Whats the status?

[Midair]

When I speack of SIT page I also speack of Datalink.

[HILOK]

18 hours ago, nessuno0505 said:

[...] maybe their only acceptable module being the m2000c, [...]

14 hours ago, buur said:

This are fake news. The AV8B is nearly complete according to the NATOPS manuals. The things really missing are in behalf of ED.

4 hours ago, Midair said:

The F-15E by Razbam was one of the best early access release on DCS. The radar and flight model are superbe, the IFF was working at release (it was not the case for the F-16 by ED for exemple), you can use LGB, JDAM, JSOW, the plane is really good on BVR missions. We just wait for the SIT page. Razbam are doing a really good job on this product. I hope they will find a solution to move forward, I'm really sad about this situation, the F-15E is my favorite aircraft and I've wait a long time for it.

9 hours ago, Eldur said:

Ideally though, all this just gets settled and RAZBAM pony up their standards a notch or two

i think this is going in the right direction. it's in the best interest of all parties involved, especially us as customers, to bring everybody back to the table. RB has to understand they made mistakes in the past, and they have to listen more to their customers. but we as customers also have to signalize that our trust can be gained back, or there will be no point for them to get back to work.

 

[XCNuse]

On 5/14/2024 at 6:00 PM, Ignition said:

Yeah, multicrew has some bugs. The most important are INS synch (only without GPS), TGP synch (not game breaking as the WSO can use it without issue) and the smart weapon page for JDAM which has a workaround to unstuck the page. The bugs aren't game breaking in multicrew.

Consider yourself lucky then.

We had to abandon every mission they attempted multicrew in because the plane literally blew up.

Something about lag caused it I think is what they determined?

[Ignition]

2 hours ago, XCNuse said:

Consider yourself lucky then.

We had to abandon every mission they attempted multicrew in because the plane literally blew up.

Something about lag caused it I think is what they determined?

I never had any issue like that in the F-15E.

The multicrew in DCS is very bad and very susceptible to lag especially if the latency between pilot and copilot is high for example when joining servers with ping.

The connection goes pilot -> server -> copilot.

[flanker1]

On 5/15/2024 at 4:19 AM, Eldur said:

 

I'd rather them taking over the MiG-23 if any. The MDD stuff (read: Harrier and Strike Eagle) would be better off at ED who already have the Hornet from that very same company...

Ideally though, all this just gets settled and RAZBAM pony up their standards a notch or two

All I want to get is the MiG-23. . .so, let´s hope for it. Even when only as AI, with updated 3-D model.

[falcon_120]

The F-15E by Razbam was one of the best early access release on DCS. The radar and flight model are superbe, the IFF was working at realaes (it was not the case for the F-16 by ED for exemple), you can use LGB, JDAM, JSOW, the plane is really good on BVR missions. We just wait for the SIT page. Razbam are doing a really good job on this product. I hope they will find a solution to move forward, I'm really sad about this situation, the F-15E is my favorite aircraft and I've wait a long time for it.

Totally agree on this point.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[lee1hy]

L O L 

[freehand]

16 hours ago, lee1hy said:

L O L 

Have I missed something ?

[rwbishUP]

So are we left "holding the bag" with the, Strike Eagle? Is ED going to pull it and issue refunds? Are they going to deliver the future development on it?

[Art-J]

BN and NL wrote multiple times that after the last official statements there would be no further announcements from ED side about the matter until the the problem is sorted between both companies, whenever it might be. So that's that.

Whether Ron decides to follow the same advice on RAZBAM side remains to be seen.

In the meantime, if you want to participate in community scuttlebutt, there'a already a thread running here...

... or you can grab a bag of popcorn and head for the reddit ghetto to watch some mud slinging over there  .

[rwbishUP]

Oh man, they must not have seen this thread yet! Because I'm certain it would've already been locked, with no answer as to how our $ was spent, that we paid for the module "skeleton"! Why is this undeveloped module still available for purchase in the store? Surely newcomers are being warned by ED that it's been abandoned and is basically a FC level module?

[Rudel_chw]

16 minutes ago, rwbishUP said:

Surely newcomers are being warned by ED that it's been abandoned and is basically a FC level module?

 

Surely you have privileged information to back up your claim, isn't it?  ... its ridiculous posts like this one, the culprits that a thread gets closed by a Moderator. 

[DaWu]

So how many weeks or months are they going to discuss this matter? ED you really think I will buy anything again? 

