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

[BIGNEWY]

Whilst you are in one sense, correct - the F/A18C Early Access Guide is in a far more up to date state than the last time I browsed it (so apologies)

 

 

It does concern me a little...that your take away from my "2 Full price Products - No Manuals" comment was...how dare you critisise...ONE of those modules you paid good money for HAS got a manual...

Rather than...what can we do to address your concern as a customer about the lack of documentation for a product you paid $60 for nearly 2 years ago...

 

I highlighted it as it was nonesence.

 

I will ask RAZBAM about the manual, currently it is a 116 pages of info but looks like needs some additions.

 

thanks

[LastRifleRound]

Just want to drop this piece of advice here, as well. It's something I've been saying for a while and it applied directly here.

 

The features page needs to be more specific. Here's the problem I see here.

 

Newy, you state that a module is considered out of EA when it has all of the features mentioned on its features page. Fair enough, that seems logical to me.

 

However, the features page leaves a lot up to interpretation. Here's an example.

 

Nowhere at all does the features page mention a TPOD or ARBS. This means, the Harrier could be released without either one of those systems and be considered "feature complete". I doubt there's anyone on these forums who would consider a Harrier without an ARBS to be feature complete.

 

It also says "Realistic weapons, sensor, and defensive systems include:" and it mentions Mk series bombs. There's an entire bomb mode missing (dive-toss). It is unrealistic that I can't use a Mk82 in dive-toss mode. It's also unrealistic that the bombing computer does not account for wind or movement. Is that feature complete? It's not a bug, it just was never done.

 

The problem with relying on the feature pages is it doesn't seem a whole lot of effort goes into those with regards to what exactly a consumer should expect. It lists a whole bunch of systems that aren't completely modeled, and leaves out key systems. It mentions the ECS is modeled, but it has absolutely no effect on anything. So what exactly does this mean to the user? It seems like maybe just the knobs move? I'm not asking for the ECS to be fully modeled, mind you, and I don't think anyone else is, either. Just giving an example of how the features pages are disconnected from expectations.

 

I really don't think you all have a good system currently to set what a "feature complete" aircraft is. It requires us to do things like quibble about the meaning of the word "realistic" on feature pages, and I don't think that's what anyone wants.

[BIGNEWY]

I would agree, many things can be miss interpreted, or peoples expectations could differ.

 

Development of systems or weapons will always have to be subject to change, often due to source material or opesec reasons.

 

What we do have or try for is the most realistically modelled aircraft available for the public, hopefully you would agree with that.

 

Thank you

[Fusedspine33]

The AV-8B is not unusable so don't go exaggerating, there is no need for it.

 

As mentioned already bugs will be reviewed.

 

thank you

 

 

The flight path marker and gun sight are incorrectly modeled/implemented/bugged and had a failed attempt to fix months ago. Those are items pretty necessary for basic usability.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cornelius]

Even a blind man with a crutch can see what is going on here. Razbam has once again pulled a little trick out of their hat. This time to not break ones word, but nevertheless be able to work on new modules. Not the first one, most likely not the last.

 

Just a reminder:

Why

Why^2

 

After 9 months still nothing has happened, but quietly and secretly out of the EA & feature complete!?

 

What I find more and more disgusting is that ED seems to fully cover this behavior. And that really casts bad light on DCS as a whole.

It's not only the most realistically modeled, but also the most half-baked AV8B-Simulation available for the public. Sad.

 

And even the most simple minded should now have realised, that rb no longer intends to bring the whole harrier project to a serious completion.

[statrekmike]

At this point, I think a good step would be to have someone in the RAZBAM development team actually post a serious, meaningful update about where they feel the Harrier is as a module and where they expect it to go from here. As of right now, the module isn't really what we were advertised and as much as I would like to avoid being negative about this stuff on the forums, that is not okay. If they are happy with where it is at now, so be it. If not, it would be good to actually know where they want it to go and what they plan to actually do to get it there.

 

Is there anything ED can do in this regard?

