Harrier AWLS - missing feature

[Kappa]

Hello everyone,

I write here on the forum because I have not yet understood what Razbam will do about the Harriers AWLS ...

 

AFAIK, AWLS is a precision landing system typically used on naval units, like ICLS but it is not the same thing (dunno what is the difference).

AWLS is therefore not compatible with either ICLS or ILS, but in DCS Core, AWLS system is not modeled.

 

My question is:
why does the Harrier AWLS currently behave like an ILS?

ILS frequencies are hard coded into a lua file in order to convert the frequencies into channels and make this system work even where it shouldn't work...

 

I wonder, wouldn't it be better to make AWLS work like an ICLS, which is already modeled in DCS, rather than make it work like ILS?

[Ramsay]

On 1/25/2021 at 1:02 PM, Kappa said:

AFAIK, AWLS is a precision landing system typically used on naval units, like ICLS but it is not the same thing (dunno what is the difference).

AWLS is therefore not compatible with either ICLS or ILS, but in DCS Core, AWLS system is not modeled.

 

IRL the AV-8B's AWLS and Hornet's ICLS are the same thing.

 

When the LHD-1 Wasp's AWLS was certified in 1999, it was certified using F/A-18A's and simulated landing approaches.

 

 

SME's say AWLS was rarely used and TACAN was the preferred/only Case 3 method. It's not clear if the Tarawa was fitted with the equipment/radar/aerials necessary for AWLS.

 

Edit - to answer your question

 

On 1/25/2021 at 1:02 PM, Kappa said:

My question is:
why does the Harrier AWLS currently behave like an ILS?

 

TL;DR:

Gameplay.

 

Detail:

When the AV-8B was released, ICLS wasn't modelled in DCS, I'd *guess* that, as AWLS wasn't used much IRL, Razbam decided to model it as an ILS to give it a "function" in DCS and add a gameplay element.

 

On 1/25/2021 at 1:02 PM, Kappa said:

I wonder, wouldn't it be better to make AWLS work like an ICLS, which is already modeled in DCS, rather than make it work like ILS?

 

While I agree with your sentiment, IMHO removing a gameplay element would not sit well with a large portion of  the community/existing owners i.e. I held a poll and of the few that responded, there was a 6:4 split in favour of removing  AWLS=ILS.

Modelling AWLS realistically ...

• wouldn't necessarily add AWLS to the Tarawa i.e. pictures don't show it having AWLS equipment

• would remove "AWLS/ILS" from airbases

• requires the removal and/or reworking of training missions including voice lines.

• might require dev time to create a portable AN/TPN-30B unit to add a TACAN/ICLS beacon to land bases, via the ME

 

It's a lot of rework, for very little reward and likely a lot of complaints from those that didn't care or didn't want it.

 

IMHO Razbam should move on (but perhaps explain their AWLS logic/choices better) and continue focusing on getting the AV-8B complete and of "finished" quality. 

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Ramsay
I misremembered the poll result, it ended at 6:4 for removal of ILS compatibility.

[Kappa]

Thanks for your detailed reply @Ramsay I really appreciate.

My personal opinion on this is that since DCS AV-8B is a full fidelity module using AWLS as an ILS is not only technically wrong but also ethically wrong.

If you want to make an exception to the rule, it would be better to add the AWLS to the Tarawa even if IRL it does not have the AWLS rather than using the ILS on the Harrier...

 

@RAZBAM_ELMO what is Razbam's position on this?

[Fri13]

16 hours ago, Ramsay said:

While I agree with your sentiment, IMHO removing a gameplay element would not sit well with the community/existing owners i.e. I held a poll and of the few that responded, there was a 6:4 split in favour of keeping AWLS=ILS.

Modelling AWLS realistically ...

• wouldn't necessarily add AWLS to the Tarawa i.e. pictures don't show it having AWLS equipment

• would remove "AWLS/ILS" from airbases

• requires the removal and/or reworking of training missions including voice lines.

• might require dev time to create a portable AN/TPN-30B unit to add a TACAN/ICLS beacon to land bases, via the ME

 

I see that as an problem that was likely caused by Razbam, and then it would be that they shouldn't fix it.

 

How does developers need to do extra work?

