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

[Oban]

4 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Also, as an aside, yes I do question my employer when they make decisions I have questions about. It’s a great perk of being part of company that is open and transparent and welcomes feedback. Sounds like your employer is not like that. 

LOL, yeah and Ron Zambrano and Nick Grey are going to hand out Christmas gifts to all their loyal consumers and enthusiasts. Unless you're part of the coprortate team, I'm going to call BS on you questionaing the CEO how he runs his business... as for me, I'm self employed, however when an employee, The corporate teams were always located well away from the sharp end of the stick, and as a former military, we didnt have the luxury of questioning our seniors about their decisions.

Good for you that your company is transparent, personally I don't believe neither ED or Razbam have been transparent here, but then again, they don't have to be either.

It's a 100% shytshow, and NOBODY is denying that.

[scommander2]

12 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So you are saying that RB does not have access to update their modules?

Is this statement about RB can't update their modules in DCS?  Or, RB can't update their source codes on their side?   Thanks.

[Vamp]

10 minutes ago, Oban said:

Hmmmmm great first post, when you use the term "vicious" kind of makes it obvious what your opinion/views are on this.

No emotion in that. Just a clarification. Post I was referring to lacks context and states that lack of the support to the modules is RBs decision supposedly made on a whim ,which if true, would be considered a vicious decision.

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 minute ago, scommander2 said:

Is this statement about RB can't update their modules in DCS?  Or, RB can't update their source codes on their side?   Thanks.

I'm not sure how much they can work on their code without access to the SDK. If access was removed by ED, I imagine you can't do much if you cant test something working within DCS.

[scommander2]

6 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I'm not sure how much they can work on their code without access to the SDK. If access was removed by ED, I imagine you can't do much if you cant test something working within DCS.

Got it... Thanks....

[SkateZilla]

They don't need access if they aren't working on it, like seriously, it's like saying when you move out of your apartment you want to still have working keys to access the property.

as much as people don't understand the concept, here's a herseys kiss for you.
Most webhosted databases for tracking progress, bugs, features, etc etc, as well as build versioning, charge companies for each login, or each group of logins.

If they aren't working on the projects, suspend their access, simple, regardless of whether or not it costs ED anything.
Developers have a contract agreement to access the SDK Tools, if they don't intend to work on projects, and there's a contract dispute, any other company would have done the same thing.

They likely can still open their code in Visual Studio to adjust / re-compile or whatever, but will not be able to do anything that requires SDK Access, whether it be executables or libraries.


As far as cup half full, cup half empty..
It's tough, because the cup was full, it's now half as much due to leaks in the cup.

Edited October 23, 2024 by SkateZilla

[Esac_mirmidon]

And they arent working on it because they arent beeing payed. Nobody works for free.

Now there is a dispute to solve but is logical that nobody would work on something when payments has been halted. Whatever the reason. 

If an agreement is reachable, work will resume, if not, ED will "try" to keep functional whatever can be saved, but i doubt they can do that for to long. Im very pesimistic about a solution that will keep RB working together with ED. In the end we will lose first the F-15E, then the rest of the modules will fail because DCS evolves to a point that keeping them working will be impossible.

The Hawk was stuck with a DCS version, no longer compatible with further updates. The same will happen to RB modules.

I hope someone proves me wrong in the future

Edited October 23, 2024 by Esac_mirmidon

[NineLine]

25 minutes ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

The Hawk was stuck with a DCS version, no longer compatible with further updates. The same will happen to RB modules.

We have had a number of updates since this all started and so far so good. This is intended to continue no matter the length of this dispute, or even if it is not solved in the manner we all hope for. 

[Esac_mirmidon]

We will see that how could be resolved.

[some1]

49 minutes ago, NineLine said:

We have had a number of updates since this all started and so far so good. This is intended to continue no matter the length of this dispute, or even if it is not solved in the manner we all hope for. 

Bomb fuses in Razbam modules are broken since the core weapons update in May. That's what you call "so far so good":

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/351882-the-fuze-option-for-multiple-bombs-per-rack-is-not-available/

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/350058-not-possible-to-use-new-fuze-options-on-weapons-in-cft-stations

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/357674-cbus-fall-too-short-and-bombs-are-only-triggered-individually

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/350035-mk-20-in-ccip-drops-several-hundred-feet-short-of-the-ccip-piper

It will only get worse with time.

 

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

And they arent working on it because they arent beeing payed. Nobody works for free.

ED doesn't write the payroll checks for RB, that'll be something you'd have to discuss with RB.

Walmart sells Pepsi Products on consignment, Pepsi Drivers deliver the products, but walmart does not pay the pepsi drivers, pepsi does.

If Walmart doesn't pay Pepsi their 465,000,000 cut of consignment sales for the week *(yes week)*, then pepsi is still responsible for paying their drivers.

The other pc of information missing, is the Type of Contract the developers have w/ RB, if it's a Hard deck % of the Sales figures for a term, then they are pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place, because per their own words, RB allegedly hasn't received sales figures, so technically RB can't pay them a % of an unknown number. The devs are the ones being stiffed, RB has other projects bringing in revenue for the company, but the devs responsible for making the EA Strike Eagle a home run, are left w/ likely months of back bills, and a horrible taste in their mouth w/ regards to DCS. Can you blame them for being frustrated?

