Blackeye
-
Posts
266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Blackeye
-
Wrong. I bought those modules from ED show me the part where it says Eagle Dynamics built the aircraft model. Moving goalposts, are we?
-
Wrong. I bought those modules from ED (afaik it was never possible to buy from Razbam themselves) and the agreement even spells it out: THIS LICENCE AGREEMENT («LICENCE») IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT BETWEEN YOU («LICENSEE» OR «YOU») AND EAGLE DYNAMICS SA
-
That's on Razbam and ED (even more so than RB imo) though and I hope ED learns as well here, e.g. maybe don't withhold all money even if you (think you) have a good reason, because then you may end up holding your customers hostage when things blows up (we are ED's customers, not RB's).
-
Sure, or the opposite, we don't know - if you ask me it's likely something in between, e.g. a valid reason but going overboard with the amount of damages or something like that. In any case I think it's a bit naive of ED to not pay a 3rd party supplier for months and expect them to keep working regardless and not have some sort of plan for their customers for when they stop.
-
From what we've heard it appears ED doesn't want to give RB money for some reason - if they did then RB said they would continue to maintain the modules themselves.
-
Doesn't seem fair for a refund to me: I return the module and ED keeps the money - that's more like an interest free loan where eventually you don't get your money back but some software.
-
Has anyone really gotten a proper refund or just store credits?
-
For the run of the mill office employee unlikely, but I've no idea what agreement those people living all over the world would have with the base in Ecuador(?) - I mean we're not talking huge corporations here, just a bunch of dudes working an a cool project. Might be part of why they kept working on it so long - so they could get their payment once the money starts rolling in, instead of forcing it all to go down the drain and not getting much out of it if anything.
-
I think that would depend on their contracts which could make their salary dependent on the money stream from ED. And even if that is not the case: If Razbam clearly doesn't have the money to pay their employees because ED doesn't pay, as a RB developer I'd be mad at ED too.
-
If ED is confident enough to keep selling breaking modules with no solution in sight, they should be confident enough to back this up by a promise to refund the money (not credits). Otherwise it really starts to look like a convenient excuse to swipe money from unsuspecting customers.
-
Maybe they think they are owed that amount for IP infringement? Maybe they need cash for another interest free loan to Nick's warbird collection? Maybe both or something completely different? - who knows. Many reasons why you'd want to withhold payment or have extra cash at hand.
-
So? Opering systems provide SDKs as well and even frameworks. That's pretty much required if you want third parties to properly develop stuff for your platform and not just build some hacks to create limited "mods".
-
The F-15Es A2G radar goes beyond what the ED standard implementation provides and works independently AFAIK. It's called 3rd party because it is developed by a third party and not ED. Yes, those third parties use an API to integrate with DCS but the module itself is a pretty big chunk of work - think of it as a program written for an operating system or a game written using the Unreal engine. While all of those rely on the API/engine they are still fairly independent.
-
I doubt that's where you bought any Razbam module. You should have used Steam as example but in that case, yes, talk to Steam about a refund.
-
That's not quite correct - the contract is between you and ED and that is what matters and defines who you should talk to. I mean you're free to ask whoever you want, but you don't really have any basis for demands from someone you don't have a contract with. Well RB thinks they should get paid and ED doesn't - so that's the contested part. And since ED is selling the product I'd call not paying your suppliers lack of payment. Now if ED wants to withhold money because they claim other damages then they run the risk of RB stopping the work - likely not even by choice because employees will eventually stop working without pay. But as stated before none of that really matters for us as customers (other than maybe forming personal opinions about those entities) as we deal exclusively with ED.
-
None of that matters - we're customers of ED. Also I'd wager ED said they'd pay RD for the work on the module and the bugfixes and since they're not paying, you can't really call it "pouting" when RB don't want to work for free.
-
And it was ED who blocked the payments causing RB to block the development... and maybe that was caused by RB.... It's hard to tell who's to blame for what in this incident without knowing all the details. But it doesn't really matter to me as customer either, because it's quite clear who is to blame for continuing to sell the modules without any mention of those problems and no (communicated) plan for such an event. So for me it's "no more modules at all" until I feel confident that a business dispute between ED and their partners isn't something I have to bear all the consequences of.
-
Absolutely. Though unfortunately they may not be employees in the traditional sense, i.e. office space with cubicles and a 9to5 job, and thus with legal protection. If you look at the https://forum.dcs.world/topic/140384-meet-the-team-13-years-of-razbam-simulations/ post it seems it's mostly a handful of people from all over the world often doing freelance/contract work.
-
Well Razbam isn't a huge corpo so I don't think they can afford to pay a lot of people out of their hoards of cash and the contracts might actually reflect that (e.g. payment once the money comes in from the sales) or maybe it's just them saying "sorry, dudes we can't pay you now, but you'll get your money once we get the payment from ED". But yes, the dispute about the salaries should be (and is) between RB and their developers - that's why they quit from RB. But the underlying reason for RB not paying them is ED not paying RB, and as a result RB stated they cannot work on those modules anymore. And that in turn of course affects the customers of ED, i.e. us.
-
I disagree. Solving this doesn't get easier or harder with public knowledge - keeping it private may make the involved parties look better but there isn't any possible solution that they have to exclude because of public knowledge. Plus going public allows customers to make informed decisions when buying a module - I'd like to know if a module is essentially abandoned before I buy it. So while it may not be great for ED (or RB), as a customer I appreciate transparency.
-
Because it implies that it is still in development - it even lists features that will become available during EA - and will be supported by future version of DCS. Currently neither of that is true, and ED should state that fact in the description if they want to keep selling it. And even if they are super confident that the issue will be solved they still need to mention this and perhaps offer a guaranteed refund if development hasn't resumed by <insert date>, but I guess their confidence doesn't go that far.
-
Is there a map property for a displaced threshold? If not I'd think if you made it a runway the AI would use it for landings as well?
-
Might be the effect of the deflection and force limits of the stick. Those reduce the input when the forces exceed what is humanly possible. See https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/dcs/special_options.html?highlight=force#stick-deflection-limit
-
That's up to Hollywood I suppose. Right now it's slightly confusing as the name hints GPL but in a file public domain is mentioned.
-
I paid for it and got to use it earlier than those in the future, and that's absolutely cool with me - especially since we're not talking about a huge price tag here. I can understand people who bought it 2 weeks ago being a bit miffed, but then again the alternative is being stuck with a version that does not work at all, so I think even those would prefer a free version over that. I haven't really found a license even though the github repo is named vaicompro-gpl, so I'm not sure how feasible creating restricted payware out of this would be. Plus there's absolutely no requirement to honor previous purchases (might be hard to verify as well), so people who bought it before then would have to pay twice...
