MACADEMIC

Noticed too, free copy of any DCS product developed by ED not available yet for selection. On an optimistic note, that should count for any product they've ever made, or will ever make in the future. Right? :music_whistling: MAC

I agree. Good request. MAC

:megalol: Made my day! MAC

Thanks ED, Dora and Mustang keys received. MAC

Come on SiTh, a company that can create such great simulations will surely be able to figure this out. That RRG used to run things very poorly is even more of a reason why ED shouldn't follow in their footsteps. If it wasn't for them I and many others would never have backed. MAC

I'm not sure if that's ironic or if you're serious. Just in case, from the Kickstarter description... MAC

As someone who backed what he has in order to get P-51D keys in October, my patience is running on empty. It's not about a day more or less, it's about making it right. MAC

Same here. That backer rewards section was hosted on ED's website already in March, can't think of any reasons why the (reduced) rewards should not become available in August. MAC

Happy birthday Yo-Yo, and keep doing your magic! :thumbup:

In the restoration/rebuiliding industry for warbirds it goes like this: - as long as you have the original data plate / history of the aircraft (traded expensively - not so long ago a Fw190-A8 plate/history was offered to me at EUR 15K), you call it a restoration, as long as you remain reasonably faithful to original dimensions; engine you use what is avaiable; this also if not a single part of the airplane other than the data plate is authentic! - otherwise, it's a rebuild / replica / scale... By the way, I rather have engines / aircraft rebuilt and flying than a heap of scrap in museums. Or, even better, both. MAC

Would make sense, and quoting the great Frank Abagnale Jr., I concur. MAC

Well, about the money spent on assets, I was just referring to what Wags had said himself in his initial post on the topic of ED taking over, which was that all the Kickstarter funds were spent on the creation of content. With this in mind, as long as these assets are now with ED, it would have amounted to an interest free loan from the backers, which could have been repaid. The money for content creation would have had to be coming from somewhere one way or another. So as long as ED believe they're on the way to creating a viable product, they might, as in other cases, find alternative ways to finance this part amount - 150k aren't a lot in the scope of things. But things may be different from how they appear, and as you say we'll probably not hear about them in greater detail. MAC

Thanks Sith for these FAQs. Just one thing for clarification. The Kickstarter wasn't initated by RRG, but by Ilya Shevchenko in person. He, and he alone, entered into a contract with each and every backer he took money from. As I see it, this contract is still valid, although it has been broken by Shevchenko both in content and spirit. Eagle Dynamics has no legal party status, unless a contract between them and Shevchenko exists where they have assumed legal responsiblity. It is therefore up to each backer to either accept ED's offer and go with it, or ask Shevchenko for a refund, in absence of him to ask the local representative for the law in public service to enforce this by legal means (i.e. state prosecutor, see examplary case .) Such things are well covered in the Consumer Protection Act in the US, for example. Personally I'll accept ED's offer, although I believe ED would owe us a better explanation as to what has really happened with the funding. If it's true they have taken over all assets and the money was exclusively spent on generating these they should be in a comfortable position to make reimbursements, it would actually significantly improve their revenue outlook on these products. MAC

Very nice, thanks. Who else thinks a rebuild of these wonderful engines is long overdue? MAC

Very interesting, this contains a reference on pages 4 and 5 about the JUMO 213 E engine, don't think it's part of this manual, but that's something I haven't seen anywhere else yet. MAC

Nice picture Pete, must have been a good photographer :music_whistling: Erich was very pleased with his visit and specifically mentioned how he enjoyed meeting you. I hope I'm not spilling any beans in saying that Erich also gave invaluable input to the development of the DCS Dora. More to come on this, I'm sure. MAC

Outstanding! :lol: MAC Edit: I think I may have only now grasped the meaning of what you were saying. I understand that even a full refund may not be satisfactory, since the original value of the promised rewards may have been higher than what can be bought with the equivalent money or store credit (okay, 62.5 Mustangs still sounds like a pretty good fleet :smilewink: ). So perhaps, the credit shouldn't be all that interest free, there should be some form of recognition that people helped this project at the time they did, and should not simply fall back to the same level as a walk in customer? In my case of course I'd like to get 20 licences for $12.50 each as was the original deal, and will welcome it if they'd stick to it. But I could understand if they said it's untenable for them to honor such dealls, and the burden could jeopardize the whole thing. Perhaps a middle ground, a refund and a special discount status for backers depending on pledged amounts? Let's see what July brings.

