start to add systems with such details, they would be in great track IMHO.

 

I would argue that the ED flir is horrible because of the hot water and trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that the ED flir is horrible because of the hot water and trees.

 

For a lot of reasons. But the water is the glaring one. Trees can show "warm" under certain conditions as they do retain heat after a diurnal crossover.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...