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

[Esac_mirmidon]

On my side, all AG ordinance form the Harrier, guided or not are hitting spot on, and no problem using the Tpod. Dont know what user steps are you following but my bombs are falling where i aiming.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 hours ago, Gorn_GER said:

because ED Weapon characteristics were not updated in the Module

I know the new fuses are not supported, but the ballistics have remained unchanged as far as I am aware?

 

3 hours ago, Gorn_GER said:

therefor all guided A/G weapons are unreliable

I don't know about JDAMs because I don't care for them and it's been well established by Notso the implementation we have is *VERY* WIP. But I have had zero issues with LGBs 
The iteration we have at the moment is pretty much a '90s version so that's how I use it. I have been dropping Mk84s on ships and hangars just fine, and yes the pod is quirky but it's an older model so that's to be expected.


*edit*
I just made a quick mission to test if something changed very recently that I missed, but nope: I dropped 2x Mk82 and 2x GBU-12 (self lased) and all 4 were spot on.

Edited June 22 by Raven (Elysian Angel)

[Esac_mirmidon]

The fuses options are only missing for TERs. SIngle pylon bombs can be changed about fuses.

[Czar66]

10 hours ago, Gorn_GER said:

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. 

Not true.

Bump the TPOD after designation to have solid area track even without area track boxed. It is one of the bugs on the TPOD that has not been adressed, but in no way it is a Air to Air only module.

I've been doing strikes almost every week on it since release.

JDAMS, Laser and dumb bombs.

Edited June 22 by Czar66
'unboxed' to 'boxed'

[draconus]

10 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I don't know about JDAMs because I don't care for them and it's been well established by Notso the implementation we have is *VERY* WIP. But I have had zero issues with LGBs 

I confirm. Dumb bombs, LGBs, clusters and JDAMs work fine too  

Of course there are some bugs and missing features but the module is fantastic. If only we could get some great DLC campaign for it...

[Paraso]

At this point I've got my fingers crossed hoping for a friendly billionaire to come along and subsidize resolution & further development, all out of pocket

Unbelievable.

[ruxtmp]

I can confirm that the AV-8B has issues with CCIP and CCRP for all unguided bombs. They all fall short of pipper impact point shown on HUD. Cluster bombs are by far the worst and easily drop 300 meters or more short of the impact point. Cluster bombs have been useless since the module was released unless you can mentally aim out the distance or set an offset point the right amount ahead of the target. Iron bombs are better, especially if dropped at lower altitudes (ie less than 3000 feet.) I believe this issue was already acknowledged by ED that it can only be fixed by the module maker. If that is still true than this is never getting fixed, thus neutering a ground attack module that is not even the F-15E.

[PD919]

On 6/20/2025 at 5:04 PM, 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

I obviously have no idea what will happen, but pure speculation tells me that ED has a greater incentive to keep the F-15E alive much more than the Hawk.  The Strike Eagle is up there with the Hornet, Tomcat, and Viper when it comes to popularity.  It's one of the most iconic planes of all time.  

I personally think that the egos at be on both sides should just drop whatever the situation is.  You can look somewhere else for the leaked details about what happened.  Even if ED is in the right, and I think they have a much stronger legal case than RB, ED should give RB the opportunity to sell their source code for all of their modules directly to them or a third party.  RB could then pay their devs and then RB can go develop somewhere else.  I just think there are burned bridges at this point.

I see the F-15E being worked on in the somewhat near future, within the next five or so years, but I don't think RB will be the company working on it.

[Paraso]

21 minutes ago, PD919 said:

I obviously have no idea what will happen, but pure speculation tells me that ED has a greater incentive to keep the F-15E alive much more than the Hawk.  The Strike Eagle is up there with the Hornet, Tomcat, and Viper when it comes to popularity.  It's one of the most iconic planes of all time.  

I personally think that the egos at be on both sides should just drop whatever the situation is.  You can look somewhere else for the leaked details about what happened.  Even if ED is in the right, and I think they have a much stronger legal case than RB, ED should give RB the opportunity to sell their source code for all of their modules directly to them or a third party.  RB could then pay their devs and then RB can go develop somewhere else.  I just think there are burned bridges at this point.

I see the F-15E being worked on in the somewhat near future, within the next five or so years, but I don't think RB will be the company working on it.

Regardless of the outcome of the legal dispute, I'd like to take the moment to vocalize my support for ED or RB or (insert 3rd party dev here) to keep the F-15E alive.  

