Any concern over Harrier development?

[p1t1o]

You are blaming the avionics / radar of the Mirage, not their missiles. However, lot of problems with the coding in Razbams products, the bug mentioned by you is know for how long? years?

 

To say "don't buy EA" is not the solution. Look at the Hornet, perfect example of how EA should work. Look at the Viggen or the Cat. Not perfect (Viggen not yet finished, only short time for judging the progress of the Cat), but fairly ok so far.

The problem is just how Razbam handles their products and treats their customers.

 

Yes, I just made an edit to my previous, it probably is the radar.

 

I wasnt suggesting not buying EA, I was suggesting not buying from Razbam, whether EA or not.

[TLTeo]

Bit off topic but if the lock is dropping in TWS mode it's indeed a well known bug unfortunately.

 

 

More on topic, I do agree that Razbam needs to focus on quality more. It's not just the number of modules they have released either, or any individual one. The Mig-19's FM is arguably as messy as the Harrier's avionics unfortunately.

[p1t1o]

Not just a well-known bug, but a critical bug. Busted radar in a fighter jet?

 

Harrier is much newer, Im happy to give them plenty more time, but if it looks like its going to get half done and left by the wayside so they can start yet another module, I'll be keeping a much tighter grasp of my wallet.

[Knock-Knock]

Well, I dont think the Mirage radar is in shit shape, neglected or game breaking bugged, except the narrow scan width bug - but that is not game breaking, just slightly annoying.

 

But do correct me if Im wrong, regarding a doppler radar, a relative small one at that. Its an incredibly dynamic enviroment, and doppler radars do not like being notched, nor are they very capeable in a rear aspect chase, when their speed is +/- 100 kts of the target. Add to that height aspect, if target is below you.

The massive and very powerful AWG-9 in the Tomcat is loosing lock left right and center, even in very close - I guess that is a game breaker too then? That goes for the Hornet too.

 

I just have this feeling that many people expect radars to be these all seeing all powerful devices, that once locked on, will not loose lock again, expect in a very narrow notch window. I think real world is the exact opposite, and that the Razbam Mirage radar is doing a great job imitating all those limitations, but thats just me.

[imacken]

Guys, can I respectfully suggest that we are way off topic here. Maybe start another thread on the Mirage radar?

[Dwarf_Hunter]

I've only just started on the Harrier, and am a little concerned about comments I have read on these forums regarding the stalling of development on it.

Is there any cause for concern on this, and what is the background to these comments? Is there a likelihood that it will be finished and a manual published?

I sincerely hope so!

 

Oh boy , you just spent your money on the wrong module. Not only is the Harrier bugged, the manual is describing functionality thats not even implemented yet.....and probably never will. Razbam are good graphic artists but mediocre coders. The TPOD for instance is a complex peace of cake and they will never be able to finish it :cry:

[imacken]

Oh boy , you just spent your money on the wrong module. Not only is the Harrier bugged, the manual is describing functionality thats not even implemented yet.....and probably never will. Razbam are good graphic artists but mediocre coders. The TPOD for instance is a complex peace of cake and they will never be able to finish it :cry:

 

I'm not bothered about the money. I tend to buy most modules for DCS. My concern was/is RAZBAM's ability/desire to finish the Harrier at some point in the near future.

[p1t1o]

 

Well, I dont think the Mirage radar is in shit shape, neglected or game breaking bugged, except the narrow scan width bug - but that is not game breaking, just slightly annoying.

 

But do correct me if Im wrong, regarding a doppler radar, a relative small one at that. Its an incredibly dynamic enviroment, and doppler radars do not like being notched, nor are they very capeable in a rear aspect chase, when their speed is +/- 100 kts of the target. Add to that height aspect, if target is below you.

The massive and very powerful AWG-9 in the Tomcat is loosing lock left right and center, even in very close - I guess that is a game breaker too then? That goes for the Hornet too.

 

I just have this feeling that many people expect radars to be these all seeing all powerful devices, that once locked on, will not loose lock again, expect in a very narrow notch window. I think real world is the exact opposite, and that the Razbam Mirage radar is doing a great job imitating all those limitations, but thats just me.

