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

[Pipe]

5 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It's remarkable how fluid information is for some; flows in one ear and out the other.

 

Well yes it is, thanks for pointing that out..

Edited April 13 by Pipe

[Nightdare]

38 minutes ago, Pipe said:

The same could be said of ED's witholding payment = blackmail, also how they handled this. If they indeed hold the high ground in this dispute, they could have maintained business as usual. RB would have been paid for the SE, and development and updates would have continued. And guess what? We the consumer would not have any knowledge of the dispute, which seems to be exactly what ED wants

 

Keep paying the people stealing your IP?

In that case,... I have a pretty viaduct to sell you and if it just so happens delivery has been delayed, just keep giving me more money, I'm sure you'll get your bridge eventually

In the mean time, I'll be using your money to pay for my eventual legal defense

[Giggling Doom]

3 hours ago, LordOrion said:

Ending the contract also means to actually kill the modules. Do you think customers would have been happy with such a decision taken by ED?

People would go to the ED headquarters with torches and pitchforks!

ED has his share of blame, but again, is RB that put on this blackmail while they cound have handled the dispute in a different way.

Yes they should have ended the contract...  what you just said ... well the way i received your statement is that The people would not like it if ED severed the Contract... but somehow RB is blackmailing ED but ED still has a share of blame...   so anyway 

 

ED is at fault too

They should have cut the contract or at least a full stop and pulled the modules off the store if they were hardball it. 

and selling someone else work and not giving them their cut while the dispute is not yet solved is dirty business.. may not be illegal but i cant say I'm ok in any way with their practices.. looking forward to IL-2 Korea .. next step Vietnam.

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

 

Keep paying the people stealing your IP?

In that case,... I have a pretty viaduct to sell you and if it just so happens delivery has been delayed, just keep giving me more money, I'm sure you'll get your bridge eventually

In the mean time, I'll be using your money to pay for my eventual legal defense

question.  in your argument isn't ED then also stealing RBs IP by continuing to sell their product?.... 

[Lasko]

2 hours ago, Giggling Doom said:

question.  in your argument isn't ED then also stealing RBs IP by continuing to sell their product?.... 

Nope, that's not how contracts work.  ED is still obligated to pay for all of the SE sales according to whatever contract they have.  The question is how much does RZ owe for infringement/damages/whatever, if anything.  Once both those numbers are known and agreed, it can be resolved.  Neither one is going to happen separately.

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, Giggling Doom said:

Yes they should have ended the contract...  what you just said ... well the way i received your statement is that The people would not like it if ED severed the Contract... but somehow RB is blackmailing ED but ED still has a share of blame...   so anyway 

 

ED is at fault too

They should have cut the contract or at least a full stop and pulled the modules off the store if they were hardball it. 

and selling someone else work and not giving them their cut while the dispute is not yet solved is dirty business.. may not be illegal but i cant say I'm ok in any way with their practices.. looking forward to IL-2 Korea .. next step Vietnam.

question.  in your argument isn't ED then also stealing RBs IP by continuing to sell their product?.... 

You guys really need to stop now, maybe re-read the first post and also accept you do not have all the information and will not have it as this is a legal proceeding that is still in progress. If you all want to ask questions about now things referenced in the 1st post we can talk about that, if you want to share your frustration and disappointment about all of this, we can talk about that, but these theories based on little to no information are not doing anyone any good. So please lets stick to what we know. Thanks!

 

[Ignition]

On 4/12/2025 at 7:57 PM, Mike Force Team said:

ED, why does the company not make a bonafide,legitimate, serious real-world offer to buy Razbam's modules outright? I am suggesting buying all Razbam's products where ED is the official owner. Then ED has 100% control of those modules. ED can then phase RB outright. The best solution appears to be buying out RB and ending a long business relationship due to an impasse. I am saying that eagle dynamics and razbam would go their separate ways.

Why ED should buy Razbam modules? The whole dispute is because ED says Razbam owes them money, why would ED give Razbam money instead?.

 

The worst thing (for me) is not seeing the great F-15E develop. It was my best option for DCS, the perfect platform. A competent AA aircraft with a GREAT AG capability and multicrew.

