waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[FierceLV]

2 hours ago, plott1964 said:

...When you ASSUME you make an ASS of U and ME?

WHEN THE TRUTH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, AND YOU GO PRETENDING THAT IT ISN'T THE TRUTH, YOU GO...

 

[NineLine]

1 minute ago, FierceLV said:

WHEN THE TRUTH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, AND YOU GO PRETENDING THAT IT ISN'T THE TRUTH, YOU GO...

 

Please communicate maturely and constructively, typing in all caps and making accusations, is not it. Thanks. 

[Horns]

6 hours ago, FierceLV said:

Thank you for the reply.

RAZBAM Simulations will still get what they have earned with the F-15E?

We need to understand that this conflict could not have existed, if there was a proper open communication between only the TWO persons, it's a personal thing between them, and as things look now, the only reason for the conflict was and is the sheer awesomeness and success of the F-15E Strike Eagle DCS World module.

Players love the modern technology.

The players lose access to a powerful modern jet which is a very big problem for our MOVEMENT TOWARDS COMMON GOAL, more good jets in the DCS World.

The F-15E Strike Eagle is one of the best modules along with:

AH-64D, A-10C, F-16C, MiG-29S, Su-27, Ka-50, F-15C , Su-25 , Su-25T , A-10A, F-14B, Mi-24P - the modern stuff, the Modern Air Combat.

MiG-31 ? Su-34 ? Su-30 ? MiG-35 ? MiG-29K ? Su-25M ? Ka-52M Super Alligator (99 % INSTANT SUCCESS) ? MiG-25 Foxbat ? F/A-18E Super Hornet? F/A-18 F ? Easy money.

The modern stuff.

Sure, perhaps the ... uhm... real-life instructions are absent... but we have the F-15E Strike Eagle - an advanced top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art JET.

Also, while the RAZBAM Simulations is on hold, we are losing time with the MiG-23 Flogger as well.

I hope for the fast resolution between the Eagle Dynamic and the RAZBAM Simulations. The players are the ones who suffer the damages.

 

 

 

We have a wishlist thread for a reason: so that people don't do what you did here and use a razor thin excuse to turn other threads into wishlist threads. It's bad manners because it leaves others with the choice of either not responding to what you say or dragging the thread OT.

Please post OT comments like your wishlist in the correct place in future. Or just do a search and comment, since I'm pretty sure each and every one of those aircraft on your list has already appeared in a wish list thread.

[Smashy]

8 hours ago, Vakarian said:

Sometimes I do wonder what's the average age of the people in this forum. When I started DCS I had an idea that this would be a place for grown ups / mature people who had some life experience and understanding how some things in life go. This thread has proven me otherwise

I think a majority of the people exhibiting embarrassing levels of naivete are those that really haven't had any firsthand experience with any sort of litigious matter.  If they had, it would be clear to them that disclosing any details in a public forum before the dispute is resolved would be a bad move.  Even with no such experience it's just plain common sense, something the Entitled Gamer often lacks.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, FierceLV said:

WHEN THE TRUTH IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, AND YOU GO PRETENDING THAT IT ISN'T THE TRUTH, YOU GO...

 

So, you're privy to the actual legally documented complaints as submitted by both Eagle Dynamics and RAZBAM? Not just what has been spat out onto the internet, devoid of context, by bad faith actors or the opinions of reddit muckrakers? The literal legal documents?

Edited February 27 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[NineLine]

We are trying to cool him off, lets not poke him or anyone else with a stick, we know the answer to your question. Thanks. 

[scommander2]

Regardless the final outcome will be, we are kind of on the same boat about F-15E  

[plott1964]

I think what is most disappointing about all this is that the F-15E has so much potential - waiting to be seen.

[zerO_crash]

"The most disappointing about all this" is mostly subjectively put. Some will claim the F-15E, others the AV-8B. In reality, it's about all the modules that Razbam has made (you might not fly the MiG-19, but I do). In essence then, we're talking about the loss of some four aircraft and one map. As mentioned before, the loss of Hawk left a somewhat bad taste for its owners, however the loss of a sizeable inventory made by Razbam would be a disaster. (Let's be honest, if a module isn't updated any longer, then it's dead for all intents and purposes. That, unless you entertain going back to pre-EDGE (1.5) to fly Hawk...) 

 

I am more than certain that ED realizes this. In addition, all the fuss and buildup post the incident really locks ED's hands from a customer relations perspective. They have to either secure the future of the product lineup, or otherwise, turn up a credible explanation to customers who e.g. have bought these modules at their entry/release price (approx. 5*$60 = $300). To extrapolate further, other 3rd parties are observing and evaluating as well. Such incidents produce uncertainty and risk, a situation in which only Wall Street thrives in, not business (niche, even less so). 
 

We likely won't hear anything about this issue until it is completely resolved. 

Edited March 1 by zerO_crash

[draconus]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

That, unless you entertain going back to pre-EDGE (1.5) to fly Hawk...)

