Razbam makes the right decision..

[ginger-welsh]

RAZBAM_ELMO

RAZBAM_ELMO
ED Closed Beta Testers Team
2.1k

Posted 8 hours ago (edited)

Dear Customers:



Today we want to talk about our decision of removing the AGM-65F from the weapons roster for the DCS Night Attack AV-8B Harrier II.



Through the development of the AV-8B N/A we gained access to more current information thanks to the invaluable help of our current active status SMEs, this translates into a constant upgrade of the module, new weapons integration and actual employment, updated sensors, and capabilities, that the original product didn’t have, mainly because it was modeled around an early 2000’s iteration of the AV-8B N/A. All this new flow of new information and data indicated that the AGM-65F, while available to the Harriers in the 2000s, was not in service in the USMC and not integrated in the mid 2010s update the Harriers received. This motivated the decision to remove it from the aircraft to better represent the capabilities of a mid 2010s aircraft, which is what our AV-8B N/A module is based on currently.



But this decision, based on the facts stated before, overlooked the fact that some of our customers liked the idea or are fond of using said missile. For a number of factors and reasons, this time reality took over the personal choice of this product's customers. It’s easy to get distracted in the constant search for accuracy vs the reality of the fun factor and user’s choice of having such fun when using our product. This is a choice you, as the customer, should have to some extent, while the real and hard trained individual that uses this aircraft doesn’t. But in the end, this is a simulator, and above anything else, it’s main purpose is to provide fun to the user, without sacrificing too much realism in the process.



Having said that, it has been decided to keep the weapon to better represent early 2000s AV-8B N/A capabilities to give the freedom to the player to fly realistic mid 2010s loadouts or not. It has been decided to give the user that option, for his/her satisfaction while using the DCS AV-8B Night Attack module. We will keep the AGM-65F and improve it to add the bore-sighting procedure, just like in ED’s F-16. We will also improve the AGM-65E implementation and add the AGM-65E2.



The AGM-65E will have its implementation improved with the addition of limitations linked to the TPOD integration. The TPOD video can’t be displayed at the same time as the Maverick video, this is true for the AGM-65F and the AGM-65E. Since when the TPOD is not displayed, the HOTAS controls reverts to its default settings and the AGM-65 is a lock-on before launch (LOBL) type of weapon, the missile can’t be guided by the launching aircraft. The AGM-65E2 goes around this limitation because it can be uncaged and launched from the TPOD page, or the TPOD video can be switched to the MAV video momentarily. We will also implement a particularity of the E2 that it can lock on the TPOD laser source if the laser is fired before the missile is uncaged and the TPOD is loaded on station 4.



Maverick missile employment will be updated to reflect the real workload of the pilot when using the weapons thanks to the information and SMEs we have access to.



In parallel to the maverick improvements, we are working on fixing bugs and adding the last features to the Harrier. We will list some of them :

IFF configuration menus and allow them to be used by SRS.

Ability to make overlays from the data page for the moving map.

We will contact the Combat flight team to see how we can integrate the Harrier with this software.

Loft bombing profile.

Update to all training missions and addition of new ones.



While Baltic Dragon works on the full manual for the Harrier, here is an extract that contains the ground ops section. Keep in mind this is work in progress, it may contain errors and is subject to change. We would love to hear your input and feedback on the revised manual to help us create a better user experience in the future.



Harrier Manual Ground Ops extract.pdf 86.18 MB · 274 downloads



We hope this will clear-up our intentions regarding the AV-8B N/A, and show that we are committed to the DCS community as a whole. Thanks for your passion and support.



The RAZBAM team

Edited 7 hours ago by RAZBAM_ELMO

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

I like this.

Although some rivet counters will find it infuriating, im sure a way can be found to remove the weapon in their servers.

Personally, im not particularly fussed about that missile but i *would* have missed it if it was removed.

A brave choice by the devs and one i applaud. Although had they chosen to remove it entirely, I wouldnt get my pitchfork out either.

good stuff.

[spike2071]

Sounds like something that should've been worked out when the module was in Early Access.

I don't mind "fake" setups that are based in reality. As they mentioned, the missiles were used by that same Harrier earlier before an upgrade, so it's nice to have them available. They did all the coding to make it work; seems like a waste to trash it all. Not to mention all the broken user missions and campaigns that would happen.