[Fusedspine33]

 

Is there anything ED can do in this regard?

 

 

ED took $30% there is a lot they can be expected to do, but will they?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CoBlue]

Yes, cheated, that's the right word.

The prodct DOES NOT MATCH the description.

The product DOES NOT MATCH the DCS level of fidelity

What I find more and more disgusting is that ED seems to fully cover this behavior. And that really casts bad light on DCS as a whole.

It's not only the most realistically modeled, but also the most half-baked AV8B-Simulation available for the public. Sad.

This ^^^ all so true! Razbam I want my money back?

How can ED allow AV8B, with wrongly implemented systems compered to NATOPS, be out of EA??

[BIGNEWY]

Good monring all,

 

I have checked with RAZBAM about the manual, it is complete but will be enhanced in the future.

 

 

Thank you

[Shrike88]

What a bad joke

 

Good monring all,

 

I have checked with RAZBAM about the manual, it is complete but will be enhanced in the future.

 

 

Thank you

 

What a freaking joke. What is there to update in the manual in the future if it’s “feature complete” and therefore manual complete ? Some spelling errors ? Or just remove EA from the manual now also. Save yourself the trouble razbam it’s not like to take time to respond to the official ED forum, so no sense in finishing the manual

 

Study level sim ? Still no functional TOT the right way. No way to create SPI target points from Sensor of Interest markpoints ( believe you can save 4). Not finished sounds, no idle stop solenoid. You seriously thing the UFC is finished ?

 

What a freaking joke.

[Mr.Scar]

Good monring all,

 

I have checked with RAZBAM about the manual, it is complete but will be enhanced in the future.

 

 

Thank you

 

Hi BIGNEWY,

 

Just wanted to thank you for stepping in. I recently came back to DCS because I have a bit more time in real life. Case is, a pilot that comes back to flying in DCS starts to read such posts, he might begin to feel a bit disturbed.

 

Now aside from the Hog, I am a nugget Harrier pilot with not an awful lot of experience. I love to fly the Harry and I probably do not possess the awareness to recognize what functions properly or not.

 

But what I do know, Is that it is a good sign that you stepped in and there is hope of receiving some kind of statement. Be it RAZBAM directly, or RAZBAM status update done via ED channels. I do not want to sound pessimistic, but whatever the information might be, I think it is better to recieve bad news that no news at all.

 

So thank you for stepping one more time in and shedding some light on everything and I hold my thumbs that everything works well and all are happy.

 

Fly safe :)

[BIGNEWY]

Hi BIGNEWY,

 

Just wanted to thank you for stepping in. I recently came back to DCS because I have a bit more time in real life. Case is, a pilot that comes back to flying in DCS starts to read such posts, he might begin to feel a bit disturbed.

 

Now aside from the Hog, I am a nugget Harrier pilot with not an awful lot of experience. I love to fly the Harry and I probably do not possess the awareness to recognize what functions properly or not.

 

But what I do know, Is that it is a good sign that you stepped in and there is hope of receiving some kind of statement. Be it RAZBAM directly, or RAZBAM status update done via ED channels. I do not want to sound pessimistic, but whatever the information might be, I think it is better to recieve bad news that no news at all.

 

So thank you for stepping one more time in and shedding some light on everything and I hold my thumbs that everything works well and all are happy.

 

Fly safe :)

 

Hi

 

welcome back,

 

We will ask RAZBAM about a statement, Nineline and I are also looking into other ways to assist the team regarding the bug reporting and forum. The forum is hard work and can be difficult for some third parties to manage on top of development work, this will of course take some time, we also have the rest of the forum to look after and report bugs in, but we will do our best.

 

thanks

[Shrike88]

Still waiting to hear back from razbam on several threads and posts ? I’m not sure why Razbam themselves cannot answer any of these and Newy has to start running damage control for them. Not right as Bignewy you have countless other threads to be watching. Especially my thread opened weeks ago asking to see if Razbam could chime in and nothing

Total lack of respect if you ask me to the community

[ghost84]

Hi

The forum is hard work and can be difficult for some third parties to manage on top of development work,...