Edited April 14 by Ignition

[Nightdare]

5 hours ago, Giggling Doom said:

question.  in your argument isn't ED then also stealing RBs IP by continuing to sell their product?.... 

What @Lasko said

Witholding payment in disputes is a very common thing, and I'm surprised how many people are unaware of this

[Hiob]

48 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

Witholding payment in disputes is a very common thing, and I'm surprised how many people are unaware of this

The same amount that don't seem to have ANY experience in business/legal practices and still feel comfortable throwing around suggestions and accusations..... 

I get that this thread is kept alive to channel the emotional fallout that comes with the matter, but I wonder if it does more harm than good.....
 

[cfrag]

Just now, Hiob said:

I get that this thread is kept alive to channel the emotional fallout that comes with the matter,

It appears to me to also be destined to become a must-read as secondary source material for demonstrating Dunning-Kruger's "Top Left" quadrant self-selection  

 

[AvgeekJoe]

On 4/10/2025 at 2:16 PM, NineLine said:

We have not allowed any new campaigns that use RB modules since around after this started. South Atlantic would be the exception I think, but I have not see any submitted using that yet.

Freeware campaigns for user files ok?

Might make one for user files in 4Q if so. About to finish a training one for the F/A-18C.

12 hours ago, NineLine said:

We cannot add new features to the RB modules. We can only maintain them as they are, sorry. 

I appreciate very much the pledge to maintain compatibility.  

[Nightdare]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

It appears to me to also be destined to become a must-read as secondary source material for demonstrating Dunning-Kruger's "Top Left" quadrant self-selection  

 

Nah, hammering on it for so long, it's clear that for some, it has nothing to do with ignorant arrogance, just blind entitlement

[Darth Holliday]

Cant another company (or anybody) just fill the RB void...?? I mean RB cannot hold an aircraft copyright...(Or maybe it is already being worked on.. !)

Edited April 14 by Darth Holliday
Gooder English

[Tank50us]

11 hours ago, Rosebud47 said:

Sounds good, but I don't believe this is an option. ED would rather make the modules from scratch by themself, than buying the source code from others. If you think back to the Voice over IP feature, they have build in, instead of fully integrating SRS or if you think back of the spaghetti code with the Harrier, which caused a lot of trouble and bug after bug, because the original programmer was no longer available. Might be different with the F-15E, but ED is quite proud of their capabilities and I just don´t believe, buying the source code from Razbam is an option for ED.

Well, when it comes to assets they have done this sorta thing before. Namely some of the ground units for the French and some of the newer insurgent stuff, and the recent statics that were added were made by modders originally. If they work, and have all the work done, why not toss a few bucks at'em and save a bunch of work re-inventing the wheel? It'd be the same thing with the RB modules.... only with considerably more zeroes involved in that price tag.

[Aapje]

6 hours ago, Ignition said:

Why ED should buy Razbam modules? The whole dispute is because ED says Razbam owes them money, why would ED give Razbam money instead?.

ED are only distributors of the modules, they don't own them. If they do want to own them, then that is a sale where Razbam can logically expect to get paid.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Darth Holliday said:

Cant another company (or anybody) just fill the RB void...?? I mean RB cannot hold an aircraft copyright...(Or maybe it is already being worked on.. !)

Of course another third party developer, or ED, can make the plane modules from scratch. But it's probably not a scenario that makes a lot of sense financially, because there probably will be way fewer people that will be willing to buy the same plane again, than were willing to buy it initially.

[Beirut]

7 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Of course another third party developer, or ED, can make the plane modules from scratch. But it's probably not a scenario that makes a lot of sense financially, because there probably will be way fewer people that will be willing to buy the same plane again, than were willing to buy it initially.

 

If someone started an F-15E from scratch today, a lot of us might be well past retirement age by the time it hits early access.

[Aapje]

13 hours ago, LordOrion said:

I believe that people who side with ED do so because RB's decision to block support and development of their modules is a form of blackmail that harms them personally.