[Richardus]

Happy to hear that we can keep the IR mav. Although I don't mind changes to the game for the sake of realism, weapons should be retained/removed based on capability instead of "it is not used anymore/very often ergo we remove it".

Originally posted by spike2071:

Sounds like something that should've been worked out when the module was in Early Access.

They did all the coding to make it work; seems like a waste to trash it all.

The tinfoil hat brigade rumored that the coding was the exact reason they tried to get rid of it. Upcoming changes to how IR/FLIR works in DCS means that a lot of coding for IR-based weapons will probably need to be overhauled and removing a weapon saves a ton of work in that regard. Not sure if there's any truth to that.

[Borat Sagdiyev]

People want realism f16 should not carry some of the stuff it has either, if its the case of fake payload give f16 aim7s why not

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by spike2071:

Sounds like something that should've been worked out when the module was in Early Access.

I don't mind "fake" setups that are based in reality. As they mentioned, the missiles were used by that same Harrier earlier before an upgrade, so it's nice to have them available. They did all the coding to make it work; seems like a waste to trash it all. Not to mention all the broken user missions and campaigns that would happen.

This really, really is something that RAZBAM should have worked out in the initial planning phases before actually starting real work on the module itself. Sadly, this isn't the first time they have done this kind of thing and it most certainly will not be the last.

[CMDR Sweeper]

I do not care for real 100% prototypical accuracy to use a railroad term for this.
Now I do not own the Harrier (Actually a few tutorial bugs did turn me off to be fair, maybe later) but I also would like to have the option of playing with loadouts, unrealistic or not.
Situations may call for doing unorthodox things, and when I fly, I fly my own, I do not recreate fancy missions or things that have happened, when I am out there, it is me and my story so to speak.

Because of this, I did start playing flight "sims" like DiD's Total Air War, and back then your F-22 was unrealistic, you could load it down with Mavericks or MK83 dumb bumbs if you liked.
And yes I did do that on occasion, very unrealistic but it did add a fun factor and give the versatility of improvizing on the go in a war.

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by CMDR Sweeper:

I do not care for real 100% prototypical accuracy to use a railroad term for this.
Now I do not own the Harrier (Actually a few tutorial bugs did turn me off to be fair, maybe later) but I also would like to have the option of playing with loadouts, unrealistic or not.
Situations may call for doing unorthodox things, and when I fly, I fly my own, I do not recreate fancy missions or things that have happened, when I am out there, it is me and my story so to speak.

Because of this, I did start playing flight "sims" like DiD's Total Air War, and back then your F-22 was unrealistic, you could load it down with Mavericks or MK83 dumb bumbs if you liked.
And yes I did do that on occasion, very unrealistic but it did add a fun factor and give the versatility of improvizing on the go in a war.

You may not care and there is indeed a specific subset of DCS players who don't care but in the end, Eagle Dynamics does care. They have a very specific kind of sim in mind and while they don't exactly rule over other third parties with a iron fist about it, they do clearly encourage third parties to get on board with that approach so the sim feels cohesive and consistent.

DCS is going for a specific standard of accuracy/authenticity and while not every player will care, it is the reality of the title as a whole and should be respected.

[Silver Fox]

I actually uninstalled the Harrier from my collection a few days ago.

I will reinstall again one day, when they announce that the module is finished, or getting close to be finished. Sick and tired of having to learn and re-learn things because they can't make up their mind and everything keeps changing once in a while, without a friking manual to at least, explain what the heck was changed!!! And I really hope that by then, the module will have a proper manual!!! STILL WAITING RAZBAM, STILL WAITING!!!!

Amen.

[CMDR Sweeper]

Originally posted by startrekmike:

Originally posted by CMDR Sweeper:

I do not care for real 100% prototypical accuracy to use a railroad term for this.
Now I do not own the Harrier (Actually a few tutorial bugs did turn me off to be fair, maybe later) but I also would like to have the option of playing with loadouts, unrealistic or not.
Situations may call for doing unorthodox things, and when I fly, I fly my own, I do not recreate fancy missions or things that have happened, when I am out there, it is me and my story so to speak.

Because of this, I did start playing flight "sims" like DiD's Total Air War, and back then your F-22 was unrealistic, you could load it down with Mavericks or MK83 dumb bumbs if you liked.
And yes I did do that on occasion, very unrealistic but it did add a fun factor and give the versatility of improvizing on the go in a war.

