MACADEMIC
-
Posts
389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MACADEMIC
-
-
So, I was watching the Dora videos that Wags posted, and I noticed that the default head position is slightly off to the right of centre, to align the line of sight with the gunsight, War Thunder/Wings of Prey style. This would affect rearward visibility, since the head is off to the right, view to the rear from the right side of the cockpit would be slightly improved, and the view to the left rear would be worse, as the camera would not be able to got the same angle. I know this problem can be avoided with 6DOF and TrackIR, but for those who do not have a TrackIR, would it be possible to have the default camera/head position in the centre of the cockpit (as it would be IRL) and have a command for "Lean to Gunsight" as in Cliffs of Dover? This would make looking around out the cockpit, forward and backwards, easier, and aiming in combat would be just as easy, as there would be only one button press to correct the head position to the gunsight.
Just my thoughts.
flare
I agree. Good request.
MAC
-
Dont thank me... send a thank you card to Moscow ;)
I thought $1 backers should have gotten an autographed picture of Oleg laying by his fireplace on a bear skin rug :P
:megalol: Made my day!
MAC
-
Thanks ED,
Dora and Mustang keys received.
MAC
-
I am sure if it was simple it would have been done already. There are always going to be little hiccups... I can only imagine the shape all this data is in, accounting for people who already received keys, etc...
Honestly, if RRG was still intact, there was probably a good chance people would have had to wait for the 190 keys anyways.... least the way things seemed to have been run by RRG.
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
-
Exactly, we should be glad to be allowed to fly it eventually! Those that want to have all planes right on release the release date shouldn't have backed DCS WWII. It is their own fault.
I'm not sure if that's ironic or if you're serious. Just in case, from the Kickstarter description...
The project is a joint venture between RRG Studios and Eagle Dynamics.I don't understand the DCS World P-51 and FW.190D-9 ExtrasDCS WWII will come out next year. DCS World is available now. You can already fly the P-51 in DCS World, while the FW.190D-9 will come out early next year, well before the release date of DCS WWII.
If you wish to fly these aircraft earlier, you can select these rewards now. The P-51 license will be issued to you soon after the Kickstarter campaign ends, while the FW.190D-9 license will be issued early next year when the DCS World version of the aircraft will become available.
Please note that the FW.190D-9 license for DCS World is only available for an $80 Matrix pledge or higher due to the fact that the product is not yet released.
MAC
-
I'm not the biggest advocate of the restructured rewards system, but I have to say you guys are unbelievable. So what if you miss out on a day 1 release of the dora because the backer rewards section isn't complete on time. The world wont end. It's not like there's a limited amount of keys and you'll miss the boat. You'll get a key, you'll get to fly eventually. Relax, enjoy what you already have. Patience is a virtue.
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
-
I will not be a happy bunny if Tuesday comes and I still do not have a Dora code.
Technical if I have to buy it, in order to fly it on Tuesday, I would have three codes... :(
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
-
As I thought, most of these details are restricted by the confidentiality agreements signed... so I dont know think we are going to get the nitty gritty details.
As for being in a comfortable position to make reimbursements, I am not sure I get your reasoning. The cost of producing assets for the sim dont equal money in your account. Specially when those assets are far from completed products. So I dont know how we can assume the would be in a comfortable position to reimburse anything. Maybe you mean they could sell off the assets to reimburse everyone? If you do, that would for sure scrap the entire project... maybe I misunderstood you... sorry if I did.
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
-
Here's a Jumo 213 Übersichtsmappe from December 1944, showing the "power-egg" installations for the likes of the Ju 88 and Ta 152:
Very nice, thanks. Who else thinks a rebuild of these wonderful engines is long overdue?
MAC
-
like Friederichs PDFs........ with some aditional info:
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
-
There are indeed
Pic of me with a pilot called Eric at Duxford last weekend.
Really was an amazing experience, I loved spending time with him and discussing the aircraft that he flew and his opinions on them and his attitude to live itself.
It was a really honor getting to pick his mind about some unique handling characteristics of those aircraft.
I still sit here and am in amazement about it
Pman
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
-
Hopefully we will be presented with EDs plan going forward in the July update. I agree with your listed possibilities, Mac. However, I think there has to be a happy medium where backers can feel they have contributed to the success of the sim without being refunded their money.
On second thought, a refund would grant me the ability to buy 62.5 P-51Ds during the summer sale! :lol: My very own airforce.
As long as it get addressed... then things have improved.
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.
As for a refund? I dont know how that would work, the money wasnt given directly to ED (remember, this was RRG's project, we funded RRG, ED was just a partner), sure ED still seems to have what the money was used for (is the current state of the Me 109K-4), but its not like they have the KS money sitting in their back pocket.
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
-
I don't think anyone is busting out pitchforks and torches.
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
-
1
-
-
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:
The Attorney General’s office is seeking restitution for consumers, as much as $2,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act in civil penalties, and money to cover the state’s costs and attorneys’ fees.“This lawsuit sends a clear message to people seeking the public’s money: Washington state will not tolerate crowdfunding theft. The Attorney General’s Office will hold those accountable who don’t play by the rules.”Joe Wallin, an attorney with Seattle-based Davis Wright Tremaine, said he’s not surprised by the Attorney General’s actions. “If people mislead and defraud people, they can expect the government to take action,” Wallin said.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
-
That doesn't sound good at all. Is that even legal? I mean I could start a kickstarter promising A,B and C. And have no intention of producing B and C. Then when I receive the money I hand the project over to a 'partner' who says sorry I can't deliver what the other guy promised so here is A.
You should thank me because you could have ended up with nothing.
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
New Backers Page is Up
in Western Europe 1944-1945
Posted
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