DCS: A-1 Skyraider future in limbo as Crosstail Studios loses license

,
2–4 minutes

DCS World third party developer Crosstail Studios reports that they have lost their license to develop a DCS World aircraft. The loss reportedly officially happened recently and the developer has now put out a statement on their Discord server to let the public know. Here’s what we know.

Skyraider development in limbo

Few images of the Skyraider have been released with these coming out back in 2023

Two days into 2026 and DCS World has a new third party developer issue emerging into the public discussion. Crosstail Studios was announced as a licensed third party developer for DCS World back amidst a flurry of announcements back in September of 2022. The developer opened up a Discord server, released a trailer, a couple of YouTube shorts were produced, and one video detailing their work with Echo 19 to get a sound pack developed. Not much else has come from the developer in public until today.

A message from Crosstail Studios Founder, Chris, was shared on the developer’s Discord. Here’s what it read:

URGENT: A-1H Skyraider Status

Eagle Dynamics has publicly announced the termination of our license. This decision does not reflect the reality of the project.

THE REALITY
ED terminated us solely due to a lack of communication, not a lack of development. We made massive progress in 2025.

THE BLINDSIDE
On Christmas Eve, we received a termination notice. We immediately appealed, and it was agreed with ED management (Wags) that we had until Jan 31, 2026 to present our new build.

We worked non-stop to meet that deadline. Instead, ED reneged on the agreement and publicly killed the project before even looking at the work.

THE LOST UPDATE
Because they pulled the plug early, they ignored the massive sprints by our team:

@cppimmo : Tireless coding on Systems & Flight Model.

@JazAero @badams @Lasaraz : Completion of the exterior model and hyper-realistic cockpit.

@J.P. : Creating our cinematic update videos.

Echo19 : Authentic radial engine recordings/integration.

Research: Thousands of docs from the Skyraider Association.

WHAT NOW
We are evaluating options. If you want the Crosstail A-1H, let your voice be heard respectfully in the community. Share facts, not abuse.

Spads Forever.

Chris
Founder, Crosstail Studios

Over on the DCS World forums, the Crosstail forum section has been removed. In response to posts questioning the status of the project, Eagle Dynamics Community Manager “BigNewy” replied with the following:

Due to lack of communication from that team and lack of progress over several years, we decided to terminate their license agreement. If at a later point they can demonstrate the capability to complete the project and at the expected 2026 detail and quality levels, we will consider offering a new license agreement.

BIGNEWY on the DCS forums

Failure to communicate?

Since the announcement, developer updates had been extremely limited, even on their own Discord, and virtually nothing had been shared as part of the development effort.

At some point over the last couple of years, the developer website was unavailable at times (and the SSL certificate expired and was not resigned), the invite to their Discord expired, and it did appear to the public that the project may have been dead or in hibernation. Even if that wasn’t the case internally as Chris has stated in his announcement, perception is 9/10ths and that may well have hurt this third party project not just with the community but with Eagle Dynamics as license holder.

Its possible that the project will be granted a new license at some point. Until then, we’ll have to wait and see if anything more comes of it.

24 responses to “DCS: A-1 Skyraider future in limbo as Crosstail Studios loses license”

  1. CanadaOne Avatar
    CanadaOne

    And I was so looking forward to it in Q5 2032 when some of the other announced planes are scheduled for release.

    Apparently my snark still works in 2026. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
    1. butcher75 Avatar
      butcher75

      Don’t Fret!! Rumor has it that the Invisible version is coming and will be released into it’s early access period Last year!!!! The early access stage 1 of 3847 will include Left landing gear and Most of the Propellor. Sources can’t tell us what it looks like but they are enthused.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Ollifreund Popcorn Avatar
        Ollifreund Popcorn

        Hehehe! :-p

        Liked by 1 person

  2. mindfullywanderlustba207ac501 Avatar
    mindfullywanderlustba207ac501

    is Crosstail one of those few man band setups/work on in freetime?

    Like

    Reply
    1. boxcarleader Avatar
      boxcarleader

      I think its at least a really small group first time too

      Like

      Reply
      1. mindfullywanderlustba207ac501 Avatar
        mindfullywanderlustba207ac501

        Possibly indicative of the state of the team or it has nothing to do with anything. One of Crosstails former devs, CubanAce, who also is the dev behind the SU-57 mod, was arrested for locking up his daughter and repeatedly…. well its disgusting.

        The criminal timeline in the indictment lines up with his departure from Crosstail.