You may not care and there is indeed a specific subset of DCS players who don't care but in the end, Eagle Dynamics does care. They have a very specific kind of sim in mind and while they don't exactly rule over other third parties with a iron fist about it, they do clearly encourage third parties to get on board with that approach so the sim feels cohesive and consistent.

DCS is going for a specific standard of accuracy/authenticity and while not every player will care, it is the reality of the title as a whole and should be respected.

Well if you have the options to be accurate, you can...
And for those who do not care, they can do what they please, it is a win win.
It is a lose lose for those who hope to control those who find the restrictions unfun though in either case.

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by CMDR Sweeper:

Originally posted by startrekmike:

You may not care and there is indeed a specific subset of DCS players who don't care but in the end, Eagle Dynamics does care. They have a very specific kind of sim in mind and while they don't exactly rule over other third parties with a iron fist about it, they do clearly encourage third parties to get on board with that approach so the sim feels cohesive and consistent.

DCS is going for a specific standard of accuracy/authenticity and while not every player will care, it is the reality of the title as a whole and should be respected.

Well if you have the options to be accurate, you can...
And for those who do not care, they can do what they please, it is a win win.
It is a lose lose for those who hope to control those who find the restrictions unfun though in either case.

There are two questions that come to mind.

1.) Where do the options end? Adding weapons, systems, and features into a module isn't nearly the trivial task that some might like to say it is. Even adding weapons that already exist in DCS into new modules is a difficult, time and development resource consuming task. At what point would the expectations for unrealistic weapon/feature options start eating into the development time that could be spent on more pressing matters?

2.) Is splitting the public server community between those that allow the options and those that don't really going to be a good idea? Do we really want to split the playerbase between those that prefer realism and those that don't? Is that something that would be healthy for the community or would it just cause more fights and bickering?

To be blunt. I don't think adding unrealistic options is really worth the trouble or the resources that would be needed to make them work.

[CMDR Sweeper]

Originally posted by startrekmike:

There are two questions that come to mind.

1.) Where do the options end? Adding weapons, systems, and features into a module isn't nearly the trivial task that some might like to say it is. Even adding weapons that already exist in DCS into new modules is a difficult, time and development resource consuming task. At what point would the expectations for unrealistic weapon/feature options start eating into the development time that could be spent on more pressing matters?

2.) Is splitting the public server community between those that allow the options and those that don't really going to be a good idea? Do we really want to split the playerbase between those that prefer realism and those that don't? Is that something that would be healthy for the community or would it just cause more fights and bickering?

To be blunt. I don't think adding unrealistic options is really worth the trouble or the resources that would be needed to make them work.

The line is drawn where the community wants it to be drawn to put it that way.
Naturally if we are talking the AV-8, it never had R77 missiles, so those would never show up, but generally if they are smart about development, doing things correctly will make it easier to plug in systems and give you various options.
For an example, if you view a PMDG aircraft like the 737 for FSX, you have loads of options you can pick for your aircraft, some weren't a realistic combo, but you can do them to build your own and to do the task you want it to achieve.

As for the server / community split... Well, for that one it is easy... Server decides...
The settings are set by the server and that is the old school of enforcement and have worked wonders for years in other games / sims and here I am quite sure DCS will fare fine too.
What usually tends to happen is that most friends get together in their own community with their own likings and dictates the game they want to play anyway.
In short, the goal is to bring the fun factor up, which brings me to one gripe with the Razbam, the over G'ing of the stores and the trivial nature it is to figure out if that has happened or not in a multiplayer environment.
For this it would be nice with a toggle for an example, set by the server.

[startrekmike]

Originally posted by CMDR Sweeper:

Originally posted by startrekmike:

There are two questions that come to mind.

1.) Where do the options end? Adding weapons, systems, and features into a module isn't nearly the trivial task that some might like to say it is. Even adding weapons that already exist in DCS into new modules is a difficult, time and development resource consuming task. At what point would the expectations for unrealistic weapon/feature options start eating into the development time that could be spent on more pressing matters?

2.) Is splitting the public server community between those that allow the options and those that don't really going to be a good idea? Do we really want to split the playerbase between those that prefer realism and those that don't? Is that something that would be healthy for the community or would it just cause more fights and bickering?

To be blunt. I don't think adding unrealistic options is really worth the trouble or the resources that would be needed to make them work.

