bfr

You'd potentially have no licence servers though if they went under. So it'd be dead to everyone in a week or whatever the maximum offline period is.

Would you be happier with a base platform that was constrained by never ever being able to cause a breaking change to a now unmaintained third party module? No one broke your car, its more the case that no one is willing to maintain the RB modules currently to keep step with the underlying DCS platform.

There is always an element of risk in such purchases. For example I had a couple of mid-priced add-ons for FS9 back in the day and the publisher for those (Phoenix) went under and their products were lost to me the moment I had to reinstall them (the validation servers for the installers went with them). If DCS themselves went under we'd also all be screwed pretty quickly. Which isn't entirely beyond reason as its a relatively niche product at the end of the day and everyone seems to live somewhat hand to mouth.

From a consumer's POV then precisely nothing changed. No comms that work would be resuming. No updates to modules. Not even them going back on sale in their current state. Bear in mind that even if RB intended to start work again at the earliest opportunity then they would have to get people back on board and the lead time (assuming their previous devs even wanted to come back) for that could be above and beyond that six month period.

It didn't hold up sufficiently long for anything remotely like normal business to resume.

If you believe what you read then there was briefly some agreement that then rapidly fell apart. And you also have to remember that an awful lot of RB's team were contractors who are now off doing other things.

And before all of that you need someone to be willing to hand over the IP, be that under some kind of contractual obligation or by sale. Obviously neither of those things have happened, or at least not yet. And the contractual obligation part can be complex. I've been involved in a software project that was subject to an escrow agreement and the terms by which the other party got access to the source/IP was very specific i.e. if we as the vendor ceased trading during our contracted period and definitely not if we just fell out a bit. So if we assume that either an escrow was never set up with RB or that one was but the circumstances mean the trigger criteria hasn't been met then the only way someone is going to get their hands on the source is to pay whatever RB agree to.

And one that seems to be a common one in threads like this. Firstly it would seem unlikely the RB/DCS relationship is truly gone that the IP for the modules will just be handed over to someone. Whether the code was given away or bought from RB, it is still a business decision for DCS or one of the external developers whether to take it on or not. Mostly will they ever make more back in sales than it costs them in reallocated/acquired resource to take a module on or not?

Not really. The Harrier is the oldest of them (and only the original A-10 is older in terms of full fidelity fixed wing DCS modules) but also had a significant amount of work done on it a few years back. Then comes the Mirage 2000, which again had quite a big rehash after a few years if memory serves. And the F-15E is no age at all and seemingly a solid foundation if someone did want to take it on and try and finish it.

FWIW I was considering picking up the Mirage at the next sale (as it was usually a 50% reduction) right at the same time a couple of years back that Razbam stuff started not appearing in sales (which with hindsight was the first sign all was not well).

Who is it to say they would be interested in taking it on anyway?

I'm sort of in the same boat as an owner of the Strike Eagle and the Harrier. I'm kind of OK regarding the Harrier as I've had it since launch so have had about 7 years use out of it. I'd kind of like to see credit or similar for the Strike Eagle though as it hit the buffers so early in its lifespan.

Yeah there were a lot of things teased by RB over the years that never really went anywhere. Like I said, originally i'm pretty sure what ended up as the AV8B was meant to be an FRS1 and looking at that then attempts to derive an FRS1 from the AV8B didn't go anywhere either. You can already get credit back from DCS if you bought the F-15E from them (Steam purchases are another matter). I suppose if a hypothetical in-house F-15E ever came into being then DCS MIGHT offer a discount to any RB F-15E owners who never asked for a refund. It'd be a tougher sell though if a different third-party did a remake to then expect them to sell a number of units at a very significant discount.

If they're not modelled then they're not modelled and it becomes another thing that needs doing. And if I remember right they already said they won't feature in the full fidelity F-15C as very few units ever used them on C models in real life.

Contrary to what you said earlier, the F-15C (which is itself not finished in FF form) isn't exactly the same radar as the F-15E and even if it were then they'd still have modes to model that the F-15C won't have as it doesn't need them. Then add integrating all the A-G weapons and other SE-specific avionics, adding the back seat plus tweaking the flight model for the CFTs and I doubt its as quick a job as you say to move from one to the other.

I don't think that was the case. The Harrier would've benefitted from being the only full fidelity fast jet until the Hornet got released. The Mirage 2K was well thought of (especially once some of it got reworked) and i'm pretty sure the F15E sold in decent numbers before things went sour.

The AV8B had already been released in late 2017 I think, although I think mods were attempted for both marks of Sea Harrier based on the AV8B. From memory Razbam wanted to originally do a Falklands era Harrier, which would've been the FRS1.

Sea Harrier FRS1 I think, as getting the docs for the Blue Fox radar was a major problem. And yes, the AV8B has a fair bit of overlap with later RAF variants.

I think RB originally meant to do a British Harrier version (probably the Sea Harrier) but ran into a wall regarding documentation of some areas, hence the pivot to the AV-8B.

It'd obviously be the version that is easiest to get accurate data on.

Whilst there isn't any reason that DCS on Windows 10 would just stop working, its difficult to see why they'd be too bothered about continuing to support a platform once it is itself unsupported if something did come out of left field.

The 23 was supposedly happening, but under Razbam so now its not happening. The Mig 25 I suspect would be a tough pick given its very niche and I doubt it'd sell or sit within the game particularly well. Su-17 might've been a good call for someone to do now we have CWG.

I don't think they've yet committed to doing any on the Iranian side of the border but I agree that it'd be a massive missed opportunity if at least some don't ever happen. They had however committed to adding some Kuwaiti bases.

The Iraq map is a lot like this in the south where the buildings are yet to be done but the roadways and so on are clearly already there waiting.

If i'm not mistaken wasn't what ended up as the current Harrier module originally meant to be a Sea Harrier FRS1 but bizarrely too much was still deemed to be classified (mostly the radar) and they then pivoted to the USMC variant?