Neil Gardner
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Neil Gardner
-
-
I just read a statement thar appeared on Facebook. Didn’t know whether it was official or not, or contemporary. I have a strong dislike for Facebook, don’t go on there a great deal and consequently saw a notice that seemed official saying that talks had broken down and that was that, but then lost it and can’t find it anymore, As I day, I’ve no idea whether it is worth taking seriously, wondered if anyone can through any light on it.
-
Forgive me, but is there not a margin of error in real life? I often miss but frequently have to put that down to my somewhat dismal flying and aiming at tge same time. I remember at the time of the first gulf war we were told that American bombers could post a bomb through a letter box, but that wasn’t entirely true.
On 6/24/2025 at 3:37 AM, ruxtmp said:I can confirm that the AV-8B has issues with CCIP and CCRP for all unguided bombs. They all fall short of pipper impact point shown on HUD. Cluster bombs are by far the worst and easily drop 300 meters or more short of the impact point. Cluster bombs have been useless since the module was released unless you can mentally aim out the distance or set an offset point the right amount ahead of the target. Iron bombs are better, especially if dropped at lower altitudes (ie less than 3000 feet.) I believe this issue was already acknowledged by ED that it can only be fixed by the module maker. If that is still true than this is never getting fixed, thus neutering a ground attack module that is not even the F-15E.
-
I think I largely agree you there. I was a little confused by the notion that ED does not have the code for the four modules provided by RB.. I thought the code all came from ED’s SDK, which you have to use in order to supply models for DCS. Of course what they do not have ownership of is the work already done so far, but I thought I remembered - bear in mind that this is many years ago so it could just be an old codgers ghost memory - but in the discussions after the Hawk it was decided to include a contractual stipulation that if a developer pulls our, ED have first refusal on the modules. Again, it could be false memory syndrome, like when I thought Wales had a world class rugby union team - now it is but a hazy dream..
11 hours ago, PD919 said:I obviously have no idea what will happen, but pure speculation tells me that ED has a greater incentive to keep the F-15E alive much more than the Hawk. The Strike Eagle is up there with the Hornet, Tomcat, and Viper when it comes to popularity. It's one of the most iconic planes of all time.
I personally think that the egos at be on both sides should just drop whatever the situation is. You can look somewhere else for the leaked details about what happened. Even if ED is in the right, and I think they have a much stronger legal case than RB, ED should give RB the opportunity to sell their source code for all of their modules directly to them or a third party. RB could then pay their devs and then RB can go develop somewhere else. I just think there are burned bridges at this point.
I see the F-15E being worked on in the somewhat near future, within the next five or so years, but I don't think RB will be the company working on it.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:
Hi Neil,
until the dispute is resolved no one knows for sure. So we just have to wait and see, the modules are working in their current state and have been for over a year in DCS since RAZBAM paused development, so continue to enjoy them. We all hope for a good out come.
best regards
Scott / bignewy
Thank you.
-
I wonder why that is ? I would not think it would be injurious to anyone’s case to stare one way or another. It is thr only concern I personally have about the whole dispute.
-
I just have one question really. Can anyone tell me definitively and with evidence that if RB departs then their modules will or will not be supported. What I mean by ‘supported’ is not just made compatible for a short period, but maintained and developed into the foreseeable future. . People have already made reference to the Hawk which was exactly not the way I think most of us will want things to go. Can I ask, please, if it might be possible that someone from the company supply a firm unequivocal response to that question. I’m sorry if that question has already been answered but I’ve not quite found it.
Thank you.
Neil
-
Hello all,
Those of us that have been following the development of this wonderful simulator from the beginning will remember that once there was a company called VEO? (Sorry, can’t quite remember), and they developed a Hawk for DCS. It was an excellent model though it needed a bit of update work done and after a while it fell behind. Unfortunately the company pulled out of the project, I believe it was financial issues, and the way things were then DCS could not take the project over. I would like to make a plea for someone to develop this aircraft again. It is, for we Brits, something of an iconic machine, being that aircraft that has now trained several generations of RAF and FAA fighter pilots, and has been the aircraft of choice for the superb Red arrows, some of whom actually had a go of the virtual aeroplane and enjoyed it a great deal, commenting on its accuracy, and even complementing the sim pilots because in many ways it’s harder to fly the sim perfectly than it is to fly the real thing - I’m sure that is not the case but it was nice of them to say - if we make a bad mistake all we have to do is cuss and go into the living room to grumpily watch some rubbish TV; if they make a mistake people can die. Anyway, I again would like to make the plea that someone take a hold of a project to build the Hawk for DCS. The Just Flight model, just updated for FS2024, is beautiful but of course like all the FS military aircraft it is very limited in its ability to render weapons. So, please, please, please, let’s hear it for the Hawk all you clever people that know how to build these things, and produce a new one for we addicts..