That is silly, because none of the paid modules have support and development by anyone other than the developer. They are not blocking anything. They are just not doing it.

The only modules that are not dependent on the developer are the free open source modules, like the Skyhawk and the Super Tucano.

13 hours ago, LordOrion said:

RB could have easily handled the situation differently, without involving them.

How so? By continuing to work without pay? Do you really think that would be easy for them?

 

[upyr1]

I don't know if there is any chance that there will be a settlement, and I have heard contradicting things about ED having any source code for the modules. Anyway if ED does not have the ability to support these modules and it comes clear that Razbam is completely gone, I would love to see them start development on new versions of these modules. 

[BIGNEWY]

3 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I don't know if there is any chance that there will be a settlement, and I have heard contradicting things about ED having any source code for the modules. Anyway if ED does not have the ability to support these modules and it comes clear that Razbam is completely gone, I would love to see them start development on new versions of these modules. 

Hi upyr1, please do not make new threads, ask your questions here, but please take the time to read the first post, that is all we have to say for now until the dispute is resolved. 

thank you 

 

thread merged

[LordOrion]

39 minutes ago, Aapje said:

That is silly, because none of the paid modules have support and development by anyone other than the developer. They are not blocking anything. They are just not doing it.

And what is the difference between "blocking" and "not doing it"? 

Can you please explain us all? 

39 minutes ago, Aapje said:

How so? By continuing to work without pay? Do you really think that would be easy for them?

They could have kept the support for the module active, at least for critical bugs like the radar time bomb found some moths ago: they could have said "we will do our best to keep the module playable as it is now, but we can't go on working on the new features for free".  They would have gotten much more support from users this way.

Instead they opted for a "from this very moment we won't do anyting untill we get paid. If you need help ask (and blame) ED".

[HWasp]

21 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

And what is the difference between "blocking" and "not doing it"? 

Can you please explain us all? 

They could have kept the support for the module active, at least for critical bugs like the radar time bomb found some moths ago: they could have said "we will do our best to keep the module playable as it is now, but we can't go on working on the new features for free".  They would have gotten much more support from users this way.

Instead they opted for a "from this very moment we won't do anyting untill we get paid. If you need help ask (and blame) ED".

They could have also released all their modules for free from the beginning, then we would not even have this problem now

[Aapje]

8 minutes ago, LordOrion said:

And what is the difference between "blocking" and "not doing it"? 

Can you please explain us all? 

Let's say that I run a dog walking service. Then one day I get into a dispute with a customer and stop walking their dog. That is 'not doing it.' However, I see that the person decided to walk their own dog and I block the public sidewalk to prevent them from doing that. That is 'blocking.' I block the other person from doing something that they could do, if I didn't interfere.

So not doing something for them and actively blocking them from doing it themselves are two different things.

Now imagine a different scenario where I run a pizza place with a traditional stone oven. I get into a conflict with a customer and refuse to sell them my pizza. However, they then demand that I let them use my pizza oven to make pizza themselves, because they don't own one. I'm not actively blocking them when I say no to this, because they never had a right to use my private property or go into my kitchen. They demand a special privilege that they have no right to.

ED has no rights to Razbam source code or tools, just like I have no rights to ED's source code or tools.

[LordOrion]

21 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Let's say that I run a dog walking service. Then one day I get into a dispute with a customer and stop walking their dog. That is 'not doing it.' However, I see that the person decided to walk their own dog and I block the public sidewalk to prevent them from doing that. That is 'blocking.' I block the other person from doing something that they could do, if I didn't interfere.

So not doing something for them and actively blocking them from doing it themselves are two different things.

That's a completely wrong context: no one here said that RB is blocking other devs to support their own modules.

RB stopped the support and development of its own modules: in that contex (which is the correct one), saying "block" or "not doing" is exacly the same.

About the right of ED to access/use RB code, it depends from the conditions of the contract they both have signed, so ED may have the rights to do it, if the contract conditions stated that.

Since no one of us knows exaclty what these conditins says, discussign what ED "has" or "has not" the right to do is just pure speculation.

