Horns
-
Posts
1305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Horns
-
What's clear is that they never asked for the worst case scenario. You didn't tell them that was what you were providing. What was said between you and MiG21bisFishbedL subsequent to that really has nothing to do with anything. Still winds up being an answer that can be misleading, even if that wasn't your intention.
-
Please point out where happyhappy asked what the worst case scenario was? As far as I can see - and at the time I write this I see no indication they edited their response - they asked "What will happen to the F-15ES module if the legal dispute with Razbam does not go well?" You gave one possible outcome out of the several ways we know it could go, and didn't clarify that you were only giving them the worst case scenario. Fair enough to point out that's one way it could go, but at least make it clear if you're only giving a partial answer.
-
If you read the forum posts daily, you've seen these concerns addressed repeatedly.
-
My post wasn't meant as a criticism and I wouldn't necessarily read every post either, I just happened to remember those comments being in the thread and was about to post more or less the same thing as WarthogOSL so this seemed to follow forum convention better. Apologies for any offence, was not the intent but perhaps I could have thought longer before posting. Question mark was to show I was treating it your post as a single composite question. You'd asked if "The Pentagon Paradox" was the book Joe1978 was referring to, mentioned finding other books in your search and asked if it was worth reading for a Tomcat fan. I was trying to convey that each quote that followed answered part of your set of questions. I see now how that isn't terribly clear, I wanted to post an answer to your question but had limited time to do it, so this was quicker than double quoting your post and cutting down to the part answered by each question.
-
? = + I'll leave it to Joe to tell you if it's any good
-
I’ll respond to the suggestion that what I said applies “crazy high standards’ by detailing what I’m basing this on and people can judge for themselves whether my expectations are unreasonable or if there is some equivalence between this and the issues with ED products: The M2K at release, ie not in EA, lacked a true manual, had glaring inaccuracies, had a radar that was erratic at best and a flight model just as erratic. Eventually they did produce a manual, and subsequently the emergence of a new source of revenue in the AdA finally led to Razbam improving the other aspects. The AV-8 had almost twelve months in EA with very little development (some maintenance was done) and was moved out of EA with only half a manual and several missing features, this is still the case more than four years later. Razbam attempted to release the MiG-19 as release-level but were forced to release it as EA (as RZ himself complained) with much more done before it was passed out of EA. I’ll let owners of the module comment on how it is now. And so we come to the F-15E and the stunted development that has been well documented in this thread. If others feel this behavior treats customers with due respect then please go ahead and buy Razbam products now or in the future. IMPORTANT EDIT: I should have pointed out that the lack of a true and complete manual for the M2K and AV-8 was mentioned in the context of these features being promised in the shop description after these products left EA. There are in fact many modules that do not come with manuals, thanks to Rudel_chw for pointing that out.
-
Based on my experience buying Razbam modules, I would never buy another module made by them - even if it was DCS: F-22A. While I agree modules aren't major purchases, the free market works best when companies that don't treat consumers with respect don't get sales, and in my opinion that describes Razbam. Others obviously disagree, all opinions are valid.
-
Fault is mine, I expressed that poorly. While the impetus for the updates was the AdA's involvement, I acknowledge Razbam did the work.
-
Products can be in product sustainment phase rather than 'feature complete' when out of Early Access, and this is designated by the dev. None of the current Razbam modules are designated as such. A module can be 'feature complete' in terms of its product lifecycle and still receive new features, such as the M2K updates delivered when the AdA got involved. Mizzy is correct, all of these modules, save the F-15E, were designated as 'feature complete'. The promises to add to them don't change that.
-
There is one big incentive for ED and Razbam to cooperate to keep the mature modules in DCS: income. One possible outcome if ED and Razbam decide to cease their relationship is that ED could offer to update Razbam's modules to keep them compatible with future updates. ED's motivation to do this, besides the goodwill argument, is that they would continue to get a share of the revenue from future sales of these modules, so if the income was likely to be greater than the cost of maintenance it makes cold, dollars-and-cents sense before even considering the possible second-order effects from losing modules. Razbam would continue to reap the remainder of the revenue from these sales, and if they were relieved of the cost of maintenance, that would be revenue with zero outlay. In other words, it's easy to see a future where those modules stay up-to-date, even if Razbam cease to have anything to do with DCS. It is possible that RZ would be vindictive enough to forego this revenue just to cause problems for ED, and if I was him, right now I'd be signaling that I'm willing to do exactly that to maximize my leverage. I could even paint a change in position as a win, saying ED were desperate to avoid losing modules, so they made an offer too good to refuse. My point is that IMO, however likely someone rates a split between Razbam and ED, business sense would suggest that losing the mature modules is significantly less likely. Please note that the scenarios mentioned in this post are purely hypothetical and the products of a possibly-deranged mind (ie mine).