That being said, Hawk was an entirely different scenario.

Edited October 23, 2024 by SkateZilla

[Gizmo03]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Esac_mirmidon:

The Hawk was stuck with a DCS version, no longer compatible with further updates. The same will happen to RB modules.

 

I have to admit that i have no clue about developing a module but there are 2 things coming in my mind when it comes to comparing these two cases:

1.: When the Hawk came out there was no Early access. It was still called „Beta Version“, which basically is the same - just another name for this concept. Iirc the Hawk was released as some sort of „PreBeta“ version - just to try it already. When VEAO disappeared the Hawk was still not even close to be feature complete. It was even worse than any other module at the beginning of EA nowadays. While the Hawk is a really great aircraft, the VEAO module was very buggy, crappy and lacking of lots of features - not really worth the effort keeping it in the current state as it was in the game. In the RB case - appart from the F-15E - the other 3 modules are supposed to be feature complete and „just“ need bug fixing (i think it sounds much easier as it actually is).  

2.: Even though i really like the Hawk and would instantly buy it again, i think the 3 RB modules are much more popular aircrafts than the Hawk.

This two considerations (in my opinion) makes this whole story completely different from what happend to the Hawk.

 

[Schmidtfire]

CM can't say anything other than point to the available information on Page 1. Or stating that there is not more to share at the moment.

The players that are frustrated or concerned won't change their opinions and uses this thread for venting (I guess). Those vented frustrations and concerns are then met with counter arguments that does little to de-escalate those frustrations. 

As much as I find it great to have an open thread about the ED/Razbam situation... this thread has been going around in circles for some time now. And it seems like the foxholes are only getting deeper and deeper. 

[Horns]

5 hours ago, Ignition said:

I can understand if Razbam don't want to work for free for more than a year now.

Fair enough that you feel that way - it remains, however, that it was their decision to ‘punish’ users, in the words of the post I was replying to.

[Horns]

6 hours ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

I am fairly certain that RB developers have lost their access to the SDK from ED. So even if they wanted to update them, they no longer can. I'm not going to get into the debate of having someone continue to work on something after not receiving payment for over a year, as your point is if RB even has the tools available to do it from ED. But I would too like to hear if this is incorrect from NL and BN.

 

I think I remember someone saying that one of the devs has said they have lost their access now, as a result of the declaration by Zambrano that they wouldn’t be providing support. To clarify, I’m not saying that they could necessarily just log in tomorrow morning and do like before, but I am saying that RB choose to cease support (ie they weren’t locked out) and I believe they would be welcomed back and have their access restored if they informed ED they are going to resume support - while they aren’t supporting their modules, there is no reason for them to have access.

[some1]

  

39 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Walmart sells Pepsi Products on consignment, Pepsi Drivers deliver the products, but walmart does not pay the pepsi drivers, pepsi does.

If Walmart doesn't pay Pepsi their 465,000,000 cut of consignment sales for the week *(yes week)*, then pepsi is still responsible for paying their drivers.

Imagine Walmart sues Pepsi (for whatever reason), stops paying Pepsi their cut, yet continues to sell the product from their shelves. How long do you think before Pepsi stops shipping new bottles to Walmart?

Razbam (the company) is not getting money from ED, and Razbam (the company) put development of their DCS products on hold. That's the crux of the matter. If money stops flowing between business partners, expect the updates and support will cease sooner rather than later, no matter if employees are paid or not.

[Esac_mirmidon]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

  

Imagine Walmart sues Pepsi (for whatever reason), stops paying Pepsi their cut, yet continues to sell the product from their shelves. How long do you think before Pepsi stops shipping new bottles to Walmart?

Razbam (the company) is not getting money from ED, and Razbam (the company) put development of their DCS products on hold. That's the crux of the matter. If money stops flowing between business partners, expect the updates and support will cease sooner rather than later, no matter if employees are paid or not.

Spot on

 

[Oban]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

Razbam (the company) is not getting money from ED, and Razbam (the company) put development of their DCS products on hold. That's the crux of the matter. If money stops flowing between business partners, expect the updates and support will cease sooner rather than later, no matter if employees are paid or not.

The Pepsi driver/Employees who have been laid off/unpaid needs answers from Pepsi, not Walmart.

 

And the reason WHY payments have been held is THE crux of the matter. It's a lot more complicated than the 3rd party Devs not being paid, they need to ask their employer what caused the suspension of payments, and get the answers from them, and it's  obvious that the F15E devs were oblivious to what was happening at coprorate/business strategy level, and why would they be privy to this, it's not a common practice.


It matters not, as this just keeps going round and round and round, and nobody seems willing to hold their hands up and admit wrongdoings, and that may never happen, I 100% feel for the devs, the last thing they would have expected was to be victims of circumstances.