[Neil Gardner]

I think I largely agree you there. I was a little confused by the notion that ED does not have the code for the four modules provided by RB.. I thought the code all came from ED’s SDK, which you have to use in order to supply models for DCS. Of course what they do not have ownership of is the work already done so far, but I thought I remembered - bear in mind that this is many years ago so it could just be an old codgers ghost memory - but in the discussions after the Hawk it was decided to include a contractual stipulation that if a developer pulls our, ED have first refusal on the modules. Again, it could be false memory syndrome, like when I thought Wales had a world class rugby union team - now it is but a hazy dream.. 

11 hours ago, PD919 said:

I obviously have no idea what will happen, but pure speculation tells me that ED has a greater incentive to keep the F-15E alive much more than the Hawk.  The Strike Eagle is up there with the Hornet, Tomcat, and Viper when it comes to popularity.  It's one of the most iconic planes of all time.  

I personally think that the egos at be on both sides should just drop whatever the situation is.  You can look somewhere else for the leaked details about what happened.  Even if ED is in the right, and I think they have a much stronger legal case than RB, ED should give RB the opportunity to sell their source code for all of their modules directly to them or a third party.  RB could then pay their devs and then RB can go develop somewhere else.  I just think there are burned bridges at this point.

I see the F-15E being worked on in the somewhat near future, within the next five or so years, but I don't think RB will be the company working on it.

 

[Neil Gardner]

Forgive me, but is there not a margin of error in real life? I often miss but frequently have to put that down to my somewhat dismal flying and aiming at tge same time. I remember at the time of the first gulf war we were told that American bombers could post a bomb through a letter box, but that wasn’t entirely true. 

On 6/24/2025 at 3:37 AM, ruxtmp said:

I can confirm that the AV-8B has issues with CCIP and CCRP for all unguided bombs. They all fall short of pipper impact point shown on HUD. Cluster bombs are by far the worst and easily drop 300 meters or more short of the impact point. Cluster bombs have been useless since the module was released unless you can mentally aim out the distance or set an offset point the right amount ahead of the target. Iron bombs are better, especially if dropped at lower altitudes (ie less than 3000 feet.) I believe this issue was already acknowledged by ED that it can only be fixed by the module maker. If that is still true than this is never getting fixed, thus neutering a ground attack module that is not even the F-15E.

 

[AndyJWest]

18 minutes ago, Neil Gardner said:

I think I largely agree you there. I was a little confused by the notion that ED does not have the code for the four modules provided by RB.. I thought the code all came from ED’s SDK, which you have to use in order to supply models for DCS. Of course what they do not have ownership of is the work already done so far, but I thought I remembered - bear in mind that this is many years ago so it could just be an old codgers ghost memory - but in the discussions after the Hawk it was decided to include a contractual stipulation that if a developer pulls our, ED have first refusal on the modules. Again, it could be false memory syndrome, like when I thought Wales had a world class rugby union team - now it is but a hazy dream.. 

 

It has been suggested that Razbam's contract pre-dates the requirement for developers to hand over code, but in any case, Razbam say that they haven't 'pulled out' - they have halted work on modules because they haven't been paid. As for what the contract actually says, it hasn't been made public, and likely never will, along with almost all the other details of this dispute. 

[Mike Force Team]

The strike eagle has been hugely popular. Due to the ongoing long-term dispute, the full-fidelty module has not received updates. In the meantime, ED has reassured us they will support the strike eagle. I enjoy the strike eagle because it is fun to fly.

[Aapje]

22 hours ago, Neil Gardner said:

I think I largely agree you there. I was a little confused by the notion that ED does not have the code for the four modules provided by RB.. I thought the code all came from ED’s SDK, which you have to use in order to supply models for DCS.

The SDK is of course just the code that the module talks to, to work. That doesn't mean that ED has got the actual code, which requires it getting handed over (through an escrow agent).

For those who don't know, an escrow agent is a third party that holds on to the code and when certain conditions are met, the code is then handed over. So ED normally would not have access to the module code, which after all could be a risk for a third party developer, because it would allow ED to potentially steal IP from a third party module.

Note that the escrowed code needs to be regularly renewed and so it's not necessarily the newest code from the developer. For example, if the contract requires an escrow refresh every quarter, then the code can be up to 3 months old.

22 hours ago, Neil Gardner said:

Of course what they do not have ownership of is the work already done so far, but I thought I remembered - bear in mind that this is many years ago so it could just be an old codgers ghost memory - but in the discussions after the Hawk it was decided to include a contractual stipulation that if a developer pulls our, ED have first refusal on the modules. Again, it could be false memory syndrome, like when I thought Wales had a world class rugby union team - now it is but a hazy dream.. 

ED of course can't just retroactively amend the contract, because in that case, the contract would be worthless.

Note that according to VEAO, the developer of the Hawk, they left because they were asked to sign an unacceptable contract for any future modules, and they didn't see a future for them with DCS, unless they could make new modules. So that's why they pulled out.

