Su 33 and AV 8B for DCS - good to go ?

Steam sale time and I am thinking of getting the Su-33 and AV-8B modules.
Do both of them have clickable cockpits? Are they both "feature complete" or have holes/issues.

Thanks!

The Su-33 is a FC3 aircraft so no clickable cockpit.

You can buy Su-33, but you would get more planes by buying FC3.
You can also buy AV-8B, but just don't if you want feature complete module, the company hasn't even finished their earlier module yet and they are working on new module so feature completion might take some time. Once the new one is out and they've gotten their money, they probably move to the next module and so on.
My advice is: stick to EDs/BSTs modules if you want some quality, they give some quality.

Thank you both. I have been out of the loop for a while and din't read Su-33 description as I own FC3, so no need to buy it.
Iceecl, what are the EDs/BSTs modules?
Thanks!

I meant modules made by ED & Belsimtek.

The AV-8 is reasonably complete depending on what all you want. Think of it as an early version A-7 in terms of combat systems with the ARBS and DMT currently implemented. The targeting pod works off an on depending on the update cycle it seems, so you can self lase some of the time. I personally have had a lot of fun flying it, but I get that some people want it more fully complete.

-Jenrick

I thought the M2000 was pretty well done and relatively fun to complete. I am curious as to which features are found to be missing. I actually found it to be one of the more enjoyable planes to use and the provided campaign by Baltic Dragon was pretty well done in my opinion

I wished the devs had the integrity to complete it after taking customer money. Instead it looks like Razbam used the early access funds to focus on other modules in development.

The Mirage has a nice flight model and is labelled as ‘finished’ I believe, but the amount of bugs and required improvements are extensive.......have a look at the ED forum censored message boards......there are pages and pages of info on the issues.

I took a quick look through the last few pages of "bugs". Many are graphical glitches that I either don't care about or would never see while in the cockpit. Some are examples of users not understanding how the Mirage is supposed to be operated and then there are what I would consider true bugs in which a specific function does not operate as it should. These I usually classify into two groups....the first is the type that is extremely obscure that I would have to stumble across it and then there are the type where they are a true frustration and take away from the core operation of the mirage. In my experience I really haven't come across any of the frustrating kinds of bugs. Perhaps, I have a lower standard of what is acceptable...which is fine. I can respect that you have more stringent standards.

When I look at a module, I typically ask myself two questions. 1) Am I able to operate the module with a reasonable degree of fidelity? 2) Do I enjoy flying it in the capacity in which it was intended (i.e. is it fun...did I get my money's worth out of it)? If I can answer yes to both then I am happy and consider it a decent module and feel comfortable recommending it.

Does the Mirage's A-A weapon ordnance not share the same issues with other A-A weapons regarding range and other performance characteristics?

The Mirage radar is completely missing its coast/memory feature and AG is punted. The HUD doesn't dim. The INS doesn't accept updates properly. The AG weapons delivery steering is wrong. These and others prevent normal use of the airplane.

I guess for takeoff, burner, shoot, land daytime intercepts it's OK. The countermeasures, RWR, radar could use some work even for this reduced mission profile.

I can't speak for the fidelity of the A-A missiles...I can say I have felt I have been able to be effective with the missiles the way they are.

The A-G radar being punted is unfortunate. I would consider the HUD not dimming and the INS not accepting updates properly as functions I would more likely than not typically not use on my average mission. It has been a while since I have used it, so I can't say if the AG weapons delivery is right or wrong. I can say when I was doing the campaign that I was able to use AG weapons effectively.

I can understand where a purist might be frustrated and disappointed by the status of these items, but to me I find the module a blast to fly and fight in and found the included campaign to be a lot of fun and my opinion not deserving of the harsh criticism of the module or the developer in general.

Basically, it passes my fun/effective test and that's good enough to me, I completely understand where it might not be good enough for another

Kind Regards,

Brett

Being fun and value for money are both subjective to an individual.......what isn’t subjective is that this module is claimed to have been ‘finished’ which may mean no further updates and the weapons and radar as a minimum are clearly buggy and broken.