Thanks all.
Neil.
-
Feeling a bit foolish now. Thanks for that, you were right
-
On 8/8/2024 at 8:21 AM, Esac_mirmidon said:
Trying to be at the very least "kind" with developers, having just a simple gesture of good will until negotiations are fulfilled do no harm
Not far ago RB developers and ED were working to make DCS better for us, sharing the same "passion and support".
In the end is all about kind, respect, passion and love for simulators.
Its hard to find this days something like that when ED takes away from developers even the option to fly modules they have created for all of us.
Just imagine the situation, the feelings when beeing a developer and running DCS just to fly your own creations and this is taked away.
Please, whoever is in charge on ED about this decisions, PLEASE, just for a second, think about each other as human beeings, with feelings, and the same passion about DCS.
Please set your heart frequency on the same Page and resolve this dispute as former fellows you were not so long ago.
Please.
Absolutely.
-
2
-
-
Hi
Thanks for replying. What do you mean by 'take them out of the start position;? Its certainly in cold and dark that I get the problem. If I am already flying, say in instant action, then they work because already out of C and D. But when in C and D, well nothing seems to shift them anymore.
-
I will just say that I now see where RafaPolit’s concerns come from, and to be fair he has significant justification for them.
-
3 minutes ago, RafaPolit said:
So, it doesn't help the community's trust in ED that there are previous occurrences of payment being withheld from other developers. And that is not speculation. The fact that it hasn't been made official by ED does not make it speculation, and I believe this is a key difference in how the treatment of information should work. One thing is to say: "I'm sure ED will not be able to present proof in court"... yeah, I'd be speculating. On the other hand, the lack of an official acknowledgment about previous decisions (for whatever reasons) to withhold payment does not make certain truths speculations.
Excuse me asking, but how do you known that ED has withheld payment from other developers? I must confess I was nit aware of this because I have no first hand experience of ED’s business practices, but tha5 doesn’t make you wrong. I am ignorant of many things.Do you mind sharing your source? Thank you.
-
I am a vicar and so you might have known I would say this, but I echo the sentiment , ‘be nice to one another’. It’s a small ask but it facilitates much better discussion. Also, if you don’t know what people are thinking or planning to do, and for the most part you don’t, then always give them the benefit of the doubt. Imagine that the best of motives are in operation not the worst, be charitable and slow to attribute nefarious intentions to anyone. Most people only try their best, even if often they get it wrong, like I do. I suppose knowing what a twat I am makes me an advocate this disposition because if I was ever subject to critical scrutiny I wouldn’t come out too well. I echo a second sentiment, we are all just wanting to fly digital models of cool places. Well, A-men to that, and I would hope sensible self interest prevails, each team are doing what they must, looking to protect jobs and fair distribution of profit. Brilliant, I hope they find that the truth of it is usually that the good of one party lies in the good of the other and that this disagreement can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
-
1
-
-
On 8/2/2024 at 12:58 AM, Horns said:
A quick search of the current thread for posts containing “committed” and “eagle”, and a separate search for “committed” and either “F-15” or “F-15E” didn’t turn up anything that resembled that. There was a post from one of the mods saying they were “committed to solving the problems”, speaking of the dispute with Razbam generally. Maybe the comment you describe was said before one of the culls or in the older thread, or the same meaning was conveyed in different words, but everything I remember reading from the mods was very careful to be non-committal about the future development of the F-15E that, personally, I’d need to see the post to think otherwise. Same would also go for any commitment to do anything beyond keeping any other Razbam model functioning as it currently is.
It is one of those situations where you would swear that you had seen it before but cant remember where.
Really? Where did you see that?
-
Hello
I have seen that others have had trouble with power lever glitches, but this is a little different. I cannot move my power levers at all. I had them bound to axes levers on the Honeycomb bravo and that used to work. I have switched to other axes and buttons but nothing works.
Thanks.
Neil
-
Yes, I think you’re right about the Eagle, there is a fair way to go, but my understanding of comments made so far about commitment to models by 3rd parties include all of the forms of changes and upgrades that you have mentioned. They have said they are committed to the Eagle no matter what, I think that this was what was said, it is somewhere in this thread Inthink. Well, what else can that mean?
-
3 hours ago, wombat778 said:
Thank Bignewy. While you are here and since there seems to be a lot of confusion on the topic — can you clarify ED’s position on long-term module support?
