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

[Horns]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

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.

Whether EA is a factor in the need for this maintenance or not is irrelevant. The quote from NL you quoted contains the answer, they aren't doing maintenance on the F-15E, only RB's feature complete modules.

[draconus]

7 minutes ago, Horns said:

Whether EA is a factor in the need for this maintenance or not is irrelevant. The quote from NL you quoted contains the answer, they aren't doing maintenance on the F-15E, only RB's feature complete modules.

That's the problem. First time I hear they won't maintain also F-15E module as is.

[NineLine]

8 hours ago, some1 said:

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.

 

You are correct, but the modules still work. When the resolution comes, ether way we can look at such things. As of right now, we will not mess with their modules(keeping them working is on our end not messing with the modules), and obviously, they are not messing with their modules. As you can see there is a disagreement between the two teams, of course things are going to be rocky during that time. 

Improvements we add to the game of course are not being adopted by the developer when the developer is not working on the module. So you are mixing issues. 

 

[Mizzy]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

That's the problem. First time I hear they won't maintain also F-15E module as is.

Yes, I understand it that all modules will be maintained within DCS including the current state of the F15E as is. That's what I have been telling people.

Mizzy

[NineLine]

7 hours ago, draconus said:

That's the problem. First time I hear they won't maintain also F-15E module as is.

The F-15E is undecided, if things fall completely apart we will need to decide if the F-15E should remain in its current state never to be changed. You are asking things we cannot see right now as we do not know how all this will play out. Hence the reason for the refund on the F-15E.

[Mizzy]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

The F-15E is undecided, if things fall completely apart we will need to decide if the F-15E should remain in its current state never to be changed. You are asking things we cannot see right now as we do not know how all this will play out. Hence the reason for the refund on the F-15E.

Ahh right, understood, I was wrong.

[NineLine]

12 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

Ahh right, understood, I was wrong.

Right now there is a chance things will go back to mostly normal and the development will proceed. But if the worst thing happens and it would mean that that module would never develop anymore, then a bigger decision would need to be made. 

[Rudel_chw]

17 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Right now there is a chance things will go back to mostly normal and the development will proceed.

 

there is?  this is the most encouraging post I've read on this thread

[JuiceIsLoose]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Right now there is a chance things will go back to mostly normal and the development will proceed. But if the worst thing happens and it would mean that that module would never develop anymore, then a bigger decision would need to be made. 

So now it sounds like there is a real possibility that if things don't go well that there is a possibility of the F-15E no longer being in DCS. I'm assuming that's what you are eluding to in these last few responses? If that were the case would ED issue actual Refunds (money back to the payment method used) or just Store Credit, which is what is being done now. The fact that it is now being put out there that there is the possibility of it not being maintained, how is there still not a warning or disclaimer for users?

[NineLine]

12 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

So now it sounds like there is a real possibility that if things don't go well that there is a possibility of the F-15E no longer being in DCS. I'm assuming that's what you are eluding to in these last few responses? If that were the case would ED issue actual Refunds (money back to the payment method used) or just Store Credit, which is what is being done now. The fact that it is now being put out there that there is the possibility of it not being maintained, how is there still not a warning or disclaimer for users?

We can't answer that or we would have answered that. Anything is possible right now, but we continue to strive for a positive outcome. The reason for the refund currently is that it is and will not receive any updates until this is solved. At the time and currently not knowing when that will be solved (or if) we decided this was the best decision. 

Again from the 1st post:

Quote

we decided to bend a little for those who were frustrated with the issues and how they affected an Early Access Product. We have been giving a store credit for the value of the F-15E when you purchased it.

Also from the first post about continuing to sell and disclaimers, etc:
 

Quote

How can you keep selling the F-15E or other modules?
Right now we are working within the framework of the legal advice moving forward and not wanting to cause any more riffs or issues. It's a complex process at this point and most likely why it seems to be moving so slowly for everyone. Nothing more can be said about that right now. Sorry.

 

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

Right now there is a chance things will go back to mostly normal and the development will proceed. But if the worst thing happens and it would mean that that module would never develop anymore, then a bigger decision would need to be made. 

 

I love the F-15E, and I can live with it staying as is, but not becoming less than it is. That would be a bummer.

