Rainmaker
-
Posts
1502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rainmaker
-
-
2 minutes ago, Hiob said:
Yes, that's what I meant. Offering Razbams module in their store is most likely a contractual obligation.
So if one was withholding payments to someone based on supposed IP infringement based on a completely unrelated module/modules, I think we are already past the point of going tit for tat on things. That ship has sailed.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, Hiob said:
There are multiple responsibilities in a contract between business partners like ED and Razbam. One party violating an agreement, doesn't (necessarily) justify the other party breaking other parts of the contract. Eye for an eye doesn't apply in business (or at least it shouldn't). Just food for thought, I obviously have no clue what is going on.
I don’t understand your post’s relevance here. I commented about the module still being for sale.
Lets do simple math here.
- Entity A says they have not been paid.
- Entity B makes no denial of withgolding payment.
- likely equals entity A not being paid.-Entity B makes claim of IP infringement. Likely the justification being used to withold payment. ‘IP infringement’ being something typically decided by a judge in a court of law. You see any rulings around here? Or are we using the ‘it is because I said so’ rule of law? So far, that’s the only actual ruling.
- Entity A stops support due to not being paid for work. Again, no denial from opposing party that money is not changing hands.
- Entity B continues to sell module on store and presumably make income from said module. Entity A seeing apparently seeing no percentage from sales. Again, based on ‘IP infringement’ not decided in court of law, only by an involved party.
Again, there was blame being put at an entity that doesn’t control the store and apparently is seeing no money from sales. That makes sense how exactly?
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, LorenLuke said:
The biggest thing is that this whole thing is all so tragic for the community. This single statement by Ron has created this massive rift between the ED playerbase, and ALL the vendors. RB can say 'We want to assure you that it has never been nor will it be our intention to abandon our products', but I don't know how 'We're not adding features, fixing bugs, or doing jack until this is resolved' is in any way a commitment to your customers. If I were to buy the Strike Eagle or the Harrier today, where's the ongoing commitment to me as a customer if your development is paused? Hell, if your BUGFIXES are paused?
If they want to complain about non-/partial-payment for all their work... can they explain to me how they'll now still happily take (near) full-price for a project that they've not exactly made clear they aren't just going to walk away from, half-done? You know, besides 'I'm totally not doing what my actions are saying'.
And even worse, because of this craptacular behavior, now people are gun-shy. Those angry at ED won't buy another ED module, and those that have seen this infantile temper tantrum are so stunned by the idea that something they bought for full price could be abandoned half-completed, they don't want to buy any module until it leaves Early Access. What does this do for the SANE third parties that are already ED partners? Folks like Aerges, Deka, Heatblur? What about the NEW ones who haven't even built their customer bases here, and arguably need that money the most? Grinelli, MilTech, Red Star, Flying Iron? All these people are affected and ironically, that single RB statement about developers not getting paid may lead to far more of those developers not getting paid because a famously short-tempered CEO acted out (because of circumstances I personally believe were wholly catalyzed by his own poor actions), and now every customer is paranoid of another developer doing the same thing; and EVERY SINGLE OTHER THIRD PARTY DEV has to suffer as a result.
It's just a goddamned travesty.
Who you think controls the store? So whom is happily still accepting money for them? These kinds of questions take about 2 seconds of thought.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Father Cool said:
Agreed, it ought to in fairness be pretty much 100% until it actually closes. If I crack open the window in my car when sat in a busy car park the external sound is pretty much full volume right up until the window is actually fully closed.
Actually no, it doesnt really sound that way IRL. It does dissipate too much in game too quickly, but wouldnt do it in the way you describe. The sound is vary much impacted by line of sight.
Current operation is also very much a DCS-ism.
-
7 hours ago, Bottebeitel said:
just this weekend I encounterd the same issue too. Inside the controls option the button bind is being recognized but it does work in the jet. Did it eventually got fixed with you?
There isn’t a button bind to enable steering…only disable.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Moxica said:
Another thing is that the TPOD seems to be living a life of it's own. When trying to designate moving target (CDES and PTRK) it jumps around to random points around the target area. And it is nothing there.
That’s due to a long-standing bug where you can’t have axis inputs when designating. The work around is to lead the target and let the vehicle come to the crosshairs.
-
2
-
-
Durandals are and have been bugged since the beginning. They have tons of internal core issues. Until some of that stuff is resolved….wouldn’t even bother with them.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Lau said:
RAZBAN TM, please become serious about fixing bugs on the products you released. As stated the above was supposed to be fixed back in November 2023, we are almost at the end of March 2024 and no one from your team has acknowledged this lack of follow up, if your team claims it was fixed on the change log, then customers should expect to be able to use this functionality? Again AI is part of the game, please acknowledge and fix this.
Best,
Lau
I am not a member of RB, so not sure why you are tagging me. Lol.
