Leaderboard

Welcome to my life the last year

Thank you for your support. We are glad to see that you like the map and this gives us even more desire to improve it. It is very nice when you remember the places where you served or walked as a child. The map is very large and we want to recreate everything, but we have to think about resources and your SSD/HDD. And like any of our maps, it does not stand still and is constantly evolving: it will be improved and refined, including according to user requests. Today we will answer some questions and tell you a little about what we added: @Swiso Yes, most of the buildings are destructible. Many with detailed damage models. The rule with original objects is the same - we don't bomb them @KarlRadek thanks for the information about the quarries. I want to say that this place is already under reconstruction: water is pumped out of the lakes and instead of them there will be quarries, like at that time. There were many requests from you about air defense locations. We had them, but at your requests we increased the number of these places and now they will not only be near large bases. Thanks to everyone who sent in SAM info @Rick Mave Ersatzpisten - they are located mostly south of phase 1, in phase 3 territory, but we can already say - don't worry, you'll be able to land on the road. @C525 today the shelters in Büchel look like this:

This is correct, we were contractually bound to keep them up for sale, and we could not remove them from sale unless requested to by RB, this has finally been requested, and we are in the process of removing them. Why now and not the start we are unsure, but we are trying to follow along as we navigate the course to a full resolution. We will continue to support those that own the modules to keep them working as we have for over year now.

"Stop selling RB modules!" ED can't make that decision on their own because of legal obligations But, when RB makes that request and ED complies (as they probably have to) and the suddenly great crimes have been committed. It must be fun to be partisan.

@Bignewy this is an example of the messaging that hasn't sat well with me. Of course the public were brought in to this - as they should have been a product that was in EA was/is in jeopardy of being discontinued due to, allegedly, nonpayment by company it was being developed for. This is alarming, full stop. Now that you have removed the products from the product page, I really feel as if a some sort of message is necessary from your legal team. I am really beginning to wonder if the 56 licenses I hold in your store are sound. Since 2018 - ED or it's partners posts something for early release, I am generally there on day one- that is not the case anymore... this is absolutely going to effect your business short of some sort of clear understanding for your customers. I am really not one of those bitter keyboard warriors - looking through my post history hopefully says that... I am just very, very, very concerned.

We all hope for a good outcome to the dispute. The modules after all are great ones and loved by many here.

Please note: After receiving an official request by RAZBAM to remove products from sale we have done so. All products will be fully supported by DCS and will continue to operate. thank you

So you want us to pay for the misuse of intellectual property? Really??

My 2 cents: this is just another attempt form RB to put pressure on ED and, at the same time, do some captatio benevolentiae (capturing goodwill) among the customers.

Many times ED has been accused of not pulling the module from the store. This is what I've been written the whole time. It is RAZBAM who control their modules in the ED store.

Mig-19P: "Am I a joke to you?!" Seriously why do people always forget this lovely aircraft...

One year into this. You (ED and RZ) should have a hard look at the ''legal'' adviced being given. Those lawyers are racking up money and the only party profiting from this. Get the two CEOs in a room with a mediator and don't let them out until it is solved.

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right spot to put this and I know it is going to piss off a ton of multiplayer players, but is there a way to make it so you cannot rearm and refuel ON the runways and taxiways? People get so lazy and block routes to the RWY. If we had designated rearm and refuel areas on the ramp/apron (like in real life) it would cut down on congestion a lot. Thank you in advance!

I can have a laugh? Can mr "integrity" tell me where is my AV-8B manual?

Only the F-15E is not completed ... why exaggerate the situation?

Now, hold on. I'm not a fan, but someone pointed out elsewhere that he recalled a number of devs have left and RB does not a public list of employees. A possibility is that they feel that can't properly support these modules with a, perhaps, reduced set of manpower. If that is the case, then I'd view that as the responsible thing to do. Them not listing this could have been their own legal representation telling them to just give customers the usual corpo-legal schpeil and not specifics. As they should have done from the get-go, really. On both topics. There seems to be enough people, even here, who keep coming back to the same points even after they've had to explained to them over and over as to why this is the case. I guess it's hard to not be a crusader for justice on the internet. C'mon. You know it won't. Dozens upon dozens of pages later, the same folks show up, cry foul, have it explained to them, and then they seem to always manage to hit their factory reset switch before they go to bed and then return with the same grievance time and time again.