[Rudel_chw]

55 minutes ago, DaWu said:

So how many weeks or months are they going to discuss this matter?

until it is settled 

[Slippa]

3 hours ago, DaWu said:

So how many weeks or months are they going to discuss this matter? 

Probably two.

[Ignition]

7 hours ago, rwbishUP said:

Oh man, they must not have seen this thread yet! Because I'm certain it would've already been locked, with no answer as to how our $ was spent, that we paid for the module "skeleton"! Why is this undeveloped module still available for purchase in the store? Surely newcomers are being warned by ED that it's been abandoned and is basically a FC level module?

What module is a FC level?

[NineLine]

8 hours ago, rwbishUP said:

Oh man, they must not have seen this thread yet! Because I'm certain it would've already been locked, with no answer as to how our $ was spent, that we paid for the module "skeleton"! Why is this undeveloped module still available for purchase in the store? Surely newcomers are being warned by ED that it's been abandoned and is basically a FC level module?

We have answered a number of times, and you guys need and deserve at least one thread to check in on, even if we don't have anything to share right now. Thanks.

[Braunn]

What's really disappointing is that adult people working for two companies can't work this out. It's not like it's a big deal. Or at least started out as a big deal, now it is. 

Kinda what I tell my kids. "Solve it before it becomes a big deal."   

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, Braunn said:

What's really disappointing is that adult people working for two companies can't work this out. It's not like it's a big deal. Or at least started out as a big deal, now it is. 

Kinda what I tell my kids. "Solve it before it becomes a big deal."   

From experience, corporate contract disputes often go months before even going to legal mediation, and often months after..

It's disappointing when people assume it's a simple "OK cool, handshake, signed check, resume work." between 2 people.

[Jackjack171]

6 hours ago, Braunn said:

What's really disappointing is that adult people working for two companies can't work this out. It's not like it's a big deal. Or at least started out as a big deal, now it is. 

Kinda what I tell my kids. "Solve it before it becomes a big deal."   

Running a business is not that simple and whenever money is involved, it is always a big deal!

[Braunn]

7 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

From experience, corporate contract disputes often go months before even going to legal mediation, and often months after..

It's disappointing when people assume it's a simple "OK cool, handshake, signed check, resume work." between 2 people.

What's disappointing is when people assume other people don't know what they're talking about. Even bigger disappointment are all the excuses people make for a cluster F to keep on rolling. 

Excuses excuses excuses. "Not that simple."  Well yeah it is. Bet you didn't know a hand shake or a verbal contract is still legally binding, as long as a witness is there to watch the agreement take place and a written follow up describing the terms is made. 

But nooooo, we can't have that. Not so siiiimpleeeeeeee. 

Kids. 





 

[Rudel_chw]

27 minutes ago, Braunn said:

Kids.

 

Funny how DCS newbies seem to be so expert these days, corporate international law is no problem to these fellas, they know so much better 

[bfr]

7 minutes ago, Maduce said:

I was looking for an update on the status between ED and RB. I was skimming through some of the comments. It seems to me, and I could be very wrong, that ED is leaving themselves open for some sort of lawsuit. ED not posting a disclaimer on RB products. Unsuspecting newcomers purchasing RB modules, not know the circumstances behind the scenes with RB. This maybe compounding on bad decision after another and making matters worse. Like I said I could be wrong and hope that I am. Lawsuits are expensive and that may be what ED is calculating and honestly it probably will not happen. I am not an expert at all, just thinking out loud. In the meantime, I just hope this all gets sorted out sooner rather than later, and ED and RB both are better off in the end. Best regards to all!  

PS: The F-15E is probably my favorite module right now!

 

In which case we might know things are really beyond repair as and when the module gets taken off sale.

[Nightdare]

2 hours ago, Braunn said:

What's disappointing is when people assume other people don't know what they're talking about. Even bigger disappointment are all the excuses people make for a cluster F to keep on rolling. 

Excuses excuses excuses. "Not that simple."  Well yeah it is.

 

I take it you are currently running a company with several subcontractors involved?

 

2 hours ago, Braunn said:

Bet you didn't know a hand shake or a verbal contract is still legally binding, as long as a witness is there to watch the agreement take place and a written follow up describing the terms is made. 

 

So basically, you might just as well write up a contract from the get-go that is signed by all parties, which leaves no room for error in interpretation on what is agreed upon

Edited May 18 by Nightdare

[Hammer1-1]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

We have answered a number of times, and you guys need and deserve at least one thread to check in on, even if we don't have anything to share right now. Thanks.

where can one find said thread?