 

 

BUT, Razbam at the same time has enough resources to manage Facebook, Discord, Youtube,... Their complete absence from this forum is speaking volumes. They have already got the money, so they don't care anymore.

[BIGNEWY]

BUT, Razbam at the same time has enough resources to manage Facebook, Discord, Youtube,... Their complete absence from this forum is speaking volumes. They have already got the money, so they don't care anymore.

 

Hi

 

All I can do is pass on the feedback, it is late for them so are asleep at the moment, in the morning their time I will have a chat with them.

 

Thank you.

[Flagrum]

Good monring all,

 

I have checked with RAZBAM about the manual, it is complete but will be enhanced in the future.

 

 

Thank you

Thanks for the assistance here, but unfortunately that is not correct:

 

1. The actual manual is missing, only that so called Pocket Guide is available
   
2. The existing documentation lacks a lot of details and even whole chapters. The TPOD consists only of a few sub-headings and is otherwise completely empty!
   
3. It has 125 pages in total. To put that in perspective: the Fw-190 manual has 181 pages, the (ea!) manual for the P-47 has 216 (201 without the sponsors list) and the CC-101EB has less pages, 118, but that aircraft has no combat related system (C-101 has 155 pages).
   

[wowbagger]

Again a lack of direct communication from RAZBAM is very confusing.

 

The product page says "Detailed Operational Manual and Pocket guide". Baltic Dragon has mentioned a number of times that he is working on a manual for the Harrier but needed the module to be feature complete and working before it was possible. (Sorry to bring BD into this.)

 

Now RAZBAM says the manual is finished. The whole thing feels a little disingenuous, like they are just saying whatever to be done and dusted.

 

I am very confused on the current state of this module and what to expect from it.

[Eldur]

Correct out of early access as the feature list is considered complete.

 

quote-unquote considered complete and actually being complete are apples and Orang-Utans. For example the FCS is incomplete as the AFC doesn't even remotely work as described in a "Legend has it" type piece of documentation that shall not be mentioned, especially in jet-borne flight. Just on of many examples. Another would be the FLIR hotspot tracker which is completely missing and pretty much a vital sensoring feature of the AV-8B.

 

The flight path marker and gun sight are incorrectly modeled/implemented/bugged and had a failed attempt to fix months ago. Those are items pretty necessary for basic usability.

 

Actually I wonder what's wrong there now... only thing that I know of, but where I don't have any evidential hard data on is that the gun seems to be slanted up quite a lot compared to where the bird goes, which basically is totally not practical for an A class aircraft.

 

Also we have offered to help RAZBAM on their forum section as they do not have a community manager at the moment

 

What happened to Decoy? RAZBAM also stopped bringing their quarterly news update after they made it quarterly from initially monthly. And they were going to update us on progress in July which never happened. I think we're allowed to know what's going on there. And I guess they're somehow hard at work for the SE they want to release into EA this year still...

 

What I find more and more disgusting is that ED seems to fully cover this behavior. And that really casts bad light on DCS as a whole.

 

Well, to be fair, they're doing the exact thing themselves. But at least they tell us in advance. After all it comes down to the question of what "early access" actually is. I guess, many think of it as some kind of alpha version, while it actually is some kind of alpha & beta mishmash in one instance. But maybe the stuff I learnt about 10 years ago (= alpha is unfinished in development, beta is feature complete, but needs polishing) is severely outdated by now and I just don't know the industry standards any better - I mean, a big company that once removed their four colours from their logos a few years ago, who also released a flight simulator product that shall not be named (I guess I failed that one already, doh!) as of recently, are the world masters of releasing and selling prealpha software and pretty much as soon as that might evolve into actual alpha state, they'll force update the software on your rig to the next prealpha version, if you want it or not. That is the industry standard apparently. Even RAZBAM modules look like a certain well-approved, but already outdated and unsupported software's SP3 version compared to that.

