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

[Neil Gardner]

I just have one question really. Can anyone tell me definitively and with evidence that if RB departs then their modules will or will not be supported. What I mean by ‘supported’ is not just made compatible for a short period, but maintained and developed into the foreseeable future. . People have already made reference to the Hawk which was exactly not the way I think most of us will want things to go. Can I ask, please, if it might be possible that someone from the company supply a firm unequivocal response to that question. I’m sorry if that question has already been answered but I’ve not quite found it. 

Thank you.

Neil

[felixx75]

3 minutes ago, Neil Gardner said:

I just have one question really. Can anyone tell me definitively and with evidence that if RB departs then their modules will or will not be supported

No one here will or can answer this question. We will only know for sure once the case between ED and Razbam has been clarified. Everything else is speculation.

[Neil Gardner]

I wonder why that is ? I would not think it would be injurious to anyone’s case to stare one way or another. It is thr only concern I personally have about the whole dispute.

[Dragon1-1]

Presumably because they don't know. ED doesn't have the code required to develop those modules, and Ron had made it quite clear he's not interested in handing it over. The best they can hope for is resolving the dispute.

[Gunnar81]

I think the only option is resolution. If it doesn't go that way, ED isn't going to pick up modules from another coder and take off running with them. They would most likely need to rebuild from scratch, which is probably a road they've considered. Hence why maybe the F-15C is being developed, to get the skeleton of their own in house Eagle coding built for a future Strike Eagle if this doesn't work out.

[SOLIDKREATE]

IMO. I think the entire RAZBAM thread under Third Party Developers should be removed. They removed VEAO when the Hawk died. Also they still have the Hawk in their products page which is very strange. If we can't buy anything from them, why showcase it? I have zero hope this will ever get resolved. I hope that I am wrong. I really feel for all the people right now who have a countdown to extiction of their modules.

19 minutes ago, Gunnar81 said:

I think the only option is resolution. If it doesn't go that way, ED isn't going to pick up modules from another coder and take off running with them. They would most likely need to rebuild from scratch, which is probably a road they've considered. Hence why maybe the F-15C is being developed, to get the skeleton of their own in house Eagle coding built for a future Strike Eagle if this doesn't work out.

I am hoping so, but my confidence is very low. I think a better idea would be to Make the A & C together. I'm thinking an AF75 & AF84 Block Series with at least a visual option for the Conformal Fuel Tanks for the early single seater IAF F-15's. I'm chasing rabbits it seems. So, I will leave it here =o). 

[draconus]

5 hours ago, SOLIDKREATE said:

IMO. I think the entire RAZBAM thread under Third Party Developers should be removed.

You can ignore it and never look back because the forum is for community: getting help, sharing content and discuss about the aircraft/modules.

[Horns]

10 hours ago, Neil Gardner said:

I wonder why that is ? I would not think it would be injurious to anyone’s case to stare one way or another. It is thr only concern I personally have about the whole dispute.

The problem is that the question of whether modules will be supported can only be answered after the current dispute is resolved, and the details and implications of that resolution will dictate what the answer is, so currently there is no definitive answer to what you ask.

I know you're looking for an official answer, I hope a mod can be more helpful.

[BIGNEWY]

12 hours ago, Neil Gardner said:

I just have one question really. Can anyone tell me definitively and with evidence that if RB departs then their modules will or will not be supported. What I mean by ‘supported’ is not just made compatible for a short period, but maintained and developed into the foreseeable future. . People have already made reference to the Hawk which was exactly not the way I think most of us will want things to go. Can I ask, please, if it might be possible that someone from the company supply a firm unequivocal response to that question. I’m sorry if that question has already been answered but I’ve not quite found it. 

Thank you.

Neil

Hi Neil, 

until the dispute is resolved no one knows for sure. So we just have to wait and see, the modules are working in their current state and have been for over a year in DCS since RAZBAM paused development, so continue to enjoy them. We all hope for a good out come.

best regards

Scott / bignewy

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

You can ignore it and never look back because the forum is for community: getting help, sharing content and discuss about the aircraft/modules.

 

This. 

[Neil Gardner]

3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi Neil, 

until the dispute is resolved no one knows for sure. So we just have to wait and see, the modules are working in their current state and have been for over a year in DCS since RAZBAM paused development, so continue to enjoy them. We all hope for a good out come.

best regards

Scott / bignewy

Thank you.

[Fynek]

Is there any legal obstacle that would prevent ED to develop projects in the future that Razbam were working on before this dispute please? 

Thinking specifically about the MIG-23 or re-doing a F-15E high fidelity if it stops working with future updates?     

 

[Czar66]

3 minutes ago, Fynek said:

Is there any legal obstacle that would prevent ED to develop projects in the future that Razbam were working on before this dispute please? 

Thinking specifically about the MIG-23 or re-doing a F-15E high fidelity if it stops working with future updates?     

 

I'd like to know it too. My guess it is no obstacle but resources.