[Ignition]

2 hours ago, Horns said:

Fair enough that you feel that way - it remains, however, that it was their decision to ‘punish’ users, in the words of the post I was replying to.

By that logic, next time I will not pay my taxes to punish the government.

[Ignition]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

We have had a number of updates since this all started and so far so good. This is intended to continue no matter the length of this dispute, or even if it is not solved in the manner we all hope for. 

ED made just 2 minor fixes in 6 months to the modules.

ED, I'm waiting for the development of the F-15E I've bought in your store. Can you do that?, the last update was almost 9 months ago. I'm fine if you can add all the missing weapons and systems.

But I know there's a difference between 2 simple fixes to a complete development of a module, so the "so far so good" is overemphasize.

If you can't, are you going to pay the price to keep all the modules working when vulkan arrives this year? or with more engine, weather and other updates?

It's time to start answering these questions to the community. ED as Razbam have the same responsibility to the community.

[Mizzy]

3 hours ago, some1 said:

  

Imagine Walmart sues Pepsi (for whatever reason), stops paying Pepsi their cut, yet continues to sell the product from their shelves. How long do you think before Pepsi stops shipping new bottles to Walmart?

Razbam (the company) is not getting money from ED, and Razbam (the company) put development of their DCS products on hold. That's the crux of the matter. If money stops flowing between business partners, expect the updates and support will cease sooner rather than later, no matter if employees are paid or not.

Imagine your example is unrelated to the dispute, can you imagine that?

1 hour ago, Ignition said:

By that logic, next time I will not pay my taxes to punish the government.

By your logic, you are bring in non logic to the dispute. Do you understand?

3 hours ago, Gizmo03 said:

I have to admit that i have no clue about developing a module but there are 2 things coming in my mind when it comes to comparing these two cases:

 

 

That is all of us, we don't understand jack <profanity> in this dispute other than what is stated in the first post. We have certain people regurgitating their Zambrano narrative (pay razbam) over and over again and we have the Hawk nonsense as an example which is as unelated to this dispute as chalk is to cheese. 

Which Party in this dispute went public about a private business mattes? Exactly.

Who leaks confidential information about this private dispute? Exactly

Who isn't paying their contracted (a separate contract with ED) developers regardless of dispute? Exacltly.

Who used IP without permission? Exactly

I have stated my personal opinion, Razbam cannot ever continue to develop for DCS after this.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Mizzy

[Oban]

1 hour ago, Ignition said:

ED made just 2 minor fixes in 6 months to the modules.

ED, I'm waiting for the development of the F-15E I've bought in your store. Can you do that?, the last update was almost 9 months ago. I'm fine if you can add all the missing weapons and systems.

But I know there's a difference between 2 simple fixes to a complete development of a module, so the "so far so good" is overemphasize.

If you can't, are you going to pay the price to keep all the modules working when vulkan arrives this year? or with more engine, weather and other updates?

It's time to start answering these questions to the community. ED as Razbam have the same responsibility to the community.

I'll have a bowl of the self entitlement you've scoffed please.

You do realise that when you point a finger at someone, there's 3 pointing right back at you?

ED's current responsibilites are to the core game, and their modules, it has, and always will be down to the 3rd party developers to then bring their modules inline with the core game.

You know the situation with regards to the F15E, and if you don't, which I know full well you are, then you've been living under a rock.

 

[Horns]

On 10/23/2024 at 3:52 AM, JuiceIsLoose said:

All I’m saying is if the IP isn’t about EDSA IP, then I don’t see why the users of DCS should be punished by ED not paying RB in order to protect IP from another company, like EDMS. 
 

If it is truly EDSA IP that they claim was misused, they could choose to clarify just that to my question. 

 

5 hours ago, Ignition said:

By that logic, next time I will not pay my taxes to punish the government.

Again, not my word choice, was that of the quote I was replying to as quoted above.

[draconus]

54 minutes ago, NineLine said:

We cannot make the same promises with the F-15E as we have also stated as its very early in EA.

Being EA has nothing to do with it. It's one of the issues that came up with DCS updates after the "fiasco" so please make an effort to keep the module working as it was before the update, same as you did with the radar fix, thanks.

[some1]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

We cannot make the same promises with the F-15E as we have also stated as its very early in EA.

It's almost like some of you refuse to read the first post

Three out of four threads you've quoted are about issues in the Harrier, the module that's supposed to be "working". The Eagle simply shows the same problem as the Harrier.

All these issues stem from the core DCS bomb fusing update. ED has changed default bomb fuses so the bombs behave differently, especially cluster munitions. ED also require changes in the aircraft weapons.lua file to allow fuse adjustment in the payload manager by the user. Of course there's no one there to make these changes in Razbam modules, the aircraft systems are also incompatible with the new fuse settings. So we get problems with targeting solution, some payload combinations that are straight up unusable, and problems with some campaign missions that use these payloads. 

As you can see, changes to DCS core are already starting to cause issues. Issues that aren't being addressed. All of this was reported in the appropriate forum sections in May, 5 months ago, so it shouldn't be anything new to you or ED.

Edited October 24, 2024 by some1