Northern Israel / Southern Lebanon detail removed

[OSIW]

vor 22 Minuten schrieb MAXsenna:

They should have told us up front. That's obvious. More importantly, it seems ED wasn't even aware of this. I would assume it was up to ED to solve such disputes.
Now, do yourself a favour and hop of to the UGRA forum and complain there, to make them see that they are ones in the wrong. Not OnReTech.
Cheers!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

We don't really know who is in the wrong here. It looks like you're correct, but we do not know.

[PinkCube]

In light of fairness will Ugra Media be deleting all content in Normandy 2 that trespasses into the boarders of The Channel map?

[MAXsenna]

6 minutes ago, OSIW said:

We don't really know who is in the wrong here. It looks like you're correct, but we do not know.

You're for sure right about that, hence why I apologise beforehand in that other forum, in case I'm wrong. Occam's usually apply though...  

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Edited August 10, 2024 by MAXsenna

[Minsky]

If that's true, I think it would be fair that people demanding refund for Sinai will be paid from Ugra's profits.

[OSIW]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb MAXsenna:

You're for sure right about that, hence why I apologise beforehand in that other forum, in case I'm wrong. Occam's usually apply though...

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

I've read that. And gave it one of those thanks cups. Occam's most likely apllies here as well. Still we don't know why the situation is like it is.

[MAXsenna]

Sinai is Early Access and with that subject to change. If you do not like that, do not buy Early Access titles in the future.

True, while it took a year to remove it. We could've been told about the dispute a long time ago. Heck, ED could've been told, and it could've been solved without us ever knowing. Agree?  

[Nightstalker]

After a YEAR with no updates to this map, they finally put one out and completely stay quiet on the fact they gave with one hand and took away the other.  To be honest, I thought the northern part of the map was going to be getting MORE work as I felt it was the weakest part of the map and I enjoy flying in that area due to present conflict in the area.  The Syria map already did a much better job of this area and I hoped the Sinai map would be improved here, not REMOVED.

It's starting to become a real gamble investing in these maps lately.  This needs to be resolved immediately or refunds need to be issued.  I can't believe in all of the years I've been with DCS 2024 is the first year I actually asked for a refund and it may now be twice.

Keeping this completely secret until customers "noticed" is just disgraceful.

[Viking 1-1]

Extremely disappointed by ugra media if this turns out to be true.

Why this behavior? Sinai is NO competition to Syria. It is different landmarks.

So please act like a grown up and give Sinai northern Israel back. Or are you proud in damaging another 3rd party developer with acting like this?

To be honest, with all the drama recently I think ED should check who is viable as a 3rd party for the future and who is not. All this puts DCS in general in a very bad light.

Edited August 10, 2024 by Viking 1-1
Spelling

[Alpiinoo]

I'm very surprised with this... 

[v81]

3 hours ago, OnReTech said:

Have a nice day, friends.

We see your indignation about the northern part of Israel in our map. Yes, this part of the map was removed from the build intentionally.
This was the demand of a third party, in order to quickly resolve the conflict, it was decided to do just that.
We are very sorry about what happened and apologize for the fact that this was not covered in advance.
But the dialogue continues, the data was not been completely removed, but only been excluded for this build.
We are doing everything possible to approve the return of northern Israel in the nearest upcoming update.

Do not be so categorical and hasty in your conclusions.
We can't always do what we want, sometimes we have to do what we are required to do.

It is obvious that our goal cannot be "to make the map worse".

Hasty?

You either A) thought it would pass un-noticed, or B) didn't care enough to inform your customers.

Making this post you just made 24 hours early would have put an entirely different spin on this.

THIS is why i wait sometimes a year or so before buying modules.

[AbsurdBurds]

I use Syria as my primary map and Sinai as my secondary as there is so much synergy between the two.

However, in light of the detailed northern Israel area deletion, I won’t be recommending or using Syria or Sinai. 

I promise you that Syria is the number 1 recommended map in DCS and Sinai is a distant second, if even that.

