waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Manschy]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Manschy:

Hope this is an appropriate forum and I hope there are some more interested parties.

Regretfully, I noticed the lost of the Harrier in DCS. With the release of the Germany MAP, especially the cold war era, I had hope to arouse my yesterdays memories.

Missing a Harrier GR3 or GR7 intensely in DCS, I hope for a developer who can bring back the cold war atmosphere near the german border with Harrier Hides those days. Especially living nearby the former RAF Gütersloh airbase, where Harriers were stationed at in the 80s and 90s, I would like to see this great aircraft.

So what are your thoughts?

Will we have a shot at a Harrier, especially a british version? Asking this, because especially the German Map would be a great habitat for it...

I know Dino Cattaneo (Indiafoxtecho) did a great job on a Harrier too. So...is there still hope?

What happened?

I did post this deliberately in the Off-Topic forum to maybe get serious answers and not to attend to any pros and cons regarding Razbam.

So why did you merge my comment into this thread? Why not directly into the spam folder? Disappointing, I just was interested into a Harrier alternative .

Done this, no other interested user will discuss the topic either will find it....

Is this the standard dealing here inside?

[draconus]

33 minutes ago, Manschy said:

So why did you merge my comment into this thread?

You wrote about "missing Harrier" so one might read it as the regret about Razbam's Harrier withdrawn from the shop recently Anyway there are no official plans either from ED or from 3rd parties to make any Harrier module. You can wish for one here:

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/207-dcs-core-wish-list/

[bfr]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

A British harrier will be a problem, by RAZBAM, talking on the past, was a "license problem" by the military stament with some data restricted.

If i'm not mistaken wasn't what ended up as the current Harrier module originally meant to be a Sea Harrier FRS1 but bizarrely too much was still deemed to be classified (mostly the radar) and they then pivoted to the USMC variant?

[Manschy]

Thank you very much for your answers. Hope dies last, but I do so

[Nightdare]

On 4/19/2025 at 10:04 AM, cfrag said:

How about they wrestle in public over Easter at the Pope's Saint Peter Basilica, with the pope himself as referee to insure impartiality? And the side of the public that screams loudest wins. 

Yeah, that would help.

 

@NineLine

Easter is over,... who won?

Because the attention at the basilica shifted to some other things 

[Alicatt]

11 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

 

@NineLine

Easter is over,... who won?

Because the attention at the basilica shifted to some other things 

No smoke without fire

[Horns]

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

 

@NineLine

Easter is over,... who won?

Because the attention at the basilica shifted to some other things 

Clearly ED has to provide some answers, lest the cardinals cease support for the church…

[Smashy]

8 hours ago, draconus said:

Thanks for posting this.  If this thread is any indication, both Internetting and understanding legal disputes are really hard.

[Dragon1-1]

22 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Bingo. It's just like a divorce case. If the father/husband says something like "Timmy got a black eye when we were playing catch", as innocent as it might sight, you can be the Wife/Mother's lawyer would latch onto that and use it as an example of abuse, and that the Dad shouldn't be allowed near the kids.

Note, unless the trial is already on the edge (or the court is biased and is looking for an excuse to screw one party over), this doesn't actually work, at least in most cases. Both the court and the other side is quite able to call BS on such maneuvers. It can delay the process, though, or open the door for an appeal (...which won't reach a different conclusion, but will further line the lawyers' pockets). Lawyers, if they can't win, will throw anything at the wall even if they know it won't stick, because they're being paid as long as the case is going, no matter who wins. I suppose they could otherwise be accused for not firing every shot that they could have on behalf of their client, but in the end, this grasping at straws only ever benefits them. 

The sad thing is, it's extremely difficult to put an end to that con without compromising the right to due process, particularly in complex cases where there's no obvious winner.

[Harlikwin]

On 4/16/2025 at 1:34 PM, pepin1234 said:

This. Create a Branch company and keep going with Mig-23 project. Can someone in ED and Razbam illuminate with positive ideas to save Mig-23MLA module? 

Sure thing, get the guys that weren't paid for the last project they spent years making to make another module... I'm sure they will be super enthusiastic to do it... Currently the idea of 23 is totally dead as Razbam isn't gonna make it unless the current situation is resolved, and even maybe not even then. And no other Devs have the docs/expertise/SME's to do it. 

[PhantomHans]

6 hours ago, Smashy said:

Thanks for posting this.  If this thread is any indication, both Internetting and understanding legal disputes are really hard.

