waiting for resolution ED/RAZBAM Situation Info & Discussion

[MAXsenna]

39 minutes ago, spacefox said:

  I mean is anyone using Windows XP these days

You're either joking or not working in IT. @Dragon1-1 is totally correct. Not that many years ago there were quite a few jokes in the industry about NATO systems still running NT 4.0 with needed floppy disk support.  

[Tank50us]

2 minutes ago, Gizmo03 said:

And the guys in the Navy didn't have to pay for their F-14  

Yeah, the taxpayers did, and Mav nearly wrecked his trying to save Cougar!

9 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

VEAO Was 2, there were pre-orders taken for the P-40F

That's certainly news to me...

but to go on the post of the guy you were replying to... yeah... we have a good hunch of what would be viable solutions to this mess, but to date, there isn't one beyond "let's hope they can work it out like adults". Failing that, and considering how popular those modules were, ED would either have to make replacements themselves or contract a 3rd party to make them. I doubt they'd let them sit and rot.

[Horns]

To the coders and modders here: Anyone up for speculating whether you could have multiple versions of the DCS engine within the same file structure, and if so, what would be the tradeoffs? I ask because I know with my install most of the space is maps, so it would be a lot easier to carry multiple installs if I only had to have one instance of each map stored...

[bfr]

30 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Sure they are, many XP machines are kept around for various reasons, usually off the internet (which was not a core feature back in the day). Because there's nothing that will magically stop XP from working just because it's 20 years old, nobody is banging on MS's door about it. What's more, most XP programs work on newer Windows versions, an approach explicitly taken by MS. If you have a program written on XP, it might not conform to modern best practices (not that modern devs always do so, some still can't get it in their heads that "My Documents" is not for putting game files into), but it'll most likely run on 11. If those cases were even remotely comparable, we'd still be able to fly the Hawk.

The real thing that's hilarious in this thread is the sheer ignorance some people display.

The really funny thing is that if you did similar and stuck to an old build of DCS you might be able to still fly the Hawk and you quite probably will be able to still fly the Razbam modules if you forgo updates beyond 2.9.

[bfr]

1 hour ago, Gizmo03 said:

Maybe it's not that entertaining anymore for you when one of the epic modules you mastered after years suddenly gets abandoned and might stop to work soon.

Can you name me a comparable software title where DLC is bought once and then maintained in perpetuity across major releases? As others have mentioned, MSFS you basically stuck with the old version or have to start over on DLC every 4 years or so. Most racing sims i've played you end up having to start over too on DLC when a new full release comes along if you want to move up with it. And this isn't even a relationship breakdown situation like the ED v RB spat, its just what happens every few years.

[Lucidus]

9 minutes ago, bfr said:

The really funny thing is that if you did similar and stuck to an old build of DCS you might be able to still fly the Hawk and you quite probably will be able to still fly the Razbam modules if you forgo updates beyond 2.9.

Can you have two installed versions with same license in the one computer? That could be a solution. 2.9 for razbam and newest for others.

[alejandr0]

53 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

VEAO Was 2, there were pre-orders taken for the P-40F

But at least that never fully released. What we’re dealing with now are four released and widely used modules (in future four problems).

[Dragon1-1]

46 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

That's certainly news to me...

They were working on a P-40 at one point, though I didn't know they actually put up preorders for it (there definitely was a "box cover" for the store).

23 minutes ago, bfr said:

The really funny thing is that if you did similar and stuck to an old build of DCS you might be able to still fly the Hawk and you quite probably will be able to still fly the Razbam modules if you forgo updates beyond 2.9.

Except that the procedure to do that is obtuse and locks out of other products. You can't fly a Hawk next to an F-4, for instance. 

There's a reason XP machines aren't common, after all. They're adequate in some roles, particularly controlling old but perfectly functional hardware, but they are inferior to a modern PC in many ways. Windows' real strength is my second point, its dedication to backwards compatibility.

7 minutes ago, bfr said:

Can you name me a comparable software title where DLC is bought once and then maintained in perpetuity across major releases?

...every MMO, along with any long term sim platform? The things you mention are games, and even then, I haven't heard of a game that makes a major update break its older DLCs. Their DLCs are also much cheaper, and the "major release" is a proper new product, even if it's not all that different from the old one. In fact, until the licenses give out, you can buy the older versions, too (sometimes the oldies are better than the latest one).