        Like

  3. boxcarleader Avatar
    boxcarleader

    ED has lost my trust as good faith.. Its not all them but every single time something there is a fire the Third party Developer is Pointing at ED and going WTF dude why (insert issue here). And I have learned through out my life were there is smoke there is fire. Now I’m not saying what ED does is not technically within contractual agreements but they seem to be quite hostel to third parties. Also ED has a ton of modules in early access and has brought i think only one out of EA in like 2 years. meanwhile they have the CH-47, Mig-29A, F-15C, F-35, another new helicopter, all in the works.. and while the fanboys go hey the art team can only do so much and then must move on… cool put them on Terrain updates or redoing ground unit models to be better. Apply them to Give us an update to the Huey so it meets modern visual standards. Stop starting stuff you don’t Finnish.. Honestly if it takes you 2 years to get a module flying in DCS it should not take 3-5 more years to get it done… and if your going to continue that method lay off the third party devs. its not like ED was gunna make a Skyraider. hell they are afraid of making a map Vietnam. so why would they make the Sandy Support aircraft. also ED who says you need to have a properly modeled triple canopy jungle to have a good Vietnam map even in a helicopter you only see it from the side # and no other map uses destructible Trees to allow you to blow a hole to create an LZ. Just do I core in the South to start and give people a place to start. less jungle more costal flats..

    Like

    Reply
    1. boxcarleader Avatar
      boxcarleader

      um just realized I may be wrong about I core location but have to leave for work so cant look it up .. .please give me some grace and lemme know if i got the wrong area .. thanks yall

      Like

      Reply
    2. Urgent Siesta Avatar
      Urgent Siesta

      Meh – “the smoke / fire” analogy doesn’t really stand up to the known history of the various developer fallouts.

      And in re ED’s own modules (and most other devs), those are actually purchasable and flyable and get updates released even when so few of them are ever actually “finished”.

      The Crosstail situation has all the hallmarks of a student showing up late for finals unprepared after skipping most classes and then crying to his family about getting a low grade from the “mean” Professor.

      It’s now 3 years to get less than nothing from Crosstail when their module was literally nothing more complicated than an Fw-190A.

      Hey, you want an example of “How It Should Be Done”? Look at Grinelli’s F-100. You think that module’s gonna get their license yanked…? Not a chance, because they’ve already shown their work, and they do a great job of communication.

      Sorry, not sorry (in the least) for Crosstail.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. boxcarleader Avatar
        boxcarleader

        I completely disagree with almost everything you posted here. If there was a more coolaid drinking answer I don’t knownit.. look at the razbam issue … yes razbam violated thencontract… but ED continues selling their products (smoke). A deal falls through and then they sease all sails. A Short time later they announce that they cannot support the Rasbam moduels they have sold and they expect them to stop working (FIRE over $200 worth). So no I think yiu might want to review your assessments. But hey we could just agree to disagree too.

        Like

    3. Aapje Avatar
      Aapje

      @boxcarleader

      I get the impression that ED is a mess internally, with too many people that make decisions, and/or communicate with third parties, resulting in them being very difficult to work with. From the ‘leverage’ video, we even know that ED managers intentionally go behind the back of other managers, making secret deals with third parties.

      Like

      Reply
      1. boxcarleader Avatar
        boxcarleader

        yup ED needs to see to its own house first and not pick on a one or two man operation working g as a hobby or side gig to get started. Also I haven’t heard shit about most of thier models they are working on the F-15c the F-35 or anything about this new helicopter.. if mention we’re working on it is enough then crosstail met the requirements

        Like

      2. mindfullywanderlustba207ac501 Avatar
        mindfullywanderlustba207ac501

        I really think there is no evidence to that at all and is a narrative manufactured by people who feel wronged by ED to explain things

        Its a god of the gaps.

        Like

      3. Aapje Avatar
        Aapje

        We have the leaked video where Paolo wanted to make a deal with Razbam behind the back of Nick Grey. We have the leaked communications about the Super Tucano, which shows that multiple ED people were communication about this project with Razbam. Now we have this developer claiming that they’ve been given inconsistent communication.

        So the evidence definitely exists.

        Like

  4. oesau Avatar
    oesau

    Interesting development…. I had given up on them and even posted something (somewhere… can’t remember where) asking about them as their site had disappeared and they showed no updates. Then recently they did an update to say they were alive and well and working through things which was good to hear (albeit its personally not on my hit list of wants but I’d support it for sure as the SPAD is iconic).

