waiting for resolution RAZBAM Situation Post Archive (will be deleted)

[Ignition]

5 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

This thread's been going on for a month... Patience is a virtue! Stay strong guys!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Plus 3 months without module updates.

[Gizmo03]

vor 55 Minuten schrieb Ignition:

Plus 3 months without module updates.

Would be still better than no Harrier, F-15E, M2K or MiG-19 anymore at all. I could accept that.

[Ignition]

2 hours ago, Gizmo03 said:

Would be still better than no Harrier, F-15E, M2K or MiG-19 anymore at all. I could accept that.

time will tell

[Bigity]

Come onnnn

[Annelid]

Play those old Razbam modules.  They might be broken in the future.

[RaisedByWolves]

49 minutes ago, Annelid said:

Play those old Razbam modules.  They might be broken in the future.

 

Reading the this forum, they pretty much are. Then again, so much is everything else in this video game…..to a point.

[JB3DG]

I see a lot of comments about settling matters in court. Part of the problem in this case with trying to go that route is Razbam is based in Ecuador (I could be incorrect on this one), while ED is registered in the EU. Trying to get such matters settled internationally is not a simple operation. How is Razbam, a small company, supposed to get representation in the EU? And how is ED supposed to get representation in Ecuador? Is there even an international court that has the necessary jurisdiction to settle this? Is the financial figure big enough to have a sufficient return after legal fees? 

[Jayhawk1971]

vor 23 Minuten schrieb JB3DG:

I see a lot of comments about settling matters in court. Part of the problem in this case with trying to go that route is Razbam is based in Ecuador (I could be incorrect on this one), while ED is registered in the EU. Trying to get such matters settled internationally is not a simple operation. How is Razbam, a small company, supposed to get representation in the EU? And how is ED supposed to get representation in Ecuador? Is there even an international court that has the necessary jurisdiction to settle this? Is the financial figure big enough to have a sufficient return after legal fees? 

Switzerland is not in the EU. It is surrounded by the EU, though. 

[Fisu_MAD]

Let's get rid of the bad taste in our mouths with the F-4. I hope that ED can continue the development of the F-15E, a shame that it is developed by RB, this module does not deserve it.

[icemaker]

Personally i hope that HEATBLUR take the lead for the F-15E!

[Flia]

1 hour ago, Fisu_MAD said:

Let's get rid of the bad taste in our mouths with the F-4. I hope that ED can continue the development of the F-15E, a shame that it is developed by RB, this module does not deserve it.

Yes i agree. The F-15 deserves better developers. Those who will develop it and improve it.

[AndyJWest]

11 minutes ago, icemaker said:

Personally i hope that HEATBLUR take the lead for the F-15E!

That would seem unlikely. I suspect ED would have to pay Heatblur a great deal of money for them to justify diverting resources from their own profitable projects. Even with full access to the source code, picking up on such a complex project would be a daunting task. Why take the risk of getting involved in a potential time-sink? They have plenty of work already...

[Njinsa]

3 hours ago, Flia said:

Yes i agree. The F-15 deserves better developers. Those who will develop it and improve it.

How many hours did you get in F-15E since it's in EA ?

I'm just wondering what, except general flame against RB in this topic, is fueling against a still working module.

 

After reading (tracking) all this thread, I suspect many posters actually:

- do not own F-15E module

- own but even before dispute went live, decided it was a wrong decision and thus don't play, likely would pull a refund if feasible

- own, play but are generally not happy with module performance, their own mastering or blame RB for not portraying a 'real deal'

Edited May 14, 2024 by Njinsa
Provide more input for initial question

[nessuno0505]

It's not just the F-15E: RB has got a half-cooked mig-19 declared out of early access, a less than half cooked av-8b (it lacks even a manual) declared out of early access, maybe their only acceptable module being the m2000c, but it tooks years to refine. All this F-15 situation is nothing more than what could evidently be expected given the "illustrious" precedents. DCS environment is all but bugs free and finished, but here we are at the sum of everything that should not be, the apotheosis of a certain "savoir faire" that really makes the gonads fall from their usual anatomical seat. And this is just the cherry on the cake. A very indigestible cake...

Edited May 14, 2024 by nessuno0505

[XCNuse]

47 minutes ago, Njinsa said:

I'm just wondering what, except general flame against RB in this topic, is fueling against a still working module.

My group has had to officially stop using the module because of the bugs specifically.

They only want to use it in multicrew; and it likes to spontaneously combust. (yes I realize this only happens in multicrew, but the point remains).