With car games in particular, things are different due to licensing terms common in that genre. Car manufacturers typically license their vehicles for a limited time, and when that term is up, the game is outright pulled off sale. Of course, this isn't always the case, as good old AC shows (still up on Steam after all those years!).

Edited 6 hours ago by Dragon1-1

[Lucidus]

3 minutes ago, bfr said:

Can you name me a comparable software title where DLC is bought once and then maintained in perpetuity across major releases? As others have mentioned, MSFS you basically stuck with the old version or have to start over on DLC every 4 years or so. Most racing sims i've played you end up having to start over too on DLC when a new full release comes along if you want to move up with it. And this isn't even a relationship breakdown situation like the ED v RB spat, its just what happens every few years.

IL2, ATS and ETS2, but there are no 3rd parties I think. 

What comes to XP12 and MSFS2024, it is up to 3rd party. Many developers gave update free. DCS is still expectional for this. I usually want to calculate cost per played hour. That is how you get low price tag for your spouse.

[Dragon1-1]

Just now, Lucidus said:

IL2, ATS and ETS2, but there are no 3rd parties I think. 

In first case, at least, Ugra Media is involved in quite a few modules. 

[Oban]

It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

[Gizmo03]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb bfr:

Can you name me a comparable software title where DLC is bought once and then maintained in perpetuity across major releases? As others have mentioned, MSFS you basically stuck with the old version or have to start over on DLC every 4 years or so. Most racing sims i've played you end up having to start over too on DLC when a new full release comes along if you want to move up with it. And this isn't even a relationship breakdown situation like the ED v RB spat, its just what happens every few years.

No i can't but that doesn't automatically mean it's ok, does it?
Without this dispute these 4 modules were supposed to contiune working as intended like all the other content will in 3.0.
And one of the modules which could be unusable in 3.0 is not even close to be finished. 
If you think that's normal and ok.... good for you. 
 

[bfr]

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Except that the procedure to do that is obtuse and locks out of other products. You can't fly a Hawk next to an F-4, for instance. 

There's a reason XP machines aren't common, after all. They're adequate in some roles, particularly controlling old but perfectly functional hardware, but they are inferior to a modern PC in many ways. Windows' real strength is my second point, its dedication to backwards compatibility.

Yes there are compromises, much like there are if you choose to keep using Windows XP.

And whilst Microsoft has tried to maintain backwards compatibility, there is always a point where enough is enough and they cut stuff loose. e.g. try opening a 16 bit Windows exe on Windows 11.

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

...every MMO, along with any long term sim platform? The things you mention are games, and even then, I haven't heard of a game that makes a major update break its older DLCs. Their DLCs are also much cheaper, and the "major release" is a proper new product, even if it's not all that different from the old one. In fact, until the licenses give out, you can buy the older versions, too (sometimes the oldies are better than the latest one).

With car games in particular, things are different due to licensing terms common in that genre. Car manufacturers typically license their vehicles for a limited time, and when that term is up, the game is outright pulled off sale. Of course, this isn't always the case, as good old AC shows (still up on Steam after all those years!).

Yeah I play AC. I have the original, I have Competizione and I also have Evo. All have their own DLC that isn't cross-title compatible even though there is significant overlap.

I don't quite buy into the 'DLCs are much cheaper' slant.  Some are cheaper because they're a damn sight less complex than a FF DCS module.  If we're talking about DLC for other titles that is of a remotely comparable 'study level' depth then i've paid more for some MSFS titles (e.g. PMDG aircraft used to be eye-wateringly expensive but also very good) than I ever have for a DCS module (and i've bought quite a few of those at launch price). 'Long term' in MSFS is about half a dozen years. The RB Harrier in DCS has been around for 7.

[bfr]

14 minutes ago, Gizmo03 said:

No i can't but that doesn't automatically mean it's ok, does it?
Without this dispute these 4 modules were supposed to contiune working as intended like all the other content will in 3.0.
And one of the modules which could be unusable in 3.0 is not even close to be finished. 
If you think that's normal and ok.... good for you. 
 

Yes they quite possibly would've all been maintained for 3.0 in the alternate reality where RB and ED never fell out.  Although whether a publisher can eventually say 'enough is enough and we're sunsetting this 7-8 year old module now' I don't know.  DLC being maintained in perpetuity isn't a thing on any other game i've ever played, and whilst I certainly expect a decent run out of DCS modules I don't expect them to work on the latest core DCS product forever. And longevity of modules on DCS is actually remarkably good e.g. the Harrier has been around since late 2017 and the original FF A-10 even longer. We're only at risk of losing the RB Four due to extraordinary circumstances.