You are only hurting yourselves by upsetting the player base and causing hurt feelings.

I strongly urge all DCS 3rd parties to work together because I believe we are stronger together!

[Thump]

3 hours ago, Blazkovitch said:

To be fair, only the Southern Israel is included in the map’s description…

Please don't defend an exceedingly poor move by the dev. 

[Viper33]

So to make this clear, can Onretech please contact Steam so customers can request a refund as Steam does not allow you to refund a year old product by default? This is borderline bait and switch especially after a year with no updates. Doesn't matter how well the map is done and what new was added. No one signed anything in the EULA that says another 3rd party can request to remove parts of a product.

[Snoopy]

If that part of the map that had detail removed was because of contractual stuff it IS ED’s failure to know what was in Ugra’s contract when negotiating this maps contract.  Ironically Ugra expanded the Syria map south AFTER Sinai was released.

I also don’t see how Sinai having that part of the map in high detail would take away from Syria sales even if it eventually had a few airbases added.  One map goes deep to the north the other to the south.  
 

And IIRC when originally release it was mentioned that some airfields in the now low detail area would likely be added (I may not be remembering correctly).

at the end of the day it’s another communication failure in the DCS ecosystem that frustrates me the most and it’s another example of me losing faith in the ED and 3rd party ecosystem.

Edited August 10, 2024 by Snoopy

[Ramses823]

This is disappointing, at the end of the day you can't sell a product and then have people buy it, then after they buy it you remove it, that's bad business and reputation is key for any business that wants to last. 

Edited August 10, 2024 by Ramses823

[DJK]

Shame on you OnReTech.. and UgraMedia too.. the balls to do this without informing the public and offering refunds is plain dirty.. You're making your way up on the RAZBAM & VEAO wall VERY quick. I wouldn't have expected this garbage in DCS.. but alas.. it seems like more and more 3rd parties nowdays walk the path of shamelessly sticking it up to their customers. And you ED, your hands are NOT clean in this! Reign in your 3rd parties before they do more harm ffs. I am disgusted with all 3 of you! To do this at the expense of your customers..

Edited August 10, 2024 by DJK

[LuseKofte]

Early access start to loose a lot of credibility among a lot of potential buyers. 
In light of turmoiled period we have been through , right or wrong this could not happened in a worse moment. 
I would not add petrol into this. But it puts things in a bad perspective 

[Ramses823]

2 minutes ago, Thump said:

This should have never been an issue to begin with when it was submitted for initial approval.a. As a customer, I saw the overlap IMMEDIATELY.  They all (ED & ORT) should have seen this issue comming from a mile away and never released it with that content.  They also can't just take away what was sold at time of purchase.  That would be the equivalent of chevy taking your tires back from your truck because Ford had them first a year after you bought your vehicle.  To top it off, they either tried to hide/ignore the move or they are incompetent in communication. Any way you slice it, ORT, ED, And now Urgas are ALL in the wrong.

Well said  

[Blazkovitch]

13 minutes ago, Thump said:

This should have never been an issue to begin with when it was submitted for initial approval.a. As a customer, I saw the overlap IMMEDIATELY.  They all (ED & ORT) should have seen this issue comming from a mile away and never released it with that content.  They also can't just take away what was sold at time of purchase.  That would be the equivalent of Chevy taking your tires back a year after you bought their vehicle because Ford had them first.  To top it off, they either tried to hide/ignore the move or they are incompetent in communication. Any way you slice it, ORT, ED, And now Urgas are ALL in the wrong.

 

My impression is that ORT implemented something they were not supposed to and for some strange reason UgraMedia told them to remove it after a year. I'd maybe ask UM why now?

 

7 minutes ago, Rifter said:

Being forced to change something for reasons beyond your control is one thing. Simply doing it like that, without any advance notice and without explaining the background, is simply poor communication style. And since everyone can basically fully control their own communication, the accusation of a terrible communication will probably be allowed.

I'm just pointing out that people are complaining about removal of things they were not supposed to receive in the first place.