 

I would call that "not working."

[Njinsa]

2 hours ago, nessuno0505 said:

It's not just the F-15E: RB has got a half-cooked mig-19 declared out of early access, a less than half cooked av-8b (it lacks even a manual) declared out of early access, maybe their only acceptable module being the m2000c, but it tooks years to refine. All this F-15 situation is nothing more than what could evidently be expected given the "illustrious" precedents. DCS environment is all but bugs free and finished, but here we are at the sum of everything that should not be, the apotheosis of a certain "savoir faire" that really makes the gonads fall from their usual anatomical seat. And this is just the cherry on the cake. A very indigestible cake...

 

Thanks, that's a very well laid out rationale how hard it's to run against your own (RB) legacy. I'm fully aware of crowd here being pissed off for Harrier and other underperforming projects. Totally understandable.

@XCNuse,

Thanks, spot on.

[buur]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb nessuno0505:

I a less than half cooked av-8b (it lacks even a manual) declared out of early access

This are fake news. The AV8B is nearly complete according to the NATOPS manuals. The things really missing are in behalf of ED.

Your comments shows only that you never get deeper in the capabilities of the real Harrier. 

[Ignition]

9 hours ago, Fisu_MAD said:

Let's get rid of the bad taste in our mouths with the F-4. I hope that ED can continue the development of the F-15E, a shame that it is developed by RB, this module does not deserve it.

The quality at this time of the F-15E is really good.

[Ignition]

4 hours ago, XCNuse said:

My group has had to officially stop using the module because of the bugs specifically.

They only want to use it in multicrew; and it likes to spontaneously combust. (yes I realize this only happens in multicrew, but the point remains).

 

I would call that "not working."

Yeah, multicrew has some bugs. The most important are INS synch (only without GPS), TGP synch (not game breaking as the WSO can use it without issue) and the smart weapon page for JDAM which has a workaround to unstuck the page. The bugs aren't game breaking in multicrew.

[Eldur]

12 hours ago, icemaker said:

Personally i hope that HEATBLUR take the lead for the F-15E!

 

I'd rather them taking over the MiG-23 if any. The MDD stuff (read: Harrier and Strike Eagle) would be better off at ED who already have the Hornet from that very same company...

Ideally though, all this just gets settled and RAZBAM pony up their standards a notch or two

[Gunnar81]

7 minutes ago, Eldur said:

Ideally though, all this just gets settled and RAZBAM pony up their standards a notch or two

I can stand behind this. Everyone wins including RB if this is the outcome .

[Rhinozherous]

On 5/13/2024 at 11:14 AM, Swiso said:

Right now both parts state that they are talking and working on solving the issues. 

We, as a customers, we find ourself like in a limbo situation...work on RB modules is stopped...could be temporarily or for good...

I hope that all things will be sorted out, but if not the case, could we at least expect from ED an announcement saying clearly that from "today" RB would no longer be Licensed Third Party member and what they intend to do moving with RB modules going forward? 

Thus not live in this limbo forever...

Thanks.

 

I would not hold my breath on this one. We as customers are totally ignored in this case. Razbam announced "hey, we stop all work on the stuff you bought from us". And now there is radio silence (apart from a appeasement statement). Worst PR management ever. Both ED and Razbam will take damage from this. 

[Eldur]

Oh, BTW, speaking of status - just did the most recent update and immediately stumbled across this. For the time being, I allowed it, expecting it to be a false positive - but with the given situation in mind that totally hits different.

 

[Midair]

The F-15E by Razbam was one of the best early access release on DCS. The radar and flight model are superbe, the IFF was working at realaes (it was not the case for the F-16 by ED for exemple), you can use LGB, JDAM, JSOW, the plane is really good on BVR missions. We just wait for the SIT page. Razbam are doing a really good job on this product. I hope they will find a solution to move forward, I'm really sad about this situation, the F-15E is my favorite aircraft and I've wait a long time for it.

[LorenLuke]

59 minutes ago, Midair said:

We just wait for the SIT page. 

And the WCMDs. And the Datalink. And the 9Xs. And the JHMCS. And the AGM-130/GBU-15. And the Mavericks. And the manual bomb drop. And the full TSD functionality. And the additional functions for the TPOD like CUE and UPDT. And for multicrew synchronization on the PACS and SMART weapons pages. And the gun sight fix. And bug fixes for things like the SMART weapons page freeze, and TPOD drifting on designation.

And probably a few more things I missed.