some1

Even that seems a bit of a stretch. Contracts can be amended if both parties agree. Publishing rules for new products can be changed. Steam and other webstores change the publishing requirements for developers all the time, doesn't matter how long your product was in development, or when you've signed up the first project on Steam. You work by the current rules, not the ones that existed 20 years ago, just because you've made your first game when Half-Life 2 was a new thing. If ED decided an Escrow was now a requirement to sell a new aircraft in their store, that would be it. Yet, it was not done in this case, and seemingly noone thought about that possibility before they took an open action against Razbam. Actually, when this thing first blew up more than a year ago, Chizh and other devs on the Russian forum were pretty firm in their statements that they're just a webstore for 3rd parties, not responsible if the module is completed or not, and have no means of picking up the development after 3rd party is not able to do so. Interesting to see how the narration changes over time, and we're now at "we'd like to continue but Razbam doesn't want to give us the codes". So a serious question. Which 3rd party modules are actually protected from something like that happening again? Corsair - that thing was in development for a very long time, signed ages ago. Kiowa - Polychop has been around since the early days. Tomcat? Your guess is as good as mine. All confidential information of course, at least until another 3rd party goes belly up. At this point I doubt even ED knows themselves. And if they know, it's not the answer the community would like to hear.

How convenient. And who do you think made that stuff confidential in the first place? Ultimately ED controls which information they decide to share with the public.

Makes you wonder what other important bits of information ED leaves out of their press announcements.

No, thanks. Two years ago I'd have probably bought it just to support the developers, but now after Razbam debacle I'm much less enthusiastic about spending money on DCS.

It took Razbam more than 10 years to make those 4 airplanes. Sure, you could argue than a more focused and competent developer, already familiar with DCS, could make them a bit faster, but who's available? ED barely makes one aircraft a year, more like 1,5 years to early access. Heatblur takes even longer. Hope we'll all live long enough to actually see those "replacements".

Very true. From an outsider's perspective is seems that for both companies the best outcome would be to continue working together, sell more products, keep customers happy. Yet here we are. Razbam needs to go find other business venues, while ED is only starting to feel the brunt of customer dissatisfaction. Just imagine what will happen when they'll actually have to remove those modules from the game going forward. What that initially presented itself as gross miscommunication between the two parties, has spiralled to a point when the best outcome we can realistically hope for is that one company leaves DCS ecosystem and ED takes over barely maintaining the existing modules? Something that Chizh and other ED developers on the Russian side of the forum initially dismissed? Yay. Well done ED & Razbam, you've killed most of my "passion and support" for the game. Gone are the days of me buying more modules just to support DCS as a whole. Ah well, more time and money left to spend on other things.

Yes, haven't played dcs recently, but that was still bugged a few months ago. Come on guys, with stronger ffb hardware this becomes a real safety hazard.

It's even simpler than that. Don't touch Steam, just copy the folder from old drive to the new one, turn off PC, replace drives, turn on PC. Last but not least check if Windows assigned the same drive letter to the new drive as was used by the old drive, if not, correct that in Disk Management. That's all. No need to fiddle with 3rd party cloning or partitioning software.

You can order from amazon.com with shipping to eu for a few extra bucks.

That's more of an opportunity cost than straight money loss. Maybe those users won't pay money for the next product, maybe they spend credit on something they would not purchase otherwise.

Only for the Eagle. And it does not cost them anything to do so (other than support time), they already have that money. If anything, it frees the money that was put aside for Razbam, to be used by ED freely.

There was some talk about it a long time ago, but either that never materialized or Razbam was exempt. It's all hush hush NDA so as customers we know very little about these things. ED barely has the manpower to maintain their own modules, without the burden of handling 3rd party code.

Why would they, and where? Razbam probably does not even have the resources to sue a Swiss company across from another continent. ED has little incentive to do so, they already have all the cards, cashing in all the money from Razbam sales for over a year. They can prolong the current situation indefinitely. The only thing ED is loosing is a bit of consumer trust and support. Not a big deal when there is little competition on the market.