Oh sweet, that works great.

Save my ignore button from some heavy lifting.

[Oban]

18 hours ago, Manschy said:

Hope this is an appropriate forum and I hope there are some more interested parties.

Regretfully, I noticed the lost of the Harrier in DCS. With the release of the Germany MAP, especially the cold war era, I had hope to arouse my yesterdays memories.

Missing a Harrier GR3 or GR7 intensely in DCS, I hope for a developer who can bring back the cold war atmosphere near the german border with Harrier Hides those days. Especially living nearby the former RAF Gütersloh airbase, where Harriers were stationed at in the 80s and 90s, I would like to see this great aircraft.

So what are your thoughts?

Will we have a shot at a Harrier, especially a british version? Asking this, because especially the German Map would be a great habitat for it...

I know Dino Cattaneo (Indiafoxtecho) did a great job on a Harrier too. So...is there still hope?

There must have been plans from ED to have a British Harrier (GR5) in the core game, more than likely AI only as there's an edm file for it in the core files, it's a shame they never activated it, as it would be perfect for the new Germany map.

[TobiasDeVil]

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that, despite the great work done by the team behind the F-15E, this module cannot be saved if the element RZ is still in the equation and pulls it down.

Edited Wednesday at 05:17 AM by TobiasDeVil

[stonewall197922]

19 minutes ago, TobiasDeVil said:

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that, despite the great work done by the team behind the F-15E, this module cannot be saved if the element RZ is still in the equation and pulls it down.

It will be maintained for awhile by ed. But i in doubts that ed will continue to develop rz modules.

[alejandr0]

2 hours ago, stonewall197922 said:

It will be maintained for awhile by ed. But i in doubts that ed will continue to develop rz modules.

ED will not develop them, it will maintain them, of course it will not last forever.

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, Oban said:

There must have been plans from ED to have a British Harrier (GR5) in the core game, more than likely AI only as there's an edm file for it in the core files, it's a shame they never activated it, as it would be perfect for the new Germany map.

Just had a look and yes, you're absolutely right. One slight correction though - it's at least a GR.7, the GR.5 has a different nose.

[Manschy]

The GR7 would be a great option! Those Harriers were stationed at RAF Gütersloh for example and did operations on manouvre sites around this base.

Releasing the Germany Cold War Map shows still a gap in the aircraft modules: Some hardly missed british jets and aircraft because of the british allied occupation was based in the north and western areas in Germany those days, especially also Tornados or Jaguars.

Looking very forward to what may happen probably near future. But with a Harrier, one could finally use this great aircraft where it belongs to: Beside the troops nearby the border - mostly needed in Germany in the Cold War era. An extremely important and interesting theme for lots of campains and action in my opinion.

[Mike Force Team]

@pepin1234 This dispute is likely going to continue to drag out for many more months. Asking, publicizing, writing, encouraging, demanding, etc., ED to resolve the problem with Razbam won't change anything. Many, including me, have tried without success. 

Since Razbam requested the withdrawal of their modules due to non-payment, ED is left supporting Razbam's modules as best as they can.  

For the Mig-23, the module is likely to not appear. Should ED and Razbam end business, another developer might develop their iteration of the Mig-23.

Mike Force Team 

[NineLine]

23 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

And no other Devs have the docs/expertise/SME's to do it. 

That is simply not true. But let's worry about the current modules before we worry about things not here yet. 

[Dangerzone]

On 4/22/2025 at 7:00 PM, Manschy said:

Regretfully, I noticed the lost of the Harrier in DCS. With the release of the Germany MAP, especially the cold war era, I had hope to arouse my yesterdays memories

Did I miss something? My understanding is that the Harrier is still operational in DCS even now, so unless it's something you haven't already owned prior - you should still be able to fly it in Germany? 

On 4/22/2025 at 8:21 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

A British harrier will be a problem, by RAZBAM, talking on the past, was a "license problem" by the military stament with some data restricted.

But maybe the rules are changing,,,  especially if we have a F35 coming to DCS. This may mean the relaxing of DCS rules when it comes to allowing 'guestimates' in possibly? 

[Dragon1-1]

No, the licensing rules are not changing. If the Harrier was held up by the British military or BAE (the likely holders of Hawker-Siddley IP) not wanting it to be made, F-35 won't change a thing. US companies seem generally easier to work with than most when it comes to licenses. Even with AV-8B, RAZBAM simply omitted some classified MFD pages. In fact, that the original Mirage 2000C was approved by ED shows that DCS wasn't immune to playing fast and loose with accuracy, as far as 3rd parties went. It took a while until AdA stepped in and got RAZBAM to fix it. So if RAZBAM tells you there's no enough information to make something, they probably mean it.

