waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[Mike Force Team]

ED has indicated they will support the Razbam modules. 

[Esac_mirmidon]

Only on the DCS core side, because, as has been told numerous times, ED doesnt have any code from any RB module. Resuming, as the dispute is not resolved, ED can only make DCS compatible with RB modules as they are now. No updates, no changes to RB modules can be made by ED.

Supporting only means try to make DCS compatible with the modules. 

Until the dispute is resolved. Or ED offers RB to buy the code. Or the worst scenario, no solution, RB is out of DCS and one day an update for DCS will advertise...

"RB modules are no longer supported in DCS version 3.xxx. Please use previous versions of DCS to fly RB modules"

Edited Monday at 08:39 PM by Esac_mirmidon

[lee1hy]

GARBAGE

[Mike Force Team]

@Esac_mirmidon I don't believe Razbam will sell the coding to ED.  ED will support the Razbam modules as best they can in the meantime. We are frustrated this ongoing dispute affects us because we are not receiving timely monthly updates. 

[av8orDave]

42 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

@Esac_mirmidon I don't believe Razbam will sell the coding to ED.  ED will support the Razbam modules as best they can in the meantime. We are frustrated this ongoing dispute affects us because we are not receiving timely monthly updates. 

I chuckled when I read "not receiving timely monthly updates." Not only that, the modules aren't receiving ANY updates. Not only that, core features of the modules are starting to erode. If we're being honest about the situation, the whole "maintaining modules to ensure compatibility" is not really happening. The JTAC ATHS feature on the Harrier, for example, which once functioned, hasn't worked in nearly a year.

[Mike Force Team]

@av8orDave I believe that we might, at a future, read that Razbam's modules are fully deprecated and both companies go their separate ways. 

While we are hopeful that things would have worked out, the likelihood of it happening decreases. Eventually, patience wears out and somebody makes a decision. 

[draconus]

36 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

While we are hopeful that things would have worked out, the likelihood of it happening decreases.

What makes you think that? Just because of time passed?

Edited Wednesday at 03:19 PM by draconus

[Mike Force Team]

@draconus I foresee a cessation of Razbam and ED's business relationship. 

When Razbam recently told ED to stop selling the Razbam's modules, I saw the writing on the wall. 

It is only a matter of time until Razbam's modules become unusable because we don't have monthly updates. Only Razbam fails to deliver while other vendors suvmit their updates for ED to vet.

Perhaps running out patience, tired of monitoring a persistent issue, and negative community feedback could combine to end a nagging problem.

Edited Wednesday at 03:27 PM by Mike Force Team

[draconus]

My point was if it is legal case we need to wait and during that time there's exactly the same chance for positive resolution.

[Mike Force Team]

@draconus Agreed to the writing part regarding legal action and court cases taking time. It is likely the court case will take a long time. In the meantime, we wait and focus on other ED topics.

[JuiceIsLoose]

Just because lawyers are involved doesn’t mean anything is going to court. 

Edited Wednesday at 10:55 PM by JuiceIsLoose

[Beirut]

12 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Just because lawyers are involved doesn’t mean anything is going to court. 

 

No, it just means everything will be super expensive and overly complicated. 

[rob10]

26 minutes ago, JuiceIsLoose said:

Just because lawyers are involved doesn’t mean anything is going to court. 

Very true, but even if you just have lawyers negotiating it, it's not going to go fast because they will check and double check all the details before responding to even tiny changes in any proposals (because that's their job).

[Hammer1-1]

On 6/16/2025 at 1:49 PM, Esac_mirmidon said:

"RB modules are no longer supported in DCS version 3.xxx. Please use previous versions of DCS to fly RB modules"

at this point Im kind of ok with that. its safe to say that Razbam is finished in DCS at this point whether they agree to come back and finish the F-15E or not. 

[Oban]

RB can't take the F15E to another platform in its current guise, as it was made using ED's SDK, and coding, they would have to start from ground up again, otherwise there once again an issue with IP rights, I seem to recall that the Base model for the F15E was actually taken from ED's stock AI version, and RB souped it up ..again this would mean if thta was the case, RV would have to create the entire mesh for another F15E for whatever platform they'd apply their services to. 

They say no news is good news, even Ron seems to have stopped posting cryptic/stupid messages of recent times, whatever is going on, it's far from being a simple solution... we just have to keep flying our RB modules until they no longer work. 

[Czar66]

2 hours ago, Oban said:

I seem to recall that the Base model for the F15E was actually taken from ED's stock AI version, and RB souped it up

Is there a source to that info? Because it was well documented that it is a Metal 2 Mesh work, meaning that was from scratch, and the creator advertised it as such...

[Esac_mirmidon]

The final 3D model is 100% made by Metal2mesh. Nothing used from the former AI model.

Edited Thursday at 09:16 AM by Esac_mirmidon

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Czar66 said:

Is there a source to that info? Because it was well documented that it is a Metal 2 Mesh work, meaning that was from scratch, and the creator advertised it as such...

once upon a time it was the ED F-15E....waaay back in the early days of development.

[Czar66]

8 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

once upon a time it was the ED F-15E....waaay back in the early days of development.

That's unrelated. The claim was the RB F-15E mesh was based from EDs F-15E AI. That is not proven to be the case. Edit: It turns out it was.

9 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

The final 3D model is 100% made by Metal2mesh. Nothing used from the former AI model.

That's my understanding as well.

M2M did an amazing job. I followed the previews throughout the years. It is a disservice to that good work claiming it is something other than its real nature...

(good old days where the pilot and WSO could put the visor on in 3rd person. Sadly it will stay that way until ....).

Edited Thursday at 06:53 PM by Czar66
I was wrong

[Esac_mirmidon]

And more things planned lost, like the JHMCS helmet. 

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

The final 3D model is 100% made by Metal2mesh. Nothing used from the former AI model.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thats why im talking about 3D final model.

We can discuss if UV maps are "3D model" in strict sense or not. Obviously the instructions, the map to fit a 3D model are needed, but you need to build the 3D model itself

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

8 hours ago, Oban said:

They say no news is good news, even Ron seems to have stopped posting cryptic/stupid messages of recent times, whatever is going on, it's far from being a simple solution... we just have to keep flying our RB modules until they no longer work. 

That's an actual relief.

[Plagi_Arism]

5 hours ago, Esac_mirmidon said:

The final 3D model is 100% made by Metal2mesh. Nothing used from the former AI model.

This is a completely false statement. The BIGGEST BlackShark in this topic.
Ed's old Mudhen model is full of screaming flaws and deficiencies, and these flaws are completely reflected in the RB model too. Not only polygons but animations are the same-wrong.

[Esac_mirmidon]

If you say so.