All Activity

I am over it. ED says “alleged”, Razbam says “alleged.” It’s a he said / she said, and it is moronic. At this point it is ED’s problem. If the modules stop working (some already have, AV-8B JTAC ATHS for example hasn’t worked for months), what will ED do? Refunds? What is the plan?

We are acting in good faith on the agreement, yes. Sorry, in my head, we shouldn't have to say that, but I understand why you all need to hear it. This is not actually a direct answer to the question. 'Acting in good faith' can still mean that ED diverged from their obligations under the settlement agreement, but did so in a way that you consider to be for a good reason and thus still acting in good faith. For example, let's say that I'm obligated to show up at work at 9 o'clock every day, but one day I get into a car accident and am not able to make it in time. Then I can argue that I got to work as soon as reasonably possible and I thus acted in good faith, but my employer would also have a point that the contract wasn't followed. So then you can get into the murky area of whether the situation truly was a 'force majeure' and the question how this has to be handled. So did ED follow the settlement contract to the letter, or not?

As long as you call inbound to the carrier it's not broken. If you don't, then yes you can get a CTD on landing with current build. And that's why the "5 minutes" of testing probably didn't catch this. I automatically called in when I was testing after seeing reports of this and I had no problem landing. Until someone figured out this was cause I couldn't recreate it. Once I stopped calling in then I could reproduce it.

Hi, we get tagged hundreds of times in a week and we can miss some, its always better to send us a dm or message us on discord for third party forum requests. thank you

Since the last patch, F4U and F14 both cause a DCS crash when the hook grabs the wire.

So you want a refund from ED through Steam. OK, lets say Steam takes a 30% cut (no idea if that's the actual amount, but that seems to be what general consensus is) on every sale. So ED is already out 30% on what you paid. Now you want (presumably) 100% back. I'd pretty much guarantee Steam isn't going to cover the 30%. So now ED got 30% less for your original purchase in the first place AND has to pay you back a 30% premium (since Steam isn't going to cover that). So for easy math let's say you paid $100. ED got $70. So it's flat out costing them at least $30 more for every refund the authorize through Steam, and the whole $100 is coming out of their pocket. Like it or not, with the store credit they are offering ED store customers they still have the $100, it's just being moved around. So trying to claim a "fairness" argument since they are giving ED store customers credit doesn't work. Even if ED was giving full cash refunds, they'd still be paying an extra $30 to Steam users so where's the fairness even there?

Landing the F14 and F4U both causes a DCS crash for me, at the moment the hook grabs the wire. Touch and Gos are ok, but hook, no go. It looks like there is a major fukup with all carriers after the last patch. ED acknowledged the problem, and hopefully the next patch will address it.

That is all you need to remember. There is a confidentiality order in place on this. We have said what we can right now. Thanks

@BJ55 Issue was too little deadzone on my TDC Axis. Adding a couple of percent to that fixed my issues. Thankfully, I had a bit of direct help in the Razbam Discord. Thanks for your effort BJ55, I really appreciate the advice earlier on!

If you find this funny, that’s your call. I’m not here for laughs. I’m here because I (and others) were left in a mess, and doing nothing just accepts that as normal. I’m not okay with that.

