Gorn_GER

Hey BN Sorry if I wasn't clear, this is what steam told me. "ED didn't remove them, so kick rocks" I just hate having modules that may work, but will never be completed. (I know, ongoing process, but as a business owner, I've been there. Business is trust.) But yeah. such is life. The module will continue to work with DCS 2.9 Same as the Hawk T.1A continue to work with DCS 2.5.3 But who the hell still uses DCS 2.5.3? Btw. is it somehow possible to download older Versions of DCS and does these older Versions support Multiplayer so you can play this Module with Multicrew in mind together with your friends to experience the whole feeling of the Dsync-Multicrew-Feature that makes you have fun Missing designated strike targets in your two-seat StrikeEagle? I did not refund my F-15E even though I bought it in EDs E-Shop and not stream. Because I was told from officials to hold on for the resolution of this Razbam Situation.

I Agree with you. Many people in this forum seem to confuse a promise with hope. To clarify: there has never been an official promise that the F-15E will continue to be developed. At best, there was an overly enthusiastic comment that might have given that impression. I often read statements like: "The F-15E is too important to DCS to not be developed further – it's a flagship module alongside the F-16, F/A-18, and AH-64D." But let’s try to view this from a business perspective, where the goal is to generate profit. Just as a working assumption: the revenue for a DCS module may be structured something like this – 50% from pre-order and early access (shortly after release), another 20% during the first year through marketing and early access visibility, and the remaining 30% through long-term updates and sales. If we go with that model, the F-15E has already generated 50–70% of its potential total revenue. And if we believe the unofficial reports circulating on Reddit and elsewhere, the original developers haven’t yet been paid for their work – meaning ED has received all that revenue while mainly incurring costs for marketing and running the e-shop. Now imagine a legal settlement between ED and RAZBAM, where ED retains the revenue from the F-15E, and in return, RAZBAM is no longer pursued by ED for alleged IP violations. From a purely financial and managerial perspective – what incentive would ED have to continue development on the F-15E, knowing that only 30% of potential earnings remain? As someone with experience in software development, I can add this: taking over someone else’s codebase can sometimes be as time-consuming as rewriting everything from scratch. If ED does not have access to fully documented and modular source code, then the only parts they can use immediately are the CAD models and textures. Everything else will likely require a lot of effort – effort that may not be justified by the expected revenue. Plus, ED has plenty on their plate with the modules they already develop in-house. So to be clear: the real-world importance of the F-15E has no bearing on its importance as a DCS module – especially when viewed through a business and development lens. And the reasoning for possibly not continuing development has already been outlined publicly by razbam_prowler in a Discord post on April 7th, 2025, where he stated: "Only RAZBAM Simulations is able to properly support, update, and develop our products." Even with source code access, continued development may simply not be economically viable. I want to emphasize: this is not meant to accuse or blame either ED or RAZBAM, or any individual or company involved. I just want to offer some context and encourage a bit more critical thinking before putting blind trust in assumptions or wishful thinking. Of course – if ED were to make a clear commitment to continue developing the module and actually deliver bugfixes (like addressing the frequent multicrew desync issues), that would be fantastic. But until that happens, I prefer to remain cautious with my optimism. Additionally, I currently don’t consider the terms under which the F-15E was sold in Early Access to be fully met. More features were advertised than have been delivered so far. As long as the legal dispute between ED and RAZBAM is ongoing, I’ll refrain from further judgment. But once an agreement is reached, I believe it’s important to reiterate: the obligation to customers isn’t fulfilled by a statement or an internal decision – it’s fulfilled only when the advertised features are actually delivered in full and without major bugs. Regardless of what reasoning might be used afterwards to justify halting development. Personally, I'm really looking forward to the MiG-29 – I even pre-ordered it, because I trust ED’s own modules not to be affected by these kinds of issues. From now on, I’ll only be buying third-party modules if they’re nearly finished or already show signs of long-term support. Take the F-4E from Heatblur, for example. I’ve been flying it in multicrew almost every other day with a friend, and we haven’t run into anything close to the kind of issues I’ve experienced time and again with the F-15E.

