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

[BIGNEWY]

51 minutes ago, speed-of-heat said:

So that’s actually a good question, if a new feature being introduced stops "bombs" working, for example fuzes, does that mean it gets "fixed", it's a new feature so it's an addition but it also stops the module from working as Intended...

For now we have to wait, when we can say more we will. We all want a good outcome for the modules. 

thank you

[Frost]

 

 

 

I only need to know one thing; does it make sense to "trade" the F-15E for the Afghanistan map or should I wait and buy Afghanistan at a later date? With other words; as much as I love the F-15E and as much as I want to keep this great module, I just want to move on and therefore I want to know how dead this thing really is and how probable an actual resurrection is. If it is dead for good I just want to know it, so I can finally start coping with the loss of this great aircraft. And the Afghanistan map wouldn't be the worst way of doing so.

Edited June 22, 2024 by Frost

[Shibbyland]

20 minutes ago, Frost said:

 

 

 

I only need to know one thing; does it make sense to "trade" the F-15E for the Afghanistan map or should I wait and buy Afghanistan at a later date? With other words; as much as I love the F-15E and as much as I want to keep this great module, I just want to move on and therefore I want to know how dead this thing really is and how probable an actual resurrection is. If it is dead for good I just want to know it, so I can finally start coping with the loss of this great aircraft. And the Afghanistan map wouldn't be the worst way of doing so.

 

Bail out on the F-15 my guy, it's gonna take ages to solve if it gets solved at all and you can always buy it again (probably on sale) down the track. Afghan, A-10, done.

[felixx75]

38 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

For now we have to wait, when we can say more we will. We all want a good outcome for the modules. 

thank you

I hope you have saved this text, then it will be easier the next 100 times (if that's enough)...

[speed-of-heat]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

For now we have to wait, when we can say more we will. We all want a good outcome for the modules. 

thank you

understood, thanks!

[nessuno0505]

22 ore fa, NineLine ha scritto:

For the older module if this went the absolute worst case scenario they would remain as they are with no updates but continue to work. As feature complete modules this is all that is guaranteed even best case scenario although obviously if RB comes back and they decided to update or improve they could

Sorry if I insist, but: ok, if RB leaves, their older modules stay as they are: playable, but not upgraded or improved. That's fine. But what about bugs? DCS is an evolving platform. If one of those older modules acquires a bug with a DCS update (a flight model abnormality, a graphical glitch or a system stop working as intended), in the absence of Razbam who fixes the bug?

[BIGNEWY]

33 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

Sorry if I insist, but: ok, if RB leaves, their older modules stay as they are: playable, but not upgraded or improved. That's fine. But what about bugs? DCS is an evolving platform. If one of those older modules acquires a bug with a DCS update (a flight model abnormality, a graphical glitch or a system stop working as intended), in the absence of Razbam who fixes the bug?

You will need to be patient while everything is worked out, it will take time. We all want the best for the modules. 

thank you 

[Dragon1-1]

14 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

 in the absence of Razbam who fixes the bug?

ED. We're been through it with the Hawk, they would have done that, too, but VEAO didn't share the codebase. Since then, it's mandatory for module makers to make maintenance by ED possible, they have to share source code and files.

[muzica9]

13 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 Since then, it's mandatory for module makers to make maintenance by ED possible, they have to share source code and files.

Only if both parties agree and a contract is signed. Razbam did not agree to such thing for their modules. 

Edited June 22, 2024 by muzica9

[Dragon1-1]

They did, otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed to sell them on ED store. Again, they made this mandatory after Hawk. RAZBAM couldn't have disagreed and still sold the modules.

Obviously a contract has to be signed, but this has to happen in order for a module to be sold. Which probably means that what they have for MiG-23, for example, hasn't been sent to ED. The ones that we can buy, though, must have been.

[nessuno0505]

24 minuti fa, Dragon1-1 ha scritto:

ED. We're been through it with the Hawk, they would have done that, too, but VEAO didn't share the codebase. Since then, it's mandatory for module makers to make maintenance by ED possible, they have to share source code and files.

Are you sure?

37 minuti fa, BIGNEWY ha scritto:

You will need to be patient while everything is worked out, it will take time and you will need to continue to be patient. We all want the best for the modules. 

thank you 

This answer is not so assuring.

But I will be patient. I don't even have razbam modules. But I believe, whatever is ED policy now and for the future, that it's impossible to avoid a 3rd party to decide, as in this case, or be forced (things can happen in life) to leave DCS.

ED plans on how to deal with 3rd party modules left orphans of their developer are important in order to know if it's a viable option to buy 3rd party modules or if, otherwise, it's better and safer to buy only modules by ED itself. It's not only a RB issue, it's a 3rd party problem in general.

Edited June 22, 2024 by nessuno0505

[Tom Kazansky]

9 minutes ago, muzica9 said:

Only if both parties agree and a contract is signed. Razbam did not agree to such thing for their modules. 

 

Is that a fact?

