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

About the community tracker,

 

It is yours, it is open and no one can change that.

 

While the community tracker is useful, not all of the issues are confirmed by the team as a bug or not.

 

The post was closed so bug reports can be made in the usual manner, one bug per thread, it makes it easier to manage. You know how we do it on our ED forum sections, if bugs are mixed into a single thread it becomes chaos.

 

We are setting up a process here to make reporting easier for the teams, as bugs are confirmed they will get added to the ED bug tracker and assigned to the RAZBAM team.

 

thank you

I think that tracker is a great addition and done by the community as a whole to make things better. IMHO every module should have such one pinned at the top as it collates all the reports that are properly reported (read: as you described, one by one, with tracks, screenshots if possible, logs etc) on the forums. The point is that saves you guys a lot of work as you don't have to skim the posts each to get a digest of what's being reported. Just take the community tracker, check the items listet there as they're all nicely linked to the single-post reports that have been made on the forums and forward that to your internal tracker after checking and acknowledging. On top of that you could check the items off if you've done so so we can see you have seen it. I mean, this really shows the community's dedication to help getting the ducks in a row here which should be appreciated and taken into account improving the process of improving the software itself.

calling it a scam is to far

Your opinion, and one I don't agree with. Calling the Harrier "feature-complete" to me means two things:

1. The features it was advertised with are complete. This isn't the case.

2. The manual fully documents its features completely. This isn't the case.

It doesn't have a manual. It has a 125 page "Pocket Guide" that is missing entire chunks of documentation, like the TPOD.

https://imgur.com/fTI02ER

I appreciate you working to help customers that bought the Harrier and are unhappy with Razbam, but please don't tell us how we should be feeling or what limits we should place on how we choose to categorize this. I paid for a product that advertised certain things, and what I have now isn't what was advertised. PERIOD. I vehemently oppose calling this product feature-complete, and it needs to go back into Early Access, likely for another three years while Razbam ignores bugs that have been reported since it's launch into EA.

Am I to understand that Razbam will only work bugs that ED tells them about?

WTF! They already had bugs dating back to Dec 2018 that =Decoy= reported to them and they had on their Bug Tracker.

How long is this process going to take?

JC on a short stick! Why don't you just do the work for them. Cut out the middle man. Doesn't ED have enough work to do on their own Modules?

You need to tell them to get it fixed on their own or forget about releasing anything else on the DCS platform. Take the Modules and finish them your selves. Other wise you'll right back here in a six months to a year when progress stalls again.

Razbams behavior over the past two years and EDs hands off attitude toward Third Party Devs has led us to this spot.

I intend to be very active in the bugs section over the next couple of days and I'm holding ED responsible for this as we all should.

And a plea for someone to start a thread listing the missing features is taking a piss. How the hell am I supposed to know whats missing or not without a manual to reference whats supposed to be there and weather it working the way it's supposed to. News flash, "many of us are not Harrier pilots!", we need the Razbam Manual. They should have been working on it since day one. This day was coming, right?

What did ED use to determine weather this thing was feature complete or not? Share it. I'm sure every one would like a copy.

Have a nice day.

And thank you Viper2097 for starting this thread.

Out of early access does not mean no bugs, just so we are clear on that.thanks

But it does mean: Realistically feature-complete, full-fidelity, study-level sim, within the scope of publicly available documents. And that the development is completed. Or has that changed?

Bugs are another thing.

AV8B is not even 50% done, compered with NATOPS. It's a half-done module. That happened becouse Razbam after 1 year decided to develop the Mig-19 & basically abandoned the AV8B. All with ED's blessings.

That ED approves AV8B out of EA is a testament of third-party devs quality control total breakdown. Or a deliberate breach of contract towards it's customers. There are digital EU consumer protecting laws, that are harsh on such behavior.

ED thought this would go unnoticed. Who took this decision? That person should explain himself.

I will be reluctant from now on to buy any coming third-party modules (Kiowa, Eurofighter, A-7) like others have said.

And I will never ever buy anything from Razbam, they are not trustworthy & disrespectful. I gave them my hard earned money & 3.5 years later I've got an unfinished half-done AV8B.

I got banned on their discord today for calling them out on their public excuse that the Harrier is feature complete...

Sorry, but it is just emberassing how Razbam is treating their customers, and also the people who work with them:

I learned my lession. I will never buy anything again from them.

Thank you Bignewy and Nineline for jumping in and trying to get things running.

Please, just keep on it with all the consequences.

We paid for a feature complete and mainly bug-free Harrier, please do all from ED side to prove that we get what we paid for. Thank you.

And please, don't allow to Razbam to rush any other module out before they get their **** sorted out.