And the provisions that they seem to consider unacceptable were the escrowing of their code, as well as penalties for bugs with the functioning of the module, even when the bug is caused by ED. A common misconception seems to be that ED introduced the requirement to escrow the code after VEAO pulled out, but according to the story as told by VEAO, it's the other way around, and they pulled out in part because of the new requirement.

PS. Note that just having the code is doesn't even mean that one can build and thus maintain the module. Code needs to be turned into a product through a publishing/building process, and it can sometimes be quite hard to reproduce that process, even if you have the code. And understanding the code and thus being able to make changes without introducing bugs can also be quite hard.

Edited June 26 by Aapje

[Paraso]

On 6/25/2025 at 10:24 AM, AndyJWest said:

It has been suggested that Razbam's contract pre-dates the requirement for developers to hand over code, but in any case, Razbam say that they haven't 'pulled out' - they have halted work on modules because they haven't been paid. As for what the contract actually says, it hasn't been made public, and likely never will, along with almost all the other details of this dispute. 

Agreed - outside of speculating any contractual obligations, and judging by the most recent post on their discord, they seem pretty adamant that they have not a speck of interest in voluntarily giving up any source code at any point. Current intentions aren't exactly clear but there's sentiment floating around that they aim to deal with this mess as quickly as possible (and get the show back on the road?), or so we would hope. Only time will tell

[Dragon1-1]

On 6/25/2025 at 4:07 PM, Neil Gardner said:

Forgive me, but is there not a margin of error in real life? I often miss but frequently have to put that down to my somewhat dismal flying and aiming at tge same time. I remember at the time of the first gulf war we were told that American bombers could post a bomb through a letter box, but that wasn’t entirely true. 

This was said of LGBs. An LGB will hit pretty much exactly where the laser dot is, CEP for those is measured in centimeters. Even JDAMs can't quite match that (CEP of a few meters at best). For regular bombs, it's even higher.

[Mac D]

A couple of weeks ago I noticed that the AV-8BNA turning circle while taxing is a lot larger then it use to be.
Taxing on a carrier (LHA) is impossible.
Anyone else noticed this ?

(And yes, NWS was on)

 

Edited June 26 by Mac D

[AndyJWest]

9 minutes ago, Mac D said:

A couple of weeks ago I noticed that the AV-8BNA turning circle while taxing is a lot larger then it use to be.
Taxing on a carrier (LHA) is impossible.
Anyone else noticed this ?

(And yes, NWS was on)

 

Seems fine to me, though you need to use high gain (NWS HOTAS held down).

[Ithronwise]

On 6/26/2025 at 8:08 PM, AndyJWest said:

Seems fine to me, though you need to use high gain (NWS HOTAS held down).

And if this doesn't help, the Harrier has a "reverse gear", so you can push back and correct, if the angle is too tight. I always park it backwards after landing on Tarawa, America or Hermes. 

[Citizen]

I believe a settlement has been signed.

[AndyJWest]

Just now, Citizen said:

I believe a settlement has been signed.

Do you have anything to base your belief on? If so, please tell us what it is.

[Citizen]

9 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Do you have anything to base your belief on? If so, please tell us what it is.

RB staff indicated that they "all signed a settlement" on their discord.
[edit] I guess it's former RB staff, which may explain why multiple signatures would be required. Dunno.

Edited July 1 by Citizen

[AndyJWest]

5 minutes ago, Citizen said:

RB staff indicated that they "all signed a settlement" on their discord.

So post a link. Post a screenshot. FWIW I can't see anything like that on their Discord channel, though without knowing what the heck it is I'm supposed to be looking for, it's hard to be sure.

Incidentally, I can't see why Razbam staff would need to sign anything - the dispute is between the two companies.

 

[Citizen]

45 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

So post a link. Post a screenshot. FWIW I can't see anything like that on their Discord channel, though without knowing what the heck it is I'm supposed to be looking for, it's hard to be sure.

Incidentally, I can't see why Razbam staff would need to sign anything - the dispute is between the two companies.

 

re: Link
Here you go: https://discord.com/channels/536389125276827660/544231925263630336/1389338291794481184

Quote

"Incidentally, I can't see why Razbam staff would need to sign anything - the dispute is between the two companies."

I suspect it has something to do with the 'staff' being independent contractors with their own DMCA stuff, but don't know for sure.

[AndyJWest]

"We all signed a settlement but ED still refuses to pay. I guess they are broke." People have been posting comments like that on the Discord more or less from the start of the dispute. Possibly they think it puts pressure on ED. It certainly isn't worth taking seriously.

Note also that 'a settlement', even an official one, need not necessarily be good news. They could merely agree financial terms for closure, and then go their separate ways.