RAZBAM AV-8B Harrier II


#383

On any module, there are two things that stand out as deal breakers for me:

  1. Flight Dynamics. It must “fly” as realistically as possible.
  2. Sound.

The rest is icing on the cake. The catch here is that 95% of people have no experience flying, much less flying military aircraft, so determining its realistic flight capabilities is kind of vague. This is were the actual pilot input would be awesome, but even then its still hit or miss. 2 examples that come to mind are the Gazelle and the MiG21. Both supposedly had real pilot input, more so on the MiG21, and both have had drastic flight model changes throughout its life cycle. The sound is one thing that can be easily verified.


#384

That’s true!
And the problem with using “real pilot” input on a flightmodel is that we pilots are often used to simulated flightmodels not being up to snuff. And most of us aren’t coders, or maybe even flightsimmers. So if a coder tells us that this is as close as he can make it, we believe him.
And, as you say, most users won’t know the difference. As long as top speed matches some manual or anecdote in a book, they’re happy.
But if you really start to pick a flightmodel apart, you will find discrepancies.


#385

That’s true.

It’s very hard without specific gauges in the plane and charts to really tell how a sim plane flies even if you’ve flown it in real life. You might get the feeling that a plane seems to bleed too much in a turn, or that the nose sits too high at approach speed, but even with VN diagrams it’s hard to translate that into words a coder can use. And fixing one thing seems to break another.

Fighters in X-plane for example always seem notoriously slippery to me. But supposedly the sim uses the actual shape of the object to determine its flying qualities. So how do you tell a model builder that the actual airplane shape doesn’t fly like the actual airplane.

@Gunnyhighway. Semper Fi! I did a couple of tours as a FAC. In answer to your question, I believe that Snark made an offer to RAZBAM on my behalf, but I never heard anything in response. Back when the last patch was coming out for the FSX version, I exchanged a few emails about some of the systems workings with them. But, after a point I never heard anything further, which is why I said that I thought that they had decided to be done with the project at that point.

In any case, it their baby so they can do as they like. I just hope that they have some one who really understands the systems and does them justice. :slightly_smiling_face:


#386

That’s a fascinating read on Human Factors, Absolutely avoidable and a catastrophic incident with grave consequences for those involved.

@Deacon211 I contacted Razbam a while back but never heard from them, so alas, can’t really help you there. Although perhaps they read this forum :wink:


#387

Thanks Snark. No worries. They have my help if they want it. If they have another source, then I look forward to trying the old girl out. :slightly_smiling_face:


#388

#389

@Deacon211 apparently they have “1st hand sources”. He didn’t come out and say they had a pilot involved, which means he’s either being unintentionally cryptic, or they don’t have one. I’m going to assume they don’t want to mess with paying a former Harrier pilot for their input. I would imagine the profit margins are already slim on these modules.

If I were them, I would like to add as much credibility to my module as possible. Look at what it did for the MiG21. That thing was more F’d up than a football bat and became one of the most popular modules (still making FM changes this far down the road), largely due to the fact, in my opinion, that an actual MiG21 pilot was involved.

Oh well, I’m still buying it.


#390

LOL, well then the joke is on them. I usually help out on these things for free!

All joking aside. Hopefully you are incorrect and they have an old Harrier dude to help out and one who has flown the plane more recently than me. :slight_smile:

It’s all good. I’m happy to help, but as long as there is finally a decent Harrier sim out there, I don’t care how they do it.

Besides, I’m right in the middle of CRJ ground school right now…I’ve got more systems numbers in my head than I know what to do with! :grin:


#391

Lol, I usually find that I reach a point where you add one piece of information into my fuddled brain but another (probably obscure) item drops out. I’m not looking forward to my next initial for that reason. This stuff was much easier when I was in my early thirties ;).


#392

Ain’t it the truth!

My buddy used to say that he had a three pea brain.

His mind was like a straw. You could put three peas into it. But that fourth pea was pushing something out the other side.


#393

The iceberg can only hold so many penguins…


#394

Is this your classroom? Seems complicated… :see_no_evil:


#395

Yes indeed. As for complexity, it really isn’t all that hard to operate. The biggest challenge is keeping up with the automation because there is a lot going on in the background that you would have to do for yourself on other airplanes. I thought the Challenger was highly automated, but it has nothing on the Global.

Sorry our schedules didn’t match up.


#396

And my iceberg is melting! … must be global warming :wink:


#397

Another startup video?


#398

Gotta be close now…


#399

Ehhhh. I don’t think so, though it depends what soon means to everyone.

Everything we’ve seen so far has been been of fairly basic functions and systems.

Startup, landing, etc. Even the combat systems we’ve seen have been fairly simplistic: CCIP unguided ordnance, the gun, and rockets. I vaguely remember some AUTO delivery but I’m not 100%.

What have we not seen, then? No sort of smart or guided weapons, no air to air employment, no air radar, no ground radar, SAR mapping, etc. We’ve seen some shots of the flir but I think mostly raw footage and nothing of actual tactical usage.

I think there’s still a lot of major systems, particularly complex ones at that, yet to be completed.

Full disclosure, I’ve been busy and gone a lot lately so I may have very well missed items they’ve shown. Im also on data at the moment so I havent seen the most recent video above and don’t know what it shows besides the title. But I think we still have a long ways to go.


#400

The version we’re getting is the NA, so no radar, but otherwise I essentially agree. There’s a lot of avionics functionality I’ve yet to see, much more than exists on something like the Mirage. I’d say we’ve still more than a few months left.


#401

Doh. I must have mixed that up, I thought we were getting the one with the radar.

But yeah I still think it will be a while.


#402

Do they really plan to show everything the AV-8B offers?