[NineLine]

Just now, Beirut said:

 

I love the F-15E, and I can live with it staying as is, but not becoming less than it is. That would be a bummer.

We want it to continue, I hate talking about the what-ifs, I would rather stay positive that this will all work out. 

[Mizzy]

23 hours ago, NineLine said:

Right now there is a chance things will go back to mostly normal and the development will proceed. But if the worst thing happens and it would mean that that module would never develop anymore, then a bigger decision would need to be made. 

 

Edited October 25, 2024 by Mizzy
My post was judged as sarcastic and disrespectful.

[draconus]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

As of right now, we will not mess with their modules(keeping them working is on our end not messing with the modules), and obviously, they are not messing with their modules.

We were told before that you will keep the Razbam modules as they are and try to not break them with DCS updates (and that you know how to prevent it from happening). Yet you did it however serious the fusing and targeting bugs are for you. Of course you don't have to mess with the module to keep it working with changed DCS features but you have to put in some work so DCS feeds these modules with older data format. I don't feel like explaining the coders how to code but the problem is the lack of will, I see.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

We were told before that you will keep the Razbam modules as they are and try to not break them with DCS updates (and that you know how to prevent it from happening). Yet you did it however serious the fusing and targeting bugs are for you. Of course you don't have to mess with the module to keep it working with changed DCS features but you have to put in some work so DCS feeds these modules with older data format. I don't feel like explaining the coders how to code but the problem is the lack of will, I see.

A number of those issues are already reported. 

[afnav130]

8 hours ago, Mizzy said:

Oh this sounds encouraging. I always predicted that Razbam and Eagle Dynamics would work it out together and continue in Partnership. These things happen from time to time, which is why I never took sides on the matter. Patience is a virtue people, let's have a group hug, light a fire and sing some songs.

Mizzy 

 

What's encouraging? From day one there was a "chance". There is always a "chance" until there isn't. A statement such as "some new things have me feeling more hopeful" would be different. 

 

The lawyers will make a decision when it benefits them the most. They don't care about you, Razbam, ED or whatnot. They only truly care about their bank accounts. 

[YoYo]

11 hours ago, Mizzy said:

Oh this sounds encouraging. I always predicted that Razbam and Eagle Dynamics would work it out together and continue in Partnership. These things happen from time to time, which is why I never took sides on the matter. Patience is a virtue people, let's have a group hug, light a fire and sing some songs.

Mizzy 

 

Especially because of the MiG-23, which I've been waiting for for years. It would be nice to have it in DCS someday. Maybe @OverStratos has full rights to it for now and will continue working on it, but under a different brand?

[Panny]

22 hours ago, NineLine said:

Right now there is a chance things will go back to mostly normal and the development will proceed. But if the worst thing happens and it would mean that that module would never develop anymore, then a bigger decision would need to be made. 

I appreciate your intent on staying positive with this; but in terms of it not being developed further - I couldn't see any situation in which its continued sale would be justified. While it has great functionality (it's my go to jet), there are some pretty fundamental bugs pre-April that hold it back... multi-crew desync being the biggest error in a big way. GPS clock, smart weapons page getting hung up and other switchology bugs as core problems.

As you say, a bigger decision would need to be made; and its existing state, just for some of the reasons listed above don't bode well 

I'm very much trying to remain optimistic but harder to do as we plow into November and friends of mine are starting to drift away due to this

 

Cheers

[Mizzy]

11 hours ago, afnav130 said:

What's encouraging? From day one there was a "chance". There is always a "chance" until there isn't. A statement such as "some new things have me feeling more hopeful" would be different. 

 

The lawyers will make a decision when it benefits them the most. They don't care about you, Razbam, ED or whatnot. They only truly care about their bank accounts. 

Sorry, I may have been a bit too subtle. Anyway my post was what is referred to as 'tongue in cheek'  My apologies if anyone took it seriously.

Mizzy

8 hours ago, YoYo said:

Especially because of the MiG-23, which I've been waiting for for years. It would be nice to have it in DCS someday. Maybe @OverStratos has full rights to it for now and will continue working on it, but under a different brand?

I believe this is what will happen under a different brand or even directly published on ED Store page. I think Razbam were only publishing it (like all their modules including the SA map), not actually developing it themselves, or himself.