The line is drawn where the community wants it to be drawn to put it that way.
Naturally if we are talking the AV-8, it never had R77 missiles, so those would never show up, but generally if they are smart about development, doing things correctly will make it easier to plug in systems and give you various options.
For an example, if you view a PMDG aircraft like the 737 for FSX, you have loads of options you can pick for your aircraft, some weren't a realistic combo, but you can do them to build your own and to do the task you want it to achieve.

As for the server / community split... Well, for that one it is easy... Server decides...
The settings are set by the server and that is the old school of enforcement and have worked wonders for years in other games / sims and here I am quite sure DCS will fare fine too.
What usually tends to happen is that most friends get together in their own community with their own likings and dictates the game they want to play anyway.
In short, the goal is to bring the fun factor up, which brings me to one gripe with the Razbam, the over G'ing of the stores and the trivial nature it is to figure out if that has happened or not in a multiplayer environment.
For this it would be nice with a toggle for an example, set by the server.

I think the lack of such options in any large scale pretty clearly indicates what the playerbase wants because if they wanted it on a large enough scale, ED and the various third parties would already be doing it in a big way. This is one of those things where one has to determine if they are only speaking for their own wants or are they thinking about the larger picture.

To be clear. I have no real personal problem with such options as long as they are options. I don't really think I would use them but I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they wanted to enjoy them. The only real thing that gives me pause here is that one of the things that kinda makes DCS sorta unique in the flight sim genre is ED, Heatblur, and Deka's pretty heavy commitment towards not just realism but also a sense of general authenticity. That is part of DCS World's core identity and while that may not be something that every player cares about equally, it is still something that shouldn't be dismissed too easily. It isn't like we have a lot of modern air combat sims to fall back on if DCS stops doing what it is doing.

As far as splitting the playerbase. I think we would see a pretty big issue. You are absolutely right that it would fall on individual servers to make a choice on such options but there are some things you really should consider about how that would work.

1.) Would it be a even split? Would public servers even adopt such options or would they be largely only seen in isolated, password protected private servers? Would you really benefit individually if no public server opted to use such options anyway?

2.) DCS is pretty much like every other contemporary gaming community in that there is always a push for a "us against them" attitude. You will absolutely see some of the usual internet slap-fighting over who is into realistic sims versus "arcade players" based on their feelings about such options. Do we (as the DCS online community) need to really add that to the pot of other petty garbage we bicker about? Do we need another reason to marginalize certain players based on how seriously or not seriously they are perceived to take the hobby?

Again. I don't have a problem with the concept of such options. I just don't really think it would work as well from either a development resources standpoint or a community standpoint as you do. I think it would create more problems than it would ever solve.

[SaxonRaider]

Thing is, I only bought the Harrier because I want to fly a British aircraft, and this is the nearest thing to it. Unfortunately no matter what you do with the aircraft regarding weapon loadouts being accurate to a specific country and specific year, the sim itself is nothing like the real world as it doesn't have all the countries aircraft in it. It falls woefully short, so really I see this kind of thing being discussed and time spent on changing things as pointless waste of time. Sure, if theres so many planes that you can have a specific year and country assigned to it, because then i can just choose the correct plane and country and time period for my mission i create, then thats great but it doesnt, and more of a problem is, when creating missions, we have Hornets that are only say 2003 ones that are only with US Navy weapons, not airforce weapons, Harriers that are only 2005 ones, non-export, A10s that are only 2001 ones, and so on, it is an absolute nightmare to make a realistic mission then isn't it if we all take this pigeon-holed view of things!. You've got to have a bit of creativity and ignore the things that are not quite accurate to have a game at all!

Im glad RAZBAM have the sense not to pander to the type of people that want all that stuff, but theres ways to incorporate these people into the better solution...that this also brings us to the point that it would be good if you could have a specific year selectable in the mission creator...., if there was an AV8B Harrier with multiple versions in the same modulel!, so we can select what year it is and what country it is and it will change the weapons availability accordingly!! and have the skin for the country that it was used without us having to download a skin from a 16 year old artist working for free to try to get real work. I guess some people want us to spend thousands of pounds on a 2006 USN version which is only used at night, another one for daytime, 2001 variant from Spain, a 2003 version from Brazil, etc.. etc... it could go on forever.

I would love the Spanish II EXTRA version with AMRAAMs :D and the aircraft carrier to go with it!

Im glad RAZBAM right decision.

[-OrLoK- Слава Україн]

I think Razbam are doing just fine.

dunno bout you but I can't make a module.

[jalsina]

It looks like the AV-8B just entered in my sights for a future acquisition.