[Hammer1-1]

14 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

I'd like to know it too. My guess it is no obstacle but resources.

well, thats kind of what they're working on now. Apparently before VEAO, no contract written had stips that allowed ED to take command of the modules in case of abandoning work. Basically Razbam has the code and can deny it to ED out of spite if they wanted...which they kind of are.

[Czar66]

16 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

well, thats kind of what they're working on now. Apparently before VEAO, no contract written had stips that allowed ED to take command of the modules in case of abandoning work. Basically Razbam has the code and can deny it to ED out of spite if they wanted...which they kind of are.

What Fynek meant was if there is any legal obstacle for ED to make a F-15E from scratch themselves, or any other RB ongoing project such as the MiG-23 or the A-29 as well.

Not dependent on RB code as it is from scratch.

[Hammer1-1]

35 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

What Fynek meant was if there is any legal obstacle for ED to make a F-15E from scratch themselves, or any other RB ongoing project such as the MiG-23 or the A-29 as well.

Not dependent on RB code as it is from scratch.

Even if it were legal (not saying it isnt, its EDs code, so yeah they can), the F-15E is basically tarnished. Itll be, what, another 12 years of wait time AGAIN? the dev cycle for these modules is incredibly long. Hell, they started on the Apache in 2008.

[Czar66]

9 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Even if it were legal (not saying it isnt, its EDs code, so yeah they can), the F-15E is basically tarnished. Itll be, what, another 12 years of wait time AGAIN? the dev cycle for these modules is incredibly long. Hell, they started on the Apache in 2008.

Yes, this is why is so unattractive to put our hopes on and why the heartbreak overall.

[cfrag]

1 minute ago, Hammer1-1 said:

the F-15E is basically tarnished.

While I’m sure that there are probably some no-competition clauses between the two, I think that this would be the main obstacle. The lion‘s share of the profits are already made, and the negative publicity around this issue will take years to dissipate, so no business case can be made to remake the mudhen in the next few years, especially if an FF „C“ is already announced. The E is IMHO burned for now, and I’ll try to make the most of it as long as it’s still supported. It *is* a great module to play with, unfinished state and all.

[Gizmo03]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Hammer1-1:

Even if it were legal (not saying it isnt, its EDs code, so yeah they can), the F-15E is basically tarnished. Itll be, what, another 12 years of wait time AGAIN? the dev cycle for these modules is incredibly long. Hell, they started on the Apache in 2008.

Are you sure they are working on the Apache since 2008? I know they announced the plan to do an AH-64A Block 49 in 2008 but the "D" model? The Longbow was brought to EA in 2022 - that would mean 14 years of developement (not even till final release but just till EA).
The EA for the Hornet started in June 2018 and was announced in 2014 with screenshots which looked very, very early WIP. That means about 5 years of developement until EA. But 12 - 14 years of developement would mean they started with the Hornet even way before the first module - the Ka-50 - was released...
And just because it took 12 years for RB doesn't mean it will take the same time for ED.

[Hammer1-1]

13 minutes ago, Gizmo03 said:

Are you sure they are working on the Apache since 2008? I know they announced the plan to do an AH-64A Block 49 in 2008 but the "D" model? The Longbow was brought to EA in 2022 - that would mean 14 years of developement (not even till final release but just till EA).
The EA for the Hornet started in June 2018 and was announced in 2014 with screenshots which looked very, very early WIP. That means about 5 years of developement until EA. But 12 - 14 years of developement would mean they started with the Hornet even way before the first module - the Ka-50 - was released...
And just because it took 12 years for RB doesn't mean it will take the same time for ED.

They announced the start of the Apache A in 2008 when they asked for specific NSNs regarding public manuals. I dont think they were very far along or even started.  When they started actual work, I dont know...but yeah. Same with the F-16C; they showed screenshots of the 3D model many years ago long before they announced official work on it...along with the Mig-29 and a few other modules I cant remember, but yeah. I honestly dont know when they swapped from the A model to the D, but even the F-18 went through several block revisions because they found more info and decided to go another way with a later block. So yeah, EDs models are well within the length of a decade when it comes to development. 

[Gizmo03]

What i mean is that the announcement from 2008 doesn't mean they really started with the developement of this modules in the same year and i really doubt it was like that.
They announced the AH-64A, the F-16C, the A-10A, the MiG-29A, the Mi-24P and iirc the Su-27 as FF modules. The plan was to realese these modules in a 9 month' cycle. That was more like a roadmap and not an official announcement.
I also remember that there was a discussion about the other F-16 game and a couple of people said they would like to have the F-16 in DCS but the answer of "Wags" was something like that he also would like to see this module but at this time there were no plans for a Viper - and 2 or 3 years later the F-16 was announced. So i don't think they started with the F-16C already in 2008.
I just had a look at the 2014's WIP screenshots of the Hornet's cockpit and i absolutely doubt that this was the work of 6 years - so i really don't think that the Hornet took a decade from start of developement to EA.
Also there were all these discussions about redfor Aircraft and it was stated several times that they can't make them because of lack of availability of documentation about these aircrafts even though the MiG-29A was on their 2008's roadmap - and now it's available for pre purchase.
Long story short: what i mean is that ED is always good for a surprise and we don't know what they are working on and what not. It might be like Gunnar81 said that they announced the F-15C as a FF module because it will be a top seller and a really good addition to DCS but also to make their own E model out of it in case everything goes down the drain.
But it's all just speculation from me - not more - and it's also pretty OT now.