Is ED (and/or the applicable third party) obligated to keep all modules users buy fully functional with new DCS versions forever? I know that’s certainly your goal — and you have done an excellent job so far, Hawk aside — but there’s a big difference between a goal and a guarantee. Or should we expect that it’s possible that old modules that aren’t under active development may one day (say, 5 or 10 years in the future) be declared EOL and left unsupported?
Apologies if this question is OT — though I think it’s pretty relevant to what we can expect for our older Razbam modules.
Again I say,' useful question'. If the answer is that there is intention by EA to service any that are no longer serviced or updated by their original developers, then at a stroke all the worry about the Eagle should go away.
-
Now that is a useful question.
1 hour ago, wombat778 said:Thank Bignewy. While you are here and since there seems to be a lot of confusion on the topic — can you clarify ED’s position on long-term module support?
Is ED (and/or the applicable third party) obligated to keep all modules users buy fully functional with new DCS versions forever? I know that’s certainly your goal — and you have done an excellent job so far, Hawk aside — but there’s a big difference between a goal and a guarantee. Or should we expect that it’s possible that old modules that aren’t under active development may one day (say, 5 or 10 years in the future) be declared EOL and left unsupported?
Apologies if this question is OT — though I think it’s pretty relevant to what we can expect for our older Razbam modules.
Just now, Neil Gardner said:Now that is a useful question.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, machete said:
I'm with you. My confidence in ED is in an all time low, and I've been here for a long time.
Guys, don't worry. Its ok, it doesn't mean anything. Or rather, it might, but its unlikely. Don't stress about it. The world is going to s**t at the moment and there are many more important things to fret about.
-
3
-
-
Dear all
I'm sympathetic to those who are worried for your model investments because of this difficulty. But being nearly 60 I've experienced a fair bit of life and in business there are numerous difficulties with organisations rubbing up against each other and often solicitors are involved. The great majority of these go on without anyone outside those disputing knowing anything about it. They are resolved without most even knowing that it took place. These are not crises. We, the consumers, have been brought into this but that is highly unusual. As for the models, I think they are great as is. I've been simming since FS2000, the flight simulation version of the Neolithic age, and the huge leap forwards since then is incredible. Back then many models were released as is and received very development thereafter. The concept of a continual development is relatively new. And remember that these models are models, they are not absolutely representative of the real thing; they never are. Of course you have to do what you think best, but I really don't think you need to sell your model F15. even if it is doing anything weird at the moment{and I have to say that this is not the case for me}. EA seem to be up for fixing problems and it is unlikely that they have not the ken to suss how it is coded and to interfere if necessary. The fact that they are already doing that would indicate that the problem of the Hawk has been learnt and there is no legal or technical obstacle to do so. Just my own little contribution to the best. Blessings to all.
-
4
-
-
May I just ask: is it still the case that there is still the same hope of a positive outcome to this dispute, as was expressed from the first when this became public? Not asking for details obviously, but just whether the hope and expectation of it all is a positive outcome?
Thanks.
Neil.
-
Now you’ve really depressed me.
16 hours ago, Horns said:Look on the bright side: If you want a distraction from the Razbam drama you can always focus on the election
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 6/11/2024 at 7:51 PM, freehand said:
Off topic: I will be going to RAF Lakenheath this week or next I am 37 ish miles away.
I'm in sunny Wisbech - you?
-
Yeah, I can understand that. I was so excited when I knew tge F15E was coming, I am just up the road from RAF Lakenheath which is an American air base equipped with - yes, you guessed it, F15E’s. I find it ti be a beautiful aircraft, alongside., for me anyway, the F16, and I can understand tge weight of disappointment. My guess, however, is that this will have to be resolved quickly as it is costing both sides allot of money.
1 hour ago, falcon_120 said:Yeah, i agree that calm is always the best approach.
I guess people, fail to do mainly because the F15e is many people’s favorite plane; or a top 3 at least, its have been waited for so so long, and its been done so well, that the sole thought of it dieing so young and prematurely is a harsh one
And i have to say i cannot really blame at anyone feeling so passionate about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
1
-
ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion
in RAZBAM
Posted
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be adversarial but no commercial organisation knows what’s coming around the corner. They don’t exist for you and I, they exist to compete in a market for money, one that may or may not grace them with its favour. Tomorrow the proverbial might hit the fan and it could be 2007 or 1923 again and then our little worries about whether or not there will be a little digital model of an F15 working in a months time will have become a little besides the point. To state the obvious we really do, sometimes, need to remind ourselves that anyone in one of the world’s numerous war zones at the moment may take quite a dim view of the worries thar exercise you and I.
So, the answer is count as a plus what you have today and enjoy it whilst you have it because tomorrow you, me and everything else might have been reduced to a load of dust in a fall out cloud - not be too over dramatic am I?