 

Generate a "feature" for function that doesn't yet exist or is not known yet. -> Build upon that all a lot of other features like voice acting, training missions, manuals. -> Even program realistic systems incorrectly. -> Find out later that the original work for any reason (being lazy, lack of information, schedule limited, wanted to get something out ASAP to push product out of EA in a year etc etc) was done for wrong reasons or just by wrong assumptions and information and now it would need to be fixed by redoing all that.

 

 

Quote

 

It's a lot of rework, for very little reward and likely a lot of complaints from those that didn't care or didn't want it.

 

IMHO Razbam should move on (but perhaps explain their AWLS logic/choices better) and continue focusing on getting the AV-8B complete and of "finished" quality.

 

 

If you are going to make a realistic systems, then make them realistic. If you do not want to do so, then don't take the job. The world is full of people who are just after money and they think that they can accept tasks, get paid and just deliver something that resembles what a customer wanted. And then when the customer issues a reclamation or redoing to get what was wanted, the customers are called by names and then they just vanish. And customers are left with a end result that was not wanted.

 

And this is about getting it to feature completed and finished. Sorry, Razbam things that Harrier is already Feature Completed - hence they moved it away from Early Access.

So customers power to influence anything is close to none, as there will always be some people who say "I don't care, don't. There are more important things to do".

Meaning that there is nothing that is more important at all as anything can be swept under that same tarp "Good As Is....".

 

And why would people who doesn't care or didn't want it - start caring and decide to voice their opinion about it?

 

When you have a small errors, problems and kind all over the software product, it is like a 1000 cuts to the customer. It is better to start to implement features properly in the first time than adding something that kinda works, but is not really correct or does not work properly or all the time. Because in time it is easier to work in a project that just needs new stuff to be added, than on project that needs some new stuff added but everything else requires fixing and changing. As one of the most annoying things is redoing a job properly.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Fri13

[Kappa]

@Fri13 I see your point and I have to admit that Razbam have a strange way of doing things... 

However, it must also be admitted that in recent times things have changed in bettere (much better), so I wanted Elmo to tell us what they plan to do about this...

 

 

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Well Ramsay pretty much said it. DCS sees icls and awls as the same thing and thats a core issue we have no control of. 

[Kappa]

Il 7/2/2021 at 02:02, RAZBAM_ELMO ha scritto:

Well Ramsay pretty much said it. DCS sees icls and awls as the same thing and thats a core issue we have no control of. 

 

Ok but this does not explain why you are using ILS as an AWLS

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

On 2/8/2021 at 5:15 AM, Kappa said:

 

Ok but this does not explain why you are using ILS as an AWLS

if you read very carefully it indeed does

 

[Kappa]

@RAZBAM_ELMO

indeed.... Indeed it does not work properly even as an ILS.

You can talk about gameplay and you can say that it would cost a lot in terms of manwork but the fact is that it does not work correctly as either ILS or AWLS.

 

This should be a full fidelity module, but if think about it very carefully INDEED IT IS NOT.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Kappa

[Fri13]

So what are you suggesting Razbam should do? Or what should we do?

 

 

[Kappa]

13 minuti fa, Fri13 ha scritto:

So what are you suggesting Razbam should do? Or what should we do?

 

 

 

Il 25/1/2021 at 14:02, Kappa ha scritto:

I wonder, wouldn't it be better to make AWLS work like an ICLS, which is already modeled in DCS, rather than make it work like ILS?

 

[SASCAT]

Boy there are some real whingers in the DCS world!

[Ramsay]

11 hours ago, SASCAT said:

Boy there are some real whingers in the DCS world!

Some players read up on the RL documentation and wonder why it doesn't work like the real. Others assume DCS is correct but then don't understand why there's no way to enter an ILS frequency for unsupported maps such as Nevada, Syria and Marianas.

Errors matter to quite a few players as it confuses what should be a "simple" system (a microwave landing system with a limited beam width and 20 fixed freq. channels).

As I use DCS to learn/appreciate how combat aircraft work in the real world, it was important (to me) to get AWLS modelling fixed/correct in the first year of the AV-8B's EA release.

IMHO it's become a moot point as the years have passed and Razbam have doubled down on their implementation i.e. by adding the AWLS "ILS" pages to the kneeboard, At least I've come to understand Razbam's position, ignore their AWLS implementation and move on (glass half full, etc.)

Obviously you are entitled to play DCS how you like and have your own opinion but this is a bug thread and IMHO the OP's question was valid.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Ramsay