JuiceIsLoose

Gotcha. With it supposedly coming out next update I hoped you had a sneak peek lol.

So according to ED "Multi-sensor Integration (MSI) of surveillance-only tracks that can be set as the L&S and DT2 is in testing and is planned for the following update". So do you know if the DCS F/A-18C can launch an AIM-120C on an offboard F/F and/or offboard surveillance track without using the onboard radar to correlate those tracks? And I guess in a related note, can the DCS AIM-120C get midpoint guidance via datalink from the launching aircraft with that launching aircraft having only an offboard F/F and/or offboard surveillance track, again without having a onboard radar contributing to the MSI trackfile.

Just because lawyers are involved doesn’t mean anything is going to court.

@BIGNEWY Is there a post providing some more clarification of how this DTC will be programmed or set up? From the newsletter it states "This initial version will offer new interfaces allowing players to create and load DTC settings for radio communications and countermeasures from within the mission editor. This long-awaited functionality is available for both single-player and multiplayer missions. Does this from within the mission editor mean that the mission maker, the person making the miz file, must program DTC settings for individual jets? I'm wondering if there is some miscommunication. Because this means that the player themselves cannot edit the settings of the DTC and that it would have to be set up by the mission maker (person making the miz). This doesn't seem like it makes much sense, which is why I'm curious if there is some miscommunication? Or is this supposed to work like the custom loadouts? Where you can create a custom loadout and save it to that airframe to use on different missions/servers/etc and it is not miz specific?

Lol gotcha. Seems wonky, but at least I know about it now lol. TY

I removed any keyboard binding and bound it to a button on my hotas. But even after removing the num5 keybind and replacing with a bind to my hotas the num5 is still causing the recenter. So are you saying that I must have a keyboard binding regardless of if it is bound with a hotas?

I have this same problem so you are not alone. I cleared any keyboard mapping from "recenter VR" and only have my joystick button bound in DCS. Yet, when I click keypad 5 it still recenters. Have you found a solution?

Where are you getting that "RB lacks the same concept" of the customer comes first? You expect them to keep working after not being paid? Them not being paid is not a theory, its confirmed by ED. And we have no idea who is to blame for lack of resolution to the issue. It could be RB delaying things or it could be ED delaying things. Don't think you can just assume its RB holding up resolution. What I said was in response to Ninline saying both sides would have to work hard to regain trust. All I said was I felt that transparency would help. But I guess, based on your response, ED has no plans to ever provide transparency to the situation. Which is fine. Y'all can do what you want. But it affects your relationship with some users.

I'm sure some transparency from Eagle Dynamics would sure help in restoring customer confidence. Not sure how you actually regain any trust with no transparency.

Where are you seeing RB “let their developers go”? I have seen that no where. Only thing I have seen in one developer leave to go to a full time job using similar services, a CM leave, and then some devs state they don’t want to do ED stuff anymore. No where have I seen RB “let anyone go”. As far as this IP thing and C&D. It’s about the stupid Tucano. And then when they received the IP issue they stopped work on it. And they were only made aware of this IP issue AFTER they weren’t paid for months. So it’s not like RB did something and told ED to suck it and then ED decided to not pay. Only after not being paid were they told there was an issue. They stopped. So why continue it from EDs side? If they truly wanted an amicable outcome. Let’s assume ED is correct on their claim of IP infringement. Probably a few better ways to handle it than to refuse to pay RB. They had to know if they weren’t going to pay RB they would halt work after a time.

ED has stated a few times that they in fact have not paid RB. They say it is because of a valid reason regarding IP. But there is no question ED has confirmed non payment. Again, this has been dispelled numerous times. Even by ED, that they do not have the source code. And that the contract for the Strike Eagle predates this new mandate ED stated. So there is nothing ensuring they get the source code. Not sure why ED doesn’t help inform users on these things by clarifying the actual facts rather than leaving users in the dark with a misunderstanding. edit: not meaning to take a shot at any CM or anything. But these things should be shared when users bring them up.

Any update on providing these additional lights on the underbody?

Well I don’t know what you are referring to that is “shady”. Cause I don’t know of anything RB has done that would be classified as such. Hence why I’m asking.

What has Razbam done that was sneaky? Please elaborate. They informed the users that there weren’t going to be updates and they provided a reason for why, not being paid any sales for their module that is currently being sold. That’s transparency, letting the users know of a situation that affects them. ED wanted it hidden, that’s a lack of transparency.

