Possible replacements for the Razbam modules if reconcilation isn't possible?

[upyr1]

14 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

As much as I unconditionally love Heatblur, they haven't found the Holy Grail yet. Let them finish what they've already started.
As for the four modules? I don't think any other team can pick them up without also hiring the devs.
Personally, I don't know the dynamics inside Razbam, but since the devs haven't been paid, maybe they sit on the code and can start a new team and make a deal directly with ED. Nah, that's far too much hoping.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

If HB really is too busy to take on the F-15E then all I ask is that who ever picks up the ball at least discusses licencing Jester. HB has said that  they would do that and I believe it would be nice to have a common RIO/WSO interface. 

[Buta]

16小时前，Exorcet说：

Replacement as in someone else at some point makes the same planes and sells them as new modules, sure. I have no qualms buying them, if well made and supported, again as they would be their own individual modules with all the work that entails, but I wouldn't expect that for quite some time.

You mean pay twice? Did customers cause all those troubles?

[upyr1]

16 minutes ago, bfr said:

I think RB originally meant to do a British Harrier version (probably the Sea Harrier) but ran into a wall regarding documentation of some areas, hence the pivot to the AV-8B.

I'd like to know which varaint they were looking at? Knowing how things often work, the default is to go for the most advanced variant you can get documents for. The AV-8 we have may be the closest to the RAF bird 

3 minutes ago, Buta said:

You mean pay twice? Did customers cause all those troubles?

Ideally if you have the originals you should at least get a deep discount to make up for the mess 

[some1]

It took Razbam more than 10 years to make those 4 airplanes. Sure, you could argue than a more focused and competent developer, already familiar with DCS, could make them a bit faster, but who's available? ED barely makes one aircraft a year, more like 1,5 years to early access. Heatblur takes even longer.

Hope we'll all live long enough to actually see those "replacements".

Edited 6 hours ago by some1

[MAXsenna]

11 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

If HB really is too busy to take on the F-15E then all I ask is that who ever picks up the ball at least discusses licencing Jester. HB has said that  they would do that and I believe it would be nice to have a common RIO/WSO interface. 

Yup, they have said that. To be honest, I say a hard NO! We're in 2025. Jester/George/Petrovich and whatver PC were to call their's deserve voice commands! VAICOM has proven this with Jester, but the F-4 Jester is locked down. Just have a look what guys have achieved with VoiceAttack/VAICOM using other means to get better recognition without the Windows Speech Recognition. 

[Buta]

4分钟前，some1说：

Hope we'll all live long enough to actually see those "replacements".

In this era of rampant wars, I really doubt if I can live to see that day.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

Yup, they have said that. To be honest, I say a hard NO! We're in 2025. Jester/George/Petrovich and whatver PC were to call their's deserve voice commands! VAICOM has proven this with Jester, but the F-4 Jester is locked down. Just have a look what guys have achieved with VoiceAttack/VAICOM using other means to get better recognition without the Windows Speech Recognition. 

I'd love to see voice command added too but the fewer AI GIBs we have the easier it will be 

[bfr]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I'd like to know which varaint they were looking at? Knowing how things often work, the default is to go for the most advanced variant you can get documents for. The AV-8 we have may be the closest to the RAF bird  

Sea Harrier FRS1 I think, as getting the docs for the Blue Fox radar was a major problem.

And yes, the AV8B has a fair bit of overlap with later RAF variants.

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, Buta said:

You mean pay twice? Did customers cause all those troubles?

I mean pay fairly for work done. Some unrelated party making new modules would have nothing to do with the previous modules. It would only make sense to pay for work done.

 

No one buying the modules caused the problems, that's true. That doesn't mean we're entitled to free things.

[upyr1]

4 minutes ago, bfr said:

Sea Harrier FRS1 I think, as getting the docs for the Blue Fox radar was a major problem.

And yes, the AV8B has a fair bit of overlap with later RAF variants.

Sure it wasn't the 

Sea Harrier FRS.51 or 

Sea Harrier F(A).2

I know in 2019 or so there were screenshots of a WIP Sea Harrier . The FRS1 used the Blue Fox and the F(a).2 used the Blue Vixen which was further developed into the Typhoon's radar 

The FRS.51 used the Euroradar Captor

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroradar_CAPTOR

 

[Tom P]

Sounds like a lot of money and time to replace modules that we already have. 

I don't think any other developer can replicate the mirage let alone it's flight model. Razbam had constant feedback from active mirage pilots that were using the dcs for training before the C model was retired from France. It's the closest 1:1 aircraft in DCS. 

[bfr]

20 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Sure it wasn't the 

Sea Harrier FRS.51 or 

Sea Harrier F(A).2

I know in 2019 or so there were screenshots of a WIP Sea Harrier . The FRS1 used the Blue Fox and the F(a).2 used the Blue Vixen which was further developed into the Typhoon's radar 

The FRS.51 used the Euroradar Captor

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroradar_CAPTOR

 

The AV8B had already been released in late 2017 I think, although I think mods were attempted for both marks of Sea Harrier based on the AV8B.  From memory Razbam wanted to originally do a Falklands era Harrier, which would've been the FRS1.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, some1 said:

It took Razbam more than 10 years to make those 4 airplanes. Sure, you could argue than a more focused and competent developer, already familiar with DCS, could make them a bit faster, but who's available? ED barely makes one aircraft a year, more like 1,5 years to early access. Heatblur takes even longer.