This is disturbing in a bunch of ways. To start with, why was the existence of this agreement and the parts of the agreement that impact customers, even put under a strict confidentiality requirement? Customers have been asking for clarity about the situation and you could have given them this information, but apparently there was a conscious decision to keep customers in the dark for over half a year. Why? I have trouble coming up with any other reason than a lack of confidence in one owns ability to keep the agreement, because any company that was confident that they are doing everything in their power to do the customer right would surely want to tell the customers about the settlement, right? But perhaps there is a legitimate reason that I cannot come up with. Note that I'm not talking about the parts of the agreement that cover payments or other stuff that is between Razbam and ED, but merely about the very existence of an agreement and the plans for the modules. The second disturbing part is that you still seem to hide information from us. You never explicitly state that the agreement is in jeopardy. I'm not allowed to post the alleged statement by Razbam's legal council, yet at every opportunity you seem to minimize the information you share, rather than inform customers to the best of your ability. In this case you imply that the settlement is in jeopardy, but why can't you just state it clearly, so we can discuss it, rather than risk getting our posts removed due to 'speculation'? Thirdly, if the agreement is indeed not being upheld at the moment, this speaks to a level of incompetence that is very worrying. I can see people making mistakes in the daily grind of things where people may not think things through fully, but this agreement was surely made with a full understanding of the gravity of the situation, so one would expect every i to be dotted and every t to be crossed. Clear and unambiguous statements in the settlement agreement who has to do what and when. And any fuss over the settlement should then result in the legal teams of both sides being able to quickly determine who is not holding up their end of the deal and how it is to be rectified. And both companies would then get told by their legal team what they need to do to avoid legal repercussions for not following the settlement contract.

Maybe you don't expect miracles, but you're expecting a different answer to the same question, it's like watching someone turn the handle of a locked door over and over. Where I come from repeatedly asking the same question is trolling, so I guess this thread continues to get leeway, but IMO that's a good thing - as I say, I get a chuckle out of it

Perfect comment. That's why I'm not buying a single module any more. This is unacceptable!

It broke landing??? Wtf? I haven't updated in about 6 months.

I read the information that some kind of settlement was reached last year. At the same time, I know that Razbam told ED to stop selling their full-fidelty modules. I read the ED will support the Razbam modules as best as they can. Will we know, at a time in the future, if the agreement between the companies means that Razbam resumes selling their modules and providing regular monthly updates?

While they get around to approving the above, I finished this livery, the VFA-22 CAG 2015. I saw from some of my reference photos and didn't have any good shots of the more marked one (only one photo), but here it is as uploaded:

Not sure this will solve it for the Harrier, but if you call inbound to carrier it will fix it at least for the SC and other aircraft. Essex was also having issues and not sure if it's the same or a different issue.

Had some time to try it. No tests, just testing how it feels and I think it's a step in the right direction. The dynamic stability in yaw is much better now and it's not as sensitive in pitch. Roll rate is still too slow in my opinion. Other that that I'd say I'm happy with how it behaves in the air. On the other hand I think it's the only warbird in DCS in which you can hold the aircraft on the brakes at full power. I also think that the rudder is too effective at low speed during takeoff. Can't say whether its realistic or not just that it's worth investigating. There are other issues which prevent me from making it my daily flyer but it's a step in the right direction.

I get that you find it pointless — fair enough. But for me (and others in the same situation), this isn’t just noise, it’s principle. People who bought the F-15E in the E-shop got store credit and could spend it on something else — those of us on Steam got nothing. So why shouldn’t we push for fair treatment too? I’m not expecting miracles, but silence and resignation have never changed anything. If nothing else, it documents the issue. If that bothers you, just scroll past. Simple as that.

Sure, all is well with what you wrote, but you're excusing ED for not already having a solution in place that ensures the continuity of modules sold on their website, that exist in their ecosystem, in the context of this having happened with another 3rd party before. Not acceptable. Razbam may very well be the party in the wrong here, but shame on ED for leaving their customers hanging because they have no continuity plan if a 3rd party exits or goes sideways.

Every time when I create a new mission, place a unit and try to open the loadout screen, the game crashes. Happens sind newset update 2.9.18.12722. Playing in VR

Para. 2 and 3. are still in black, but 1 is good That's how it looks for us, dark-theme guys:

I have experience that 2xMAV can't align with ATP. When MAV is single on pylon than BSGT can be boxed. Handoff is .... off (30m) every time. Multiplayer, coldstart.

I'll give it a shot.

And couple more announced but erroneous binds: Introduced the auto-rich fuel setting. .. plus AUTO-LEAN and IDLE CUTOFF are all still missing. Added a ‘trim reset’ command. Was already in the Corsair, before the patch, and still there now.