 

It is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, NOT notching. C-130 has trouble notching a fighter jet at 10nm (dont htink prop aircraft CAN notch due to massive spinning radar reflectors, but not sure if simulated. anyhoo...). Not to mention I *specifically* made sure not to be notched. We do not expect them to be all-seeing, but we expect them to be fit for purpose, and these things are supposed to be ADVANCED not "just barely struggling to give minimum capability in perfect test conditions". Notch should be a small window that can only be taken advantage of under specific circumstances anyway. Modern (and Im not talking 2015+, pulse-doppler is old, cold war tech, its a mature method.) doppler radars are not that stupid. But anyway, its very easy to exclude notching as a cause, even if notching has a huge window. Do you expect an aircraft 45deg relative aspect to be "notching"?

 

Mirage 2000s radar should almost NEVER drop a lock on a non-notching, non-manouvering, non-countermeasure-deploying, non-emitting, large target in good, clear weather, within visual range. And I only put in the "almost" to allow for critical component failures.

 

And yes, the Hornet and Cat are still in EA.

 

This from a former Viper pilot, on the subject of "beaming" (notching):

"I cannot imagine a modern radar that quits tracking once locked on for a missile shot."

 

Anyhoo, as has been pointed out, this IS a known bug, that has existed for a long time, and has been hashed and rehashed many times in other threads.

 

 

Sorry for bring up OT stuff, but it is sideways related, as in its about problems and concerns with Razbams ability to develop modules, including the Harrier.

Edited May 15, 2019 by p1t1o

[LastRifleRound]

Lurking this thread is an exercise in watching people talk past each other in idioms as opposed to actual issues.

 

Statements like "Camp A always hates dev X and Camp B gets it" and "it's the same 10 people complaining" are very irritating to read, as they don't address the actual discussion at all.

 

Instead of talking about how someone is talking, or talking about what you think they must be like, address the external thing to which they are referring.

 

I find the M2000 one of the most fun aircraft to mess around with. However, the most optimistic among us cannot deny the state of the INS and CCRP bombing and TWS after 3 years is unacceptable. These aren't ancillary features. They are features advertised to be in the aircraft, with training missions and flight manual chapters dedicated to them even though they don't work. It is one thing to leave bug fixes so you can work on something else. It's quite another to gut mission capabilities and walk away. This is common sense. I don't have to discuss who is like what as a person to say this. It is plain truth.

 

Instead of thinking like "Well I don't care about X so I have fun" think about it this way. If someone sold you a Ferrari, and told you "Hey man. You'll love this Ferrari. It's really fast, it'll corner well, and has a real Italian leather interior". You accept delivery. It looks like a Ferrari. You open the door and pop the hood. The engine is 120hp 4 cylinder because they didn't have time to finish the 10, it can't take left hand turns, and the interior is all plastic and is purple.

 

Your neighbor happened to buy the same car. You complain to your neighbor. "Hey, this sucks! I ordered a Ferrari and they gave me a monstrosity that can't do any of the things they said it would! I gave them 3 years to fix it. But all they did was repaint one of the quarter panels and stick a knob on the shifter, and now they won't even call back or commit to fixing any of my specific issues relating to the selling points THEY gave me!" how would you feel if your neighbor said "Well I don't really like going fast anyway, and just make a bunch of rights to work around not turning left and I just imagine the plastic is leather"? What if he told you "Everyone I know is happy with their jalope Ferrari, it's just the same guy I always hear complaining about his" Does that make the guy complaining any less TRUTHFUL? You might not like him, BUT IS HE LYING?

 

I think RAZBAM is committed to finish the modules to address OP's concern. But flexing your superior imaginative capabilities or superior optimism is silly. The Mirages core systems should have been fixed years ago. They should have been because RAZBAM said they would, and the average person would not know they didn't work and would not assume a 3 year time frame. It's dishonesty to say you will do something then not do it. You can have all the fun in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that people should keep their promises.

 

Leeway is great and necessary. I'm a developer myself. Timing complex software is virtually impossible, and I've launched several enterprise applications. But my God man. Do your unit and integration tests. And 1 year is acceptable for a project like this. 3 is awful. 3 and you launch another software then another is inexcusable. If you can't get your software off the ground with the minimum function set without a Madoff-like scheme of EA titles to keep you going, you have no business promising delivery of the software in the first place and you should in no good conscience accept a dime for it until you can meet that set.