However the only people who can do that maintenance work to get the modules beyond 2.9.x are no longer working on DCS. So what are ED meant to do? Limit any enhancements to core DCS to those that won't break the 4 modules that DCS have no control over?

Edited 6 hours ago by bfr

[Dragon1-1]

24 minutes ago, bfr said:

All have their own DLC that isn't cross-title compatible even though there is significant overlap.

So? We are not discussing cross-title compatibility. Do decade old AC DLCs work with the latest patch of that specific game? Evo and Competizione are different sims. DCS 3.0 is another iteration of DCS, not a new sim.

Nobody expects a new title to carry over all content from the old one, particularly if there are major tech changes across them. However, within a title, the expectation that the DLCs will continue working forever is there.

Yeah, MS did cut some features like DOS, 16-bit stuff, and most recently WMR, which left everyone who used it (sadly not enough people to reverse the decision) quite miffled. Those are exceptions, though.

Edited 6 hours ago by Dragon1-1

[AndyJWest]

If ED continues to sell DLCs for DCS it is reasonable to assume that it intends to continue supporting those DLCs in DCS. Whether they were released a decade ago or a week ago makes no odds.

 

[bfr]

5 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

So? We are not discussing cross-title compatibility. Do decade old AC DLCs work with the latest patch of that specific game? Evo and Competizione are different sims. DCS 3.0 is another iteration of DCS, not a new sim.

Nobody expects a new title to carry over all content from the old one, particularly if there are major tech changes across them. However, within a title, the expectation that the DLCs will continue working forever is there.

Yeah, MS did cut some features like DOS, 16-bit stuff, and most recently WMR, which left everyone who used it (sadly not enough people to reverse the decision) quite miffled. Those are exceptions, though.

The line between 'new title' and 'new version' can be pretty blurred. The changes being banded around that are coming when we get past 2.9.x are pretty fundamental.  Would it feel any better if it was DCS 2025 1.0 rather than DCS 3.0?  And by the sounds of it then none of the other modules will 'just work' across that line but will likely require some level of change to keep them working. Except in the case of the Razbam modules then no one can work on them right now.  So in light of that then do ED just postpone any changes that will create a breaking change in any module in its current state?

[bfr]

8 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

If ED continues to sell DLCs for DCS it is reasonable to assume that it intends to continue supporting those DLCs in DCS. Whether they were released a decade ago or a week ago makes no odds.

 

The DLCs in question aren't for sale any longer though.

[Gizmo03]

vor 50 Minuten schrieb bfr:

Yes they quite possibly would've all been maintained for 3.0 in the alternate reality where RB and ED never fell out.  Although whether a publisher can eventually say 'enough is enough and we're sunsetting this 7-8 year old module now' I don't know.  DLC being maintained in perpetuity isn't a thing on any other game i've ever played, and whilst I certainly expect a decent run out of DCS modules I don't expect them to work on the latest core DCS product forever. And longevity of modules on DCS is actually remarkably good e.g. the Harrier has been around since late 2017 and the original FF A-10 even longer. We're only at risk of losing the RB Four due to extraordinary circumstances.

However the only people who can do that maintenance work to get the modules beyond 2.9.x are no longer working on DCS. So what are ED meant to do? Limit any enhancements to core DCS to those that won't break the 4 modules that DCS have no control over?

Yes i think i get your point. And of course it's up to the developer to stop maintaining their software. But the frustrating thing about this is that the developer of these 4 modules didn't plan to stop the work and we would continue to enjoy them for an unpredicted - maybe long future like all the other modules. As soon as i buy a module it's not just a module but a peace of DCS. And other than most other games DCS is for free with just on FC Aircraft and one FF non armed warbird. It really becomes DCS only with the modules you have to buy. They are a fix part of DCS and i expect them to work in their game until DCS doesn't work anymore at all. Imagine a player who only owns the 4 RB modules....

Having a 2nd install of DCS just to used 3 old modules and 1 unfinished is not nice. Ok, back in the 90s when i wanted to play with the Apache i had to start Janes Longbow 1 or 2. When i wanted to play with the Strike Eagle i had to stop Longbow and start Janes F-15 and if i wanted to fly the F-16 i had to quit Janes F-15 and start Falcon 4.0. But we are not anymore in the 90s - it's 2025 and the games are needing a little bit more space.