    I’m not a ED fanboy but it’s their call on how they want to manage this (and we have a choice to support them on that or not – I don’t care what side of the fence you sit on – I’ve got other things in life that require more personal investment and care). They should set expectations on 3rd parties (maybe they did and maybe they didn’t). They should be saying we expect quarterly updates etc etc and then everyone can meet that and not get blindsided with a decision by ED.

    Like

    Reply
    1. boxcarleader Avatar
      boxcarleader

      well said my main issues stem from inconsistency. And holding third-parties to a different standards. I see no consistency. I may have not been clear on something I really enjoy DCS i find ED to be an issue. While I will never say that everything ED does is wrong I will say that when you look at the issues ED is inconsistent on comunication methods and how they enforce the same compliance.. its a solid belive. Maybe they should just publicly post minimum compliance with updates and so on. That way devs and the community have a reference

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  5. JImbo Avatar
    JImbo

    I don’t think requiring at least one solid update per year from a developer is an insurmountable challenge to any serious third party developer. I know ED has it’s fans and haters because…well that’s every game. However, the message from the developer doesn’t even stand up on its own weight. They made “tons of progress” on a “supreme accurate” model and had to work “day and night” to show any progress? That just doesn’t add up. If it was that close to being done, it’d be easy to show a year of progress without having to do any “late nights.” This does sound like someone who had no serious progress but scrambled to make some at the last minute.

    Having worked with contractors, this sounds like a “test” by ED to see if they were making any progress. They failed to “show their notes.” Not saying it’s kaput. Yanking a license is just paperwork. If they REALLY want to do the A-1 they can always put the work in and reapply with something let’s say… flyable? Not perfect but something that’s at least bare bones to show progress.

    Over 3 years is a long time to be given the benefit of the doubt, and it makes ED look bad to have a ton of modules in the “maybe someday” category. The customer base has been complaining about this so when they take action to reduce that backlog…attacking ED for enforcing standards is a bit unfair.

    I know I’d rather know what IS going to happen rather than the “someone mentioned it 3-4 years ago” gossip mill. As I said, a developer can always come back with something later if they make actual progress. All this “pulling the license” does is take them off the calendar.

    It has no real effect on the actual development.

    That’s how contracting work goes. If you want to hate on ED because you like hating on ED and it makes you feel good, go for it. I’m not saying they are “good” or “bad” guys for doing it. It’s just how this sort of thing works.

    What I don’t understand is the people defending the team that’s taken 3 years on a single-prop job and shown no progress. What “benefit of the doubt” is there? If they can’t make substantial progress in three years, they either don’t have the time or skill to do the project successfully.

    That’s fine. Life happens. If they’re doing it part time on their home computer that’s perfectly understandable, but after 3 years? That means they can’t complete it for either reason.

    That again is fine. Just admit it. I know I’m not a computer programmer so I couldn’t write code for DCS. I love airplanes, but I just don’t have the skill and I won’t go to school to do it. It’s just not my thing.

    It’s okay to just admit you couldn’t do it. It’s not fair to keep dangling that carrot out there. If they get their life together and complete it in the future, DCS would take a completed module to test. They’re not banned or anything.

    They just failed to make progress in 3 years.

    Why does someone have to be “wrong” or “bad?” I don’t think either party did anything “wrong” per se. The A-1 team failed to make enough progress in 3 years (I’m sure due to many unforeseen problems and delays they didn’t anticipate) and DCS told them ‘come back later when you have your project done.”

    Like

    Reply
    1. ShamrockOneFive Avatar
      ShamrockOneFive

      Making regular internal status updates with stakeholders is so normal in my business that I’m surprised that it doesn’t happen as often as I think it should here. Certainly seems like there was a lack of comms back and forth.

      Hopefully they get some work done, actually show it off (at least to ED, if not to us as well) and then we’ll see it rejoin the licensed process.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    2. Potentialbuyer Avatar
      Potentialbuyer

      Completely agree with you. Crosstail team must be very frustrated but the accusatory tone and dismissal of the actual issues isn’t helping their case.

      If development is very slow, it isn’t actually going to finish ever – the target (quality requirements, program logics, data structures etc) evolve as the years go by and DCS as a platform evolves. There is a required minimum speed or you are just making legacy issues for future you to solve before you even get to release.

      I really hope for a positive outcome – the work already done is not lost if the team can find the resources or possibly integrate their effort with another dev team. If this is indeed a communications issue, presenting the project plan, requirements/goals, and dates on tasks to show progress would be better than just listing names and saying they are working hard. Hard work isn’t a proof that a project has a positive outcome, and that is why project management exists.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Aapje Avatar
      Aapje

      They made “tons of progress” on a “supreme accurate” model and had to work “day and night” to show any progress?