 

If you break where bombs fall, not noticing then walking away from it is not a good development strategy. Not knowing/not caring about the Harrier ASL for that long is bizarre. I look at the change log and it mystifies me. The idea we'd add damage modeling before core mission sets is strange to me.

 

Regardless of how much you can imagine it away, it doesn't change this fact. Please keep that in mind.

 

With all that said, they seem to be coming alive. I question their priorities (as in the order they seem to want to fix things seems odd to me), but it doesn't seem like these guys are going to fold. They have day jobs for God's sake, so it's not like it's DCS or bust. Plus who knows what's going on personally for them. I hope nothing bad happened but you never know. They're a small team. S*it happens.

 

I'm thinking about learning myself some lua and offering them a free hand doing nothing but squashing bugs if they take it. If nothing else they have awesome choices in aircraft and some decent bones. I would follow this priority list for features:

 

1. Features/Bugs for core mission sets (can a Harrier/Mirage drop bombs? Lock on and track aircraft? Takeoff? Land?)

2. Features/Bugs that break immersion/defy reality in egregious ways: INS updates, INS aligning no matter what, etc

3. Features/Bugs for ancillary tasks (Eclair system auto modeled, auto countermeasures, ECM auto, IFF)

4. Convenience features: Having to turn a knob to get manual radios to work, cockpit lighting, other quality-of-life-type enhancements (button sounds, cosmetic things that don't fall under category 2)

 

The problem I'm seeing is most fixes are falling under category 4, a few in category 2 (damage modeling), and almost nothing in cat 1 (ASL fix in March was it for years).

 

I'm of the mind until cat 1 and most of cat 2 is finished, you shouldn't be touching a new module.

 

Anyway, my update just finished so I'm going to go fly the plane I just spent a half hour bitching about, because it IS fun and the campaign is excellent.

[Holbeach]

Moved

 

 

..

Edited May 19, 2019 by Holbeach

[jetkid]

Lurking this thread is an exercise in watching people talk past each other in idioms as opposed to actual issues.

 

Statements like "Camp A always hates dev X and Camp B gets it" and "it's the same 10 people complaining" are very irritating to read, as they don't address the actual discussion at all.

 

Instead of talking about how someone is talking, or talking about what you think they must be like, address the external thing to which they are referring.

 

I find the M2000 one of the most fun aircraft to mess around with. However, the most optimistic among us cannot deny the state of the INS and CCRP bombing and TWS after 3 years is unacceptable. These aren't ancillary features. They are features advertised to be in the aircraft, with training missions and flight manual chapters dedicated to them even though they don't work. It is one thing to leave bug fixes so you can work on something else. It's quite another to gut mission capabilities and walk away. This is common sense. I don't have to discuss who is like what as a person to say this. It is plain truth.

 

Instead of thinking like "Well I don't care about X so I have fun" think about it this way. If someone sold you a Ferrari, and told you "Hey man. You'll love this Ferrari. It's really fast, it'll corner well, and has a real Italian leather interior". You accept delivery. It looks like a Ferrari. You open the door and pop the hood. The engine is 120hp 4 cylinder because they didn't have time to finish the 10, it can't take left hand turns, and the interior is all plastic and is purple.

 

Your neighbor happened to buy the same car. You complain to your neighbor. "Hey, this sucks! I ordered a Ferrari and they gave me a monstrosity that can't do any of the things they said it would! I gave them 3 years to fix it. But all they did was repaint one of the quarter panels and stick a knob on the shifter, and now they won't even call back or commit to fixing any of my specific issues relating to the selling points THEY gave me!" how would you feel if your neighbor said "Well I don't really like going fast anyway, and just make a bunch of rights to work around not turning left and I just imagine the plastic is leather"? What if he told you "Everyone I know is happy with their jalope Ferrari, it's just the same guy I always hear complaining about his" Does that make the guy complaining any less TRUTHFUL? You might not like him, BUT IS HE LYING?

 

I think RAZBAM is committed to finish the modules to address OP's concern. But flexing your superior imaginative capabilities or superior optimism is silly. The Mirages core systems should have been fixed years ago. They should have been because RAZBAM said they would, and the average person would not know they didn't work and would not assume a 3 year time frame. It's dishonesty to say you will do something then not do it. You can have all the fun in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that people should keep their promises.