For me it is clear that the Harrier need to gets back to EA state and also that it must be taken care that development doesn't stall again. Thats now ED's responsibility.

Here are some responses from the devs over on discord:

 

 

I can understand this limitations and that some of the systems have to be implemented using educated guesses, but they should communicate those before silently removing the EA label from the module. We are a grown up community and can understand the situation, but someone has to explain it to us.

Actually it's a shame, since they have so many interesting tinngs in the pipeline. And also I own the AV-8, I have not flown it a lot, so its probably not my place to speak up here.

But the thing is that I'm annoyed with razbam a lot since the only thing they do is starting new projects, keep the hype train going but never finish anything.

I said that often here on the forum, but always had like that thought in my head: "ok, they are probably just busy finishing there older modules before releasing new stuff."

Hell, I've been wrong. I get the feeling that this is a move to prepare the launch of the strike eagle, since they said "first we finish the old stuff". And as much as I would love to have the eagle, rather today then tomorrow - rolling the plane out on the backs of people who paid for a working and nearly bugfree module however is not how it should be.

Anyway - That needs to get sorted out because also i own but do not use the harrier, I'm not likley to buy a module i WILL USE if there is a chance that it will be a never ending story.

@Nineline&BigNewy,

I appreciate you jumping in here and trying to get a hold on bug control, but apart from that I‘m still waiting to hear officially from you and even more ,directly from Razbam how the communication with customers will be adressed.

Their customers service is really non-existent here and has been for long time and these are after all the official support forums for DCS products.

The only time they really engage here is to show off ever new products in their pipeline and that doesnt count as customers service or product support.

This behavior was their standard long before Decoy left so they can‘t blame it on his resignation.

They also can‘t blame it on lack of manpower, because they obviously have manpower to actively manage and post on FB and Discord (where , as has been correctly pointed out, they can conveniently delete critical posts or questions/bug reports)

While generally I have no issues with Developers using other social media as well for promoting and support, I do expect at least equal presence and product support support in the official forums. This is clearly not the case with Razbam.

So as a paying customer(well they already got my money) I do expect this to get adressed here officially and have customers informed how this is handled better from now on.

Also an apology from Razbam would be very much in order, but I won‘t hold out for that..

Regards,

Snappy

PS - sorry wowbagger i had already hit reply and don't type fast - just seen your comment and yes i've noticed the same hence my post saying it get's better, you beat me to it!

Haha, no worries mate.:thumbup:

You should see how slowly I type - well actually too quickly but very inaccuratley. ←backspace inaccarutely ←backspace inacrately ←backspace ... inaccurately. Takes forever.

Wow. Did they ban you, too, swift? I couldn't see any of your material up there. You and chicken have always been very respectful and constructive. If you guys can't lodge formal requests for features or bug fixtures, I don't know who else here could. By how much work I know RAZ still puts in the Harrier and Mirage, I never thought it would end up like this.

It is utterly undeniable that the Harrier is missing key central features. Not bugged, just missing. Saying that the CAS page isn't finished because it's both classified and currently unused is astounding to me. I thought DCS's standard was they would only allow the making of modules with a certain baseline of fidelity, regulated by the availability of on-the-record SME's and available unclassified documentation? If it's true that all of these systems must be left out in order to have the Harrier, then perhaps it should have been an FC module, since it is not possible to meet the fidelity requirements of DCS?

Also, this doesn't explain why certain things available in public documentation (NATOPS, certain available training documents) aren't in the sim. These are DEFINITELY unclassified. The INS system, all of its functionality and how it is updated is all publicly available and yet completely un-modeled in the sim beyond a rudimentary time-out for alignment.

I really thought they were going to calm everyone down with their responses but looking at the various sources for information from RAZ, I have to say things have been made much worse.

I now no longer have any idea what to expect from a given module. I had no idea so much "fudging" was allowed. I knew some (EW systems, exact aeros and sensor ranges, IFF systems) systems HAD to be fudged because they are classified for pretty much any time period, but I had no idea it was permissible to intentionally break a known correct system to make it less accurate to real world. I mean, if that's the case, then RAZ, a mostly out of US organization, shouldn't have this info from the USMC, either. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

Kind of makes you wonder what a Mig23 or F15E would be like. How much of what you think you're going to get will be determined "classified" or "not on the feature list"? The F15E is still the air force's premier conventional deep strike/interdiction aircraft. I would imagine just as much about that bird would be off-limits. I know they made many upgrades, but so, too, did the Harrier receive many upgrades. We trusted RAZ would select a version of the Harrier they could more faithfully model in DCS than it seems like they are able. How was I supposed to know the quality of the A10 would be closer to real life because it was used for training? I thought all the 3rd parties were selecting aircraft with similar access to information. I had no idea that between 2009 and now, the standards were lowered, and it was never communicated here or anywhere else that this was the case.

