Any concern over Harrier development?

Hello Ron. Maybe you are posting as Marcq? How are you? Busy coding the Harrier? Or checking the bank account?

Sent from my MiG-29S (9-13S) using Tapatalk

Funny, most peoply I know still play it quite often, otherwise they would not be up to date about what to mourn exactly.

 

If you were correct, nobody would have bought the MiG-19 or would show any interest in the other Razbam products in the line but... sorry this seems not to be the case. This is the same misconception like the thought multiplayer is the commercial motor for DCS because there are so many virtual fighter wing jocks around.

 

I could tell you what my friends say about this discussion on 4th class level but it would not be nice and would not comply with the forum rules. I'm not sure what is the deeper thought behind all those boycott calls but remembering EA's (the company) history every new BF sells like hotcakes even if "the majority" raged against the publisher weeks before release.

 

Simply stop this BS people, grow up, vote with your wallet but save us this waste of electric energy, storage space and your precious time. Enjoy your day and DCS!

I suppose your friends don't need the plane to be as accurate as possible. And that's fine by me as everybody can enjoy the game the way they choose to. In my case I wish for a complete module that was promised four years ago. I never implied that my point of view was shared by the vast majority of the DCS userbase but it is representative of the people I play with - please grow up and don't imply something I didn't say.

At what point early access is not tolerable anymore ? Five years ? Ten years ? I didn't know Razbam was part of Chris Roberts's CIG.

At what point early access is not tolerable anymore ? Five years ? Ten years ? I didn't know Razbam was part of Chris Roberts's CIG.

Want to make an educated guess how long Nevada was in first access to final release? Could be a suprise for you.

BTW, not everything was a direct reply to your thread, I just wanted to save some place and refrained from multi quotes.

Im not interested if a product is EA or released but at least I know that EA products will get some attention. Better than paying for Blackshark 3 to get some fixes.

As to the topic of the discussion, my main concern right now is Betty and the GPWS system. It's been buggy from the start, and Razbam themselves acknowledged that they didn't test Betty before implementing her. And here we are 5-something updates later with no improvement in the Betty logic...

Hi everyone! I'm regarding to buy this module but I wonder to know is it worth the money? What about its FM? And has RAZBAM already added TGP laser guiding feature? An absence of the manual and the campaigns is not important to me.

You can use it, but regarding the countless bugs and bad implemented features, it is not the biggest joy to use.

Compared to all other DCS Modules, and in my opinion, it is (yet) not worth the money.

Read the forums, the bug reports and make you own picture of how trustworthy Razbam is for you, then decide.

Flightmodel is discussed between perfect fit and not good - Razbam does not say anything in that discussion.

Targetpod with Laser works, but is very, very buggy and missing features - Also no communication from Razbam regarding those things.

 

- Razbam does not say anything in that discussion.

.

From Decoy.

"The AV8B has been modelled using extensive data, the Harrier Flight model its as accurate as can be for a sim.

Also as a note we have US and British Harrier pilots input on the FM, with nothing but positive feedback "

..

Thats a general statement without getting anyhow specific.

Here you go regarding those two specific things:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232088

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=225371

And as always, the statement from Razbam regarding specific bugs / problems / wrong things / bugfixes / schedules is:

The only way we are going to solve the problem with unfinished modules and the lack of information on features is to not buy "Early Access". This would force developers to complete modules in order to create revenue. If you continue to buy unfinished software then there is a lack of incentive for companies to actually finish them. This industry (Sim software and gaming) is the only industry I know where it appears acceptable to ship incomplete software at basically full price which has no definite feature list and the lack of a roadmap schedule for completion... but we keep buying it don't we? because we think it's better than nothing and then we complain about it.... Don't feed the lions....they'll get lazy.... ;)

Early Access is not bad, instead, especially in modules like DCS has it, it is a real good thing and a win-win situation.

Things only turn bad when it gets abused. Thats the situation we have here and thats the problem.

My 2 cents, I have no concerns or lack of faith / trust in them, and I enjoy the Harrier for what it is today.

From Decoy.

 

 

"The AV8B has been modelled using extensive data, the Harrier Flight model its as accurate as can be for a sim.

 

Also as a note we have US and British Harrier pilots input on the FM, with nothing but positive feedback "

 

 

..

Didn't you just spend a bunch of time figuring out the fuel burn rates were wrong?

I agree the FM doesn't seem to be too wrong, but from videos it should rattle alot more in high G turns.

Didn't you just spend a bunch of time figuring out the fuel burn rates were wrong?

 

I agree the FM doesn't seem to be too wrong, but from videos it should rattle alot more in high G turns.

Yes I did and yes they are and armed with this knowledge I've adjusted my way of flying to suit.

I used the Decoy statement, as an example, to counter this incorrect statement and I have no comment on his actual statement.

"Flightmodel is discussed between perfect fit and not good - Razbam does not say anything in that discussion"

In my experience of past threads of this nature, particularly F-86 and Mig-21, Devs rarely reply to individual persons pet bugs and gripes, especially FM feelings and I can understand why.

RAZBAM crew have actually been more forthcoming than most, but with Early Access becoming earlier and earlier and the list of WIPs getting longer, it's bound to take longer to completion. Don't buy EA if you can't accept this.

My personal philosophy is, if a feature isn't yet implemented, then it doesn't exist on my aircraft. I use what I have got and get good at it.

250 hours of pure enjoyment on my favourite aircraft. Love it.

..

