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

How finished is Harrier? The reason was that there were many features that were not available in free-trail.

There were a few things that didn't work in MFD. I love this Harrier. very good 3D model , I want to buy. I am curious about the function implementation

Build your own opinion:

How complete is the harrier now?

Any concern over Harrier development?

Is this a dead module?

How far to "Feature Complete?

why^2?

Additional to all those threads:

Many bugs, many missing features, some important bugs present over years and no response from the Devs.

We will see what the future brings.

There are some recent videos from people that are quite knowledgeable in DCS. After RAZBAM added a lot of new and interesting stuff and fixed the Tarawa spawn points, we mostly miss the remaining attack modes (Loft bombing) and the final details for ATHS and JDAM (as ED is adding more options to the JDAM, like terminal parameters, I guess Razbam will implement them as well). The JDAM tend to cause some issue at times, but honestly, if you start with the AV-8B and are not too eager to start with the most complicated stuff, you have a lot of stuff to learn that works and is pretty much done.

Spudknocker did a nice video a year ago and there are others on YouTube (just look at the time stamps, shouldn't be older than Sept 2019 to reflect most of the current development state)

EDIT sorry linked the wrong video

P.S. there is a small but very negative faction on this forum that is basically bad mouthing Razbam and the Harrier in particular. Take statements like "unflyable", "this bug exists since 2 years" or "important features still missing since" with a grain of salt and make up your own opinion. The videos on the Harrier are quite a good source.

To add something to the things in MFCDs "not working" could be mostly, because the AV-8B Harrier is a pretty complex beast. Certain screens and weapons displays are connected to specifically the left or right MFD. The TGP has 3 different control mode, the Maverick can be designated with 3 different sensors and it is important to follow the correct steps, etc.

I found most of the issues I had operating weapon systems was often related to me not following procedure, forgetting important details and not actually a bug. That does not mean there are no bugs, but most systems are done and work... ah, one really annoying missing feature is the missing wind correction for bomb drop symbology/calculation. You need to align up or downwind and compensate with the aimpoint...

My recommendation, ignore the hand-wringers. The plane is a blast to fly and fight and there’s more than enough capability to enjoy in PvP/pve servers and SP missions.

The most important thing I think you have to know, since you say you tested the free trial: if you buy the av-8b, you'll have exactly what you've tried for free: that is the development state, there are no features missing in the trial version, since it's a limited time full trial, not a demo version. If it is worth your money, it's up to your personal judgement.

My recommendation, ignore the hand-wringers. The plane is a blast to fly and fight and there’s more than enough capability to enjoy in PvP/pve servers and SP missions.

For sure the real Harrier is a blast. The DCS Harrier, unfortunately, isn't and is also far away from being on a step with outstanding modules like the F-18, F-14 or JF-17.

The artwork is quite good and everything looks nice, although the cockpit is not really VR optimized (the F-14 has smaller and aged fonts which can be read much better). You'll have a lot of fun with it if you are new to it or doing not really more then take-off, fly around and land.

Otherwise you'll recognize quite fast that the systems are missing many things, many things are bugged and many things just dont work correct.

You can barely do anything according the NATOPS or Tac-man without running into problems.

The deeper you dive into the Harrier, the more frustrated you get.

Especially when you find something that don't work, look for it in the forum, realize that it is bugged since two years and that there has never been any comment from the Devs about it. (e.g. when the TGP laser just stop working without any reason or indication or the bugged since ever TDC slew)

Or they just blame ED for everything broken.

I know that this is very hard to judge for a buying decision, especially when there are lots of people saying how happy they are with it. So still the best idea is to read through the forum and then build your own opinion.

Still a bunch of basic functionality missing for Dumb bombs/ARBS/ moving target compensation, wind compensation, loft-toss bombing. ARBS is arcade accurate, INS modeling is WIP. Etc.

Some stuff works, some stuff doesn't. And its getting worked on at a rather glacial pace. The goal is to finish it this year I think. But at the current rate of progress I doubt it.

The most important thing I think you have to know, since you say you tested the free trial: if you buy the av-8b, you'll have exactly what you've tried for free: that is the development state, there are no features missing in the trial version, since it's a limited time full trial, not a demo version. If it is worth your money, it's up to your personal judgement.

(...)ARBS is arcade accurate,(...)

Well I would love it to be more "accurate", as I can manage to drop bombs "nearish" to a target designated with DMT/ARBS so it gets pretty scared. If you drop more bombs they kill them through blast, but "arcade" precision I think I would have noticed.

Dumb bombs rarely hit a tank or BMP dead on, I need LGBs or JDAM for repeated direct hits, as I would expect.

I have to agree with viper2097 and Harlikwin.

There is a lot functionality that is missing or not implemented correctly.

Missing NAVFLIR alignment, issues with AGM-122 sound, sight and missing modes, no SEAM functionality for AIM-9 sidewinder, no hotspot detection, TDC axis slew issues, TGP issues, alignment errors in hud etc....

I can go on and on.

Reading NATOPS it is easy to find issues comparing it to the DCS Harrier. Issues that usually go overlooked by the gameplay crowd. Look it can still be a lot of fun, but if you compare attention to detail to other modules you will see that the Harrier is not comparable to, lets say the A-10C. We are all looking for different things, but for the price, I expect highest level of fidelity. The FM feels really nice, but the systems are not there yet.

Still a very fun module, just don't expect everything to be on point. And no, this is not another "negative" view of Harrier or Razbam. It is only well founded criticism. The Harrier was released late 2017 and should be in a better state by now.