 

Also, as pixie pointed out it may not necessarily be UM that told ORT to remove something. 3rd party may also pertain to an intelligence agency or something similar. All I'm saying that I don't know what's going on and usually in this situation it is better to sit and wait than to cry about a game. "Why you heff to be mad? It's only a game..."

Edited August 10, 2024 by Blazkovitch

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please try to keep the feedback constructive, calling names wont be tolerated here 

We are trying to get the issue resolved but we will need to be patient. 

thank you 

[Mascant]

Will there be the posibility for a refund?

[Thump]

5 minutes ago, Blazkovitch said:

My impression is that ORT implemented something they were not supposed to and for some strange reason UgraMedia told them to remove it after a year. I'd maybe ask UM why now?

 

I'm just pointing out that people are complaining about removal of things they were not supposed to receive in the first place.

Everyone's asking why now and in good DCS fashion both ED and Third parties are not being transparent.  The fact that they were allowed to implement it at all is a clear sign of a systems failure on ED's end as the corporation leading these sales.  This is especially a problem if ED is going to absolve itself from 3rd Party actions after initial approval.  What we are seeing is a symptom of a greater problem that has existed in DCS's ecosystem for years (decades?) now.

5 minutes ago, Blazkovitch said:

Sure, it is highly detailed with all the airbases…

It's still there and that was the main point.  Overlapping terrain.  And who knows...maybe there are plans to expand into that area (if we're going that route)

[BIGNEWY]

folks please stay away from politics here it will be removed

[Laobi]

Dear OnReTech,

I've taken a long break from DCS over the past few years due to being busy with life and more pressing issues. 

I returned in late May, and was very optimistic  about recent developments (launch of the F4, Chinook etc.,).  The June 5th update was fantastic,  was re-acquiring old skills, developing new ones and slowly getting ready to get into the production of more videos, however unfortunately update 2.9.6.57650 killed my VR performance to the point that the game was unplayable, the hotfix 2.9.6.58056 made  things worse, and I am sorry to report the latest update has screwed the pooch even further to the point that VR is a migraine inducing slideshow.  The above is not your problem, and I generally let these things wash over my head, wait for the next update in the hope that things will improve.  I've been playing DCS for long enough to know that some updates can kill performance for some users, while improving it for others, this all depends on the myriad combinations of hardware, so I am generally patient in this regard.

Allow me to preface the following by saying that I loved this map, probably more than any other map in DCS.  I loved the map for its versatility and the ability to set it in either an historic or modern phase of the 3 ring military industrial circus we call the Middle East.

What I do neither patiently accept nor forgive is the behaviour of your company in applying this update.  This is unprofessional at every level for the following reasons:

You did not consider reaching out to your clients prior to the update to inform them of the possibility of a detrimental change.

You did not consider that it would be wise to inform current and prospective clients of the reason for this change.  Pleas do not hide behind excuses such as 'private discussions' or 'legal pressure', these pale into insignificance compared to your rapidly depleting consumer goodwill and trust.  We are your customers and we have a right to know, and a right to be part of the process prior to reaching a decision that removes one third of the value of the product we purchased.

Speaking of product value, your map only has 3 uses for military flight sim players:

1: Policing operations in the West Bank.

2: Military operations in and around the Gaza Strip.

3: Historic Arab/Israeli conflicts.

Removing the north of Israel removes any way of simulating those historic Arab/Israeli conflicts in any real or complete sense.  The ability to repel Syrian attacks over the Golan is now defunct, what are you defending?  An empty blank space, nothing of value or consequence.  You have left the mission planner/server owner with some policing operations and a lob sided Gaza turkey shoot, meanwhile the Egyptian side is left to training missions and pyramid gazing.  Additionally you added all sorts of eye candy, this is great, but not while the navigation aids are partially and in some cases not functioning, we fly past or maybe bomb the eye candy a few times while yelling 'kewlll', but we consistently curse the fact that we can't get our F16 back to our home base without navigating via the stars like Bedouin.  As for the F35 parking spaces, don't get me started, I hope to be alive for the 2050 and beyond video, but I've run the engine hard and have to be realistic regarding these things.