[Dangerzone]

23 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No, the licensing rules are not changing. If the Harrier was held up by the British military or BAE (the likely holders of Hawker-Siddley IP) not wanting it to be made, F-35 won't change a thing. US companies seem generally easier to work with than most when it comes to licenses. Even with AV-8B, RAZBAM simply omitted some classified MFD pages. In fact, that the original Mirage 2000C was approved by ED shows that DCS wasn't immune to playing fast and loose with accuracy, as far as 3rd parties went. It took a while until AdA stepped in and got RAZBAM to fix it. So if RAZBAM tells you there's no enough information to make something, they probably mean it.

Thanks for the clarification. So it's not so much about pure simuliation & classified info vs guessing - it's more that game makers are legally required to get a license to use any model aircraft in their games? 

[Dragon1-1]

Yes, and that's what people often don't understand. It's often licensing that's the problem, particularly with non-US aircraft. It's just like with racing games, if you want a Porsche in your game, you have to get a license from Porsche. It's a fairly standardized process for car manufacturers, not so for military aircraft. Although, car makers have been known to put conditions on it, too, Ferrari in particular doesn't like criminals being seen driving their cars, and almost nobody allows realistic crashes to happen to their vehicles.

Incidentally, this isn't only true for vehicles. A change in laws around this is why you see ArmA3 actively avoiding naming any of its guns and attachments with real world names, even those that aren't fictional. Gun designs and names are also IP that belongs to the manufacturer, and you can't just take this IP and use it to make money. There's some leeway, so, say, a TV show doesn't need to license all the cars in a parking lot the characters walk through or a Glock the criminal of the day waves around, but for something central to the show, or game in our case, the IP owner does get a say. Sometimes they're just happy with free advertising, but racing game devs do have to pay a licensing fee, and racing games routinely get pulled from stores when the licenses expire. DCS operates in a different way, but the basic fact that you usually need the IP owner's go-ahead before making a module doesn't change. There are some caveats to this, but for Western aircraft, that's how it works. 

It's why it took ED so long to square away licensing for MiG-29. Licensing is a very muddy and bureaucratic matter in Russia, and they have people there, so they can't just ignore the matter. RAZBAM, OTOH, got some deal for MiG-23 from a foreign operator, cutting the Russians out. From what I heard, Russian government can sometimes make problems even with WWII era aircraft.

Edited Thursday at 02:10 AM by Dragon1-1

[Dangerzone]

27 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Yes, and that's what people often don't understand. It's often licensing that's the problem, particularly with non-US aircraft. It's just like with racing games, if you want a Porsche in your game, you have to get a license from Porsche. It's a fairly standardized process for car manufacturers, not so for military aircraft. Although, car makers have been known to put conditions on it, too, Ferrari in particular doesn't like criminals being seen driving their cars, and almost nobody allows realistic crashes to happen to their vehicles.

Incidentally, this isn't only true for vehicles. A change in laws around this is why you see ArmA3 actively avoiding naming any of its guns and attachments with real world names, even those that aren't fictional. Gun designs and names are also IP that belongs to the manufacturer, and you can't just take this IP and use it to make money. There's some leeway, so, say, a TV show doesn't need to license all the cars in a parking lot the characters walk through or a Glock the criminal of the day waves around, but for something central to the show, or game in our case, the IP owner does get a say. Sometimes they're just happy with free advertising, but racing game devs do have to pay a licensing fee, and racing games routinely get pulled from stores when the licenses expire. DCS operates in a different way, but the basic fact that you usually need the IP owner's go-ahead before making a module doesn't change. There are some caveats to this, but for Western aircraft, that's how it works. 

It's why it took ED so long to square away licensing for MiG-29. Licensing is a very muddy and bureaucratic matter in Russia, and they have people there, so they can't just ignore the matter. RAZBAM, OTOH, got some deal for MiG-23 from a foreign operator, cutting the Russians out. From what I heard, Russian government can sometimes make problems even with WWII era aircraft.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that up. Very informative, and answers quite a lot. Cheers!

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

That is simply not true. But let's worry about the current modules before we worry about things not here yet. 

Fair enough, I'm sure ED could do it too, but well your plate looks pretty full with the 29/15C/35 hellcat etc.