[BIGNEWY]

 

What happened to Decoy? RAZBAM also stopped bringing their quarterly news update after they made it quarterly from initially monthly. And they were going to update us on progress in July which never happened. I think we're allowed to know what's going on there. And I guess they're somehow hard at work for the SE they want to release into EA this year still...

 

DECOY stepped down from community management, but is still helping RAZBAM in other areas. Community management is a difficult thing to do and does not suit everyone, so I totally understand.

Nineline and I are looking for ways to help here so a dialogue between the community and the RAZBAM team can improve.

 

thanks

[viper2097]

Bignewy, for me it is now quite simple:

The Harrier is now officially considered as "feature complete" and "done".

There are still a lot of things missing from the shop description. The actual state does not match the advertised product - altough you approved more times that it is finished.

That is no personal opinion, this is a fact.

 

I feel cheated, I want my money back - I watched it more then long enough, Razbam had more then enough time to deliver.

I paid, but Razbam did not deliver.

Please tell me how I can claim that - its enough.

 

PS: I doubt that a dialog between Razbam and the community can help. There have been tons of empty promises in the past, they don't have the reputation that anyone would believe anything they say.

[Fri13]

It is not confusing, as Razbam doesn't have a community manager at this moment as they have stepped down, or something from that position.

 

The Harrier is like 40-60% ready at this moment, and it is not same thing as "feature list" is completed.

Critical features are broken, have been for years. That is the problem here.

 

To me a one major problems is their lack of communication here. No reports, no discussions, nothing really meaningful. It is respectful that ED gives a hand, but I think ED would really enforce in business agreement that ED forum is #1 place where announcements and communication is done. I don't care how much other channels studios use (Facebook, discord, twitter, morse code), but this is forum where all should be found in studios own sub-forum.

 

I know how stressful and big work it is to be a community liaison, but in the EA process that should be really periodically done process, why we need to have these dedicated people to do that work. Something that smaller studios might not have.

 

I know that programmers dislike commenting their codes, but it help in future. One can spend 5 minutes to write feature in code, and 10 minutes to try to explain it in comment. Yet someone needs to then even write the game manual after all...

 

I don't even anymore know where to go look for bugs reported and solved and all, because even a such a way is broken here.

And that is scary.

[viper2097]

Paying in advantage the full price for something that isn't finished is an approach and trust bonus from the customers to the Developers.

Then not finishing something, and especially also ignoring any kind of communication from the customers is just rude.

 

Razbam, would you pay your employees 3 years in advantage and beeing satisfied when they don't deliver and on top ignore you completely?

Can you understand how we are feeling? I hope and wish you that the DCS community will vote with their wallet on your upcoming modules.

 

However, you can already read in Zeus' signature how he thinks about us customers. Says probably more then anything else...

Edited September 8, 2020 by viper2097

[Sajarov]

Ask for a refund.

 

 

 

if they didn´t delivered what was specified in the product features, you should ask for a refund.

[BIGNEWY]

They have delivered, and product sustainment will continue.

 

If you are not sure of the refund policy please read the EULA

 

Thanks

[Mr.Scar]

I will take the role of a devils advocate a bit here with this, and you will probably hate me for saying this, but... please guys. You waited so long for this. Not me, because i was not sticking with DCS due to real life reasons, so I can only imagine the frustration, I do not know how much this will help, but I will tell you this...

 

From a fresh nugget perspective, I got a feeling this is going the right way. You made your point and because of that, judging from BIGNEWY activity, the topic is being handled in a serious manner. Please have just a bit more faith, let BIGNEWY do the talking, and hopefully we can receive some kind of official statements. This will be the first step to fix the Harry, and ask yourself if it is not the thing you want firsthand and finally?

 

Maybe "two more weeks" will really be two more weeks this time? Haha, sorry said it just to let some steam out.

 

Anyway I wish you all the best guys, and I keep my fingers crossed for the Harrier,