rob10

From the info, looks like 2 initially, with a 3rd planned after initial release. Presumably Pilot, Co-pilot, loadmaster. No. I would say they under-promised and over-delivered. They've said "by the end of 2025" many times. Reading between the lines on what they've posted over time, I've always assumed it was going to be sooner than that and they were making sure they didn't miss a date.

You're right, it's not a legal gray area. They said "ALL FUTURE 3rd PARTY AGREEMENTS". F-15 (and likely the others) were by all reports already underway by that point, so they weren't "future agreements". They may not have been officially announced, but that doesn't mean they weren't signed.

That is not what the OP that I responded to was asking for. He wanted ED to lay out how the ED was going to handle things if the whole situation irrevocably falls apart. That's completely different. I agree that it makes me uncomfortable that ED didn't have any sort of disclaimer after the dispute started, but, as with my contention in my OP, if they did then Razbam could have gone after them for potentially having harmed their sales, so it was a no win situation. In any legal situation the first thing the lawyers are going to do is tell the company to SHUT THE .... UP! Razbam apparently ignored their lawyers or got really bad advice, because saying anything publicly has way too much risk (either by accidentally saying the wrong thing or having your words twisted and used against you). You're assuming ED didn't attempt to solve this by other means. RB claimed many times that ED wouldn't communicate with them, but lo and behold a settlement agreement was reached so apparently that wasn't true. Where did RB's postings get them other than contradictory information being in public (even if their statements were narrowly true at the time they were posted, it doesn't paint them in a very good light either).

What you're asking for is not reasonable when there are legal proceedings going on regarding this. If it was a hypothetical situation where all the ED F-18 devs quit, then yes, it would be reasonable for ED to be more forthcoming, because that would be a strictly internal matter that they have total control over. In this case on the other hand, while I'm sure ED has a pretty good idea what their plan is if ultimately this does go south (it would be business malpractice if they don't), they would be ill advised to share anything about their plans publicly because Razbam could use every bit of that as ammunition against ED legally ("oh they were telling their customers they had plans x, y and z and not to worry. Clearly they planned for this to fail and weren't negotiating in good faith"). The whole situation is very frustrating for customers, but that doesn't mean that ED isn't handling it "correctly" on most levels.

Not really odd. Saves customers freaking out when they look at the European or other sites and wonder why the base retail price in the US is sooo much higher.

That is actually correct as is. See here:

Realistically I would be shocked if it actually came in 3.0. I'm sure they're working on it, but my guess is it's at least 3-5 years out. Given the poor reaction to the textures on Afghanistan and Iraq, that may push it back if they decide to go a different way. Who knows.

Fair enough, maybe it was December that last was last update. I was more thinking they've had at least a couple of updates since Razbam have announced they weren't doing any more. Maps typically don't get the frequency of update that other modules do. They have stated before it's not an issue and the fact that they have updated it long after Razbam stopped doing any updates is a pretty good indicator.

Yes. IIRC more than one.

ANY mods have potential to interfere in weird ways with any part of DCS (it happens all the time that seemingly unrelated mods break things -- at one point a (non-naval) plane mod caused the supercarrier to not show up). Worth removing all the mods to see if that fixes the issue. And if just removing them doesn't work, I'd try a slow repair after they're removed to see if that fixes it.

Please post a (short as possible and preferably on Caucus map) track file. You can save a track file from the debriefing window when you close the mission. That will allow people to check that you're not missing a step somewhere or reproduce the bug. ED devs also have additional tools that allows them to use a trackfile for more deeper debugging.

That file no long does anything since the DTC was introduced. See this thread:

I would think the BYPASS mode is using more the JETTISON logic/mechanism rather than the actual ALE-47. I assume it's a backup system since CM's are pretty critical. So I can't imagine you'd ever use it to test function. And for same reason I doubt the ALE-47 is "on" when using it (again, if it's broken you probably don't want to power it but you may need CM's still. Also, with a DTC, it's pretty simple to set up whatever program you need for your flight so it really doesn't require doing anything. I also have no actual knowledge of it, but that's what my logic on it would be.

Try physically moving to your left, then looking over your right shoulder. Sounds like TIR is starting to lose signal. Might not be enough that it's obvious in the dots in the interface, but when a small movement starts moving the whole screen you notice it. My TIR LED's are on my right side, so I have my camera on the right side of my monitor (rather than middle) to give it a wider FOV toward the LED's).

Personal preference. If it's going to have a DTC it doesn't take much to press the button in the MUMI page (Hornet anyway) to load it. I'm not hardcore enough to do all the tests (ie voices) but that would feel wrong not to do the DTC.