Hawk works on DCS 2.5.3.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 2/27/2025 at 10:43 AM, Vakarian said:

Sometimes I do wonder what's the average age of the people in this forum.

Right? I'd like to think the majority of the DCS users is at least in their 40s, but the forum likely isn't representative of the average DCS user.
To be fair, tensions are high in society in general (I don't mean politically but that is included - I mean as a living human being these days) so likely that will bleed through to some extent to forums, but that obviously doesn't excuse regrettable behaviour that's often on display here.
Nice post btw 

[zerO_crash]

15 hours ago, draconus said:

Hawk works on DCS 2.5.3.

May I stand corrected, it was updated with the last 4k textures patch.

Edited March 2 by zerO_crash

[Nightdare]

On 3/1/2025 at 8:18 PM, draconus said:

Hawk works on DCS 2.5.3.

 

You make it sound as if that's somhow an improvement, fact remains, as DCS versions develop, 'lost' modules will end up as abandonware

 

And for the future, what if any other modules/3rd party gets abandoned

Then what? load up 2.5, 2.9 or 3.x of DCS every time you want to play one of them, disc space not being taken up by modules and maps, but 3 (or more) different Core installations

Forget playing 'old' modules on new maps, case in point: Hawk can only fly 3 additional maps of the 16 you can buy, since most are 2.6+

 

The more time progresses, no use trying to MP a Razbam module (or the hawk), while MP will become a bigger future for the longevity of DCS

 

[draconus]

23 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

You make it sound as if that's somhow an improvement, fact remains, as DCS versions develop, 'lost' modules will end up as abandonware

I was just correcting the wrongly mentioned 1.5 requirement for the Hawk. I get your point but currently it's the only module that is left out of DCS.

[Pillowcat]

Yet it seems more bad things, now with red helos is approaching...

[Horns]

There is one big incentive for ED and Razbam to cooperate to keep the mature modules in DCS: income. One possible outcome if ED and Razbam decide to cease their relationship is that ED could offer to update Razbam's modules to keep them compatible with future updates. ED's motivation to do this, besides the goodwill argument, is that they would continue to get a share of the revenue from future sales of these modules, so if the income was likely to be greater than the cost of maintenance it makes cold, dollars-and-cents sense before even considering the possible second-order effects from losing modules. Razbam would continue to reap the remainder of the revenue from these sales, and if they were relieved of the cost of maintenance, that would be revenue with zero outlay. In other words, it's easy to see a future where those modules stay up-to-date, even if Razbam cease to have anything to do with DCS.

It is possible that RZ would be vindictive enough to forego this revenue just to cause problems for ED, and if I was him, right now I'd be signaling that I'm willing to do exactly that to maximize my leverage. I could even paint a change in position as a win, saying ED were desperate to avoid losing modules, so they made an offer too good to refuse.

My point is that IMO, however likely someone rates a split between Razbam and ED, business sense would suggest that losing the mature modules is significantly less likely.

Please note that the scenarios mentioned in this post are purely hypothetical and the products of a possibly-deranged mind (ie mine).

[Nightdare]

2 hours ago, Horns said:

Razbam would continue to reap the remainder of the revenue from these sales, and if they were relieved of the cost of maintenance, that would be revenue with zero outlay. In other words...

Royalties

 

[Tavo89]

On 3/1/2025 at 1:10 PM, zerO_crash said:

"The most disappointing about all this" is mostly subjectively put. Some will claim the F-15E, others the AV-8B. In reality, it's about all the modules that Razbam has made (you might not fly the MiG-19, but I do). In essence then, we're talking about the loss of some four aircraft and one map. As mentioned before, the loss of Hawk left a somewhat bad taste for its owners, however the loss of a sizeable inventory made by Razbam would be a disaster. (Let's be honest, if a module isn't updated any longer, then it's dead for all intents and purposes. That, unless you entertain going back to pre-EDGE (1.5) to fly Hawk...) 

 

I am more than certain that ED realizes this. In addition, all the fuss and buildup post the incident really locks ED's hands from a customer relations perspective. They have to either secure the future of the product lineup, or otherwise, turn up a credible explanation to customers who e.g. have bought these modules at their entry/release price (approx. 5*$60 = $300). To extrapolate further, other 3rd parties are observing and evaluating as well. Such incidents produce uncertainty and risk, a situation in which only Wall Street thrives in, not business (niche, even less so). 
 

We likely won't hear anything about this issue until it is completely resolved. 

As users we have been affected, in terms of losing the current RB modules it would be a disaster, but it is also a disaster to lose the modules that were projected to be developed in the future by Razbam.  

[Mizzy]

1 hour ago, Tavo89 said:

As users we have been affected, in terms of losing the current RB modules it would be a disaster, but it is also a disaster to lose the modules that were projected to be developed in the future by Razbam.  

