deadghostjt

To be fair this AI opponents is already a good thing. Most people fly solo. That said there's only couple of cockpits to be made for FC low fidelity models to hit the jackpot in multiplayer. Correct me if I missed the low fidelity models being made already on this one.

Maybe the money is in there people would not buy so many Hellcats and Corsairs if there is no historical opponents for them. You could say that for anything: "theres no money in making more AI assets so let's only use current two sam systems and couple of generic tanks..., theres no money in making clouds look better...". Of course there is the money making the ecosystem more rich and lifelike and it's comes usually from secondary sources than the ecosystem improvements themselves when people buy the high fidelity stuff when they have their environment looking like the real deal. Although u can also always charge 10$ more for current FC+++ update. I bet Eurofighter and F-35 sold better if they can oppose their current rivals even if low fidelity. Not just dominating cold war servers like a boss. If someone doesn't realize this he has no business skills whatsoever. If someone looked at the revenues like this: "this is our best selling plane, we got to ditch the others and only sell these planes and these planes only for maximizing the profits" this business mastermind would go out of business in a few minutes. I hope this attitude is not included in current RZ/ED fight.

There's actually no good reason why some or many more low fidelity Flaming Cliffs versions of current High fidelity opponents are not being included in game while waiting for zecret documents to open. I'm hoping they add at least couple of Japanese planes like Zero, Frank and Tony low fidelity planes to counter Hellcat and Corsair when these planes march in. Would be quite empty Pacific theater without them or historically pointless just flying against European planes. But otherwise I would guess current on-going war is not helping the situation of getting high fidelity red force planes into the game.

Are you going to win a moral fight if he doesn't? Big win.

If ED can win this one in court then win there by all means. If they can't just deal with the loss and move on. Serve the customer and get wins there. These high horse ego stalemates only hurt customers. Probably ED mostly too as customers get mad. RB can clearly take it as they are not bending. This fight has nothing to do with current DCS modules as the Spud leak suggested so we could already be having all the modules back and settling the other stuff in court behind the scenes nobody talking about it. If this is hard to settle because of big egos and need of saving everyones faces then just bring this up as a new idea where everyone are heros willing to find a working solution even while some not that important legal stuff is still going on behind the scenes. Just get the results done and show public you all are committed to serve customer first, even if you're actually hardcore business men with big egos. Customers only need modules back working and happy looking public co-operation. Everything else we don't really care. Happy co-operation is probably a sign things are run well. Customers invest 30-80$ with every module they buy in the DCS-versum and last thing they want to see is all or part of that seem to collapse in a petty in-fighting even if someone is actually a moral winner in story.

I just said what happens in both cases if there are loopholes or court decides in your favour. In both of these cases you lose the modules if your high horse ego can't make deals with these people anymore even if they are the bad guys. Customers are still mad. Being morally right doesn't give you anymore wins you can actually deliver with your actual leverage. You could still make the best outcome of the bad situation if you play your cards right or morally win and have nothing. Moral wins don't actually count as wins usually. Many such cases.

But "you" left those loopholes there in the first place. So it's your own fault if the court is not on your side. If you wanted a part of the deal you now can't have that either. You lose all the modules, because of your big ego and you get your customers mad. Well played. Court may give you IP win if you fight it, but if your ego thinks you can't work with these people anymore you still lose the modules and make customers mad. Well played again.

This. Just both sides take this IP part to court and settle it there. Leave modules out of it. If ED has actually no case in court then they should make the new co-op deal sweet enough for RB to take it. They are not entitlet to anything their pre-fight contracts forgot to mention if the case in court doesn't hold good enough. They can only let RB do their thing with Equador or make RB their well enough paid partner in this if they want to come part of the deal. Or win in court if the case is good. Just try to be better next time making deals with other countries with your own product and make your other contracts water proof this doesn't happen again. I can only understand this show of force module leverage if other 3rd party developers aren't yet signed this new type of agreement making this stuff impossible again, but it's not actually RB issue anymore then but to make others take the deal. And I am actually on both sides here hoping both thrive and succeed in the future which is good for customers too. Problem these days is people's egos are writing cheques their body can't cash. Everyone wants to be the supreme moral winner in hearts and minds but are not actually able to do it in real life. Just take the best offer with the actual leverage you got and continue winning elsewhere.

Yes. Both parties can be autistic in a lose-lose stalemate that serves nothing or try to find a somewhat win-win solution. <profanity> is already in the pants and it's time to clean it, not to spread it around. If both parties think they gonna win in court they go straight there. Other party not so sure makes the deal sweeter or folds. But DCS modules don't need to be anymore hostages.

Yes. But you probably get the point still. I think this is the way Spud made the point if I remember correctly or not, but technically ED pays to RB and RB pays the salaries. It was about paying for their work and it was stopped so RB can't pay salaries anymore or something.

Laws, rules and contracts are just a price list for breaking them. Yes sometime you need to be tough to make an example for the rest. But in this case the court is going to bring the justice either way of breaking the rules and getting back to co-operation is just you showing everyone that you want to actually still find win-win solutions with ur partners even there is some legal issues bending. They don't need to say aloud what their new terms are when agreed to get back to work. It doesn't have to be similar and equal others have, just to serve the current power balance of both parties. Just like someone gets better salary for their work than others maybe even for less work and others get better deals when buying stuff when you have better negotiators. Maybe the new deal is even worse than with other parties for RB but better what they could get without it. You never can tell when NDA:s are applied. Even this everything is just speculation of the situation because of the Spud's video.