Edited April 14 by LordOrion

[Rosebud47]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Tank50us:

Well, when it comes to assets they have done this sorta thing before. Namely some of the ground units for the French and some of the newer insurgent stuff, and the recent statics that were added were made by modders originally. If they work, and have all the work done, why not toss a few bucks at'em and save a bunch of work re-inventing the wheel? It'd be the same thing with the RB modules.... only with considerably more zeroes involved in that price tag.

Yeah, that´s true. It is observable that ED has become more open in the recent years to well done assets for DCS World. I wish they would also make the OH-6A Cayuse mod an official module, so we don´t have to fear, that its going to break with an official DCS update.

But when it´s about buying the source code of the F15E from Razbam it is a different situation. Clearly the community´s interest is to make the module stay and being developed and fine-tuned, no matter who it does, but in this very special case and situation, there is so much more serious and legal stuff involved, that it is very unlikely and unnecessarily complicated to make a deal to buy the F-15E source code. They have to figure out first the stuff, which is going on between them, before making new deals.

Furthermore, ED's core business and core competence is creating flight simulators. If you ask me, they are very good at their business - much better than Razbam. So there is absolutely no need for ED in Razbams source code, when ED could make it much better from scratch. In contrary, I would assume buying Razbams source code would only complicate the development of an Eagle Dynamics F-15E. 
 

What we are really dealing with by talking about what if ED would buy Razbam's source code for the F-15E is a matter of time, the time the F-15E is present and usable in DCS World.
At the moment the time of the F-15E in DCS is counted and will end some day, but it is still present in its current state of development and will be maintained by ED as long as it is possible - it just won´t be developed to a release state, nor fine tuned. So, I guess we would have to live with this unhappy state of the module for now. Why, we as consumers, are put into that state of the module, even we´ve paid to have a release state of the module sooner or later, is enough discussed in this thread.
From my perspective it is really unlikely and wouldn´t make any sense for ED to take over Razbam's source code and finish the development of the F-15E. Personally I would also prefer, if ED or another 3rd party would develop a new F-15E completely on their own, like ED is currently developing anew MiG29 from scratch instead of using the source code of the Flaming Cliffs MiG29.

[Rosebud47]

@NineLine Will there be a deadline to apply a refund for the F-15E Strike Eagle?

Asking for the community ( I got mine already )

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, Rosebud47 said:

Yeah, that´s true. It is observable that ED has become more open in the recent years to well done assets for DCS World. I wish they would also make the OH-6A Cayuse mod an official module, so we don´t have to fear, that its going to break with an official DCS update.

Something like this would be especially good for those getting into DCS and not sure if they want to even touch helicopters or not. Personally, I think DCS needs one module of each 'era', 'base', and type for free to give people a feel for where they want to go and spend their money. If it were up to me, those would be:

• WW2/Korea: Mustang
• Cold War: T/A-37 Tweet/Dragonfly
• Late Cold War/Modern: Su25T and Jaguar (around this time the Western and Soviet avionics are quite distinct)
• Carrier Based: A-4 Skyhawk
• Helicopter OH/AH-6 Cayuse/Little Bird

But those are my choices.

3 hours ago, Rosebud47 said:

Furthermore, ED's core business and core competence is creating flight simulators. If you ask me, they are very good at their business - much better than Razbam. So there is absolutely no need for ED in Razbams source code, when ED could make it much better from scratch. In contrary, I would assume buying Razbams source code would only complicate the development of an Eagle Dynamics F-15E. 

It might, but the one thing it would do is give ED a framework to work off of. But if they can't, one thing they could most certainly get from RB is the rights to the plane from Boeing, and take about 6 to 12 months to work in their own code to the F-15E (with the existing F-15C being a base) and get that to the current state where they can replace it. Maybe even contact HB to get Jester working his magic in the back seat, which in turn could be used for an F/A18D module in the future if ED decides to make it (come on @BIGNEWY@NineLine! Make that happen! It'd be nice to have someone along for the ride in the Hornet!) But yeah, for the MudHen, I see that option being less than ideal, but it would mean we'd have an aircraft we know works and will be up for sale again in a short period of time.