Disagree with the term "working in current state" AV8B all unguided weapons falling short or long from target because ED Weapon characteristics were not updated in the Module since the Disput. F-15E Multicrew is barely playable because of desync problems that were never fixed in Early Access. Even playing single, TPOD designation drift away from TPOD screen therefor all guided A/G weapons are unreliable. unguided weapons have the same problem as the ones in AV8B, they fall short or long but never hit the designated target in CCIP or CCRP. So the only Usecase for the F-15E is A/A and this is not the Purpose of this weaponsystem. These significant problems are just the ones I know of because I could notice them several times. There may be some more problems with them that I did not even noticed but prevented me from hitting or finding targets. Using these two modules is more Pain than fun bit i still use them because I don’t want them to be dead and therefor want people on the servers to see that we are still flying them. It would be easier to let them in the Hangar and play F-16. I don’t care what your problem with Razbam or their problem with you is but ED sold me this modules, now ED fix these game breaking problems one way or another. You already fixed the Radar once, now keep working on the obvious bugs. rumor says ED already hold all the money from F-15E sales. Now be responsible for this one, we as your customer have rights on working products, even when lifetime support is needed.

Since Speicherstadt is one of UNESCO world heritage site, I would like to see it one day updated but maybe some day one of the developers have time to do that since they already build some fantastic sites of the map. Because I am from Germany and my main interest for future DCS gameplay focus on ColdWar, it was a Must-Have for me to buy this map on Release day I can confirm what you said in your Text, the developers somehow got this detailed map work as smooth (even in VR) as Syria is. I will build the Future of DCS in this Map from the Past. ColdWar is the Sweetspot between slow Propeller flying (with or against a Nation that is driven by Hate) and Jets so modern that the don’t even see eachother before killing.

nullYour game crashes Midgame in SP mission because your Login Server is down? Why is that nessesary?

you right but the fact that the question was not directly about the quality of the map but if people should buy it or not. My answer showed another point of view that it does not matter if the quality is good or bad, it more depends on what you do with it when you got it. If you have no clue what to do with the map because you are no missionmaker by yourself and did not find any Campaigns in the Store or Missions in the Userdata, you may never find a reason to play on that map. And this point of view was not represented in all the answers, before. Therefor i gave this special pepper to the soup. Even though the SA map was introduced with 2.7.15, there is not a single buyable Campaign in the store. With Caucasus, PG and Syria, you got plenty of campaigns to play in singleplayer. And in never saw a Public server with SA map represented. Just a single Video Campaign by GrimReapers with their fictional Titan Campaign, that was abandon after 1 or 2 Missions. In the same way, I have no reason to buy Sinai, too. ED and the 3rd party developer should try to focus more on giving playable contextual content for terrains and modules, before they release them. When the Mig-29G comes to DCS, we need a EAST/WEST Germany conflict scenario for it or something similar to find a use for that module. If it comes with nothing but early acces functions, many players will buy it and try to have fun anyway but for a module that you can use on any other Map and Server, it is more easy to find a reason to fly it than on maps that have no missions. ED Dynamic Campains that work on every map could change that. When they finished the work, all modules will globaly get more value in any aspect as long as all Modules, terrains and Tech-Packs are represented with that DC Mode.

If you don’t want to see onesided answers from people who buy everything in this store, here is an answer from someone who bought too much for good. the SA Map could be interesting but as far as you have no big community with missionmakers that will follow you to buy that map or being a missionmaker by yourself and like to make missions that you play alone, this module could be for you. Otherwise not. the scenario does not fit, since the only historical interesting war played around modules, we don’t have in DCS yet. therefore Fiction missions is the key but they are all done on free Caucasus map to get interesting for more players that won’t spend so much money on new maps. Not even the AV8B Harrier fits on that map because if you play Falklands War with the Harrier against F1, you lack the capabilities of A/A tracking Radar and BVR missles that the brits used with the SeaHarrier to catch them. when I bought the map, there was a possibility to get another variants of the Harrier, one day. But at the moment, nothing looks like this could be a future anymore. even though the Map may look good, I never found a use for my money because it is underrepresented in the World of DCS. I not even found good missions for that in the Internet that looked like it could be more fun than an hour of gameplay. Therefor better buy Persian Golf and Syria if you like to play with other people. The only way to rescue this map, could be a good dynamic campaign system that would make fun, even playing alone or with a small group. But people here already wait for ages.