Dumb bombs rarely hit a tank or BMP dead on, I need LGBs or JDAM for repeated direct hits, as I would expect.

Then you need to try harder.

Its no problem to have a hit accuracy of >90% with FF Mk82 useing ARBS. Dead-spot-on.

The ARBS is, as nearly all systems from RB, pure arcadeish.

I have to agree with viper2097 and Harlikwin.

 

There is a lot functionality that is missing or not implemented correctly.

Missing NAVFLIR alignment, issues with AGM-122 sound, sight and missing modes, no SEAM functionality for AIM-9 sidewinder, no hotspot detection, TDC axis slew issues, TGP issues, alignment errors in hud etc....

I can go on and on.

 

Reading NATOPS it is easy to find issues comparing it to the DCS Harrier. Issues that usually go overlooked by the gameplay crowd. Look it can still be a lot of fun, but if you compare attention to detail to other modules you will see that the Harrier is not comparable to, lets say the A-10C. We are all looking for different things, but for the price, I expect highest level of fidelity. The FM feels really nice, but the systems are not there yet.

 

Still a very fun module, just don't expect everything to be on point. And no, this is not another "negative" view of Harrier or Razbam. It is only well founded criticism. The Harrier was released late 2017 and should be in a better state by now.

:thumbup:

Then you need to try harder.

Its no problem to have a hit accuracy of >90% with FF Mk82 useing ARBS. Dead-spot-on.

 

The ARBS is, as nearly all systems from RB, pure arcadeish.

I mean: In real life and iron bombs, you and your system make your best guesstimate, then you drop them and real world takes the control. Better you know those rules and better your bombs are in production quality more accuracy you get.

How it works in DCS? Is some randomization and spread applied to the falling bombs? Or the module itself takes the source code (or part of it) for the environment, runs it through its own routines, models how it would look in the plane systems, calculates solution with that simulated real world already included and bombs hit exactly where he tells them to hit

I'd guess the physics for the bomb itself (from the point on you dropped it) is part of DCS, while the whole release cue and targeting system is part of the module.

For having a realistic release cue with realistic inaccuracies, all parameters which are pulled for calculating the release cue would need to have random deviations.

I know thatbzhe ARBS is also very accuratr IRL, but I would be more then surprised if those would be really there.

I'd guess the physics for the bomb itself (from the point on you dropped it) is part of DCS, while the whole release cue and targeting system is part of the module.

 

For having a realistic release cue with realistic inaccuracies, all parameters which are pulled for calculating the release cue would need to have random deviations.

I know thatbzhe ARBS is also very accuratr IRL, but I would be more then surprised if those would be really there.

Or: Where otherwise that arcade accuracy came from?

the F-14 has smaller and aged fonts which can be read much better

This point is false for me and my Rift S.

I can do with Harrier, the Tomcat was such a pain I had to install a cockpit mod to be able to use it in VR (bigger and "brand new" fonts).

Just a question: Is accuracy of the bombs done by the module or by the game?

I mean: In real life and iron bombs, you and your system make your best guesstimate, then you drop them and real world takes the control. Better you know those rules and better your bombs are in production quality more accuracy you get.

How it works in DCS? Is some randomization and spread applied to the falling bombs? Or the module itself takes the source code (or part of it) for the environment, runs it through its own routines, models how it would look in the plane systems, calculates solution with that simulated real world already included and bombs hit exactly where he tells them to hit

Try free fall bomb with FC3 modules like MiG-29 or Su-27 and it will be laser accurate too.

So this is DCS IMHO...

This point is false for me and my Rift S.

I can do with Harrier, the Tomcat was such a pain I had to install a cockpit mod to be able to use it in VR (bigger and "brand new" fonts).

Probably depends on the Headset, no idea why so many people have so many different experience.

I use an Odyssey+ and can read every single letter in the F-14 and F-18 without any problem. Also the cockpit is smooth without any flickering and just a pleasure to look at.

In the Harrier, it is impossible to read the warning lights right from the right knee. Also the whole cockpit is flickering a lot and many letters can only be read with zoom.

Well I would love it to be more "accurate", as I can manage to drop bombs "nearish" to a target designated with DMT/ARBS so it gets pretty scared. If you drop more bombs they kill them through blast, but "arcade" precision I think I would have noticed.

Dumb bombs rarely hit a tank or BMP dead on, I need LGBs or JDAM for repeated direct hits, as I would expect.

The arbs cant actually get a solution if the track rates are low. There are specific manouvers you would use to ensure a good ARBS lock as a pilot. Right now its slew to target and "magic".

That is the reason of my question - whether those so called arcade accuracy has something to do with the module. Whether it is somehow cheating the DCS World module, or it makes its best calculation and that calculation is too good for the DCS World.

Or: Where otherwise that arcade accuracy came from?

The arbs has lower accuracy than a lrf which is .5-1%. The ARBS is likely a few %. And uses a kallman filter to determine the target position relative to the plane. It also cant instantly obtain accurate ranges as it does now.

Try free fall bomb with FC3 modules like MiG-29 or Su-27 and it will be laser accurate too.

 

So this is DCS IMHO...

Yes ots the default arcade model. Try the viggen, thats not arcade. So its not really DCS.

Yes ots the default arcade model. Try the viggen, thats not arcade. So its not really DCS.

Maybe they added artificial dispersion which would be the reverse way to do it. :smilewink:

What about ARBS Air-Air usage? Like in this video:

Don't think that is implemented yet.