But anyway - it's not over yet. Even if it seems to me that everything gets prepared for the loss of these modules i'm still hoping that this dispute get's sorted out. 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Gizmo03

[bfr]

1 hour ago, Lucidus said:

IL2, ATS and ETS2, but there are no 3rd parties I think. 

What comes to XP12 and MSFS2024, it is up to 3rd party. Many developers gave update free. DCS is still expectional for this. I usually want to calculate cost per played hour. That is how you get low price tag for your spouse.

Yes, Il2 GB has been around a while (mid 2010s I think?). Like you say though, single studio. And that is still a DX11 title and has been for as long as I remember (and it sounds like Vulkan will be the breaking change for the RB modules without maintenance).

MS2020 to MS2024 then yes, a decent chunk of DLC was upgraded for free/nominal amounts but that was very much an outlier. I've had pretty much every version of MSFS between 98 and 2020 (2024 seemed too much of a bin fire on release to tempt me to get it yet) and its generally been a pretty clean break with maybe the very occasional discount if you had a given piece of DLC for the previous version.

Edited 5 hours ago by bfr

[bfr]

21 minutes ago, Gizmo03 said:

Yes i think i get your point. And of course it's up to the developer to stop maintaining their software. But the frustrating thing about this is that the developer of these 4 modules didn't plan to stop the work and we would continue to enjoy them for an unpredicted - maybe long future like all the other modules. As soon as i buy a module it's not just a module but a peace of DCS. And other than most other games DCS is for free with just on FC Aircraft and one FF non armed warbird. It really becomes DCS only with the modules you have to buy. They are a fix part of DCS and i expect them to work in their game until DCS doesn't work anymore at all. Imagine a player who only owns the 4 RB modules....

Having a 2nd install of DCS just to used 3 old modules and 1 unfinished is not nice. Ok, back in the 90s when i wanted to play with the Apache i had to start Janes Longbow 1 or 2. When i wanted to play with the Strike Eagle i had to stop Longbow and start Janes F-15 and if i wanted to fly the F-16 i had to quit Janes F-15 and start Falcon 4.0. But we are not anymore in the 90s - it's 2025 and the games are needing a little bit more space.

But anyway - it's not over yet. Even if it seems to me that everything gets prepared for the loss of these modules i'm still hoping that this dispute get's sorted out. 

 

Yes, a thawing of relations and a resumption of support/development solves a lot of problems. I've not (yet) cashed in my Strike Eagle for credit in the same slim hope that eventually everyone sees sense.  If that doesn't happen I accept the world needs to move on (and I do have 2 RB titles in my locker so I do have a little skin in the game if they get completely dropped).

I suspect we're of a similar age as I played all those titles. A much simpler time where the number of patches a game received varied between 1 and 0 and games didn't have to ring home to licencing servers every time you started them. It felt like you owned it, not just licenced the right to use it.  Its a different world now though. Ecosystem titles like DCS are only as secure as the sum of the ecosystem. Contributing developers can go bust, lose interest, fall out or just move onto other things.  Even ED themselves could go bump one day and the licencing servers go with it and it goes dark for everyone.  So in that sense and in this age, assuming any or all parts of it will be around forever is not a wise assumption for anyone to make.

Edited 5 hours ago by bfr

[Nightdare]

On 7/27/2025 at 9:13 PM, hitman said:

to be fair, these modules are probably well beyond their shelf life. How long can one expect to see these modules last per contract? Indefinitely is kind of pragmatic.

Software doesn't have a shelf life

It does not wear out like a real life product

[bfr]

7 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

Software doesn't have a shelf life

It does not wear out like a real life product

No one said it did wear out. Maintaining backward compatibility can be a huge millstone though and its unfortunate that those modules are reaching a tipping point of not being able to be supported in their current state and can't be improved to a new standard either.

[MicroShket]

1 час назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

In first case, at least, Ugra Media is involved in quite a few modules. 

And for Tank Crew add-on detailed 3D tank models and interiors were crafted by Digital Forms company. That's why we don't have Tank Crew 2, etc. - they are not interested in a small income from difficult task.

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, bfr said:

The DLCs in question aren't for sale any longer though.

My comment was directed at comments about 'decade old DLCs' in general, and the suggestion that somehow ED would be justified in no longer supporting them in 3.0.