What happened to lead to this situation is rumors, as long as we keep with the official informations and no leaks. Therefor I wont comment the "what happened" side of your message. The more important takeaway from the upcoming outcome is how we as customer can handle to buy 3rd Party Developer modules. case Examples: 1. ED and RB find a way to deal that and keep working, so we as the customer do not have to fear of loosing RB Module quality and developer knowledge. 2. ED and RB split but ED finds a way to continue work on all RB modules without any loss of quality and bring them up to ED-Modules level of quality, would be fine for us as customer. 3. ED and RB split up and the RB modules get abandon. Therefor me for example have to deal with 3 expencive modules that will die from time to time by updates of DCS engine and the F-15E will never get to release-State even though I paid $55.99 USD for that and nearly played it because I was an Early Buyer because I had thrust that this Module will get as good in quality and function as my AV8B does. The Most important point is that something like this already happened with "Hawk T.1A for DCS World by VEAO Simulations" some years ago and all the customer had high hope that something like that will never happen because ED would be better prepared for that. DCS 2.9.3.51704 - 22.02.2024 was the last Version of DCS that got an Update for F-15E and all the other RB Modules. (with the ecxeption of the one Patch that fixed the M2000 and the F-15E radar by ED) No customer here really cares what happenes to RAZBAM if we keep it real. We are all interested what will happen with the Money we spend on Modules "by RAZBAM" and when we will get modules like the MIG-23 that was already in advanced developementstate by RAZBAM. So all of this thead is not about if we should buy the F-15E, M2000 and AV8B. Its about how ED will handle with the customer who already bought these modules and how customer will look in the future of buying Modules "by Aerges/AvioDev/DekaIronwork/Heatblur/IndiaFoxtEcho/Magnitude3LLC/OctopusG/Orbx/Polychop/RedStar/UgraMedia" rumors say that this was not the first time we nearly lost a 3rd party developer before this RAZBAM Situation happened. But as I said rumors, we should not depend on them. When I got intoduced to digitalcombatsimulator, a friend of mine told me that it was a good thing to buy Modules for this game because the money goes to small developer studios that make very good work and do the development with so much passion that the modules are worth buying even at full price because that keeps the development of this game running. Now I got modules from nearly every single DCS-Developer in this store and depending on how ED deals with the future I may or may not loose some of these modules over the years without me to be able to do something about that. Therefor I am so invested in this. I have no personal conflict with ED or RB and the same way I am not tied to one or the other but I am a customer with hopes and dreams.

Half of your answer leans on that E-Mail thing? Are you sure that you know what we are all talking about here and what my point in this was? Please tell me more about how much in common Valve and Eagle Dynamics are. But before you do, please read the “STEAM® SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT” that you get send with every purchase Mail by noreply@steampowered and compare it to the Terms of Eagle Dynamics. (To give you a hand with this, look for 2F. “Ownership of Content and Services” and 5. “THIRD-PARTY CONTENT”) Valve is responsible for all Valve products and its content. Not more not less. But this Topic is about “ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion”. I do not want to get another warning just because I fade away from the Thead-Topic and explain to people how the world works. You are the one here, calling the F-15 Eagle and its developers dead because you talk about Razbam “ceases to exist” and “people may not have understood before the Razbam situation that buying into EA may not end with them receiving a completed module”. NineLine and BIGNEWY always telling us to stick to official information. Noone says that “DCS is under threat” we just talk about who is responsible for the content of DCS and that is Eagle Dynamics. If they decide to have a disput with one of the Third-Party-Developer, they have to provide a solution to deliver a completed release Version of the Modules they offer in their game. “”If”” (and not when) ED decides to kick out RAZBAM as developer for the F-15E, it is not on RAZBAM to decide what happens with the future of the DCS F-15E, nor they are responsible to decide what happens to the customer who force to deliver a completed release Version or want the money back otherwise.

