Horns

A demand comes from entitlement. Try using the word ‘demand’ with many businesses I know and they’ll inform you they will respond only when and if you establish your basis of entitlement. ‘You’ll lose my custom’ doesn’t cut it. I won’t be engaging further with you.

Demands and requests are very different things. A demand is accompanied by a threat, implicit or explicit. No such thing as a friendly or polite demand.

Lol, just saw the fascist b&d comment... I think I see why NL got us back on track

Adding this because I haven't seen it mentioned in the source code debate, apologies if it has and I missed it. As with all my posts, this is just my understanding: When ED first announced that they would change agreements to require the source code for third-party modules, my understanding was that that requirement was tied to the overall third-party agreement, not the agreement that is signed for a module; if that is true then the third-parties who were already developing for DCS when VEAO went under, Razbam being one, are not obliged to provide the source code for any modules they create in the future, as well as any modules they had created before. If anyone has anything official that contradicts that please post it, the last thing I want to do is inflame the debate with incorrect information. Edit: Please note that this would not prevent a third-party voluntarily submitting the source code or voluntarily signing a new third-party agreement.

I remember that I did a long time ago, I think you could have two versions if they were on different hard drives back then, but maybe that was when OpenBeta and Release were separate streams

To the coders and modders here: Anyone up for speculating whether you could have multiple versions of the DCS engine within the same file structure, and if so, what would be the tradeoffs? I ask because I know with my install most of the space is maps, so it would be a lot easier to carry multiple installs if I only had to have one instance of each map stored...

Cool cool, I’ll sit back and watch silently

Sure, complaining itself does - repeating oneself, complaining or otherwise, serves no purpose. It was a worthwhile question when he first asked it, but it's already been well and truly answered.

So repeating yourself is your chosen form of protest? Go ahead, I can't wait to see this play out.

Maybe you don't expect miracles, but you're expecting a different answer to the same question, it's like watching someone turn the handle of a locked door over and over. Where I come from repeatedly asking the same question is trolling, so I guess this thread continues to get leeway, but IMO that's a good thing - as I say, I get a chuckle out of it

The bold is my formatting. The question was worth asking, there was no point asking it repeatedly. Far from being dodged, it's been directly answered, as you can see.

NL has answered your question over and over. You're wasting your time and theirs, he is not going to give you a different answer just because you repeat yourself. But hey, you do you. Futility is funny AF to me.

Many thanks... And Raven is spot on, that was supposed to be Silver Dragon, I guess I have an answer now so I'll just apologize to Baltic for the wtf moment

If we get the air-to-air only EF next year (and it's as polished as the F-14 was on release) I'll be happy, I figured it was further away than that. @baltic_dragon I noticed your roadmap says 'Eurofighter Tranche 1' - has HB said anything more about which tranche we get, or is this just a 'worst case'?

I hear that wait said they can no longer see a path forward