-
On 3/8/2024 at 4:25 AM, Miro said:
Betty warning you when approaching maximum speed is very much needed.
Doesnt exist. Wont ever come. This kinda stuff is not a ‘bug’ either BTW.
-
5
-
-
16 hours ago, Ramsay said:
They did and the asymmetric loadout is valid in DCS.
Sta 5 gets a -10. No reason to go 4k on a side when you have a perfectly good cererline.
-
3
-
-
1. Known issue. Literally one of the last types of bugs to even worry about.
2. Correct as is. NLG does not retract unless handle is cycled.
-
2 hours ago, Erazor said:
Like @Ramsay said, its basically a cold start with the following differences:
- Need to switch to the second JFS bottle by rotating the JFS switch
- In my experience the throttle does not react until both engines are running again (you can observe this in the video)
Bottles recharge. You ‘do not’ need to always use the second bottle.
-
Yeah, IIRC, the light and VW have never been enabled to this point. I don’t think they have ever come on.
-
Looks kinda like you are on stable judging by the caret in the center of the screen. Stable currently has a known bug where the radar does not scan.
-
1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:
"It's complicated."
Cool beans, thanks!
In a way, yeah.
The CFTs and tanks can both be thought up as external gas. Fuel goes external to internal. It should do either the CFTs or tanks and then the other once empty. It doesnt currently, but I wouldn’t say its an issue, just needs more development.
-
1
-
-
They are designed to be that way. One holds more fuel than the other. They would eventually balance out, but not until they are draining below full. Its a known thing/not implemented yet.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just post it here so the devs and ED testers can use it.
-
1 hour ago, leg5840 said:
Still, shouldn't the S/W be physically capable of being turned off?
For that potential issue, a track is needed. No way to understand what’s happening or what the trigger is/isn’t without it.
-
2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:
At least looking at the fuel system schematic in the dash 1, it's not entirely clear why this is the case, since it shows the refueling lines to the CFT's and the external tanks are all just hooked up to the main refueling line, and it notes the refueling valves to the CFT's should be open when the CFT pumps are off. So far, all the SME's I've heard have agreed this should not happen though, so I assume there's something missing in the diagram.
Could it be that the tank pressurization in the CFT's is higher than the internal tanks? I couldn't find any reference to those pressures, but that would prevent the external tanks from feeding into the CFT's at any time, even with the CFT refueling valve open
No. You are looking at a very simplified block diagram of the system. The real thing has a ton of components in the mix. The -1 diagrams arent meant to show it all, they are there to supplement what the -1 is saying earlier. That’s why they are supplements and not GS/SD diagrams.
Manually transferring gas is something that can only be done by mx crews using the ground check panel below the aircraft. None of that stuff pertains to aircrew, so zero reason to go into it in a -1.
-
1
-
-
If not in a tracking state, the pod will move during aggressive maneuvering. Best way to stabilize is to enter a tracking mode (ATRK, PRTK, etc).
-
9 hours ago, leg5840 said:
Ah... right. When the MASTER S/W is on, the TRANSFER PUMP operates, preventing refueling. Silly question...
Well, not even that really. CFT pumps are designed not to run when external bags are transferring (not currently implemented). The only way to transfer into the CFTs like that is manually through a ground initiated process. Fuel is designed to transfer external to internal, not across external.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, leg5840 said:
Is there a reason why the transfer should not occur?
yes...incon valves powered closed
-
1
-
-
Your AP usage is user error.....
-
False...that is wrong.
-
1
-
Whats the status?
in RAZBAM
Posted · Edited by Rainmaker
To the point, it all certainly comes down to legal matters in which case, its all decided by the court, not parties involved. Not one going ‘I’m keeping money because….’
The initial statement probably had to be made at some point as the modules were losing support if things had just gone dark, it was in no way going to work in RB’s favor. The mobs would have just assumed that there was no work being done, the company was getting paid, and just not producing any results. Obviously, it has somewhat come to light that is not the case. There is obviously more to that single narrative that would have been the initial thoughts. Again, party B has almost admitted to the fact that money is not changing hands.
Whether either party handled it correctly is up for debate. But, to the point of my initial post where ai quoted you, asking why it was still for sale and laying that in RB’s lap as a responsibility is poor as they don’t own the store front. We’ve already seen a host of issues with the store when it was put on sale, etc when it should not have been. It can be derived by comments from both parties that money was/is not going to RB at the current time. Would you want someone being able to take/utilize profits at your expense when you are not being compensated at the moment? Would you continue to support something knowing future sales are still being withheld? I certainly wouldn’t. If in fact its being withheld because of a completely different product based on different circumstances, without a legal decision to do so, that should tell you a lot of what you need to know at this point. Holding things for ‘ransom’ to circumvent legal action if you think someone is in IP violation, specially when it doesn’t involve said product, is a poor way of doing business, regardless of who is right or wrong in the court of law that is in no way decided yet.