Hope we'll all live long enough to actually see those "replacements".

Hopefuly this discussion will become moot before too long. I don't know how long it will be before 3.0 comes out but hopefully we'll get a settlement before they get depricated 

[Tank50us]

16 minutes ago, Tom P said:

Sounds like a lot of money and time to replace modules that we already have. 

I don't think any other developer can replicate the mirage let alone it's flight model. Razbam had constant feedback from active mirage pilots that were using the dcs for training before the C model was retired from France. It's the closest 1:1 aircraft in DCS. 

It would be. But let's not forget that outside of getting the Source Code for the existing modules, or getting RB back to work... there's only two options for ED: Replace them entirely or abandon them... and considering people LIKE those aircraft, it leaves them with just one: Replace them.

Also, I think people need to understand that 95% of us will NEVER set foot in these pits outside of airshows or museums. So I think it's safe to say that "Good enough" should be the end goal of any module. Exact 1-1 is fine... but it's ultimately better to get something into our hands soon, and refine as time goes on. Think of it like Elite Dangerous vs Star Citizen. Elite was a functional title after about a year and a half of development, and was released to the public about a year later.... but Star Citizen? Still waiting.

In DCS terms... there's the F-15E. RB sat on that thing for about a decade before they released it. And in that time, multiple third party developers cropped up, made something, and released it. Were those modules perfect on day one? No. But they were refined little by little until they got where they are now.

Hence my statement about an F-15E replacement could be released to us inside 6 months, as ED has everything they need already to pull it off. It's just a matter of refining it until it's perfect after the fact. Which I personally would be fine with, especially if they come out and say "Hey, if you didn't request a refund for the RB F-15E, you get this for free or at a significant discount".

[bfr]

34 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I mean pay fairly for work done. Some unrelated party making new modules would have nothing to do with the previous modules. It would only make sense to pay for work done.

 

No one buying the modules caused the problems, that's true. That doesn't mean we're entitled to free things.

I don't think that was the case. The Harrier would've benefitted from being the only full fidelity fast jet until the Hornet got released.  The Mirage 2K was well thought of (especially once some of it got reworked) and i'm pretty sure the F15E sold in decent numbers before things went sour.

[Tank50us]

Just now, upyr1 said:

Hopefuly this discussion will become moot before too long. I don't know how long it will be before 3.0 comes out but hopefully we'll get a settlement before they get depricated 

knowing Rons ego... don't hold your breath. As I've said on that thread... this could've been settled months ago with the signing of one contract... and it apparently hasn't happened yet.

[upyr1]

2 minutes ago, bfr said:

The AV8B had already been released in late 2017 I think, although I think mods were attempted for both marks of Sea Harrier based on the AV8B.  From memory Razbam wanted to originally do a Falklands era Harrier, which would've been the FRS1.

This was dated 2019 and depics WIP shots of the Sea Harrier FRS 1. either these were intended to be AI or Razbam was working on a Sea Harrier module 

[Tom P]

7 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

It would be. But let's not forget that outside of getting the Source Code for the existing modules, or getting RB back to work... there's only two options for ED: Replace them entirely or abandon them... and considering people LIKE those aircraft, it leaves them with just one: Replace them.

Also, I think people need to understand that 95% of us will NEVER set foot in these pits outside of airshows or museums. So I think it's safe to say that "Good enough" should be the end goal of any module. Exact 1-1 is fine... but it's ultimately better to get something into our hands soon, and refine as time goes on. Think of it like Elite Dangerous vs Star Citizen. Elite was a functional title after about a year and a half of development, and was released to the public about a year later.... but Star Citizen? Still waiting.

In DCS terms... there's the F-15E. RB sat on that thing for about a decade before they released it. And in that time, multiple third party developers cropped up, made something, and released it. Were those modules perfect on day one? No. But they were refined little by little until they got where they are now.

Hence my statement about an F-15E replacement could be released to us inside 6 months, as ED has everything they need already to pull it off. It's just a matter of refining it until it's perfect after the fact. Which I personally would be fine with, especially if they come out and say "Hey, if you didn't request a refund for the RB F-15E, you get this for free or at a significant discount".

I'm sure people liked the hawk as well. Look how that turned out

[bfr]

15 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

It would be. But let's not forget that outside of getting the Source Code for the existing modules, or getting RB back to work... there's only two options for ED: Replace them entirely or abandon them... and considering people LIKE those aircraft, it leaves them with just one: Replace them.

Also, I think people need to understand that 95% of us will NEVER set foot in these pits outside of airshows or museums. So I think it's safe to say that "Good enough" should be the end goal of any module. Exact 1-1 is fine... but it's ultimately better to get something into our hands soon, and refine as time goes on. Think of it like Elite Dangerous vs Star Citizen. Elite was a functional title after about a year and a half of development, and was released to the public about a year later.... but Star Citizen? Still waiting.