      That’s not necessarily in conflict. Building these planes often involves people doing things separately and then integrating all the work into a single product as a separate step.

      If it was that close to being done

      You seem to be putting words in their mouth that they never stated.

      What “benefit of the doubt” is there? If they can’t make substantial progress in three years, they either don’t have the time or skill to do the project successfully.

      You are basing this comment on speculation about their lack of progress, not facts. You also have no idea whether they had a setback and sped up afterwards, or such.

      If you want to hate on ED because you like hating on ED and it makes you feel good, go for it.

      Again you are making assumptions about the critics, and certainly not giving any benefit of the doubt.

      What I see is a pattern of the partners of ED being upset over how they behave. When so many developers get upset, this is a pretty strong indication that there is an actual issue.

      Like

      Reply
      1. JImbo Avatar
        JImbo

        It’s irrelevant if you think (without evidence) that they were further ahead than they seemed. Several years and not updating people regularly is a valid criticism. There is nothing lost by what DCS did, as the studio can always reapply and resubmit the project when they are done. The only thing at stake here is the studio being embarrassed.

        Like

      2. Aapje Avatar
        Aapje

        That’s not what I wrote, Jimbo. I didn’t claim that they are further ahead than they seem. I’m claiming that your statements that they are not, are based on assumptions fueled by a lack of understanding of how development works. So your statement is far less likely than you make it out to be.

        And how often Crosstail should have informed ED of the progress during the last 3 years depends on the agreement between ED and Crosstail. You nor I know what they agreed upon exactly, so again you are just speculating about Crosstail’s obligations.

        We do have a statement by Crosstail that they had until Januari 31st to show a new build. If true, that means that ED made an agreement with Crosstail, and then it was ED that broke that agreement.

        Like I said, I consider that statement by Crosstail to be fairly credible due to the apparent lack of a single point of contact at ED, the apparent infighting at ED where people intentionally go behind each others back, and that ED has been credibly accused of not meeting their obligations with third parties several times. For all of these, we have credible leaked material.

        The only thing at stake here is the studio being embarrassed.

        What is also at stake is that third parties may be less willing to work with ED, if they see ED as a company that is not a reliable partner.

        Like

      3. JImbo Avatar
        JImbo

        The original contract was still violated. They had a verbal agreement dependent on progress. You don’t know they made progress. We do know that they didn’t have enough to give to ED to test, which was the requirement. You can not like it if you want. I’m not siding with either. There is no “harm” because it doesn’t change a thing.

        The only thing it does is remove it from the ED roadmap. That’s it. They can resubmit their project when ready for testing at any time.

        You’re making it sound like some great injustice was done and they can’t recover from it. There is no change to Crosstail. If they were “making great progress” then they can submit something soon for testing.

        In fact, I’d love to see the Skyraider in game. However, it wasn’t an issue until they MADE it an issue. Most people had no idea they were even on the roadmap or were working on the project (since they hadn’t said anything in a very long time), so who would have known or cared they were “off the roadmap” which isn’t even a public roadmap, but just an in-house spreadsheet at ED?

        It really makes no difference and white knighting for no reason seems pointless. Does it get the Skyraider in game faster? Does it make Crosstail work faster? Does it make ED test a product they don’t have faster?

        Seems like surplus drama to me.

        Like

      4. Aapje Avatar
        Aapje

        Where does your claim from that there was a verbal contract? This is extremely unlikely, given that we have had developer contracts leak, so why would they suddenly not sign a written contract with Crosstail? That makes no sense from that perspective, and also makes no sense since Nick Grey want leverage over developers by making them sign a fairly one-sided contract.

        And did any of the people involved claim that there was an agreement for updates at certain times? At what times, then?

        Please show the evidence, because I have seen neither ED or Crosstail make those claims.

        I constantly see the same pattern with ED, where they make very vague statements, and then people start making stuff up that benefits ED. And the mods only ever delete/correct misinformation (or accurate information ) when it harms ED and they are happy to have people tell falsehoods that benefit ED.

        Also, they outright lied to us with the Razbam-saga, so whenever they are vague about something, I will certainly not assume that they did the right thing (again, also because there is a pattern with ED of allegations of bad behavior).

        Like

Leave a reply to Urgent Siesta Cancel reply

Trending