Finally there's your response.  It may have not broken forum rules, but it was unprofessional to an inexcusable degree.  First the greeting, we are not your friends, we are your clients, it's quite obvious from your actions and indeed your first communication that you have failed to recognise this distinction.  Then you go on to explain, without any evidence, that in order to resolve a conflict quickly you just deleted a very important portion of the product we purchased.  You do not explain with whom and why this dispute had arose, we're just supposed to trust you on this.  Of course, the implication we're supposed to draw is that Urga Media put legal pressure on you to sabotage our product, we're supposed to pack up our trebuchets and march over to besiege their part of the forum, this should not wash with us, because.....YOU MADE THE DECISION AND YOU NEUTERED OUR PRODUCT!  Then you admonish us not to be 'hasty' nor draw 'categorical' conclusions, like somehow we've got it all wrong, that somehow we have made some terrible mistake, and you are the victim of our undeserved wrath, in business there are times for everything, even for passive aggressive indignation, and indeed for grovelling, you have misread the room, this is not the time for the former!  I hope the above issues with your statement is a result of the inaccuracies of Google Translate or perhaps a lack of fluency in English, and not the intention of your message, both are forgivable, but not in public relations, this is why we employ translators or engage someone with a high degree of expertise in a language before posting messages that could be critical to the survival of our business. 

As you have made the decisions it is up to you to resolve them to the satisfaction of your customer base, or face the commercial consequences.

 

Thank you,

Laobi

To the Moderators:  It is not my intention to inflame the situation, just to make my displeasure with this event unequivocally clear.  I appreciate all the hard work you guys do and know it is often a thankless task.  I do not believe I have broken the forum rules here, but if I have sailed too close to the wind please remove it, as always, your house, your rules, I will post this elsewhere without taking offence.

 

[Hawkeye_UK]

4 hours ago, OnReTech said:

Have a nice day, friends.

We see your indignation about the northern part of Israel in our map. Yes, this part of the map was removed from the build intentionally.
This was the demand of a third party, in order to quickly resolve the conflict, it was decided to do just that.
We are very sorry about what happened and apologize for the fact that this was not covered in advance.
But the dialogue continues, the data was not been completely removed, but only been excluded for this build.
We are doing everything possible to approve the return of northern Israel in the nearest upcoming update.

Do not be so categorical and hasty in your conclusions.
We can't always do what we want, sometimes we have to do what we are required to do.

It is obvious that our goal cannot be "to make the map worse".

That's ok OnReTech re not always being able to do what you want.  Background - been playing since lomac days, own all modules except 2 and have contributed over the years to many EA products upto and including the F4 (the latest was the bombing table adjustments recommendations).  Use all maps.

The issue i have with you as a company (not personally obviously) is the terrible communication to the EA people that are thus trying to assist you in this product development.  I will ask for the record, what is going to happen also to all the missing tacan and nav frequencies.  If i can add them in the course of a day, to the best of my ability using the tacan product we have in mission editor, why can you not add them in the course of a year?

Its about communication and the total lack of it.  Once you grasp that you will understand your consumer base much more and be more successful.  We want this to work, we want more third party map makers, hence why we bought your product.  What we don't want is another dev that doesn't provide communication or reply to things.  I think most would be happy if you could confirm that you will reply in a two to three week window, no one is asking for instant replies, but an acknowledgement and follow up.  Right now this is far from the case.

Whatever the shortcoming or reason for this must be addressed or your will not suceed, and we want you too.

As a closing note and more for ED, what this implies is we have third parties talking to each other and ED is not aware (as per here and discord re nineline).  I struggle to comprehend this how can ED not know what is going on?  Surely all discussions should go through the seller of the product to the consumer?  Again i also go back to testing, and lack of it in the closed beta - for this not to be on the patch notes is asking for trouble, you could off ofset some of the annoyance with clear communication.