In DCS terms... there's the F-15E. RB sat on that thing for about a decade before they released it. And in that time, multiple third party developers cropped up, made something, and released it. Were those modules perfect on day one? No. But they were refined little by little until they got where they are now.

Hence my statement about an F-15E replacement could be released to us inside 6 months, as ED has everything they need already to pull it off. It's just a matter of refining it until it's perfect after the fact. Which I personally would be fine with, especially if they come out and say "Hey, if you didn't request a refund for the RB F-15E, you get this for free or at a significant discount".

Contrary to what you said earlier, the F-15C (which is itself not finished in FF form) isn't  exactly the same radar as the F-15E and even if it were then they'd still have modes to model that the F-15C won't have as it doesn't need them. Then add integrating all the A-G weapons and other SE-specific avionics, adding the back seat plus tweaking the flight model for the CFTs and I doubt its as quick a job as you say to move from one to the other.

Edited 3 hours ago by bfr

[upyr1]

10 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

knowing Rons ego... don't hold your breath. As I've said on that thread... this could've been settled months ago with the signing of one contract... and it apparently hasn't happened yet.

That's why I posted this thread.

12 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

It would be. But let's not forget that outside of getting the Source Code for the existing modules, or getting RB back to work... there's only two options for ED: Replace them entirely or abandon them... and considering people LIKE those aircraft, it leaves them with just one: Replace them.

Also, I think people need to understand that 95% of us will NEVER set foot in these pits outside of airshows or museums. So I think it's safe to say that "Good enough" should be the end goal of any module. Exact 1-1 is fine... but it's ultimately better to get something into our hands soon, and refine as time goes on. Think of it like Elite Dangerous vs Star Citizen. Elite was a functional title after about a year and a half of development, and was released to the public about a year later.... but Star Citizen? Still waiting.

In DCS terms... there's the F-15E. RB sat on that thing for about a decade before they released it. And in that time, multiple third party developers cropped up, made something, and released it. Were those modules perfect on day one? No. But they were refined little by little until they got where they are now.

Hence my statement about an F-15E replacement could be released to us inside 6 months, as ED has everything they need already to pull it off. It's just a matter of refining it until it's perfect after the fact. Which I personally would be fine with, especially if they come out and say "Hey, if you didn't request a refund for the RB F-15E, you get this for free or at a significant discount".

When the Hornet was first released it was basically the F-18  then they added the A-18 part over the years 

2 minutes ago, bfr said:

Contrary to what you said earlier, the F-15C (which is itself not finished in FF form) isn't the same radar as the F-15E and even if it were then they'd still have modes to model that the F-15C won't have as it doesn't need them. Then add integrating all the A-G weapons and other SE-specific avionics, adding the back seat plus tweaking the flight model for the CFTs and I doubt its as quick a job as you say to move from one to the other.

The CFT might not be modled in the Flaming Cliffs version but the C does carry them 

[bfr]

2 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The CFT might not be modled in the Flaming Cliffs version but the C does carry them 

If they're not modelled then they're not modelled and it becomes another thing that needs doing. And if I remember right they already said they won't feature in the full fidelity F-15C as very few units ever used them on C models in real life.

[Czar66]

This thread shouldn't degrade itself towards being a CFT thread...

I agree with any path forward out of the current 'stalemate' of the 'RB/ED situation'...but the paying full price twice thing.

Customers that already had the modules of the same variant supposedly being replaced should be recompensated by a discount of a decent margin.

[bfr]

21 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

This was dated 2019 and depics WIP shots of the Sea Harrier FRS 1. either these were intended to be AI or Razbam was working on a Sea Harrier module 

Yeah there were a lot of things teased by RB over the years that never really went anywhere.  Like I said, originally i'm pretty sure what ended up as the AV8B was meant to be an FRS1 and looking at that then attempts to derive an FRS1 from the AV8B didn't go anywhere either.

Just now, Czar66 said:

This thread shouldn't degrade itself towards being a CFT thread...

I agree with any path forward out of the current 'stalemate' of the 'RB/ED situation'...but the paying full price twice thing.

Customers that already had the modules of the same variant supposedly being replaced should be recompensated by a discount of a decent margin.

You can already get credit back from DCS if you bought the F-15E from them (Steam purchases are another matter). I suppose if a hypothetical in-house F-15E ever came into being then DCS MIGHT offer a discount to any RB F-15E owners who never asked for a refund. It'd be a tougher sell though if a different third-party did a remake to then expect them to sell a number of units at a very significant discount.

[Tom P]

Ope, this thread is now past 30 posts. ED doesn't have time to look at this topic anymore.

[Exorcet]

27 minutes ago, Tom P said:

I'm sure people liked the hawk as well. Look how that turned out

For me this is one of the biggest points here, even more than the modules themselves. Post Hawk ED was supposed to have taken steps to prevent the situation from repeating, but obviously this didn't happen with RAZBAM. Why not? And does this problem extend to other modules?

Edited 2 hours ago by Exorcet