-
F-14B(?) Upgrade as featured in DCS 2025 video
Horns replied to VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Personally, I feel quite different. I'd prefer to stick with "aircraft we can recreate to our usual high degree" rather than "best we can do with what we have", and I'd buy accordingly. That's a choice for each individual though, of course. -
We have a wishlist thread for a reason: so that people don't do what you did here and use a razor thin excuse to turn other threads into wishlist threads. It's bad manners because it leaves others with the choice of either not responding to what you say or dragging the thread OT. Please post OT comments like your wishlist in the correct place in future. Or just do a search and comment, since I'm pretty sure each and every one of those aircraft on your list has already appeared in a wish list thread.
-
According to the OP, the dispute currently has nothing to do with the non-completion of the F-15E. As far as we know, to this point ED *has not* claimed that Razbam have breached contract by not continuing to work on the mudhen up until this point, and Razbam have repeatedly stated they are prepared to resume work. If you have an official statement from either party that says otherwise, please link it, otherwise let's not confuse the timeline: Unless something has changed, Razbam ceasing to update their modules was a response to the dispute, not the subject of it. As always, take official comments over mine.
-
I know these are two separate responses that just happen to fall within the same post, but I would love to see the look on some poor SOB's face if the pronouncement in his divorce case was that he had to return to the marriage until he could provide his partner with a decent husband
-
If you're going to post in Russian, post in the Russian forum.
- 7263 replies
-
- 10
-
-
-
ED haven't said they can't comment, but that they won't comment. It doesn't take any great feat of logical extension to realize that they won't comment on why they won't comment. The closest thing to a letter from the legal team on why the situation is like this (from ED's perspective) we're going to get is the official ED comment in the OP.
-
So you think NG and RZ might settle this if we start spamming their socials, and you have a go at @Mizzy for a lack of insight?
-
F-14B(?) Upgrade as featured in DCS 2025 video
Horns replied to VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Maybe we should release a Ukraine map, complete with biolab -
Totally agree thrust vectoring 'isn't magic', and it's not going to let an unskilled and/or inexperienced pilot beat a good one, regardless of who's flying what. When I mentioned thrust vectoring I was just trying to use that as one example of why I believe the maneuverability advantage between the two aircraft would have to go to the Raptor - not that that would gift the win to the Raptor pilot regardless. Reading back I may not have made that point clearly, it did look a bit like I was saying "F-22 cos thrust vectoring". I also agree that the advantage that 5th gen capabilities confer is in BVR - once the fighters are at guns range they are well within burn-through so stealth wouldn't be a factor at that point. While one can argue the F-35's RCS (from the right aspect) and DASS give it an advantage over many 4th gen fighters in BVR, it's difficult to say being fifth-gen does anything to help it at gunzo range. Last and perhaps most importantly, I agree that dogfight results have less to do with comparative aircraft advantages than the pilots. Who's fighting who's fight will matter a lot more than a lot of high-end capabilities in-close.
-
Thanks for posting that. So six wins for the Raptor, one for the Rafale and five draws. To me that says advantage Raptor, but as mentioned, nothing's unbeatable, dogfights only mean so much and, as Dragon 1-1 pointed out we don't know how the pilots compared or any of the other variables. Still, I wasn't aware of that exercise so thanks for expanding my knowledge, much appreciated Edit: Should have added something explicit saying that I agree 100% with what you said in your previous post that the F-22 is not invincible, but my point was that the EF and Rafale are not 'unrivaled' as fighters of today as you'd suggested previously. They are very good aircraft nonetheless.
-
I'll take your word re these guns kills - I don't doubt you, but is there an article or video you can link? If not no problem and I don't suggest it diminishes your point either way, I'm just curious. As far as maneuverability goes, I'd have to see something very compelling to convince me a Rafale could even approach the F-22's maneuverability, especially given the effect of thrust vectoring. However, even if we take these training sorties as representative, at the absolute most that might demonstrate the Rafale was better if a fight got to guns range, not that it's a better fighter overall, to say nothing of the relative detection ranges given the F-22's all-aspect stealth. Apologies to the EF which hasn't even been considered here. All that said, I'm not adding anything to back up my position here so I'm happy to concede the discussion. We can agree nothing is unbeatable, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on which of these aircraft come out on top. Perhaps we can agree that it will be fun to get all kinds of kills on Fat Amy in our Eurofighters in a couple years?
-
An educated guess occurs when one is using some known information to extrapolate. All you wrote is conjecture/BS, in your words.. Nothing educated about that, and you not knowing the difference speaks volumes. Maybe you should try looking up what terms mean before using them in sentences. As for MAC, if your point had been that concepts for products can change before release then maybe MAC would have supported your point. Your point was that about 30% of modules don’t get released, and you tried to support that with a reference to a set of modules that released. If you don’t see how that doesn’t work you have bigger problems than I thought.
-
DCS: Flaming Cliffs 2024 - granted, they changed the name, but it did indeed release
-
A person I knew who was studying documentaries once said you can safely turn off any given documentary if it says anything like "we don't have any evidence, but if we did it would probably say...". Unless you have hard numbers, which I think you concede in your last sentence you don't, you have no foundation for anything you've said there.
-
If you're talking about DCS aircraft I might agree, but if we're talking IRL I think perhaps you are forgetting the F-22. I'm impressed with the EF and to some extent the Rafale, but I don't think either of those can compete with a Raptor, even with the EF having the Meteor... but each to their own I guess