seams you are right about the AGM88. I was misslead by the quote "For air-to-ground missions, the F-15E can carry most weapons in the Air Force’s inventory". That may have been Israel or South Koreans F-15. But are you sure about the AGM84? Maybe bad examples but the F-15E from 2003 had some weapons that are not implemented yet or do not work well, I would like to see for a release Version of this module. Yes I compared to VTOL excactly because of that fear. Look what World of Tanks and War Thunder have become. They both drift away more and more from reality and the same way I never used the Vanilla stuff from Arma3, I would not like to see unrealistic and fictional modules in DCS, too. In terms of Games, I like them to play them as realistic as they could get.

Times are difficult at the moment and will be better some day. Since a long time I wait for the day when we just ask questions like "will the AH-1Z come to DCS" and "Help, I am not able to shoot that fully functional/implemented Weapon because I forgot one step from weapon deployment tutorial". Thanks that you did not just let that statement hang in there and replied to my comment. You are a good example for a Moderator. have a good day.

@BIGNEWY I never said something else. I even said: So stop calling the Eagle and its Developers dead before they die." I even encouraged people to wait in your interest. Therefor I do not understand why you write @Gorn_GER instead of pointing out to the others.

nullQuote: "The subject of this study level simulation is the F-15E Suite 4E+ software installed in F-15E's in around 2003. " Source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/modules/f-15e/ The real F-15E Suite 4E+ is scale for product quality on this module. They have to provide a simulation on this module that is compareable to the real one. This includes weapons platform and radar functionality the the Strike Eagle had at this time. (I Still have no working AGM-65, AGM-84 and AGM-88 on this module) If the DCS F-15E cannot refer to this line that was stated when I clicked the purchase button, Eagle Dynamics better ask Boundless Dynamics, LLC how good VTOL VR is, with fully fictional planes and helicopters.

I bought DCS Modules for DCS (the game) on the website "digitalcombatsimulator" that says "© 1991-2024, Eagle Dynamics SA" and the Name of the Product says "DCS: F-15E by RAZBAM" and on all the Shop-side the Name "RAZBAM" is just called out twice. 1. in the Name 2. below on the product picture. The Name RAZBAM is not called out in any Legal Document on the website or in my E-Mails. After Purchase I get an "Order was completed" by noreply@digitalcombatsimulator with no mention of a 3rd Party Developer. For the Customer, Eagly Dynamics SA is 100% responcible for the F-15E and any other Module by RAZBAM. If I have a company that develop and sells products and I name this product "XYZ by Max Mustermann" because my employee Max is very talented and people know that, It still only is a quality mark for my customer, not more not less. Even if i let "Joe Doe" produce 1/3 knowing his quality level is way below and sell it as "by Max Mustermann", neither of these two are responsible to deal with product issues and concerns of customer. I do. (the same counts for my company buying products from different factorys. If I let Factory X and Factory Y build my products and I myself have problems with one of the companies, I have to deal with quality-concerns by my customer, not Factory X nor Y) And here comes the important part, the customer sould never know if there is any kind of problem between me and my employees or another company. I have to provide product quality and it is very very sad that we are still talking about what RAZBAM did or did not do. We all never bought a RAZBAM product. We all bought Eagle Dynamics-DCS-Products by RAZBAM/Aerges/AvioDev/DekaIronwork/Heatblur/IndiaFoxtEcho/Magnitude3LLC/OctopusG/Orbx/Polychop/RedStar/UgraMedia and even VEAO. I got concerns about why the Early Access F-15E does not get any more updates. I bougt an Early Access product, knowing that the developers work on them until it is ready to release. As I like to quote the official Eagly Dynamics description on what early access is: " What is DCS World Early Access? Early Access is an option for you to play this module in an early state, but it will be incomplete with bugs. The time a product remains in Early Access can vary widely based on the scope of the project, technical hurdles, and how complete the module is when it enters Early Access. Eagle Dynamics and all of our third parties strive to make this period as short as possible. Once the module exits Early Access, you will automatically have the Release version." the line "once the module exits Early Access" implies to the customer that the Product will be fully released and functional as it was as advertised. So please stop telling people that "[...]buying into EA may not end with them receiving a completed module.[...]" But @Nightdare already said enough about this specific topic for both of us so I do not start telling you the same, he already did. It is a shame that we even have to deal with people thinking that EarlyAccess was supposed to be a "maybe abandon early" phrase. Companies that work this way should also be "maybe abandon early". But before people get on fire here, EagleDynamics officials stated that the product is not dead already and we should stick to it until known further. So stop calling the Eagle and its Developers dead before they die. The F-15E is not abandon now and I do not know what is with you and your countries Laws but if it dies, I for myself will get my money back and from that point I will only be disapointed about that I could never fly the F-15E as a full-release and just try it out in Alpha/Beta-tests without a future.