The only thing worse than poor standards is no standards. I will say again, no one here seems to have any idea what constitutes a feature-complete module because there is no logically consistent standard for it. If everything from the A10 to the Harrier is on the same playing field, then the stadium is way too big for the game being held.

I want to be clear, I'm not mad that the Harrier isn't finished. I'm disappointed that the standard is such that you can technically say that it is when all logic and reason run counter.

I hope this message reads as high in respect as I intended it to be, both to RAZ and everyone else here. I hope you all can pull it together. They did some great things in the Mirage recently, and they ARE working on stuff all the time, no doubt.

I have restored the post, but deleted the second image, the F word was a step to far here.

 

thanks

Ok, understandable. Sorry, did not recognized that the f word was used there. Sounds absolutely right then.

Thank you for re-viewing.

Read this now sounds really funny......... :doh:

Thank to ED however for the decisive intervention.

Would be also definitely time to give it up with Discord. We have wasted years of bugs reporting here.

No comment, really.

Looking after a forum section is not easy and for some teams it just takes up to much time, resources and energy that could be used on development, the forum can also be a pretty hostile place so I can understand why communication here has been difficult.

[...]

Hostile to those who consider criticism a personal attack. But it's probably more a matter of not wanting to let the rabble explain them their work.

From a business perspective, it seems like RAZBAM and ED is playing a dangerous game here.

The whole business model of paying for early access products is based on customer trust. The customer pays up front for the product based on promised future functionality and features.

After seeing that RAZBAM now considers the Harrier as feature complete despite missing promised functionality, I feel that this trust, at least for me, is no longer present.

I own both the M2000 and the Harrier, but I will be very hesitant to buy another product developed by RAZBAM in the future, at least in early access.

From a business perspective, it seems like RAZBAM and ED is playing a dangerous game here.

 

The whole business model of paying for early access products is based on costumer trust. The costumer pays up front for the product based on promised future functionality and features.

 

After seeing that RAZBAM now considers the Harrier as feature complete despite missing promised functionality, I feel that this trust, at least for me, is no longer present.

 

I own both the M2000 and the Harrier, but I will be very hesitant to buy another product developed by RAZBAM in the future, at least in early access.

That is your choice to make as a consumer, if you have doubts about early access it is always best to wait.

 

Thanks

This line made sense when "out of EA" meant "complete, working product" like, say, the A-10. Now that the goal posts have been moved, how does this even work? Do we trust the (out of EA) Harrier to be completed, and worthy of a full DCS product?

The reason I'm saying this is that one's logical conclusion is going to be "well I'm not going to buy product X yet, regardless of whether it's marked as EA or not, because it seems incomplete still". All this moving of goal posts is doing is losing 3rd party devs/ED money.

There is criticism, and there is taking it to far. Trust me I have seen everything on this forum, stuff the public does not see.

 

As mentioned we are working with RAZBAM to improve communication here on the forum, but it will take time.

 

Thank you

O.k. We'll see... But I have also seen all kinds of things from Razbam during the 3 years, not to be in the least convinced that they will change. So far again only one more announcement of a pressure easing action plan. Nothing more.

Besides, communication was always doomed to fail because there was mostly no real progress. You cannot "communicate that away".

That is your choice to make as a consumer, if you have doubts about early access it is always best to wait.

 

Thanks

Please, don't forget that if we all will recognize that Early Access isn't for us because of things like that, DCS can't be anymore.

IIRC, Nick said that EA is the only way how DCS can survive.

So, probably ED should take their responsibility a little more serious.

Yes, ED is not responsible for that what Razbam is doing (although they try to help here also).

But ED is responsible for letting modules out of EA and allowing new modules in EA.

Please, don't forget that if we all will recognize that Early Access isn't for us because of things like that, DCS can't be anymore.

IIRC, Nick said that EA is the only way how DCS can survive.

 

So, probably ED should take their responsibility a little more serious.

Yes, ED is not responsible for that what Razbam is doing (although they try to help here also).

But ED is responsible for letting modules out of EA and allowing new modules in EA.

I think it's less about EA itself, and more about how EA is handled by developers.

That is your choice to make as a consumer, if you have doubts about early access it is always best to wait.

 

Thanks

The issue is that now, even if we wait for a module to come out of early access, we know that it is not guaranteed to be complete, as this whole debacle showed us.

In my eyes Razbam lost a lot of credibility, and so did ED for allowing this to happen.