I want to clarify, this post is not intended for the community managers, NineLine or Bignewy, but rather is targeted at ED Management. This post is not specifically about the bugs in modules or items listed below. But is intended to show a lack of care from Eagle Dynamics Management toward the community that purchases their modules. Eagle Dynamics Management, do you truly care for your customer's who have spent money on your products? If so, PLEASE SHOW IT. There are a number of issues to the CORE of DCS that have not been realized, and even more so have shown no progress in years. There are countless items that could be listed, but some of the larger items that affect DCS in a larger view than just one module are provided. 1. Dynamic Campaign nullAbove is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on January 17,2019. Stating in regards to the dynamic campaign "This is a very high-priority item for us with good progress. However, this is a highly complex undertaking and it will take time, but certainly not "5 years"." As of today, this post is 5 years, 9 months, and 11 days old. And there has been no progress on the DCS Dynamic Campaign. I'm sorry, newsletters with screenshots and saying "we are working on it" and "its a complex task" do not make up for 5 years and 9 months worth of development. Show some sort of progress. Show a video of a developer troubleshooting it, show a video of the buggy version you are trying to debug, show some sort of actual progress to show it has been actually worked on. Showing screenshots of the F10 map and writing a paragraph about how hard and complex it is, is not progress. Does Eagle Dynamics have anything to show it has actually been worked on other than just words at this point? 2. ATC Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on February 9, 2016 discussing that ATC does not currently work and that it "Will resolved with new ATC system". Again, similar points to the Dynamic Campaign. Where has there been any progress shown on ATC? It has been 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days since this post was made, and what progress does Eagle Dynamics show? Newsletters claiming it is being worked on, and is a complex task, again, do not cut it. Show something that shows some sort of actual progress. If it is buggy and doesn't work flawlessly? At least show us that something has been done in the last 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days. 3. Supercarrier Above is a post from an Eagle Dynamics Team Member on April 1, 2020 discussing what features are to come with the Super Carrier Module. There are a number of these items that have not been worked on since this post in April 1, 2020. Ready Room, Interactive LSO Controls, Plane directors, Rendered hanger deck, Emergency barrier net, Deck crew that move to avoid collisions with aircraft, where is the progress on these items? Plane directors and barrier net have been talked about in forum posts and newsletters, but there is nothing Eagle Dynamics can show for progress on these items. The issue with COMMS with the Supercarrier can also be included, as they do not work, but this ties into the point above about ATC. The ATC issue is a core issue that affects ALL modules. When a user purchases a module in early access the intent is that that money is used to further the development of that module and the core game that it lives in. I do not understand how Eagle Dynamics can state that modules are "Out of Early Access" when they cannot even properly communicate with ATC. That is a core element of flight simulation. As far as the supercarrier module, users that are purchasing this module in specific deserve to have their funds paid for Early Access actually go toward development of this module. And where has any progress on the Supercarrier been? Again, actual progress, not words in a newsletter describing how challenging the process is. Finally, the community managers communicate that they "...listen to lots of feedback constantly and pass it on to the team...". Please show the users that Eagle Dynamics Management actually listens to the community. Eagle Dynamics as a company has a history of continuing to send out new modules to sell without finishing old modules. For instance, releasing FC2024 when numerous bug existing in the FC3 planes. Releasing a pre-order for Iraq while Afghanistan still has not received an update since it's release. In the forum post for Afghanistan it is stated plainly "Regions will be release in approximately three-month intervals". Now, we are only told that these regions will be delayed in the forum of a newly released pre-order for the IRAQ map. And this was only after users complained that Eagle Dynamics is pushing new content without providing any updates on previous modules. Eagle Dynamics Management, you are losing the faith in your customer's. People have paid money for you modules, both early access modules and out of Early Access Modules, that do not work within the game, and yet you continue to push only new content without showing any actual progress on the promises you have made the community. I'm sorry, but Newsletters describing how hard something is doesn't show progress. Show us something, that these items are actually being worked on in some way. Have the developers actually share what they are working on, not just having Community Managers state they have talked to the teams. Again, this is not to hate on the community managers, this is to ask Eagle Dynamics Management to do something to show the community you actually care about following through with your promises. Eagle Dynamics Management, I ask that you actually listen to your customers. And show us that you care.

So now it sounds like there is a real possibility that if things don't go well that there is a possibility of the F-15E no longer being in DCS. I'm assuming that's what you are eluding to in these last few responses? If that were the case would ED issue actual Refunds (money back to the payment method used) or just Store Credit, which is what is being done now. The fact that it is now being put out there that there is the possibility of it not being maintained, how is there still not a warning or disclaimer for users?

I'm not sure how much they can work on their code without access to the SDK. If access was removed by ED, I imagine you can't do much if you cant test something working within DCS.

So you are saying that RB does not have access to update their modules? Because that goes against another users post (the one I was quoting) saying that Razbam did have access to update their modules. So which is it? Do they have access or not? Simple question. And because it seems not clear between yourself and the other user, that’s where I simple stated it would be great if BN or NL could clear it up for users on both sides of this discussion. Not even getting into if they should update it, that’s a different topic. Also, as an aside, yes I do question my employer when they make decisions I have questions about. It’s a great perk of being part of company that is open and transparent and welcomes feedback. Sounds like your employer is not like that.

I am fairly certain that RB developers have lost their access to the SDK from ED. So even if they wanted to update them, they no longer can. I'm not going to get into the debate of having someone continue to work on something after not receiving payment for over a year, as your point is if RB even has the tools available to do it from ED. But I would too like to hear if this is incorrect from NL and BN.

All I’m saying is if the IP isn’t about EDSA IP, then I don’t see why the users of DCS should be punished by ED not paying RB in order to protect IP from another company, like EDMS. If it is truly EDSA IP that they claim was misused, they could choose to clarify just that to my question.

All I'm getting at here is that if it is an IP issue with a separate company, EDMS, then it seems weird to drag DCS users into this by not paying a third party contract between RB and EDSA. Like if ED decided to withhold payment on a RB EDMS contract that would make more sense, if the IP issue was related to EDMS and not EDSA. Can you guys just clarify at least that this IP issue is between EDSA and RB and EDMS isn't involved in this specific IP issue in which ED is withholding payment? Because if this has nothing to do with DCS (made by EDSA) then this whole thing seems wild that ED has let it impact DCS.

Again, separate companies, separate contracts. Would love clarity that it is EDSA IP that was abused and not ESMS, that's all.

Well if they're different companies and RB holds contracts with different companies. How does an issue with one company then breach the other companies contract?.... And I'd imagine the same IP isn't used in DCS (the commercial product) and MCS (the military professional product).

Can we at least get clarification that this IP issue is based on Eagle Dynamics SA IP? And not the military side of ED, EDMS? Because, as it has been pointed out a few times EDSA and EDMS are completely separate companies. Because if this had anything to do with ED Mission Systems I don't see how that would impact a contract with Eagle Dynamics SA who makes DCS.

Well it seems like someone from the ED team nuked my post for some reason? But what I was getting at was that ED liked this comment. Not that the F-15E wasn't in the video.