AndyJWest

@Father Cool There are a heck of a lot of assumptions there. I'd agree that what is said in Spud's video doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's not good reason to engage in guesswork.

You might be content to take Spud's word on this, if that is what he actually said. I wouldn't. Nothing much in the video was new, and most of it was hearsay.

Please provide a verifiable source for the claim that "the FAE already use TBS".

I'm sure they would say something. It is unlikely to go into any detail regarding such questions as to whether 'loopholes' had anything to do with it. Disputes like this frequently end with nothing more than a statement that 'a settlement has been agreed'. This one would presumably be followed by some sort of statement regarding the future of the modules. Expecting more is unrealistic: ED would have nothing to gain from saying more.

Sorry, I'm not interested in playing Fantasy Court. Nobody has produced the slightest evidence that this supposed 'loophole' exists. And frankly, I can't see how claiming that it does, or that Razbam had been exploiting it if it did, would make them look any better. If this comes to a court case, there's a slim chance we might get conformation one way or another, but as of now, all of this waffle about loopholes looks like nothing more than wishful thinking. As for losing modules, nobody wants that, but inventing excuses for Razbam while trying to shift all the blame onto ED does absolutely nothing to make an agreed settlement more likely. Razbam know what this dispute is actually about. So does ED. They are the ones that are going to have to sort this mess out. If they can.

Frankly, if I was doing business with a subcontractor who looked for 'loopholes' in a contract between us in order to use my proprietary IP (my only major asset, and the core of my business) for purposes other than those it was provided for, I'd seek to terminate the relationship at the earliest opportunity.

Yup. Per the, ahem, 'manual', roll rate is reduced at high speeds to avoid exceeding structural limits.

According to rumours, Queen Elizabeth II was a shape-shifting lizard. I'd rather base my comments around what I do know, than what I don't. And I didn't state that Ron was wrong. I merely pointed out that vague waffle around 'loopholes' etc is entirely unsupported by evidence. If you want to believe that contract lawyers are routinely incompetent, fine, believe that. Just don't expect other people to take your word for it.

The thing is, Razbam will already have signed a contract, restricting the uses they can put ED's IP to. You are right though, the explanation in the video lacks sufficient detail to make sense, even if it is correct.

Is there any evidence that AzurPoly (which seems to be their actual name) actually want to do business with ED? Developing for DCS is a very different proposition than for MSFS, and they may be perfectly happy doing what they already know best.

Yup. And note that the dispute is over IP. Contract lawyers know how to write contracts protecting IP - they do it all the time, and it's unlikely they'll mess it up. Fundamentally, ED's contract only needs to specify two things, as far as IP is concerned: (a) restrictions on who confidential information can be disclosed to, and (b) the uses such information can be put to. This is bread-and-butter stuff.

Any business having the slightest degree of common sense will get their lawyers to look over a contract of this magnitude before signing it. Lawyers are paid to make sure contracts aren't 'ambiguous'. As for whether there really was an IP infringement, again, ED wouldn't be making such a claim without running it past their lawyers first. That isn't to say that they are necessarily correct, but they surely must have some sort of case to argue.

Everything I've read suggests that payments from ED to Razbam were stopped because Razbam breached the terms of their contract with ED. That's how contracts work: you agree to do something. The other party agrees to do something else. In the simples terms, if one party to a contract doesn't comply with it, the other party isn't obliged to either.

@deadghostjt: I very much doubt that ED was paying 'salaries' to anyone at Razbam. If Razbam's developers were getting salaries at all (rather than being subcontractors), it would be Razbam that paid them. Salaries are paid by an employer, to an employee.

It does. And there is another, more subtle benefit: Extending airbrakes, and thus increasing zero-lift drag, 'flattens out' the IAS/drag curve at approach speeds, making an aircraft less sensitive to minor changes in pitch and/or airspeed. This effect is described in the RAF Central Flying School Manual of Flying Volume 1, pages 7-8, 17-18 (Download from UK government website here).

Magical thinking...

It should be noted that it is entirely possible for an aircraft with a 'flat bottomed' aerofoil profile (e.g. the classic Clark Y) to fly inverted. I've learned over the years to largely ignore explanations of lift that treat it as some sort of magical attribute of aerofoil profiles, or indeed of 'wings'. The simple fact is, if you have relative motion between any solid object and a fluid it is immersed in, and the object is asymmetrical perpendicular to the flow direction, there is liable to be a net force generated at right angles to the flow. Wings are just particular shapes chosen to exploit this as 'lift, while minimising 'drag', a force exerted on the object in the direction of flow.

Needs A FLUD.

Just try again. It was an issue at ED's end, not yours.

Tried that. No effect. EDs servers clearly can't cope with the load. Again...

There is no chance whatsoever that Boeing would be the slightest bit interested in getting involved in this mess.

I'm having the same issue. EDIT: Why the heck has this post been tagged as 'Solution'. Nothing is solved.

It's been that way for years.

Paying someone for non-compliance with the terms of a contract would be a peculiar way to run a business.

You clearly don't understand what a contract is.