1. ED does not have the Razbam code. 2. Nothing really prevents VEAO situation from repeating again. Except maybe this time ED will be more careful not to introduce game breaking changes that would render older modules non-functional. I think the arrival of Vulkan rendering will be a big test, in the past such major changes to DCS rendering pipeline usually broke something in every module and required developers to scramble and make fixes.

Not only bombs but also 530 missiles are fired in a salvo now.

Compared to other DCS aircraft from ED, the dynamic glass reflections on instruments are much too strong. Also, the effect is using a low resolution map of rear headrest area to create "reflections", which gets very jarring once you start moving the head around the cockpit. Default view: Shifted view: The "reflected" area. For reference, here's how this effect looks in ED P-47 and Mi-24 aircraft parked in the same spot. Note the reflection is maybe half as strong (or less), and more blurred, avoiding the very jagged lines we have in F-5.

Licensing is one of the issues. You can't just slap the data scraped from Google maps services into your software for free.

Good idea, added.

Dcs shouldn't have issues with two identical devices as it is, it handles them fine. The only issue may be that it changes the order in which controllers are shown in the menus, so it may not be obvious which is which, but the mappings stay in place once done.

Yep, it looks like VOR/DME issues have been fixed at some point in the last few years since I made that post. I checked a VOR/DME station on PG map and DME works there using TACAN radios. So if you have a VOR/DME on a map, you should be able to receive the distance on a Tacan radio if you dial the corresponding channel. Unfortunately a standalone DME like Paphos (108.90) here on Syria map does not seem to work. And we still don't have an ILS/DME navaid type defined in the sim, so most real world approaches can't be flown. Looks like here the map developer attempted to recreate ILS/DME setup by manually placing a DME near the runway threshold, on the same frequency as the Localizer. Except it's only on a single airport, and it doesn't work anyway.

In case you experience very long DCS loading times, exclude DCS folder from antivirus scan. That often helps.

It is not messy in real life. All the existing navaids with their locations and frequencies are available online for free from the respective AIPs. For example here's Norway (enroute are in part 2 ENR 4, landing navaids are in part 3 of the document, separate for each airport). https://ais.avinor.no/no/AIP/View/136/2025-01-23-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html Obtaining historical data is more difficult, but since the maps in DCS represent modern times, this is not a big problem. The problem is that DCS developers do not know, or do not care about the issue.

I'd say the biggest chasm is created by the amount of things we do not know about the current situation. Do you guys really know the nature of that alleged contractual breach, the implications it caused, amount of lost income etc? Because you both sound like it was something that almost brought down DCS, outright stealing and doing intentional hostile actions for monetary gain that required (and still requires) the most drastic actions possible. So I hope you have good sources of that allegations, not just pulling all this from thin air and that single vague sentence from Mr Nick Grey announcement. And if not? That is my main question.

Personally, I don't mind having this aircraft added to the sim. It's a very interesting platform that should be quite fun to play in DCS, even if parts of it will be made up. And it's probably the the only way we're getting one for DCS in this decade, or the next. It should sell well and bring good money for ED, even if some hardcore simmers would skip the purchase, and server owners that care for balance will disable it. Maybe it won't even be such a power beast in DCS, given that it probably won't have full sensors integration with other platforms like in real life. Also a lot of combat in DCS focuses on dogfighting, where fat Amy struggles anyway. One problem I see is that DCS currently doesn't really have much of modern AI opponent units. No advanced versions of Sukhois and Migs, no modern Chinese aircraft, no 5th gen aircraft at all. No advanced SAM systems. Even the blufor side is lacking. And the pace at which ED adds new aircraft AI models (or updates the existing ones from the previous century) doesn't inspire much optimism. So quite possibly it will be another cockpit simulator without any battlefield environment to match its timeframe.

Seems to me that these "heavy handed actions" (as Nightdare put it) on ED side has also caused a lot of damage to DCS brand. So what's next, is ED going to sue themselves, or just withhold payments to some of their employees? Yeah, but why ED is withholding even more money? Do you think RB is still breaching DCS IP as we speak, or is that a means of coercion so that Razbam would bow down and accept whatever "fine" ED imposes on them without costly legal battle? The former seems unlikely, at least to me, while the latter doesn't sound very... ethical.