RAZBAM crew have actually been more forthcoming than most, but with Early Access becoming earlier and earlier and the list of WIPs getting longer, it's bound to take longer to completion. Don't buy EA if you can't accept this.

Why do people keep repeating this? From all the posts here, no one is unhappy with the principle of EA otherwise they wouldn't buy into it.

The issue here, AFAICS, is that users are concerned about whether RAZBAM will EVER finish the Harrier given the lack of communication and update progress over the last few years.

The lack of communications has not inherent about RAZBAM. Has the continue critics / attacks / harassment vs ED and 3rd parties they turn the communications off and the times with they dont have a "week update".

Remember the communications lock down when someone start to attack vs "where are my <aircraft, functionality, etc, etc, etc>" with continue post convert on hate wars, closed and bans...... and someone thinks with continually open and open post, attack the work of a team and a long etc, can push forward something.

All I can say is that I am fairly new to the Harrier, and have not had any direct experience of RAZBAM before this. However, it came to my attention over the last year or so that they have been coming in for a lot of criticism compared to ED's development on the Hornet or Heatblur's Viggen and Tomcat to name just a couple of examples. It was for that reason that I made this thread, to gauge opinions on RAZBAM and the Harrier development state.

On balance here, so far, I would say there was a pretty high level of frustration at the RATE of progress towards completion.

You don't have to worry, it will be finished in the end. But it may take a long time.

All that back and forth aside - does any of the, uhmm, "critics" really, truly think that the constant firing of cheap shots, bitching and whining will create any incentive at RAZBAM to work faster, or even consider to engage more with them?

Hey, but there's folks saying "regular updates". This doesn't stand up to reality and since November 2017 you can read changelog cadence https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204693 and understand the actual figures.

Let me start by saying that what is there is good, shows promise, is very frustrating when it’s so well rounded by lacking attention to detail and collects along the way bugs that can drive me wild for months on end like that bomb fall line.

There were very long gaps in feature completion, some on their second visit left incomplete. To have something regular it requires to be not having periods of inactivity. "Measurable progress gained in a steady fashion towards feature complete", less serious bugs not withstanding. Just look at the start, page 1 is very steady, page two begins to peter out and even the Razbam community manager gave up for April/May and said not much is going on, bang went their regular updates and they downsized to quarterly because … well guess…nothing to say.

What we are looking at is TWO PASSES at some avionics. Initial release, like a turning INS switch and automatic alignment at basic level which appeared to be at a rapid pass according to a plan ('Next week im doing X feature', to quote the team), then revisiting a year later to refine, adding SEA alignment, Ground etc which is not a regular or encouraging cadence of updates in anyone's opinion. INS has still got the turn all the way clockwise and back to bypass bug after the second revisit.

To be very clear, even with a long roadmap, slow progress, a team shows their organisation by approaching things in a logical fashion, stating intended work, performing the work, getting feedback, completing the feature, then moving on. That's almost how Harrier started until the silence and slow down. Compare this to Hornet, which may appear glacial, but it's 3cm per year glacial and each feature arrives, goes through OB testing, is iterated on, then is pretty much done and onto the next. Implement HARM page, iterate, state further updates pend implementation of X feature, etc. I don't care what Reddit says, the Hornet is communicated in the form that someone is thinking about it, no matter how slow it is or how much I could forsee JDAM’s being held up by the imprecision of coordinates months before they got to that phase, it’s irrelevant in the big scheme. This particular Harrier glacier can stop itself, then repaint itself, but it's going to have to revisit entire systems 3 times now. Is the next INS pass next year? The TPOD? Still can't reset forward and bugs out? How can you even remember the code for a system a year later? Is that efficient?

Without Razbam giving a commitment then meeting a commitment, customer will look at the available history and data and make their own minds up. If you aren't regular or committed at regular periods towards the end goal of 'feature complete', and you stop any progress on core features, leaving them half done or untouched for over a year (depending which feature but I'm looking at you Avionics) THEN you go over the same paint work again, it should not come as a surprise that customers foresee abandonment of some features into their current state.

Razbam have left a vacuum on the forums with their silence and made a poor decision to allow that vacuum to fill with disgruntled customer comments piling up. I've got news for you guys, I work in this industry and you have to meet that head on, man up and smile through it, not have a hissy fit at a troll pumping his gums on social media.

Trust takes years to build and a second to lose, but you are working on losing trust over years and spending seconds trying to rebuild it….that’s not going to work.

Trust takes years to build and a second to lose, but you are working on losing trust over years and spending seconds trying to rebuild it….that’s not going to work.

Amen!

Razbam have left a vacuum on the forums with their silence and made a poor decision to allow that vacuum to fill with disgruntled customer comments piling up.

Thats right, and most people that posted more than 5 times in this thread and the other bitching/ ranting monologs can congratulate themself to be an active part of this development :thumbup:

All that back and forth aside - does any of the, uhmm, "critics" really, truly think that the constant firing of cheap shots, bitching and whining will create any incentive at RAZBAM to work faster, or even consider to engage more with them?

I think a big part of the problem is that new folks come, and they think they know what EA means based on other modules. They post bug reports, they try to get engaged, then they realize no one on the dev team cares, bug reports erroneously get moved to resolved when they are clearly not and so forth. Then they get call moaners and bitchers by the fanboys, they often get banned due to the frustration. Eventually they don't give a shit and post bad things about Razbam. Its pretty sad really, the fanboys aren't really "helping" by accepting a sub par product.

I could write a book on the failures of "community management" here, and actually do use them as an amazing example of not to do things IRL. But that's just my world, you know where people pay money for working products.