as soon as you get used to it, the startup in the Harrier is even faster than in most other Jets. I think only my AJS37 has a faster startup. I prefer to start the Harrier on a Tarawa Flightdeck because the cable link to the Carrier has a faster INS Align than on ground (as far as I remember). While F/A-18 and F-14 still spooling up the second engine, I already am on my way to target. (Downside is the subsonic speed. So F/A-18 CAS/Strike will be early on target anyway ) Another reason to start on the Tarawa is, because it is cool to be the only Jet in DCS that could start and land there. Everyone could start a Plane on a Supercarrier but as long as there is no F-35 Module, you are the only non-Heli player on that Tarawa ^^

This. I would like to use it more and play it togehter with my buddys but I cannot recommand them to buy it. Therefor i would fly it alone and with knowing how incomplete it is. At the weekend i started it since last time about a year ago. After start, on online server, I immediately turned back to airfield and switched to AV8B because it is more fun to play a module that is less raw. Even the F-15C is more fun because it does everything its supposed to do while I just spend some 15$ for Flaming Cliffs or so.

Everything as I said. Interesting to see, where it comes from.

Did you read that in a fortune cookie? Please go to your Car-Dealer, buy a vehicle without an engine and tow it around a little. You know, not putting an engine in the vehicle will give it value, riding it does. If you now start to explain that the F-15E is somehow playable and good as it is, you just tell me that there is no serious way to talk to you. I do not know what state of art the refund options are right now but I was told that there are Topics we can not talk about in this forum. And telling people what rights they have in what countries gets stressfull from time to time.

aged like Milk. Patience needs to be fed with updates and results but I am still waiting to not regret keeping the module when it was possible to refund it earlyer.

I cannot tell if I had the same issue once but to give this something to think about: Due to network limitations most bigger Multiplayer Missions do some tricks to rise performance. If you use TacView after flying a dynamic Mission on an online server while you was alone there, you can observe that the enemy units have 3 states: 1. Active, 2. Not Simulated and 3. not existing. These states are triggered by players flying in several distances to the enemy. In state 3 you cannot even see them, no matter what your view distance is. In state 2 you may not be able to lock them even though you can see them because they may have the same state as terrain buildings and trees. in state 1 they are in normal state and can move/shoot. The Performance on singleplayer Missions are dependend of your Computer hardware. If your computer is able to simulate all of the mission at once and everything in your view distance, you can lock them. maybe someone with more experience in DCS Core code and Mission editing can give you more context for this matter.

no but it seems that not everyone reached that. This Thead is the best example that ED has to put a disclaimer in the Store that Razbam modules are not supported at the moment. If you buy the SE and find this out, ED just gives you the option to return it for store credit, what seems litterly illegal. You cannot sell dead, unfinished products without the option for people to return it for cash. If the buying person is not interested in any other module, what should he buy for that credit? Noone here buys DCS because it is for free. We buy specific modules. null

Either you are trolling or you did not understand what “Disput between ED and Razbam” means. You did not just buy another Razbam module for full price since other modules are on sale at the moment? Did you? do you want to buy Av8B and Mig-19, too? I have some bad news there.

No solution here?

Can you confirm, that the other modules will keep maintained if razbam leaves (to a point that they will at least stay at status quo) and wont break with further patches?

I would prefer, not to refund my Razbam modules but if this situation keep on for a while and come to a bad end, will we still have the option to refund them later, after the official announcement?