It has been explained countless times about Razbam modules, the only module that is affected and due updates was the F15-E because it's the only Razbam module still in Early Access, all the others were out of Early Access and considered feature complete with no further features/updates to be added except for fixes to those modules. So you are not losing anything as it stands.

This is all explained in the opening post of this thread. As for what could have been in the future with Razbam, I'm afraid this is a typical ploy to smoke screen the legal dispute, usually by the losing side for obvious reasons. The Mig19S is a good example of promises not being kept by zambrano and using his cohorts to spread smoke screening stories.

Mizzy

[Mizzy]

On 2/27/2025 at 6:46 PM, Smashy said:

I think a majority of the people exhibiting embarrassing levels of naivete are those that really haven't had any firsthand experience with any sort of litigious matter.  If they had, it would be clear to them that disclosing any details in a public forum before the dispute is resolved would be a bad move.  Even with no such experience it's just plain common sense, something the Entitled Gamer often lacks.

Love it 

Miz

[Mizzy]

On 3/1/2025 at 7:18 PM, draconus said:

Hawk works on DCS 2.5.3.

Yes, I know you were just correcting misinformation. However, I have had this idea for some time, I envisage older modules going into legacy versions of DCS so people can still play them if they chose. I play Flanker 2.0 and Janes USAF from time to time just for nostalgic reasons and I am sure some modules will not be viable to continue with as DCS evolves beyond the modules life cycle.

It may well be that DCS 4 won't carry all modules forward into the new gen spec but DCS 3 will remain open for older modules. Just a thought as I had some time on my hands this evening.

Mizzy

[MAXsenna]

20 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

all the others were out of Early Access and considered feature complete with no further features/updates to be added

 

20 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

The Mig19S is a good example of promises not being kept by zambrano and using his cohorts to spread smoke screening stories.

I honestly think he was referring to vapeware like the Flogger.

[Schmidtfire]

1 hour ago, Mizzy said:

It has been explained countless times about Razbam modules, the only module that is affected and due updates was the F15-E because it's the only Razbam module still in Early Access, all the others were out of Early Access and considered feature complete with no further features/updates to be added except for fixes to those modules. So you are not losing anything as it stands.

Incorrect. Modules can be out of Early Access and not be feature complete. F/A-18C is a very good example of this. It's out of Early Access phase since a while back and still receiving new features and updates. I don't know if the name has changed but ED used to call it "Product Sustainment"-phase.

We still see fixes and the occasional addition to modules that are over 10 years old now. The development drags on with every new project and DCS World is always moving forward. Meaning that modules needs development attention to be truly completed and to stay fresh and functional.

Looks like we lost new features, overhauls/improvements and bug fixes on the other RB modules. Unless you are telling me that they were 100% completed in early 2024 and no other feature, improvement or bug fix was planned to be done ever again by Razbam (before this situation happened).

Are they functional and can provide hours of fun in current state? Yes  But calling the other RB modules completed, like there was nothing more to be done, is not correct.

I was very much waiting for updates and overhauls for both the Harrier and MiG-19P.  
  

Edited March 5 by Schmidtfire

[Horns]

1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

Incorrect. Modules can be out of Early Access and not be feature complete. F/A-18C is a very good example of this. It's out of Early Access phase since a while back and still receiving new features and updates. I don't know if the name has changed but ED used to call it "Product Sustainment"-phase.

We still see fixes and the occasional addition to modules that are over 10 years old now. The development drags on with every new project and DCS World is always moving forward. Meaning that modules needs development attention to be truly completed and to stay fresh and functional.

Looks like we lost new features, overhauls/improvements and bug fixes on the other RB modules. Unless you are telling me that they were 100% completed in early 2024 and no other feature, improvement or bug fix was planned to be done ever again by Razbam (before this situation happened).

Are they functional and can provide hours of fun in current state? Yes  But calling the other RB modules completed, like there was nothing more to be done, is not correct.

I was very much waiting for updates and overhauls for both the Harrier and MiG-19P.  
  

Products can be in product sustainment phase rather than 'feature complete' when out of Early Access, and this is designated by the dev. None of the current Razbam modules are designated as such. A module can be 'feature complete' in terms of its product lifecycle and still receive new features, such as the M2K updates delivered when the AdA got involved.

Mizzy is correct, all of these modules, save the F-15E, were designated as 'feature complete'. The promises to add to them don't change that.

[Mizzy]

1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

Incorrect. Modules can be out of Early Access and not be feature complete.
  

When did I say all modules out of early access are considered feature complete? Read what I actually said and not what you think I said.

This is what I said:

"F15-E because it's the only Razbam module still in Early Access, all the others were out of Early Access and considered feature complete with no further features/updates to be added except for fixes to those modules." 

Notice I was referring to Razbam and did you spot the word "considered"? This is how misinformation spreads by someone who doesn't read posts correctly and then makes up the sentence halfway through and then decides to use the F18 as an example ! 

Kind regards

Miz

Edited March 5 by Mizzy