Bingo. As people, including myself have stated, this is an issue of Razbams making. They started this when they tried to illegally use the DCS IP, and got caught. If they would own up to the fiasco, and agree to EDs future terms, this would end today. But, RZ apparently has an ego the size of Jupiter, and won't just let ED 'win'. Honestly a better use of a GFM campaign would be to buy the licenses and Source Code off of Razbam and hand them to ED to keep hold of.

What we have been able to do over the last year is what we can continue to do into the foreseeable future. We cannot make updates or add features.

As you have been told over and over, it's a legal matter to be dealt with between the two teams within the confines of legal proceedings, we cannot make any official comments beyond what is in the original post here. Thanks. Please scroll up one from your message, we already stated what happened. Thanks.

Dear all, I have updated the first post with this: After receiving an official request by RAZBAM to remove products from sale we have done so. All products will be fully supported by DCS and will continue to operate. What does this mean? It means the modules developed by RB are no longer for sale (or in the process of being removed from sale). This does not change our current goal of resolving the issue at hand. Thanks all, and once again, personally and on behalf of the team, I am sorry to each and everyone of our customers that are being put through this rollercoaster ride.

One of the best things about DCS is the passionate community. One of the worst things about DCS is the passionate community. I hope it all works out, but if it doesn’t… I’m basically $ out of pocket for the equivalent of one night’s Chinese takeout. Life goes on.

Thanks, noted. Good luck with resolving the issue with RB, I'm looking forward to it

So that claim ED was profiting on Razbam modules without Razbam consent can go to rest once and for all. Very interesting Razbam kept them up for this long on stores, including Steam with their refund policy.

What makes him responsible? To put it into context: When was the last time you got arrested for being robbed?

Since ED have said due to contract that they couldn't remove it from sale barring an OFFICIAL request from Razbam or whatever other conditions in the contract might allow them to (meaning if they did remove it on their own they'd be liable for damages for breaking the contract) and now that Razbam has OFFICIALLY requested it's removal (and ED would be liable for damages for NOT removing it) it's pretty easy to understand why ED would agree to it. As for the Razbam side, that's a guess because there doesn't seem to be lot of rationality to most of their actions in this affair.

Ignoring, whitewashing, and disregarding a persistent problem is a poor way to manage customer expectations. ED is not managing expectations in a way they end-users expect. When persistently neglected over time, this can cause trust issues in our community.

In the future too? Dont want a HAWK 2.0 Just, please, please, keep the Strike Eagle, Mirage 2000 and AV-8 flyable even with future updates, if this Dispute will not end good. Just keep them flyable! Please! I dont want to lose them

This is one of the silliest things I've read on these forums in a long time. I really hope you're making a joke.

Fully aware there is a slider to increase chances of bird strikes but it would be nice to know you had a bird strike minus one of your engines just going out randomly. I have a lua script to tell a player if they had a bird strike but other then that you're just flying along and your engine goes out. No other signs visually or audible of a bird strike. Some ideas: - Visually see the bird before impact or flock of birds to avoid them. - Visual bird marking on aircraft(blood). - some kind of audible noise like a thud on impact or your engine taking a bird. Next level: - A way the mission editor can implement bird density areas and altitudes. - Canopy damage or bird bouncing off with the sound effect to follow VR users would crap themselves But seriously please make a change to the current system, having your engine go out randomly without any indication it was a bird strike is weird.

Found this on X right now:

Sadly unless you have not used DCS since you purchased it, I do not think so. But you can try to contact Steam to find out if there is anything you can do. Sorry. I can't really put a number on it, I am probably like some of you where one day I feel better about things than others, I will say I remain hopeful that we can get back to somewhat normal business. We owe it to everyone who purchased an RB module to get the best outcome possible.

...today I just woke up with more faith than usual. I hope for the best, still. Keeping my F-15E until the end.

They could have requested the modules pulled a long time ago. Their PR stunts don't work on the people that know them anymore.

Nick Grey should take responsibility by making an official response. The buck stops with him.

I hope to see an official explanation about this matter in this week's DCS news, after all, this is the first break news of DCS in 2025

That'd never happen, anyways. We were promised a MiG-19S, then told we weren't.