I still hope they will eventually find a good solution or if not do their own Strike Eagle and at least keep the other modules working in DCS.

Edited June 21 by Gizmo03

[Hammer1-1]

4 hours ago, Gizmo03 said:

What i mean is that the announcement from 2008 doesn't mean they really started with the developement of this modules in the same year and i really doubt it was like that.
They announced the AH-64A, the F-16C, the A-10A, the MiG-29A, the Mi-24P and iirc the Su-27 as FF modules. The plan was to realese these modules in a 9 month' cycle. That was more like a roadmap and not an official announcement.
I also remember that there was a discussion about the other F-16 game and a couple of people said they would like to have the F-16 in DCS but the answer of "Wags" was something like that he also would like to see this module but at this time there were no plans for a Viper - and 2 or 3 years later the F-16 was announced. So i don't think they started with the F-16C already in 2008.
I just had a look at the 2014's WIP screenshots of the Hornet's cockpit and i absolutely doubt that this was the work of 6 years - so i really don't think that the Hornet took a decade from start of developement to EA.
Also there were all these discussions about redfor Aircraft and it was stated several times that they can't make them because of lack of availability of documentation about these aircrafts even though the MiG-29A was on their 2008's roadmap - and now it's available for pre purchase.
Long story short: what i mean is that ED is always good for a surprise and we don't know what they are working on and what not. It might be like Gunnar81 said that they announced the F-15C as a FF module because it will be a top seller and a really good addition to DCS but also to make their own E model out of it in case everything goes down the drain.
But it's all just speculation from me - not more - and it's also pretty OT now.

I still hope they will eventually find a good solution or if not do their own Strike Eagle and at least keep the other modules working in DCS.

Development starts the moment they announce the work to do so. Not saying or suggesting they worked on it for 14 years straight, merely pointing out thats the average time from announcement to finish is 14 years, and thats typical with ED so far. And just fyi, the Apache isnt finished yet either, and its been...what? 3 years now? Yeah I stand by my statement. Also, I didnt say the F-18 started in 2008 either; merely pointing out that while FC2 was in development, they flung out screens of new 3D renders of both the Viper and Fulcrum. I dont find that coincidental. 

Edited June 21 by Hammer1-1

[Gizmo03]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Hammer1-1:

And just fyi, the Apache isnt finished yet either, and its been...what? 3 years now?

I was talking about start of developement to start of EA because it took RB 12 years from announcment to start of EA for the Strike Eagle. 
If you are talking about the time from announcment to final release you might be right. 

[Hammer1-1]

4 hours ago, Gizmo03 said:

I was talking about start of developement to start of EA because it took RB 12 years from announcment to start of EA for the Strike Eagle. 
If you are talking about the time from announcment to final release you might be right. 

oh believe me it is. Matter of fact, its typical, except with a few 3rd party guys like Heatblur who seem to be able to knock out a module every 3 years from start to finish.

[Gorn_GER]

22 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi Neil, 

until the dispute is resolved no one knows for sure. So we just have to wait and see, the modules are working in their current state and have been for over a year in DCS since RAZBAM paused development, so continue to enjoy them. We all hope for a good out come.

best regards

Scott / bignewy

Disagree with the term "working in current state"

AV8B all unguided weapons falling short or long from target because ED Weapon characteristics were not updated in the Module since the Disput. 
 

F-15E Multicrew is barely playable because of desync problems that were never fixed in Early Access. 
 

Even playing single, TPOD designation drift away from TPOD screen
therefor all guided A/G weapons are unreliable. 
unguided weapons have the same problem as the ones in AV8B, they fall short or long but never hit the designated target in CCIP or CCRP. 
 

So the only Usecase for the F-15E is A/A and this is not the Purpose of this weaponsystem. 
 

These significant problems are just the ones I know of because I could notice them several times. There may be some more problems with them that I did not even noticed but prevented me from hitting or finding targets. Using these two modules is more Pain than fun bit i still use them because I don’t want them to be dead and therefor want people on the servers to see that we are still flying them. 
It would be easier to let them in the Hangar and play F-16. 

I don’t care what your problem with Razbam or their problem with you is but ED sold me this modules, now ED fix these game breaking problems one way or another. 
You already fixed the Radar once, now keep working on the obvious bugs. 
rumor says ED already hold all the money from F-15E sales. Now be responsible for this one, we as your customer have rights on working products, even when lifetime support is needed.