 

Leeway is great and necessary. I'm a developer myself. Timing complex software is virtually impossible, and I've launched several enterprise applications. But my God man. Do your unit and integration tests. And 1 year is acceptable for a project like this. 3 is awful. 3 and you launch another software then another is inexcusable. If you can't get your software off the ground with the minimum function set without a Madoff-like scheme of EA titles to keep you going, you have no business promising delivery of the software in the first place and you should in no good conscience accept a dime for it until you can meet that set.

 

If you break where bombs fall, not noticing then walking away from it is not a good development strategy. Not knowing/not caring about the Harrier ASL for that long is bizarre. I look at the change log and it mystifies me. The idea we'd add damage modeling before core mission sets is strange to me.

 

Regardless of how much you can imagine it away, it doesn't change this fact. Please keep that in mind.

 

With all that said, they seem to be coming alive. I question their priorities (as in the order they seem to want to fix things seems odd to me), but it doesn't seem like these guys are going to fold. They have day jobs for God's sake, so it's not like it's DCS or bust. Plus who knows what's going on personally for them. I hope nothing bad happened but you never know. They're a small team. S*it happens.

 

I'm thinking about learning myself some lua and offering them a free hand doing nothing but squashing bugs if they take it. If nothing else they have awesome choices in aircraft and some decent bones. I would follow this priority list for features:

 

1. Features/Bugs for core mission sets (can a Harrier/Mirage drop bombs? Lock on and track aircraft? Takeoff? Land?)

2. Features/Bugs that break immersion/defy reality in egregious ways: INS updates, INS aligning no matter what, etc

3. Features/Bugs for ancillary tasks (Eclair system auto modeled, auto countermeasures, ECM auto, IFF)

4. Convenience features: Having to turn a knob to get manual radios to work, cockpit lighting, other quality-of-life-type enhancements (button sounds, cosmetic things that don't fall under category 2)

 

The problem I'm seeing is most fixes are falling under category 4, a few in category 2 (damage modeling), and almost nothing in cat 1 (ASL fix in March was it for years).

 

I'm of the mind until cat 1 and most of cat 2 is finished, you shouldn't be touching a new module.

 

Anyway, my update just finished so I'm going to go fly the plane I just spent a half hour bitching about, because it IS fun and the campaign is excellent.

I agree with every single word.

[Fynek]

Hello,

 

I purchased the Harrier recently and reading this thread has made me a bit depressed to be honest :)

 

This said, I truly hope that Razbam will keep on working on this module (and the Mirage which i also purchased) and eventually finish it as i love this aircraft.

 

I have a simple question please as i do not want to necro old threads : Is it just in my module or does the seat adjust switch in the plane not work? I tried to raise my seat to no avail. Is there a way to make it work please?

 

Another question please : Does INS alignment work everywhere or is it normal that i could not align properly in the training session ( timer kept flashing 0:00 and wouldnt start) or did i do something wrong? Thank you!

[Harlikwin]

Hello,

 

I purchased the Harrier recently and reading this thread has made me a bit depressed to be honest :)

 

This said, I truly hope that Razbam will keep on working on this module (and the Mirage which i also purchased) and eventually finish it as i love this aircraft.

 

I have a simple question please as i do not want to necro old threads : Is it just in my module or does the seat adjust switch in the plane not work? I tried to raise my seat to no avail. Is there a way to make it work please?

 

Another question please : Does INS alignment work everywhere or is it normal that i could not align properly in the training session ( timer kept flashing 0:00 and wouldnt start) or did i do something wrong? Thank you!

 

Well not to derail this thread of happiness and joy, but always feel free to necro.

 

1. Not sure if you are using VR, or TrackIR but the easiest thing to do is to recenter the view

 

2. Alignment works when you are parked and with the parking brake on. Basically if you select the special instant align option you can just flip it to align ground or sea, check your EHSD to make sure its aligned and then over to NAV or IFA (in flight alignment). I'm not 100% sure how long the actual alignment should take its, usually a few minutes for most aircraft if you don't use the instant option.