You could probably also set the airport stock levels for munitions to 0 and put fuel and ammo trucks where you want players to actually refuel/arm.

moved to Germany wish list. thank you

I am sorry the public were brought into this, it has certainly created bad feeling and damaged PR, but this isn't a court room, its a forum thread, and the dispute is between ED and RAZBAM. It is a private matter and the statement we made after RAZBAM went public will likely be the only one until the dispute is resolved. We all hope for a good outcome. thank you

Hell yes. Plus EOR arming and disarming. Might be nice if it is incorporated into the new airfield ground crew and ATC work currently underway.

Razbam can go fund themselves.

Oh I dunno, ED is allowing store credits if you no longer have the patience to see this resolved. Thats something more than what Razbam has done over the last year. I hold no more faith in them, so I have my peace of mind on that issue back at least. For sure Im not buying it again until Razbam takes it out of EA this time...if there IS a next time. No. No more anything until this issue is resolved. Think we've paid enough.

Re-did the Displays panel to use the piano switches. Still need to finish the wiring and test it in DCS but man it turned out great. Appreciate everyone who has helped and shared their STLs. If anyone wants this specific version, I’ll gladly post them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wanted to bring up a concern that I’ve seen discussed in the community and that many of us feel could benefit from some attention: the behavior of AI radar, specifically in relation to terrain masking and the detection of low-flying aircraft. The Issue: Currently, the AI radar often seems to detect low-flying aircraft, such as helicopters at low speeds and altitudes near the radar clutter or low-altitude jets, through terrain like forests, valleys, and hills at ranges that human radar systems would typically struggle with. This can sometimes feel unrealistic, especially when trying to use terrain to avoid detection and gain an advantage for example. Why This Matters: This issue impacts the experience of players who rely on realistic tactics—like flying low behind terrain to avoid detection. While I understand that AI is meant to provide a challenge, improving how AI radar accounts for terrain masking and applying more realistic radar limitations could significantly improve both the realism and the challenge for players, so they could follow their own strategies to deceive the ai. It would make AI 1v1s feel more balanced and aligned with the physics of radar detection that we, as players, experience, it would be more appealing and we would praise these advancements and not be frustrated. Possible Improvements: AI Radar & Terrain Masking: Perhaps AI radar could be adjusted to more realistically consider terrain and environmental factors (like forests and mountains) when detecting low-flying targets. This would reflect more realistic radar behavior. (specially for helicopters) Radar Attenuation: Incorporating more attenuation in the radar signal based on distance, terrain, and obstacles could help to bring AI detection ranges closer to human radar capabilities. (like HB did for the f4, the enemy ai would have to search for us in the "WORLD") Why It’s Important: This adjustment would enhance the balance in the game, particularly when flying in environments where stealth and terrain masking are a vital strategy. Many players have expressed frustration when it feels like the AI can "see" through terrain,(specially one of my posts) making these strategies less effective. Addressing this could have a positive impact on our enjoyment and challenge of flying against AI opponents. I know that the game development is an ongoing process, and I do appreciate the hard work that goes into every update. Thank you for everything, and I wish the game continues to evolve!

I think they did: RB asked for their product to be removed from the store and they comply.

Are you talking about the views.lua in the root folder? Yea, that possible, I have my own and I replaced it with it. In a lot of ways, we're starting from scratch, not completely, but it's a "reset" for sure. There will be bugs, there will be issues, but...it's flyable and it performs better than it ever did before. Even on the old version, like 2022-23 when you had the FCS mode stuff, you could turn with a Su-27 or 35 pretty well but not like this. Now, as long as you don't pull so hard you stall, you can just stay INSIDE his turn circle and wait for lead. It's a beautiful thing.

This just blows. ED needs to release a public statement. I don't know who is giving them their legal advice, but this has been a PR disaster and with the removal of all Razbam products from the store, it is only going to get worse. It would be wise for ED to get ahead of this latest development and issue some kind of a press release. Parties in litigation make public statements all the time and it is missing out on an opportunity to take control of the narrative. It all begs the question, why, after a year, would Razbam make this request now? Furthermore, why would ED agree to it. There must be some contractual basis or development that led to this event.

I support both R&R areas as well EOR areas. Some additional ground crew service should be implemented to call upon for dead stick/emergency landed aircraft or the ones that lost power on rwy/taxi lines to get them out of the way. Those stuck in the grass can wait a few hours for special equipment

Both parties should consider that, in addition to legal issues, a little goodwill and affection toward their clients is also needed to resolve this. From my perspective, I don't see that. I feel like this is hopeless and I feel let down. The passion on both sides is missing.

This right here is the issue