Anyways: even if RB signed such a contractual clause, there still could be a legal dispute whether the conditions for these contractual clauses to become effective are met, yet.

Edited June 22, 2024 by Tom Kazansky

[BIGNEWY]

10 minutes ago, muzica9 said:

Only if both parties agree and a contract is signed. Razbam did not agree to such thing for their modules. 

 

Please PM me, I would like to know where you are getting your information from. 

thank you 

[BIGNEWY]

6 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

Are you sure?

This answer is not so assuring.

But I will be patient. I don't even have razbam modules. But I believe, whatever is ED policy now and for the future, that it's impossible to avoid a 3rd party to decide, as in this case, or be forced (things can happen in life) to leave DCS.

ED plans on how to deal with 3rd party modules left orphans of their developer are important in order to know if it's a viable option to buy 3rd party modules or if, otherwise, it's better and safer to buy only modules by ED itself. It's not only a RB issue, it's a 3rd party problem in general.

 

We can not share details until there is a resolution and everything is legally worked out.

[Dragon1-1]

8 minutes ago, nessuno0505 said:

Are you sure?

I am. I can't say I was there for the Hawk debacle, but I did look up the aftermath. This was one of the things ED did to make sure we won't see that story repeat itself. 

[muzica9]

40 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

They did, otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed to sell them on ED store. Again, they made this mandatory after Hawk. RAZBAM couldn't have disagreed and still sold the modules.

Obviously a contract has to be signed, but this has to happen in order for a module to be sold. Which probably means that what they have for MiG-23, for example, hasn't been sent to ED. The ones that we can buy, though, must have been.

stop dreaming!

from official discord. 

 

[BIGNEWY]

4 minutes ago, muzica9 said:

stop dreaming!

from official discord. 

 

He said we dont have the source code. 

Again we need to wait while the legal process happens, you dont know the conditions of the contract.

thanks

[Tom Kazansky]

1 minute ago, BIGNEWY said:

He said we dont have the source code. 

Again we need to wait while the legal process happens, you dont know the conditions of the contract.

thanks

thanks.

what does "...we cannot support in the long term" mean?

[muzica9]

indeed, i don't know conditions of the contracts. but people must understand, that at this moment ED does not have source code for the Razbam modules, and they should not expect for a quick fix. legal debates can take months, years.

Edited June 22, 2024 by muzica9

[Njinsa]

@Tom Kazansky

It means that in future, when DCS core engine changes, RB modules will not be refactored by ED, i.e. modified if they experience critical issue.

It will be stuck at v2.9.x.x, just as Hawk v2.5.3 version, maybe good for SP gaming, but gone for MP.

But let's hope this will not be the final outcome.

Edited June 22, 2024 by Njinsa

[felixx75]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I am. I can't say I was there for the Hawk debacle, but I did look up the aftermath. This was one of the things ED did to make sure we won't see that story repeat itself. 

Ah cool, so you were there when ED and Razbam negotiated the terms and signed the contract. Tell us more about the negotiations back then, I'm curious.

 

If you weren't there, you know just as much as everyone else. Namely nothing. So don't make any assumptions on your part.

[TheFreshPrince]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Njinsa:

@Tom Kazansky

It means that in future, when DCS core engine changes, RB modules will not be refactored by ED, i.e. modified if they experience critical issue.

It will be stuck at v2.9.x.x, just as Hawk v2.5.3 version, maybe good for SP gaming, but gone for MP.

But let's hope this will not be the final outcome.

 

So basically already at DCS 3.0 it would be very likely over with RB modules. 

 

Is this situation holding up new DCS updates in general btw.? Meaning ED doesn't want to break the modules, so they hold back updates? 

Edited June 22, 2024 by TheFreshPrince

[muzica9]

13 minutes ago, Njinsa said:

@Tom Kazansky

It means that in future, when DCS core engine changes, RB modules will not be refactored by ED, i.e. modified if they experience critical issue.

It will be stuck at v2.9.x.x, just as Hawk v2.5.3 version, maybe good for SP gaming, but gone for MP.

 

 

except the fact that F-15E radar does not work anymore even if no update was made. strange, right? 

[Romandv]

It is time to forget about these modules, it is very strange why there is further discussion when there is no new information (and will not be). Each of the modules already has some problem and if in the new patch ED will fix it, there is no point in it - there will be no full-fledged support now anyway.

The only thing I've noticed is that there is less "got to pay RB" level nonsense. Well, maybe except that they text each other in discord, yeah.

 

[Njinsa]

 

20 minutes ago, Romandv said:

It is time to forget about these modules, it is very strange why there is further discussion when there is no new information (and will not be). Each of the modules already has some problem and if in the new patch ED will fix it, there is no point in it - there will be no full-fledged support now anyway.

The only thing I've noticed is that there is less "got to pay RB" level nonsense. Well, maybe except that they text each other in discord, yeah.

 

You are free to forget and move on.

You'll not be missed.

Edited June 22, 2024 by Njinsa
Bad paste