The only problem I could see with a possible full refund (except for a cash flow problem, which could be 'solved' by offering a full store credit, this could be acceptable to many) is if ED didn't just take possession of what was created with the backer's funds, but had to pay compensation for it. MAC

Glad everybody agrees this is not in any way directed against ED, and there are no pitchforks and torches ;) It's actually quite the opposite. We all understand the money's not there any more. As Wags said, it went into the development of products ED, no longer RRG, is bringing to market. The money would have been needed to develop these products, one way or another. There are now a few choices. 1. Refund this money and you're just repaying an interest free loan (again, this money would have had to be spent anyways; since ED now owns what was created with the money, I don't see a problem if ED refunds on behalf of the founder), and you're free to market and price your products as it suits you - > good outlook for profits for each module 2. Assume all obligations from the Kickstarter. Big financial and organisational burden, ED is obligated to develop and release four additional aircraft and give six to backers under cost ($6.66 per aircraft in case of a $40 pledge) - > questionable outlook for profits for the modules, short term 3. Cut short obligations from Kickstarter. This may reduce your organisational and financial burden, but leaves the possibility of legal repercussions against the founder (these are not a joke, in the mentioned case a threat of $5.000.000 alone in civil penalties for collecting under $30.000 and not delivering as promised), with a chance of ripple effects reaching ED. Of course this only in case some people are not satisfied with changed conditions and take action, but it's almost impossible to exclude such a possibility - > slightly better financial outlook versus 2. for increased legal risk As for 1. removing ED's obligation to produce WWII content, I wouldn't be too worried. This train is now rolling, there has been a lot of publicity, the aircraft are on the way, demand will be there for maps and content. It should be in ED's best interest, especially if there's a healthy financial outlook to do so. Will be interesting to see what unfolds. MAC

Me neither. Just interested to understand the situation. ;) From my point of view, the cleanest and best long term solution, in case ED can afford it, is to refund all backers the full amount they've put in: "Thanks guys for the interest free loan, we'll take it from here and continue doing business as we did before, producing high quality modules and content, for which we're charging reasonable prices. Unfortunately RRG's Kickstarter rewards model is not tenable for us, but we thank them for their contribution and welcome key members of their team in our ranks. We look forward to seeing you all as customers of our new DCS FW190 D-9, and future DCS aircraft and modules." Much better revenue potential for new aircraft and modules, no legal hassles, no hassles with physical reward items, no upset customers. MAC

Also not a lawyer, but I don't think this is such a new legal terrain but is in principle well covered in existing legislation (Consumer Protection Act in the US). It just happens to be the first case related to crowdfunding brought before court. These quotes from same article make me think so: MAC

A contract doesn't require a lot of 'legalese' to become valid. When you go to a store, pick up a candy bar, put it on the counter together with the dollar it costs, the shopkeeper takes the dollar and you leave with the candy bar, you have closed a contract. It's clear enough what was going on and what both parties agreed on. Same with the Kickstarter, one party has advertised, the other put up money. Contract closed, supported by the T&Cs of the platform. Here's something on the precedent case of Washington State against a founder who failed to deliver: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/ Won't be the last. MAC

It's a very valid point. From a legal point of view each backer has a contract with Ilya Shevchenko, and he is liable to fulfill promises or make a refund. This is in the Kickstarter Terms and Conditions. Contrary to what some here are saying, the fact that the money was collected at a crowdfunding platform does not absolve the founder from his obligations. In case rewards are cut short by the party that has taken over the project, backers don't need to accept but can ask the founder for a refund. This may be difficult to enforce, however there is a first precedent case where public prosecution has taken a founder to court over non-delivery of rewards. IMO this will become standard in such cases in the future, at least in the US. MAC

This news makes me think we may see some changes in the plans for DCS WWII as a standalone game, or a big overhaul of the rewards. Looking forward to the July update. MAC

Well, since Wags pointed out that the collected money went into the development of planes for DCS World and WWII to be distributed by ED, if Luthier had any sense he would have ensured he's going to be indemnified by ED for the promised rewards (i.e., ED has not only assumed the management of the project but also the responsiblities towards the backers). Otherwise he remains contractually obligated to each backer to fulfilll the rewards or refund them. MAC