[Harlikwin]

 

1. Features/Bugs for core mission sets (can a Harrier/Mirage drop bombs? Lock on and track aircraft? Takeoff? Land?)

2. Features/Bugs that break immersion/defy reality in egregious ways: INS updates, INS aligning no matter what, etc

3. Features/Bugs for ancillary tasks (Eclair system auto modeled, auto countermeasures, ECM auto, IFF)

4. Convenience features: Having to turn a knob to get manual radios to work, cockpit lighting, other quality-of-life-type enhancements (button sounds, cosmetic things that don't fall under category 2)

 

The problem I'm seeing is most fixes are falling under category 4, a few in category 2 (damage modeling), and almost nothing in cat 1 (ASL fix in March was it for years).

 

I'm of the mind until cat 1 and most of cat 2 is finished, you shouldn't be touching a new module.

 

Anyway, my update just finished so I'm going to go fly the plane I just spent a half hour bitching about, because it IS fun and the campaign is excellent.

 

Yup, one really wonders at the #4 features being added, when there is a bunch of #1 features missing/broken in the bombing systems.

[Fynek]

Well not to derail this thread of happiness and joy, but always feel free to necro.

 

1. Not sure if you are using VR, or TrackIR but the easiest thing to do is to recenter the view

 

2. Alignment works when you are parked and with the parking brake on. Basically if you select the special instant align option you can just flip it to align ground or sea, check your EHSD to make sure its aligned and then over to NAV or IFA (in flight alignment). I'm not 100% sure how long the actual alignment should take its, usually a few minutes for most aircraft if you don't use the instant option.

 

 

Thank you kindly for taking the time to reply!

 

I use Trackir but wanted to have more height for landing but that is fine, just wanted to check if the seat switch works for everyone or if it was just in my install.

 

Oh so that was the parking brake possibly. Thank you :)

[imacken]

 

I have a simple question please as i do not want to necro old threads : Is it just in my module or does the seat adjust switch in the plane not work? I tried to raise my seat to no avail. Is there a way to make it work please?

 

Another question please : Does INS alignment work everywhere or is it normal that i could not align properly in the training session ( timer kept flashing 0:00 and wouldnt start) or did i do something wrong? Thank you!

 

Please guys will you use another thread to discuss technical aspects of the Harrier. This is about concerns over development.

 

Regarding your questions, the seat adjustment doesn't work, but just bind the Cockpit View Up/down/forward/back to your HOTAS.

 

Secondly, look at this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=227897 from post #17. I had the same issue, but maybe your solution is different, but have a look anyway.

 

Please take this discussion out of this thread though!

[SGT Coyle]

Lurking this thread is an exercise in watching people talk past each other in idioms as opposed to actual issues.

 

Statements like "Camp A always hates dev X and Camp B gets it" and "it's the same 10 people complaining" are very irritating to read, as they don't address the actual discussion at all.

 

Instead of talking about how someone is talking, or talking about what you think they must be like, address the external thing to which they are referring.

 

I find the M2000 one of the most fun aircraft to mess around with. However, the most optimistic among us cannot deny the state of the INS and CCRP bombing and TWS after 3 years is unacceptable. These aren't ancillary features. They are features advertised to be in the aircraft, with training missions and flight manual chapters dedicated to them even though they don't work. It is one thing to leave bug fixes so you can work on something else. It's quite another to gut mission capabilities and walk away. This is common sense. I don't have to discuss who is like what as a person to say this. It is plain truth.

 

Instead of thinking like "Well I don't care about X so I have fun" think about it this way. If someone sold you a Ferrari, and told you "Hey man. You'll love this Ferrari. It's really fast, it'll corner well, and has a real Italian leather interior". You accept delivery. It looks like a Ferrari. You open the door and pop the hood. The engine is 120hp 4 cylinder because they didn't have time to finish the 10, it can't take left hand turns, and the interior is all plastic and is purple.