Mizzy

[Horns]

On 6/18/2024 at 6:55 AM, NineLine said:

Refunds

While at first, we were maintaining our normal refund rules, we decided to bend a little for those who were frustrated with the issues and how they affected an Early Access Product. We have been giving a store credit for the value of the F-15E when you purchased it. You may open a ticket here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/ for a refund, but we ask for patience as it may take up to 7-10 business days to process your refund. 

Other modules will not be refunded at this time, all of these are out of Early Access and remain working. It is our commitment that no matter what happens we will do our best to make sure these continue to work into the future. We understand those of you who remember losing the Hawk, this is not something we intend to do again.

 

I guess the second paragraph of the above quote, taken from the first post, defines the scope of the commitment that was made to try to keep Razbam modules working - I do see that it's clear that after speaking about the F-15E, ED has committed to do their best to keep the "other modules" (ie Razbam modules other than the F-15E) working. Is that accurate?

I'd missed that in the first post, I'd assumed ED wouldn't do any Mudhen maintenance for fear of breaking something else (given it's EA) but I hadn't realized there was anything more specific said about it.

[scommander2]

18 hours ago, NineLine said:

A number of those issues are already reported. 

Will ED know what are DCS APIs that RB have used today (kind of registries)?  Thanks.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Panny said:

While it has great functionality (it's my go to jet), there are some pretty fundamental bugs pre-April that hold it back... multi-crew desync being the biggest error in a big way. GPS clock, smart weapons page getting hung up and other switchology bugs as core problems.

The fact you couldn't list anything gamebreaking speaks for the Strike Eagle's quality. It'd be unacceptable for me to lose it unless the worst case happens and it'd have to be removed due to legal reasons.

[Panny]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

The fact you couldn't list anything gamebreaking speaks for the Strike Eagle's quality. It'd be unacceptable for me to lose it unless the worst case happens and it'd have to be removed due to legal reasons.

What an utterly facetious thing to say.

Let's talk about the jet. It's a strike aircraft designed to be precise with dumb munitions in a pre-GPS context. 

TOT doesn't properly work because the INS clock shows the wrong time based on when you start up the jet - you can see this deviation versus the clock close to the 6 pack. A Strike aircraft in which precision against pre-planned targets is the name of the game.

Half the argument to the strike eagle pre GPS was how the MN operated. Currently it doesn't work as expected and drift is off; many methods to keep the MN in check don't work properly, namely UPDT.

I never said it was game breaking - but what I speak is to the essence of what the aircraft was designed for IRL. Which, as stated was a multi crew aircraft that maintained precision solutions with dumb bombs. Many of the features that made the Strike Eagle special in that capability are under developed or bugged. This is a subjective process, but considering I've done enough missions and campaigns with 12+ Strike Eagles simulating late 80s and early 90s tactics keeping Strike Eagles gameplay in mind, speaking to SMEs, dumping through the TOs; night pre NVG dumb blind bombing IFR conditions are all things I've driven towards. The absence of functionality, as to what the Devs have admitted to develop is more than clear.

I am of course sad at the prospect as to where the strike eagle may end up. Let's agree on that. But the functionality for a true OG Strike Eagle, even on a navigational and TOT basis is just outright absent. For me, this is core functionality of what makes the strike eagle a strike eagle. Why even include the word strike otherwise.

MC desync on numerous functions insults the core essence of what the Strike Eagle is about. 

 

It's subjective, but in the scenario of ED continuing to sell the Strike Eagle when no further development could occur - it may capture the essence of this jet but in no way is it proper. I would withdraw it on a personal basis.

This isn't the strike eagle it's meant to be yet. If you don't see it, you haven't used it enough and dug into it properly.

[Ignition]

9 hours ago, Panny said:

What an utterly facetious thing to say.

Let's talk about the jet. It's a strike aircraft designed to be precise with dumb munitions in a pre-GPS context. 

TOT doesn't properly work because the INS clock shows the wrong time based on when you start up the jet - you can see this deviation versus the clock close to the 6 pack. A Strike aircraft in which precision against pre-planned targets is the name of the game.

Half the argument to the strike eagle pre GPS was how the MN operated. Currently it doesn't work as expected and drift is off; many methods to keep the MN in check don't work properly, namely UPDT.