I agree 100% those items are very subjective...really any decision to spend money on an item is a subjective choice. But then again the feature list on the product page mentions nothing about AG radar. I believe the initial early access may have hoped to implement AG radar but then again that is part of the risk of early access....effectively the expected features may be dynamic. I can also understand where this may have left a sour taste in some ones mouth if a planned feature was dropped for pragmatic reasons.


In fairness to the developer, yes it has been released but they certainly haven't abandoned it. They have released 7 updates to fix bugs or implement wishlist items since November of 2017. One could argue that once something is released it should never need to be touched again, but that certainly doesn't coincide with current atmosphere of software development. A2A makes periodic updates, so does Majestic, PMDG, P3D, Windows, even the wonderful work that the BMS project has completed is continuing to improve and making fixes as necessary. This isn't a criticism of the developers but is actually a testament to them in that they (and the other developers listed above) continue to apply resources to a product which is probably well past its peak in sales revenue.


So with regards to the features listed on the product page....I would say the M2000C delivers with fair expectations on those items.


Additionally, I would say the product itself is well worth the $30 it is selling for on this sale....of course this a subjective opinion :-)

I think care should be exercised when giving such feedback. While I totally understand where you're coming from, BrettT, that the module is good and fun, the question was whether the module was feature complete or had holes/issues. Clearly the M2000 can be flown and can be enjoyed, but it's not complete and it has issues. Are people purists in expecting what is present in the real jet to be present in the sim? Not really. This is, after all, a combat flight simulation boasting study-sim level high fidelity, is it not?

Same thing for A-A missiles. I can park my jet 3nm behind the enemy and get a kill and have fun, but that does not mean the A-A implementation is anywhere near correct.

So while it is fun for you, it may not be fun for another. While it may be complete enough for you, the other person may not feel the same. IMO, a good review will cite the good and the bad, or barring that, will cite the good and the limited experience or missions flown to render that good feedback.

Number of updates does not necessarily mean active or competent development. Just because others release updates does not mean the frequency or quality of updates done by other software teams is the same as that of RAZBAM.

I agree and disagree. I think we all would like to have as 100% as close to real as possible. But even the best of simulators have holes...it really becomes a subjective matter as to whether those holes are acceptable or not



Absolutely agree, always good to have a detailed review to paint the best picture possible so a prospective buyer can make an informed decision. Wish I had that kind of time....lol. Others have made blanket statements which I have felt were somewhat unfair so I have just been giving a separate opinion. If I am being honest my biggest aggravation with the module had to do with some of the earlier missions in the campaign being set in January which "suffers" from a magnetic declination bug (DCS related...not M200C AFAIK). I would have liked these missions at least to have been moved to February. Aside from that I have had a pretty good experience with the M2000 with regards to A2A and get kills a fair bit beyond 3nm (against maneuverable targets) with the Magic. A lot of it is dependent upon the aspect and type. I have had the same experience with F15C in the expectations of the AMRAAM, etc. I don't see these as "breaking" the game. I can also see where others have a different opinion and certainly respect their take on it as well, especially where it situates with their enjoyment.

With regards to the frequency and quality of updates. I agree all developers are not equally competent. But I do respect a developer that chooses to continue to try to improve a product despite not necessarily getting the return for the investment. It shows an "ownership" and love of the project...which in my book counts for a good bit


Completely unrelated but I truly wish the fine folks over at BMS would dive into figuring out how to get VR implemented in their product :-) But understand there are higher priorities

Would you buy Windows if every time you clicked and dragged it reset the mouse cursor to the center of the screen? Because every failed and canceled track in the Mirage radar resets the cursor and elevation to the center. In those critical seconds as you and the bandit are closing the radar decides to play sillybuggers with where you were looking. Get beamed for a half second (remember no coast memory?) Well now your radar elevates away from the contact. It's like it was built by and for people without any intention of putting it to use.

Maybe it's in category 'subject to change' and is actually working as intended - I'm sure RAZBAM will fix that after they've dealt with their other projects, sea and ground units, ships, MiG-19, MiG-23, F-15E, new map and only god knows what others they have.. I'm sure they'll come back to M-2000C like we have already seen in past 2 years... It's not that they've already gotten the money they need from it or anything....