 

Your neighbor happened to buy the same car. You complain to your neighbor. "Hey, this sucks! I ordered a Ferrari and they gave me a monstrosity that can't do any of the things they said it would! I gave them 3 years to fix it. But all they did was repaint one of the quarter panels and stick a knob on the shifter, and now they won't even call back or commit to fixing any of my specific issues relating to the selling points THEY gave me!" how would you feel if your neighbor said "Well I don't really like going fast anyway, and just make a bunch of rights to work around not turning left and I just imagine the plastic is leather"? What if he told you "Everyone I know is happy with their jalope Ferrari, it's just the same guy I always hear complaining about his" Does that make the guy complaining any less TRUTHFUL? You might not like him, BUT IS HE LYING?

 

I think RAZBAM is committed to finish the modules to address OP's concern. But flexing your superior imaginative capabilities or superior optimism is silly. The Mirages core systems should have been fixed years ago. They should have been because RAZBAM said they would, and the average person would not know they didn't work and would not assume a 3 year time frame. It's dishonesty to say you will do something then not do it. You can have all the fun in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that people should keep their promises.

 

Leeway is great and necessary. I'm a developer myself. Timing complex software is virtually impossible, and I've launched several enterprise applications. But my God man. Do your unit and integration tests. And 1 year is acceptable for a project like this. 3 is awful. 3 and you launch another software then another is inexcusable. If you can't get your software off the ground with the minimum function set without a Madoff-like scheme of EA titles to keep you going, you have no business promising delivery of the software in the first place and you should in no good conscience accept a dime for it until you can meet that set.

 

If you break where bombs fall, not noticing then walking away from it is not a good development strategy. Not knowing/not caring about the Harrier ASL for that long is bizarre. I look at the change log and it mystifies me. The idea we'd add damage modeling before core mission sets is strange to me.

 

Regardless of how much you can imagine it away, it doesn't change this fact. Please keep that in mind.

 

With all that said, they seem to be coming alive. I question their priorities (as in the order they seem to want to fix things seems odd to me), but it doesn't seem like these guys are going to fold. They have day jobs for God's sake, so it's not like it's DCS or bust. Plus who knows what's going on personally for them. I hope nothing bad happened but you never know. They're a small team. S*it happens.

 

I'm thinking about learning myself some lua and offering them a free hand doing nothing but squashing bugs if they take it. If nothing else they have awesome choices in aircraft and some decent bones. I would follow this priority list for features:

 

1. Features/Bugs for core mission sets (can a Harrier/Mirage drop bombs? Lock on and track aircraft? Takeoff? Land?)

2. Features/Bugs that break immersion/defy reality in egregious ways: INS updates, INS aligning no matter what, etc

3. Features/Bugs for ancillary tasks (Eclair system auto modeled, auto countermeasures, ECM auto, IFF)

4. Convenience features: Having to turn a knob to get manual radios to work, cockpit lighting, other quality-of-life-type enhancements (button sounds, cosmetic things that don't fall under category 2)

 

The problem I'm seeing is most fixes are falling under category 4, a few in category 2 (damage modeling), and almost nothing in cat 1 (ASL fix in March was it for years).

 

I'm of the mind until cat 1 and most of cat 2 is finished, you shouldn't be touching a new module.

 

Anyway, my update just finished so I'm going to go fly the plane I just spent a half hour bitching about, because it IS fun and the campaign is excellent.

 

 

Sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I feel the same way. Funny how great minds think alike.

 

 

I look forward to future progress, and hope for it's speedy arrival. Since, according to some, that's all I have a right to.

[terence44]

Hello, could someone list me or point me to a thread that lists all the missing features or wip of the Harrier ?

 

Thank you in advance

[SGT Coyle]

There is an official change log for their mods: https://www.razbamsimulations.com/index.php/changelogs/harrier-changelog

 

AN official "Bug Tracker":

https://www.razbamsimulations.com/index.php/changelogs/harrier-changelog

[viper2097]

By far not complete.

[Fisu_MAD]

i think people is tired about lossed promissed. I love this plane but the advances are limited and develop other new modules without finishing older one it is disrespect. Its quality leaves something to be desired. Sure this will be erased, this is the politic of social media guys!!! SAme.

[Fisu_MAD]

People are already tired of reporting the errors to the module so that developers do not make a damn case.

[Fisu_MAD]

Devs kills the module?

[Harlikwin]

Hello, could someone list me or point me to a thread that lists all the missing features or wip of the Harrier ?

 

Thank you in advance

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3926850&postcount=32

[terence44]

Merci