I never said it was game breaking - but what I speak is to the essence of what the aircraft was designed for IRL. Which, as stated was a multi crew aircraft that maintained precision solutions with dumb bombs. Many of the features that made the Strike Eagle special in that capability are under developed or bugged. This is a subjective process, but considering I've done enough missions and campaigns with 12+ Strike Eagles simulating late 80s and early 90s tactics keeping Strike Eagles gameplay in mind, speaking to SMEs, dumping through the TOs; night pre NVG dumb blind bombing IFR conditions are all things I've driven towards. The absence of functionality, as to what the Devs have admitted to develop is more than clear.

I am of course sad at the prospect as to where the strike eagle may end up. Let's agree on that. But the functionality for a true OG Strike Eagle, even on a navigational and TOT basis is just outright absent. For me, this is core functionality of what makes the strike eagle a strike eagle. Why even include the word strike otherwise.

MC desync on numerous functions insults the core essence of what the Strike Eagle is about. 

 

It's subjective, but in the scenario of ED continuing to sell the Strike Eagle when no further development could occur - it may capture the essence of this jet but in no way is it proper. I would withdraw it on a personal basis.

This isn't the strike eagle it's meant to be yet. If you don't see it, you haven't used it enough and dug into it properly.

Agree.

I know it is an Early Access and the state was fine on release but it's not a good aircraft to fly regularly.

In MC the desynch is a pain in the F-15E.

if you fly pre GPS it's impossible to synch the INS and the TGP points wrong. It has only 1 way to fix the INS drift and its missing the other modes.

The MN doesn't work right because it wasn't finished and it's the primary method to fly pre GPS 

TOT wasn't finished.

Can't change the code of Laser bombs.

JDAMS get desynch in MC, the only way to synch is by introducing the coordinates manually.

It's missing lots of systems and weapons, specially the AGM-130 which is one of the main weapons it has.

It's a great aircraft IRL and Razbam made an excellent job but in DCS ATM it still missing way too many features to keep flying it. It's fine if you just fly casually to drop some bombs but it's not a good aircraft to learn and specialize.

 

[nessuno0505]

Il 24/10/2024 at 09:07, some1 ha scritto:

Three out of four threads you've quoted are about issues in the Harrier, the module that's supposed to be "working".

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.

 

Il 24/10/2024 at 17:00, NineLine ha scritto:

You are correct, but the modules still work. As of right now, we will not mess with their modules(keeping them working is on our end not messing with the modules)

Improvements we add to the game of course are not being adopted by the developer when the developer is not working on the module. So you are mixing issues. 

 

 

He is not mixing a damn thing. Can't you see what's your problem at ED? "The modules still work". What does a "working module" mean to you? A one that does not crash the simulator at startup? The RB modules (F-15 excluded), while still "flyable", are starting to fail at all, and that's an undeniable reality.

 

Il 24/10/2024 at 20:12, draconus ha scritto:

We were told before that you will keep the Razbam modules as they are and try to not break them with DCS updates (and that you know how to prevent it from happening). Yet you did it however serious the fusing and targeting bugs are for you. Of course you don't have to mess with the module to keep it working with changed DCS features but you have to put in some work so DCS feeds these modules with older data format. I don't feel like explaining the coders how to code but the problem is the lack of will, I see.

 

I understand you do not want to mess with RB's modules until the dispute is ongoing, but this above here is a good suggestion; nevertheless you should have prevented the fuses from bugging before it occurred, not apologizing after: you have said that "you will keep the Razbam modules as they are and try to not break them with DCS updates (and that you know how to prevent it from happening)".

 

Il 24/10/2024 at 21:59, NineLine ha scritto:

A number of those issues are already reported. 

 

It's not enough to say they are reported! They should not happen! Ad if they accidentally happen, they must be fixed as soon as possible!

 

Il 24/10/2024 at 17:05, NineLine ha scritto:

The F-15E is undecided.

 

That's the only real thing you have done in favor of us consumers: since the destiny of the F-15E is uncertain, we can ask a refund. Being it in store credit is not important: as DCS lovers we can surely find another airplane / helicopter / campaign that meets our needs. For this decision we can only say thank you.

Edited October 28, 2024 by nessuno0505