All Activity

@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.

Do you think that ED is only telling you what they want to about a thing that's clearly been a massive pain in their collective ass for the past while now? They have entered into a legally binding agreement with Razbam. That means the amount they are able to say to you, me and everyone else is severely restricted to what was agreed upon in the legal process they went through. The same can almost certainly be said for Razbam. And I honestly don't know what people want ED to do here. It seems they went to the very extreme ends of things, even perusing legal resolution, to try and fix the problem that exists around Razbam's development. But the biggest issue seems to be, going off of what I believe has been confirmed on the forums previously, Razbam never provided the source code that developers are meant to provide (I'm assuming that applies to all 3rd party devs, I could very well be wrong) which means that ED is going to be pretty severely handcuffed in what they can do to fix the mess they have in their lap now. ED tried to make sure the Hawk situation wouldn't happen again, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly ED's fault that it did. The part that's confused me throughout this entire mess is how Razbam seems to rarely have anyone mad, but ED constantly has people acting like there's some grand conspiracy to screw a handful of people out of their money in a game that's reliant on their player base. Maybe I'm off in my own fantasy world here, but from everything I've seen publicly confirmed, it seems that Razbam created this whole mess, escalated things online instead of working behind the scenes with ED, and has been the biggest factor in where fans of their modules are now, which is stuck and hoping that ED can figure out a way to continue supporting them with their hands tied behind their backs.

Don't know why but nobody is taking into accounts these bugs. Is anybody at ED able to answer?

On my part, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your work and your efforts in helping the community, something that ED does not seem to want to help.

Dear Cfrag, Thank you very much for what you have done for us. All mine and our virtual squadron’s missions are based on DML modules. Although your decision is a disaster for the mission editors, I completely understand your disappointment and I am sure I would do the same, in case I were in your position. For me that I am involved in DCS since the Lockon 1.0 era, DML was revolutionary. Many Thanks =GR= Panthir

This is very disturbing. An agreement was reached last year and this is the first time it has been mentioned? But there are no details of the agreement, and clearly work has not resumed on any of the Razbam modules and ED still does not have the source code so they cannot promise how long they will be able to support them. So this "agreement" clearly did the end users no good whatsoever. ED is just continuing to string us along? We get the crappy end of the stick because ED is taking care of ED, Razbam is taking care of RazBam, and no one is representing the consumer. This is the Hawk situation all over, after ED promised us it would never happen again. I guess they are counting on us all having only short term memory. This started in Spring of 2024. Normally I buy almost every module that comes out, especially helicopters. Because of this cluster, I have not purchased the Kiowa, the Chinook, or the Corsair. The only thing I have bought is the Germany Map. And its probably going to stay that way. This is not good business. There is a saying in business that if you take care of your customers they will take care of you. And if you don't......I have supported ED for many years, since the LOMAC days, and I have bought many modules and packs that I wasn't really interested in just to support the continued development of DCS. I'm not feeling that generous anymore if this is the way we will be treated.

During the campaign, my TGP was hit so I go back to the base, shut down the engine and repaired the plane, after that iI did a refuel and rearm, all was ok, go again to the target, weapon armed, find a target with the pod, passed the info to a maverick maverick locked the target but I was not able to fire, tried cannon, rockets bombs, nothing. Put several time the arm switch to safe and arm again but with no results. Any idea ?

The bold is my formatting. The question was worth asking, there was no point asking it repeatedly. Far from being dodged, it's been directly answered, as you can see.

so it seems that either i was doing something wrong or it was the typhoons fault so now at least it locks and handoffs the target properly, now to figure out multitrack :D, thanks for the help