This is kinda like nuclear deterrent. If it stops the war it's useful and serves the purpose, but in case war has already started the deterrent didn't work and should not be anymore actually used to mutual destruction if there is still a way to cut the losses and make peace. Cutting salaries didn't clearly bring RB to sign the deal so ED should acknowledge that and go back and continue with normal module co-operation with RB while seeking their justice in court other way. Maybe sweetening their deal proposals if that's the easiest way still. Getting RB modules back working will bring both revenues and customers probably will be satisfied and buying other modules too again. There's nothing more to be won with this current situation anymore. Court will deal the justice for the other stuff or lead somewhat better deal for both before that.

If ED has only leverage not paying the salaries (not the court case itself) as the video says, isn't that a bad position in the beginning with? I mean if both sides are going to see this one in court, then why not settle other than DCS part just in court and leave current DCS modules out of it. There's no actual reason for both not to make money on the side of it with their working modules running in DCS as they should. Court will decide if some party is entitled of more they would currrently have with making a deal good enough for both parties. If either of the side is afraid of court's decision would not favour them they should be the ones making effort to come up with better deal for other party to maximize their potential outcome while minimizing their risks.

My 3 competition entries: Entry 1: Afghan Air Force / Mujahideen captured Hind (lemon scheme): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3341109/ Entry 2: Afghan Air Force / Mujahideen captured Hind (late 1980's orange scheme): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3341121/ Entry 3: Afghan Air Force / Taliban captured Hind (1996 weathered scheme): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3341791/ Includes: historical bright lemon yellow / orange scheme / weathered yellow scheme, metallic exhaust rings, pilots with mustaches, 2 digit numbers and gray exhaust IR suppressors Countries: Afghanistan, Insurgents Callsign: deadghostjt DCS username: deadghostjt E-mail address: DM me for e-mail address PSD-files: DM me for original PSD files Because there are no decal changes these will work as Afghan Air Force planes too. Pilots usually just switched sides to whoever was in control when regime got changed or they defected so there is no need to draw long beards for these guys anyway. Idea here is to allow creation of scenarios for both AAF and Insurgents with planes that were historically actually flown or could have been flown by both sides during late 80's war period and 90's. The Mil Mi-24 and Mi-35 (export model) attack helicopters have a long history in Afghanistan. The aircraft was operated extensively during the Soviet-Afghan War, mainly for attacking mujahideen fighters. Early in the war, the only anti-air weapons of the mujahideen were Soviet-made, shoulder-launched, heat-seeking SAMs and American Redeye, which had either been captured from the Soviets or their Afghan allies or were supplied by Western sources. Many of them came from stocks the Israelis had captured during their wars with Soviet client states in the Middle East. Owing to a combination of the limited capabilities of these early types of missiles, poor training and poor material condition of the missiles, they were not particularly effective. Beginning in 1986, the US supplied the mujahideen with its state-of-the-art heat-seeking missile, the FIM-92 Stinger, which the Afghans employed with devastating effect. In the first use of the Stinger in Afghanistan, mujahideen fighters downed three of eight unsuspecting Soviet Mi-24 Hinds as they approached the airfield at Jalalabad on a late September afternoon. Some scholars point to that event in 1986 as the turning point in the war. Moreover, for most of the remainder of the war when Stingers were known to be present, Soviet and Afghan aircraft elected to remain at higher altitudes where they were less vulnerable to the missile, but also less effective in ground attacks. Although employed extensively throughout the war as a ground attack platform, the Hind suffered from a weak tail boom and was found to be underpowered for some missions it was called upon to perform in the mountains of Afghanistan, where high density altitude is especially problematic for rotary-wing aircraft. Overall, the Hind proved effective and very reliable, earning the respect of both Soviet and Afghan pilots as well as ordinary Afghans throughout the country. The mujahideen nicknamed the Mi-24 the "Devil's Chariot" due to its notorious reputation. After the Soviet withdrawal and the departure of foreign advisors, the Air Force declined in terms of operational capability. With the collapse of the Najibullah Government in 1992, the Air Force splintered, breaking up amongst the different mujahideen factions in the ongoing civil war. By the end of the 1990s, the Taliban maintained five supersonic MiG-21MF and 10 Sukhoi Su-22 fighter-bombers. They also held six Mil Mi-8 helicopters, five Mi-35s, five L-39Cs, six An-12s, 25 An-26s, a dozen An-24/32s, an IL-18, and a Yakovlev. The Afghan Northern Alliance/United Front operated a small number of helicopters and transports and a few other aircraft for which it depended on assistance from neighboring Tajikistan. Perhaps the most important question many were asking was how the Taliban – a radical movement that had been employing mostly unsophisticated weapons – learned to fly their newly captured mounts. The answer was an easy one, though: as had happened in Afghanistan several times before, in the times of a regime change, part of the Afghan Air Force would simply side with the winning party, which this time happened to be the Taliban. Orange Mujahideen (late 1980's): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3341121/ gray exhaust IR suppressors 2 digit tail numbers and sand weathering Lemon Yellow Mujahideen: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3341109/ metallic exhaust rings Weathered Taliban (1996): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3341791/ weathering mustaches for BOTH pilots For evaluation purposes please download the latest versions of the skins. Any decals or details can be further adjusted, removed or edited if needed to match spesific criterias in final game added skins if selected as one of the winners.

ED should actually give for the time Razbam situation is unsolved 1 free module of choice as a extended free trial licence access for the lenght of 1:1 for every month this situation drags on to every F-15E owner who are keeping the module to match the harm being done to customer. Free trial licences are like free coffee to angry customer they actually don't cost you anything but makes customer happier and shows you care about them while you deal the customer service problem. This could mean one would get to choose for example MI-24 Hind module for 8 months free trial period if RB situation drags on 8 months. After situation is solved Hind free trial ends after 8 months and maybe ED could also offer the chosen module for 50% sale price to keep.