Yes, but you're now trying to hide behind the imperfection of others. We would like to have 100% as close as possible, within limits of programming and classified info. Any other holes being "subjectively acceptable or not" is just making excuses. If the devs were to say "we are implementing X in a certain way due to reasons Y and limitations Z," then that makes certain holes acceptable and would also present the devs in an honest light. AFAIK, this isn't what ED or 3rd-party devs are doing.



That's much better than your previous statements and presenting both good and bad from someone that owns the module just feels more honest. We are all fans of this genre and IMHO a missed sale due to an honest review is far less damaging than a successful sale from a dishonest/incomplete review and hype. I do not follow the M2000 dev updates but I can only hope that you are correct; besides, I do not lay the blame only on the devs. Having to continually move with the ongoing progress of DCS Core must mean a lot of work for them that they would otherwise not need to do if the Core were more stable or complete.



You're not the only one, brother As I said before, the community has even offered to buy/loan a headset or two if it meant a dev would work on this aspect of the sim but last I looked, there were no takers



To be fair, how much of this is RAZBAM and how much of it is DCS? If I were to fantasize that I was a billionaire and was in charge of ED, I'd put everything on hold and get the foundations (DCS Core) right, then get 3rd-party to bring their releases up to a well-accepted standard of development, and only then consider doing work on other un-released projects. However, I wonder if it'll be easier and cheaper to make a whole new sim from the ground up? Ah, I need to pinch myself here.

That may be an aggravating characteristic of the radar or like you inferred, maybe an intentional feature. Personally, if I choose to cancel the lock I would actually prefer for the elevation to be reset to the middle. If I lose lock while closing because I was being beamed then chances are I will likely be switching to one of the close combat modes anyways. So at least for me, this is far from a deal breaker. Now whether I would buy something or not is really a summation of the parts and whether I feel there are any dealbreakers in it. Like what was inferred in a past post the best approach is to have a very detailed review. What works 100%, what parts need some more and detailed information on the impacts of those factors. In the example you gave, it seems like this would be a deal breaker for you where as for me it is really a non-issue or even go so far as to call it a preferred operation

"If I were to fantasize that I was a billionaire and was in charge of ED, I'd put everything on hold and get the foundations (DCS Core) right, then get 3rd-party to bring their releases up to a well-accepted standard of development, and only then consider doing work on other un-released projects."

Yea, but problem is that, that would make sense and would require ED to adopt a completely new approach and would eventually lead to finished modules and that's not acceptable.

Err, nope. If it is supposed to simulate something, it should do so properly. What if the FLAPS command activated the gear and the MASTER ARM activated the flaps? You can work around it, sure, but don't go around claiming to be a high fidelity simulator!

Someone might prefer a one-click magical radar that sees in a 360-degree arc and the devs may code that as an intentional feature, but things like these should be spelled out as it WILL be a dealbreaker for many looking for proper study simulations of their favorite aircraft. Again, making excuses for it because it's not a deal breaker for YOU is not going to look like a credible review.



Yeah, it'll be a total change, wouldn't it? Can't have that!!
I'd also bring the F-14, F-4, AH-64, and other sure-sell cash-cow modules in-house.

If this was indeed the case then I think most would agree with that assessment. But certainly flaps activating the master arm is far cry from the example of the elevation resetting to zero when a lock is lost. They are at a whole different level when one considers the fidelity level of a module. I can see this being used as an exaggerated example but it is certainly not in the spirit of the positive/negative review mentioned above.

I get it ….some want it 100% and anything less is simply rubbish. Those same individuals should also qualify their opinions in this light as well so that a person looking to get advice on a possible purchase also has a picture of the standards of the person giving the opinion, otherwise there is no real reference in which to make an informed decision

i.e. I don't think the module is worth the cost because it doesn't do x, y and z correctly but everything else seems on the spot. These items are important to me because I don't enjoy anything less than 100% fidelity.

Just made an exaggeration for emphasis Wasn't meant to be taken as a 1:1 example. A positive/negative or balanced review is one thing. Saying "it's an intentional feature and I like it that [broken] way!" is another.


Who said anything like that? I've already talked about this 2 posts ago.
Just because people cite stuff that are broken does not mean they are asking for 100%. Let's stop this strawman already.

Sounds like a plan. Hope you all have a great day

You too, mate.

Speaking by analogy doesn't seem to work. It's not good enough.